1987-12-18

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 17, consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that this House endorse, as being in the national interest, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the legal text of which was tabled in the House of Commons on Friday, December 11, 1987, and the amendment of Mr. Langdon (p. 11885).
Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some consultations with respect to the order of speakers. It is my understanding that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wants to speak this morning, and we would be happy to hear him.
I would like to propose that it be understood that the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) complete his speech, then the Prime Minister would be recognized, followed by the Leader of the Official Opposition who would then be followed by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Of course, Question Period would begin at the usual time, as would Routine Proceedings.
What I have in mind is that this would mean it would be likely that the Prime Minister, if he wished to do so, would conclude his remarks at 11 o'clock. We would then go into the rest of the Routine Proceedings and Question Period. Following Question Period the Leader of the Opposition would be heard, and then the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, we are content with that arrangement which is being made in order to give the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) an opportunity to make his speech in total at one time. We are content with the arrangements, with the proviso that should the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) impinge somewhat, not extensively, on the 11 o'clock start for Statements by Members that the Chair would not see the clock in order to allow the Prime Minister to complete his remarks.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would be happy to agree to that, provided this means that time would not be taken from the Statements by Members or Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of this morning's events, it has been suggested that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) be given every opportunity to continue his remarks, even if they go beyond 11 o'clock. There seems to be agreement. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: On the condition, of course, that that would not take away from the usual time for Statements by Members and Question Period. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday when I started my speech, we must repeat over and over again that in this debate we are not discussing theoretical free trade. We are not debating the pros and cons of textbook free trade as we learned it at university. Unfortunately, that is what some individuals in this debate are doing. They are asking us to discuss theoretical free trade, and ask how anybody can be against it.
No, we are not discussing theoretical free trade, but we are discussing this very particular agreement signed between Canada and the United States and announced to the House on October 5, the full text of which we only received last week, on December 11. That is what we have to put our attention to. We must ask whether or not this very particular deal is good for Canada, if on balance it is good for Canada. We in this Party have come to the conclusion that it is not good for Canada, that we gave up too much for what we got.
By the way, it is very interesting to note what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and certain Ministers said about free trade in general before the election of 1984. Let us refer to an article in Maclean's magazine of 1983. The Prime Minister and several other present day Ministers were asked what they thought about free trade, because at that time they were involved in a leadership campaign for the Conservative Party. Here is what the Prime Minister said in 1983, and I quote:
Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would
do so again in 1983. Canada must increase its share of total world trade which
has dropped by 33 per cent in the past two decades.

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said:
Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would
only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) said:
It's silly. Canada must improve relations in trade with the United States, of
course. But our national destiny is to become a global leader, not America's
weak sister.
I could go on. This is what leading Tories said in 1983 before the election of 1984 when, by the way, they never sought a mandate to go ahead with this kind of arrangement.
I said that we must examine this very particular deal in detail and ask Canadians whether the deal is good or bad for Canada. We must invite Canadians to examine this deal with us. We must ask ourselves, "Did we get more out of this deal than we gave up?" I would like to examine that.
By the way, this is not an easy thing to do in the short time given to us. I said a few minutes ago that we only received the complete text of this trade deal last Friday, on December 11, and this week we are being given three days to debate what the Government says is a most important measure; perhaps in its opinion one of the most important measures to be put before the country since the Second World War if we consider its economic implications.
After this short debate the Prime Minister will sign this treaty with the President of the United States on January 2. When we have raised this issue time and time again, the Government has said, "If you think it should be debated at greater length, we are prepared to sit next week", during the few days before Christmas. The debate we are carrying on in the House is not just for Hon. Members, it is for the Canadian people. A debate in Parliament is meant to be an interaction with the Canadian public so that public opinion can come back and forth and respond to what we are saying here. A debate in Parliament is an attempt to inform the public about the issues. To add two or three days next week will not meet that demand or need on behalf of Canadians.
As a member of the foreign trade committee which spent two weeks travelling in the country, let me say that a large number of witnesses to the committee said that they did not have enough information on which to make a decision in respect of this particular deal. They wanted more time. They wanted to hear a prolonged debate. In any case, this is the timetable with which we are faced, a timetable which was set, by the way, by the American Congress, not by us.
In examining the deal in detail, what did we get? The Government promised and still says that we got secure access to the American market for our goods and services. That is not true. We got an agreement that all tariffs would be eliminated over a 10-year period. That we got; both sides agreed to that. However, we did not get total access to the American market because countervail and anti-dumping laws of the United States still remain and will still impact on trade between the two countries. The barriers of countervail and anti-dumping
are the ones that are most serious for Canadian business and Canadian products. They are the ones which have been used to harass Canadian businessmen time and time again, and nothing has been done about them. We got an agreement to reduce tariffs or to eliminate tariffs on both sides. That is the gain which Canada got.
What did we give up? In respect of tariffs, I want to quote from the brief which the Hon. Eric Kierans gave before the parliamentary committee in Halifax. He said in his submission:
There can be little objection to the elimination of most of our remaining tariffs over the suggested 10-year period. We will become more efficient and the standard of living can only benefit but not to the degree that some envisage.
He went on to say:
This agreement can never be justified. By giving up sovereignty and jurisdiction over vital areas of our economy, we have reduced our status as a nation to that of an American colony.
That is what the Hon. Eric Kierans said, a man who was a successful businessman, a man who was President of the Montreal Stock Exchange, a man who served as Minister in the Province of Quebec and at the federal level in Ottawa, and a man who later became the head of the Business School at McGill University.


Mr. Crosbie:: What did Gerry Regan say?


Mr. Allmand:: The Minister can quote Gerry Regan. I am quoting-


John Carnell Crosbie: He is your colleague.


William Warren Allmand: He was my colleague. He is your colleague now, I believe. Mr. Speaker, we will find mavericks on both sides of this issue, and God knows that there is a lot of them on the other side.


John Carnell Crosbie: Poor Gerry is a maverick now.


William Warren Allmand: In any case, this kind of remark from the government side shows that they are embarrassed by the statements of Mr. Kierans. They cannot sit and listen to that sort of thing because it upsets them and tears holes in their argument.
In addition to reducing our tariffs to zero over a 10-year period-and the United States is reducing its tariffs to zero- what else did we give up, and why was it necessary? With respect to the energy provisions-and I have to read from the elements of the agreement of October 5 because if I try to read from the detailed legal text of December 11 it would take me a whole afternoon-this is what they said in the agreement:
There is broad agreement to assure . . . non-discriminatory access for the United States to Canadian energy supplies-
I think Canadians should examine that statement in detail. They go on to say in the agreement:
Both sides have agreed to prohibit restrictions on imports or exports, including quantitative restrictions, taxes, minimum import or export price
December 18, 1987

requirements or any other equivalent measure, subject to very limited
exceptions:
That is providing the United States with very wide access to our energy resources.
One must ask why was this necessary in what is described as a free trade agreement. Generally in a free trade agreement both sides reduce tariffs or eliminate them. It might have been sufficient if we eliminated our tariffs over a 10-year period and they eliminated theirs over a 10-year period. But no, Mr. Speaker, not only did we have to agree to eliminate our tariffs so that they would eliminate theirs, we had to throw in unrestricted access to our energy resources, as I just quoted the deal.
Is that appropriate in a so-called free trade agreement? Why was it necessary to put that in? We submit that it was not necessary. It indicates poor bargaining strength on the part of the Government and an inability to negotiate from strength.
What else did we give up? Let us look at the provisions with respect to investment. Again to quote from the elements of the agreement it says that the Parties have agreed to provide each other's investors national treatment with respect to the establishment of new businesses, the acquisition of existing businesses and the conduct, operation and sale of established businesses. What does that mean? It means that Canada has agreed to treat American investors and American companies operating in Canada just as Canadian companies. We have given up the right to screen foreign investment from the United States and control how U.S. investors operate in Canada. We have given up our right to legislate on that as we see fit in the best interests of this country.
Again one must ask why was this necessary if we had already agreed to eliminate all our tariffs. Again we gave up something that we should not have given up and something that was not necessary.
Let us look at the provisions with respect to financial services, banks and financial institutions. Once again we gave up a long standing tradition of control over our banks and financial institutions which has existed in this country for years and years.
With respect to the Auto Pact we have weakened it. We have given up the safeguards that made the Auto Pact effective in bringing investment and jobs to this country.
Concerning agriculture, we have put Canadian farmers in competition with American farmers despite the fact that Canada has a shorter growing season. Our farmers must deal with harsh winters and all the expenses that that entails. In general, Canadian farmers are farther from mass markets compared to American farm producers. Despite all of those things the Government has thrown our Canadian farmers into the same market-place as the larger American corporate
Free Trade
farmers from California, Florida and Arizona where there are very long growing seasons and lower costs.
These are some of the things that we gave up in the deal in addition to reducing our tariffs to zero. I have to repeat again and again that usually one would expect in a free trade agreement that a country, in this case the United States, would reduce or eliminate its tariffs and we would eliminate ours and there would be no tariffs on either side. That is what one would expect. But no, this Government, this weak-kneed Government decided to give access to our energy supplies and agreed to give up the right to control investment in American business operating in Canada, and we have given up our traditional control over financial institutions, banks and so on. The Government has thrown our agricultural communities into what I consider to be unfair competition with American producers and the safeguards in the Auto Pact have been given up. All those things are written right into the agreement.
What about those things we have given up that are not written in the agreement which, by the way, Conservative Members pretend do not exist. Here I am referring to the way in which this agreement undermines our regional development programs, our social programs, our labour programs and our environmental programs.
With respect to our regional development programs, they will still be subject to countervail from the United States. They have been countervailed before. In addition, they will be subject to the pressures of harmonization as a result of competition between Canadian firms and U.S. firms. I say that our regional development programs will still be subject to countervail despite this deal with the United States.
Let us look at what the United States Department of Commerce has already said about some of our regional development programs. For example, because we have a fishing vessel assistance program that is a sort of unfair subsidy to fishermen and, therefore, subject to countervail. They have said that our agricultural and rural development programs were countervailable and they imposed countervailing duties because of those programs. I could go on. I have a list of 12 regional development programs which the American Department of Commerce consider to be countervailable and imposed duties as a result. Nothing has been done in this deal to modify or moderate this ability by the American Government to countervail against our regional development programs.
What about our social programs, our labour standards, and our environmental laws? What about such things as medicare, family allowance, day care programs, minimum wages, unemployment insurance, health and safety standards, affirmative action programs and so on? Because these things are not written specifically into the deal the Government said they are not touched by this and that they are protected.
You do not have to be very intelligent to know that if a Canadian firm, subject to all these laws and standards that I have referred to, is in competition with an American firm, that

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
has complete and total access to Canada, it will lose out to the American firm that will have lower costs. In many States of the U.S., and in its federal Government, there are not the same high standards of unemployment insurance, minimum wages or affirmative action as we have here in Canada. The Canadian firm will be subject to higher costs because of those things. The American firm will have total access to Canadian markets to sell its goods and services.
I would like to refer to a statement made about 10 days ago at a symposium on this so-called free trade agreement in Montreal. Manfred Meier-Preschany, former chief of worldwide loans for the Dresdner Bank in West Germany said:
Without a free trade deal Europeans are almost forced to invest in Canada to reach the Canadian market. But free trade would allow them to serve Canada from plants in the United States.
If large European firms are given the option of locating a manufacturing plant in either Canada or the United States, they will, "almost by definition use the United States". That is because of such factors as transportation costs, taxation rates, market size and labour laws.
This deal will not bring jobs or investment to Canada. It will weaken our standards, weaken our programs and bring down our costs so Canadian firms can compete with American firms and thereby the pressure to harmonize with the lower standards in the United States will have to take effect. Either that or sooner or later firms will move to the United States where they will have lower costs, lower standards but still sell into Canada, thus having the best of both worlds.
Who wins in that deal, Mr. Speaker? Of course the Canadian firms. That is why business is in favour of this deal. Canadian firms can move to the United States. They are free to invest there but the workers who live in this country are not as free to move. They are not like capital.
In conclusion, we have to ask Canadians what kind of a country they want. Do they want one that becomes, as a result of this deal, a quasi-colony of the United States, an appendage of the United States? Do they want a free and independent country that will be able to act in its best interests whenever it sees fit to do so?
It is very interesting to note that we terminated our last colonial link with the United Kingdom with the Constitution of 1982. When we brought the Constitution home and established our own amending formula, the Constitution became completely Canadian. That long process started with the Battle of Vimy Ridge in the First World War when Canadians fought as an individual nation. We proceeded through the Statute of Westminster, the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and the establishment of a Canadian Governor General. It went on and on, and in 1982 we became a fully independent country. It has only lasted for five years. Now this Government has sent us in the other direction. We will become a colony of the United States unless Canadians can stop this Government in a general election.
I ask Canadians, people beyond the House of Commons, to think seriously about this issue and to think about what kind of country they want. Do they want one that is part of the United States empire or one that is a free and independent country?


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question for the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member has spent the last three years as a distinguished critic of employment programs, and goodness knows, that has kept him very busy because there has been a lot to be critical about.
We in this House have been told that any proposed adjustment could be handled by existing programs. We find that to be somewhat surprising since all the existing programs for job training have been cut back by several hundreds of millions of dollars in the last three years.
I wonder if the Hon. Member would care to comment on the real requirement for not only effective job-training programs but for programs to deal with the massive dislocation that will take place, as we heard by way of testimony before the Commons committee, in the food processing, the data processing, the printing, the agriculture and the garment and apparel industries. We are talking about some of the most significant and broad-ranging industries in Canada. There will be major job losses in those industries. What will be the requirements and the costs for a massive new adjustment program to respond to those problems?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is more than laughable for the Government to suggest that the present retraining programs are adequate to deal with the consequences of this trade agreement with the United States. Let us be very clear, the Government has cut retraining programs by 32 per cent from 1984 to 1987. In 1984, the budget for retraining was $2.2 billion. Now it is $1.6 billion. When we ask questions in the House of Commons, the Government pretends to the Canadian people that this cut-back program will be adequate to deal with the massive readjustment resulting from this agreement.
The onus is on the Government to tell Canadians which and how many jobs will be lost and which and how many jobs will be gained. That it has not done. Studies have been done by various bodies from the Economic Council of Canada through to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and different estimates have been made. Many of those estimates were made before this particular agreement was announced. They were made on theoretical models and then readjusted after because they found that the actual deal was not quite the model on which they had based their studies.
Everyone on all sides of the House agrees that there will be massive readjustments. Even those on the government side agree with that because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said so in a speech he made on October 6. He said that massive readjustment programs would be necessary. He backtracked after that but he told the truth on that night.
We do not know to what extent the number of jobs will increase or decrease, but we know that there will be a massive
December 18, 1987

loss of jobs and no doubt there will be new jobs created. We know that. Elowever, Canadians who now have jobs that they have held for 20 or 30 years will lose those jobs. Some of those jobs are high-paying, good jobs, not like the jobs that are being produced now, jobs at minimum wage with no benefits, no labour standards and no unions. Canadians will lose those good jobs. Maybe there will be new jobs created in other parts of the country or in other kinds of industries, but Canadians have no assurance yet from the Government that there will be an adjustment program to retrain them or relocate them. The Government has not made that commitment and it should. The parliamentary committee strongly recommended that, before the Prime Minister signs this agreement, he should announce such a program.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the hon. gentleman. Since we have a precedent of asking questions despite the occasion, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question.
I would like to know what he thinks of the submission by Gerald A. Regan to the Committee of the House of Commons on trade negotiations of December 3. At page 9 of his submission, he said:
I regard arguments to the effect that Canada will lose its culture, its sovereignty, or its social welfare system as a consequence of this kind of a pact as downright silly.
That is the opinion of a former Liberal International Trade Minister under former Prime Minister-what was his name- Trudeau. He is a man who attempted to negotiate free trade with the United States on a sectoral basis, sector by sector, and got nowhere under the last Liberal administration. He has called the suggestion of the Hon. Member "downright silly".
On the same page of his remarks, Mr. Regan pointed out the following:
That increasing dependence on the U.S. market has not eroded our social security system-indeed, during those years it has been enhanced by expansion of the U.I. system and the barring of extra billing for medical services as well as other improvements.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member's opinion of what was said on page 12 by Gerry Regan, a former Premier of Nova Scotia, not a neophyte, not some minor member of the Liberal Party of Canada as the hon. gentleman might be considered to be. He said this:
The greatest assurance of protection of our sovereignty and our culture is the maintenance of a strong economy. Free trade, with the greatest market on earth, gives us an opportunity to strengthen our economy that any other country on earth would give their eye teeth to have.
That was said by the former International Trade Minister. There is a lot of good material in here, but I will go right on to page 15. The same prominent Liberal about whom the Hon. Member has said is a maverick and is now being described as a maverick by the front-benchers in the Hon. Leader of the maverick's Party, said this about Nova Scotia:
With barriers removed, we can enter a new era of economic development in this province.
Free Trade
That was said by a man who was Premier of Nova Scotia for eight years, not some little turkey jerky from some remote corner of the Liberal Party of Canada, and God knows they have more turkeys there. Perhaps the turkeys in the Liberal Party are endangered by this agreement.
Mr. Regan also said:
A good free trade agreement can be the most effective regional development plan this country could have and could move us toward the time when transfer payments will no longer be necessary.
Did the Hon. Member get that? He said that it can be the most effective regional development plan this country could have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Linally, will the Hon. Member comment on the conclusion of Mr. Regan's address to the House of Commons Committee in which he said:
I have sought to stress the removal of tariffs does not threaten culture or sovereignty and that free trade would be golden opportunity for this part of the country.
What will the Hon. Member say to Gerry Regan's part of the country when he goes there to explain that he is against this golden opportunity that Gerry Regan wants for his part of the country, Nova Scotia? What about that?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to be with the committee in Halifax when Mr. Regan made that statement. The Hon. Member asked me what I thought about it, and I must tell him, not very much. Of course, Mr. Regan is a delightful fellow. We love him. He is a former Liberal Minister, but at the same time I referred to the statement of the Hon. Eric Kierans who, in my opinion, has higher qualifications-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Well, that is what Canadians will have to judge. Let me tell the Hon. Member this. Following the remarks of the Hon. Gerry Regan he was asked a question by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-I think that is his riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Holtmann:: He is a member of your Party.


William Warren Allmand: They consider that funny. I approached this subject in a serious way this morning but the other side is not interested.
The Hon. Member asked Mr. Regan this question: "You are the former Premier of this province. You were a leading Minister from Nova Scotia. Did you examine the implications of this agreement for regional development programs as they would affect this province?" Mr. Regan's answer was: "No, I have not done this".

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
How can anyone give any credibility to a statement made before a committee of this House by someone who has not even examined the implications on regional development in a province which has benefited for a long time from the use of those programs?
Mr. Regan did exactly what I was talking about at the beginning of my remarks. He was debating this issue as if we were talking about theoretical free trade and what he learned in Nova Scotia schools when he was a kid.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Joseph Howe.


William Warren Allmand: He was discussing free trade in pure theory. He was not discussing this agreement. He admitted himself that he had not even examined the implications for regional development for Nova Scotia. So much for Mr. Regan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall continue the debate with the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin simply by saying to my friend, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) that Gerry Regan has been accused of being a lot of things but a political theorist is not one of them. He has been known as a very successful, down-to-earth Premier of Nova Scotia, and an extremely successful Minister for International Trade in the Liberal Government who represented Canada with great distinction. When he says that the free trade agreement is good, presents a golden opportunity for Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada, 1 can tell you that I will accept his view before I will accept that of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: What about your old buddy Eric Kierans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend invokes Eric Kierans. He is also a very distinguished Canadian. That is why I was surprised at the bitter reaction in the Liberal Party against Mr. Kierans when I invoked his statement in support of Meech Lake. Members of the Liberal Party said Eric Kierans does not count. He is a nobody. I said Eric Kierans is a very distinguished Canadian. When he spoke out in support of Meech Lake-I did not say the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, I said members of the Liberal Party.


John Napier Turner: We came down here to listen to you, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) says he would like to listen to me. I thank him for that courtesy. If he wants to get home for the weekend, I will be brief.
Some four years ago, Mr. Speaker, in my main address to this House, I had the occasion to refer to Canada and Canadians as a land of promise and people of hope. Today I want to speak about our country and our people in exactly those same terms. I want to speak about promise for Canada. I want to speak about hope for Canadians. I want to speak about the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, the promise it holds for our economy, the difficulties and challenges it can present, and the hope it holds for all Canadians, particularly for the youth of Canada.

Because, Mr. Speaker, it is the future of our youth which is at stake here today. The free trade agreement we have reached with the United States is a gateway to that future. Thanks to this agreement, our products and services will have free access to the biggest market in the world. This will mean thousands of new jobs and a future for our youth. And whether we are speaking of young Canadians in Quebec, Alberta or British Columbia, their message to us is clear: Give us this marvelous opportunity, create jobs, and we, young Canadians, shall build a stronger and a more united Canada.

I support the main resolution and my colleagues support the agreement, as finalized last week and tabled in this House on Friday, for reasons we have set forward and are happy to discuss again. I congratulate in a special way the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and our negotiating team for a job very well done. It has not been easy for any Government or any group of Ministers to undertake a complex international negotiation. There were moments of great difficulty, moments of concern, but the Minister and her colleagues held firm. They represented the Canadian national interest with great conviction and great skill, and on behalf of all Members of the House, irrespective of political Party, I congratulate the Minister for International Trade, Ambassador Reisman, and their group for a job well done on behalf of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: and unalterably. We know now, Canadians now know, what the Liberals and the NDP are against. Canadians have yet to find out what the Liberals and the NDP are for.
I think in the fullness of time, notwithstanding understandable partisan comments from time to time, the country hopes for and will achieve a rational debate. I think Canadians expect that of us and we owe them nothing less.
1 believe this agreement presents Canadians with new opportunities for prosperity and new challenges to make our economy more competitive. The free trade agreement does not mean that we can sit back and watch the world come to us, because it is not going to happen. We are not going to sell our products because of the colour of our eyes or the cut of our jibs. We are going to sell them because they are high quality and internationally competitive. That has been the strength of Canada in the past and that is what is going to happen to us in the future.
We have to go out and aggressively seek and conquer new markets. This is a call to collective excellence. We are saying to Canadians let us dare to be the best. There is no doubt in my mind about the answer of Canadians. Our people do not shrink from challenges. This very country was built by pioneers right out of the wilderness. They rolled back frontiers decade after decade. We are now confronted with a similar challenge and we are going to roll back the frontier of technological innovation and excellence into the 21st century where Canadians will be major players, not only in the growth of their country but in the growth of the trading world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Permit me to quote briefly from the preamble to the text as follows:
The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, resolved to strengthen the unique and enduring friendship between their two nations, have agreed to establish a free trade area.
The objectives of this agreement are to eliminate the barriers to trade in goods and services between our two countries, facilitate fair competition, liberalize conditions for investments, establish effective procedures for the resolution of trade disputes, and lay the foundation for further co-operation to expand and enhance the benefits of the agreement.
There it is, Mr. Speaker. Those are the elements, an important, mutually advantageous commercial transaction; nothing more, nothing less. This is not the kind of integrated economic union brought about by the Common Market in the United Kingdom with France. If anybody for a second thinks that-[DOT]

-General de Gaulle, as President of the French Republic, would have allowed France to accept trading conditions which might have weakened French sovereignty, he is misjudging the General. In spite of 25 years of much closer economic co-
Free Trade
operation than is provided by this agreement, France has preserved its integrity, its independence, the purity of its language and its literature.

If anybody thinks that Margaret Thatcher would, for one second, agree to an economic apparatus that would diminish the integrity of Great Britain or the soul of the English language or literature, they know nothing about Margaret Thatcher. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this commercial transaction will do nothing except make Canada more prosperous and that prosperity will allow Canadians to enjoy a stronger and richer culture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will list very briefly some of the things that we have achieved for Canada. First, we have achieved a more certain framework for our most vital trading relationship. I think few people would quarrel with the desirability of that. Interdependence requires co-operation, but co-operation based on rules impartially applied, not at the whim of the Party in power.
Second, the elimination of tariffs, which is the most powerful element of the agreement, removes barriers to manufacturing and processing in Canada and expands tremendous markets for exports of these resources and agrifish products.
Third, we will enjoy a more certain climate for investment. Investment means more jobs. Investment means more income for Canadians. May I say, with respect for my hon. friend from Oshawa, that his constituency, of which I am proud, represents, I suppose, the ideal for the other 281 constituencies in Canada. Everyone is proud of the tremendous foreign investment and the low unemployment which has been brought about in Oshawa. We wish that kind of richness and prosperity for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Broadbent:: That's what happens when you vote NDP.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend knows that I say that with affection and respect with regard to the kinds of things which we can bring about on a progressive basis for all Canadians.
Fourth, the agreement will provide better choice and better prices for consumers. The leading spokespeople of consumers' associations have indicated that consumer goods will cost less, which is of great benefit to the ordinary Canadian.
Fifth, the Auto Pact is maintained, improved, and made more secure as part of the broader package. The Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) seems to chuckle. He should not chuckle because he knows that Mr. Peapples, the Chairman of General Motors, is a very serious man whose company has invested billions of dollars in southern Ontario and billions of

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
dollars in his own constituency. Mr. Peapples and the chairman of the two other leading car manufacturers, experts in the automobile business, say that the free trade agreement with the United States has preserved and enhanced the Auto Pact, it means more jobs and greater security of access. Mr. Peapples said that it is good for Oshawa, it is good for Ontario, and it is good for Canada. I would have thought the Leader of the NDP would stand up and celebrate that fact.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Sixth, we have achieved a better market for energy products which means more investment in energy projects in western Canada which is so vital for the well-being of that great region of our country, for Hibernia, the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador, and possibly for Nova Scotia. This is another great attraction as a result of a free trade arrangement.

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers are especially aware of the opportunities our free trade agreement opens up for electricity exports. The American market is crucial if Quebec is to develop this key natural resource. Hydro power is no more immune to American protectionist measures than oil or other products. It was threatened just like all other products. And protectionism is a risk we cannot afford to run if we want electrical energy to remain the powerful instrument of growth it has been for Quebec. And I can tell you that all or practically all Quebec spokesmen, the Premier of Quebec, the leader- the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Parizeau, the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Landry, the leaders at all levels of society are now saying that the future of Canada and Quebec rests squarely on the free trade agreement. It is an instrument which will bring back a degree of unusual prosperity to Quebec, and Quebecers simply want Canada to sign this free trade agreement. I fully expect the leader of the Liberal Party and the NDP to help us promote the economic interests of Quebec within a renewed confederation.

Seventh, we wanted to maintain agricultural marketing boards, and they have been maintained.

Preservation of our supply management system and marketing boards is especially important for Quebec, where the Dairy Product and Egg Marketing Boards regulate 60 per cent of farm produce.
This Agreement also complies with Article 11 of the GATT, in line with the wishes of the Government of Quebec and several UPA leaders. It is thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, to Mr. Page, the Quebec Minister and Premier Bourassa, and Mr. Blais, the Minister of State for Agriculture, that the final text contains this reference to Article 11 of the GATT, as desired by the UPA, and this represents a considerable gain for Quebec producers.

Regional development programs and cultural policies are preserved along with our capacity to assist cultural industries. Social programs were never at issue.
Eighth, more certain economic growth will bolster institutions and programs which anchor Canadian values and identity. I have mentioned before that this trade agreement is neither a miracle nor a mirage. It is an instrument for growth, a pragmatic undertaking conditioned by lessons of geography, experience, and common sense. It is born of confidence- confidence in who we are as Canadians and what we are capable of achieving. Above all, we will have a fair chance to compete, to excel in trade internationally-not only with the United States but in the GATT-and to enrich Canada in the process.
For Quebec, as I have mentioned, the agreement means new opportunities for hydroelectric exports and new export outlets for small and medium-sized enterprises.

For example, Mr. Speaker, I am thinking of Quebec's new generation of business men and women, who have already made breakthroughs outside the province and outside the country. The days of a well-meaning elite preaching introversion, and making a virtue of economic faint-heartedness, are history. Quebecers used to complain about having their economy dominated by others. Today, throughout Quebec, we see men and women who have taken their future into their own hands, and astonished both their fellow Canadians and our neighbours to the south with their dynamic, creative and daring spirit. Today's modern, prosperous and self-confident Quebec is an example for the rest of Canada. Entrepreneurs from Quebec, businessmen and women from Quebec are saying to the Federal Parliament: Give us this instrument for economic expansion and national unity. Give us, as Quebeckers, an opportunity to compete with the best in the world and we will succeed. And in the process, we will bring back a degree of prosperity to Quebec and to Canada.
[DOT] (MOO)

For Ontario, clearly the assessment of everyone, including the Government of Ontario if I read the most recent report of the Treasurer of Ontario correctly, is that it offers new opportunities for greater prosperity. I suppose one could quibble about the degree, but there is no doubt about the fact that even the Government of Ontario, which I understand is officially opposed to the transaction, produces numbers and studies which confirm that Ontario will benefit from this deal. Everyone knew that before.
The only degree of difference is the extent to which Ontario will benefit. It is our hope that Ontario will benefit greatly from this transaction because Ontario has become, in Canada, a great industrial heartland, a great symbol and instrument of growth and prosperity. This Government has initiated policies
December 18, 1987

that have enhanced that and contributed to it. We want to make sure that that great strength of Ontario is maintained for future decades. This treaty with the United States will clearly contribute to the prosperity of Ontario and, in the process, the prosperity of Canada.
In the West there will be gains for forestry workers in British Columbia, for ranchers and oil workers in Alberta, for uranium producers in Saskatchewan, for electricity exports from Manitoba. In the Atlantic there will be benefits for the fishery, for exports of agricultural products, for minerals, and for manufacturing. The potential benefits span the breadth of this country and will stimulate more balanced development in the years ahead.
To those who say our industry will go into decline without the protection of tariff walls, I say, have confidence in the quality and competitiveness of Canadian products. After all, the same concern was expressed when the Auto Pact was negotiated by the Government of Canada 23 years ago. Remember that, at the time, that great commercial treaty was negotiated by the same fellow who did it again, Simon Reisman. The Leader of the New Democratic Party chuckles. Twenty-three years ago Simon Reisman negotiated the Auto Pact on behalf of Canada. Many people, including some of the Members of the socialist party, were opposed. The fact of the matter is that the Auto Pact, far from being a difficulty, has been a bonanza for Ontario and for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I say with respect and affection, of course, that I would advise my hon. friend, the Leader of the NDP-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: And Shirley Carr.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Shirley Carr too. After all, it is Christmas. I would advise my hon. friend to be very prudent in the severe judgments that he makes in forecasting. I say with all the Christian charity that I can summon at Christmas time, his record as a forecaster on the floor of the House of Commons is, to understate the case, poor indeed.
For those who said that the Auto Pact would be a disaster, I remind them that nearly 100,000 jobs have been created in the automobile and auto parts industry. There has been $10 billion in direct new investment in that industry in the 1980s alone. It has become the great motor of industrial renewal in Ontario, yet some Members were predicting a disaster. In the same way that the Leader of the NDP is predicting disaster with the free trade agreement, which I hope is recorded in Hansard, let me tell him that he was wrong 23 years ago and he will be wrong again today.
To those who say that our cultural sovereignty will be diminished, I simply say, look around you. I suggest that we examine this emotional argument in the light of some empirical evidence. Let us consider the experience of Ontario and the Auto Pact, because it is very sensitive and important. The
Free Trade
numbers are there. One can consider them or disregard them. I believe the figures are an important consideration.
In 1966, the first year after the Auto Pact came into force, 72 per cent of Ontario's foreign trade went to the United States. Last year, 90 per cent of Ontario's foreign trade went to the United States, and two-thirds of that 90 per cent of foreign trade came from the automotive product business. In other words, 90 per cent of all the goods and services produced in Ontario that were exported went to the United States. No other province has that kind of trade balance with the United States.
When the Auto Pact was signed, Ontario's foreign trade in this area was $2.6 billion in 1966. It has risen to $54.6 billion, last year, which raises the following question. Has Ontario and Canada's culture been adversely affected by this closeness or new prosperity?
Let us look at Toronto, southern Ontario and Ontario. In the last 20 years new newspapers have been born, new magazines have been published, new books have been written, new symphonies performed, new plays staged, new concert halls have been built, new television networks have been launched. All of that has enhanced and enriched the great cultural personality of Canada. That is because new prosperity has meant greater investment in arts and culture. It has always been thus. Rich societies do that and we want to make sure that is maintained.


Mr. Nunziata:: The Auto Pact did all that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, one of my hon. friends from Toronto is chuckling at the fact that the Auto Pact did all that. The Auto Pact contributed greatly, and there are other areas of the country that seek only an equality of opportunity to have that kind of prosperity. They do not want to detract from Ontario's prosperity. They are proud of it. They are only asking you to please open your mind so that British Columbia and Newfoundland can have the same equality of opportunity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: When in Venice in last June at the Economic Summit, I was struck again that the city itself is one of the world's great treasures which has contributed greatly to the cultural life of Italy and all of mankind. What is Venice in history if not a trading city? What are Venetians, from Marco Polo's time, if not traders?
What is Canada, if not a great trading nation? What are Canadians, if not great traders? Trade is the lifeblood of our nation. Thirty per cent of everything we produce is for export. This compares with some 20 per cent for Japan and 10 per cent for the United States of America, another great trading partner.
In the final text of the agreement we have clarified and consolidated the gains we have achieved for Canada from the October agreement in principle. We also believe that our

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
agreement with the United States will be a catalyst for the GATT negotiations, and the underlying objective of all trading nations. These are not mutually exclusive. We have not done anything to the detriment of the other. We have negotiated bilaterally with our great trading partner, the United States of America, but we have intensified our negotiations on the GATT.
The Minister for International Trade and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) have provided leadership on a sustained basis. They have brought agriculture, services and other items to the forefront of the agenda of the GATT.
Canada is a great trading nation, and not just exclusively with the United States, although we value that greatly. Our trading strategy is for Canada to excel across the world. We will fight for markets everywhere, and everywhere we can find a new trading opportunity we will take it, because that means jobs back at home.
[DOT] (mo)
So the exclusion is not something that we believe in. We believe that we can and should promote a proper bilateral relationship with the United States, and at the same time intensify and expand our trading opportunities around the world, because in that manner greater prosperity is ensured and greater fairness for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We all know full well, Mr. Speaker, that protectionism breeds stagnation; that trade liberalization is the time-tested promise of sustained economic growth. If this is a time for confidence, and I believe it is, it is also a period in our history that demands vision, vision to build a more united and a stronger Canada.
I invite Members to consider some of the implications of a question posed recently in The Ottawa Citizen by Mr. Spicer. 1 leave the question with my hon. friends. Mr. Spicer observed:
There lurks in the minds of many of these professional patriots ... a veritable Disneyland of neuroses about Canada: fear over hope; protectionism over risk-taking; a preference for the small, safe homeland over the scary grand stage of North America; pessimism over optimism; a love of hiding over seeking; a taste for tribe over individual.
Mr. Spicer asked, is it not time for Canadians to stop being afraid. I say to Mr. Spicer, not only was his question right, the answer is that Canadians have stopped being afraid and will move proudly into the 21st century in large measure because of this courageous action in respect of bilateral trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

The newspaper Le Droit wrote on Tuesday:
The shortsightedness and the too few arguments used by those who oppose free trade between Canada and the U.S. contrast sharply with the strength of the rational arguments used by those who favor the deal.
In an a major editorial published on Monday in the daily newspaper Le Devoir, which is quite important in Quebec, the editorialist wrote, and I quote:
Canada needs the free trade deal simply because there is no other alternative.
That is a major statement made in the name of all Quebecers.

Legitimate concerns have been expressed about the implications of the omnibus trade Bill which is under consideration in the United States. The fundamental nature of this concern illustrates the concern we had about protectionism, a primary motivator in the efforts that brought about this historic trade agreement. That is why we sought, as a first priority, greater security of access to the United States market, and we succeeded in that objective.
We have agreed to a unique binding dispute settlement provision, one which others envy, which will ensure impartial, fair application of trade remedy rules. This is intended simply to guarantee the rule of law-the rule of law over the whim of political power. We have preserved our access against changes to existing trade remedy law. We have concluded a standstill provision restricting either party from taking trade action which will run counter to the spirit of the free trade agreement before that takes effect.
The United States administration and the Congress know our concerns about what might be included in the omnibus Bill. They know full well what the implications would be, if measures are approved in the omnibus Bill which undermine all of those important matters that have been negotiated.
So, Mr. Speaker, a legitimate question, and one that I have heard in this House and elsewhere is, how did we do in the negotiations. I can only hope, and I express the serious hope, that we do not have to have the United States Congress reject the agreement in order to convince some Canadians that we actually did pretty well.
What we have negotiated is a balance. It is not perfection, but it is a balance; a net gain based on the best judgments available on what the result would generate for Canada, and on what the political process in both countries would accommodate.
Just consider what some others are saying and doing. In a major article in the Washington Post on November 8, headed "Other nations vie for U.S. trade pacts. Canadian agreement includes coveted points". In a major analysis, Stuart Auerbach said the following:
While opposition mounts in Canada to a recently completed free trade agreement with the United States, other countries are asking the Reagan administration for a chance to conclude similar pacts.
Among major U.S. trading partners that have expressed interest in negotiating free trade pacts with the United States are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and . . . especially Singapore. In addition, Israel now wants its two year old free trade agreement upgraded to match some of the provisions in the Canadian pact. . .
December 18, 1987

Because they are so beneficial.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: An important American Congressman, John LaFalce, who is chairman of an important congressional subcommittee, was more pointed in his assessment. He is not someone who is hostile to Canada. He is not someone who, to the best of my knowledge, has expressed anything other than fairly reasoned judgments on major issues in the past. I do not know him personally but 1 am acquainted with his record of service in the Congress of the United States. I suppose, like all of us, he is an ordinary Congressman trying to exercise value judgments on important matters that come before the Congress. Clearly his interests are the American interests. My interests are Canadian interests. But take a look at his judgment. He recently stated:
The Canadians were extremely successful in their negotiations on this agreement. The Canadians said we ought not to have provision within the agreement that refers to stabilization of our exchange rates. There are a great many industries which we believe to be primarily commercial that should have been included within the embrace of the agreement.
The Canadians said, these commercial industries are basically cultural industries and "we won't even talk about our cultural industries".
He went on to state, ",.. and the United States gave in to the Canadians". "The same thing," he said, "is true about the Auto Pact". He concludes by stating:
Most of the members of the United States Congress think that in the free trade agreement the Canadians got a much better deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I, personally, Mr. Speaker, have never put forward that view, for a very good reason. I believe that the only kind of deal that is of any value is a good deal for both sides. For this deal to have any life or any value, like any other mutually beneficial contract, it must be an undertaking that provides benefits for both sides. This is a win-win situation.
No one gets rich on the back of somebody else. We are saying that by liberalizing our trading instruments we will create more wealth-more wealth for the United States, more wealth for Canada. This is genuinely the proven track record of liberalized trade in Europe, now a market of 320 million people which was cringing and crumbling after the war which; with visionary leadership it knocked down trade barriers, got rid of the impediments to trade, and allowed people to compete in a larger market.
This is exactly what we are doing. This is a call to excellence, and we believe that the United States and Canada will emerge with stronger, more powerful economies, providing greater economic opportunities for the young people of both countries.
It is for these reasons that I say as Prime Minister of Canada that I support wholeheartedly this resolution and intend on January 2 to sign this agreement with the United States of America.
Free Trade


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This will represent a major step towards the conclusion, but there will still remain a great deal of time for debate as we move in the new year to put forward the required enabling legislation. We are debating this issue in all parts of the country, and we welcome the response. We are gratified by the growing support from Premiers, the growing support from all regions of the country from Canadians who share the vision of a mature and confident Canada.

This is due mainly to the new spirit of tolerance and generosity uniting us all. Canadians have decided to turn their backs on the disagreements and pointless arguments of the past, and face with determination the challenge of the new century ahead. Strengthened by their rediscovered unity, Canadians want to build an even more prosperous country equal to our collective aspirations and our national destiny.
Canada has done very well in this agreement, very well indeed. The agreement has achieved some broad support across the Canadian spectrum. By way of rapid illustration this morning, financial writer, Mr. Belanger, commented that this deal was historic, probably the most important we have ever signed since Confederation. He said, for too long Canada has cut bait. Now is the time for the country to go for it.
Bob Blair from Alberta, one of our most distinguished entrepreneurs and risk-takers, said in our business we would prefer to fight than be protected. We in Alberta are ready to compete with anyone.

Robert Campeau, who is one our greatest Canadian entrepreneurs, said:

Free trade is the most significant economic political act in this century in Canada.
Gordon Cummings talked of the Atlantic possibilities. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) raised them this morning and quoted the distinguished Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia, here is another distinguished Nova Scotian, Gordon Cummings from National Sea Products, who says the most important aspect to us was the dispute settlement mechanism and we got that. It is a hell of a gain for Canada.

Philippe de Gaspe Beaubien, president of Telemedia, said that this deal is the key to our future strenght and prosperity as a country. Alain Dubuc wrote in La Presse that Quebec hit the jackpot with this deal and Mr. Dubuc is right. Quebec hit the jackpot and so has the rest of Canada with this free trade agreement.

December 18, 1987
Free Trade


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Even John Kenneth Galbraith says Canada clearly has a trading advantage under this deal and much wider access to the United States.
Sally Hall of the Consumers' Association of Canada said that free trade produces choice and competition and gives consumers real power in the market-place.
The Hon. Donald Macdonald said, this deal will be the envy of every other nation in the world.

Michel Roy wrote in La Presse: We must therefore conclude unequivocally that La Presse can welcome quite favorably this agreement as a major step towards a new economic, commercial and financial system between Canada and the United States.
As to the Cattlemen's Association ... Laurent Beaudoin, president of Bombardier, stated: This agreement gives Canada more security and opportunity for Canada.

The Vice-President of Polysar, in a very important area of Ontario, in Sarnia, Mr. Bentley, said, it is going to enhance an already growing area. We got in the free trade agreement 100 per cent of what we asked for in Canada.
The C. D. Howe Institute said that women in the service sector in particular would see their employment prospects vastly improved.
Robert Nixon, Treasurer of the Government of Ontario, put out a report "Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review" which indicated that marginally lower prices for imported goods should lower consumer prices and modestly increase real incomes in Canada. The effect of this is to boost aggregate demand and stimulate industry in general. The net effects of mutual tariff reduction will be small but marginally positive. This is the Treasurer of Ontario, a Government against the free trade agreement, who says that it will bring greater prosperity for Ontario. We should all be so lucky!
I want to quote the friend of my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). He clearly has not heard this, so I want to be the first to bring him the good news. This brings such great advantages to his riding and to Bob White that they will probably be on the bandwagon by the time the bells ring this afternoon. George Peapples, Chairman and Chief Executive Office of GM and Chairman of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of Canada in Oshawa, Ontario, said:
The free trade agreement preserves the Auto Pact and its benefits and recognizes the contributions to the economy which Auto Pact producers have made in this country for many years. It cements and strengthens the automotive partnership which provides Canada and the U.S. with benefits they have long enjoyed and provides a secure basis for Canadian parts manufacturers-


John Edward Broadbent: He is pausing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want to make sure the Hon. Member hears this. He continues:
-to compete for business throughout North America, expanding and strengthening Canada's economic infrastructure.
Mr. Peapples says:
Our ability to serve that market in future will have a direct impact on our long-term prosperity and the job security of our employees. This is true for the auto industry and also for many other sectors. The free trade agreement, in our view, provides the framework we need to get on with the job.
I think these people are recognized as very distinguished Canadians with no axes to grind of which I am aware.
The Leader of the Opposition is chuckling. Let me give him another one.


Mr. Fulton:: Let's have a quote from Walt Disney.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, but I will give a quote from Dr. John Polanyi, the Canadian Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, who said:
Free trade is the way of the future. In science there is no duty level in ideas and we compete internationally. It is a logical extension that business which depends on ideas competes internationally.
Yesterday I met with the Premiers on this specific issue for the tenth time. Some of the meetings lasted eight, nine, and ten hours. I briefed them fully on the legal draft. At the ministerial and the official level no fewer than 20 official meetings were conducted. There have also been dozens and dozens of meetings of our sectoral advisory groups on international trade in 15 different important sectors of the economy, bringing together people from all walks of life, from every province, from every region, for two years of intensive input and consultation. Our international trade advisory committee, in which the public and private sector were also represented, has consulted absolutely fully.
I think I can say in fairness that at no time in the history of federal-provincial relations in Canada, on one issue, have officials, politicians, business leaders, and academics been invited to devote so much time, invited into the decisionmaking process, in exchanging views and providing counsel to the country and advice to the Government. If you want to put it into some perspective, when important matters-


Mr. Tobin:: Please do.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will. You could compare that with the manner in which a previous Government at the end of one afternoon brought in the National Energy Program without the slightest consultation with any of the provinces and devastated part of the economy of western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gauthier:: And you rang the bells for two weeks.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will compare it as well with the Auto Pact which was negotiated without so much as a "by your leave" to
December 18, 1987

the Government of Ontario. I want my friend to check the record. He is asking for debate and consultation and saying, don't do this before it is signed. The Auto Pact was debated in the House of Commons one and a half years after it was signed-


John Edward Broadbent: What did the Conservatives say at that time?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and the Conservatives spoke on the Canada-U.S. Columbia River Treaty which was debated in Parliament under a previous Government three years after it was signed. Look at the difference, a Government that believes in Parliament and even believes in you, a Government that believes in the Premiers and the consultative process. That is why this free trade agreement is receiving growing support across the country.
The free trade agreement is very much about economic renewal. Recently I had the opportunity to review some of the events of the last six months, from June 3 to December 3, six months in the life of our country. Here is what our Government and this Parliament were called upon to consider: from June 3 to December 3, six months exactly, the Meech Lake Accord, the White Paper on National Defence, tax reform, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Western Canadian Diversification Initiative, the debate and vote on capital punishment, Sommet de la francophonie, the hosting of the British Commonwealth of Nations in Vancouver, the royal tour that Her Majesty made at the invitation of this Government, her first official tour into the Province of Quebec in 23 years, the free trade agreement and a national child care program. All of that was done in six months. Those are questions that speak to unity, to prosperity and to the sovereignty of Canada. I think that represents a record and a commitment with few parallels in the life of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is also worth noting that during that same period StatsCanada put out its report which indicated that during the three years of the life of this Government a million new jobs were created. It is even perhaps more important to point to the kinds of jobs, the quality of jobs, reversing completely previous trends. Yes, unemployment dropped from 12.7 to 8.2 per cent. Almost 90 per cent of the new jobs that were created were full time. No less importantly and for the first time, almost 60 per cent of those new jobs went to the women of Canada. Even with these results we still have one million people unemployed even though youth unemployment has dropped by over 5 per cent in the three years that we have been in office.
Trade is about jobs for our youth, economic prospects for Newfoundland and Labrador right through to the interior of British Columbia. Canada has done well. In the last three years unemployment has come down dramatically. The OECD
Free Trade
figures indicate that our employment growth is the highest rate of growth of the 24 industrialized nations of the world. It is good, but it is not good enough. We cannot say it is appropriate and adequate to have a million people unemployed and to have young people come on the job market, young men and women, without the kinds of prospects to which a generous, able and rich country should entitle them. That is what this resolution is about.
This resolution is about trade and it is about prosperity and about opportunity. If we have brought the rate of unemployment down from 12.7 per cent to 8.2 per cent, if it is true that a million new jobs have been created in three years and if the quality of those jobs have improved, it is still not enough, but the manner in which we bring it down even further is to trade our way to greater prosperity. To me, trade in the abstract means very little. Trade means jobs at home, jobs for our young people and that is why I have pursued it from the beginning with difficulty and through some great challenge. That is why I have not given up, because international trade and a bilateral trade agreement with the United States means thousands of new jobs at home in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The heart of the most important question is, at the end of the day exactly what kind of Canada, what kind of a country do we want?
All Members of the House have had to deal in the last six months of this year with some sensitive, challenging issues. We came together in a great statement of national affirmation and purpose and defined some fundamental issues, not without some difficulty, and set out a vision of Canada that said we had had enough of the evolution of two Canadas. We wanted one Canada, united, prosperous and strong. In my judgment the greatest hallmark of a united country is its tolerance. The greatest attribute of a civilized society has to be its sense of tolerance. So at the end of the day each of us in his or her mind will have to speak out about the kind of country and the kind of leadership he or she wants.
It is not good enough in 1988 to say that because the Government is in favour of this, I will tear it up and throw it away. That is not good enough anymore. If you are against this, you have to say what you are in favour of. If you are against the Meech Lake conception of Canada you have to speak out exactly about what kind of Canada you will define, what kind of leadership you will provide and what kind of a future our children will inherit.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we want a country that will be renowned for its competitive excellence, a country very much on the leading edge of all of the technologies, and a country capable of creating jobs. We have done that. Those jobs are very favourably distributed to women, to ethnic minorities in Canada, but it is not just enough to create jobs. They have to be stimulating and enriching jobs. For our youth we are looking for lasting prosperity for their tomorrows as

December 18, 1987
well, a country where working women will achieve real dignity. That is what the national child care program is about. That is what the revolution in the kinds of job structures we have brought about is all about. Where women used to get the back of the bus, women are now getting quite properly the lion's share of these new jobs. This we have brought about and this can only come about with a stimulating, exciting new economy, a country we want celebrated for its economic achievements and its social compassion, a country called Canada, a model of tolerance and prosperity among the nations of the earth.

That is what we want, Mr. Speaker, a strong, united, prosperous and tolerant Canada, a country of which all Canadian men and women will be proud to be citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear! Hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 19(4), the House will now proceed to statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


[Stage Direction]
Mn Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr. Speaker, as Christmas comes near let us take a moment to reflect on the performance of this Government during 1987. January was the Oerlikon affair. In February was the Brodilaf affair in Drummondville. March was for Place Vincent Massey in Hull. April the RCMP set up a special investigative squad to investigate the Government. In May the Minister of Public Works resigned. In June was the RCMP investigation of the Peloquin advertising contract. July was Guccigate. In August the Government recalled Parliament to deal with the invasion of Canada by refugees. In September there was an RCMP investigation over alleged kickbacks in Trois Rivieres. In October the RCMP investigated Intergestion GD over greenhouses at Mirabel. November was the Parker Commission Report. December is Christmastime in Mirabel.
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



TAX REFORM


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, some three months ago in Edmonton fears that tax reform would impose added costs on municipalities, and by extension
to home owners, were being needlessly perpetuated. So on September 16 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) whether tax reform would bring added costs to municipalities for performing various services like snow removal and garbage pickup. The Minister indicated then that before announcing anything he would first hear the representations of cities from coast to coast.
As we all now know, the Minister delivered on his promise to consider these views. He has stated that municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities would not pay any more after tax reform than they did before.
[DOT] (M40)
The phrases "consultation before implementation" and "participatory government" have been used since the dawn of democracy, but they have never been more evident and more practised than by this Government and this Finance Minister.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has failed to respond to repeated requests in the House to consider a compensation program for the Atlantic shellfish industry. While the health concerns are a priority, they are the concern of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). However, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has a responsibility too.
The losses to producers are serious in an industry that is growing but financially fragile. St. Peter's Bay Mussel Farm in P.E.I. has lost 675,000 kilograms of mussels. Mr. Ken McWilliams of Nova Scotia will lose $100,000 as a result of the problem. David Walsh of Atlantic Ocean Farms in Newfoundland will lose $20,000 and stands to lose his business. Pecherie Hubert of Montreal stands to lose $500,000.
These companies and many others are facing a serious situation as a result of this crisis. Along with our Party, the Minister of Fisheries of P.E.I. has also called for a compensation program. I call again on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to break his silence on this issue and to announce immediately that his Department will provide a compensation program for Atlantic fishermen and producers who have suffered serious financial consequences stemming from this crisis.
December 18, 1987



CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, all this talk by the NDP about loss of sovereignty and loss of jobs under free trade does not fizz on me. I heard the same arguments 40 years ago made by the CCF when the Alberta Government invited the Americans to bring their capital and expertise to develop our gas and oil under Canadian rules.
The socialists cried then, as the NDP is crying now: "We will lose sovereignty, we will lose jobs!" Well, the Americans came, rigidly adhered to Canadian law, and developed our gas and oil industry that has been such a boon to Canada. Thousands of jobs were created, hundreds of people earned cheques instead of getting welfare, the standard of living rose, and a buoyant economy brought revenue to the Governments and put money in the pockets of the people. There was no loss of sovereignty.
The CCF has changed its name but the New Democrats have not learned a thing in 40 years. They are so brainwashed with socialism that they cannot recognize a good thing when they see it. Free trade will do for Canada what American capital did for Alberta, so on with free trade!



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I know that all Hon. Members would want to be aware that last night marked the beginning of a great and important crusade in the history of that great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Hon. Members would want to know that, despite the best efforts of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), who hollered, stamped his feet and beat his breast, despite the great efforts of the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Peckford, who hollered and beat his breast and carried his minions from Cabinet behind him with baubles and taxpayers' purses hanging out of their pockets, last night in the great historic Province of Newfoundland, a crusade began when the Liberal leader of Newfoundland was elected in a byelection to the House of Assembly.
It is important to note that this crusade not only put the lie to the myth of the Tory notion that you can buy the taxpayers with their own dollars, it also burst the bubble of the NDP myth. The NDP polled a total of 9 per cent of the vote last night and lost their deposit, in that great Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I say that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador answered the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) plaudits, words, adjectives, and exhortations to the people of Canada
last night when they elected a Liberal leader in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a leader who will join with the federal team to put an end to the scourge of phony Toryism in the Province of Newfoundland and in Canada come the new year, whenever they have the nerve to call a federal general election.



NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the National Arts Centre is one of Canada's great national and cultural institutions with an outstanding international reputation. A search committee seeking a new Director General at the National Arts Centre recently announced that the nomination for the Director General post would be the bilingual career diplomat, Mr. Ian Clarke, to be assisted by the skilled and accomplished former Stratford Festival Chief, Mr. Robin Phillips, as Artistic Director, and assisted by a francophone Business Manager.
That triumvirate would have served as an elegant choice to manage the National Arts Centre. I am dismayed to learn that the Governing Board of the National Arts Centre did not accept these recommendations.
Clearly it is important that the new directorship reflect Canada's heritage. At the same time it is important that a cultural institution such as that which reaches out to all Canadians be run by a management chosen on the basis of merit.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the gap between rich and poor never seems greater or more unjust than at this time of year when we celebrate peace on earth, good will among all people. People of good will can always find ways of reaching across that gap and helping decrease it.
My parents always remembered with thanks the gift of food they received from an unknown family in Ontario one Saskatchewan Christmas during the drought of the 1930s.
This Christmas again, the lives of five million to eight million people in Ethiopia are under threat because of drought and starvation. Once again, with imagination, generosity, and good will, the people of Canada, working with others from around the world, can help to avert a major tragedy.

December 18, 1987
On behalf of those Canadians who believe in peace and good will as more than simply platitudes, I ask the Government of Canada once again to provide the facilities, personnel and leadership to co-ordinate our efforts to help the people of Ethiopia.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Barraute's Precibois Company in Abitibi has been exempted from the 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber exports to the United States since December 30, 1986.
The exemption is not a mistake but the outcome of an American 100-page questionnaire to which company president Clement Julien responded: never did his firm receive grants from Quebec for stumpage rights or for his plant.
Precibois has 40 workers on the payroll, produces 30 million board metres, two thirds of which are exported to the United States.
The latest rumour in Ottawa is that, as of January 1, 1988, this Barraute firm will have to pay a 15-per-cent levy on its exports.
Mr. Speaker, the Province of Quebec is now party to the negotiations, so why penalize this Barraute company in Abitibi which had already won its case?



COPYRIGHT


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, who in her wildest dreams would think that a Bill on Canadian copyright could plunge us into a world of mystery and intrigue? Who would dream that the mother of this Bill, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), would resort to whispered behind-the-curtain warnings to an innocent Member of Parliament who is only trying to do her work?
It has happened to me. The Minister of Communications spoke to me behind the curtain the other day and said that my amendments to Bill C-60 were holding up this vital Bill and that the cultural community would know of my crime. Has the Minister forgotten her vital links? I have not. They are key to the Bill.
I was surprised but not easily intimidated, for this Bill was nine of ninth on the government shopping list. I stuck to my
guns, so to speak, but sure enough several telephone calls to my office from members of the cultural community confirmed that indeed I was being accused of obstructing the progress of the Bill. Since when has putting forth amendments to a Bill been considered unjustified intrigue, particularly a Bill that was so flawed?
Has this Minister given up on the democratic system? Has she forgotten that copyright is about fair balance between the rights of creators and the rights of users, or has she gone entirely into the world of James Bond? I have not. The heavy correspondence to my office from the cultural community assures me that I have helped the Minister to put the Bill on the right track. The timing problems are hers and the Government's, not mine.



THE MEDIA


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that it is not really the rat pack opposite that forms the real Opposition. Rather, it is our good friends, the newspaper columnists. From the uninspired mumblings of Jeffrey Simpson to the venom-dipped pen of Claire Hoy, they do a great job of filling up the space between advertisements.
This freedom of the Press means submission to the maulings of the great fuzzifier and occasional plagiarist, Alan Fotheringham. Charlie Lynch might be pardoned for telling the odd lie, but Peter Worthington can never be forgiven for speaking the truth. The most intelligent columnist might well be Ronald Anderson, but no one has ever stayed awake past the first two paragraphs to find out.
God bless them all.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose "Merry Christmas" comes in different ways.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Mr. Murphy:: That's certainly an act I would not try to follow, Mr. Speaker.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


Rodney Edward Murphy: We have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Minister of Justice (Mr. December 18, 1987

Hnatyshyn) claim in this House and to the Canadian people that the Government is able to implement the Prime Minister's trade deal without the consent of the provinces. I am sorry the Government of Canada does not share the same level of determination for implementation of other treaties and conventions. The Government has repeatedly declined to ratify conventions of the International Labour Organization, the UN body responsible for working people.
The record of the Government is terrible. We have ratified 26 of the 162 conventions of the ILO, or only 16 per cent. Once again we are able to see just where Conservative Government priorities lie. The Government refuses to improve working conditions for ordinary Canadians, claiming it cannot sign treaties that interfere with areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The Government of Canada has not signed an ILO convention since 1964. We have not signed the convention on apartheid, presumably because it deals with wines which are under provincial jurisdiction. We have not signed the convention on the working environment, the convention on accident prevention, on occupational health and safety, old age security and survivor benefits, minimum wages, paid holidays, collective bargaining, medicare, health benefits, or injury benefits, all because they come under provincial jurisdiction or are shared with the provinces.
Why does the Government want to sign the trade deal, which certainly affects provincial jurisdiction, but will not do anything for the working people of Canada, not since 1964?



CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON YUKON

Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, 13 days ago I had the privilege to respond to an invitation to visit Yukon. As a result, I enjoyed superb frontier hospitality. I spent 60 hours meeting miners, workers, teachers and young people, and discussed with them in many forums the concept of free trade. Those people, like most Canadians, hunger for information on the issue and I did my utmost to provide it. I found there was a terrible lack of genuine information on the issue in Yukon and I committed myself to try to redress that lack.
The difficulty appears to be an unwillingness on the part of the territorial Government and other elected officials to provide the facts. They seem to be getting fear, fabrication and foolishness from certain sources.
I have urged the people of Yukon with whom I spoke to ask their territorial MLAs for a copy of a study commissioned by the territorial Government into the benefits of free trade. Among those benefits underlined in the study are the creation of a market of 100,000 people among Alaska, Yukon and the
Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories, new opportunities for trans-shipment, and lower input costs for mining.
Randolph Churchill once said to his son: "When all else fails, my son, trust the judgment of the people." The truth will prevail with the wonderful vigorous people of Yukon. They, as all other Canadians, will decide who is telling the truth.



DISASTERS


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the crucial Air-India investigation is another example of how the Government of Canada has bungled. We were told a few days ago by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) that there is an active, ongoing investigation into that disaster. Canadians just do not believe him. A year ago he said the same thing. On December 4, 1986, he said to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General: "There is some new evidence that gives us some hope."
The chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee said on November 20, 1986, one year ago, that the investigation was coming to a conclusion quite quickly. Just yesterday Mr. Atkey said: "There is a hope, and I put it no stronger than that, that the culprits will be brought to justice."
It is clear that the investigation has come to a complete standstill. It is clear that the Government has bungled that investigation. It is time that it assumed its responsibility and called a Royal Commission of Inquiry to determine all the facts surrounding this case, including the conduct of officials of the Government and whether or not they acted appropriately in the circumstances. Families of the victims feel betrayed by the Government. It has not shown the sensitivity necessary in the circumstances. The Government owes it to the families of the victims to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry.



THE ECONOMY


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a letter from a personal friend of mine and I would like to share it with the rest of Canadians. It says: Dear Felix:
As I get things ready for Christmas in Canada's sovereign north, just a couple of short lines since I wrote you three years ago.
The wife and I always watch you and your colleagues on Question Period but I think she has a crush on the Speaker. Life has sure gone smoother for me with this economy booming and the unemployment dropping. The way you guys create jobs there is a brighter smile on Canadian faces this year.

December 18, 1987
Say, do you realize how much time it takes for me to stop at the U.S. border on the way south and be hassled with tariffs that I have to pay? When it comes to free trade tell that Mulroney fellow that he has my blessings, and although John and Ed are still getting the regular tin horn and air balloon presents, I am saving a dandy Christmas present for Brian for later in 1988.
Keep up the good work. Merry Christmas, buddy.
Nick Claus.
P.S. Felix, regarding your favourite constituent, the Premier of Manitoba, do not worry. Nobody is listening to him.

[ Translation]



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, year's end is always the time to produce balance sheets. Looking over the balance sheet of the Conservatives, 1987 will prove to be the year of catastrophic happenings, not to mention scandals.
Hon. Members will recall that elderly Canadians and families have been particularly hard hit, and that Montreal East was not spared. The Government failed to respond to the recommendations of the Picard and Pichette reports. Above all, Mr. Speaker, the end of the year is highlighted by calamity in the shipbuilding industry. The Government did not live up to its promises to Quebecers, and these people will not forget it whenever the next election comes up.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to pay particular attention to the efforts to end the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. and the Soviet Union have disagreed on how to enforce the Security Council resolution calling for an end to the war. The Soviet Union has not agreed to an arms boycott of Iran and the United States has not been willing to entertain a proposal to put a U.S. naval force into the Persian Gulf.
A number of influential persons, including the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Shridath S. Ramphal, believe the time is ripe to revive multilateralism and to get the United Nations to fulfil its promise as an instrument of collective security.
Canada should be trying to develop a consensus on these questions in order to pressure the superpowers to come to some kind of agreement. I urge the Prime Minister, the Secretary of
State for External Affairs and the Government to make Canada's voice heard.



TAX REFORM


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 85 per cent of families in Scarborough Centre will pay less taxes as a result of the tax reform measures announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Tax reform also means that nine out of 10 seniors in Scarborough Centre will pay lower taxes, and thousands of low-income families will pay no tax at all.
Let me cite three examples of how tax reform will benefit the majority of people in Scarborough Centre. Mrs. Doris Birse, a senior citizen in my riding, receives most of her income from Old Age Security, Canada Pension Plan, and a modest annuity. Thanks to the tax reform initiatives, Mrs. Birse will pay $350 less in taxes next year. Another senior in Scarborough Centre, Mrs. Ethel Epp, also receives OAS and CPP benefits, as well as a small additional pension. Tax reform will save her over $300 next year. Finally, as a result of converting tax exemptions into tax credits and the lowering of personal income tax rates, the Csorgeo family will save nearly $1,000 in taxes.
For those people and thousands more in Scarborough Centre, tax reform means savings.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, this is a statement about the Grinch who stole Christmas. Most of the more astute Members of this House will have already realized that, of course, 1 am talking about Canada Post.
Every day at post offices from one end of the country to the other Christmas packages are piling up. Every day the backlog of undelivered parcels grows larger. Why is that? Because Canada Post will not allow its employees to work the overtime necessary to get the mail out.
Instead, it is hiring casual workers, people who use their own cars or trucks, to deliver parcels at $1 a piece. They are not required to have any security checks, special insurance, or a special licence which, in some communities, is supposed to be the law for this kind work.
December 18, 1987

This can cause some problems. We have heard stories about a pile of parcels being left in the lobby of a highrise. We have heard of casual employees taking parcels home at night because they did not get them all delivered.
As the Chairperson of the New Democratic Caucus I say that we do not approve of the way Canada Post is treating the mail of Canadians. We want to have a public inquiry into the way the Post Office conducts its business.
How many children are going to look under the tree on Christmas morning and see nothing but a little card from Canada Post that says: "Sorry, but we just couldn't manage to get your presents to you on time"?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the sad and shocking story of the Canada Lands Corporation (Mirabel). Yesterday, Canadians were informed by the media that the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau had confirmed she had asked the president of the Canada Lands Corporation at Mirabel, Mr. Pierre Hardy, to award, without tender, a contract worth $42,000 for supervising vacant lots to a Conservative organizer, the owner of a brewery.
Today, according to the media, Gerard Poirier's son claimed that the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau and President Hardy had made threats to the effect that if Mr. Poirier dared to expose the Mirabel scandal, he would lose the right to buy back his land.
In the light of the last two revelations, is the Prime Minister prepared, first of all, to expel the Member in question from caucus; second, to fire the president of the Canada Lands Corporation at Mirabel immediately; and third, to order a royal commission of inquiry to investigate this scandal?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, all of those allegations have been denied. Throughout the week the Hon. Member has been raising a number of suggestions about wrongdoings involving alleged friends of Tories.
Allow me to refer very quickly to the case of the celebrated Gervais Desrochers who received, between the years 1981 and 1984, eight contracts from the previous administration with regard to Mirabel whereas, between the years 1984 and 1987, he received only two.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stewart Donald McInnes: Allow me to refer to the operational expenditures of Mirabel between April 1, 1981, and September of 1984. They totalled $34 million, whereas from September of 1984 to 1987 they were only $20 million.
Allow me to bring to the attention of this honourable House that the former Government spent $15 million in the 1970s, which included $2 million for advertising without any result, whereas in the last three years $8 million in new investment has been secured for the Mirabel industrial park, and $100 million in lawsuits have been settled in the last two years with the exclusion of only 3 per cent. That is performance.


Don Boudria: Anything but an answer to the question, Mr. Speaker.


SALE OF MIRABEL PROPERTIES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. It is with regard to the sale of properties at Mirabel.
How can the Minister justify to the House that some of the properties which were sold are the exact same properties we will have to buy back to build a highway for the airport? What possible reason is there for doing such things other than giving taxpayers' dollars to friends of the Conservative Party?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, this is the ultimate in humour for 1987. The debacle created by the previous administration at Mirabel is without precedent.
With regard to the allegations of my friend, I prefer to rely on the analysis and judgment of the Auditor General, and the special audit team which has expressed time and again that it has found no evidence of wrongdoing.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that it is without precedent. There is no doubt about that.


EXPENDITURE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. We now have three Tory organizers recompensed, two sets of documents not filed on time, one law suit, one murder, three RCMP investigations, two audits, a relative-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member will know, as do all Hon. Members, that there are often very difficult matters which have to be raised in Question Period. However, the preamble to a question ought to be to state the alleged facts on which the question is set. As I have indicated to the House on other occasions, it is not appropriate to use the preamble to set a lot of charges against any individual or individuals.

December 18, 1987
Oral Questions
I know the Hon. Member will appreciate this. I ask him to put his question succinctly. I am sure that would be properly received by the House.


Don Boudria: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of Public Works who says that taxpayers have been getting value for their money in this deal? Or is it not the fact that Tory organizers have been getting money for their value in this deal?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the answer to the question might be given to the Hon. Member if he asked the residents of Mirabel how they have fared under this administration compared to the previous one.


RCMP-REPORTED SEARCH OF MEMBER'S OFFICE ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the RCMP, with a search warrant, conducted a search of a Member's office on Parliament Hill. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this indeed took place and that it was part of the investigation into the corruption in the way in which the lands resale had taken place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have said repeatedly, and I think Hon. Members would agree with me, that the Opposition has not only a right to inquire about things but a duty. However, the preamble to a question is not the place to lay a charge. If the Hon. Member, who is a very experienced Member, wishes to ask a question, he should put the question.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Does he need your permission to do that? [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member asked whether it was necessary to have my permission. The answer is an unequivocal no!

However, there are certain rules by which we are bound and I would ask Hon. Members to keep them in mind when they are putting their questions.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have considerable experience, as you will appreciate, in receiving questions of that type. I consider it a perfectly proper question, if I may say so.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have not been ruled out of order. I ask the Prime Minister or another responsible Minister to confirm the fact which I have learned this morning that the RCMP, with a search warrant, has conducted a search of a Member's office. Is this part of the matters relating to Mirabel about which the official Opposition has been asking questions for a number of days?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have had considerable experience with regard to these matters as well. I find the question repulsive and against the interests of natural justice in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Mr. Penner:: Smarten up.


Ms. Copps:: In other words, the answer is yes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The general allegation which has been made, without specificity, casts reflection, not only on the Speaker but on the whole House. I find this kind of tactic by the Liberal Party unbelievable.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Stonewall.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not understand why they would persist in this kind of sleazy tactic.
1 am not aware of the circumstances. I do not comment on investigations. 1 do not think it is appropriate to comment on investigations because, if an investigation is going on, we want to make sure that it is successful. It hardly has anything to do with making some general allegation that I think is basically false and unfair.


SALE OF LAND AT MIRABEL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, for a number of days the Official Opposition has been bringing forward facts in relation to the resale of Mirabel land.


John Carnell Crosbie: What facts?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We know that there are police investigations under way. That has been confirmed. The RCMP confirmed this morning that a search warrant was executed on Parliament Hill yesterday.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he content to leave the resolution of the standards of sale of land at Mirabel to the police? Is that where the morality of the Ministers and Members of the Government caucus will be resolved, or will he take some responsibility for their conduct at a higher level than the violation of the criminal law?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply do not accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question. It is false. It is a false question, a false premise.
The fact is that I simply think it is untenable for the justice critic of the Official Opposition to try to stand up in the first place and make suggestions that the Opposition has been bringing forward facts in respect of this matter of land transactions at Mirabel.
December 18, 1987


John V. Nunziata: Was there a search warrant? Yes or no?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The reality is that these are allegations that are being brought forward. That is quite different. Very adequate responses have been given by the Minister of Public Works. He has dealt with every specific question and, sitting here as an observer of what has transpired during Question Period, I can say that the Minister of Public Works has answered every one of the allegations put by the Opposition. They should get the facts before they ask another question.


AWARDING OF SECURITY CONTRACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice may think that the answers given by the Minister of Public Works have been at an acceptable level, but 1 can say to the Minister that the people of Canada will not share that opinion one bit.
A Parliamentary Secretary, the Member for Argenteuil- Papineau, was quoted yesterday in a Montreal newspaper and today in a Toronto newspaper as saying that a tavern owner in her constituency was awarded a non-tendered contract for security reasons because of his services to the Conservative Party. Does the Prime Minister think that this is appropriate contract procedure and, if not, when will the Government clean up its act?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, may I advise the Hon. Member that the person hired for this particular contract was a policeman who had worked for the Montreal Police Force for six or seven years. The contract was within the ambit of authority of the corporation.


John Edward Broadbent: The answer by the Minister is just totally unacceptable to the people of Canada. I say to the Minister that it was his Government that promised to clean up patronage, and the people of Canada did not want to replace old Liberal patronage with Conservative patronage. They wanted a change.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT APPOINT INQUIRY INTO CONTRACT AWARDING PROCESSES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister who has said about once a month, now, that it is time his Government did a little better in this area. This time the Member in question is a Parliamentary Secretary who is acknowledging that the person got the contract not because of police experience but because he was an organizer for the Conservative Party. Does the Prime Minister not think it is time to appoint a commission now, with a three-month mandate, to look into government contract processes, and to come back and make recommendations to Parliament for a change in all of this?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, from time to time the Hon. Member has pointed to comments of the Auditor General. I suggest that he is the person in the best position, having reviewed the books and all
Oral Questions
of the contracts of the corporation. As well, the special audit team went into a very thorough investigation. They have confirmed that all of the contracts received good value for the Government and they were done within Treasury Board guidelines and with the approval of the corporation.


AWARDING OF CONTRACTS-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is not about this particular subject. It is about something else. I will repeat my question for the Prime Minister. The Canadian people do not want a switch from grit to Tory patronage. They want honest government. That is the truth, and could the Prime Minister therefore consider ordering an investigation into the federal Government's contract procedures?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I believe that what the people of Canada want is the assurance that value for money has been received with respect to government contracts and that the contracts have been given according to established guidelines. This procedure has been confirmed by the Auditor General and the special audit team.


REPORTED SEARCH OF MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT'S OFFICE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question which concerns the same subject is directed to the Prime Minister. He is the one who is ultimately responsible for the morality of the Government. Will he confirm, because he ought to know, that a search warrant pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada was executed in order to search the office of a Member of Parliament? Would he not agree that a Member of Parliament should be judged using the same standards and laws as any other Canadian?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate the fact that an allegation was made, first by the Official Opposition critic on Justice and now by the Official Opposition critic on Solicitor General, linking search warrants with certain activities and certain investigations that are going on with respect to the Mirabel land transaction.
I already answered his colleague. I find it repulsive that they continue to ask the same question. I have denied the matter. If the Hon. Member cannot take no for an answer, maybe he could get someone else to ask a question.


John V. Nunziata: One would have thought that they learned their lessons in the Sine Stevens affair. Obviously they have not.

December 18, 1987
Oral Questions


EXECUTION OF SEARCH WARRANT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the question again. Stop stonewalling and give us a clear answer. Was a search warrant executed on a Member of Parliament? Yes or no?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am not denying that a search warrant was involved.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just hold it. The allegation was with respect to Mirabel and I said it had nothing to do with Mirabel. The information I have received is that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Mirabel. Is that clear enough for the Hon. Member?


FISHERIES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday in the House I raised the question of clams being exported from contaminated water in the Prime Minister's riding to the United States. This morning I have copies of four letters that were exchanged between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada that confirm that Environment Canada had recommended the closing of these two sites. They also confirm, shockingly, that Fisheries and Oceans ignored this recommendation and overruled the Department of the Environment.
1 also have two applications, one by Les Produits de la Gaspesie and the other by La Conserverie Polyvalente Riviere Portneur. One was filled out in January, 1987, and the other in February, 1987. Both of them were approved on February 18, 1987, for the export of clams to the United States.
Will the Minister tell us why the advice of the experts of the Department of the Environment was ignored by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Will he tell us why the recommendation was overruled, why these applications were approved, and will he assure us that there was no pressure from companies that wanted to fish in the Prime Minister's riding and export those clams to the United States?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I know that you will accord me the same courtesy in giving the detailed answer that this very malicious question demands.
Yesterday the Hon. Member alleged that shellfish taken from rivers in Quebec have been officially classified as
contaminated by Ottawa and exported from Canada. That is patently untrue, and I will explain why.
Second, the Hon. Member has stated that these export permits violated a Canada-U.S. agreement of 1948. That is patently untrue.
At certain times during the winter months in parts of Atlantic Canada, certain beds of clams are certified as safe, under both our health protection regulations and our fisheries regulations. That is because during the winter months there are not the similar types of hydrological situations that occur in the summer.
What happens is as follows. All 55 monitoring stations in Quebec are sampled weekly for paralytic shellfish poisoning or evidence of toxin. On this basis, the two areas in question, Papinachois and Riviere Blanche, were closed until mid-October. As in previous years, those areas were reopened around mid-October, after appropriate tests for toxin proved to be negative.
Third, once harvesting is reopened every lot at the processing plant-the only processing plant on the north shore this year being at Riviere Portneuf-is tested for bacterial contamination. I should point out that that plant and most of these shellfish areas are located in the federal electoral district of Charlevoix. Only product meeting established Canada-U.S. health standards is permitted for commercial sale and export.
Finally, there have been no exports to the United States of America of clams, quahogs, mussels, and oysters since the alert of December 11 from any plants under federal jurisdiction.
I think that the premise of the question is most irresponsible.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a disgrace.


ENVIRONMENT CANADA OFFICIAL'S LETTER
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I know that there have been no exports since that time. I am not talking about that. The Minister stated that clams could be exported at certain times. These applications are not for certain times. They are open-ended applications approved for the entire year.

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I have here a letter dated October 21, 1987, from an Environment Canada employee, and I quote:
The report recommended the closing of these two sectors, and, to our
knowledge, your Department has made no move to reclassify these sectors.
Furthermore, products from the contaminated sectors have been harvested and
put on the export market. We reiterate our recommendation for closing the
two sectors.
Congratulations!
December 18, 1987



In light of that, I would like to ask the Minister once again why his Department ignored the advice of the Department of the Environment of this country that these sectors be closed for fishing of clams, and why those clams were shipped to the United States.
It seems to me that this is putting the whole shellfish industry in this country in jeopardy. Why does he do that, Mr. Speaker?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, if anyone is putting the shellfish industry of this country in jeopardy, it is irresponsible Members like the Member opposite who have made totally unsubstantiated allegations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Here is the letter right here.


Rodney Edward Murphy: He didn't write the letter. It was your official who wrote that letter and you know it. More scandals every day.


Thomas Edward Siddon: If you could all simmer down a little, Christmas is coming.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are you sure?


Thomas Edward Siddon: In regard to exchanges of letters at the officials' level, my attention has been brought to certain letters. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that these letters do not deal with the reality that each year in the winter months these areas are opened in accordance with safe health and all other standards, including those required under the Canada-U.S. agreement.
I can therefore confirm that the Betes a Chevaux subsector was resampled by the environmental protection service during the summer and fall of 1987. The results indicate that this sector should be closed during the summer period, but could be conditionally approved during the fall and winter, November to March, and recommendations were made accordingly by EPS to Fisheries and Oceans. This is totally irresponsible on his part.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Irresponsible, destructive.


John Carnell Crosbie: You don't care who you hurt, what industry you hurt. Resign!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Scandal, scandal, scandal.
Oral Questions


SHIPBUILDING
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
A year ago, the Minister of Supply and Services asked the Quebec Minister of Industry, Mr. Daniel Johnson, whether Marine Industries was prepared to take over shipyards in Montreal and Quebec City, in return for which the Conservative Government held out the promise of enough contracts to keep the three shipyards open and call back the 3,000 workers who had been laid off.
This morning, we were informed that the Government had awarded the contract for building the six frigates to St. John's Shipbuilding. However, there has been no announcement regarding the commitment made by the Minister.
Could the Prime Minister explain to the House why the Government failed to keep the promise it made to the Quebec Minister and to Quebec shipyard workers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House has taken due note of the position of the Hon. Member, I presume speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party, where he is now in opposition to the fact that this Government has just accorded a $3 billion contract to the shipyard in Saint John, New Brunswick, which desperately needs the work. I think that that is very clearly the position of the Liberals.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: He didn't say that. He never said that. You should be ashamed of yourself.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If he is not saying that, perhaps he could clarify when he rises on his supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to shipyards in Quebec. He is right. Since we came to power, the Canadian Government has spent about $100 million on restructuring and modernizing shipyards in Quebec.
Furthermore, the Canadian Government has awarded so many contracts to Quebec shipyards that the order books of the main yards are filled up to 1991-92, which is a very important development in the history of the industry in Quebec. The Government has also given assurances that upon completion of the contracts in 1991-92, unlike what happened years ago, it intends to give more contracts to Quebec shipyards so that their survival as a major instrument of Quebec's economic prosperity is guaranteed.

December 18, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT CONTRACTS BE AWARDED TO QUEBEC SHIPYARDS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, sad but true: We have a Prime Minister who is so incompetent he does not know the facts.
The contracts being carried out today in Quebec shipyards were awarded by the Liberal Government in 1983. If we have $800 million today, it is thanks to the Liberal Government. The only contract this Government awarded was for the Caribou, which takes care of the balance. Shipyards are closed because no new contracts are forthcoming.
My question is quite simple, Mr. Prime Minister. A promise is a promise, and I am not the only one who is saying that the Minister of Supply and Services broke his promise. Shipyard workers and Minister Johnson could not agree more.
I don't want to know how many frigates you are going to give us. I want to know about the other jobs and contracts you will give the shipyards to keep your promise and make sure they have work. In Montreal, 600 workers cannot buy Christmas presents for their children. What kind of jobs are you going to provide for these people in January?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member refers to employees in Montreal or in Quebec who cannot buy Christmas presents, I think he is saying something very important, and I think it is very sad. However, perhaps I may remind him that during the four years and nine months his Government was in power, 40,000 jobs were created in Quebec, while in three years this Government has created 275,000 new jobs. That is the whole difference!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the job creation rate and figures are there. This Government's job creation rate is ten times what was accomplished in this respect by the Government of which the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie was a Member, a Member who remained silent when plants were closing down with the resulting human tragedy.
He was sitting here in the House, and while those tragic events were taking place in Montreal, he kept quiet, he did not say one word to support the people of Montreal!


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-IMPACT ON EMPLOYMENT STUDIES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister promised Canadians a full and open debate on his trade deal with the United States. Yet when I have tried to get impact studies on the employment effects of this deal through Access to Information I have been denied.
Does the Prime Minister not believe that Canadians have a right to this information to judge for themselves the real impact of this trade deal? Why is the Government committee to a conspiracy of silence when it comes to this important information?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I find passing strange the conspiracy of silence the New Democratic Party talks about.
We have probably been more open on this particular trade agreement than any trade agreement in the history of the country, any trade agreement. We have discussed this from one side of the country to the other since we became the Government.
Study after study has been produced, not by the Government but by independent bodies, which say that it is the right thing to do. All kinds of information has been available to the Hon. Member. He just does not know how to interpret it properly. That is his problem.


REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF DATA
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister because it is really a question of trust and openness. There is no doubt that the studies exist. In the response I have received indeed it is admitted that the studies exist and that the studies deal with the impact the trade deal will have on employment.
If this is such a good deal, why does the Canadian Government not trust the Canadian people and make the data available so that Canadians can judge for themselves? Why does the Government not make this information public? Surely Canadians have a right to know what will be the employment impact of this deal. Why is it trying to cover this up?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not covering up anything. We know that the trade agreement with the United States will create thousands of jobs. It is going to be very, very important to this country.
The only thing opposition Members can do, the only thing they can attack-it is their whole raison d'etre-is to try to
December 18, 1987

spread misconceptions of untrustworthiness and all this type of nonsense. They sit there day after day and yell liar and never justify it at all. What a phony bunch over there!


TAX REFORM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On November 16 the Minister said in the House that the proposed national sales tax should not apply to basic groceries, prescription drugs, and certain medical devices.
Is the Minister prepared to state unequivocably in the House today that these goods will not be taxed?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


POSITION OF SCHOOL BOARDS AND MUNICIPALITIES
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Also in the same speech the Minister said that municipalities, hospitals, school boards, colleges, and universities should not pay more tax under the proposed national sales tax.
Again I ask the Minister if he is prepared to give the same commitment to the House that municipalities and the agencies which he listed will not pay more sales tax under his new national sales tax proposal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I make the same commitment. I think that what this does is take two matters which were somewhat contentious off the table which had been deflecting the attention of people from the true merits of the reform of the sales tax system that the Hon. Member's Party is in support of, as is the New Democratic Party.
I hope that now we will be able to get on with reasonable debate on a sales tax which will be fair, which will be supportive of our export industries, which will put Canadian companies on the same basis as importers, which will result in a substantial refundable sales tax credit to lower-income Canadians, and which will result in the reduction of some taxes for middle-income earners as well.
_______________________________11947
Oral Questions WELFARE


ASSISTANCE FOR HUNGRY IN ALBERTA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the thousands of Canadians who are hungry year round across the country.
I refer the Minister to a recent letter that he sent to me in which he said that he would continue to encourage provincial colleagues to provide adequate levels of assistance to meet basic needs.
In view of this commitment, and as a special Christmas present, will he personally encourage the Alberta Minister to be more forgiving toward hungry people who use food banks? Will he also encourage the B.C. Minister of Social Services to support breakfast programs for hungry children and 1988? I am sure there are many things in other provinces which should be supported as well.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have been saying in the House for some time that the best way to eradicate or reduce poverty in the country is for people to have opportunities through jobs and the independence and dignity which come from jobs. Consequently, one million jobs have been developed and created in Canada in the last three years. More important, possibly in terms of the Hon. member's question, 520,000 Canadians are now not below the low income cut-off line as they were previous to the Government coming into office. The trend was going the other way, and we have been able to reverse it in the last three years. That is very important in terms of poverty.
In terms of child care, the increasing growth of poverty and children in poverty is especially in families with one parent. That is the reason for the program on child care and the manner in which it was designed.
In terms of welfare rates, I do not think that poverty should be designed or devoted to the kind of narrow partisanship to which she referred when she said Alberta and British Columbia. She could have said Manitoba and its two-tier system.
I would say that, if the provinces increase their benefits, the Government of Canada through the Canada Assistance Plan has always paid its 50 per cent share and will continue to do so.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. The simple facts that one in six children in Canada is growing up in poverty, and we all have an obligation to do something about it.

December 18, 1987
Oral Questions


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN-PROVINCIAL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister begin a concerted attack on poverty in 1988? Will he make poverty a priority at his next meeting with Ministers of Social Services? Will he also make it mandatory for provinces to report social assistance rates in the annual Canada Assistance Plan report so that it can be used as the basis of an attack on poverty?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I could repeat the answer I gave to the first question because the Hon. Member's second question is very similar.
I say to the Hon. Member that our work will continue along the lines of the success that we have seen in the last three years, in addition to programs which provinces want to initiate as they fall into the ambit of the Canada Assistance Plan. For example, we made changes in relationship to the use of the Unemployment Insurance Act and the moneys spent under the Canada Assistance Plan. Last year we came forward with a program for $100 million. That has now been doubled. It is in those kinds of ways that more dignity is brought to those who are living in poverty.
The Hon. Member says that it is not a partisan issue. I always find it passing strange that she uses certain provinces rather than the entire country-she could also have used the Province of Manitoba and its rate-so that her questions to me would have more credibility.


POSSIBILITY OF GIVING PRECIBOIS COMPANY A TAX EXEMPTION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Since December 30, 1986, PreciBois de Bar route, in Abitibi, has been exempt from the 15 per cent export tax on lumber as it meets the criteria of the American questionnaire.
There is a rumor now going around Ottawa and the Quebec Department of Forests to the effect that this company will be penalized on January 1, 1988, and will have to pay 15 per cent on its exports to the United States. Is this true? Why not grant this company a tax exemption on a quota of 20 million board-feet for its exports to the United States?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, Canada undertook negotiations with the United States last February to amend the agreement on the rough lumber trade.
Canada has tried to find a way to meet the request of the United States without harming the interests of the greater number of Canadian producers.
After completion of the negotiations, Canada accepted to put an end to the 20 individual exclusions to gain other exemptions which will benefit Canadian exporters in all provinces.
Unfortunately, two of the 20 companies which will lose their exclusion will be subject to the full rate of the export charge. Thus, all Canadian exporters will from now on be on an equal footing. It is also appropriate to note that the export tax rate of PreciBois Inc. will decrease substantially within a few weeks, after completion of our discussions with the United States on the value of the replacement measures introduced by Quebec.


REQUEST FOR THE MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has been three weeks since his Department established a link between the death of all laboratory mice and the presence of toxin in mussels. However, he said nothing about it to the public for four days. The behaviour of his Department has been characterized by chaos, total confusion and mismanagement.
I would like to ask him whether he does not think that he should resign to restore the confidence of the public in the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again that information has been put on the record all of these days. I have answered that question a number of times. I do not think it needs another answer.


RESTORATION OF CONSUMER CONFIDENCE
Sheila Maureen Copps: He has never answered, Mr. Speaker. While he said mice didn't die, his officials said all mice died. He said scientists were working all night through the weekend but his officials said they were not working through the weekend. The other Minister's aide said he heard about it at the First Ministers' Conference, yet he didn't hear about it until the Monday. New scientific evidence was coming through on the Tuesday and yet there was no new scientific evidence presented.
Surely the Minister must realize that there are enough questions that have not been answered by this Minister. The only way he can re-establish confidence in the public that his
December 18, 1987

Ministry is looking after the interests of the consumer in this issue is for him to resign.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, for all the days that the questions relating to this issue have been put forward, I have answered those questions time after time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You never answered.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As again today, the Hon. Member is throwing forward falsehoods-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Facts.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: She is throwing forward allegations.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Facts.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Her word in the public has been tested against mine. Mine has been found to be truthful. Her's stands as naked, and as empty, and as and wrong.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-AREAS OF PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. There has just been completed a First Ministers' meeting in which the Prime Minister made it very clear that he intended to push ahead as strongly as possible with all areas of jurisdiction, all areas of legislation under the free trade arrangement with the United States.
What has happened to the Prime Minister's promise of 1985 that every province would be with him with respect to areas of their jurisdiction or they would not proceed in spite of opposition?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question of the Hon. Member. It gives me an opportunity to remind all of us that there has been, I suppose, unprecedented consultation with the provinces concerning this very important transaction.
The Prime Minister has met with the First Ministers of all our provinces and has gone through detailed background briefing consultation no less than 10 times. This is totally unprecedented in federal-provincial relations.
Oral Questions
I do not accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question. All I can say is that I am satisfied with the constitutional authority which the federal Government has. I think the Hon. Member would be the first to agree that we have that power. As I think emanated from the meeting yesterday, there is a sense of yes, we can sit around and discuss the matters before us; yes, we can settle these in a Canadian way. That is the way I would like to see this matter resolved and that is the way I think it will be resolved.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we have seen this Government boast about its capacity to pull together all the provinces in the case of Meech Lake.
Why in this case is it considered possible to go forward with such a widespread, detailed and deep incursion into provincial jurisdiction despite the opposition of at least three provinces in this country? Why is that considered possible and legitimate?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Again, the Hon. Member is quite right, Mr. Speaker. I think it is pretty well unprecedented that the Prime Minister and the Government have been able to find unanimity with respect to constitutional amendment as represented by the Meech Lake Agreement.
We rejoice that there has been such progress. This has not always been the case in Canada. We have tried to develop consensus on all major issues, and I think we have succeeded in doing that with free trade.


Steven W. Langdon: Where is the consensus?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I remind the Hon. Member that the history and the precedent in this country have been quite the contrary. The federal Government has acted unilaterally concerning trade matters. I am reminded that in 1947 the Right Hon. Mackenzie King sent some public servants to negotiate the GATT at Geneva. There was no prior consultation with any province or with any other level of government. The political input was minimal. The officials returned. The matter was then accepted by the federal Government and signed on its behalf. A debate only took place on the floor of the House of Commons-I believe my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister will confirm this-some months after, maybe a year after the matter had transpired. Never were the provinces consulted. The Hon. Member will understand how far we have gone ahead from that point of view. We have a great deal for Canada and I know the Member will join us in supporting it across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The next will be the last question in Question Period. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.

December 18, 1987

Tabling of Documents


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
-in English and also in French.

Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, Quebec Fish and Seafood Marketing Association spokesmen accuse the Government of spreading confusion and triggering a $50 million loss in the industry-distributors, fish and molluscs producers, brokers and retailers. The facts speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker: sales figures for all seafoods dropped anywhere between 30 and 70 per cent, depending on the outlet, despite the fact that molluscs, which have been banned, account for only 1 per cent of seafoods. These people seek compensation. Dealers want the Government to intervene immediately to help them offset the negative impact.
Since the Government is duty-bound to clear up the situation and keep the public fully informed, I would suggest that the Prime Minister launch an information campaign so that people know what is safe to eat and provide assistance to the seafood industry which is experiencing serious financial difficulties as a result of the errors and confusion of the Government.
We thank you for taking what is said here and transforming it into intelligible and civil form.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: May I also take this opportunity to thank the Leaders of all Parties, the House Leaders and all of my colleagues in this place for their co-operation and help in all these many months.
I conclude by saying that I remind all Hon. Members that there is a certain tradition in this place that will take place as soon as the House rises in the usual place. I will be hoping that you will all join me there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member, without accepting any of the allegations that he makes, I want to say to him that, along with the Minister of Fisheries, we have put forward a plan which was given yesterday and there were a number of questions, primarily from the media, on the issue.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-3414 and 332-3488.
I take it the Hon. Member is looking at a promotion campaign, a reassurance campaign. We are looking at that. I, along with the Minister of Fisheries, am taking that suggestion very seriously.


ELECTIONS, PRIVILEGES AND PROCEDURE    HOUSE OF COMMONS MR. SPEAKER EXTENDS COMPLIMENTS OF THE SEASON
Mr. Speaker:: I want to wish a Merry Christmas to all Hon. Members, to the pages and to the whole staff.

I would offer a special thanks to our Hansard reporters-


PRESENTATION OF SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. This report concerns the question of privilege referred to the committee by the House last May. We believe the recommendations contained in the report will help all committees to establish guidelines respecting in camera proceedings so that all committees and their members are better protected. Such guidelines will also better enable the House to deal with problems of disclosure of confidential proceedings of committees.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

December 18, 1987


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege.
Now that the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure has found that my actions that were referred to the committee constituted a breach of the traditions and procedures of this House, I should like hereby to apologize to all Members of Parliament and in particular to those who felt affronted or affected by my actions for the actions that were referred to the committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As Hon. Members know, the matter that was referred to committee on a question of privilege brought to the Chair was a difficult one. I can say to the Hon. Member that 1 think he has very much deserved the respect of all Members of the House for his completely forthright and honourable statement of a moment ago. I know that Hon. Members in this place would want to join me in commending the Hon. Member for his attitude and his acceptance of what has been for him, I know, a difficult matter.


GOVERNMENT INFORMATION ACT, ATLANTIC CANADA, 1987 MEASURE TO ENACT
John Carnell Crosbie: for leave to introduce Bill C-103, an Act to increase economic opportunity in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Tabling of documents

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-104 intituled: "An Act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Statutes of Canada".


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Frederick John King: that the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure presented to the House on Monday, December 7, 1987, be concurred in.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I think you would find that the House would be content that the motion be moved as it has now been moved and not debated. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of my colleague from York Centre in this matter in his capacity as the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I think you will find that with the following amendment, which has been discussed between the Parties, the vote on the motion can be taken without debate. We move in amendment, Sir, that:
The sixth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures be concurred in excepting the recommended change to the following portion of Standing Order 44:
"44.-if the report is concurred in, it would be an Order of this House to the Ministry to rescind one specified regulation or other statutory instrument, which the Ministry has the authority to rescind."


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposition of the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). Is there agreement?

December 18, 1987
Petitions


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between the Parties and I think you will find the House is prepared to accept the following motion without debate:
Thai the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs be
empowered to travel to Auckland and Wellington, New Zealand, from
February 7 to February 16, 1988, in relation to its study of the White Paper on
Tax Reform and other related documents, (Stage II), and that the necessary
staff do accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Caccia:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Charles L. Caccia: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there is another motion on the Order Paper under Motions with respect to adjournment. I am going to encompass a couple of things in my remarks and suggest that this motion should be brought forward following the completion of the remarks of the Hon. Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent).
At this point I would like to suggest to the House that when Orders of the Day are called, the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) should take the floor and be given the necessary time to complete his remarks. Following that I suggest that the Chair recognize the Hon. Leader of the NDP. I think you will find unanimous consent that, in the
event the Hon. Leader needs more time than specified in the Standing Orders, the House give its consent not to see the clock and to allow him to complete his remarks.


John Edward Broadbent: The Christmas spirit.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the generous and, I might also say, traditional suggestion by the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis). I hope the House will express unanimous accord with that.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is agreement. However, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rises.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just a small detail but an important one, Mr. Speaker. There is in the Order Paper under Private Members' Business a Bill, C-238, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet). I just wondered if the Government intends to proceed with that Bill at the appropriate time following the speeches of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent).


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest that the sequence should be: Speech, speech, motion, and then, as you are aware, the Government tries not to interfere with Private Members' Business, and if the House wishes to go ahead with it at that time and the Private Member wishes to go ahead, the Government would take no position on it and we would certainly agree to that hour going forward.


PETITION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour on behalf of a great number of my constituents and other Canadians across the country to present a petition concerned with the question of murder and injury resulting from the carrying of knives. The petitioners state that inasmuch as the incidence of crimes committed with knives is on the increase in all major cities across Canada, the federal Criminal Code allows citizens to carry knives for self-defence, and this is largely responsible for their being used in a variety of crimes, they call upon Parliament to amend the federal Criminal Code to prohibit the carrying of knives in public places. The only exception would be for those who use a knife for legitimate work or for religious reasons.
December 18, 1987


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 218 will be answered today.


Mr. Red way: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of National Defence make grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes.

1984-85	1985-86	1986-87	1987-88Royal Canadian Naval Association	9,125	9,490	9,490	9,490Naval Officers Association	24,700	25,690	25,690	25,690Military Studies-York University	40,000	40,500	90,000	92,700Royal Canadian Military Institute	6,151	6,107	6,011	6,092Ontario Rifle Association	5,645	8,315	7,405	7,180
2. The above are annual grants which are included in the DND Main Estimates and are paid for the following purposes:
(a)	Royal Canadian Naval Association and the Naval Officers' Association-to promote and maintain interest in military affairs generally and particularly in the welfare and development of the naval forces.
(b)	Military studies-to develop a domestic competence and national interest in military and strategic issues of current and future relevance to Canada's national security.
(c)	Royal Canadian Military Institute-to provide the means of maintaining contact with the civilian population and retired service officers to encourage the promotion of military science and disseminate to the public accurate and current information on military affairs.
(d)	Ontario Rifle Association-to promote the skill of small arms usage as a contribution to the defence of Canada.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that 1 am going to ask him questions before we give unanimous consent.
Can he explain how many questions are left on the Order Paper which he wants to be left over until sometime in January when the House reconvenes? Can he tell us the date of the earliest question that the Government has yet to answer, with
Free Trade
all these public servants at its disposal and all these people in the Minister's office? It is very important that we get those questions answered, and I want to know how many questions he wants left on the Order Paper and for how long they will remain on the Order Paper.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we have been answering questions at such a rapid rate that I am not up-to-date on how many remain on the Order Paper. However, it is helpful that the Opposition knows how busy Ministers are when the House is sitting, in addition to all their other responsibilities, and a break at this time, having come back for an emergency session, would be very helpful in making sure that early in the New Year, when the House reconvenes, we will have an opportunity to accelerate the rather excellent record of this Government in answering questions, a record much better than that of the previous Governments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on the same point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that some of the questions are indicated by a small 2, and these require an answer within 45 days. It was pointed out this week or last week that now and again the Government hesitates or takes time before answering these questions. I remind him that there are at least one, two, three . . . questions numbered 116, 133, 135, 196, 205, 208, plus mine, question No. 209, about which a request has been made to have answers within 45 days, but there has been no response. I can understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is a very busy man, but I hope he will find time during the Christmas recess to come back here for a few days and get some help to be able to answer these questions when the House resumes in January.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to answer the question as soon as the House comes back after the holidays.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 17, consideration of the motion of Miss Carney that this House endorse, as being in the national interest, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, the legal text of which was tabled in the
[Stage Direction]
December 18, 1987
Free Trade
House of Commons on Friday, December 11, 1987, and the amendment of Mr. Langdon (p. 1 1885).
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is more than a debate about trade. This debate is indeed about the kind of Canada we intend to leave our children. Canadians have to make important choices if tomorrow's Canada is to be sovereign, independent and dynamic. I believe that we Canadians can make the right choices to control our own future without sacrificing our sovereignty, without sacrificing our economic independence, and without submitting to the lure of continentalism.
We have the privilege of living in the freest, most tolerant country in the world. Our Charter of Rights, our social safety net, our unshakable sense of fairness, are proof that we do have a deep commitment as a people to improving the quality of life of all our citizens.
This debate compels us, first, to think of Canada. I believe it appropriate and relevant for me to tell you, Mr. Speaker, as presiding officer of this great institution, what Canada means to me. It means our sense of tolerance, our unique history, our generous mix of cultures, our two languages, our parliamentary system, our priceless environmental heritage, the cleanliness and safety of our big cities, and the special Canadian sense of fairness. It means the fact that when you go to a doctor or a hospital they do not ask to check your credit rating before they check your pulse.
Quite simply, and I am not ashamed to say it in this place, I love it here. 1 love what we have built as a nation, 1 love what we stand for and, above all, I love that it is ours. We have made a conscious choice to live here. We made a conscious choice to build this country against the odds, against the weather, against geography, and against the unceasing pressures coming from south of our border. We made a conscious choice to build this country, East, West, and North. In order to bind it we built a railway, an airline, a broadcasting system, a pipeline, and a national highway. These are the links, the bonds we built against the raw force of continentalism which would have turned us south.
This trade deal would destroy those bonds pulling us into a continental vortex dominated by the United States. What is worse, it will not be a conscious choice by Canadians because, if the Government has its way, Canadians will have absolutely nothing to say about it.
I have had the opportunity to read this document. It is a massive document buttressed by a total of 2,500 pages just released by the Government, the details of the trade deal with the United States. This deal represents nothing less than the title deed to our country, the deed which, thanks to the Government, will now be held by and for the people of the United States. This is the most massive giveaway of our sovereignty in history.
In order that we understand each other in this House I want to tell you what I mean by sovereignty. When I say sovereignty I mean having the final ability and authority to govern our own country, to choose our own directions, and to work toward fulfilling our own national purpose. When I say sovereignty I mean having the authority to develop economic and social policies which meet Canadian needs and respond to Canadian priorities. When I say sovereignty I mean being able to share the wealth of the nation in a way which promotes and enhances Canadian values and traditions. When I say sovereignty I mean supporting our own culture through a strong and thriving artistic community which reflects the soul of our nation and our way of life. When I say sovereignty I mean having our own foreign and defence policies which reflect our concern for peace in the world and for human rights which should know no frontiers.
That is what I mean when I speak of sovereignty. We are the elected representatives of the people of a great country. Canadians have charged us with the responsibility of defending and enhancing that sovereignty. This deal is a betrayal of that sovereignty because it fundamentally alters the way this nation has operated, the way in which this nation has pursued its own economic, social, political, and cultural values. It alters it not only for now but for tomorrow and for generations to come.
Who speaks for our children? We are selling out their birthright-a word for "sovereignty" which people can understand. When they grow up and ask, "Where were you when we sold out?", who will stand up and answer that question and tell them why we did it?
Why did we get into this deal in the first place? We were told by those who believe in this deal that it would give us secure access to the United States market. There was no other purpose for the deal than secure access to the U.S. market and an exemption from U.S. protection, particularly as evidenced in the U.S. Congress and as written in U.S. trade law.
However, as we in this Party have pointed out repeatedly, and as I outlined to the Ottawa Board of Trade a year and a half ago, secure access meant exempting us from United States trade law. It also meant an impartial binding dispute mechanism which would enforce that exemption from U.S. trade law. Without that, I told the Ottawa Board of Trade and I say again, the deal would not have been fair, it would not have been free, and it would not have been worth the paper it was written on.
I took that position a year and a half ago and gradually the Government came around to agreeing. In March, although she denied the concept in the House three days ago in response to questions I put to her, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) said that the objective of any trade agreement "would be the elimination of countervail by both countries". Two or three days ago in the House she said that this was never her objective.
December 18, 1987

In April in New York City, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that the U.S. trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada, period. That made sense, but that is not what we have achieved. Gordon Ritchie, the deputy trade negotiator, admitted to the House of Commons committee that no secure access had been gained. He admitted to the committee that U.S. laws would still apply. The agreement itself at Article 1902: 1 says that the United States "reserves the right to apply its antidumping law and countervailing duty law to goods imported from the territory of the other Party"-Canada. We have not changed the laws which hit us on potash, steel, and softwood lumber.

We are not exempted from the 1930 U.S. Trade Act or the 1974 Trade Act. We are not exempted from the Omnibus Bill now before the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, although the Minister for International Trade would like to pretend the Omnibus Bill doesn't exist.
And what kind of tribunal will there be? How will this tribunal ensure our exports will have access to the U.S. market? It won't.
First of all, no one may go before the tribunal until the U.S. International Trade Commission has heard the case and handed down its decision-and not just a preliminary but a final decision. This takes about one year. One then has the option of either going to GATT, the international tribunal, or to this new tribunal. That process would take another year. Subsequently, if the decision is still unsatisfactory, there is now a new avenue for appealing a case, not included in the October 5 version but in the final version, and I am referring to the Extraordinary Challenge Procedure.
Mr. Speaker, we do not know how long these appeals will take or what kind of decisions can be made at this level, because the rules for this procedure are still being negotiated.
In other words, we would now be involved in a very lengthy process-three or four years-and a very costly one. In the softwood lumber case, legal fees have already cost the industry between $3 and $5 million. To do what? Not to change U.S. protectionist legislation but to make sure the legislation was correctly enforced.
One does not have to take my word for it, but we can read what it says in the document.
This is how the agreement defines the role of the tribunal. Article 1904:2 states that the review panel can review a trade decision of the United States Government only:
... to determine whether such determination was in accordance with the
antidumping or countervailing duty law of the importing Party.
That is to say, the law of the United States. It goes on:
Free Trade
For this purpose, the antidumping or countervailing duty law consists of the relevant statutes, legislative history, regulations, administrative practice, and judicial precedents to the extent that a court of the importing Party would rely on such materials in reviewing a final determination of the competent investigating authority. Solely for the purposes of the panel review provided for in this Article, the antidumping and countervailing duty statutes of the Parties, as those statutes may be amended from time to time, are incorporated into this Agreement.
Nothing could be clearer. American law continues to apply unfettered. The only jurisdiction of the tribunal is to decide whether that law has been fairly applied. It is not only present and past law of the United States, but any future law, which of course brings into play the omnibus Bill currently before the Congress.
Some members of the business community seem to think that they have to support the deal because, as they have said to me and perhaps other Members of the House, this deal is better than no deal. I have read the text. No deal would have been better than this deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I listened to the Prime Minister this morning. It was not a speech, it was citation after citation of endorsement, citation after citation of editorial boards. It did not deal with the substance and did not deal with the text, except for one peripheral quote from the preamble of the agreement.
Incidentally, the business community is not monolithic. We can put forward citations as well, but it will not advance the cause.
Some leading businessmen are concerned, particularly in the big leagues, about the peer pressure that is being applied. The Chairman of the Bank of Nova Scotia wrote the Chairman of the Business Council on National Issues to say we should not, as businessmen, "allow ourselves to be stampeded into a deal" in which we may be "sacrificing a vital component of sovereignty".
The Prime Minister spent three-quarters of his speech dragging up the endorsements. I say to him that this debate will not be won in the boardrooms, will not be won in the editorial boards, it will be won by a final tally of the votes of Canadians from one end of this country to the other.
Those endorsements do not change the facts.

Mr. Speaker, we have to get rid of the myth that we have a free trade agreement. Even the document itself is labelled "Free Trade Agreement". It is not true. We don't need a philosophical discussion about whether we are for or against free trade, because this document does not constitute a free trade agreement. It is a selective trade agreement, not an agreement that covers all sectors of the economy.
Like any other contract, this agreement must be analysed and thoroughly examined. We must consider what was gained and what was lost or given away, and we must do this from the

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
Canadian point of view. First of all, as I said earlier, we have not gained access to the U.S. market. Granted, some customs tariffs have been reduced, but they will be reduced in any case in the next round of GATT and other international talks. Customs tariffs will go down at the same rate on both sides, which will be worse for Canadian than U.S. interests, since our tariffs are generally higher and will therefore have to come down more than the U.S. tariffs.
We have not gained access to procurement contracts. The access we gained in the last GATT talks was far greater, proportionally, than what is provided under this Agreement. If we add up all our concessions, what we have is not a trade agreement but rather a contract to sell Canada at a discount.
We have abandoned control over our investments. We have abandoned control over our capital markets. The maximum for direct takeovers without review has been raised to $150 million and will disappear altogether in the case of indirect takeovers. This will leave the door open to unlimited takeovers.
In our capital markets, five Americans with no mutual business or family connections will be able to own and operate an American bank in Canada or even purchase a Canadian chartered bank. On the other hand, our banks do not obtain free access to the United States, because the Agreement does not change the laws established by individual States. In this respect, we must realize that the document before the House is not a treaty but an agreement. It is not a treaty that will be binding, by a vote of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, on the constitution of the fifty States of the Union. It is not. And perhaps our Government will have the same problem in this country with the provinces.

This deal also commits Canada to a new continental energy policy. I refer again to the document, Article 904 which states that we must ensure as Canadians that any tax or other measure we take regarding any energy resource:
. . . does not impose a higher price for exports of an energy good to the other
Party than the price charged for such energy good when consumed domestically ...
That means we can no longer set a separate export price. It also means, as we read further, that we can no longer set reserves. We can no longer set surpluses, no longer provide for our own self-sufficiency.
The National Energy Board will become merely a monitoring agency. Constitutionally, our producing provinces have really lost control over their own energy resources.
I recall when the western provinces responded to the National Energy Program on constitutional grounds because they thought Ottawa was taking away their control over resources. What has happened with this treaty is that Washington has now taken over the resources of this country. We are now obliged to sell our energy to the United States at the same price as we sell it domestically. We no longer have the ability to use our resources as an advantage competitively.
I was brought up believing that people would come to resources. I was brought up believing that resources were the base of this country to build a great nation. We have now allowed the resources to flow to the population and the control of the United States.
We also guarantee that in times of shortage or crisis shipments of energy to the United States can only be reduced as a proportion of total supply based on the most recent three-year period. Our total supply is defined to include everything that we have on top of the ground or in the ground, plus everything that we import. Even the energy that we import becomes part of the continental reservoir of the United States. As if that were not enough, Articles 408 and 409 of the agreement make it clear that the same proportional access and the same regime will apply to all renewable and non-renewable resources, probably including water.
In effect, we have become a storehouse or reservoir for the United States of America. I meant to include water, and I find it a little curious that this morning the Prime Minister referred to Venice as one of the great trading cities-I suppose to remind us that he is in the big leagues and was at the Summit. He mentioned Venice as one of the great trading cities. He did not mention that Venice is slowly sinking into its own canals, which is what will happen to this country if this deal goes through.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: By virtue of Articles 408 and 409 of this agreement, the United States gets a guaranteed share of our country. What is theirs is theirs; what is ours is theirs too.
This is not only not a free trade deal, Mr. Speaker, this is not even a trade deal. This is "The Sale of Canada Act", and that is why we oppose it.
What about the Auto Pact? The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) will undoubtedly want to deal with it in some detail. This morning the Prime Minister spent approximately 10 or 15 minutes citing the Auto Pact as a great example of free trade. That is a fallacious argument. The Auto Pact is not free trade; it is a managed sectoral agreement between two countries with guaranteed percentages of employment, production, and content. It is not a free trade agreement, and it is absolutely no precedent for free trade as a concept either in theory or in practice.
In terms of that type of sectoral initiative, of course we would be willing to explore more sectoral opportunities with the United States, and to explore ways of eliminating any trade irritations that we have between the two countries.
The Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade have repeatedly stated, in response to my questions and those of others, that the Auto Pact was not on the table. Yet by virtue of the tariffs moving down the whole enforcement
December 18, 1987

mechanism for the safeguards protecting Canadians percentage production, employment and content disappear.
What about agriculture? Agriculture was not supposed to be in the deal. If we read the preamble, it is clearly in the deal. If we read the whole agricultural section, it is in the deal. The family farm will be devastated.

We find in the Agreement, in the document itself, that there will be a progressive elimination of the protection afforded by seasonal duties. We find in the final text of the Agreement that our farmers will be unable to face American competition because, while this document uses the term "free trade", Canadian farmers will never be able to compete because of our difficult climate and short four, five or six-month season. They will never be able to face totally free competition with American farmers, especially those in California, Florida and Georgia, who have a twelve-month season. It is impossible. If we want to remain self-sufficient in agriculture, we should never sign such an agreement because it will destroy the family farm in Canada.
The Prime Minister spoke this morning about GATT Article 11. This was an afterthought in the negotiations following the interventions of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture.
I must tell Quebec farmers that the problem has not been solved. The agreement is contradictory, as the UPA has already concluded. The UPA has told the newspapers that there is a contradiction between articles 703 and 710 of the Agreement. Article 710 states that import barriers will be reduced, while article 70 states that protection will be maintained, and this raises very important questions. There is an obvious and even glaring contradiction between those articles which brings into question the whole application of GATT Article 11. Will it be necessary to phase out all existing marketing boards? Will it be possible to create new ones? I seriously doubt it!

Our whole supply management system is being negotiated away. If we allow the import restrictions on major grains, if we allow the import restrictions seasonally on fruit and vegetables,if we allow the whole range of horticulture to disappear, there is no way that supply management can be contained in this country. Canadian agricultural programs will be-to use the delightful word of this agreement-"harmonized". They will be harmonized with U.S. programs. Harmonization is defined in Article 711 of the agricultural section of the agreement. It means making identical.
What has happened here is that every support program for western grain producers is listed in the agreement along with the list of support programs for U.S. farmers. Those two lists will now be made identical.
Our list includes the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, PFRA; it includes the Agricultural and Rural Development
Free Trade
Act, ARDA; it includes the Economic and Rural Development Agreements, the ERDA agreements; it includes the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the Special Canadian Grains Program, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and Crop Insurance Program. All those programs and others listed fully in the agreement, probably taking it out of the ambit of Article 11 of GATT, will be harmonized with U.S. programs.
Since the United States overwhelmingly dominates in agriculture by virtue of its size and market, the level of government support for Canadians farmers will be determined not by Ottawa, not by provincial capitals, but by Washington.

Mr. Speaker, a new section added to the legal text states that, if the federal or provincial Governments wish to designate a monopoly by creating a Crown corporation at either the federal or the provincial level, or by using another system or method in a given sector, for whatever reasons, they will first have to obtain the authorization of the American Government. They will then have to ensure that no monopoly will grant preference to Canadian goods and services. The type of arrangement which exists between Bell Canada and Northern Telecom, for instance, could become unacceptable under this provision. There will also be an impact on existing and future utilities, such as electricity and hydro, and provincial programs such as automobile insurance and provincial health care plans. Articles 103 and 502 of the agreement also state that the federal Government will ensure compliance by the provinces and municipalities.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I can predict with some certainty that the provincial Governments will have much to say about the specific impact of this agreement on their jurisdiction in these areas.

The very premise of this agreement is based on free market forces. There is clause after clause and article after article that insists on harmonization and the free flow of those forces. That is relevant to this country in three ways that strike me immediately.
First, this country would never have been built east, west and north without some resistance to those continental economic forces. For 120 years we have resisted those forces and created a nation. Yet this agreement turns those forces north and south. Second, on the basis of pure economic forces and market forces, we would not have achieved some measure of economic equality in Canada. We would not have had a basis for our regional economic equality programs. We would not have had the basis for a philosophy that wherever one is born in the country, wherever one chooses to live when one comes to the country, or wherever one receives an education, one will have the same rights as a Canadian to a good education, a good job, and a secure retirement. Market forces would never have given us that.

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
We have always believed in a mixed economy in Canada. Yes, we believe in success, enterprise, and initiative. We want people to succeed. We also felt that it was very important to protect those of our citizens who are less able to protect themselves.
The mixed economy depends from time to time on where the private sector cannot intervene or will not or cannot do the job in the public interest, and the Government, the state, the people intervene to achieve a specific result. Market forces would not have given us public housing. Market forces would not have given us public transportation. Market forces would not give us the spine of the country in terms of a publicly owned railway, airline, and broadcasting system.
The whole basis of this agreement is the unleashing of sheer market forces which would destroy nationhood for Canada and would destroy the equality of the country from one coast to another and into the North. It would also destroy the basis for Canadians to intervene where they felt the public sector needed to intervene to preserve some equality of opportunity in the country.
President Reagan has said that this deal represents the fulfilment of an American dream. 1 can understand that. Let the Americans dream, but we have our own dreams. We dream of an independent and a distinct nation north of the 49th parallel. Despite the assurances of the Prime Minister given just yesterday to the provincial Premiers that social programs and regional development programs are safeguarded in the deal, it is just not true. Read the text. There is no specific exemption from U.S. action under its definition of subsidies against either our social programs or our regional equality development programs.
I turn again to the text. Article 1906 and Article 1907 commit us to begin a negotiating process for up to seven years to decide which social and regional development programs are to be defined as subsidies for the purpose of the agreement. If those programs qualify as subsidies within the nature of this agreement, and certainly within the ambit of current American law-1930, 1974, and particularly the omnibus Bill before the Congress of the United States-our programs socially and regionally will be subject to countervail and other American remedy. It means that we are negotiating with the Americans the type of general assistance we will be allowed to provide our citizens as Canadians.
There will also be pressure to harmonize those programs from another source. As free market forces are unleashed under this agreement north and south, American business will look northward and say that there is unfair competition from Canada because we have public medicare, which our companies have to pay down in the United States by way of private plans, and because we have benefits such as the unemployment insurance and the Canada Pension Plan. There will be pressure in terms of competitive forces to harmonize our programs, that is to say, to reduce our programs to American levels.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) is asking us to have confidence in the Government for five to seven years to enable it to negotiate a new set of rules.
Confidence in this Government, Mr. Speaker? All we need to remember is what it has done in the social field and in regional development since it came into office. They attempted to de-index old age security pensions. They cut down youth assistance and employment programs. They slashed expenditures for the regions to the tune of several million dollars. They did away with the national training program called "First Chance". They shelved a number of training programs. So Canadians no longer believe that the Government will be able to stop the Americans when they get around to axing some of our social programs.
American companies will be in a good position to argue that we do have one advantage over them-health insurance and pensions plans-and that it costs less here. The American companies themselves pay for the social benefits available to their employees.

The Prime Minister has said in Atlantic Canada that his trade deal is a solution to regional disparities. He told the Atlantic provinces that this deal would allow them to trade their way to prosperity. This deal will abandon Atlantic Canada to the sheer, raw market forces. This deal will cut Atlantic Canada adrift. This deal is based, I say again, upon the premise of the free market American style, and we have used a mixed economy to equalize opportunity in Canada between regions and among all levels of our citizens.
We have just received this massive text. We are spending two or three days debating it before it is signed by our Prime Minister and the President of the United States on January 2.

The House committee responsible for trade matters looked into this question, but none of its members ever saw the text before the report was drafted. That may be good enough for the trained seals who sit behind the Prime Minister, but not for us. Perhaps they have confidence in the Government, but we certainly do not, neither I nor the people of Canada.
As we indicate in our minority report, consideration of the agreement was not done in a democratic or representative manner. The committee hearings were a parody of democracy. Without the final text, the study it did was just a big joke.

The Prime Minister challenges us to a positive alternative. We published that in the minority report which we issued on Tuesday to the House of Commons committee report. It was entitled Reaching Out. We in the Liberal Party have always favoured more liberalized trade, not only with the United States but across the world and around the world. Under this Government our trade with the Pacific Rim has dropped
December 18, 1987

dramatically and our trade with Europe has dropped dramatically.
We have always believed, essential though the American market is to us and essential though the United States is to us, that we have always done better, as we have over the last seven rounds of the GATT, internationally and multilaterally in our negotiations with the United States than head to head and bilaterally, because we never believed that we would get an exemption from U.S. trade law in a bilateral way.
We would continue to pursue sectoral opportunities. The Auto Pact was concluded under a Liberal Government. We would continue to look for ways to ease those irritants to trade between the two countries. We are world traders. We want a more vigorous trade policy, but we want a policy which allows us to trade with the world with special and immediate focus on the United States, not just an exclusive deal with the United States.
A Liberal trade strategy will start by reducing and eliminating interprovincial barriers to trade so that we have a free trade market within our own country. We will bring in a comprehensive trade Bill which will make clear our trade objectives, our style of trade financing, and our trade remedies. We will put all the efforts of the federal Government under one roof so that all expertise can be gathered coherently with one single objective, that is to say, to open up markets and enhance our trade opportunities both abroad and continentally.
The trade agreement is also based on the supposition and premise that it can be a substitute for a national economic strategy. No trade policy can substitute for a national coherent strategy on the economy. It must be part of that strategy. We can only make ourselves more competitive. No trade agreement will do it for us. No trade agreement will bail us out. We must, therefore, expand our commitment to research and development and work to develop our education system so that we give our youth the skills that it will need in a tough, competitive world. We will commit ourselves to a full employment strategy. We are committed to better training and retraining for our workforce, particularly for those men and women thrown out of work by technological progress. We are committed to a national literacy program to help those five million Canadians who cannot read or write on a functional basis thereby being denied an opportunity to participate fully in the economy.
In democratic parliamentary terms the Government has no mandate for the motion or the deal before the blouse. It was not discussed in the last election. The only words we had from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) were in debate in 1983 against the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) for the leadership of the Conservative Party. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were both against free trade because, to use the Prime Minister's words
Free Trade
,"It affected our sovereignty", and he would have none of it. That is where he stood. He was right and he should have maintained that. It is for this reason we believe the people of Canada must be given an opportunity to decide. No Government has the right to alter fundamentally the direction, the style and the nature of this country without the consent of a majority of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We are still a democracy after all. We are still governed by a parliamentary system after all. I challenge the Prime Minister to call an election. Let the people of Canada decide before this deal is implemented. We cannot block the signing, but let the people decide before this deal is rammed through Parliament and before it is autocratically imposed on Canadians. I believe that when Canadians at long last have an opportunity to examine this deal, to study and look at it clause by clause as we have looked at it, they will reject this deal massively and overwhelmingly in the next general election.
The Prime Minister met the Premiers yesterday. He said in an earlier meeting with the Premiers that, in terms of provincial government support, he is happy. He said that a seven to three score would be good enough in a hockey game in Baie Comeau. It may be good enough for a hockey game in Baie Comeau but it is not good enough for the future of this country. It is not just that simple. I ask the Premiers of this country to read and study this document as we have studied it. Premiers in their comments yesterday said on countervail, on regional economic development, "I have an assurance from the Prime Minister". They said on the binational tribunal, "I have had an assurance from the Prime Minister". They said on the omnibus Bill, "I have an assurance from the Prime Minister". I want to tell the Premiers not to count on those assurances. We know in this House how well we can count on those assurances. I tell the Premiers to read the document and study it.
Provincial Premiers have their own mandates and their own responsibilities, and I respect that. In light of the interest of their provinces as they see fit, they are entitled to take a position. I can understand that. I accept that. But in this House of Commons our responsibility is a national one. We must consider the implications of this deal, of this pact, on behalf of all Canadians as we see them within this federal jurisdiction of Parliament. Even if the count had been 10 to zip in favour of this deal by the provincial Premiers I would have still opposed it because it is bad for Canada and we are going to vote against it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I said when I saw the general principles of the deal in October that I would tear it up. I am going to spend a bit of the Christmas holidays working on the iron to get in shape because the 2,500 pages of

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
this document will be a little harder to handle than I anticipated.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Except for one passing reference to the preamble the Prime Minister did not cite this document at all in support of his case. I suspect that the Prime Minister has not read it, and if he reads it I suspect that he will want to tear it up too.
We are opposed to this deal. We who are opposed to it are painted by the Prime Minister as being negative. We are painted as being timid. We are being painted as being afraid and having no confidence in the future of this country. But who are the frightened ones? Who are the real fearful Canadians? Who are the ones who are saying that our only hope for survival as a nation is this pact with the United States? Who are the ones who are mortgaging us to the United States as the only hope for our economic survival? It is not our Party, it is the Government of Canada.
When the Prime Minister says that we do not have confidence in Canada, that we do not have confidence in our future, he is dead wrong. We have confidence in this country. We have confidence in our future, but our future is not a continental future, it is a Canadian future.
On this trade issue I am not saying that as Canadians we can do it alone, but I am saying that we can do it in our own way. I believe Canadians have proved that in 120 years of resisting the continental forces and creating a flourishing, proud and self-sufficient nation.
I retain fundamentally my optimism in this country. I retain fundamentally my faith in Canadians. I believe that we are now mature enough, talented enough, strong enough, confident enough and tough enough to make our own choices in our own way for our own future, and that is why we reject this deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in 1983 the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) when asked about a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States said it was wrong. It affected our sovereignty, which is to say it affected our capacity to shape the future of our country with our own decisions.
In 1984 in a campaign in which he discussed every other issue under the sun, the same Prime Minister never mentioned a comprehensive free trade agreement a single time. In 1985, after the same man had formed the Government of Canada, he launched a process to put in place exactly what he had denounced in 1983.
The New Democratic Party opposed such an approach to our relationship with the United States in 1983. We would have made that clear in 1984 if it had been a campaign issue, and I can tell you today in 1987 that we are as strongly opposed to this approach today as we ever were.
What has been made abundantly clear from the weekend of October 1 right up to the time not many days ago when we saw the final wording in this agreement is that what is involved is something other than an accord on the exchange of commercial products. What is involved is much more comprehensive than that. What is ultimately involved in this agreement is that the priorities of the people of Canada in virtually every aspect of life will be shaped by influences and forces South of the border rather than by the people of Canada. With that kind of approach, the New Democratic Party is in total opposition because we believe in an independent, self-reliant, confident Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as I said when we first saw the elements of the agreement on that first weekend in October after the Prime Minister's senior cabinet Ministers spent the concluding days of negotiations in Washington, my caucus colleagues and I were opposed to what we saw at that time and we would look forward to reading the final document. Of course, when we saw the final document, as the country now knows because we have had occasion to discuss it at least in Question Period since that time, our concerns have been confirmed. The opposition of the New Democratic Party at every level, federal and provincial, has been intensified. We will do everything we can as a Party to stop this accord from being put in place in Canada.
As I said, this is not simply a matter of commerce or exchange. There are all kinds of positive arguments to be made about the expansion of commerce and trade with the United States, our most significant trading partner and for most of our history a good neighbour and a good friend. However, this is something quite different.
If we as a nation want to determine how we will reduce regional economic disparities, we will not be able to do so if this agreement goes into place. If we want to set our own energy prices here in Canada, we will not be able to do so. If we want to control our own agricultural sector in the way the farmers and farming communities would like us to do, we will not be able to do so. If we wish to process our resources to whatever level we decide before we export them to other nations, we will not be able to do so if this agreement goes into place.
If we want to ensure that when foreign capital comes into our country, either in the form of new investment or as a takeover of an existing Canadian firm, capital be put to work to provide benefits for Canadians and not simply profits for those who invest, we will no longer be able to establish those priorities. If we want to enhance the future of our service sector in which so many Canadians and particularly Canadian women work, we will not be able to do so. If we want to strengthen our cultural industries by making decisions independently arrived at here in Canada without fear of future
December 18, 1987

countervail from the United States of America, we will not be able to do so.
The people of this nation, and I would suggest the people who vote for all three political Parties, are deeply committed to the principle of a mixed economy, unlike those in the country to the south of us. If we wish to establish Crown corporations and give them certain monopoly power to fulfil certain objectives desired by the people of Canada in the future the way we have in the past, we will not be able to do so if this agreement goes into effect. I say shame on the Government of Canada for making such a proposition.
Instead of maximizing opportunities to shape our own destiny as a free people, the Government has done just the opposite. Instead of boasting, this Government should be hanging its collective head in shame for what it is submitting to the people of Canada.
Government Members and cabinet Ministers boast that this is the biggest trade deal ever negotiated between two countries. It may not be the biggest, but it is certainly the worst from a Canadian point of view. Whether it is energy, agriculture or regional fairness, whether it is service or culture, whether it is East, West or central Canada, whether it is national leadership or provincial rights, this Government has betrayed the interests of our people wherever they may live and whatever kind of work they may do.
Not only is this a bad deal in substance, but the Government of Canada has systematically misled the people of Canada about its true nature. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said today, and I totally agree with him, that when the Prime Minister spoke this morning, he did not refer to one single specific clause in the agreement. He might have made one reference as part of what he had to say, but if there was one reference, there was only one.
Not only the Prime Minister but cabinet Ministers and not only cabinet Ministers but Conservative Premiers from coast to coast have not talked about the substance of this deal. They have not referred to specific clauses of it to explain to the people of Canada what they mean. I know why they have not done so. It is because the more the people of Canada understand what those clauses mean, the more the people of Canada will oppose this deal.
I would like to deal with some of those clauses specifically. I wish that just for once in this debate, someone on the other side would reply so that we could have a serious intellectual exchange about the future of this great nation of ours. I will make a prediction today. Instead of replying, they will send little newsletters, and Conservative provincial Premiers will debate in their regions and try to create animosity toward other regions, but not once will they have the integrity and decency to meet the arguments head-on. I make that prediction right now.
I said in my opening comments today that this deal is bad for the future of our country because it does not involve only
Free Trade
the setting down of principles for commerce and the exchange between two good neighbours but because ultimately it impacts upon our rights as a people to make our own decisions, something that is quite a different matter indeed. This is particularly so with the energy sector.
I am a leader of a Party who has watched the evolution of my nation go roughly from east to west in our historical development. I as one national leader wanted to see opportunities for western Canada arise more rapidly than they did in central Canada so that we could get away from being hewers of wood and drawers of water and from being a resource hinterland, whether for central Canada or for Japan and the United States of America.
One of the reasons my Party has grown at the provincial level in western Canada is that a long time ago, the provincial level took head-on the argument that it would not yield to old market forces for the development which would have kept western Canada a resource-based economy forever. The provincial level took concrete action to make of western Canada what central Canada has gradually become, a vibrant, mixed, aggressively competitive economy in ail its dimensions and not simply a resource hinterland. That is the national view of my Party today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: One of the aspects of this deal that disturbs me the most is indeed its energy provision. In the last decade, Premier Lougheed and all the western Premiers argued about the right of and necessity for the provinces to retain control over the development of their resources. We in this Party happen to agree with that. In 1981, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Trudeau. One of the very specific conditions for our agreement to the constitutional accord in 1981 which was subsequently adopted in 1982, was the clarification in the Constitution of the provinces' right to control, manage and develop their resources including the setting of prices.
I believe in a decentralized economy. If there is anything the world has learned in the last 30 or 40 years of economic development, it has been the importance of decentralized decision-making. As a Canadian, I believed it was particularly important for western Canadians to have the right to set the pattern of the development and control of their resources themselves within their domain. The arguments made then by the Premiers have since been abandoned, and I think pretty superficially, without giving much thought at all to what is involved.
I would zero in on the price of energy as a particular element. I say to Conservative Members opposite, especially those from western Canada, that the petrochemical price structure in Alberta for Canadian firms has been kept lower, and they do not talk about it now, by the policies of the Alberta Government so that the West would not simply have

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
to continue derive income from exporting its resource in raw form. It made sense and we supported it. I can tell you that in the Province of Quebec, under the Government of Premier Lesage and the Government of Premier Rene Levesque, energy prices were kept at a lower level for the development of industry in that province, hydroelectric energy in this case, because it was a competitive economic advantage we had and we used it for the development of our people. The same principle holds for the hydroelectric resources of Manitoba and Ontario. It also holds for energy resources in Saskatchewan and British Columbia, albeit less so than Alberta.
We are saying that this is a totally unacceptable betrayal of not only provincial rights in the abstract but of the rights of the people who live in those provinces to determine their prices and set them at a lower level if they deem that desirable for the development of their region. It is the Tories who are selling out the serious long-range interests of western Canada, indeed of every province in Canada with important resources. It is no accident that Mr. Yeutter was boasting, within 24 hours of the deal being signed in Washington, about how the Americans got us locked into this energy deal. That is what they talked about. It is no accident.
Ronald Reagan, when he was Governor of California, used to talk about continental energy. In 1980, after he became President, he did the same thing. The Mexicans have turned this kind of deal down saying it would be foolish for a country with energy resources to accept. It is the kind of foolishness only Canadian Conservatives are inclined to accept.
To move to the question of provincial rights, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) said in the debate in this House just after October 3 that there is no change in provincial rights at all. I had raised questions about control of energy development, and they said there has been no change. I will simply say, as I said then, that that is not true. There has been change, and the rights which have been taken away from Ottawa have indeed been given to Washington. That is unacceptable to the New Democratic Party of Canada.
The same Minister for International Trade said, not simply with reference to the energy question but to all provincial rights, that there has been no change, they would have the same rights after this agreement as before. That of course is not the case. If you look at this agreement, it does not take long at all to ascertain that instead of what the Prime Minister said, that some 97 per cent of the areas covered are within federal jurisdiction, it is a much smaller percentage within federal jurisdiction and a much greater percentage within provincial jurisdiction than the Government has been prepared to admit.
On that particular point, I had hoped the Prime Minister could be here and I understand that he had another commitment, but I hope he will deal with this in the future. He talked appropriately in a positive sense about the Meech Lake agreement, on this particular issue he has turned co-operative
federalism upside down. He said, in a commitment to the Premiers in Halifax in the fall of 1985, with respect to elements of a potential agreement that were within provincial jurisdiction or authority, that the federal Government, and I quote, "would not pursue any particular element within provincial jurisdictional authority unless all provincial Governments support it and are ready to implement it". In other words, he was saying something that I think is very important for a federal Prime Minister of this country, that if you are taking a major initiative and you are talking about an area specifically within provincial areas of responsibility, then you have an obligation to get their support.
You do not have the right to trample over the rights of the provinces, whether it is three provinces, six provinces or one province. If that province has the constitutional right in a certain area of authority, that right has to be respected by the federal Prime Minister. Yet instead of respecting that right the federal Prime Minister moved unilaterally to make changes in at least five areas of constitutional authority that are directly within the provincial domain. The wine and distillery section is of course well known and has been discussed at length. Then there is the energy sector, the service sector, and investments. The approach in making so-called national treatment a policy for all industry in Canada and the U.S., if this accord goes into effect, profoundly impacts upon provincial jurisdictional authority.
The Prime Minister has been pretty glib, to put it euphemistically, about this particular point, trying to skirt around it, trying to imply that the federal Government had not only the right to negotiate a treaty, which no one has questioned, but he asserted in the past 48 hours, along with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), that it not only has the right to negotiate the treaty but to implement it in those areas within provincial jurisdictional authority.


John Napier Turner: Citing no authority.


John Edward Broadbent: Citing no authority whatsoever for such a view. I know why. With the exception of one case that I am aware of, 90 per cent of the constitutional authorities are clearly on the other side of the issue.
There is a simple way, however, if he would like to be consistent with what he has talked about with respect to building a co-operative attitude in Canada. Why not make a reference to the Supreme Court? Technically it is totally possible. He could simply refer a question of the following kind, for example: Does this trade arrangement give the federal Government the power to implement its provisions in areas of provincial jurisdiction?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Who wrote that?


John Edward Broadbent: He could refer that question, drafted in legal language, to the Supreme Court, get an answer and provide it to the House of Commons, the Premiers and, more important, to the people of Canada.
December 18, 1987



Mr. Speaker, this Agreement is a threat to rural communities. In March, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated in the Elouse of Commons that the Government was going to "maintain support policies for our farmers and our marketing boards".
Today, we read in Le Devoir and other Quebec newspapers that the Quebec UPA is still against the Agreement. I can see why. The Mulroney Government claims it has protected the marketing boards, but eliminating tariffs on processed goods will sooner or later undermine the effectiveness of these boards.
Either the boards will eventually disappear, because the cost of farm products regulated by the boards will be higher than U.S. products which are not so regulated, or the food processing industry-the most important manufacturing industry in Canada-may disappear because it will have to pay more for agricultural products like chicken, eggs and milk than the U.S. industry.
Protecting marketing boards without protecting the food processing industry is ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. If we talk to average Canadians across this country, I am sure we will find many Canadians who have an interest in the Agreement's impact on regional development.
The final text has not removed any of our concerns about a possible dismantling of our regional development programs. The Prime Minister claims this trade agreement would eliminate regional disparity. Not true! An economist, otherwise an ardent supporter of the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement, has refuted this ridiculous statement.
Mr. Speaker, after 200 years of free trade, the United States has yet to eliminate regional disparity. In fact, regional disparity is on the increase. That is a fact. I hope that for once, the Prime Minister of Canada will start being honest about this Agreement. Mr. Speaker, regional development programs are essential to the growth and economic diversification of the Atlantic Provinces, of the remote regions of Northern Quebec and Ontario and of several Western regions. In fact, all regions in this country benefit from these programs. Here again, however, the Americans have won out.
When the Agreement was announced in early October, the Deputy Minister of Finance said we would now have to modify our regional programs to avoid retaliatory action by the Americans. So, in this area as well, our policies are going to be dictated by Washington.
This is not a small point. At the time of the final agreement on the Constitution of 1982 there had emerged in Canada a consensus that we had to build into our modern Constitution something which is in no other constitution in the developed industrial world-a commitment to regional equality. A solid
Free Trade
clause in that Constitution commits us as a people, not to intensify or even leave in existence regional inequalities but to work to eliminate them.
As a Social Democrat, my Party in particular owes, in part, its raison d'etre to our commitment to dealing with regional inequality. An accord which will impact on a long list of regional development programs in the agricultural sector and regional programs in general and says that we have ultimately to mesh our rules in this important aspect of our national development with those in the United States is not acceptable.
The reality is once again quite different from what the Government has told us. Mr. Simon Reisman took great delight at one time in saying that he had managed to have social policy and regional development policies excluded from this accord. In the early stages he said that the Americans were putting immense pressure on the Government of Canada to include all these programs in the accord. He boasted, as the Government has since, that they did not yield to this pressure, that somehow the Canadian side won out.
That is simply not the case. I have already mentioned one key decision made by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) in this regard within days after the original signing in October. There is also a clause which says that during the next seven years all of these programs will be considered as a type of subsidy in terms of the impact of the trade relationships between the two countries.
These issues have not been resolved. Mr. Reisman himself said that there was immense pressure from the Americans early in the discussions to have all of these included. You do not have to be the slightest bit paranoid to understand that if the United States of America, with more than 10 times our economic strength and profoundly committed as it is to an exclusively free market orientation in the economy, believed in August that all these programs were important for inclusion, it will once again start exerting pressure to put all these programs right back on the agenda as soon as the agreement is signed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as leader of a Party which is profoundly committed to building greater, not lesser, equality in Canada, 1 believe that regional development programs should be designed by Canadians for Canadians and that decisions about them should be made in Ottawa, not Washington.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

And what about services? Mr. Speaker, other countries which have signed free trade agreements have excluded, and not by accident, their service sector from such agreements, recognizing the potential threat to their own social and economic programs. The development of our service industries is critical if we wish to preserve independent economic and

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
political institutions. As the trade agreement recognizes the basic principles of the right to establisment and national treatment, American service companies will be able to defy any Canadian practice which could limit their ability to compete in Canada.
The final text includes a detailed list of service industries which are covered by the agreement. The list is complete and covers such sectors as insurance, real estate, tourism and data processing. By agreeing to the inclusion of services, the Government has made concessions without knowing the true consequences of its actions. Neither the Government nor the Macdonald Commission have examined the impact of such an agreement on the service sector. Mr. Speaker, 83 per cent of working women are employed in the service sector. In what was certainly one of the most alarming submissions presented to the Parliamentary Committee, the Association of Independent Data Processing Services predicted the loss of 360,000 jobs in data processing services by 1993, which jobs are mostly held by women.

With regard to the service sector, just a couple of days ago I raised the problem of including in this accord the right of private firms in the United States to compete for contracts in the management of our hospital services, our ambulance services, and nursing home services, a total of 47 categories in the medical field. The Prime Minister was veritably buffoonish in response. We never anticipated that they would be included in this agreement, but we found it in the document.
When it was suggested that this might have some impact on public medicare, we were again attacked for raising red herrings and were told that this was a bogus concern. They laughed about it.


John Napier Turner: He has not read it.


John Edward Broadbent: As the Leader of the Opposition said, probably the Prime Minister had not even read that section.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Nonsense and you know it. You have not read it.


John Edward Broadbent: I can tell the Hon. Member that I have read it and, as the leader of a Party that brought medicare to Canada, I am deeply concerned about what the Conservatives are doing in this regard. I hope the Member will join in the debate. I would like him to deal with the question.
I want to put it as clearly as I can-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Please do. It has not been clear up to now. It is nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: If he will listen-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I am listening.


John Edward Broadbent: I will put the point and I hope he will respond.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Do not make allegations that the Prime Minister has not read it.


John Barry Turner: Not only did he read it, he wrote it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The Member is really testing our credibility. He wants us to believe that the Prime Minister can both read and write.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I will leave out the question of whether the Prime Minister read this part of the document. That is irrelevant to my argument.
The point is that I am concerned about the wording that is there. We need not believe that there is a sinister plot by the Americans, simply that they want to make money, which, in the context of their society, is a legitimate notion. If we open the border across the country to American firms so they can start applying for business contracts, they could end up managing our hospitals-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They are in Ontario.


John Edward Broadbent: Let us carry this through. If this goes on and they ultimately manage our nursing homes, our hospitals, our ambulance services, they bring with that not just management techniques but a whole ideology of privatization. We believe in public medicare in this country. That is the point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If Conservatives opposite think it is accidental that 35 million Americans do not even have any form of medical insurance, then they do not know much about the historical development of countries. One reason that they do not have that insurance is that there is no commitment to public social policy such as we have established in this country. We do not want our country to regress to that stage.
I hope Canadians will have an opportunity to read and consider the implications of another sector of this agreement. It is that of investment. This agreement sets criteria that will prohibit provincial or federal Governments from attaching performance criteria to investment in this country, and that the establishment of basic market principles are to be the standard for judgment of economic activity. In that respect we are deeply concerned that the new ceiling at which takeovers will be considered in industry and industrial development in Canada is raised to $150 million. This means that some 500 or fewer companies in Canada will be screened in terms of future takeover bids.
December 18, 1987

Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the competitiveness of Canada, the confidence, the zest or determination of Canada. Those are important notions, not merely cliches as the Government has made them.
Governments in the post-war period of this country, indeed most other industrialized countries, have been concerned about having legislation permitting certain frameworks of control and conditions for capital coming in. They made the common-sense judgment that those with dominant economic power afe more likely than not to use it for their own economic interest if they are allowed to have their way. It does not take a genius to understand that. I only wish more Conservatives would understand it.
Canada has many vibrant and innovative firms. Our Party is concerned that a larger conglomerate with 10 times the financial resources in the United States, which may not be as competent but has more capital at its disposal, will simply come in and gobble up those innovative firms. They can take all of the advantages developed by the smaller or mediumsized firms in Canada and transfer them to the United States. We in the New Democratic Party do not plan to stand by and let that happen.
I ask Conservative Members of the House in particular, and Premiers as well, to read a study that was released by Statistics Canada a few weeks ago which compares the performance of foreign-owned firms in Canada with Canadian-owned firms in the period from 1978 to 1985. It does not come as much of a surprise to discover that in the comparison of job creation in relation to profits that were made, Canadian firms were outperforming the Americans by a considerable margin in terms of creating jobs here in Canada. That is not rhetoric, that is the reality. I wish Members on the government side would look at their own data.
I want to say a few words about the auto sector. Not only has the Prime Minister, with his propaganda here today, but also many Ministers of the Cabinet and premiers across the country, have tried to persuade Canadians that the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement was an example of free trade. That agreement has had a very positive impact in my constituency as well as many others in Ontario, and has had a great advantage for Canada. They suggest that somehow the New Democratic Party is opposed to this kind of development, which has worked so well in Ontario, taking place elsewhere in Canada.
While I do not want to use the same rhetoric as Mr. Reisman about the big lie, and will forgo some of the historical comparisons he made, I will say that it is an utter distortion of the truth to call the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement a free trade agreement.
Perhaps some Conservative back-benchers do not know the reality because they were not here at the time. However, the classical refutation of that argument is that when the Auto Pact came in, the big three automotive companies had to sign letters committing themselves to a certain level of investment
Free Trade
in Canada. I can say that we would not have the level of investment in my constituency if we had a free trade agreement in 1965. We have the investment today because it was managed trade and because the then Government negotiated, on balance, a good deal for Canada. That is the truth.
If the Tories in particular were interested in talking about the truth on this issue, they could cite my colleagues and myself as having stated that we are very happy in principle to take the model of the Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement, by and large, and look at different sectors of the Canadian economy wherever we can and bring that into place, precisely because it is a managed trade agreement that has built into it certain guaranteed benefits for Canada. Next time the Tories cite the Auto Pact and cite the NDP, at least for once would they tell the truth?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to talk about another aspect of this deal that the Government has systematically distorted, which is the dispute settlement mechanism. This was the name of the game, as we understood it, when the Government embarked on these trade negotiations. They stated, and I think all Parties in the House agreed with this objective, that what we ought to try to do was to put in place an institution, a mechanism, or whatever we want to call it, that would remove some of the unfair trade barriers that existed in terms of our exports to the United States. There were some concerns from time to time on the Canadian side, but the overriding concern was for us to have free and fair access to U.S. markets.
At the time the Minister for International Trade was quite explicit about the Government's agenda, which was to get rid of all those unfair U.S. laws and unfair countervailing practices. The bottom line was to get rid of those. Some of us were quite sceptical about the possibility of getting rid of those completely, because some of us know something about the powers of the U.S. Congress and the history of the United States. If that was the bottom line that the Conservatives had on their agenda, we said, "Good luck to them". They said that that was really what they were all about. They had to get guaranteed access and get rid of those bad laws. We know that they did nothing of the kind. The tune has now changed. What they want to do is to have a few Canadians on the board who will lend legitimacy in one sense to the interpretation of American law. That is real success!
Even after the delays from October until a couple of weeks ago when we saw the final wording, the whole thing has become even more complicated. The essential principle remains, the U.S. Congress retains its right, whether it is in softwood, shakes and shingles, tubular steel, or pork. Whenever we win the competition, the U.S. Congress retains its right to pass unfair discriminatory law against us. That has not changed. But the newly constituted, latest, last minute, up-to-date tribunal that the Government has negotiated, at the first

December 18, 1987
Free Trade
stage in the new process of coming to grips with one of these unfair acts, will take up to 315 days, or almost one year potentially, to correct some unfair action. Even at the end, and God knows how many months beyond that it will go on, the U.S. Congress still retains its right to take unfair action against Canadians who happen to be winning the competition.
To paraphrase an old Conservative, rarely has so much been given away by a Government to get so little, as the Government of Canada has done in this particular deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I wish to conclude my remarks today by dealing with two final matters. The Government has not attempted to defend the details of what it has brought out, and I suspect that it never will. But it has indulged in two types of arguments about those of us on the other side of this very important historical issue. On the one hand, the Government has stated that it is either this or nothing; that lofty intellectual argument that we either accept this particular proposal, or there is nothing else around. That certainly shows the limits of the Conservative imagination. It is this deal or nothing.
I will not go on at length, Mr. Speaker, since I have done so in other speeches in the House and outside, but today I simply want to say to Canadians that there are alternatives. One does not have to accept a bad deal in place of other options that are open to us as a nation. I wish to put it in context. When the Government started negotiations there was a surplus in our commercial trade of some $20 billion in the very year the negotiations were launched. As I said in another context when talking to a business person, only a Conservative would be so stupid as to remind the U.S. Congress, most of whom were quite asleep on this particular point, that we had a $20 billion surplus. Mentioning that point woke many Americans up to that reality. But we had a $20 billion surplus when the negotiations started, and even this year when the figures came out, I believe last Thursday, they showed that the surplus up to October of this year was running at a $10.1 billion in terms of trade with the U.S.
The point I want to make here is that, in terms of the so-called status quo, we are doing quite well in terms of our trade with the United States. One might even say that we have been winning the competition. As a Canadian, what pleases me particularly is looking at some of the new areas. It is not only as the hewers of wood and the drawers of water that we have been doing well in recent years.
My research staff have prepared some data comparing our exports to the United States from 1980 to 1986 to see how well we have been doing. Some interesting patterns emerged. In the manufacturing field, crushing and milling machinery and parts, we exported to the United States some $7.4 million in 1980, and in 1986 that had gone up to $19.5 million. In construction machinery and equipment we exported $36 million in 1980, which had gone up to $76 million in 1986. In parts for pulp and paper industrial machinery we exported
$49.8 million in 1980, and that was up to $60 million in 1986. In aircraft assembly we exported $561 million in 1980, and that was up to $1,150 billion in 1986. In radar equipment and related devices and parts we exported $5 million in 1980, and $33 million in 1986. In commercial telecommunications equipment we exported $122 million in 1980, and that was up to $260 million in 1986.
The point I wish to make with only a few of those statistics is that there has been an interesting and important development of the Canadian economy in the last 10 to 15 years, which one can begin to see in this six year period of statistics. Finally, we are getting away from being simply an exporter of raw materials. We have been winning the competition. I wish to remind the Prime Minister that we do not have to take a back seat to the United States of America. We are doing very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Among other things, my Party has stated that we should build on those strengths. We can have bilateral arrangements in certain sectors with the United States. We should pursue a reduction in tariffs where there is unfair access to the United States, most effectively, as others have argued in this debate, through the GATT working with other smaller-sized nations to deal with that big economic giant, the United States, to receive fairer trade practices. We have said that we should expand our efforts in trade to the Pacific Rim, to South America and Central America. We have lost some of our older markets in Europe because this Government has concentrated so much on the United States. We should be going back to some of those markets in Europe.
All of this should be embraced, in our judgment, in an overall industrial strategy, in a mixed economy, recognizing provincial jurisdictional authority, and worked out with the provinces and the private sector to put in place an over-all industrial development strategy, geared to achieving one day full employment. That can be done. The Austrians, the Swedes, and the Japanese have done it, and it is time that we did it, because we can do it. There are other options, I say to the people of Canada, than this big giveaway which the Conservatives want them to accept.
The second argument, which the Government has attempted to use, whether it is in the House or out in the country, has been that all confident and imaginative Canadians are for this deal-whether they be male, female, westerners, easterners, central Canadians, farmers, or auto workers, that everyone of a positive, imaginative, and confident bent is for this deal, and everyone who does not fit into those categories of positive human attributes is on the other side. It argues that all those who have fear and apprehension and are lacking in confidence are opposed.
If we are going to make a guess about this, it is exactly the reverse of what the Government is going to say. However, I am
December 18, 1987

not going to indulge in the same propaganda as the Government on the other side. I am not going to say that all people of confidence, imagination, and determination are opposed to this deal. I am just saying that all the people of that kind that 1 know are opposed to this deal, and I want to put it in some kind of perspective.
Let us look at the country in which we live. As a Canadian and as a person who came of age, reached maturity or adulthood in the fifties, I would like to reflect upon our country. Let us look at what has happened in this Canada of ours since 1945. There has been a profound change in almost every respect. As a country we no longer defer to Great Britain. In the 1911 great debate on free trade the slogans used were: "Keep Canada British". Well, it was not even British then. There was a certain major province on the other side of this province which was ignored in that sloganeering, but we understand, with an historical perspective, why that slogan might have been the case in 1911. We are no longer, as 1 say, a nation which is deferential toward Britain, to say the least. However, for many years I think that was the case. Canadians had a sense, if they were to make it in whatever field they were in, whether it was in sports, creative arts, or business, that they had to do it in the United States. There was a transformation from Britain to the United States in the psychic imagination of Canadians, consistent with our development.
If there is anything that is true of our generation today, that is behind us. If there is anything that is true of Canadians in their adult years now, it is the recognition of this great country of ours. I do not care what the field is, whether it is business or the arts. I happen to like fiction, but I can read a Margaret Atwood, a Margaret Laurence, an Alice Munroe, or a Mordechai Richler in the knowledge that they are not simply good Canadian writers but that they are among the very best in the English language in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If one listens to music, one could name a Glenn Gould or an Angela Hewitt, again the best in the world. If one goes into a cinema, what are the two top internationally recognized movies? One came out of the Province of Quebec in this past year, Le declin de I'empire americain, and another came out of Toronto. They are internationally recognized. If one looks at our athletes, at virtually every aspect of Canadian life, one finds that for a nation of 25 million people we do not have to boast that we are the best in the world, but I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that we are right up there. We are second to none in our confidence and in our creative capacity.
It is precisely this generation of Canadians who are saying to the Conservatives that only a Conservative Prime Minister at this time would say that to be a confident, creative, selfassertive Canadian one has to be American. How ridiculous can they get?
Business of the House
We say that the Government does not have the mandate for this deal. Whether we consider energy, services, automotive parts, Crown corporations, the broad future of this wonderful nation of ours, our tradition of a mixed economy, or our particular blending of liberty and equality which is different from that of the United States, we do not need, we do not want, and we must not have this package of proposals which the Conservatives want to foist on the people of Canada. Instead of ignoring the- democratic rights of our people to understand the details and implications of this deal by forcing it through and signing it on January 2, the Government should live up to its democratic obligations, recognize that it did not discuss it in 1984, has no mandate for it today, and ought to have a general election on it early in 1988.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Further to the Order made earlier this day, perhaps we could now revert to motions and recognize the Hon. Minister of State.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as you have just suggested, the next order of business prior to Private Members' Hour is to call the motion that is presently on the Order Paper in respect of the adjournment of the House.
There have been discussions among the Parties, and I would just inquire at this time whether or not there is any disposition among my colleagues to amend the motion presently on the Order Paper immediately prior to Your Honour calling the same.


Mr. Benjamin:: Amended to what?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Then, Mr. Speaker, if there is no disposition to amend the same, I would ask-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I fear that I did not catch the purpose of the intervention that the Minister was making; I was being disturbed by colleagues. I wonder whether he could repeat the proposition so that we all understand what he wants and what he is talking about.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There were discussions with respect to the date of the return of the House, and I just asked the House if there was disposition to seek an amendment to the motion prior to it being put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am quite open to any proposal which the Government might wish to make to amend its own motion. I wonder what

December 18, 1987
Motions
amendment it has in mind, but 1 am willing to listen to it and perhaps also to accept it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would be perfectly prepared, as my colleague knows, to make that amendment, but not without completing consultations with the House Leader of the NDP.
It is my signal from him that there is no point in proceeding any further, so I suggest that the amendment be put, unless he wishes to make a comment at this time.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, to be very clear about it, there have been extensive discussions between the Parties. We have come to an agreement, and the agreement is reflected on the Order Paper.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That when the House adjourns on Friday, December 18, 1987, it shall stand adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m., Monday, January 18, 1988:
Provided that;
At any time before that date, should any bill or bills be awaiting the giving of Royal Assent, the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker shall convene a meeting of the House at a time to be fixed by the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker by notifying the Chief Whip of each party, for the sole purpose of the giving of Royal Assent to any bill or bills;
Upon the completion of the giving of Royal Assent, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker shall adjourn the House until the date specified in this order;
The provisions of Standing Order 5 shall apply during the period of adjournment; and
For the purposes of Standing Order 4, the first sitting day in 1988 shall be deemed to have been January 1 1, 1988.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to Private Members' Hour.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND GOODWILL DAY MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington) moved: that Bill C-238, an Act respecting international peace and goodwill, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House for consideration and second reading debate an Act respecting International Peace and Goodwill Day. The purpose of this legislation is to change the name associated with December 26 from Boxing Day to International Peace and Goodwill Day in honour of Canada's commitment to world peace and goodwill among all nations and people.
This Bill is a direct result of my great concern about the world's present situation and what kind of future we are building for ourselves. The recent historic summit between Soviet Leader Gorbachev and President Reagan gives hope and optimism for moving away from the so-called policy of mutual assured destruction by which nations hold each other hostage to nuclear terror and destruction. This is only a small step forward, and it is imperative that we continue to remind the world that we have a long way to go on disarmament and relieving human suffering throughout the world. Hopefully the Government will support this proposal or at least refer the subject material to an appropriate legislative committee for further study.
There is nothing more important that we could discuss here or anywhere than the survival of the human race. I strongly believe that we are masters of our own fate. We, as Members of Parliament, representing peace loving Canadians have an opportunity to stress the importance of international peace and goodwill further by supporting this initiative. Never before in the history of the world has there been a more crucial time to demonstrate the need for peace and goodwill. We are living in a world constantly threatened by nuclear war. We are living in a world constantly threatened by conventional forces. We are collectively held hostage in fear as each new act of terrorism is committed. Acts of terrorism and the building of arms must be stopped.
Nuclear war became a very real threat to the world once the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan. No other country has experienced the horrible reality and aftermath of nuclear war. We have a duty to ourselves and the rest of the world to ensure that this does not happen again.
Until recently, instead of trying to stop the growth in numbers of nuclear weapons, we became obsessed with equalling our powers, not limiting them. We have lived in a world where the major global powers have been preoccupied with preparing for nuclear war, not preventing one. There are
December 18, 1987

presently enough nuclear weapons in the world to kill every human being several times over. We have seen some very real and positive steps taken toward limiting the arms race. It was most heartening to see the two superpowers, President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev, come together and sign a treaty scrapping 2,000 U.S. and Soviet medium and shorter range nuclear missiles within the three year period.
Decades ago Canada chose not to acquire nuclear weapons. This was a practical contribution to the control of nuclear arms. We must as individuals continue to encourage and facilitate any meetings or discussions to further the goal of world peace, and I believe that changing the name of Boxing Day would go a long way to remind everyone of the importance of peace and goodwill. I hope there will not be excuses such as minor technical problems used as a smokescreen to discourage serious consideration of this Bill.
As a Member of this Elouse at the time, I remember changing the name of Dominion Day to Canada Day. I suggest this would not be any more of a problem than that change. I objected to that substitution and I would like to have seen that national holiday called Dominion of Canada Day with the short title for those who wished either Dominion Day or Canada Day.
Today the whole world seems to be growing in its awareness of the terror and futility of the arms race. The United Nations continues to promote world peace at a time when all citizens of the world are becoming more and more aware of the need and urgency to seek peace and goodwill and lasting peace. We must redirect our thinking and rid ourselves of any arrogance toward this earth and each other and replace those negative attitudes with respect and love for this planet. It is our home, and we are responsible for the shape of things to come for future generations. Our citizens are crying out for world peace and, as Members of Parliament, we have a duty to seek that which our citizens want.
We are a fortunate country and have long enjoyed benefits of a peaceful and prosperous nation, living in a free and democratic society. Our history shows how often Canada has been in the forefront by helping other countries through troubled times.
We have consistently demonstrated our Compassion and goodwill toward others. We can be proud of our example to the rest of the world. This is another opportunity for Canada to take the lead. Designating December 26 as International Peace and Goodwill Day will demonstrate to the rest of the world that Canada, and Canadians, are committed to the goal of world peace.
Such a change in name will not detract from any of our traditions. No one is more aware of customs than I. My strong belief in our traditions is on record as a descendant of the United Empire Loyalists who carved society out of this harsh Canadian climate. I believe that such a name change will, in fact, enhance our historical view of Boxing Day. The traditional concept of this day being one to honour and celebrate
Peace and Goodwill Day
goodwill toward mankind will be expanded and enriched as we include the whole world with our goal of world peace and goodwill. Unless we recognize the imminent danger that we face, not just as Canadians, but as human beings, we run the risk of losing everything.
Our goal today should not only be to respect our traditions but to learn from our mistakes and make a positive legacy for future generations so that they will have an opportunity to enjoy and appreciate what we so often have a tendency to take for granted.
We must continue to work toward world peace if we are to have a world in which to carry on our traditions. There are many concerns, challenges and battles which face all of us on a daily basis, but without lasting peace this may be our last challenge. It is only fitting that we mark a day of peace directly following the day we celebrate the birth of the Prince of Peace. This can be a concrete reminder to us all where our hope should be placed.
In conclusion, may I again stress that the creation of International Peace and Goodwill Day will demonstrate to the world Canada's commitment to continue seeking world peace and goodwill while maintaining the principles of our traditions. I urge Members of this House once again to support this legislative proposal.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Van-koughnet) for bringing this Bill before the House at this time. It is very timely. I had even hoped that peace and goodwill would come to the House of Commons this week, the week before Christmas.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: It has been one of the most pugilistic and intense weeks with more packed into it, not with acrimony but certainly with liveliness, than I have seen in a long while. The motion is timely from that point of view.
Of course, the motion is also timely in terms of what is happening in the world. It comes on the heels of the Reagan-Gorbachev summit and the goodwill that flowed out of that. I believe that that summit conveyed optimism and hope for the future to all of us. I welcome the measure from that point of view as well.
Of course, the very season of the year suggests that this is an appropriate topic to bring forward this afternoon. However, it is worth while pointing out that Boxing Day indeed flows from Christmas Day itself.
Growing up in St. John's, Newfoundland, I can recall when we still had mail delivery. That was before the present Government got into power. As well, other things were

December 18, 1987
Peace and Goodwill Day
delivered to the house. Those who burned coal had coal delivered, those who drank milk had milk delivered and so on.
On Boxing Day, boxes were put together for those who delivered and collected, for the garbageman, the milkman, the deliverer of coal and the like. It flowed out of Christmas Day and the spirit of that day was indeed that which was fundamental and essential to Christmas itself.
The meaning of Boxing Day is that it is a day on which one continues to give and on which the spirit of Christmas continues. That is the tradition in Canada. Oddly enough, I suppose, if I were to continue that line of argument, Mr. Speaker, you could tell me that I was a Conservative. However, some things are worth holding on to.
On the other hand, I see the wisdom of what the Hon. Member has proposed. I think his Bill is laudable. I wonder, though, if we need to express those feelings on Boxing Day, if we actually need to change the meaning of Boxing Day. For instance, there is the practice of Boxing Day sales. How many housewives will be inconvenienced if there is no Boxing Day? I know many people who buy their New Year's gifts, next year's Christmas cards and gift-wrapping paper on Boxing Day at Boxing Day sales. Many people would think that that tradition should continue as well. Certainly the retail community would feel that way.
I wonder if we need to express the thought expressed by the Hon. Member's motion on Boxing Day itself. Perhaps we could have Boxing Day and still express international goodwill.
I think it is very appropriate that we are discussing this today in this Chamber. Historically, Canada has expressed this feeling possibly more than most. The record of this country is one of peace-keeping. We have provided an atmosphere of compromise in which international incidents, issues and problems could be and have been resolved. I think it is appropriate that this topic come up in the Canadian House of Parliament today.
1 want to support the spirit of the Hon. Member's proposal, but I wonder if we actually need to do away with Boxing Day itself in order to achieve what the Hon. Member wants. I think we should focus on it for one day and indeed every day of the year. When the preacher preaches to those who are in church on Christmas morning, he will in all likelihood say that the spirit of Christmas should not simply pertain only for that one day of the year but indeed throughout all the year. While I appreciate that, I still think it would be useful to have one day set aside for that in order to focus people on the issue. Whether the day needs to be Boxing Day is a matter that is open to question.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for bringing this measure forward today. I certainly support in principle what he is trying to do. I would conclude by offering those who are in the Chamber and those who are not all the goodwill for this Christmas season and for when we next sit again.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment both Hon. Members who have just spoken on this Bill. I think there is very little we can find to say that would not be in favour of what the Hon. Member is proposing. The substance of the Hon. Member's Bill is good. He did mention, however, that there could be some technicalities that might make it difficult. My job is to point out several of these technicalities that would make it difficult for the Government.
Bill C-238 proposes in substance to amend the Canada Labour Code in order to change the name of Boxing Day to International Peace and Goodwill Day. However, I doubt if such a gesture would make any concrete or substantive contribution to international peace and goodwill. Should Canada alone speak for the world community? Would not this laudable effort be best directed to the United Nations?
1 realize that the cause of world peace is not a trivial one. However, with all due respect to the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Van-koughnet), I am afraid that the proposed change is unlikely to achieve the goal it espouses. Even if by passing the Bill we would be promoting world peace, I fear the whole exercise would be beyond the scope of the Canada Labour Code. The Code deals with the rights, safety and well-being of Canadian workers, an issue distinct from the precise matter at hand.
We must also remember that not all workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code. Roughly 90 per cent of Canadian workers are regulated by provincial labour laws and none of the provincial statutes recognize Boxing Day as a paid holiday.
The federal Government and all the provinces and territories have legislation of broad application dealing with paid general holidays. However, the list of holidays and details concerning employees' rights to these holidays vary from one jurisdiction to the next.
Under the Canada Labour Code, Part III, Division 4, nine general holidays in a year are to be observed as paid holidays. These are New Year's Day, Good Friday, Victoria Day, Canada Day, Labour Day, Thanksgiving Day, Remembrance Day, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.
The Code also provides that under certain conditions, an alternative holiday may be substituted for any of the nine holidays specified. Should a holiday occur on a day on which an employee does not normally work, he or she must be granted a day off with pay in lieu of the holiday either at a time convenient to the employer and employee or by the addition of a day to the annual vacation leave.
If Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Canada Day or Remembrance Day fall on a Saturday or Sunday that is a nonworking day for an employee, the employee must be given a holiday with pay on the working day immediately before or after the general holiday. These provisions regarding alternative days off do not apply, however, to employees covered by a
December 18, 1987

collective agreement that entitles them to at least nine paid holidays a year.
The Code lays down the general principle that an employee in a federal undertaking who does not work on a holiday is entitled to regular pay for the day. If the employee is paid by the week or month, wages must not be reduced by reason of his or her not working on a holiday. If the employee is paid on any other basis, he or she must receive the equivalent of the regular wages for a normal working day.
The regular rate of wages for an employee whose hours of work vary from day to day or who is paid other than on an hourly or daily basis is the average of daily earnings exclusive of overtime for the 20 days worked immediately preceding the holiday. An employee in a federal undertaking required to work on a general holiday is entitled to regular wages for the day and, in addition, to time and one-half the regular rate for all time worked. In other words, the employee is paid two and a half times the usual rate.
Different provisions apply to those employed in continuous operations who are required to work on a holiday. A continuous operation is defined to include any industrial establishment in which, during a seven-day period, operations normally continue without cessation until the end of that period. For example, the operation of trains, planes, ships, trucks and other vehicles, telephone, radio, television, telegraph or other communication or broadcasting services, or any other operation normally carried on without regard to weekends or holidays. An employee who works on a holiday must be paid regular wages for the day and must, in addition, be paid one and a half times the regular rate for the time worked, or must be granted holiday with pay at some other time. This may involve either a day added to annual vacation or another day off where convenient to the employee and employer. Or, where a collective agreement so provides, the employee must be paid for the holiday on his or next non-working day. However, an employee not entitled to wages for at least 15 days during the 30 calendar days immediately preceding the holiday is entitled to one-twentieth of the wages earned during those 30 days.
There are some situations in which an employee is not entitled to holiday pay. An employee is not entitled to pay for a general holiday that occurs in his or her first 30 days of employment with an employer, but if required to work on a holiday he or she must be paid time and one-half the regular rate. If employed in a continuous operation, he or she may be paid at the regular rate for work done on a holiday.
At the provincial level, as I mentioned, none of the labour laws recognize Boxing Day as a paid holiday. Obviously, some collective agreements may provide such a holiday, and in most provinces, provincial or municipal laws oblige retail establishments to close on Boxing Day, although this does not entitle employees to a paid holiday. Therefore, the change proposed
Peace and Goodwill Day
by this Bill would not only be purely symbolic, it would also affect a very small proportion of Canadian workers.
Therefore, I urge Hon. Members not to support this Bill.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the comments not only of my friend, the sponsor of this Bill, but the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). He made a statement that I know was in jest but I believe in the honest record-keeping of this august Chamber, so I would point out that it was truly a previous Government that stopped delivering the mail on Boxing Day. I think Canada Post is more interested in a different kind of boxing these days.
As my hon. colleagues are well aware, not every duty of a Member of Parliament is a pleasant one. It is with considerable reservation that I stand in this House barely a week before Christmas to oppose a Bill whose intention is to promote peace and goodwill. I hope a few months hence I will not be rising, in the second or third week of May, in order to oppose a Bill whose purpose is to promote motherhood. Therefore, at the risk of sounding like the Grinch, I must oppose this Bill. Not because I am any less interested in peace and goodwill than my hon. colleague, but because the change to the Canada Labour Code he is recommending would be nothing but a symbolic change which would make no meaningful contribution to the worthy cause he is advocating.
To begin with, the Canada Labour Code applies to a rather small proportion of the Canadian workforce, that is, employees in industries under federal labour jurisdiction. Such enterprises include interprovincial or international works such as railways, highway transport, telephone, telegraph and cable systems, pipelines, canals, ferries, tunnels, bridges, and shipping, as well as all forms of broadcasting, banking, air transport, grain elevators, and some 40 Crown corporations. Also included are industries declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada, such as uranium mining.
In addition, the occupational safety and health provisions of the Code apply to the federal Public Service, operating employees in the transportation industry, and workers involved in the exploration for and development of oil and gas in certain Canada lands. As well, the industrial relations provisions of the Code apply to all industries in Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Generally speaking, all other enterprises fall within provincial or territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, even if we were to pass the Hon. Member's Bill, Boxing Day would become International Peace and Goodwill Day for less than 10 per cent of Canada's workforce. Furthermore, even if we were to change the name of the holiday to International Peace and Goodwill Day, does anyone in this House seriously believe that any substantial number of Canadians would drop the old, familiar and short name in favour of a new, 10-syllable name?
I recall a contest in my own City of Edmonton to find a cute name for the Edmonton Coliseum. "The Igloo" was suggested.

December 18, 1987
Peace and Goodwill Day
Various other cute names were put forward. I think several thousand entries were obtained. Of course, it was called the Edmonton Coliseum.
Let us be realistic. The only practical effect of the proposed amendments would be to create an interesting new bit of Canadian trivia. We could have this question: What is the official name of Boxing Day in the Canada Labour Code? That could take its place next to: How many Canadian provinces do not touch on salt water? As far as I can see, that would be the only practical effect of the proposed change.
In addition, this Bill seems to assume that Canadians will not mind doing away with the fine old traditional name of Boxing Day. On the contrary, I think it is a wonderful name and a great many people in this country would object to doing away with such an interesting and distinctive name which has become part of our Canadian culture.
Although Boxing Day is British in origin, our observance of the holiday and our use of the term is a trait that truly sets us apart from our friends and neighbours to the south. In fact, in light of the debate which immediately preceded this debate today, I think all of us, including those who support furiously and fervently the free trade initiative, want to preserve our Canadian culture. That goes without saying. So let us preserve Boxing Day.
It is true that many Americans have never even heard the term and are slightly shocked that we associate a season of peace and goodwill with fisticuffs. As we know, the term Boxing Day has nothing to do with the sport of boxing, although there is more than one theory as to its origin. The prevailing view is that it is the day on which Christmas boxes are given to errand boys, postmen and those entitled to gratuities. Another theory holds that the day after Christmas was the day on which poor boxes in english churches were opened and their contents distributed to the needy. According to this theory, the boxes were opened the day after Christmas because, hopefully, they had been filled to bursting the day before by generous church-goers filled with the holiday spirit. Still another theory holds that on the day after Christmas rich homes would pack leftovers from their Yuletide celebration into boxes and distribute them to the poor so they could enjoy their own modest feast. Finally, Sir, there is the modern wag who advanced the theory that the term derives from the practice of everyone boxing the gifts they received in order to return them to the stores.
Whichever of the serious theories we accept, it is obvious that Boxing Day is based on concepts of charity and concern for others. Indeed, it is interesting to note that even today in Canada Boxing Day is often the time when people show their concern for others by participating in blood donor clinics. On the other hand, symbolic changes such as this Bill proposes can often be worse than ineffectual. They can give the false impression that something of substance has been done for world peace.
I know that the Hon. Member who sponsored this Bill labours mightily for world peace. It is his top priority. So what I am saying today I say with some hesitation and reservation. It is easy to pay lip service to the cause of peace. It is quite another thing to address the ingrained problems of oppression, injustice, inequality, and human suffering that deny humanity that elusive goal.
We know that Canada is at the forefront of international peace efforts and especially involved in the role played by the International Labour Organization. The ILO is the oldest United Nations agency. Created in 1919 under the Treaty of Versailles, the organization pursues the objective of promoting lasting peace through the reduction of poverty and the improvement of working conditions throughout the world.
In line with the preamble of its constitution, which proclaims that universal and lasting peace can only be established if it is based on social justice, the ILO's main activity since its establishment has been the adoption of conventions, which are subject to ratification, and recommendations, which provide guidance on the formulation of national policies, legislation, and practices.
Over the years the ILO has adopted more than 160 conventions and 170 recommendations which together form the International Labour Code. These conventions and recommendations cover many subjects including basic human rights- such as freedom of association, equal pay, and the elimination of discrimination in employment-labour administration, industrial relations, employment policy, social security, and occupational safety and health. Once adopted by the conference, ILO conventions can be ratified by member states.
Each member state is required to bring the conventions and recommendations adopted by the conference to the attention of its national legislative authorities. When a country ratifies an ILO convention it undertakes to comply with the provisions of that convention and to report regularly to the ILO on the measures taken to that end.
Canada's relationship with the ILO goes back to the very beginning. Indeed, Canada was among the 45 founding countries of the organization in 1919 and has been a strong supporter of the ILO's objectives and programs ever since. An interesting historical footnote is that when the ILO headquarters in Geneva was believed to be threatened during World War II, Canada invited the organization to move temporarily to McGill University in Montreal where it remained from 1940 to 1948. I know you, Mr. Speaker, remember that very well.
Throughout the history of the ILO Canadians representing governments, workers, and employers have actively participated in ILO activities. In many instances, Canadians have been elected to the organization's highest offices.
December 18, 1987

In 1966 and again in 1986 Canada hosted the regional conference of American states which are members of the ILO. This conference meets every five or six years to address issues of common concern to the countries in the region which consists of North and South America and the Caribbean.
Canada's financial contribution to the ILO, which is the eighth largest of any member state, is in the order of $5 million annually, which represents approximately 3 per cent of the organization's budget.
It is through efforts such as these, rather than symbolic changes, that Canada can work for world peace and goodwill. In summary, when the Hon. Member introduced the motion before the House today, he acknowledged that Boxing Day follows the birthday of the Prince of Peace. I submit that it would be fundamental and indeed most fitting to do everything in our power to remember the Prince of Peace on December 25 and to extend goodwill to all. Therefore, I ask Hon. Members not to support Bill C-238.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is fitting that on the day Parliament rises for the Christmas break we have a discussion on designating December 26 as International Peace and Goodwill Day.
This raises a number of questions for me. For many years in this House I have listened to my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), make many speeches to the effect, I suppose, of setting aside every day for international peace and goodwill.
I am not questioning the intentions of the Hon. Member who submitted this idea, but to set aside one day of the year to focus our attention on international peace and goodwill would be to miss a real opportunity. I think Canadians all believe that Canada has a unique role to play in international peace and goodwill.
Canada is seen by many nations as being a non-aggressor, a nation with no imperialistic tendencies. We have been known for some years for our international peace-keeping forces, for much good works in development, and for playing a role in international peace conferences and promoting the peace movement internationally as well as at home. I would much rather have the Government propose to target every day for international peace and goodwill and take a number of steps toward achieving the goals implicit in that designation.
We just witnessed the signing of a major treaty between the two superpowers, which was a major step toward arms reduction. Yet, the Government continues its policy of testing the cruise missile. It is very clear that we must now take steps to remove ourselves from the testing of this deadly first-strike weapon.
As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) made the commitment to the people of Canada that once the treaty was signed and a step toward
Peace and Goodwill Day
arms reduction took place Canada would extract itself from this testing program. Of course, such has not been the case.
The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam has, on a number of occasions, urged the Secretary of State for External Affairs to ensure that Canada take a much more significant role in encouraging the peace process in Central America. On many occasions she has urged the Minister to make contact with the United States administration and encourage them to back off in their support for dictatorial regimes in Nicaragua and other regions of the world. Other than lip service, we have not seen very much.
Suggestions were made, again by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, that the Government now take a leadership role in encouraging the superpowers to continue the process of arms reduction. Again, such has not been the case.
It is, therefore, with some frustration that I speak to this private Member's Bill. I respect the motive of the Hon. Member in wanting to designate December 26 as International Peace and Goodwill Day rather than Boxing Day. I applaud and support the general intention. However, I would much rather see the Hon. Member take the initiative to urge the Government which he represents to take meaningful steps toward international peace and goodwill. I have mentioned only three initiatives which could be taken. There are many others.
I appreciate the motive of the hon. back-bencher of the Government, but it would be much more appropriate to expand this concept to ensure that Canada plays a major leadership role in moving the world toward more peace and goodwill, especially in terms of the reduction of the arms buildup.
Therefore, my feelings are rather mixed. I support the intention, but I do not believe that if we set aside December 26 as International Peace and Goodwill Day we will have made a major step forward. I believe that would tend to divert attention from the real and meaningful initiatives which the Government of Canada should be taking with regard to international peace and goodwill.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill C-238, an Act respecting International Peace and Goodwill Day. As you know, the Bill was first read on December 1, 1986, just over a year ago. As other Members have said, it is also very appropriate that we should be reviewing this Bill at this time of Christmas and the spirit of peace and goodwill toward all.
There are three important comments in the preamble of the Bill which I want to review. The first states:
Whereas the people of Canada endorse the objective of world peace;
I think we all agree with that. The second states:
Whereas they seek earnestly to achieve this end:

December 18, 1987
Peace and Goodwill Day
1 think the record of Canada has been exemplary around the world in this respect. Third, it states:
And whereas they seek to set an example of their commitment to the nations of the world;
Again, Canada's example has been unquestionable.
The Bill itself deals with changing the name of a national holiday, which is a very serious matter and one which I believe deserves very solemn and strong consideration by Members of the House.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hastings-Fron-tenac-Lennox-Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet), is to be commended for his initiative in introducing this matter, because the pursuit of peace, whether it is the formal recognition of a day in Canada, through discussions in this House, through efforts at conferences or through Canada's middle power role with the superpowers, is something that we can and should never lose sight of.
However, let us consider the holiday which this Bill seeks to change, Boxing Day, December 26. As is observed in the useful book High Days and Holidays in Canada:
The day is almost a continuation of Christmas, for the customs associated with it are practically the same. Boxing Day, the name given by the English to the day after Christmas, is a bank holiday with them. On that day, Christmas 'boxes' are given to errand boys, postmen and those who are entitled to gratuities . . .
This pleasant holiday observance has been embraced by Canada in name, certainly, although I dare say the spreading of "tributes" to errand boys, postmen and, in our context, newspaper boys and girls, laneway shovellers and so on, is done in advance of Christmas rather than the day after.
My colleague from Newfoundland referred to the days when the milkmen used to deliver milk to the house. I remember my mother and father giving them an extra gift at Christmas. While we always forgot to give something to the horse, the milkmen certainly received a gift. These days, we normally give gifts to service people who help us throughout the course of the year before Christmas.
However, the traditions of Boxing Day in the other sense have stayed. It is a day of rest and relaxation, of spending time with our families and associating with the joys of Christmas. It is a day that we spend visiting our relatives and counting our blessings. Usually it is also a day of rest and recuperation from the pressures and stress often associated with the preparation for Christmas Day. Our grandparents, mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles and godmothers can all testify to the tremendous efforts that go into preparing for Christmas Day.
We must consider whether this is the appropriate atmosphere for Canadians to spend a day paying honour and tribute to international peace and goodwill. Perhaps we should rethink the matter somewhat.
As I said a moment ago, one can hardly be opposed to the notion that international peace and goodwill are worthy subjects for being honoured, perhaps even with a national
holiday. However, when one is in the overindulged, post-Christmas Day, when we are full of food and fun, I question whether it would be appropriate to pick that day as the internationial day for peace and goodwill.
As my colleague, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said, we should not downplay the importance of pursuing peace and goodwill, not just on one day, but on every day. I think of the strife we see throughout the world today with the problems in Lebanon in the Middle East, the conflict in Northern Ireland, the Gulf war between Iran and Iraq, where hundreds of thousands have died. There is conflict between Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab. There is the conflict between the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. There is tremendous strife in Central America. I visited Africa recently, where I saw the strife in Zimbabwe, Angola, and Mozambique. There is tremendous strife in the Republic of South Africa.
I think of what we saw in South Korea yesterday and today. There is political strife in Afghanistan between the people and the Soviet military. We saw tremendous conflict in Haiti. One need not look very far to see examples in the world where there is no peace.
Let us focus on the more serious issues for a moment. International peace has long been of major concern to Canada, and our commitment to peace as well as our tolerant attitudes toward all peoples hold true today. Canadians are particularly fortunate to live in what has been called "a peaceable kingdom". There have been no real wars on our soil in more than a century and a half, nor has there ever been a war of Canadian origin or for a Canadian cause.
Canadian leaders infinitely prefer to make treaties rather than to take up arms. Indeed, right at the beginning of our nationhood, when the Provinces of Canada were united in a Confederation in 1867, the legal document making it official promised Canadian citizens "peace, order and good government". I am reminded of my own Christmas message which I sent to my constituents yesterday when I talked about the peace, order and good government we have in our country.
Occasionally we may have a political skirmish, as we saw today in the House dealing with the free trade agreement, but that is how we settle our disputes. We do it in this chamber, not with bayonets and bullets in the streets of our towns and villages.

None of them would question the fact that there is peace and order in this land. Canada has proven its attachment to world peace and its concern for human rights. Our constant support to the efforts of the United Nations, our decision to create a special fund for disarmament and our condemnation of human rights violations in South Africa, Latin America and many other regions in the world are tangible proof of our will to promote a climate of equality for all human beings.
December 18, 1987



I would remind Hon. Members that in our observance of Remembrance Day we pay our respects to those who have made possible international peace, or as much of it as we can enjoy these days. On Remembrance Day we pay tribute to those who made the supreme sacrifice, and those who served their country as members of the Armed Forces in the two World Wars as well as in the several peace-keeping actions in which Canada has been engaged for the United Nations. In that sense, every day, not just Remembrance Day or Christmas Day, should be a day for us to remember in the pursuit of international peace and goodwill.
Some years ago there was a movement to initiate a national holiday that would recognize Heritage Day. Frankly, I think that this proposition is a very reasonable one. Perhaps I might share a couple of Mr. Pierre Berton's thoughts on the matter when he spoke of the importance of creating what might be known as Heritage Day. In a Heritage Canada publication Mr. Burton suggests, " ... if we are to have a holiday-and I believe it is inevitable-surely we ought to use it as a tool to mark some aspect of our nationality and culture. Our major summer holiday, July 1, celebrates our political past. What is needed now, in February, is a day on which we can celebrate our non-political past. That day clearly is Heritage Day, which falls on the third Monday in February-an ideal time for such a holiday".
We all recognize the importance of creating a special moment during the year to pursue peace. Personally, I do not think that Boxing Day is the best day to do that. We have had tremendous traditions that that is a day that comes just after Christmas. But in that spirit I wish to say to you, Sir, to all Members in the House, and to our constituents, a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on this Bill. I certainly appreciate the spirit with which it was brought forward by my hon. colleague.
Boxing Day has been traditional all through my life, perhaps because I come from a background with English parents. Boxing Day is often celebrated in Canada as strongly as it is in Britain, because of our ties with that country.
The idea of a holiday or the designation of a day for peace and goodwill is something that we should all take very seriously. International peace and goodwill is something that Canadians have worked for over the years, and certainly nowhere more fervently than at the United Nations. The time that I have spent down there in the last two to three years has brought to me even more of an awareness of how important is international peace.
As was mentioned by a previous speaker, we are very lucky in Canada because we have not had a war on our shores for
Peace and Goodwill Day
many years. The part of the country that I come from is actually the battleground of the War of 1812. In the farm on which we live we have breastworks that were left from the original battle of the War of 1812. As we till the land, we still turn up musket balls, arrowheads, and pieces of pottery from settlements that took place during that war.
International Peace is very important to Canadians. It is something that we must always have in mind, and something that we must work towards not only on our own shores but also on distant shores. Canada's role in peacekeeping operations around the world is one that we can be very proud of, and certainly one that is envied by many other countries. I have received comments from people working in peacekeeping forces around the world who speak with a great deal of pride for Canadians, not only for their talents and expertise in keeping the peace, but for their dedication and the amount of effort that we put forward in the United Nations where we are seen as a leader.
In the crucial arms reduction talks that have been taking place, Canada's motion at the United Nations and the resolution that it brought forward on the verification of peacekeeping treaties and the arms reduction treaties set a precedent. It was one that had been worked on for years, and it was finally the Canadians who were able to bring the resolution and receive unanimous consent. International peace and goodwill should be honoured and respected not only in Canada but around the world.
For that reason, it is difficult to talk against the Bill, because I believe in the spirit of it and the spirit with which it was brought forward. However, my reluctance is that I am not sure that Boxing Day should be the day that is changed to represent this particular title.
Canadians should not need a day entitled International Peace and Goodwill Day to remind them that this is something to which that we are committed. The theme of international peace and goodwill is something that should be on the minds of Canadians every day. I do not think that it is necessary to have a holiday set aside with that title.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) stated that Remembrance Day is something that was recognized as a holiday some years ago. I can remember when I was a child in school that November 11 was always a day that we had off for remembrance. Now that has changed. It has changed because the remembrance of the fallen heroes, and the reason for November 11 is something that is celebrated within the schools. It is an opportunity to teach children the need for remembrance of what those veterans did for us.
This year on November 11, instead of having a service at the cenotaph in my home town of Grimsby, the whole service was held within the public school. All the children attended. The stage within the auditorium was set up as a cenotaph, covered with artificial grass, with a replica of the monument. The entire proceedings took place within the auditorium of the school. That hour of remembrance was an education period for

December 18, 1987
Peace and Goodwill Day
the children, those who had never seen war, and hopefully never will, or hear about it, or read about it. Certainly it brought to them the need to remember the fallen soldiers and the dedication given by the veterans from this country, and their families who stayed at home and suffered the loss of those who were overseas.
It is important that we teach our young people, not through giving them a holiday to celebrate something but through teaching them within the classrooms and with the spirit of example that we show as adults, the need for international peace and goodwill. Our young people will gain more and will have more respect for the term international peace and goodwill through learning and through example of the dedication that we give to those particular words, as opposed to having a holiday where they can go out and forget. Usually when it is a holiday, young people go out and enjoy themselves. They don't always remember what the holiday stands for, rather they remember the time that is available to them.
I would sooner see a day set aside entitled International Peace and Goodwill Day, and that that day be dedicated through the school system across this country to a total day of education on what international peace and goodwill means, so that it is not only at Christmastime that we think of goodwill towards men, but we think about it all year round, with a day set aside for instruction within the schools as to the meaning of international peace and goodwill, and one that brings in not only the teachers but also perhaps the people from the United
Nations. The United Nations Committee has people across the country who I know would be very willing to get involved in this. There are people within our own Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence who would be available to go out and speak to the children and show them why international peace and goodwill is so important.
This type of educational program and also stressing the meaning of international peace is so much more important than taking a day and setting it aside as a holiday. When people go out and have a holiday, they do not really think about the name of the day or the importance of that day. For that reason, Boxing Day is not necessarily the appropriate day to change to International Peace and Goodwill Day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 4 p.m., and pursuant to the order made earlier this day, this House stands adjourned until Monday, January 18, 1988 at eleven a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3 (1).
At 4.01 p.m. the House adjourned until January 18, 1988, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, January 18, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers