1988-08-18

[Stage Direction]
37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 18, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


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 the 13 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4851 to
331-	4855 inclusive, 332-4884 to 332-4888 inclusive, 332-5001,
332-	5002, and 332-5031.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to present to the House, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Disabled Persons. This report is entitled "No News is Bad News", et en franqais, "Pas de nouvelles, mauvaises nouvelles".
In accordance with Standing Order 99(2), our committee requests a comprehensive response from the Government to this report.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on National Defence.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-316, an Act to amend the Export Development Act (commercial credits).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) in seconding my motion in the absence of my colleagues.
[DOT] (mo)
This is a Bill designed to amend the Export Development Act, to provide for new commercial credits that would be given to Third World countries. The Export Development Corporation would act as a broker for the sale and exchange of commodities from Third World countries. The funds that would be gathered from such sales could then be used for purchases of Canadian products by those Third World countries in Canada. It is an attempt to provide a way of diversifying trade for Canada around the world and to provide direct assistance to Third World and underdeveloped countries in the sale of their commodities.


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we were anticipating that the House of Commons cochairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations would move concurrence in the committee's tenth report. It is our understanding that it deals with the independence of the judiciary and a decision made by the committee.
I do not know if there is another agent in the Chamber who would like to move that motion, but the Government would certainly be willing to concur in it if someone wanted to move it.

August 18, 1988
Committee Reports
Perhaps we could return, on unanimous consent, if there is difficulty with the Member being present.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that along the lines of usual courtesy the Chair did know something about this. However, I am in the hands of the House.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I think the co-chairman, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), would prefer to move the motion himself. It is my understanding that he would like to do it tomorrow. I can check further and we can consult on the most appropriate way to deal with the matter.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, since there seems to be some consultation required, if the consultation takes place and there is a request for unanimous consent to deal with this matter later today, we would certainly be prepared to accommodate that request.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members. Perhaps some indication could be given to the Chair later. If there is agreement I will make the appropriate accommodations.


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the House. I have a striking committee report regarding the child care committee to present. I would ask for unanimous consent to revert to presentation of committee reports.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[ Translation]



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Sixty-Eighth Report of the Standing Striking Committee.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings for the above-cited Report.]


PETITIONS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this petition is entitled "Help save the Rouge". It is one of
many petitions I have presented to the House concerning the preservation of the Rouge Valley system in Scarborough.
The petitioners join with many thousands of volunteers in stating that the Rouge River Valley in Scarborough is a unique and precious natural area, and that protecting this endangered wildlife and wilderness area is in the national interest.
The petitioners join with the Scarborough City Council, the Federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), the Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations to have the valley saved as a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the City of Winnipeg, particularly those who are employed by the Agriculture Research Station. They are submitting a petition asking for redress from the Department of Agriculture. They complain of unfair treatment in terms of the application of substantial parking fees for their vehicles at the Agriculture Research Station facilities, when other federal facilities in the same area of Winnipeg, particularly Revenue Canada, are not required to pay those fees.
The petitioners humbly request that their grievance be heard by the House and the Government. I present the petition on their behalf.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents. These constituents are concerned that the fabric of Canadian sovereignty is being seriously threatened by the trade deal. They point out that the federal Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada even to negotiate a trade deal, let alone pass it. They believe that the trade deal would seriously reduce our country's ability to plan the economic, social, and cultural programs Canadians want.
They are asking that a national debate in Canada occur on the issue of the trade deal and that the debate take place during a national general election before the agreement is signed.


Mr. McDermid:: The agreement is already signed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Signed by the Government, committing Canada before the election.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition from many British Columbians, pursuant to Standing Order 106. They believe that Canadian families need a high quality, affordable child care service.
August 18, 1988

They also believe it has been repeatedly recommended, to make these services available for families, that the Government of Canada must introduce legislation containing national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for the development of a comprehensive non-profit child care system which is accessible to all families.
They are concerned that the present legislation regarding child care before the House of Commons is completely, totally, and absolutely inadequate to meet the demands. Therefore, they are saying the legislation should be withdrawn forthwith.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents located in the City of Winnipeg. It deals with the serious and tragic illness of schizophrenia, a major illness affecting about 1 per cent of the Canadian population, causing severe anguish among families and friends and costing Canadian society more than S3 billion a year in direct health cost.
Research findings show that this is a genetic malfunction that can be treated, but research efforts in Canada dedicated to schizophrenia are extremely limited and not commensurate with the degree of the disease.
These petitioners humbly ask the House to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will in the future be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens in my constituency.
Since farmers and fishermen have enjoyed the right to block averaging for years, they call upon Parliament to take the necessary steps to retain block averaging for farmers and fishermen, as recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs in its report on the White Paper on tax reform.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 369 and 387.
[ Text]


USE OF AUTOMOBILE TO SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Kaplan: Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
In the past three years, has the automobile allocated for the use of the Secretary of State for External Affairs been taken into the United States and, if so, on what dates and, in each case, (a) for what length of time (b) was the automobile used (/') by the Minister (//) by some other person or persons and, if so, by whom (c) on what government business?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: According to our records, the automobile allocated for the use of the Secretary of State for External Affairs has never been taken into the United States.


INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION
Mr. Caccia: For the past two fiscal years, did the Government make any contributions, Financial or otherwise, to the International Tropical Timber Organization and (a) if so, on what dates and in what amounts (b) if not, for what reasons?


Charles Joseph Clark: On May 21, 1986 Canada acceded to the International Tropical Timber Agreement (ITTA) which is administered by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). In fiscal year 1986/87 Canada paid C$12,665.68 in assessed contributions to the ITTO administrative budget for the period November-December 1986, the last two months of ITTO fiscal year 1986, and for the period January-June 1987, the first half of ITTO fiscal year 1987. Payment was received by the ITTO in Geneva in late October/early November 1986.
In fiscal year 1987/88 Canada paid C$37,636.30 to cover its contribution to the ITTO administrative budget for the last half of ITTO fiscal year 1987 (July-December) and all of ITTO fiscal year 1988 (January-December). Instructions to affect payment of the assessed contributions were issued in Ottawa, May in 1987 in the first case and on January 8, 1988 in the second.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, August 16, consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade
[Stage Direction]
August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy:
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to apply to lands, resources, and waters claims by aboriginal peoples under an aboriginal claim."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall affect programs to protect the environment or conservation of land, resources and waters."
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
''7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new special adjustment programs to help Firms or workers adjust to the changes brought about by the implementation of the Agreement."
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after lines 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new regional development programs."
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs, including medicare, unemployment insurance, daycare, pensions, minimum wage laws, labour laws and maternity benefits."
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new cultural programs by future Canadian governments."
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a group of motions which in effect challenge the Conservative Government to put its money where its mouth is. Specifically, the Government continues to claim that its trade agreement will not affect vital Canadian characteristics, policies, and programs. However, this set of motions would enable this House to exempt specifically from the Bill aboriginal people's land and resource claims, the environment and environmental protection policy and programs, programs and policies to assist workers and firms in adjusting to the agreement, regional economic development policy, social policy, and cultural industries and programs.
There is no specific mention of environmental protection or environmental issues in the trade deal as such. However, this does not mean that it is entirely clear that there are no valid grounds for concern that the Government's trade deal with the
United States will impair existing environmental protection programs, both federal and provincial, or hamper our ability to put new or improved ones in place in future. No environmental impact study of this agreement has been carried out by the Conservative Government before, during, or after the deal was signed.
Canada may well also face pressures to lower Canadian environmental standards to American levels. Canadian business could argue that more stringent Canadian environmental regulations on such things as acid rain emissions, air pollution, liquid waste disposal, and the use of pesticides could place Canadian companies at a competitive disadvantage visa-vis their American competitors. Canada may also lose the ability in pricing energy exports to recover financial compensation for environmental damage caused by energy exporters. Furthermore, subsidies given by Canadian federal and provincial Governments to reduce pollution emissions could be attacked by American companies as an unfair subsidy.
The definition of "unfair subsidies" is still to be negotiated by Canada and the United States over the next five years to seven years. Pollution control subsidies and subsidies relating to the environment have not, I repeat, been explicitly excluded from these negotiations.
Environmental groups have sent letters to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asking for assurances on this issue. They have not received a specific reply from the Prime Minister. They only received a reply from the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) stating that the trade deal has nothing to do with the environment. I do not know how one can place any confidence in the words of the Minister for International Trade on what the trade deal has to do with the environment or anything else because he has stated quite categorically-he boasted-that he has not bothered to read the deal. He wants to treat the whole matter in the same way he treated the sale of vacuum cleaners when he was trying to do that years ago as a student, but Canada and its environment is more important than the way one treats the selling of vacuum cleaners.
The Canadian Wildlife Federation has quite clearly denounced the Government's trade deal as a threat to Canada's control over its environment. The executive vicepresident of the federation stated that it was "not convinced that Simon Reisman's negotiating team had given any consideration whatsoever to possible environmental impacts of a free trade agreement".
It would be very simple if the Government were sincere in what it says about not wanting environmental programs, present and future, to be affected by this trade deal. All the Government would have to do to show its sincerity would be to agree to accept our amendment and clearly exempt environmental programs, present and future, from being affected in any way by this trade deal. However, if the Government is not willing to do that, and if we continue to have in the trade deal
August 18, 1988

the provision that the issue of subsidies remains to be negotiated over the next five years to seven years, then the protection of our environment now and in the future is clearly put at risk by this trade deal.
Let me say a few words about the trade deal and social policy. The Conservative Government has consistently denied that social programs are affected in any way by the trade deal. However, it is very clear that our safety net is not protected by the absence of references to it in the final text of the agreement. Certainly, there are a number of American politicians and corporate leaders, and some Canadians as well, who clearly view our current Canadian social programs as constraints to achieving the level playing field they believe must come as part of the Government's trade deal with the United States.
What does the American playing field look like? A recent study by the Conference of State Manufacturers Association reported that the quality of a state's business climate was defined by low taxes, low union membership, low workmen's compensation insurance rates, low unemployment benefits, low energy costs, and the fewest days lost because of work stoppages. Implicit in that study is the idea that the less there are social programs to benefit workers and the community at large, the better it is, and this shows why Canadian social programs could and likely will be undermined by the Canada-U.S. free trade deal.
American interests may launch a direct attack by countervail suits similar to the 1986 action of fresh groundfish which named fishermen's unemployment insurance as a subsidy. There is nothing whatsoever in the trade deal that exempts Canada or Canadian programs from being the subject of countervail suits or any other U.S. trade remedy legislation. We are still subject to that kind of harassment. The so-called dispute settlement mechanism does nothing more than enable a panel to say whether or not the American legislation has been properly applied according to its own terms. We are not given any exemption whatsoever.
The second way in which the Canada-U.S. free trade deal creates a threat to our Canadian social programs is far more insidious. It could have a very substantial impact on social programs in general. Under this scenario, an evolutionary process would see a greater harmonization of policy objectives and instruments in order to achieve the level playing field which the corporate sector will be desiring. It will argue that the cost of doing business must be equalized subject only to what they would call some natural comparative advantage.
We only need to look at a background study prepared for the Macdonald Commission, and the Government always cites the Macdonald Commission and its report as evidence that its trade deal is a good thing for the country. I can say as an aside that which the Macdonald Commission did not say a word about the trade deal the Government is trying to force down the throats of Canadians. The report came out well before that trade deal was negotiated and its text was available. In any
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
event, the background report states that Canada would be required to make wage and tax rates and welfare policies conform to American practice and to follow all important changes in the United States with virtually identical changes in Canada. We have already seen some first evidence of this process through Bill C-22 on prescription drugs.
This pressure to harmonize Canadian social policy with the American system will be an inevitable consequence of the Government's trade deal with the United States. Aside from the pressure by big business interests on both sides of the border, we have the situation that will undoubtedly arise because there will be the five-year to seven-year negotiating period to come up with a definition of subsidies pursuant to this deal.
There is nothing in the deal to say that an agreement will not be made over the next five years to seven years, accepting American contentions that our social programs such as medicare are unfair subsidies and that if they are not changed then it will be open to the American Government, on behalf of American business interests, to bring actions for countervailing duties or special duties under not only existing American trade remedy laws but the omnibus trade Bill which has just been passed by the U.S. Congress. This Bill has new forms of investigation of alleged undue Canadian subsidy, and new methods of trade harassment by the American Government and American business interests.
These points have been signalled by Canadian business spokesmen. For example, at an annual meeting of the Auto Parts Manufacturers Association held recently in Toronto, Past Chairman Larry Beganto stated: "Services such as national day care and indexed pensions, universal medicare and others may be laudable but they add to the cost of doing business". This just provides an example of how business interests are already thinking of creating pressure for a forced harmonization of our social programs with the much lower level of social programs in the United States, a country where doctors check a person's pocket-book before they check his pulse, a country where a very high proportion of the population has no adequate retirement pension, a country in which a substantial portion of the population has no adequate unemployment insurance program.
Obviously, if the Conservative Government's trade deal comes into effect, there will be pressure for a realignment of our tax policy and cut-backs in social expenditures in order to answer the pressure of business for tax cuts. Should the federal Government accept this argument, personal income taxes will go up in order to support social programs, or social expenditure will be cut. Either way Canadians lose.
I also want to say again, by way of conclusion, that the most frightening thing in this deal when it comes to social programs is that the whole area of definition of what will be unacceptable subsidies, subject to retaliation by the Americans, remains

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
open in negotiation. The way the Conservative Government has always weakly caved in to American pressure on any issue, the way it has weakly agreed to a thoroughly bad deal with the United States on trade, indicates that if in the unlikely event it continues in office it will cave in on a definition of subsidies which will put our social programs, pensions, unemployment insurance, and medicare in peril.
Only the acceptance of these amendments by the Government will provide at least some partial answers to the concerns I have stated. I do not think the Government will accept these amendments. Therefore this is a powerful reason to defeat this deal here in Parliament but, more important, to defeat this deal through an early election.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the Liberal House Leader, in the last 10 minutes and of course on Tuesday night when we were debating these series of amendments. I listened to all the fearmongering, the scare tactics that have been dug up by members of the Opposition on this particular agreement. In the few minutes allotted to me in this particular section I will attempt to answer some of the concerns that have been expressed.
I chuckled to myself when I heard the Hon. House Leader stand up to say that the Government should put its money where its mouth is. He is the Member of Parliament who in the last Parliament said that he would resign his seat if interest rates went up. They went up to 22 per cent. For him to be telling us to put our money where our mouth is is somewhat amusing when listening to his speech.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I made no such statement in the last Parliament.


John Horton McDermid: The next thing I want to mention is that the series of amendments we are debating would put something into the Act to say that it is not in the agreement. Members opposite want to put something in the Act to say that it is not in the Act. This really boggles my mind. I cannot understand what they are trying to do. The Hon. House Leader talks about his Party's policy on trade-GATT. He said that we will deal with the Americans through GATT. They have negotiated a number of GATT rounds. Did they put anything in about aboriginal rights in those GATT rounds? Did they put anything in about health care? Did they put anything in about regional development? Did they put anything in about social programs? Of course they did not.


Lloyd Axworthy: We did not have to because we were not threatening them.


John Horton McDermid: I give an example of an agreement that we all understand because most people, most families, have at one time or another bought themselves a home or have been involved in such an agreement. When one signs an agreement to sell or buy a house, one does not put in the agreement that the wife and kids are not part of the agreement. The point is
not put in that the car is not part of the agreement. What one puts in the agreement is what will be affected. It is the same with the trade agreement.
I want to go through the motions because of the scaremong-ering about this country going to hell in a handbasket. I do not think there is a Canadian who honestly believes that any Government, no matter what its political stripe, would endanger our social programs, our medicare, our education, and so on. It is absolute foolishness to try to frighten the people that way.
Aboriginal peoples are mentioned in these amendments. The rights of aboriginal peoples and their land claim settlements have constitutional protection. The free trade agreement does not supersede the Constitution. The Government's comprehensive land claims policy, which was revised last year, is grandfathered in the free trade agreement. There is no need to put forward an exception.
There is nothing in the free trade agreement that would affect programs to protect the environment. We are working under GATT rules. Under GATT rules the environment is protected. This free trade agreement comes under the GATT rules and that is very clear all through it.


Ms. Copps:: That is absolute garbage.


John Horton McDermid: There is the expert from Hamilton East. She is the expert on everything-absolutely everything. She knows everything about everything. She is wonderful.
Existing statutes and policies regarding protection of the environment continue to apply. They have absolutely nothing to do with the agreement-nothing.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is what you said about senior citizens' pensions. Your word is not worth the paper it is written on.


John Horton McDermid: There is nothing in the agreement that would prevent the Government from undertaking appropriate adjustment programs-absolutely nothing.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about the grape growers?


John Horton McDermid: We have announced an adjustment program for the grape growers in British Columbia, and there is a soon to be announced program in Ontario, once the Ontario Government gets its act together.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who introduced the deal?


John Horton McDermid: Who did the unfair, discriminatory pricing, as has been determined by GATT in Ontario and British Columbia? There is a great supporter of GATT. As soon as GATT brings down a decision against Canada all of a sudden GATT is terrible. We are to ignore it and not pay any attention to it. That is the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. She really understands this thing.
August 18, 1988


Sheila Maureen Copps: The trade deal preceded the GATT decision. You do not know anything about it.


John Horton McDermid: We have an excellent advisory committee under the chairmanship of Mr. de Grandpre who will be making recommendations on adjustment procedures that are required, if any-


Sheila Maureen Copps: People are going bankrupt today.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member who delivers her best speeches from the seat of her pants should know that and understand that.
Motion No. 12 states:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new regional development programs."
That motion is extremely misleading. Regional development programs are not covered by the Act or the agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Come on!


John Horton McDermid: Moreover, it is misleading to state that nothing in this agreement shall affect regional development. The agreement itself will positively affect regional development, since the economic benefits of the free trade agreement will be felt throughout all regions of Canada, and any legitimate study has shown that. The support that we have in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada is ample proof. Therefore, that amendment is not necessary.
I want to talk about the establishment of new Canadian social programs. We have introduced a new Canadian social program since the free trade agreement was signed-the child care legislation which is presently being debated in the House. If we could not introduce new social programs why, in heaven's name, would the United States not object now to the day care program?
The other day I listened to my friend, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), talk about how our health care will be wiped out, education will be wiped out, and all those things will happen. Let us examine the facts. First, provincial Governments have absolutely no obligation to contract out health services, health care management, or education. There is no obligation. Second, even if they chose to do so, they may give preference or exclusivity to Canadians. They are not affected by the procurement obligations. The provincial Government can state that only Canadians can provide services to us here and would absolutely not be in violation of the free trade agreement.
All the free trade agreement states is that if a province decides to allow an American company to come in, as Ontario allowed a management company to come in and try to straighten out the mess at the Hawkesbury hospital, it has to be treated fairly. That is what the free trade agreement states,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
but it does not say that they have to be allowed in. Americans can be kept out of health care in this country if the province desires. The Hon. Member talks about the blood bank in Montreal. That was a decision permitted by the provincial Government. It has absolutely nothing to do with the free trade agreement, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the federal Government whatsoever.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's totally false. It's the Canadian Blood Committee. It's the federal Government's responsibility.


John Horton McDermid: There she goes again. She's the expert on everything.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Do you know anything about the Canadian Blood Committee?


John Horton McDermid: She knows the whole ball of wax, and we love to hear her speak from the seat of her pants.


Mr. Hopkins:: You are the greenhorn, John.


John Horton McDermid: Well, I will stack my knowledge on the free trade agreement up against the knowledge of the agreement of the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) any time. I will debate him any time, anywhere, on the free trade agreement, because he has not read further than page 2 yet.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That's not much of a challenge, John.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Eganville.


John Horton McDermid: Great. I love Eganville, and I am well known in Eganville.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I'll say you are.


John Horton McDermid: I will look forward to going into Eganville any time.
In conclusion, the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party rose today and told everybody that all our social services add to the cost of the goods and services we buy in this country. That was his first statement. He said that because of that it put us in an unfair advantage and therefore we would have to reduce our social programs. In the next breath he said our social programs would be looked upon by the Americans as unfair trade practice and that they were going to attack them. The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. If it makes our goods more expensive, how can it be an unfair competition? Why would the Americans complain at all? The arguments brought forward are total nonsense. They are scaremongering. These amendments should be rejected out of hand.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few statements on Motion Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that these were irrelevant. He even suggested that they were improper, and he could not understand why they were in there in any case.

August 18, 1988
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: I did not say "improper".


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That is disrespect for the Chair, Mr. Speaker. These motions were ruled proper and acceptable by the Chair. Therefore, they refer directly to the Bill and can effectively be used to amend it. They do not change the direction of the Bill. Perhaps, when these particular amendments were written, we neglected to put in one clause. Instead of saying "for greater certainty" at the beginning of each of these amendments, we probably should have said "because nobody trusts the Government, for greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall do these things". That is exactly why these particular amendments should be in the Act, for greater certainty, so that we know these things cannot happen. The Parliamentary Secretary made a great to-do about the fact that they are not put in treaties. That might be the case where they can be negotiated at a later date. However, in this particular case we would like to be sure that these things are not going to happen.
The Indians and Inuit have gone through a long, slow process establishing their right to land, their right to selfgovernment, and the rights that came out of the treaties. There is no assurance in this Act that those rights will not be affected by the free trade deal.


John Horton McDermid: The Constitution guarantees it.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: One of our friends in the Indian community suggested that the free trade deal would put everybody in the same category as the Indians find themselves now, as far as this particular Government is concerned. In negotiations Indians may find themselves defending their self-government against the United States instead of against the Government with which they presently negotiate.
Because nobody trusts this Government or trusts the negotiations with the United States, Motion No. 9 states:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to apply to lands, resources, and waters claims by aboriginal peoples under an aboriginal claim."
Why should that certainty not be put into the Act? Why should we not agree that aboriginal people need that type of security?
Again, because we do not trust the Government, Motion No. 10 states:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall affect programs to protect the environment or conservation of land, resources and waters."
The Parliamentary Secretary suggests that those types of things are not put into an Act. However, in the next few years the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States will be establishing how and what are considered subsidies. There is no certainty, by what is presently contained in the Act, that a subsidy given or made available to a company in order that it can contribute to a cleaner environment, or that it can follow the environmental rules and laws that we put down or may put down in the future, will not be considered a subsidy and put those companies at an unfair
advantage, or that it would be accused by the United States of having an unfair advantage because it is receiving support to contribute to clean air or a clean environment. Why should we not put in the Bill a clause saying "for greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall affect programs to protect the environment"? As soon as those programs or that protection, programs which attempt to protect the environment, are considered subsidies they become unfair advantages for Canadian companies.
Turning to Motion No. 11, because nobody really trusts this Government and nobody trusts this agreement, for greater certainty, adjustment programs to help firms or workers adjust to change brought about by the implementation of the agreement should be recognized in the agreement. For instance, areas are already being affected by the agreement. The grape growers of British Columbia and Ontario are being affected by the program. This has been admitted by the Government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has even gone out to British Columbia and said: "We will help you where it hurts". There is no guarantee that the Government will be able to go on helping them after the agreement is in place and after this particular Bill has been passed.
There is no suggestion, no guarantee, that if the Government were to decide in the future to help a victim of this Bill-and there are going to be many-the United States may not take the Government before its panel and say that this is improper. Since we do not trust the Government and since the people of Canada do not trust this agreement, why not include for greater certainty, a guarantee that these things will be carried out?
Motion No. 12 reads: Again, no one trusts this Government or this agreement:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new regional developmental programs.
One great fear in more remote areas of the country is the fact that many programs which have done some good in such areas will be considered to be an unfair advantage in the future


John Horton McDermid: Why wouldn't it be now?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The Parliamentary Secretary has stood in this House and said that those kinds of programs are in danger, that they are the kinds of programs that we are going to have to look at and withdraw if they affect the ability of companies in the United States to compete with those areas.


John Horton McDermid: When did I say that? Point that out to me.
I never said that.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That is the basic understanding of this Bill. Anything that is paid to a certain area and affects the production of a product in that area can be recognized as an unfair advantage.
August IB, 1988


John Horton McDermid: Get your facts right.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: We have a clause which should be included because the Bill does protect regional development programs now and the need for them in the future. I notice that I am coming to the end of my time, Mr. Speaker, but there are two other motions both for greater certainty, both because the people of Canada do not trust this deal to protect them. These amendments give the kind of protection the people of Canada want. If this deal is to be forced on them, if the Government is to push through this deal without giving the people of Canada an opportunity to decide yes or no, to decide that they want it, this kind of security should be in the Bill. The social, environmental, self-government, and regional development programs which are in place or will be in place should be secured. We should have some security, ensuring that they will be in place after the Bill has been rammed through the House of Commons and has become law.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to some of the speeches that have been made by the coalition on the other side of the House, I am reminded this morning of Chicken Little crying "The sky is falling". I guess that nursery rhyme is as true today as it was whenever it was written. We have people here who are not willing to look at what is really in the agreement or at what the agreement is all about. The FTA, as the Canadian public and all of us know, is an agreement we set out to put together with our neighbours to the south for the lowering of tariffs.
What we have now is both opposition Parties combining to try to put into legislation what is not in the agreement. We do not have anything in the agreement which does anything about our social programs, yet they are trying to scare Canadian people with misrepresentations about things that are not in the agreement. The legislation before us deals with incorporating into law what was agreed to with our neighbours to the south.
They say that "for greater certainty, we want to turn around and make sure that the aboriginal land claims are protected". Well, the agreement does not address aboriginal land claims. If we took all aboriginal land claims that have been enunciated in British Columbia, there would not be enough land in British Columbia to satisfy them: We have heard Members this morning talk about "for greater certainty", as proposed by the Liberals and seconded by the New Democrats, that "for greater certainty," these are the things that we should be including. I do not know how they think a Government can govern when they try to satisfy the whims of the people who talked about these things this morning.
It really behoves the Canadian public to be careful what they listen to. I fear our Loyal Opposition is not telling the truth.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: No more so than the Government.


Ross Belsher: They are not telling the people what is in the agreement. They are dealing with half-truths. Nothing is more
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
dangerous than when people deal with half-truths and work up into such a lather that they start believing it themselves as being the truth.
We have before us an agreement which has been carefully worked out. We know that it is not perfect. In the area of agriculture, we already found that people in the grape industry were going to be seriously affected. When we discovered this, we turned around and said to these people: "We want to help you, we want to work with your provincial Governments". We have gone, along with the Province of British Columbia, to the grape growers and said: "Here is how many dollars per acre. We are willing to share with you in either taking out the grapes you now have or changing your grapes and replacing them with varieties that you feel can be secure in as far as what you can produce in the future is concerned". That is one small demonstration. Yet we have the opposition Parties standing up this morning with pompous, righteous indignation saying "for greater certainty, you should put into the law that you are going to do all these things for any person that comes along and says the free trade agreement has seriously affected them and they want the Government to bail them out".
We have an agreement. It is a good agreement, and it is time we got on with passing this legislation and putting it into effect. It is for that reason that I stand here today and say that I support the Bill before us. I will be glad to vote against the motions we are debating this morning. With those few comments, I will sit down so we can get on with business.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, one of these motions deals with regional economic development policy and other items relating to the social fabric of our country. As my House Leader, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) said, the Government is not representing Canada properly in this trade deal. It is not a trade deal; it is a bad deal. We have to ask ourselves who is speaking for Canada in this deal.
The Hon. Member who just spoke said that there was nothing worse than half-truths. I say to him that there is nothing worse than having the whole truth pointed out to you and refusing to recognize it. This is what is happening in this debate. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) said that this did not affect regional development. I would not want to misquote him; I am sure that is what he said.


John Horton McDermid: It will positively affect it.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I want to point out to him that I have a case in my constituency which proves him wrong.


John Horton McDermid: The free trade agreement is not in place yet, how can it?

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The eastern Ontario area was designated for regional development incentives up until June 30 when the Government cut them all off.


John Horton McDermid: What has that got to do with the free trade agreement?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: A group of people who wanted to start a planing and lumber business in my constituency had their application in long before June 30. Everything was in order. They were having trouble getting it through. I took it up with the Department on their behalf and was told that it was not going to approve any subsidy for a milling process dealing with softwood lumber, for example, because it would upset the free trade deal. This is a fact of life, so I do not want any government Member getting up in this House and trying to tell the Canadian people that this trade deal does not affect regional development.


John Horton McDermid: It does not.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: That is a perfect case in point.
There is an old saying that none are so blind as those who will not see. There are none so dangerous as those who will not think. The Government has turned a blind eye to everything pointed out to it. Regional development is definitely affected by this deal.
The experience with the lumber mill that I just spoke about was not a lower level decision. The decision was sent down the line in the form of directives from senior bureaucrats in the Government. As a result, it becomes government policy. The Government cut off regional development incentives long before June 30 in my area of the country, yet Members opposite turn around and say that the trade deal is not affecting regional development.
I also want to talk this morning about small business set-asides. These are contracts coming out of the Pentagon in Washington on which Canadians are sometimes allowed to bid. However, the Americans have had a policy for some time now where they lift a large number of those contracts out of circulation as far as Canada is concerned and set them aside strictly for bidding by American contractors. We had greater free trade on defence contracts with the U.S. in the 1950s and early 1960s than we have today under this deal. On July 5, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) made this statement in the House in answer to a question. He said that the free trade deal was negotiated. That is a terrific statement. He also said:
We know that there is a U.S. small business set-aside program. It was agreed to have a mutual opening of government procurement which extends the multilateral provisions already signed under the GATT, and estimating the size of the U.S. government procurement market which will be opened to competition from Canadian businesses, including small businesses, the portion excluded under the U.S. set-aside program has been netted out. The estimate is that Canadian businesses will be free under the agreement to compete for a portion of the U.S. government spending, estimated at $3 billion Canadian. That was not possible before, Mr. Speaker.
I took this matter up with Department of Supply and Services senior officials who are in on the trade deal firsthand. They informed me that not a single thing has changed with respect to the small business set-aside program with the U.S. and Canada as a result of this agreement. That means that Canada did not get free access to the American market as the Government is trying to tell Canadians. That simply backs up what our critic, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and our Leader are saying, that Canada did not get free access to American markets. That is absolutely true when it comes to small business set-aside programs.
Every time someone brings out the facts on this and starts talking about it, government back-benchers and the Cabinet get up and say that we are backward looking, that we are not progressive thinkers, and so on. You are not backward thinking if you are trying to protect Canadians from a bad deal that the Government is projecting as a positive thing, when in fact the very openness of the market that they are projecting is in fact not there. We do not want to sell out Canada. They should not project all these things when they are not true.
We know there has always been a building up of infrastructure and transportation facilities in this country on an east-west basis. Always there has been, long before Confederation, a north-south axis as a result of our relationship with the U.S. However, we have always been able to resist that. Now, in one fell swoop in this trade deal, the Government has taken away all the positive things that Canadians have done over more than a century to build a nation on an east-west basis. In one fell swoop it has given in to the north-south axis, and it is now going to be fully influenced by the large economy and culture to the south.
Government Members are talking about people running scared. They are running scared because they say that if we do not get this deal, something terrible will happen to us. They are saying that we will be rejected, but we are saying that Canadians have fantastic relations throughout the world and we should not be putting all our eggs in one basket. All over the world Canada is well known and highly respected. If the effort that had gone into this one basket of eggs had gone into total global trade, we would be in a much better position today and for years to come.
Why did the Government allow Americans to bid freely on Canadian contracts in the small business set-aside program, for example, without gaining free access to the American market for Canadians? Government Members are going around saying that they have that access.
Returning to the issue of the north-south pull, factors in the southern states such as lower labour costs, fewer unions, and lower employee benefits have contributed to an exodus of manufacturers from the northern states. The same pull is occurring in the United States itself. Between 1973 and 1980, employment in the manufacturing sectors of Michigan, New
August 18, 1988

York, and Ohio decreased by 17 per cent, 10 per cent, and 11 per cent respectively. At the same time, manufacturing employment in Texas and California increased by 31 per cent and 21 per cent respectively. This same north-south trend would apply to the Canadian manufacturing sector in the aftermath of the trade deal.
The pull will take Canadian industries south into the United States now that the Government has caved in and given the U.S. the markets of Canada. Our industry will be pulled south, just as the industries of the northern United States are pulled south because of cheaper labour and operating costs in the southern United States. The Government has given up trying to build Canada on an east-west basis, the basis that pioneers for a century and a half have worked to build up to form a Canadian identity and a Canadian national spirit. This Government is destroying that in one fell swoop with this trade deal.


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some general comments, particularly to follow up on some of the misinformation that was put forward by the Hon. Member who just spoke.
The natural flow of trade, and I speak as a western Canadian here, is north-south. There is absolutely no question about that. We have seen that over and over again with the fact that 80 per cent of our trade today is with the United States. The Party represented by the Hon. Member who just spoke is the Party that has been in power for most of the last 100 years that he spoke of. Some of that north-south development came as a result of the Liberals being in government. Are they now saying that it is bad?
Normally and naturally we would trade with the Americans. A large percentage of the population of Canada lives close to the American border, particularly in southern Ontario. The Hon. Member spoke as a Member from Ontario and put forward an argument that the provincial Government of Ontario has been putting forward with some vigour, although it is certainly losing its vigour as we get further into this debate. They argue that if it is good for Ontario, it is good for Canada. That simply is not so.
I have a constituent who manufactures fibreglass truck tops south of Moose Jaw. He sells these truck tops all over western Canada and into the United States. Over 40 per cent of his production is now marketed in the United States. He has absolutely no difficulty selling his product. He makes a very, very good product which is readily accepted in the States. The projection is that with the removal of tariffs, he will get an ever-increasing share of the American market, and he is looking forward to that.
My constituent has told me that Toronto is about the same distance away from him as Los Angeles where there is a much larger market which is much easier to get into. Why would we not trade that way? This is what will result from the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. The cry of the people who are against
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
this agreement that we are losing our sovereignty is codswallop, to quote the Member from Newfoundland. We will see an ever-increasing amount of trade with the Americans, and that is as it should be. We will gain more secure access, and some of these hazards to trade that exist will be removed.
Hon. Members should speak to the red meat producers of western Canada. Saskatchewan pork producers will tell Hon. Members the same thing. There is an ever-increasing market in California-


Lloyd Axworthy: Tell us about the Saskatchewan pools. What will they say?


William (Bill) Gottselig: Listen to the Hon. Member who is just leaving the Chamber talk about Saskatchewan pools.


Mr. Langdon:: Answer his question.


William (Bill) Gottselig: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture does not take a position on this. It does not support it but neither does it go against the agreement.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: They just did.


William (Bill) Gottselig: No, they did not. That is the Hon. Member's interpretation. Another problem with this debate is that when people take a very narrow interpretation of it, it is like taking a quote from the Bible. Those people would like to try to rewrite the Bible as well, but that will not work either.
Saskatchewan pork producers have an ever-increasing market for a very, very good product. They will gain a more secure access to that American market through this agreement. The same is true of the beef producers. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is very strongly supportive of this agreement. These are the people who are producing a commodity that they will sell in the American market.
I welcome the upcoming election for which the Parties that oppose this agreement are calling. I think the Liberal Party would be well advised to refer back to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press last week that took the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to task for some of the statements he has made. The article referred to how the Leader of the Opposition plucked a section of the agreement out and put it together with other words. The article mentioned that the Liberal Party has been crying: "Let the people decide". The Leader of the Liberal Party should have a look at the closing words of that article which were: "Tell the people the truth".
The people will decide. The people of western Canada who I represent are strongly supportive of this trade agreement. They will return me in the next election as a result of their support for me and for the free trade agreement. I will be very happy to go on the election trail and to debate this agreement, and my people support this agreement and will continue to support it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have just debated Motion Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. A vote on Motion No. 9 will apply to Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, so the question is on Motion No. 9.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We will now deal with Motion Nos. 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 25. They will be grouped for debate and will be voted on separately.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 5 the following:
"(d) that appointments to such committees, panels, commissions or other bodies ensure representation from consumer groups, labour and business."


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 22
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 5 the following:
"(3) One such committee that the Governor in Council may establish, under this section, shall monitor and review matters arising out of the Act or the Agreement, including
(a)	the adjustment impact on company workers and communities;
(b)	the activities, economic viability and ability to compete within a given sector of all companies doing business in Canada and the United States of America; and
(c)	agricultural pressures in Canada resulting from the agreement."


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 11.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this grouping of amendments carries with it a number of important presentations which were brought forward during the course of the committee hearings. As much as those committee hearings were restricted, limited, and short-changed, we still managed to hear approximately 50 groups of the several hundred that wanted to be heard. Many of the groups brought forward items very crucial to the wine and grape industry in British Columbia and Ontario.
A number of organizations, consumer associations, and labour groups quite vividly pointed out that during the course of discussion about trade they had never been consulted, never been asked for their opinion, and never been given any opportunity to present their case.
I want to deal specifically with Motion No. 17 which moves to strike out Clause 8. Clause 8 is a very simple clause. It says that we should approve the agreement. I am here to argue that this legislation should not be approved and the agreement should not be ratified until there is an election.
There are some very fundamental and simple rules about democracy. We can get very complicated and bureaucratic, but basically 2,500 years ago people started putting forward the assertion that there was a certain popular will that had to hold Governments accountable and would express itself from time to time in the decisions of a community. The Greeks had a wonderful word for it, civitas, a sense of obligations and responsibilities of the people. At that time people participated directly in government. They were required to show up on a monthly basis at a forum and take over part of the responsibility for making government work.
As this democratic system evolved we came to a representative system. Citizens did not participate directly but elected others to do it for them. In our parliamentary system they elect a Government, and the Government is given a mandate for a certain number of years to exercise that popular will, always subject to the fundamental rules of democracy; the right to fair and open speech, the right of citizens to be heard, and respect for certain liberties.
Throughout each stage of consideration of this trade deal those principles have been compromised. At every step along the way there has been a deliberate design to frustrate the proper role of democratic institutions.
I cite as an example the cabinet document which was revealed about two years ago on communications strategy. It said very clearly that the role of the Government should not be to inform Canadians but to sell them on the trade deal. The document said "don't inform, sell". That document was actually discussed and agreed to by Cabinet. That set the tone.
August 18, 1988

Since that point in time there has been a very deliberate effort to cut off all avenues of information. The $30 million or $40 million being spent by the Government on brochures and advertising is not for information. It does not detail what is in the Act or what are its consequences or implications; it is a sales job pure and simple. It is propaganda.
The role of Parliament itself has been victimized by this agreement. In the haste to get approval from Parliament every single procedure of open and fair debate has been rejected. Closure has been brought in at every single stage.


John Horton McDermid: Three hundred and fifty days?


Lloyd Axworthy: The problem is that the Parliamentary Secretary spends more time in this House haughtily harrumphing than giving any form of information. That is the attitude. They do not want to engage in a fair and honest debate.
They talk about misrepresentation. Well, misrepresentation started with a gentleman named Mr. Mulroney who became Leader of the Opposition and eventually Prime Minister, who said, in 1983, that he would never engage in a free trade agreement with the United States. Then, three or four months after the election, he introduced it. What greater lie could be told to the Canadian public?
In his platform in the election campaign he did not mention or even hint that his Government would bring in the most drastic, radical departure from the historical Canadian tradition that we have ever seen. He did not even talk about it, and now they talk about misrepresentation. Was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) walking around all that time with a secret that he would not tell anyone? I do not know, but under the democratic process it is an absolute requirement that we are accountable to the public who are, after all, what democracy is all about. Democracy does not only involve this institution and Members of Parliament. Democracy is all about the individual voter. How can the Government justify not telling them the truth in the election campaign and now pretending that it has a mandate?
The problem was not only the then Leader of the Opposition; it was his colleagues as well. The gentleman who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said that anyone who would sign a free trade agreement with the Americans was naive. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that one would be a fool to sign a free trade agreement.
We can quote the entire front bench with the exception of the present Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) whose family, since 1949, has wanted not only economic union but political union with the United States. I give the Minister for International Trade a small mark for consistency. At least he and his family have made their intentions well known. They want to be American citizens. They said so in 1949, and I do not think the Minister has ever changed his opinion. This Bill will give him the key to open that door.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
There is only one way of cleansing this incredible smirch and that is to let the Canadian public have another go at the Prime Minister. He must try to explain to the Canadian public why he thinks this is a good deal and let the opposition Parties explain why we believe it is not. The 18 million or 19 million Canadian voters must be allowed to decide who is right, not a Tory majority which has run out of mandate.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that since World War II only three Governments have gone beyond the four-year term? This Government is already an aberration; it has already gone beyond the normal time of office for a Government.


John Horton McDermid: There he goes misleading again. The election was September 4, 1984. The Liberals are misleading again.


Lloyd Axworthy: We have the chimpanzees rattling their cages again. There they go climbing on the swings and throwing bananas from their cages.
There is a simple solution. It is interesting that every time we start talking about calling an election Tory Members of Parliament get agitated. It is because they are scared. They are terrified at the prospect of an election. They know that the moment Canadians have in front of them that kind of information about this trade deal, the Tories will go down to defeat. They will not have the kind of support they had in 1984. That is why Allan Gregg is doing polls two or three times a week and rushing to Sussex Drive to say "Not now, Mr. Prime Minister, people still think you are untrustworthy. You still have not been able to convince people that you tell the truth".
The fundamental issue here is that when we talk about telling the truth, the people of Canada do not trust the Prime Minister to tell the truth. Furthermore, they do not trust him to negotiate a good trade deal. They understand full well that the Prime Minister has failed in all his negotiations. As a result, we are faced with the ultimate sell-out.
I suggest that the reason for supporting this motion is that the Bill should not be approved until the Canadian people have had a right to decide.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I moved Motion No. 22 in the list of motions we are debating. I want to make a case to the Conservative majority that this particular amendment is not only something that they should regard positively, but something which they should consider as a helpful and constructive addition to their Bill.
The amendment suggests that one committee that may be established by the Governor in Council, because it is a very useful committee, is one which would have the purpose from the Canadian perspective of monitoring what is happening under the trade deal. It could monitor many things, but three things that we see as especially crucial to monitor in order to assist Canadians to come to terms with this new trade context

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
would be, first, the adjustment impact which has taken place with respect to companies, with respect to workers, and with respect to communities.
Second, we think that monitoring carefully the activities, economic viability, and the ability to compete within given sectors of companies doing business in Canada and the United States would be a very important contribution to companies in our country being able to compete successfully with those in the United States.
Finally, because we heard a great deal of testimony with the message that there would be serious agricultural problems and pressures associated with this trade deal, we felt that too should be something that is monitored carefully by this committee.
I want to expand on a variety of these points. First, let me talk about the adjustment question. It is absolutely clear, wherever we have had a case of a free trade arrangement being established, that very careful attention must be paid to adjustment programs which are generated as a result of that trade situation.
There has been much talk over the years in which we have been debating this trade deal about the Auto Pact. It should be remembered that the Auto Pact, among other things, recommended an important, useful, and very generous adjustment program associated with it. The TAB program, Transitional Assistance Benefits Program, made it clear that any worker who lost a job because of disruption of trade associated with the Auto Pact would get assistance from this TAB program. In fact, that is what made the trade unions in this country enthusiastic in the end about the Auto Pact.
We recognize the Auto Pact as a sectoral agreement with guarantees that protect Canadian jobs, but the adjustment provisions which were associated with it were nevertheless very important.
The same is true of the Tokyo Round of trade liberalization. We had the labour adjustment benefits program, which was brought into effect to offer retirement benefits to workers in affected industries. Again, it is a very important contribution to making that trade liberalization work effectively.
It has been suggested, even by supporters of this trade deal, that the trade disruption in terms of employment that will take place will be considerable. If we take the Economic Council report, for instance, which supported this deal even with its most optimistic scenario, it came up with 188,000 workers whose jobs would be lost. That is what one requires some response to.
I think the response, at the very least, should be a monitoring of what is happening to these workers and therefore the potential to respond quickly if adjustment programs are hitting them, their communities, and the company they work for.
With respect to my own constituency, for instance, it is quite clear that one of the major producers in a medium-sized town
in my constituency is almost certain to shut down as a consequence of this deal. That would be 550 jobs in a town of 8,000 people. It would devastate the town. Attention must be paid to the adjustment problems of such workers and communities.
Second, if we talk about the competitiveness issue, which I discuss in the second clause of this amendment, it is especially important. We have, for instance, a detailed survey from the Canadian Manufacturers Association. It indicates, first, that fewer than 12 per cent of the companies surveyed by the CMA had actually analysed the free trade agreement in detail. Therefore, the work has not been done by these companies with respect to competitiveness and what is going to face them as they move into a new trade situation. That same survey indicates that if the value of the Canadian dollar rose to 85 cents, 67 per cent of these companies would feel themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the United States. We can say that the dollar is not likely to do that, but in fact the dollar has risen by close to 6 cents in the last six months. For it to move another 4 cents and put 67 per cent of CMA companies into this uncompetitive situation vis-a-vis the United States is absolutely possible. Therefore, we need a committee to monitor this and be able to prepare responses if this kind of thing begins to happen.
Finally, I want to speak briefly about the agricultural pressures which were brought before us in the committee. There must also be close monitoring to be able to respond to these possibilities. The submission of the prairie pools, which represent a combined membership of over 130,000 farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, states:
The three Pool organizations are concerned about changes that may occur in the grain marketing system, and the impact which these changes may have on the competitive ability of western Canadian farmers.
We are concerned about losing the Crow benefit on products moving to the U.S.A. through Pacific ports.
We are concerned that the U.S.A administration may interpret Article 705(5) as giving the U.S.A. the right to restrict Canadian grain into their market while increasing exports to Canada.
We are concerned about pressures, originating in the U.S.A., to require the Canadian Wheat Board to make public their actual selling price-
There is also concern expressed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that energy commitments to the U.S.A. may on occasion create a shortage of domestic agriculture needs. There is also concern expressed by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that because of changed investment regulations, Canada may pass control of many institutions important to Canadian agriculture to companies outside of Canada that have no understanding of our industry or recognize its unique requirements.
We see that in all three of these areas there are potential crucial problems which face this country.
I urge Conservatives, in this case, to look honestly at the amendment and recognize that it is a constructive attempt to improve what would face this country if this trade deal in fact
August 18, 1988

goes through. We disagree with this trade deal. Nevertheless, this is a constructive amendment meant to improve our position as a country, if we face serious pressures in agriculture or serious adjustment pressures which are damaging to our communities and our workers, and if we face competitive disadvantages for our industries which the Canadian Manufacturers Association itself says could very well be there if the value of the Canadian dollar continues to rise. Therefore, I ask the Conservatives to tell the truth in this case and recognize that these problems exist, to accept this amendment and in that way improve the legislation which is in front of the House at this particular time.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour at this time to enter into the debate on the amendments put forward by the Liberal Party. I note with interest that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) had some quite unique things to say with respect to the legislation and what may affect it either positively or negatively. I found very interesting his comments about the possible potential problem. That is pretty vague. There is always a possibility of problems with Canada's trade throughout the world, but he warns us of a possible potential problem. What is new? Even if we did not have a free trade agreement, problems would arise from time to time. He should certainly know that. That is what our trade negotiators have to be concerned with. That is natural.
I found his idea of economics interesting. He mentioned the change in our exchange rate with the United States. Before we had a trade agreement with the United States I recall at one time that we had a higher rate. The Canadian dollar was worth more than the American dollar, and no one jumped in to lower it so that we could have some kind of advantage. I believe the New Democratic Party at one time advocated dropping the dollar to a lower level to give us an advantage in our trade. That kind of economics never works. That would mean that the people of Mexico should be flourishing in business activity today because there are over 300 pesos to the dollar. What kind of nonsense economics is that?
What else can one expect but that type of expertise from a person who stands here and advocates that kind of concern? Our dollar relationship with the United States has always had some bearing on our trade, but I might add that as our dollar has been strengthening against the U.S., our trade has been strengthening. As a matter of fact, we had the highest trade surplus in the last month that has been recorded for many, many years. I ask Hon. Members to think about what they are saying and not to make statements that have no bearing at all.
I would return to some quotations with respect to the Hon. Member from Fort Garry who said that Clause 7 should be deleted. A great many of his colleagues and supporters from across Canada say exactly the opposite. I would like to point those out.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Premier of Quebec made the following statement, as reported in The Toronto Star on January 28, 1987:
Bourassa took the unusual step of switching to English to hit out at Broadbent for claiming that 'Canada is for sale' under the terms of the proposed free trade deal.
"Mr. Broadbent should know that we are not talking about the sovereignty of Canada," he said.
"We are not even talking about a custom's union. We are not talking about a monetary union. We are not talking about a common market. We are talking about enlarging trade between Canada and the U.S.
"How could you seriously say that Canadian sovereignty is at stake when we want to protect Canadian markets in the U.S.?"
That is the Premier of Quebec lecturing in a very wise way the Leader of the New Democratic Party who needs some lecturing from time to time. As reported in The Toronto Star on November 27, 1987, the Premier of Quebec had this to say:
What's at stake are dozens and dozens of billions of dollars of potential growth for Canada's resource-based economy. Canada is the only one of 24 developed countries which is not part of some sort of free trade area. Why this isolation?
The New Democratic Party would advocate isolation. The Premier made the following statement in the Assemblee Nationale on March 8, 1988:
Quebec is supporting this free trade agreement because it wants to make its economy more modern, more efficient and more productive.
What is wrong with the premier of a province wanting to do that? He went on to state:
This agreement will enable Quebec to be more confident about its economic future.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the free trade agreement will be good for Quebec's energy sector.
Why would anyone in this House, especially members of the two opposition Parties, want to hinder Quebec from reaching its potential and enhancing its economic growth? Therefore the Liberal Leader of this House is in complete disagreement with the Leader of the Liberal Party in the Province of Quebec. In Le Devoir, as reported on August 17, 1987, there appeared this:
The Premier of Quebec reiterated his total support for free trade between Canada and the United States. "If we perpetuate protectionism, we will, in the medium term, be dooming ourselves to an irreversible economic decline," he said.
The Quebec Premier wants a minimal agreement dealing with investment, tariff barriers, transitional measures and the creation of an arbitration panel. Other issues, such as trade in services, could be dealt with later.
The Premier of Quebec had this to say, as reported in La Presse on December 15, 1987:
Finally, Quebec is satisfied with a supplementary appeal procedure to the bi-national panel that will rule on trade disputes.


Steven W. Langdon: Are you switching to a Quebec riding?


Felix Holtmann: Do you have something against Quebec? Stand up in the House and say it.
Let us go to other parts of this country-let us take all of Canada. Let us consider a fellow by the name of John Ciaccia,

August 18, 1988
Quebec's Energy Minister. I probably did not pronounce his name right, and I apologize if I did not.
In The Financial Post of November 23, 1987 he is reported to have said:
Some Quebec Liberals have begun talking openly about sitting out the next election. Even Bourassa's energy minister, John Ciaccia, has been quoted as saying, "I will have problems supporting a guy who takes such positions," referring primarily to Turner's free trade stand.
Is that not interesting? Let us now move on to Ontario. We will cut across the nation.
Ray Curran, President of the Sarnia-Lambton Riding Association-and I am referring to Liberals, by the way, and I will go on to some New Democrats later-had this to say, as reported in The Gazette of Montreal:
Liberal Leader John Turner's position on free trade is totally irresponsible. You can't make agreements between two sovereign governments and then just rip them up.
Let us move along to what Allison DeLong said in the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly:
Mr. Speaker, our Premier and this government have gone on record as endorsing the impending free trade agreement. I believe this is the most significant event for our people since Confederation.
We now have New Brunswick, pretty well 100 per cent, on side; except for a few New Democrats if they could ever be found. They are all saying this openly.


Steven W. Langdon: Why don't you run in Selkirk?


Felix Holtmann: Why does the former premier not run in my riding instead of me running to his? He is quite scared.
I know members of the New Democratic Party have no respect or regard for a Liberal, but in Macleans on March 28, 1988 Milton Harris, a former chairman of the Liberal National Executive Finance Committee, said:
I am going to vote for the Conservatives, and if they ask me, I will give them money.
He is putting his money where his mouth is, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker.
What about Don Johnston-I realize I should refer to the Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount since he is still a Member of this House. In a speech in Vancouver, B.C., on November 22, he said:
If we are unsuccessful and American protectionism grows, I believe the costs of adjustment will be much greater than would be the case if we negotiated a trade agreement. Job losses may not only be larger, they may indeed be more concentrated regionally, leaving little scoop for job creation-


Steven W. Langdon: Scope!


Felix Holtmann: That is right, there is a misspelling here. The point is that those who argue the free trade agreement will cost jobs must also look at the other side of the coin. What will
U.S. protectionism cost? I suspect the Member from Essex- Windsor is probably not worrying about what protection might do in his area, taking into consideration where he lives.
Mr. Johnston said some other interesting things as recently as January 20, 1988, as reported in The Ottawa Citizen:
Our position on free trade is indistinguishable from that of the NDP . . .
why would anyone vote Liberal?


Steven W. Langdon: Good question.


Felix Holtmann: That is an unbelievable statement when they are both sitting on the same side of the fence. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount in another statement, as reported in The Ottawa Citizen, said the following:
Free trade is absolutely vital to Canada's economic health.
I could go on and on. In The Globe and Mail of November 3, 1986, the following was reported:
In a letter to Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal International Trade Critic, and James de Wilde, a University of Western Ontario Political Scientist, Don Johnston tears to shreds their jointly-written ''framework for Liberal trade policy", the third draft of a proposed trade policy.
The paper calls for a framework for the resolution of disputes between the two countries, for some provision to compensate sectors hurt in the process and for some form of protection for new growth sectors.
Mr. Johnston was quite disturbed. It is no wonder that he had to take the big move across the floor of the House.
The debate on this issue has gone on for hundreds of days now, often in committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Felix Holtmann: Members opposite sit and laugh about the debate that we have had in this House and across Canada. I think it has added up to about some 190 days.
I see that the Speaker is indicating that my time has run short. 1 advise some members of the Liberal Party to sit and look at what all their Liberal supporters and some of their former supporters, such as Mr. Lalande who is not with us any more, have to say about the agreement. I do not think that they would like to see it ripped up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
August 18, 1988


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that our pension age should be lowered from 65 to 60 years of age with full benefits. Not only would this represent progressive reform, but it would also recognize the need to provide dignity and comfort to a large segment of Canadian society who are forced to work until 65, despite having to cope with serious physical disabilities and pain.
Elow many men and women, particularly in the construction trades, and professions requiring extreme physical activity, continue to work despite backs, legs, and arms which have given way to years of hard, physical labour, yet they persist without alternatives because their families must keep up with the expensive cost of life.
While a parliamentary committee has just urged that mandatory retirement should be abolished, I urge that a pension option at 60, in full, be the right of all Canadians. Let us offer a sense of well-earned dignity to those Canadians whose bodies have been badly bruised by their jobs.
It was a Liberal Government in 1966 which lowered the pension age from 70 to 65. After more than 20 years it is now time to lower the age threshold to 60.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, MSAT, Canada's proposed new "Mobile Communication Satellite" will revolutionize voice and data communication across this vast and sparsely populated country. People, anywhere in Canada with a small terminal the size of today's cellular telephone, will be able to tie themselves into the world communications system.
The advantages to transport companies, construction, forestry, and exploration projects in remote areas, and government agencies, are tremendous, not to mention the commercial opportunities in manufacturing the new equipment.
The Department of Communications and its private sector partners are to be urged to work toward an early launch date and rapid completion of this revolutionary project.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Federal Court of Appeal upheld a human rights ruling that a law denying unemployment insurance to wives or husbands employed by their mates is invalid. New Democrats welcome this ruling as it was an amendment that we have supported for many years.

Canadian women, especially, will benefit by this decision, because their work has so often been done without remuneration, without recognition. The federal Government has discriminated against women by denying them the same social benefits because of their conjugal ties with their employer. We know that this concept arises from an age-old perception of the work done by women. According to this perception, it is normal for a woman who works for her husband to do so without pay, as part of her spousal duties.
I think all Canadians will welcome the Court's decision because it recognizes a fundamental right of all married persons.
We can only hope the Conservative Government will not appeal this ruling.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, condominium homeowners are understandably most upset and concerned by the provisions of the Broadcasting Bill C-136 which discriminates against them.
A single family detached dwelling with a satellite television receiver is exempt from regulation under the Bill. A large nursing home with a satellite television receiver is exempt from regulation under the Bill. However, a condominium with a satellite television receiver is regulated as if it were a profitmaking cable company.
Bill C-136 must be amended to eliminate this discrimination by exempting condominiums as well.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the answers given to my questions two days ago by

August 18, 1988
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Bradley) do not warrant his receiving extra pay for the job.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not know what is going on around him and he is ill-informed. The Parliamentary Secretary has learned the methods used by other Conservatives in the House of how to abuse and downgrade Question Period by not answering questions, instead using the time for propaganda purposes and making statements that have no relevance to the questions asked.
The Liberal Party has been on record since day one as being opposed to the nuclear submarine program because the $8 billion will rob other programs in the Department. The Parliamentary Secretary did not know that. Where has he been?
During the last election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that he would increase the Canadian Armed Forces to 90,000 within three years. He is not even close after four years, and he has failed once again with his promises.
If it was not for the defence budget put together by the Liberal Party when it was in power, the present Tory Government would not be able to move, because the Government has not kept its own financial commitment to the Canadian Forces, and in its first year in office it failed even to meet the rate of inflation because of its lack of financial commitment. Why do we pay such people extra money to be a Parliamentary Secretary?



GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House and pay tribute to the recent appointment of the new Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia, Dr. David See-Chai Lam.
Dr. Lam is a self-made man. He immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong in 1967, and came only with his skills, his tenacity, and his ideals. In 20 years he built up his company to a million dollar company, Canadian International Enterprises, right from the ground up, and founded the Hong Kong Merchant's Association which assists new immigrants from Hong Kong to adjust to the Canadian way of life. And more than this, Dr. Lam is a philanthropist. He is the founder and President of the Floribunda Philanthropic Society and the David and Dorothy Lam Foundation which has helped many organizations in our local community.
Dr. Lam is an example of an individual who has immigrated to Canada and has become a success, but he has not turned his
back on those less fortunate, and has given much to his new home and community.
As the first Canadian of Chinese origin to achieve the position of a Lieutenant-Governor of a Canadian province we wish Dr. Lam well, and we commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and this Government on this most worthy appointment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



BANKS AND BANKING


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, Humboldt, Saskatchewan, has been treated to an example of corporate insensivity and bank greed and poor citizenship. The Humboldt and District Agricultural Society has been forced into near bankruptcy by the action of the Bank of Montreal.
The Agricultural Society had $15,000 on deposit with the bank, money taken in at the Agricultural Fair last month. The bank, without notice, seized all the funds and applied them to their loan. There was no courteous discussion and no notice. The Agricultural Society had many local bills to pay, but their ability has been pre-empted by the bank action.
This is a fine example of corporate citizenship. It is obvious that the bank has little faith in volunteer community organizations and very little concern for the community. The Humboldt Agricultural Society has been treated in a very cruel and unfair manner.

[ Translation]



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, this week I had the pleasure of being received by the Council of the City of Longueuil, the only city in my riding. The council was delighted to hear that their federal Member had been working very hard to make Longueuil the federal government's administrative capital on Montreal's south shore. Since I was elected, most federal offices have located in Longueuil, to give the people of Longueuil and the whole south shore of Montreal easier access to federal services. The council was also delighted to hear that over $200 million has been invested in the private sector, in turn generating investment worth nearly $1 billion in Longueuil alone.
August 18, 1988

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with what the federal Government has accomplished in Longueuil, and I am proud I was able to do my share.



TAX REFORM


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, every Canadian from coast to coast should be warned that in 1989 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is going to launch the biggest, most massive tax attack in Canadian history. Do not be fooled, this new national sales tax will not be a two-bit little tax. In Great Britain this tax is 15 per cent, in Denmark it is 22 per cent, in France it is 18 per cent, in Norway it is 20 per cent, in Ireland it is a whopping 25 per cent.
This Conservative tax is going to raise the price of everything that we buy. McDonald's meals will increase by 75 cents, video rentals will increase by 90 cents, movie tickets will increase by 98 cents, cassettes and records will increase by $1.35, baseball tickets will go up $1.80, football tickets will increase by $2.70, hockey tickets will increase by $2.95, a typical oil change will go up $3.75, children's school supplies will go up $6.50, children's running shoes will increase by $7.95, women's winter coats will increase by $19, a set of winter tires will be an additional $30, a Toronto home price will increase by a whopping $20,000.
The jig is up for the Prime Minister and the Government. Canadians will not stand for this tax attack any longer.



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the news media in Canada examined the role and workings of parliamentary committees. Is turnabout fair play? Today, the Standing Committee on Status of Disabled Persons tabled a report examining the relationship between Canada's working journalists and the needs and aspirations of the 3.3 million Canadians who have varying degrees of mental or physical disability.
It was because of the unevenness of the coverage, the stereotypical portrayal of the disabled, and the need for more attentive and sensitive treatment of the issues affecting this 13 per cent of our population, that this report was entitled "No News is Bad News". We feel the report is a challenge to all thoughtful journalists and news gathering and disseminating organizations in this country to turn some of that acute sense
of critical analysis inward for a period of time and, if the shoe fits, wear it.
Until there is greater awareness there cannot be the political action which is required to see that all Canadians get a fair deal.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I was glad to see that after his meetings with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and future Prime Minister of Canada, my friend Robert Bourassa admitted, for the first time, that Quebec had been poorly treated under a Conservative Government. On the basis of my figures for regional development, he admitted Quebec had only received $590 million, while Western Canada and the Atlantic Provinces received $2 billion.
Mr. Speaker, there are 10 major issues involving Quebec which demonstrate how unfairly it is being treated by this Tory Government. First of all, there is the space agency, the contracts that should be forthcoming, a genuine banking centre, all the industries relating to railway transportation and shipbuilding, and so forth. We know that with the frigates Quebec got a very raw deal from the Conservative Government. There is also the matter of the east end of Montreal, southwest Montreal and the job creation programs. Mr. Speaker, Quebec got nothing from the Tories and every time we got something, it was because there was a survival committee to defend the interests of Quebecers, and not thanks to Conservative Members.



HOUSING


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, I recently learned that the suggestion I made to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) and the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State for Seniors (Mr. Hees) was accepted and put on the agenda for the Canadian seniors' housing options conference to be held in Halifax from October 17 to 20. The purpose of this proposal is to return seniors to society by making it possible for them to play an important role in our development.

August 18, 1988

Mr. Speaker, I asked that this conference deal with homesharing as a serious and effective way to live near one's relatives. This would help young people to know their elders better and help seniors to know young people better. My request was accepted and I would like to thank the Ministers involved for taking my concern seriously. Also, I would like to say that if solutions are found for the seniors' housing problem, again, it will be under a Progressive Conservative Government.



AIRPORTS


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had heard everything out of the mouths of Tories, but, lo and behold, yesterday the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) accused the City of Hamilton of creating a potential health hazard at Pearson International Airport because we do not take Toronto's garbage. I cannot believe Hamilton is accused of being self-serving when the responsibility for Pearson International Airport's garbage should fall flat on the face of the federal Government which for years and years has refused to acknowledge the fact that Hamilton Airport needs business, that Hamilton Airport needs airlines. Hamilton Airport is not good enough to fly planes to, but we are good enough to dump your garbage on.
I challenge the Hamilton West Conservative, the Hamilton-Wentworth Conservative, and the Lincoln Conservative to repudiate the comments of the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North who suggested Hamilton is not good enough to fly to but we are good enough to take their garbage. I suggest the Hon. Member retract these ridiculous and repugnant statements against the people of the city of Hamilton.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, recently in my riding in Manitoba it came to my attention and the attention of others that there is a special class of people who are put in a very difficult position by the current unemployment insurance rules. I am talking about women who have terminally ill children and have to quit their jobs in order to be with their children at the hospital on a day-to-day basis. These people are put in the position, for obvious reasons, of having to quit their jobs and then are sometimes found to be ineligible for unemployment insurance. I do not think I need to say much more in order for everyone to imagine how difficult this whole situation is for these people.
I am calling on the Government to address this problem so that women who find themselves in this dilemma will be able either to collect unemployment insurance or maintain their incomes in another way. Perhaps the Government may choose to address this through parental leave, or whatever the case may be.
The fact is that women who find themselves in this very difficult position should not be penalized in the way they are now being penalized by unemployment insurance regulations.



AIRPORTS


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) a few moments ago accused the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock) of doing something in relation to Hamilton and the Hamilton municipal government. The words from yesterday's Hansard are: "irresponsible municipal government action has created a potential health hazard". The Hon. Member did not accuse the municipal government of Hamilton of doing anything.
We have been subjected in this Chamber to another example from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East of inventing data and dumping on Members of this Chamber for saying things they did not say. The record says what the Hon. Member said, and that Hon. Member should learn to read before she stands up in this Chamber and dumps on members of this Party. Learn to read, get your facts straight, smarten up!



CHILDREN


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I call upon the federal Government to put an immediate stop to the importation into Canada of a product known as Garbage Pail Kids. Constituents of mine have seen their children purchasing products which look like bubble gum cards but which, unfortunately, are obscene in every way, shape and form.
This product is printed by Topps Chewing Gum Incorporated of the United States. As an example of some of the material this includes, the product referred to as Garbage Pail Kids contains such things as depictions of small children and dolls being mutilated and decapitated. One particular card has
August 18, 1988

a so-called joke which reads: "What did Charged Marge's dad say when he saw her plug her umbilical cord into the wall?"
This kind of product should not be allowed to come into Canada and should not be sold to our children. I call upon the Government to use the obscenity provisions in the Criminal Code to stop this kind of activity.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I have in my hand here an article by Gilbert Lavoie in La Presse, according to which the former Minister of the Environment and Member for Rosemont says, and I quote:
"I personally know that patronage goes on and has continued to grow, that there is a pay-off system for contracts."
Mr. Speaker, this is no laughing matter. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government intends to do as a result of these revelations in this morning's La Presse?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the details to which the Hon. Member has referred, but if they are anything like what we have been subjected to over the last little while in the House, they are half-truths, falsehoods, distortions of the facts, innuendo, smear, and allegations based on unsubstantiated rumours. If the Hon. Member has a specific allegation, why does he not come forth with it? I would be very glad to look into it.


ALLEGATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO FORMER MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will know of these revelations made by a colleague of his in the Conservative Caucus, a former Minister who sat for three years at the same cabinet table as he did.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House when exactly it was that he and the Prime Minister found out about the allegations made public by one of his own colleagues today? Those allegations are that there is a system of kickbacks in existence. Those allegations were made by a Conservative Member of Parliament and former Cabinet colleague of the Deputy Prime Minister. When did he first find out, and what is he going to do about it?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I answered that in response to the Member's first question. I am not aware of that which the Hon. Member has raised. It is probably based on unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo. If he has something specific to bring forth, let him bring it on and we will look at it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister may call me what he likes, but one of his colleagues in the Conservative caucus has made an allegation to the media.
Very specifically, when did he first learn of these allegations? Even I refuse to believe that it was two minutes ago. Can he specifically tell the House whether he is willing to refer this matter to a parliamentary committee? There have been a number of such allegations made by very credible sources, this time by one of his colleagues. Isn't that enough?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has specific allegations, why does he not outline them to the House or bring them to me and we will take them into consideration?
The Member is using a broad brush to suggest wrongdoing. If he has some clear examples of wrongdoing, let him bring them forth and we will certainly look at them.


KICKBACK ALLEGATIONS-INVESTIGATION QUERY
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, half an hour ago Deputy Commissioner Jensen confirmed to me by telephone that indeed the RCMP has asked the FBI for assistance, through the American Embassy here in Ottawa, in investigations relating to kickback allegations.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Government aware of this? Do the allegations and this investigation, which is ongoing, involve any Ministers presently sitting in the Government or Members of the Conservative caucus? If so, what steps will the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister take to ensure the integrity of the Government during this investigation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if Hon. Members have some specific allegations to bring forth, they can certainly do that and they will be considered. The Member is making broad and sweeping unfounded allegations, using newspaper and radio reports. I regret that I cannot respond with specific answers to the broad charges the Hon. Member is making.
The Member has been around here for a long time and has served on both sides of the House. If he has specific allegations

August 18, 1988
Oral Questions
he knows what he can do, and he knows what the consequences are.


STATEMENT MADE BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF RCMP
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about a radio broadcast, I am talking about a statement made to me by the senior official responsible today for the operations of the RCMP, Deputy Commissioner Jensen. I phoned him and asked him to confirm it, and he did.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister, following Question Period, check this very specific statement made by the Deputy Commissioner and then inform the media and the House of Commons what steps will be taken to protect the integrity of the Government during the investigation which the Deputy Commissioner will confirm to him is under way?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course I will take that recommendation and make inquiries as soon as I possibly can. I will report back to the House in the usual way. I think the Hon. Member recognizes that on previous occasions I have taken notice of questions and reported back, and I will do so in this particular case.


BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister will have noted that, without exception, the Premiers representing all regions of Canada-Atlantic Canada, western Canada, and central Canada-who addressed the issue on their way into the meetings that are taking place today in Saskatoon, expressed their concern that interest rates in Canada be kept down.
Within the past hour the Bank of Canada announced a further increase in the bank rate. When will the Government of Canada start accepting its responsibility to the regions in this important matter and instruct the Governor of the Bank of Canada to keep interest rates down?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party will recognize that inflation is not only a serious national problem but a serious regional problem which must be dealt with.
[DOT] (M25)
He will recall that, as a result of the high inflation and high interest rate policy of the former Government, this country
suffered not only nationally but in the respective regions. For example, in 1981 the bank rate was at 21.4 per cent.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are different from the Liberals.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just cool your powder there, Mr. House Leader. I will come to you. In September, 1984, it was 12.3 per cent. Today the bank rate is at 9.8 per cent.
At the same time we had inflation rates which were very serious. It affected the incomes of individuals, it affected the business community.
What is important is to ensure that the fight against inflation continues. It is in that regard that the Bank of Canada has established the policy to maintain in a balanced way the lowest possible interest rates while at the same time containing inflation.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON INTEREST RATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Deputy Prime Minister that inflation is not a problem, except in the Toronto area. In Canada's other regions, in the Maritimes, the West and Quebec, the problem is not inflation but unemployment.
That is why I wish the Deputy Prime Minister would explain to the House why the Government has an interest rate policy aimed at discouraging investment in most of Canada's regions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, who says that he speaks for ordinary Canadians, would recognize that the people who would be hit the hardest by a resurgence of inflation would be those on fixed incomes, senior citizens, those at the lower end of the income scale, or the ordinary Canadians whom he says he represents. If he is suggesting that we should ignore the war against inflation, then he should say so clearly and categorically.
What we and the Bank of Canada are trying to do is establish a balance to ensure that the interest rate levels remain at a tolerable level while at the same time containing the flames of inflation.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Premier of the Province from where the Deputy Prime Minister comes will be amazed to hear his expression about the flames of inflation in Alberta, or Atlantic Canada or most regions, other than is the case that it is a problem in Metropolitan Toronto where the economy is working flat out.
The rate of inflation even in Toronto has not reached a serious proportion but unemployment remains unacceptably high in most regions. If there is a genuine concern about balanced economic growth over-all, why does the Government
August 18, 1988

not keep interest rates down so it would benefit most regions of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party does not have to pretend to speak for the Premier of the Province of Alberta. He can do so himself. I can tell the Member that what the Premier of Alberta does not want is a recurrence of inflation at 13 per cent, 14 per cent and 15 per cent. He does not want a recurrence of interest rates of 21 per cent to 25 per cent which almost broke the Alberta economy.
What we and the Bank of Canada are doing is striking a reasonable balance so that we can contain inflation and maintain a low level of interest rates.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Standing Committee on Human Rights tabled a unanimous report urging resolute action to help unemployed older workers, that is, workers from 45 to 65, pointing out that while unemployment had declined for the general population since the recession of 1982, it has increased in a serious way for older workers. Further, the average duration of unemployment for older male workers is 36 per cent greater than for all unemployed male workers.
First the Government cut unemployment insurance benefits for older workers, then in its budget of February, 1986, it cancelled the existing Labour Adjustment Benefits Program and promised a program for older worker adjustment. After two and one-half years that has not see the light of day. Another broken promise by this Tory Government.
Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Allmand:: When is the Government going to start listening to these many unanimous reports and take action to help laid-off older workers in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to remind the House and the Hon. Member that some 1.3 million new jobs have been created as a result of the economic policy of this Government since we came to office.
What is most important is the percentage of those people who have been unemployed for more than one year fell by 38 per cent, and that there were 194,000 new jobs in the economy in the first half of 1988. That is a tremendous achievement,
Oral Questions
something that has never been achieved in the last 25 years. The Hon. Member should be applauding the Government rather then criticizing it.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT ON REPORT'S FINDINGS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is totally ignoring several unanimous reports which talk about the older workers in this country, not the general population. Not only do we have the report tabled yesterday but we have two reports by the Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, one in 1985 called "Older Workers, An Imminent Crisis in the Labour Market" and a follow up by the same committee in June, 1988. The report yesterday said it is clear that older workers have been hardest hit by long-term unemployment and the consequences for them are exceedingly harsh. Many of them are aware that at this stage-
Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that the report is available to all Hon. Members and does not need to be quoted in extensive detail. The Hon. Member will put his question.


William Warren Allmand: Two and one-half years ago the Government promised a program for older worker adjustment-


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


William Warren Allmand: When is the Government going to take action on this report? Here we have another broken promise by this Government and nothing being done.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think what this Government has done is bring in a strategy which deals very well with older workers. I said in this House before that the Canadian Jobs Strategy was a new concept. It took a little while to have an impact. It is now having a major impact. The Canadian Jobs Strategy does respond to the needs of the long-term unemployed, and in some sense is dealing particularly with problems of older workers. We have a program specifically for that in terms of the skills training program.
We have seen 129,000 new jobs being filled by older workers in the last 12 months. That is a major improvement. We have seen the decline that was published yesterday by Statistics Canada. What this is saying is that these job programs are starting to bite where they really count, that is, among longterm unemployed workers, many of whom are older. It is the first time we have had a job training program that deals specifically for them.


UNEMPLOYED OLDER WORKERS IN HAMILTON
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This week marks Hamilton's second Older

August 18, 1988
Oral Questions
Workers' Week, a week of community awareness events to draw attention to the plight of the older workers. Older workers are facing a crisis situation in Canada. There are an estimated 15,000 people in Hamilton alone, older workers, who cannot find employment. I think the Minister has a responsibility to tell this House what the Government is willing to do to implement a program that will respond to these older workers.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member just said, the Canadian Jobs Strategy we have implemented is based on a new philosophy and is adapted to all groups in Canada, from older workers down to students. We have also implemented the Canadian Jobs Strategy for women. The unemployment rate among older workers is 5.6 per cent, which is well below the national average. I think we can say that older workers are working, and that within our programs we have components that are appropriate for all groups in this country.


ADVISORY COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing is that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is responding to older workers. We know by three reports now that older workers are in a crisis situation in Canada. Certainly there have been all sorts of reports that have come out. The Advisory Council of Employment and Immigration has asked the Government to put 100 per cent dollars in it. If it is not going to meet the promises it made to Canadian older workers two years ago, is it at least willing to see that that recommendation is implemented?
[ Translation]


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, during the past two years, we have spent a major part of our budget on our job strategy. The results are there, and we are proud of what we have accomplished. Of course older workers are part of our new strategy and our new philosophy. We are working to achieve results in the long term, and we are convinced that the political measures we took were the right ones, and we are proud of this.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration. It involves the fact that two years ago the Government introduced, and this Parliament passed, the very first ever employment equity legislation in this country. It was
aimed, of course, at providing equal opportunity in employment for women, visible minorities, the disabled, and native people.
The legislation provided that businesses regulated federally were required to file compliance reports by the first of June of this year. Will the Minister advise the House when the Government intends to make those compliance reports public, and whether the Government intends to introduce employment targets under this legislation the way it has for visible minorities, women, the disabled, and native people, in the Public Service?

L'Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member who is to be commended for his interest in our employment equity legislation, a social measure this Government introduced. It is a pleasure to be able to announce today that I have received 96 per cent of the first annual reports that companies were supposed to file. This is a remarkable response, and by the end of this fall, I will table my general report in the House.
I am also considering what kind of incentives we can use with respect to the small number of persons who have failed to comply with the legislation. We are analysing these files and will take appropriate steps to deal with the situation.


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the statements by the Hon. Member for Rosemont. In answer to my colleague from York Centre as to whether an investigation would be conducted of members of the Conservative Party regarding the allegations of a system of contract pay-offs, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would investigate, that he would check with the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP and that he would report to the House of Commons.
My question is, further to the statements made by the Hon. Member for Rosemont, a former Cabinet Minister, would the Deputy Prime Minister be prepared to do that, to contact the Hon. Member for Rosemont, to find out about the accusations she made . . . statements she made to the press and report to the House of Commons at the same time as he reports to the Deputy Commissioner?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is a perfectly legitimate question. My understanding is there was one short sentence in a very long story that was in the press. Of
August 18, 1988

course, I will make inquiries. She may have said it, she may not have said it. It may have been a misquote. It would not be the first misquote that has occurred in this country, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jean-CIaude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a supplementary question.
Should the Deputy Prime Minister not get an answer or should the Opposition not be satisfied with the answers the Deputy Prime Minister gives us, would the Deputy Prime Minister be prepared to allow the Hon. Member for Rosemont to testify before a Committee of the House of Commons so that an investigation can be held and this matter cleared up, because these accusations, following all the patronage of the last four years, affect the credibility of all Members of this House. It is therefore important, before an election campaign, that any suspicion be removed.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister be prepared to allow the Member for Rosemont to testify before a Committee of the House of Commons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it quite clear to the House that I would look into this matter. The Hon. Member says if I get an answer they may not be satisfied. That may very well be true. They are very seldom satisfied about anything that we do.
It really strikes me very strangely that every time the Liberal Party seems to be slipping in not being able to get its act together, it resorts to getting back into the gutter. Just because members of that Party were the masters of patronage they think everyone else is the same way.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the Government's free trade ad campaign in this preelection period. When this question came up previously in the House of Commons under the last Liberal Government one authority said: "The whole purpose of an advertising campaign is to obscure the issues and to put across one simple point of view". He went on to suggest that the Opposition viewpoint should also be presented in the ads.
Oral Questions
Will the Deputy Prime Minister take this suggestion, treat this advertising fairly, and see to it that the Opposition is able to design and present half the advertising being put forward in this campaign?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the demands from the Opposition and the demands from the public for more factual information on the agreement.
Our advertising campaign does two things. First, it lists all the information that is available and provides the people an address to write to, or a phone number to call, to receive the factual information on the free trade agreement.
Second, the other series of advertisements is for people in Canada who are preparing for the realities of the 1990s and on into the 21st century, who are going to be on the leading edge of trade not only between Canada and the United States but throughout the world. That is what the advertising is all about. It is to provide more information for the public, exactly what my friend has been demanding for a long time.


TIMING OF CAMPAIGN
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, of course the authority whom I was quoting was the present Minister for International Trade who criticized the last Government so strongly for its advertising campaigns.
I would like now to ask how it can possibly be justified for this Government to be running ads which states "Free trade. We're getting ready now", when in fact this legislation has not even passed the House of Commons, has not passed Parliament, and, if the people of Canada have anything to do with it, will never be put into effect?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the theme "We're getting ready now" is being put forward by the business people. They are saying that. Business people understand that we must have a trade agreement with our largest binational trading partner. They are getting ready for the realities of trade in the 1990s. That is what it is all about.
I forgot to mention one other thing. That is that the advertising is inviting Canadians from all walks of life, ordinary Canadians or whoever, to come to seminars which are being sponsored by the Department for International Trade, to introduce the opportunities at these seminars that this trade agreement will provide.
Because it is important, it should be noted that in the first series of seminars 600 companies which had never exported before have been identified and are looking at the new advantages of this trade agreement. The seminars are very successful.

August 18, 1988
Oral Questions


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. He is certainly aware that as of today, August 18, the Port of Churchill, which is a very valuable part of the grain shipping system of Canada, has yet to receive any allocation of shipments. Today we had an announcement by the Wheat Board that it will now be rationing exports of grain.
Considering that that rationing program should take into account the traditional 3 per cent of movement through the Port of Churchill, is the Minister prepared to ensure that that kind of fair sharing will be given to the Port of Churchill so that the facilities will continue to be used and its future will not be put in jeopardy by the lack of any shipments at all this year?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the so-called rationing of grain, we face the prospect in Canada this year of having as much as 40 per cent or even more lower than the previous crop year, which means that the Board is not going to be out looking for new customers as it might be with larger exports.
When it comes to the Port of Churchill, Churchill is an important port. It is one of four export spouts out of the country. To date the Canadian Wheat Board has not been able to line up a customer to take grain from Churchill within the Wheat Board's mandate.
I should remind the Hon. Member, since he was once responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, that the Canadian Wheat Board's mandate is to market grains in the best commercial interests of western Canadian farmers. When that happens I assure the Hon. Member that we will market every bushel of grain that we can find a customer for through Churchill that is in the western Canadian producers' best interests.


WHEAT BOARD COMMITMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Minister I would remind him that in the agreement that was signed in 1984 on the development of the Port of Churchill the Canadian Wheat Board made a commitment to follow best efforts to ensure that not only would there be a continuation but an increase in grain shipments through the Port of Churchill. I do not think that zero shipments are what could be called best efforts.
Considering that the Minister would not meet last week with the committee of the Manitoba Legislature that has been established to examine grain shipments through the Port of Churchill, can we get a commitment from the Minister today that he or other Ministers of the Crown will sit down with officials, Ministers of the Government of Manitoba, Members of the Legislature, to work out a proper program for the
utilization of the Port of Churchill and for the continued shipment of grain through that very important port?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, last week I met with the provincial Minister of Highways in Manitoba. I met with two members of the NDP in Manitoba. I was in Winnipeg a week ago today. I offered to meet with members of the Official Opposition. They did not want to meet with me.
What the Hon. Member is suggesting is that the 1984 agreement calls for the Wheat Board to make best efforts to see that a minimum of 500,000 tonnes of grain go through the port every year. I am satisfied that the Wheat Board is making its best efforts. What the Member is doing is accusing the Wheat Board of not performing up to its mandate. I reject that totally.
Further, if any Member has any evidence whatsoever that the Wheat Board is not living up to its mandate, I will investigate it to the fullest. In the meantime what the Hon. Member is suggesting I do is interfere with the day-to-day operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. What he is suggesting is that we have political interference with one of the best run Crown corporations in the country. There is no way that under my mandate I want to interfere with the day-to-day operations of the Wheat Board. If I did, it would be political interference and Members opposite would be the first to complain.


IMMIGRATION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. For the past month and a half a group of more than 200 Ukrainian refugees from Poland have been waiting in Vienna for word on their acceptance by the Canadian Government as sponsored refugees. These Ukrainians want to come to Canada. The Canadian Ukrainian community wants very much for them to come to Canada. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House now whether she will allow this group in.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my staff and my officials have been working with the Ukrainian Aid Committee on behalf of these refugee claimants. We are willing to look at all the applications as they come to us. Those that we can accept into next year's figures we will quite happily accept. It takes a certain amount of time to process some of these anyway. Those who do not come under the above but pass the medical and security checks will be considered through a joint sponsorship between the federal Government and the Ukrainian Aid Committee.
August 18, 1988


GOVERNMENT POLICY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, there is a question of time involved, and a question of anxiety for those people who might have to return to Poland.
The Minister knows in recent years there have been virtually no Ukrainian refugees from eastern Europe, and in this case a special permit is justified. At the present time because of the lack of action the Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society is now sponsoring on its own 40 of the most pressing cases of youths aged 16 and under.
Because there is this urgency, and because the Austrian Government cannot guarantee that these persons will not be returned to Poland, where they may be regarded as traitors, will the Minister set a deadline for next week to make absolutely clear what government policy is, and what she intends to do?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have been assured by the Austrian Government that these people will not be sent back to Poland. We are working with the Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society right now. I am not prepared to put a deadline on when those discussions will end.
We certainly encouraged them in terms of the private sponsorship of the most needy cases, and we have expedited that process through our officials. We will continue to look at it. In respect to the time urgency, it does take a certain amount of time anyway.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. I was dismayed and disturbed recently by statements that were made in the House which would allege that federal government procurement from companies in British Columbia has declined since the Government took office.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As a percentage, it has.


Mary Collins: After 20 years of neglect from the previous Government, it was my impression that in recent years the value of federal government contracts in British Columbia had actually increased.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The percentage has gone down every year under a Tory Government.


Mary Collins: Could the Minister clarify the situation? Could the Minister also indicate what he is prepared to do to
Oral Questions
ensure that companies in British Columbia get an even greater share of procurement from the federal Government?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that this would not be the first time that Members from the Opposition, particularly the New Democratic Party, would be selective in their statistics.
As the Member points out, the fact is that British Columbia and the West had been ignored for some 20 years by previous administrations.


Mr. Fulton:: Right up until today.


Otto John Jelinek: In the last year alone, in terms of dollar value, an increase of some 12 per cent in procurement went to British Columbia. In the last two years together the increase in terms of dollars was some 20 per cent.
We are still not satisfied with those figures, as I told business people in British Columbia and the West. That is why the Minister of Western Diversification and I last month announced the new western procurement initiatives which will bring an additional $600 million on top of the 20 per cent increase.
We have brought in the small business access which will benefit all small business people, and with the large population of small businesses in British Columbia that will help British Columbia.
Last week I announced the elevation of the status of our Supply and Services office in Vancouver to a Pacific directorate. Now British Columbian businesses can do business with the Government of Canada in British Columbia as opposed to here in Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and it concerns the damning indictment of this Government's record toward older workers. She actually had the nerve to say earlier in the House today in response to a question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, that the Canadian Jobs Strategy was the vehicle for retraining that was getting these workers back into the market-place.
If the Canadian Jobs Strategy is working so well, can she explain why the second largest campus for retraining and apprenticeship in the Province of Ontario, that is the Hitac campus in the city of Hamilton, is on the verge of closing

August 18, 1988
Oral Questions
because it has had no assistance from the federal Government to keep its operation open, one that serves several thousand Hamilton area older workers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to attempt to explain the situation to the Hon. Member, because it is an important issue. Early this year the Hamilton-Wentworth Skills Training Advisory Committee determined that 40 per cent of the trainees in this college came from outside the community, and 50 per cent of the graduates found related employment beyond Hamilton-Wentworth.
There are identified by that group other priority training needs. The committee advised Mohawk College that it would be reducing its direct purchase requirement for this year. It recommended to the province that future training be supported under the apprenticeship program, and the province turned it down.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDING
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it may come as some surprise to the Minister that Hamilton serves as a focal point for the Niagara region and should be funded accordingly. It comes as no surprise to members of the Liberal Party who are fighting to keep that campus open.
I remind the Minister that it is the second largest centre for skills training in Ontario. The Minister knows that there is a desperate shortage of trained and skilled workers in the Province of Ontario. Yesterday I met with the board of governors and they are on the verge of closing what has been described by the former Minister as one of the stellar programs in Ontario.
Will the Minister consider increasing the funding which has been frozen over the last three years as a result of her Government's 32 per cent cutback in funds for job retraining across the country?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first, there has not been a cutback in funds. As the Hon. Member knows, there has been a change in classification.
One of the things that the Canadian Jobs Strategy does is that it takes the advice of local advisory councils.


Sheila Maureen Copps: No, it doesn't.


Barbara Jean McDougall: That is what we were advised. If the Hon. Member is so concerned about this, I would suggest that she talk to her provincial colleagues. The Province of Ontario turned them down for provincial assistance for post-secondary funds.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Would the Minister confirm that, while the West got the short end of the stick year after year under Liberal administrations, under the Conservative Government's administration would he not admit that in terms of the percentage of supply and services contracts that went to British Columbia suppliers, the actual percentage from 1985 went down in 1986, and went down again in 1987? In other words, under the Conservative Government the procurement pattern of Supply and Services got worse every year.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I used to have a lot of respect for the Hon. Member, but because of the type of irresponsible statements that he has been making for the last six months he has not only lost respect from me, but also from his constituents. We will see it in the next election.


John Edward Broadbent: He didn't answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister may want to reply.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Just ask the shoe workers in Oakville about respect.


Otto John Jelinek: Talking about irresponsibility, the big mouth from Hamilton East is at it again.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are ducking the answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to respect each other.


PERCENTAGE OF CONTRACTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in 1987 the population of British Columbia provided 11.4 per cent of the population of Canada, and British Columbia was receiving 4.1 per cent of Supply and Service contracts.
The Minister misled the House a few moments ago when he said that things were actually improving. I want to ask the Minister of Supply and Services to confirm that-and I request that he not go off on some other tangent-in 1985 the percentage of contracts under Supply and Services to British Columbia went down from 1984, it went down in 1985, it went down in 1986, and went down again in 1987.
Will the Minister simply rise and say that that is correct?


Lloyd Axworthy: Because it is.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said in answer to the question from the Hon. Member for Capilano. In terms of dollar value-
August 18, 1988


John Edward Broadbent: The population has grown.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are misleading the House. B.C. is getting hosed under this Conservative Government year after year.


John Edward Broadbent: Ask another question over there.


Otto John Jelinek: Keep it down, you guys.
I hope the New Democratic Party does not want the numbers up and dollars down in British Columbia. In terms of dollar value-


Nelson Andrew Riis: We want our fair share. We only want our fair share. All we are asking for is our fair share for once.


Otto John Jelinek: Why don't you let me answer the question?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Because you won't answer the question. You are afraid of the answer. You are afraid to go on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Otto John Jelinek: I hope the Hon. Member will let me answer the question. The answer to the question is that for 20 years under the previous Government British Columbia did not get its fair share. It is only in the last two years that we are seeing the pay-off of the efforts of this Government over the past four years. That is why I am saying that the increase in procurement for British Columbia increased by 20 per cent in the last two years. We are still not satisfied, and that is why we elevated the DSS office in Vancouver to a Pacific directorate. The business community and Government of British Columbia applaud this initiative, so that our final objective on procurement is to bring equality of opportunity not only to British Columbia but to every region of the country.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of State for Finance. Last week, the Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business met to settle the matter of the charges for bad cheques that banks levy on small businesses. At that meeting, there was no progress and no solution to this problem. Yesterday, the Minister gave the banks high marks and paid them compliments. I would like to know if it is government policy to have small business pay twice for NSF cheques. If not, when will the Government issue an order to stop this discriminatory practice that is unacceptable for small business?
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of State for Finance responded to that question in a very general and, indeed, in a specific way yesterday. There has been a great deal of compliance to date. Significant progress has been made with respect to service charges as they relate to small business. There are still discussions going on and further announcements will be made in due course.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, why should small business be penalized for accepting what turns out to be a bad cheque from their customers? Why does the Government not take its responsibilities seriously, like it did for the consumer, and issue the same policy for small business? Isn't small business creating 80 per cent of the jobs? That is why the Minister of State for Small Businesses is travelling around the country announcing his empty Institute of Entrepreneurship. Why not do something concrete and help small business to be relieved of this unjustified charge?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that in an offhand way the Hon. Member has applauded the Government for its efforts towards improving the climate for small business. That is precisely why 80 per cent of the new jobs have been created by the small business sector. That is part and parcel of the economic policies of this Government which set out in the first place to scale down the regulatory burden and make the climate more attractive for the small business community.
Indeed, as I indicated in my earlier answer, there are ongoing discussions, but significant progress has been made with regard to service charges. As I indicated, discussions are ongoing and there will be further announcements in the future.
It all goes without saying that the small business community is very satisfied with the policies of this Government, and that is reflected in the massive job opportunities which have been created by it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Last December I asked about Canadian citizen Dick Laban who had been held in a Zimbabwe jail for several months. To date there has been no trial and there are still no charges outstanding, yet Mr. Laban is still in jail.

August 18, 1988
Privilege-Ms. Copps
What are Canadian authorities doing to end this unjust imprisonment?


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation, namely that Mr. Laban was arrested on September 22, 1987 and that he has been detained since. We were notified on August 4 that the charges were dropped. But Mr. Laban is still in prison under the emergency measures. He is being held on the basis of regulations under an emergency law. Mr. Speaker, I think that Canada cannot ignore this case. Furthermore, the High Commission in Harare is following the situation very closely. Mr. Laban is being represented by a lawyer and we are monitoring the situation very closely.


William Warren Allmand: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East rises on a point of order, but there is a prior question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, in the course of Question Period the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), in commenting on my statement about the City of Hamilton being asked to take garbage from the City of Toronto, claimed that the word "Hamilton" was not used in the statement made by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke North (Mr. Pennock). If the Hon. Member took the time to read the statement he will see that Hamilton is described by the Hon. Member as self-serving, and that Hamilton is supposed to take it because of its incinerator capacity. So the statements ascribed to me by the Hon. Member for Calgary West are totally false and I would like him to correct the record.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, talk about falsity. I would invite the House to examine what the Member just said. She started out by talking about my comments in Question Period. I have answered no questions, I have asked no questions, I did not participate in Question Period. I think that exemplifies what I believe to be that Member's reputation for accuracy in the chamber.
If indeed an examination of Hansard shows that I have said anything that is incorrect, I would be very happy to stand in the Chamber and correct it. I have done that on two or three occasions in nine years because I do not like to make inaccurate statements in this Chamber. Yesterday I corrected the
Hansard record from the day before; I spoke correctly but Hansard reported it wrongly.
I would be glad to do it, but to accept in this Chamber her assertion about anything I said is something I am not prepared to do until I see the written record, because she is too often inaccurate in this Chamber about what Members say.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to adjourn this matter. I will return if necessary. I will look at the Hansard record and act accordingly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I want-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East made her point. I am going to examine the Hansard record very carefully. If it is necessary I will hear the Hon. Member further. However, I am going to look at the record before there is any further debate on it.



POINT OF ORDER


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, during Question Period you called me to order and suggested that I should not quote a public report, in this case the second report of the Human Rights Committee, which was tabled yesterday. I think your words were that since it was a public report Hon. Members could read it. I would like to know from Your Honour-
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the Hon. Member. I did not say that it was inappropriate to quote a public report or anything else in the course of a question. I said that the quote was going on unduly long. I am sorry if in my comment I may not have made myself clear. The correction was only because there has to be some limit to the use of extensive quotes in questions. That, of course, applies equally in answers. I will certainly hear the Hon. Member further, but I do not want him to belabour the point that I in any way indicated that a report in this place ought not be referred to, or quoted at least in modest terms. I felt that the Hon. Member had gone on too long.


William Warren Allmand: I am pleased to have your clarification on the first point that I was going to make, Mr. Speaker. Before preparing that quote, I had checked with what has been said often with Ministers in answering questions, and I found that the quote that I made was in fact shorter than many of the quotes that are often made by Ministers in answering our questions. As a matter of fact, a day or two ago the Secretary of State went on for a very long period of time, quoting reports and things that he had done. If that is to be allowed on the
August 18, 1988

ministerial side, I would ask that the same treatment be allowed on the opposition side.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is Thursday and it is the usual time of the day when we ask the Deputy Government House Leader to outline the Business of the House for the next few days.
I wonder if I could make a special request of the Hon. Minister. Since we are all interested in the final vote on third reading of the trade deal, I wonder if he might give some thought to being specific as to the day that we might vote on that, to allow for ample notification of Members who are here today and, perhaps more important, Members who are in their constituencies, so that they can be sure to be here for that very important vote.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. friend's interest in the vote, and I am sure that his Party will be here. Let me first of all outline exactly where we are headed. Today, we are going to continue with report stage consideration of Bill C-130, the free trade Bill. Tomorrow, we have suggested to the opposition Parties a combination of the following five Bills, whichever we can make the most progress on, and we will take them in the order which would result in the most progress: Bill C-146, the Tax Court of Canada Bill, perhaps at all stages; Bill C-143, the substance abuse centre Bill, at all stages; Bill C-123, the Indian Act amendments, report stage and third reading, that recently came back from committee; Bill C-150, Indian Act amendments on the death rule, at all stages; and Bill C-147, the human rights centre Bill, at all stages.
On Monday we will be resuming report stage consideration of Bill C-130 and, it being a long day, we would go until ten o'clock, pursuant to the House Order. Any divisions which are demanded at report stage, including the concurrence motion, would be deferred by a House Order to Tuesday, August 23, at 6 p.m.
Tuesday, for debate purposes, we would be calling, first of all, Bill C-144, the child care Bill, which we would like to send to committee. If it is in fact back from committee, we would be dealing with Bill C-139, the tax reform Bill at report stage.
I appreciate my hon. colleague's interest in the balance of the third reading debate on Bill C-130.


Nelson Andrew Riis: To facilitate Members' travel and to facilitate Members' voting on important matters, I simply want to ask the Deputy Government House Leader once again whether at this point it is impossible to say or to state on what day the actual third reading vote will take place. He does now have the
Points of Order
right to set aside any two days for debate, and I would like to suggest that if there is any way that he could indicate on which days that vote would take place, it would certainly facilitate individual Members organizing their own schedules.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I think that at the present time I am stuck with my statement that we would like to give long days, and that would mean Thursday, Monday or Monday, Tuesday. As soon as that gels and I can give the House some idea, I think that it is in the interest of all Members to do that. I will certainly be here. It is either Thursday, Monday or Monday, Tuesday.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I now have confirmation from the distinguished critic on Indian Affairs of the Liberal Party that it would be acceptable to him to begin with Bill C-150. Second, with respect to the comments made by the Deputy Government House Leader about the days for the third reading stage imposed on this House by the Order that was obtained by the Government the other day, I would like to discuss this with him during the course of the afternoon. I may have some suggestions that would assist him in deciding what to do.


Mr. Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify my response to a question from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) during Question Period on Tuesday of this week. While the Member is not present at the moment, I have spoken to him by telephone and he knows that I will be rising on this point of order.
I did not realize that the Member was referring to a commuter service, and I may therefore have inadvertently misled the House. As commuter services are not within the jurisdiction of the federal Government, CN is not required to apply to the NTA for the abandonment of the St. Hilaire service. I have referred to the NTA and to the processes which are required under that Act. This decision is purely a management or an operational one on the part of the railway, and it would be inappropriate for the federal Government to interfere. 1 would, however, point out to the Hon. Member that CN sustains an annual deficit of some $1.3 million for this underutilized service.
Federal funds were available for the modernization of the Saint-Hilaire service through the Canada-Quebec agreement signed in 1981. The province decided not to modernize the service, as no satisfactory agreement could be reached with the concerned municipalities at that time.

August 18, 1988
Motions


TENTH REPORT OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I was
just going to note, Mr. Speaker, that earlier this day there was an indication from all three Parties that if the co-chairman of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations appeared later in the day and wanted to move concurrence in the report, there was a general predisposition in the Elouse, by unanimous consent, to admit that motion and to dispose of it in a positive way without debate. I think that it is in the nation's interest and in the committee's interest.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move concurrence in the tenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. I understand that the unanimous consent is based on no debate. I would simply note that this is a report which was unanimous, which has already been concurred in in the Senate, and which explains to Parliament the reasons for which the committee has decided not to review the regulations issued by courts in certain cases about the procedures that apply in the court. The report is short and self-explanatory. I commend it to all of the Members of this House, and I thank you for the unanimous consent.
Motion agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 18476). and of Mr. Langdon (p. 18476).
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address, in the few moments available to each Member to speak, the fourth grouping of amendments including the ones put forward by our trade critic, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I would like to concentrate on Motion No. 19 to delete Clause 9 of the
Bill which refers to the Canadian grape and wine industry. I would also like to deal with Motion No. 21 which, if passed, would ensure a true partnership with various consumer, labour and business interests and/or organizations represented on a number of committees and commissions in charge of overseeing the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
If there is any industry that will have a negative fallout from the Mulroney trade agreement, clearly it is the grape and wine industry. This industry is largely focused in the Niagara fruit belt of the Province of Ontario and in the Province of British Columbia. The Canadian wine industry and grape growers will be major losers from this deal.
Every conceivable analysis done by any independent authority predicts widespread job losses in the Provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, because the agreement will remove tariffs over a 10-year period and will affect provincial pricing mechanisms that are in place to try to protect and enhance our own industry. It is very obvious that the wine industry will come to a fatal end. As well, the jobs connected to it through the multiplier effect in other key sectors in both provinces will be at stake.
I had an opportunity, along with other members of the Liberal Party, only two days ago to meet firsthand with a number of grape producers who made the trip to Ottawa. They got up at five o'clock in the morning, got in their cars and came to Ottawa with the intention of making a pitch, a last ditch effort, an eleventh hour plea, for the sensitivity and protection that is needed and justified for their industry. In the face of American and European competition, this industry will no longer be viable.
The pleas of the grape growers were desperate ones. They were real ones. We could tell from the look in their eyes that they were on the threshold of losing their livelihoods and in some cases abandoning generations of grape growing. They came to Ottawa to ask the Government to try to protect this industry. They said that if it was the vision of this Government to enter into a trade arrangement with the United States, if that was its economic answer to the woes we face, then that vision should be put before the Canadian people.
What the grape growers fail to take lying down is the blind attitude of this Government which knows of the consequences of its actions on the wine and grape producers. Those actions would sound the death-knell for those families in that industry of some 1,500 jobs. They fail to accept a Government that will walk into this free trade arrangement blindly when it has those kinds of ramifications.
The Government has said that it will take care of these people by providing adjustment programs so they can grow other kinds of tender fruits. However, the tender fruit industries in the Niagara fruit belt and the Okanagan Valley are at a saturation point. Other fruit growers are already struggling. Not only will this action cause a serious rupture in the grape producing farm belts of Canada, but because it will force these people into producing other fruits it will endanger other fruit
August 18, 1988

farmers who are already operating at saturation points and who just barely make ends meet.
These people are asking themselves, as are we, led by our trade critic, what kind of economic sense this kind of deal makes for the grape producing industry.
Given that there is a very limited growing season in Canada, given that the industry is under a barrage of competition, given that there is some pride in producing our own grapes and wines for domestic consumption, given that there are 1,500 jobs that will evaporate and disappear from the Okanagan Valley and the Niagara fruit belt, and given that there is already enough competition in the other tender fruit markets, what kind of government would not care about all those factors and would simply say: "This is the kind of deal you're going to get, take it or leave it"? That is why the grape producing farmers made the trip to Ottawa on Tuesday morning. They tried to sensitize the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to their problem. I hope they will have an opportunity to do that another time, because it was impossible to do so on that day.
These people want the Government to understand that livelihoods are at stake. That is why the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, the Liberal trade critic, moved Motion No. 19 to delete the clause that would do damage to these people. He did it to protect and respect an industry that has roots in Canada and that has a sense of pride. With some assistance, it might have a viable future.
It is no secret that this industry has had difficulties in the past, but that is not an excuse to trample over it completely. Instead, if it has had difficulties, that would be all the more reason for the Government to be extra sensitive to this industry that is trying to find its legs when entering into this kind of agreement. My colleague's Motion No. 19 provides a viable alternative. It is an amendment that has been put forward with a degree of urgency and with a degree of sensitivity.
Though I only have a few moments remaining in my time, I would like to deal with Motion No. 21 which I believe is a very fair motion. It would provide for an effective mechanism of consultation with Canadians. Motion No. 21 would ensure that various consumer, labour, and business interests would be represented on the various organizing structures that would oversee the application of this agreement.
It is bad enough that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was against free trade in 1983. It is bad enough that the question of free trade was not debated in the last election. It is bad enough that the Government does not want to go to the people before officially ratifying this deal. Because the Government is timid and negligent in those three ways, we have moved Motion No. 21 which would ensure that Canadians who are involved in various interest groups would have a direct and meaningful partnership in deciding on and applying what will become known as the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
Message from the Senate


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. It has been the tradition in this House for a considerable length of time that we refer to Members of this House as Hon. Members or, if they hold a position with the Government, by that position. Throughout his speech the Hon. Member has been referring to a "Mulroney-Reagan trade deal". The title is the "Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement"; the other is not. I believe the Chair should draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that there is no such thing as that about which he is speaking.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brampton- Georgetown is correct in his remarks. The Hon. Member for York West may conclude.


Sergio Marchi: It is very interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary gets on his feet to correct me in how I refer to this deal when he fails day after day to get to his feet to tell the House of Commons and Canadians that he will be reacting to our concern about the farmers in the Niagara fruit belt and the Okanagan Valley. Those are the real issues and the stands the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) ought to be taking rather than pathetically getting to his feet to lament because I called this deal the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. What is wrong with calling it the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York West knows that he should not use personal names to refer to Members in the House. I hope the Hon. Member will remember that in future.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-92, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act; Bill C-145, An Act to amend various Acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the Quebec Provincial Court, Court of the sessions of the Peace and Youth Court as the Court of Quebec; Bill C-103, An Act to increase the opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts; and Bill C-30, An Act to amend the National Parks Act and to amend An Act to amend the National Parks Act.
Royal Assent



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
August 18, 1988
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
18 August, 1988 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerard V. J. La Forest, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 18th day of August, 1988, at 3:30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth,
Deputy Secretary,
Policy and Program
1984. To all those who say that the Government does not or has not supported this industry, I say that the Government has purchased every single grape that could not be sold privately. Every single grape was purchased with the assistance of the federal Government.
It has been recognized for a number of years that there is excess capacity in this important industry. That excess was recognized by the Province of Ontario. There has been tabled in the Ontario Legislature changes to be made in the Wine Content Act which, among other things, acknowledge the fact that with the removal of labrusca grapes from certain types of wines in Ontario there will be excess capacity and a vine removal program will be necessary. That is acknowledged by the Ontario Government.
What is not acknowledged by the critics of this free trade agreement which will be so helpful to the Niagara Peninsula-



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 18476), and of Mr. Langdon (p. 18476).
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter the debate on these amendments. As one of the number of representatives in this House of the grape growing and wine producing areas of Canada, I am very pleased to give my opinions with respect to this industry.
I heard the previous speaker's remarks. I must categorically disagree with his comments that this industry will not survive because of free trade. That is absolutely incorrect. That is nonsense. An examination of the facts would bear me out on that subject.
I do agree with him that there have been difficulties in this industry which extend back a number of years. For the record, there have been surpluses within the grape industry in 10 of the last 12 years. There are a number of reasons for that, chief among them the competition that we face, which I suggest is in many ways unfair, from the Europeans who, through the years of indirect subsidies, have flooded Canada in the past. That, along with a number of other things, has caused a surplus of grapes. Expanding production within the Niagara and British Columbia regions has contributed to the excess as well.
One of the first things I did as a Member of Parliament after being elected in 1984 was to approach the representatives of the Treasury Board with my request that the Government take up the surplus of grapes that was produced in the fall of



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give Royal Assent in Her Majesty's name to the following Bills:
Bill C-129, An Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public.-Chapter 44, 1988.
Bill C-132, An Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act.- Chapter 45, 1988.
Bill C-112, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and other Acts in consequence thereof.-Chapter 46, 1988.
Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.-Chapter 47, 1988.
Bill C-30, An Act to amend the National Parks Act and to amend An Act to amend the National Parks Act.-Chapter 48, 1988.
Bill C-145, An Act to amend various Acts to give effect to the reconstitution of the Quebec Provincial Court, Court of the Sessions of the Peace and Youth Court as the Court of Quebec.-Chapter 49, 1988.
Bill C-103, An Act to increase opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts.-Chapter 50, 1988.
August 18, 1988



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 18476) and of Mr. Langdon (p. 18476).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I was saying how important it is that this agreement be passed for the benefit of the Niagara Peninsula. Many companies have indicated to me how important it is that I and other Members from the Niagara area, as well as members of the Government, get out to support the free trade agreement. Acres International, an employer of over 400 excellent jobs, recently contacted me to let me know that they are firmly behind it. I was at the Norton plant recently, and I got the same message from them. General Motors, B.F. Goodrich, C and C Yachts, T.R.W., Hayes-Dana, Muller's Meats, Brunner Manufacturing, almost all major employers in the City of Niagara Falls have contacted me to indicate their support for it.
I tell them I will do my best, despite the fact that there are so many so-called experts here on the economy of the Niagara Peninsula.
We were talking about the grape and wine industry. Something the critics of this agreement seem to forget, perhaps conveniently because they can sometimes get away with that without being called to task, is that we are also part of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. That is a group of all countries in the world trading together. It is sometimes forgotten that Canada has agreed to remove discriminatory provincial liquor pricing policy within GATT. We agreed to that over 10 years ago, but that is conveniently forgotten.
This free trade agreement is an agreement within GATT. It complies with GATT, so that the critics of this agreement do not realize, will not admit or will not be straightforward enough to admit that if the trade agreement disappeared it would not make one bit of difference to the problems we are having with the grape-wine industry. We have GATT to contend with, an agreement by which we agree to reduce and eliminate provincial liquor pricing policies. The attitude of the Province of Ontario on this matter is very interesting. It knows it has agreed to it. It has acknowledged that in the past. However, when asked about it, it says that any problems with provincial liquor pricing policies is not its concern and that the federal Government has to worry about that. Curiously
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
enough, this is the provincial Government's complete attitude as it relates to this industry.
On the grape surplus program, each year the federal Government has indicated that it will do its share and put up 50 per cent to purchase every surplus crop, and the Province of Ontario is expected to meet the other 50 per cent. The Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin) can tell us that the provincial Government drags its heels every single year to the point where last year we had to give out the cheque. The federal Government gave its money and said that it did not know what was happening in Ontario. It did not know what the problem was with Queen's Park. That has been the rule of thumb with the Ontario Government. I hope some of my colleagues in the Opposition, the next time they talk to Premier Peterson and some of his friends in Queen's Park, will tell them to ante-up and start supporting this industry. This is not my only example.
We almost had a very terrible drought in the Niagara Peninsula. There was a drought in western Canada that caused great damage to agriculture, and we went for a long time without rain in the Niagara Peninsula. I was very concerned. I contacted the Department of Agriculture and asked to have the situation monitored, that we might have a problem, but as soon as it looked like there would be any problem with drought in the Niagara Peninsula, the word came from Queen's Park that it would have nothing to do with it. It said that if there was any problem we had better look to Ottawa, that the drought was Ottawa's problem. However, we were also told that the provincial Government was our best friend. The Ontario Minister of Agriculture came to my area and told us: "We are the best friends the farmers of this area ever had", but he did not bring his cheque-book. He said that if we were looking for any money we had better talk to the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), but that we should not forget the provincial Government was our best friend. That was the attitude of the provincial Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Bring on the trade agreement.


Rob Nicholson: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) must still have a few friends down there at Queen's Park. She should tell them to bring their cheque-book the next time they visit the Niagara Peninsula and quit dragging their feet in supporting this industry.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Right on, brother.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That isn't going to wash in the Niagara Peninsula.


Rob Nicholson: The provincial Government changed the Wine Content Act. It said that we could not use labrusca grapes in certain types of wines, but when the vine removal program which is necessarily attendant upon that is presented to that Government, it says: "We may have helped

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
caused this excess capacity in labrusca grapes by our changes to the wine content, but you had better look to Ottawa if you want help and, remember, we are your friends". People are not going to buy that. Right now there are negotiations going on between the federal Government and the provincial Government to support this industry which will make it a viable, expanding and vital industry for the well-being of Ontario and Canada for years to come. I put the Ontario Government on notice. It has to do its share. It has benefited to the tune of billions of dollars from this industry over the years. It is now its turn to join with us to help make this a viable industry.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this afternoon to speak on Motion Nos. 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 25. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that those motions give a pretty broad latitude.
I would like to start with a few quotations. First, I think it is important that Canadians know the genetics of this deal. Where did it come from and what does it mean? After about August 30, the country will be inundated with taxpayer-paid advertising giving only the view of the Government and big business of the deal. Let us look back to see what the former Minister for International Trade, the present President of the Treasury Board (Ms. Carney), had to say a little while ago. This was just after the deal had been negotiated. It had taken place, of course, in Washington, not in Canada. She was interviewed by a reporter from The Vancouver Sun, and she is quoted as saying:
The boss has not indicated any interest in moving me, in spite of all your Ottawa rumours to the contrary. He thinks I have done a great job. As a matter of fact, he phoned me up the night we did it and said, "How does it feel to be a mother of confederation?" So I thought, gee. I have never thought of it that way. That is pretty neat.
There we have the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, the former Minister for International Trade, the present President of the Treasury Board, receiving a call from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who, I suppose, was telephoning from 24 Sussex to Vancouver or Hawaii, or wherever she was at that point in time, and asking how it felt to be the mother of Confederation. That is how the Prime Minister looks at this deal and how at least one Conservative Member of Cabinet thinks of it: "Gee, I've never thought of it that way. That's pretty neat".
We hear selective quotations from the government side all the time, including from the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) who just spoke about the grape industry, which will be heavily and negatively impacted both in British Columbia and Ontario by the proposed deal. Headlines read: "Economy will do well with no deal, panel says". People would not wonder who the panel is because the present Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) is always quoting selectively from the Economic Council of Canada. Here is what it had to say:
The collapse of free trade negotiations "need not be catastrophic" for the nation, the Economic Council of Canada says in its annual review to be released this week.
With 80 per cent of exports still entering the United States duty free- even without free trade-Canadians' standard of living will continue to rise, the council says.
The government side is always eager to quote selectively from the Economic Council of Canada, but there it is on record as saying that even without the deal Canada would probably be as well off, if not better; certainly from the perspective of sovereignty, we would be better off. A headline from another article in The Globe and Mail reads: "Free trade: a Losing Proposition". It is an article by Marjorie Cohen, author of Free Trade and The future of Women's Work. She teaches economics at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and represents the National Action Committee on the Status of Women in the Coalition Against Free Trade.
Mr. Mulroney's grand design to "secure" access to the U.S. market has failed. Unless Canada "harmonizes" its social and economic programs to conform to U.S. notions of what is fair play, it will have no improved access to U.S. markets. And social and economic programs are in greater danger than ever. Why? Because the economy will be tied even more closely to that of the United States, and Canada will have even more to fear from U.S. complaints if its programs aren't sufficiently similar to those south of the border.
I must point out that we cannot forget that the countervailing action taken by the U.S. against our east coast fishing industry found some 50 to 60 Canadian programs which they felt were countervailable. Of course, that is a precedent set for future countervailing actions by anyone in the United States against Canadian social programs such as unemployment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan, and medicare. Marjorie Cohen goes on to say on energy:
The free trade agreement binds Canada to more than just a pathetic disputes-settlement mechanism. It is bound to give up what is potentially the most effective weapon it has in gaining a competitive advantage with the United States: Control over energy pricing and energy supply.
This agreement has given the United States something Canada historically has resisted-total access to Canadian energy supplies. The gravity of the problem is indicated by the fact Canada has given up its ability to reserve resources for its own people even when such resources are very scarce. The agreement specifically states that, when energy is in short supply, the United States will have "proportional access to the diminished supply".
She concludes the article under the heading of "The Politics":
In his speech before Parliament last Monday, Mr. Mulroney boasted about the way his Government "brings Canadians into the decision-making process". This is political double-talk of a high order. Ordinary Canadians have not been involved in this process-it has been an initiative of big business and the Conservative Government.
The latest polls indicate that more people in Canada are against free trade than are for it. Before he was elected, Mr. Mulroney assured the country that he was against it. He said: "Don't talk to me about free trade. That issue was decided in 1911. Free trade is a danger to Canadian sovereignty. You'll hear no more of it from me".
We see what kind of a flip-flop the Prime Minister can do. He can be absolutely opposed before he is elected, but he comes into office and goes in exactly the opposite direction. We hear from the government side quotations which are never fully verified from certain people and certain groups that are
August 18, 1988

highly supportive of free trade. No doubt. The large multinationals are very much in favour of it, and I will come to the reasons for that in a moment.
Let me quote again from The Gazette of Montreal. The headline reads "Free trade worries computer firms. Pact would mean loss of 150,000 jobs to U.S., association says". That is a story out of Winnipeg.
The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Deal will ensure that Canadians subsidiaries will lose 150,000 high-paying computer-data jobs to their U.S. parent Firms over the next six years, the Canadian Independent Computer Services Association told a parliamentary committee yesterday.
These are the kinds of impacts independent associations feel they will have as a result of the deal.
I have to spend a moment on the obvious hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. Members of that Party speak out of all sides of their mouths on this issue. We have the Liberal Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, publicly stating he is absolutely in favour of it. We have the former Trudeau Liberal Minister of Finance, Donald Macdonald, publicly supporting it. Of course he has to quieten down now a little bit since he has been appointed as the High Commissioner to Great Britain as his just rewards for having promoted free trade along with his Conservative buddy, the former Premier of Alberta.
Even Senator George van Roggen has split from the Liberal caucus and has gone public saying free trade is the greatest deal of all. Let us not forget that on January 30, 1985 in Vancouver he was interviewed and he said: "Agriculture should be excluded from such an agreement, as is the case in nearly all other free trade areas". We will probably find out in a few months or years down the road what his just reward will be for not living up to his own words. As we know now, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture does not support the FTA. It represents the overwhelming majority of farmers and farm groups in the country.
I want to quote now from the briefing paper for Secretary Baker and Ambassador Yeutter, a briefing paper provided to them in relation to the FTA on energy. I think Canadians have a great deal to fear in terms of the lost future when it comes to the kind of control Washington and the U.S. Congress and Senate now have over our oil supplies. This is called "Questions and Answers for Clayton Yeutter". It states:
Canada is by far our largest supplier of imported energy. In 1986 Canada was our largest supplier of oil (ahead of Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia) and uranium (about two-thirds of our imports and about one-fourth of total consumption), and accounted for almost all our imports of natural gas and electricity. Canada was also the largest market for U.S. coal exports for the first nine months of 1986.
The total value of two-way energy trade between the U.S. and Canada has been about $10 billion per year or more in recent years, with the likelihood that it will grow in future years as a result of increasing U.S. import requirements. The U.S./Canada energy trade relationship is the world's largest and the total value of this trade exceeds the value of our total trade (all goods and services) with all but a handful of other countries in the world.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Is it not interesting, Mr. Speaker, that here, even in a situation in which there is diminished supply, we have to continue to provide it to U.S. consumers? Even if they do not have line-ups at gas stations in the U.S. during an oil crisis, Canadians would have to be lining up knowing that at various border crossings our energy was going across into the U.S. to provide fuel to Americans at a time when we were facing shortages.


John Horton McDermid: That has been in effect since 1974.


James Ross Fulton: The Parliamentary Secretary from Brampton- Georgetown thinks that is just right. There are an awful lot of Canadians who do not like that idea.
Let me quote an article written by Marjorie Nichols entitled "Energy pact fuels fears for future" in which she states:
The energy pact is the Trojan Horse in this trade deal. In fact, it's dishonest to pretend that the energy pact has a logical place in a trade deal dedicated to dismantling the man-made barriers to commerce between Canada and the U.S.
The energy package is devoted to an entirely different objective. Its purpose is to dismantle the God-given distinctiveness assigned to Canada by its resources.
Under the section, the U.S. is to be awarded the right for all time to sup as an absolute equal at Canada's resource table.
There is no other independent country in the history of this world that has voluntarily and peacefully agreed to share its sovereignty with another country.
Let me conclude with another point. She went on to state:
As troubling as the realization that we have a government that doesn't know what it has proposed giving away rights that other nations would go to war to preserve, is the suspicion that the entire energy section may have been drafted by the Americans.
Marjorie Nichols goes on to point out why. Let us just remember one other thing in terms of history on the question of energy. I refer to the great pipeline debate that went on in this House a few years ago and the great American promise that the construction of the prebuild that goes down from just south of Calgary in California and into the Midwest would be completed from Alaska down to Calgary and provide back to Canada the natural gas that we had sold them through the prebuild. Where is that promise? Of course it was Mitchell Sharp who sat on there drawing down 50 or 100 grand a year all these last years while nothing was going on.
So on a whole variety of fronts I think I have made it clear with quotations from authorities that this deal is bad for Canada. I suppose we can just sleep at night thinking it was the former Member for Vancouver Centre who is so pleased to be the Mother of Confederation with the United States.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to hear the speeches from the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) but I think the Member has already spoken on this set of motions. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) on debate.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): As you know, Mr. Speaker, we are presently debating six amendments to Bill C-130. These amendments have been grouped together for purposes of debate. I particularly want to address three of them.
The first one I want to address is Motion No. 21 which would amend Clause 11 of the Bill. Our amendment would ensure that the committees, panels and commissions which would administer the free trade agreement would have appropriate representation from consumer associations, labour and business. As is usual with a Conservative Government, it looks on this free trade agreement totally in terms of business. There is no attempt to have involved in the administration of the agreement or, as a matter of fact, in consultation leading to the establishment of the agreement, the views of labour and the views of consumers. This amendment is the direct result of the submission made to the legislative committee on Bill C-130 by the Consumers Association of Canada.
When the Consumers Association of Canada was before the legislative committee its principal goal was to make sure that there would be a continuing consumer presence in the administration of this agreement. It pointed out that during the consultations which took place while the trade agreement was being negotiated it was only consulted in a very token way. Over and over again the Government has said that it has done a lot of consultation with respect to the development of this U.S.-Canada free trade agreement. It referred to the work done by what is known as the SAGIT committees. SAGIT means Special Advisory Groups on International Trade-


Dave Nickerson: Sectoral Advisory Groups-


William Warren Allmand: Sectoral Advisory Groups on International Trade. We have called it by the acronym for so long that it is difficult to remember what it means. In any case, there were SAGIT groups in many sectors. The consumers were in a token way represented on a couple of them, as was pointed out before the legislative committee. But it said that even those recommendations which were made were ignored. It said, as a last resort would we please make an amendment to the Bill which would ensure its presence on these various committees, commissions and panels. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government would not do that. Even if it is its intention to do it in an administrative sort of way, I think it is worth-while as is done in other legislation to ensure this presence.
So through Motion No. 21 we are suggesting that Clause 11 be amended by adding another subsection which states:
-that appointments to such committees, panels, commissions or other
bodies ensure representation from consumers groups, labour and business.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that we think this is a bad agreement and should be defeated altogether. But if it is to go ahead, at least it should be improved in the best possible way. One of these ways is through such an amendment as we are proposing in Motion No. 21. There is no doubt that as this
agreement is administered there will be serious impacts on workers. Therefore, that is why we are asking that labour be represented in the administration of the agreement. There will also be serious impacts on consumers through prices and the quality and safety of products. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to this amendment. It was strongly recommended by the Consumers Association of Canada.
Related to that amendment is one that is suggested in Motion No. 22 which states that one of the committees that should be set up under Clause 11 should be a committee that would monitor and review matters arising out of the act or the agreement, including the adjustment impact on workers and communities, as well as the activities, economic viability, and ability to compete with companies from the United States doing business in Canada, and also the agricultural pressures in Canada resulting from the agreement.
In the speech that I made on Tuesday to another amendment under this Bill, I referred to the serious impacts that this agreement would have on workers and the necessity of having special adjustment provisions to deal with the impacts on workers. I refer again to the report of the Economic Council of Canada published in April of this year in which it assesses the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. At page 21 of that report the Economic Council states: "It indicates clearly that without improvements in Canadian manufacturing productivity, increased U.S. competition could result in a net decline of output and employment in 17 of the 36 industries studied, virtually all of them in manufacturing". It goes on to state: "Some firms will have to merge, others will have to close". Then the report refers to the electrical products industry, which it states will account for 40 per cent of all the job losses in manufacturing.
There is also a table which lists the manufacturing industries that are likely to lose employment as a result of the agreement. For example, the rubber and plastics industry, the leather industry, the textiles industry, the knitting mills industry, furniture and fixtures industry, paper products industry, metal fabricating industry, machinery industry, transportation equipment, electrical products, non-metallic minerals, and the chemical products industry. The Economic Council states that all those industries will be threatened with job loss as a result of the agreement.
The report goes on to point out that there will be job gains, and I quote again from the report which states: "Under the most likely scenario, a number of major occupations in the service sector, clerical, sales and services, managerial and administrative jobs will dominate, accounting for close to 148,000 new jobs". While it seems that we will lose jobs in the manufacturing sector as a result of the agreement, we will gain jobs in the service sector. It is well known that jobs in the manufacturing sector are usually well paid jobs with unions, full-time, and with benefits. On the other hand, many jobs in
August 18, 1988

the service sector for sales and clerical people are part-time, minimum wage, without benefits, and non-unionized.
Under this agreement it appears that we will be exchanging solid, full-time manufacturing jobs for service jobs which do not have the same salaries and benefits. As some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee said, we will be exchanging factories for warehouses; companies will concentrate their manufacturing, research and development in the United States, and they will have warehouses, and sales, distribution, and service people in Canada.
I strongly support this amendment in Motion No. 22 which states that one of the committees to be established for the administration of this agreement should monitor and review the adjustment impact of the agreement on company workers and communities and, in addition, monitor and review the economic viability and ability to compete within a given sector by Canadian companies with the United States companies operating in Canada.
Another amendment under this group of amendments is allembracing. It simply states that we should delete Clause 8 of the agreement. Clause 8 of the agreement states that the agreement is hereby approved. To knock out that particular section of the Bill is one that we in this Party would like to do with all the ability and force that we could muster. The reason we want to do so is that it is a bad agreement for Canada.
The Conservative Government, in an attempt to lower tariffs and get assured access to the United States, sold out the country. It gave non-discriminatory access to Canadian energy on an assured basis. It gave national standing to American companies operating in Canada. It restricts the use of Crown corporations in Canada. For the first time in the world it has opened free trade for service industries, which is an unknown factor. It has put at risk regional economic development, agriculture, fisheries, and many other sectors.
We point out that, under Liberal policies for freer trade since the end of the Second World War, we now have a situation in Canada where there are no tariffs whatsoever on 80 per cent of all goods and services between Canada and the United States. However, that was done in a multilateral context, and our independence, identity, and sovereignty were not threatened. We eliminated tariffs on 80 per cent of goods and services without selling out the country. Now with this agreement, where the attempt was to ensure access to the United States, it is only eliminating tariffs on the remaining 20 per cent of trade, but the real culprit and barrier to trade in the United States, countervail and anti-dumping, have not been touched at all. We do not approve of this agreement, and we move that Clause 8 stating that the agreement be approved, be struck from the record.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to review some of the absolutely atrocious statements made by the Opposition. I listened to my hon. friend, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), who, every time he is on his feet, knocks Canadians. He says that we cannot compete, and everything is going to be American. Remember Trudeau used to say: "Zap, you are frozen". These guys are going around saying: "Zap, you are American".


William Warren Allmand: The Economic Council says that.


John Horton McDermid: I have never met a Canadian who wants to be an American.


Lloyd Axworthy: John Crosbie wants to become an American.


John Horton McDermid: I have not met one yet. We are not going to become American any more than fly to the moon, and the Hon. Member knows that. What a dumb thing for him to say, and to stand up time after time making stupid statements like that. What absolute truck!
Opposition Members want to take the clause out of the Bill which reads: "The agreement is hereby approved". If they want to take that out, why are they bringing in all the other amendments? If they want to take that one out, fine, but why bring in all the other amendments?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Do you agree?


John Horton McDermid: No, this section is a standard clause, the general approval of an international agreement by Parliament. It is in all international agreements. No, I do not agree. It stays in. We are going to defeat that amendment, because it is a silly amendment. It is nonsense. It is crazy. It was brought by the Liberals. It was not brought by the NDP. I am looking at my hon. friend, but I am talking to the Liberals.
I want to cover the wine situation. I hear time after time Members getting up and talking about the free trade agreement-there is the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). She stands up and says, "The free trade agreement caused the wine industry the problems". I am going to give the chronology of what has gone on in regard to the wine industry in Canada. From 1960 to the mid-1970s, the issue of the discriminatory pricing practices of the provinces was raised by the United Kingdom and France at the Canada-France and the Canada-United Kingdom bilateral meetings. It was in the Tokyo Round, from 1975 to 1979, of the GATT negotiations-and the opposition Parties think that GATT is the only answer- that the issue was pressed by the United States, the European Economic Community, Australia and New Zealand.
At the end of the Tokyo Round, on April 5, 1979, to be exact, a Canadian letter to the Economic Community providing provincial statements of intention-these are the provinces that were involved; British Columbia and Ontario-made a statement of intentions at that time. This is in April, 1979. This letter said that the provinces gave a commitment to end discriminatory pricing practices.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
On June 7, 1984-the Liberal leadership convention was going on, as a matter of fact-the European Community requested consultations under GATT, claiming that the provinces had not lived up to their 1979 commitment. On October 5, 1984, consultations were held with the European Community in response to the request. On November 29, 1984, a three-part proposal was put forward by Canada on a possible bilateral solution to their complaint. It was turned down.
On February 12, 1985, the European Community requested the establishment of a GATT panel. I want you to see that date, February 12, 1985. That was before free trade negotiations were ever discussed. That is when the GATT panel was requested and established on March 12, 1985, long before the free trade negotiations got under way. That is the GATT panel that came in in 1987 and said, "Ontario and British Columbia, your discriminatory pricing, marking up foreign wines, is an unfair trade practice". It has nothing to do with the free trade agreement. If we had never discussed the free trade agreement, the grape industries in this country were in trouble. Do you want to know why? Let me tell you why. This is from the wine industry itself in its presentation to our committee, I might say. It is dated a couple of days ago. They said:
The development of the Canadian wine industry has taken place in an environment dominated by provincial government intervention.
That is their first statement. It continues:
Provinces have enacted legislation which creates preferences for locally-produced wines, thus ensuring that job-creating wineries are located within their boundaries. These barriers mean that there is no truly Canadian market, but 10 separate provincial markets.
We cannot even trade east-west in the wine that we produce, or in the beer that we produce, for that matter, because of the provincial regulations. We have these 10 little markets all across the country. The presentation further states:
Regulations have been enacted to maximize the use of Canadian grapes in Ontario and British Columbia - the only provinces where grapes are grown in commercial quantities.
Due to higher input costs in Canada caused by our scale of production-
Marketing boards have negotiated grape prices which, on average, are double that of comparable grapes in California. It continues:
Provincial and federal governments have purchased surplus grapes, thereby limiting the need for adjustment in the supply and type of grape produced in Canada.
There is the key to the whole thing. There was no incentive for them to change to the varietal types of grapes. That is what we have been missing. The Governments were buying their surplus grapes, so why change? Who cares? The presentation further states:
Indeed, because of the annual purchase of surplus grapes by the federal and provincial governments, there is now a chronic surplus of unwanted labrusca grapes; and a shortage of vinifera varietals-in a world that is literally awash in wine and grapes.
They went on to say:
The result of these government actions and attitudes-
They are talking of provincial Government, not federal Government:
-has been the development of a commercial wine industry which is often required to produce product from artificially expensive imports in uneconomic facilities.
This is quite a brief that they have presented. If people read this and went on to read it and talk about it, they would find that the wine industry was in trouble in this country for a number of reasons, primarily provincial. Yet, here is the Premier of the Province of Ontario who says-and he is speaking to the grape people:
At some point or another, you're going to have to make your feelings known to the federal government that created this situation-
The federal Government that created this situation!
-it takes more than one to dance. We did not cause this problem.
This is Peterson from Ontario who is saying this. The Wine Institute has irrefutable evidence saying that it is the province that is causing this problem.
You cannot have it both ways. Somebody is not telling the truth. I have known David Peterson for years. I knew David Peterson before most people in Ontario knew him. I have worked with him at Queen's Park. I remember the tough leadership battle he had against the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. But here he is saying, "We did not cause the problem". Yet, here is the Canadian Wine Institute that presented us, the committee, with a brief saying that they did cause the problem. So, there are problems. We admit to that.
Our Government has, in the West and in co-operation with the Province of British Columbia, arranged help for the grape growers to change to those varietal grapes that are so important to produce a good quality wine. Our good quality wine in Canada is being sold around the world. It is winning medals around the world. Hillebrand is exporting 4,000 cases of its wine this year to Japan. So our wine industry can survive. Our grape growers need some time and some help to tear out those old vines and bring in the new vines.
Let me just read from this article. There was a woman who met the Premier of Ontario, and here is what she said:
The Government of Canada has agreed to set aside $70 million for a vine-removal program and to support a surplus buying plan for 1988-
She is talking to Peterson, face to face. This is the quote:
-(but) we have no commitment from the Ontario Government at this time. We as growers are asking for a commitment from the Ontario Government for these two programs-
That is what she said. He said, "The negotiations are tough. You are not going to like the solution, but hopefully we can give you one that you can live with. But it is not our fault". This is the Premier of Ontario.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is right.
August 18, 1988


John Horton McDermid: I must tell you that the amendments that are proposed in this grouping are totally unnecessary. If I had more time, I could quote chapter and verse as to why they are unnecessary. For example, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) announced the make-up of the International Trade Advisory Committee, representatives of labour, industry, small business, large business. As a matter of fact, the Minister emphasized that he invited the Canadian Labour Congress to discuss the CLC's participation in the International Trade Advisory Committee. The CLC's views and the multilateral trade negotiations will be important, and I hope that they will accept my invitation. They did not accept my invitation the first time when they were invited. Let us hope that they do this time.
We involve people in the consultative process that we have instituted over the last four years, and we will continue to do so. These amendments are unnecessary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise again and to point out to some extent to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister that in his description of the grape growers' problems and their suggestion to both the provincial Government and the grape growers of the involvement of the federal Government and the need of assistance from the federal Government, it is relative to the decision made by this Government that 50 per cent of the differential must be made up at once, or at the beginning of the trade agreement. That in itself puts the federal Government in the driver's seat and makes it responsible for the dilemma the grape growers are faced with in this next year.


John Horton McDermid: No, that is nonsense. Read the GATT panel.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: These six clauses we are dealing with cover a great deal. The first one suggests that we just not agree with this Act in any way and delete Clause 8. One of the problems in this whole discussion is the fact that government Members are making a great deal out of what they call the truth in interpretation of this agreement. In doing so, they show how arrogant they are. The interpretation of this Bill is exactly what is being disagreed with. We have a different interpretation of many of the terms of the agreement and clauses of the Bill. By saying that the government interpretation is the truth and anyone else's is a lie, government Members are insulting everyone who has given a little bit of thought or study to this Bill and the agreement and come up with any kind of interpretation different from the Government. What arrogance. That does not contribute to understanding of this deal.
The understanding or lack of understanding of this deal will be what will eventually defeat this free trade agreement. A voter faced with making a decision on the deal is being asked to choose between the status quo and something he or she does
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
not understand. If you are faced with that kind of a decision, you are going to choose the status quo. It would seem to be in the best interests of the Government if it were to help voters to understand.


John Horton McDermid: We are.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: However, there is the rub. The more the voters understand about this agreement, the more they disagree with it, and the Government is caught in a real dilemma.


John Horton McDermid: That is the NDP, accept the status quo or go backwards.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I recognize the dilemma that government Members are faced with, and in the process I recognize that the action they are taking is to confuse the issue as much as possible. That is the only alternative they have. It is the only way out. If the people understand it, they will vote against it. If they do not understand it, they vote for the status quo.
I want to speak on Motion Nos. 17, 19 an 21 for just a minute. Motion No. 19 deletes Clause 9. Some day one of the provincial Governments is going to take Clause 9 to the courts and the Government is going to lose. It attempts to impose the will of this agreement on the provinces even if they do not want it. Premier Bourassa, who claims that he and everybody in Quebec supports this Bill-although that is very doubtful- has decided that he could not face this elimination of provincial rights. If you cannot beat them, join them. He said he is going to, and has done it to some extent by passing permissive legislation which allows the Government to come in and do that, or he is going to pass it before the federal Government does, say it is already in place and therefore does not affect our rights at all.
Premier Peterson appears to be doing exactly the opposite. He is making sure he has legislation in place which this Bill will confront. We are going to have a confrontation between this Bill and provincial government law which will protect water, the wine industry and other products controlled by the provincial Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Pretty good Premier.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Yes, he is.
That is what will happen as far as Motion No. 19 is concerned, so it makes sense to eliminate Clause 9 by accepting Motion No. 19.
With respect to Motion No. 21, a Liberal motion, although we accept the idea of broader representation on the government board dealing with the agreement, it must be recognized that this amendment does not require that there be farmers' groups, women's groups and multicultural groups on the board as well. We will support the amendment but it does lack a bit in that it does not recognize those groups I just mentioned in

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
addition to the ones it does. It could be broader than it is but we will support it.
Motion No. 22, an NDP motion, aims at setting up a commission that would monitor the problems of community workers, community and worker adjustment, sectoral competitiveness of Canadian and U.S. companies, and agricultural pressures resulting from the agreement. The motion recognizes there are going to be problems in every one of these areas and we should know what those problems are when they happen and be able to do something about them, or do something about them before they happen, if possible.
If the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary wishes to find out what those areas of concern are, what those pressures of competitiveness will be, he should just go back to some of the briefs that were presented to the committee. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture's brief did not take an exact stand on whether it is for or against the agreement, but it pointed out that there are a myriad of concerns that should be dealt with. The prairie pools made representations indicating that there are some concerns over the fact that the whole process is undermining the Canadian Wheat Board. National farmers' unions have listed a great many concerns about agriculture. These are things that the panel should know about before they have a disastrous effect upon the industries with which we are concerned.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in my place to offer a few comments on this important legislation. All of us have listened for some days to many observations and presentations made by many Members.
The Elon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), in his speech a few moments ago, suggested that any Canadian who criticized the free trade agreement would be condemned by members of my Party. That, of course, is totally untrue. There are a great many Canadians, as we continually find to our sorrow, whose knowledge of the proposal is somewhat less than we would wish it to be. Not everyone has taken the trouble to study the documents or to follow the debates. The people have gained their impressions of what is occurring by reading the newspaper headlines and by hearing little squibs about what is taking place.
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert said that anyone who has studied the matter briefly should not be condemned. I agree with him entirely, but the members of his Party and the members of the Liberal Party are expected to have studied this at length. Therefore, they have no excuse for totally misrepresenting a number of the things that are contained in the document.
When my own constituents ask me about free trade, I tell them that the trade proposal does not guarantee a job, it does not deliver a job and it does not promise a job. Therefore, the claims that jobs will be created or lost are just a lot of rhetoric.
What the trade proposal does is to create an opportunity. It gives Canadians an opportunity to sell into a market.
If a producer does not produce any goods, quite clearly he will not make any sales. If he makes no attempt to go to the United States or to any other country in this world to market his goods, clearly he will not have any sales. Nothing is guaranteed in this life. If a person makes no effort, he will not get very far.
Our Government, any Government, has an obligation as a part of its job to create opportunities for the people, and that is precisely what this legislation offers. It offers an opportunity. Canadians who choose not to take advantage of the opportunity are quite entitled to make that choice. There are no guarantees in this world. Those who do not choose to take advantage of the market that is available to them will clearly not benefit as much as those who do.
I have listened very patiently to a lot of things said in this House which are complete nonsense. My colleagues might be interested to know, just as an aside, what was said by the person who has been nominated by the New Democratic Party to campaign against me in the next federal election. She will remain anonymous and she certainly deserves to remain anonymous. She stood up at a public meeting and said that free trade was a total, dreadful disaster, there were a thousand and one things wrong with it and, as an illustration of how awful this proposed free trade thing is, she said that the free trade agreement already in place is responsible for our testing the cruise missile. That is exactly what she said to an impressionable high school audience. Either she is the most misinformed person in this country or she is capable of telling a bald-faced lie without even having to blush.
Those are the sorts of things that are being said which do nothing to enhance the reputation of present or would-be Members of this House. Members of this House, in name if not in fact, are supposed to be honourable people. They are presumed to tell the truth when they have the opportunity to speak in public. Therefore, all of us have an obligation to look carefully at documents so that when we represent our Party's position or anyone else's position, we do so truthfully and factually.
Certainly there are many things that we can disagree about in this world. There are many pieces of legislation that are complex and there are different ways of arriving at solutions. Honest debate and honest disagreement is a natural state of affairs. It is healthy and indeed should occur in this place. That is why we are here. We are not here to rubber-stamp things but to look at them carefully, prudently and seriously and to arrive at the best answers we can. Therefore, I enjoin members of the Opposition, when they make speeches on this subject in this House or elsewhere, to use some care to attempt to be factual.
Indiscriminate access to Canada's energy is a phrase that has been used. That is just not true. The energy resources of this country have been and continue to belong to the individual
August 18, 1988

provinces. In 1974, we reached agreement internationally, and that was when the Liberal Government was in office, in time of crisis not to cut off a customer who has a valid contract. We did this voluntarily, not only with the United States but with a number of other countries. That is entirely reasonable, because it works both ways. It is conceivable that Canada can have an energy crisis of its own at some point in time as a result of international activity, and we would be the beneficiaries the same as anyone else in the sharing.
We have seen fit to propose in this trade package to add to oil, gas and hydro-electric power. We make major sales of that power to the United States. Interestingly enough, a suggestion was made by a member of the Liberal Party a few moments ago that we are the only country in history that would ever agree to do this kind of thing. I was under the impression that this trade proposal was a bilateral agreement, that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander, that any advantage that might accrue to the United States as a result of an energy crisis would equally apply to us if the market was a problem for us.
Another matter that is raised fairly regularly is what was said in 1983. In 1983, there was a contest for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party. The candidates at that time were asked what they thought about free trade. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who at that point was seeking the office of Leader of the Party, said that he was opposed to free trade. If he were asked today the same question, in the same context, he would also say that he was opposed to it. What we are proposing here is a form of managed trade. It is a long way from being free trade.
In the summer of 1985, I had the privilege of being a member of a special joint committee of Parliament comprised, as Hon. Members will be aware, of both MPs and Senators. We were asked to do two things that summer. We were asked to travel to all 10 provinces of this country and to hold public hearings into two issues. One was the invitation by the President of the United States to participate in SDI, and the other was to find out what Canadians thought about free trade.
It was very apparent to us, as we travelled across the country, that free trade, pure free trade, was a non-starter. We possess a great many things in this country which we prize and value which are different from the United States. We have no wish to put ourselves in the position of bargaining them away. They include our social programs, our culture, our sovereignty, and various particularly vulnerable parts of our industry.
It was our recommendation to the Government, as a result of our public hearings across the country, that we should indeed carry on with this initiative of trade with the United States. We recommended that we have conversations which should lead to negotiations which may or not arrive at full free trade depending on what was left on the table. If various things
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
were taken off the table we would clearly not have a free trade agreement but a form of managed trade.
That is exactly what we have. Any attempt to represent it as any other thing is untrue. The Prime Minister said then, and would say now, that pure free trade is a non-starter for this country. I agree with that and that is not what we have.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I have just heard from the Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Crofton). Has he read the Bill? It says, "An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States". It is a free trade agreement. If I heard the Hon. Member correctly, he said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is still against free trade. Frankly, I am baffled because this is a free trade agreement. The Government says it is a free trade agreement and the Prime Minister says it is a free trade agreement. It is most certainly not a managed trade agreement. It is a free trade agreement and it says so right in the Bill.
I can understand why the Member for Esquimalt-Saanich is trying to distance himself from his Government's free trade agreement by stating that he is against free trade, which is what he just said.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would appreciate if the Member who is speaking now would make some attempt to describe my constituency properly. She has mispronounced it a series of times.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I understood the Speaker introduced the Member as the Member for Esquimalt-Saanich. If he is not the Member for Esquimalt-Saanich I am sure the Speaker can change that nomenclature. I take the correction very seriously but I wish the Member would get back to the main point.
I have just heard a Conservative stand in the House and say that he is against free trade and his Prime Minister is against free trade.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: In its purest sense.


Sheila Maureen Copps: In its purest sense, yes, that is exactly what he said.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: Are you suggesting that this is?


Sheila Maureen Copps: This is a free trade agreement. On Bill C-130 it says, "An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States". It is called a free trade agreement and it is a free trade agreement.


John Napier Turner: Nothing is free.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I can understand why the Member for Esquimalt-Saanich and the Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) have to distance themselves because this policy is devastating for their Government. I am also very pleased that a Conservative Government Member has finally admitted

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
what we have said all along, that this agreement will not create a single job. The Member for Esquimalt-Saanich said in his remarks that it would not create a single job. I agree with him totally, but I wonder how he squares that with the Finance Department's report, which was tabled by his own Government, which claimed that the free trade agreement was going to create 250,000 jobs. The Member has admitted here in the House that the free trade agreement will not create a single job. I could not agree with him more. In fact, it is going to cost us jobs.
I would like to spend some time zeroing in on an industry which has been victimized as a result of this deal. There has been much discussion today about the GATT panel. I understand why the Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Nicholson) was practically apoplectic in his seat, because the whole of the Niagara Peninsula, which was painted Tory blue in the last election, is finished. There is not a single Tory on the Niagara Peninsula who will be re-elected, and that is directly a result of this trade deal.


Rob Nicholson: We're going to get you, too, Sheila.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, you're going to get me. Believe me, I am waiting. I want the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) as my guest speaker because the minute he comes into my riding I will end up with 10,000 more votes.
Specifically with respect to the grape growers, the Member for Niagara Falls stood in his place and tried to blame the signing of the free trade deal on the Ontario Government, one of the few Governments which has consistently spoken out against the deal.


Rob Nicholson: What about GATT, Sheila?


Sheila Maureen Copps: In fact, the decision of this Government to sacrifice the wine industry by implementing a 50 per cent reduction in Canadian content in the first calendar year of the agreement has already written off the grape industry. The grape farmers in the Niagara Peninsula are finished.
The Parliamentary Secretary can talk about going into different kinds of grapes, but the fact is that as a bare minimum in order to survive as an industry one half of the acreage on the Niagara Peninsula will have to be buried. You will probably see 60,000 tonnes of grapes rotting in the ground this year as a direct result of the fact that the wine companies know that they are no longer bound to buy Canadian grapes because of the changes which were wrought and brought upon us, not by the GATT panel, which talked about a 12-year phase-in period, but specifically as a result of the free trade agreement.
Farmers on the Niagara Peninsula have seen the value of their properties and their industry cut by literally, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think of Mr. Danyluk who was here in the House last week.
One thing I will say to the credit of Simon Reisman is that he at least admitted publicly that one of the victims of the trade deal was the grape and wine industry, unlike the Member for Niagara Falls who tries to hide behind the GATT panel which was precipitated by a European community that was afraid of the infiltration of California grapes into the Canadian market-place. At least Simon Reisman has said that the grape farmers will be sacrificed on the altar of free trade.
Two years ago I participated on a panel in Toronto. The American Vice Consul at the time, Mr. Blevins, stated quite categorically that one of the reasons the Americans wanted to sign the trade deal was that they wanted to be able to make inroads into the Canadian wine market. Indeed, inroads they will make. There has been a 50 per cent cut-back in the grape quota which was formerly accorded to the wineries; 25 per cent in January of 1989 and 25 per cent in January of 1990, for a total of a 50 per cent reduction in the first year of production. If anyone knows anything about the industry in the Niagara region they will know that the transfer of grapes-


Rob Nicholson: Oh, you're an expert now, are you?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Danyluk was here in the gallery yesterday. He wants to transfer his production from grapes to raspberries. In order for him to make that transfer he must have some upfront capital and he needs time to make that change.


John Horton McDermid: He will.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The man is going bankrupt and the people on the government side of the House are blaming other governments. Before this free trade deal was introduced Mr. Danyluk had an operation which, including his capital and farm, was worth approximately $500,000. He usually needed an annual operating loan of between $90,000 and $95,000 in order to harvest the grapes and take them through full production or to sell them.
As soon as the free trade deal was announced-not the GATT panel or the European decision-his banker called him up and said that, although he may be sitting on property which was formerly worth $500,000 with a $160,000 mortgage, the bank would lend him as an operating loan this year, because of the free trade deal, $5,000. His operating loan was cut from $95,000 to $5,000.
The federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said, "I'll help out, I'll solve the problem". His office called the bank and was able to get the loan increased by a measly $5,000. Mr. Danyluk is operating his farm this year on a $10,000 operating loan. The only reason he can harvest the grapes is because people are harvesting them on the promise that they will be paid after the harvest.
These are the victims of the trade deal who should be paid by the Government. The Government must stop shirking its responsibility and start paying up to those people whose livelihoods it has destroyed as a result of the trade deal.
August 18, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISABILITY OF INFORMING DEPOSITORS WHEN DEPOSITS ARE UNINSURED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, July 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Riis:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provinces in establishing a system whereby those individuals who deposit money in financial institutions not covered by deposit insurance be required to sign a waiver form indicating that they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured in the event that the institution goes bankrupt.
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate. I think this is a subject that is very important and one that in the past has caused considerable hardship. I think of my own riding of Niagara Falls a number of years ago and the provincially regulated company by the name of Astra Trust. I am sure there are Members in the House who will remember that incident.
The common complaint among a number of the individuals in that case was that they bought certificates, had invested money with the company and thought that they were covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the protection given under that particular Act. They assumed in dealing with this company that there were either federal or provincial regulations and laws in place that would protect their investment. They unfortunately found out that they in fact were not covered. The story did not have a completely unhappy ending since there was government assistance in that case, but it pointed out the need at both levels of government to act in a way that would help protect individuals from that circumstance.
I am pleased that this subject, as well as other issues within the financial sector, has been under review by the Government. I believe there has been substantial progress made in it.
The Government has already implemented a number of measures to enhance consumer protection. As part of the financial sector reform package contained in the December 1986 policy document, Bill C-42 and Bill C-56 received Royal Assent just over a year ago. I think they go a long way to addressing some of the concerns that many of us have in this particular area.
I suggest as well that the federal Government has addressed the problems not only with its jurisdiction, it has encouraged and participated in discussions with its provincial counterparts.
Financial Institutions
In the area of financial sector change, the Government has met the challenge. Bill C-42 is a good example. The House should reflect for a moment on what measures have been taken by the Government of Canada in this area. Bill C-42 has an extension of the ban on unauthorized presentations of the insurance status of member institutions or of deposits received by them to persons acting as agents of such institutions.
In addition, that Act includes the incorporation in the CDIC Act itself of an existing regulatory requirement that when institutions take deposits which are not insured they must indicate that fact in writing on the deposit in contract. That is a very substantial and important change so that people see on the face of the contract whether or not they are protected.
In addition, there is a new requirement that member institutions who solicit funds for investment on behalf of their investment company subsidiaries or any other non-member of the CDIC give notice to investors that such funds are not covered. These new measures are in addition to the existing prohibition against anyone, other than a member institution, from representing itself or other member institutions as being insured by the CDIC.
As Members are aware, the Government is currently in the process of implementing the remaining measures contained in the December 1986 policy document. Among other things, these measures will grant broader powers to federal financial institutions, enabling them to provide their clients with a much wider range of financial services. The Government views the formation of such groups as a healthy development for Canada's financial markets.
In addition to providing Canadians with more choice and convenience in obtaining financial services, the diversification of financial institutions into new lines of business should enhance their ability to meet the challenge of increasing international competition as well.
The Government is well aware of the potential problems that are entailed in trying to protect the consumer. Consequently, the need for additional measures to address potential problems has been recognized in the draft of the proposed new Trust and Loans Companies Act which was released on December 21, 1987. By expanding the powers of trust and loan companies to provide various sorts of financial services to their clients, the draft legislation would also enable the Governor in Council to make regulations imposing terms and conditions with respect to those activities.
It is important to remember that these measures of consumer protection belong in the context of a major overhaul of the potential Prudential safeguards of our financial system. Bill C-42 has created the office of Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and Bill C-56 gave that office stronger powers than its predecessor organization.
I believe it is fair to say that the CDIC is hard at work at improving public awareness about what it insures. Readable and detailed information brochures are being produced and the

August 18, 1988
Financial Institutions
corporation is looking into a number of techniques for strenghthening public knowledge of its activities.
The Government is committed to developing legislation that protects the Canadian consumer. I support the Government's efforts in that regard. I suggest as well that as much as the Government of Canada agrees that there must be as much protection as possible, I do not agree with what 1 think may be implied in this resolution, that somehow we will take over the area and we ourselves will insure provincial lending institutions. That is wrong and would go too far.
I suggest it is typical of the NDP that on every occasion they want to extend the reach of the federal Government to make us responsible for everything. There is a responsibility for us to take leadership in what is in the federal jurisdiction, to protect consumers. We can and should discuss these matters with the provinces, and the provinces themselves should take steps to ensure that those individuals who lend money and deposit money with provincial institutions are protected. But I will not go that one step further and say that we should somehow get into the business ourselves and that we ourselves should become liable for mistakes made within the provincial lending jurisdiction. That is wrong. That is an unwarranted extension of the federal jurisdiction. I would reject that and would hope the Government itself would reject it.
Again, this is an important area of consumer protection, one that I am very pleased to have been able to comment upon.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multicultur-alism):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to take this opportunity to respond to the remarks of my colleague from Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I join my colleagues on both sides of the House in welcoming the opportunity to express the concerns that many of us have on an important consumer protection issue.
The key issue which this motion addressed is, of course: How do we go about ensuring that consumers get the information which they need to make sound saving and investment decisions? This question has been in people's minds a great deal since the failure of the Principal Group in Alberta.
As Members of this House all know, the Principal Group affair falls entirely under provincial juridiction, given that none of the 127 companies that constituted the Principal Group was federally chartered or regulated. In fact, only one of the Principal Group compagnies-Principal Saving and Trust-was even a member institution of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, or CDIC.
Nevertheless, I agree with the mover of this motion that the federal Government has a constructive role to play in preven-tinig the types of misunderstanding that occurred all too frequently among clients of the Principal Group.
I am pleased to note that the Government has already taken significant steps in the last few years with these issues in mind. Even prior to the Principal Group failure, the Government implemented a number of measures to ensure that clients of CDIC member institutions received better information.
Several of these were implemented through amendments to the CDIC act in July of last year which banned the agents of member institutions from making unauthorized statements regarding the insured status of the institutions or of any deposits received by them; introduced a requirement that when institutions take deposits which are not insured, they must indicate that fact in writing on the deposit contract; and required member institutions who solicit funds for investment on behalf of their investment company subsidiaries or any other non-member to give notice to investors that such funds are not insured.
These new measures are in addition to the existing prohibition against anyone other that a member institution from representing iteslf as being insured by the CDIC.
As Members of this House are aware, the Government is also committed to implementing addidional consumer protection measures as part of its proposed financial sector reforms.
Mr. Speaker, those measures are especially relevant given the growing trend towards the "networking" of financial services that is financial institutions marketing other institutions' products. I agree with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) when he says, on page 24 of his december 1986 policy paper, that additional measures are needed.
In particular, I agree that rules are needed to ensure that clients of financial institutions are always informed of which financial institution it is that they are actually dealing with and of the presence or absence of deposit insurance coverage on the investments they make.
In conclusion, the measure which the mover of this motion has proposed is one such rule. But it is only one of a number of possible mechanisms for accomplishing this objective. Moreover, it is far from a perfect solution to the problem at hand.
In fact, it could easily create as many new problems as it purports to solve. This is so because, as others have pointed out, it could mislead consumers into believing that there is only one kind of insurance coverage for deposits and deposit-like investments.
In spite of all this, I think that the mover of the motion has the right objective in mind. Therefore, while I cannot support the motion as it currently stands, I support his call for additional efforts on the part of both federal and provincial Governments to take co-ordinated action to prevent the reemergence of problems similar to those which arose in the Principal Group affair.
Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure you that our Government is doing everything so that consumers be better protected than ever before. As a consumer advocate who volunteered to uphold
August 18, 1988

their cause in Quebec, I can assure you that given what has been happening in financial institutions as six of our Conservative colleagues .. . lower credit card interest and lower bank charges, I am more than pleased to see that at long last consumers are beginning to be treated with much more respect. I have always fought for that and I am very proud to be on this side of the House when I see that for once the consumer has been dealt a winning hand.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, this motion presented by the Hon. Member for (Kamloops-Shuswap), (Mr. Riis) raises a concern which is felt by a good many Canadians. Indeed, I believe the record amply shows that it is a concern shared by the Government, one which it has already moved effectively to address.
There can be no question that Canadians expect and deserve the strongest possible reassurance concerning the security of their deposits in our financial institutions. As has been pointed out in this useful debate, not all our individual investment decisions can ever be fully guaranteed. Nevertheless, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation goes a long way in ensuring that our savings will not have disappeared when we go to collect them. It provides an essential level of consumer protection by insuring individual deposits up to $60,000 in our federally chartered banks and most trust and loan companies.
The CD1C certainly provides the cornerstone of our consumer protection system, but it is not the whole structure. The Quebec Insurance Board, for example, offers CDIC-like coverage in that province for deposits in loan and trust companies and caisses populaires under provincial jurisdiction. Other provinces have established a number of corporations offering investment and deposit insurance.
We are not just concerned with protecting what we think of as conventional savings deposits at the bank or trust company. There is the whole business, for instance, of annuities sold by the insurance industry. As we know, the Government is currently working with the industry to determine the most effective means of providing insurance for annuities similar to the coverage the CDIC provides for bank and trust deposits. We must also bear in mind that as a result of the Government's reform of financial institutions legislation, our financial sector can look forward to offering consumers the choice and convenience of a much broader range of products and services. These will be placed on the market through networking arrangements between financial institutions. They are likely to include, to give just one example, deposit-like instruments that are in fact insured, although not necessarily by the same agency that insures the institution that sells them.
In light of all this, I have no quarrel with the general principles underlying this motion. It seeks to improve consumer protection, and none of us are against that. However, the question to be asked is, would it effectively strengthen
Financial Institutions
measures the Government already has in place and is in the process of implementing? Or does it, instead, try to do right things in a wrong way and thus unnecessarily creates new problems?
Other Members have already pointed out some of the motion's deficiencies in this respect and I will not dwell on them. Everyone agrees on the necessity for harmonization and co-operation between the federal Government and the provinces, but this is not likely to be achieved by asking federal regulators to set rules in areas of provincial jurisdiction. There are also technical problems raised by the motion including uncertainty of the precise meaning of the term "insured deposits", bearing in mind the variety of deposit insurance agencies and plans to which I have already referred.
This debate has nonetheless served the useful purpose of highlighting the range of measures the Government has undertaken to improve consumer protection even as financial sector reform allows growth of new and innovative customer services. The Government has strengthened the arm of the CDIC through the new provisions which clarify when deposits are and are not insured. It is now a statutory requirement that deposit contracts issued by CDIC-insured member institutions and their affiliates indicate in writing when deposits are not insured under the CDIC. Non-members of the CDIC and all persons acting as their agents are prohibited from representing themselves as being insured by the CDIC.
The Government's draft trust and loan companies legislation, as well as the new legislation covering banks and insurance companies, will empower the Government to impose strict regulations on the operations of these companies to safeguard consumers. What I believe all this adds up to is that Canadians have every reason for having confidence in the soundness of our financial institutions in the new era of reform, and in the Government's determination to give first priority to the protection of consumer interest.
As you well know, Mr. Speaker, I am from the Province of Alberta. Over the past few years we have had our problems. We have had problems with the failure of the Canadian Commercial Bank as well as the Northland Bank. After much discussion and a great many hearings the Government moved to assist the depositors. The opposition Member who is putting forward this motion, as well as members of the Official Opposition, ridiculed the Government. They opposed the Conservative Government when we moved to protect consumers in both these cases. How they have changed their minds. They have done a 180 degree turnaround. Now they are even talking about the federal Government moving on the disastrous Principal Group problem that we have in Edmonton, Alberta.
The Principal Group comes under provincial jurisdiction. It is certainly not under the federal Government's authority. I do not see any reason why the federal Government should step outside its bounds of authority.

August 18, 1988
Financial Institutions
Over the past couple of years the Government has taken initiatives through Bill C-42 and Bill C-56. Bill C-42 strengthens the federal supervision of financial institutions. New powers will improve the ability of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation to protect the interests of insured depositors and other creditors. Federal regulators will have a stronger and a clearer sense of powers to take control of financial institutions that are insolvent and that violate their regulatory requirements.
We have also passed Bill C-56, a Bill that strengthens legislation governing banks, federally regulated trust, insurance and loan companies. The Government is committed through this Bill to ensuring that federally regulated financial institutions remain sound and are competitive, both domestically and internationally. We have taken steps to support and improve consumers' deposits. We have addressed issues-not to say that there is not more to be done.
In speaking to this motion 1 am sorry that I cannot support it. I feel very strongly that the Government, through Bill C-42 and Bill C-56, has certainly moved into the area to assure consumers that they have absolutely more legislation governing banks and federally regulated institutions, and that the CDIC has certainly improved its mandate. There is now more supervision in terms of CDIC deposits.
I appreciate having the time to express my views. I am sorry for the problems that Alberta has faced over the past few years. Hopefully, the province can resolve the Principal Group situation. We look forward to consumers being assisted there.

Mrs, Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for bringing this motion before the House. As many of my colleagues have already indicated, the question of consumer protection in this period of financial institution reform is of obvious concern to many people, I am sure that all of us, as Members of Parliament, have heard from constituents who are worried about the stability and safety of Canada's financial institutions, particularly given the high profile failures of certain institutions over the past decade.
These failures have had a high profile, of course largely because the underlying stability and safety of our financial system made them unusual-the exceptions to the rule. While their effect on the system and the economy has been relatively small, they must not be considered unimportant. They are not unimportant to a small investor or depositor who loses money. He or she does not want the two levels of Government to point fingers and assign blame; they want something done about the situation.
These incidents have pointed to flaws in the existing system which must be addressed by both federal and provincial governments. I say federal and provincial governments, Mr. Speaker, because as you know, jurisdiction in this area is
shared. As the motion before us indicates by calling for co-operation between levels of governments, neither the federal Government nor provincial governments alone can protect the entire financial system.
The Federal Government has given top priority to protecting the consumer. In fact, it has been one of the most important principles guiding the Government's reform of the financial sector ever since it first came out with its Green Paper in the spring of 1985. Indeed, on the very first page of that discussion document the Government committed itself to nine principles designed to better serve the public interest in the regulation of financial institutions in Canada.
The principles are as follows:
-to improve consumer protection;
-strict control of self-dealing;
-to guard against abuses of conflicts of interest;
-to promote competition, innovation and efficiency;
-to enhance the convenience and options available to consumers in the market place;
-to broaden the sources of credit available to individuals and business;
-to ensure the soundness of financial institutions and the stability of the financial system;
-to promote international competitiveness and domestic economic growth; and
-to promote the harmonization of federal and provincial regulatory policies.
The Government re-affirmed its commitment to these principles in its Blue Paper tabled in the House in December 1986. These principles have guided the Government's actions ever since and, as indicated by its position on the list, consumer protection has been given top priority.
Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have already pointed out the many ways in which the Government has strengthened and improved consumer protection. They have set out very well the measures it plans to introduce to further improve protection in the future. I am not going to spend the valuable time of the House in yet another recitation of these measures.
Let me just say about this that I believe the Government has done a lot to protect consumers, and should be congratulated for its work rather than receiving concealed criticism for not going even further. That does not mean that we cannot do more. 1 know that I am always interested in hearing about new ways to help consumers, as I am sure are most of my colleagues. However, although I can agree with the principles behind the Hon. Member's motion, that reflect in certain ways the principles I outlined earlier, 1 believe there are a number of problems with the motion.
There would be a number of difficulties involved in drafting a waiver form to take into account all the different kinds of
August 18, 1988

situations facing consumers of financial products today. As the borders between financial institutions become increasingly blurred, the difficulties would worsen. Even now it is difficult for a financial institution to know when a person's deposits exceed $60,000; for example, the client may have many different accounts located in various branches of the same institution.
There is also the difficulty of defining accurately the term "insured deposit". After all, there are many different kinds of deposit-insurance agencies, including: the federally chartered Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures federally chartered banks and most trust and loan companies; the Quebec Insurance Board, which offers similar coverage in Quebec for deposits in loan and trust companies and Quebec-registered caisse populaires; the Corporation du fonds de securite de la confederation Desjardins; various provincial "equalization funds" and investment-insurance and deposit-insurance corporations; and, compensation plans for holders of annuities and life and general insurance policies that are presently under discussion.
The situation becomes increasingly complicated when you consider that, in the future, financial institutions will be able to provide their customers with a much broader range of financial products and services. These could include instruments that are insured, but not by the same organization that insures the institution doing the selling. The possible complications along this line are endless.
The points I have made are only a few of the problems I foresee in trying to implement the Hon. Member's motion. But, as I indicated earlier, the general principles behind the motion-strengthening consumer protection and encouraging federal-provincial co-operation-are shared by the Government.
As the NPD House Leader pointed out in his opening remarks in February, his initiative is only one way of dealing with the issue of increasing consumer protection. Indeed, he admitted, and I quote: "There may even be other better ways of dealing with it." I believe this debate has revealed that the government has found better ways of dealing with the problem and has either implemented them or is in the process of implementing them.


Patrick Dermott Crofton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, whose motion we are debating this afternoon, for giving me the opportunity to speak on the important and timely issue of better protection for depositors and investors in Canada's financial institutions.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provinces in establishing a system whereby those individuals who deposit money in financial institutions not covered by deposit insurance be required to sign a waiver form indicating that
Financial Institutions
they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured in the event that the
institution goes bankrupt.
In slightly less complicated terms the motion simply states that we improve our consumer protection and regulations, and that we co-operate and consult with the provinces in order to do so. This could be described as a motherhood issue. Everyone, particularly members of the Government, is in favour of ensuring that depositors and investors can continue to have a high degree of confidence in our financial institutions. We all want to know that our money is safe and that our banks and other deposit taking institutions will continue to be world class in both their levels of security and in their service to the public.
In these fast moving times, particularly in the financial sector, the issue is even higher in the minds of many. I can certainly understand the concerns of many Canadians when they read about the failure of some of our financial institutions.
Those of us who were elected for the first time in 1984 from the Province of British Columbia had barely been in office when we were approached by people who had invested their life savings in the B.C. Teachers' Investment and Housing Cooperative. It is a tragedy of tremendous dimension for people whose hard earned life savings are invested in any enterprise, whether it is a co-op, a business venture, or a bank. Many of these people were retired and their opportunity to earn was clearly diminished. They were dependent upon the investment that they had made and the deposits that they had in these institutions for their well-being. To lose them, by some freak combination of circumstances beyond their control, was a shattering blow to them. The hurt, harm, and in many cases the ill health that resulted from this failure, was of tragic dimension.
Consequently, federal and provincial Governments must do what is reasonably possible to assure Canadians that the financial sector, whether federal or provincial, is as strong and safe as it can be made.
However, ladies, gentlemen, and colleagues, there is no question that business ventures are exactly that; risks are taken, investments are made, and there is no guarantee in this world that all business investments will be successful. As parliamentarians we have to determine what is the proper role for us in trying to safeguard innocent Canadians without being so heavy-handed in a bureaucratic sense in attempting to indemnify for each and every possible risk that might come that indeed business is stifled itself. That is why debate such as this is important.
It is very clear that the present Government places a high priority on revamping our financial institutions to provide the safety measures that we all believe desirable. I personally feel much more assured by the measures the Government has taken over the past several years. 1 hope other Canadians will also feel that their money is safe and will continue to be safe in this period of financial sector reform.

August 18, 1988
Financial Institutions
No matter how hard we try, it is very difficult to legislate common sense. If an individual is determined to invest money, in the first instance that individual must assume some responsibility for checking out what it is that they are doing with that money. We can pass all the rules we like in Ottawa, but an investor who does not bother to read the big print, never mind the fine print, makes it very difficult for us as parliamentarians to save them harmless from all the things they might choose to do.
I am not going to repeat what a number of my colleagues have already said about the many ways in which the Government has and is strengthening and improving consumer protection. Nor will 1 reiterate the numerous problems and difficulties in implementing the Hon. Member's motion. Many of my colleagues have also pointed out that the Government has important and far-reaching plans for further improved protection, and they have adequately described those plans. 1 believe it would be a waste of your time, Mr. Speaker, and that of Members of the House to go over them one more time.
I would like to add my assurance that the Government has always, and will always, put the protection of Canadian consumers uppermost in its financial reform plans. We have also co-operated and consulted extensively with the provinces to better harmonize financial regulations across the country. This is consistent with what the Government has been saying about financial reforms since day one.
In the Agenda for Economic Renewal which was presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) shortly after we came to office, we discussed directions for change for the regulation of financial institutions. We stated: "The Government intends to respond by working with the provinces, the public and the financial community to ensure that legislation reflects the rapidly changing financial sector. Among the objectives must be the efficient delivery of financial services, while maintaining adequate protection for investors and savers, and intergovernmental harmonization of the regulatory framework".
If one reads the Government's original Green Paper on Financial Sector Reform, it is clear that protecting consumers has been a top priority for the Government. Indeed, on page 1 of that document the Government listed nine principles which would guide us in planning new directions for our financial sector. All nine principles were designed to ensure that the public would continue to have confidence in our financial sector while, at the same time, ensuring that the sector would remain strong and competitive internationally and could offer consumers more and better services.
Our number one principle was "To improve consumer protection"; as I said before, we have been consistent.
Our other eight principles were as follows: to strengthen the controls against self-dealing; to guard against abuses of conflict of interest; to design a financial sector policy that promotes competition in the sector, while enhancing innovation
and improving efficiency; to ensure that customers in the market-place will be able to choose from a wider array of options and new services and that the trend toward more convenience for consumers would continue; to broaden the sources of credit available to individuals and to businesses; to ensure and enhance the soundness and stability of the financial system; to promote the international competitiveness of our institutions while ensuring that they can continue to aid domestic economic growth; and, finally, to promote the harmonization of federal and provincial regulatory policies.
We have reiterated these principles and reaffirmed our commitment to them in the Blue Paper that we tabled in the House of Commons in December, 1986. We have been guided by these principles since.
It is clear that what the Hon. Member wants to achieve with his motion-and it is a laudable motion, namely better consumer protection and federal-provincial co-operation-is exactly what the Government is already working to achieve. Indeed, when he introduced his motion last February, the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) pointed out that there may be better ways of dealing with the issue.
That remains to be determined. The Government is working energetically to find those safeguards. I had the privilege very recently of hosting the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) in my constituency of Esquimalt-Saanich. During his visit I arranged meetings for him with the banking community, members of the co-operative institutions and members of the trust companies to review the safeguards that we are discussing here today.
Part of the meeting was spent with my MLA in the Province of British Columbia, who also happens to be the Minister of Finance in the provincial Government. We discussed at some length the various kinds of institutions and the measures that this motion proposes.
I congratulate the Member for bringing forward this idea. It has to be very seriously considered, but as part of an over-all comprehensive review. It is one thing for us to pass rules here; it is another matter to legislate common sense. People have signed documents and have unhappily found, to their sorrow, that they really did not read what they had signed and did not know what they were signing, so it is difficult for us as legislators to indemnify citizens from many of their own actions when they choose to invest their money.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise for a few minutes and speak on Motion No. 143 in the name of my friend and colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap. It points out again the importance of the Private Members' Hour. My friend opposite from Kamloops-Shuswap, I am sure, is setting a world record for the number of Bills that have been introduced to the Private Members' Hour. I know that that indicates his extreme personal interest in the Private Members' Hour because he certainly is setting an historic
August 18, 1988

record. I am sure that there will be other Members who might think that it has something to do with the strategy with respect to free trade, in delaying the House-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Blaine Allen Thacker: -that his interest only lies between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. I know, from my long friendship with him, that it is of great interest, and I think that the House would be interested in some of the more interesting Bills that he has put. It shows the breadth of his interest in the affairs of this nation.
For example, on September 11, 1987, he put forward a Private Member's Motion, "that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of working with the provinces to require houseboats and other large marine craft to be equipped with holding tanks with gray water. I had never heard the phrase "gray water" in my entire life. I look forward to the debate to find out just what that actually includes. But it shows that my friend opposite is interested in gray water.
On April 25 of this year he urged also that the House urge all Members of Parliament to fill out their own annual income tax returns so as to serve as a direct reminder of the increasing length and complexity of these forms. I was under the impression that he was opposed to corporal punishment. Surely, having to fill out our own form is practically a capital punishment, certainly a corporal punishment. 1 will be interested in following his comments in that debate. It would seem to be rather intrusive.
Here is another one. June 15 of this year, a Private Member's Bill, second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-296, an Act establishing a moratorium on the continuing development of nuclear power in Canada for the purposes of establishing a public inquiry. That takes courage, because the Province of Saskatchewan has enormous resources in uranium and very much wants to exploit it. He has Members from his own Party who may have a different view on it, in view of the fact that there are so many jobs in Saskatchewan.
There is also a cost, I suppose, of burning petroleum products or coal, in terms of the carbon dioxide. But it shows his breadth of interest, that he would ask this Parliament would debate that issue. He should be encouraged to carry on.
Here is another one. July 20, 1988, second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-310, an Act to amend the Criminal Code dealing with cattle rustling and range cattle. Presumably that is to put some degree of stability into the handling of rustlers. I know in my riding what they do with rustlers, and it has to do with tops of tin cans, and there are not very many repeaters when a cattle rustler is caught out on the range in my riding.
Here is another one. July 27. Let us just skip that one. I do want to address the Bill. Here is one on August 10, 1988,
Financial Institutions
second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-313, an Act respecting senior citizens. On the face of it, that might be a licensing provision, a registration provision, it might be to grant them goods. I can hardly wait for it to be called so I can find out just what my friend opposite has in mind with respect to senior citizens. I hope it is not to abolish them or to do something like that. Here is the most interesting of all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is very interesting, but I will please ask that the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills speak on the Private Member's Bill that the Member for Kamloops- Shuswap introduced today. I know that he introduces many, but we are supposed to speak about the one today.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Thank you. I accept your admonition, Mr. Speaker. 1 will move straight away to Motion No. 143. I certainly share the concern of my friend opposite with respect to the issue of consumer protection in the financial sector. I would think that it is similar to the last motion that he put forth to the House on August 1 5; second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-315, an Act respecting Magna Carta Day. I thought that that was an interesting Bill because I know his Party as a whole is really opposed to the principle of the Magna Carta, which was the entrenchment of property rights.
Here we have the House Leader of the New Democratic Party having the courage-and it takes courage to stand against that Party, because it did not permit a free vote on capital punishment, that Canadians wanted-


An Hon. Member:: Yes, it did. We voted as we wanted to. We voted free on that one.


An Hon. Member:: Shame, shame!


Blaine Allen Thacker: It did not permit a free vote on the abortion issue. It would not permit a free vote on the entrenchment of property rights. Here we have the House Leader with courage, standing up and standing against his Party-


An Hon. Member:: He is in favour of property rights.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with interest to my hon. friend, but I thought I should say for the record that the points he makes about not having a free vote on capital punishment, property rights and abortion, is incorrect. They were all free votes. There was never any indication from the leader or the Party that members were required to vote in a certain way. 1 know it is surprising but we are a small caucus and it just so happens on certain issues there is a unanimity of feeling. What might have appeared to not have been a free vote was in fact a free vote and Members could dissent if they wished.

August 18, 1988
Financial Institutions


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, there were in fact dissenters in our caucus who did not vote with the majority of the caucus on the abortion legislation. I wish the Hon. Member who is speaking now would speak to the truth and not misrepresent what has happened in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would certainly like to hear a debate about the motion.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear from the House Leader that there was a free vote for the Members who came. If you were not able to vote along with the rest, you stayed away, as the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) indicated. If you disagree in that Party, you stay away.
As I said earlier, I share the concern with respect to Motion 143 of the Hon. Member with respect to the issue of consumer protection in the financial sector. As he is well aware, however, the Government has given this issue a high priority as part of its financial reform package announced in December of 1986. For well over a year the Government has been dealing with this issue directly.
You will recall that last summer two separate pieces of legislation which strengthened consumer protection in the financial sector were passed and proclaimed. First, Bill C-42 made it a statutory requirement for CDIC insured institutions to indicate in writing on the deposit contract when they take uninsured deposits. That was a very good public policy and Parliament agreed with it.
The legislation cleared up the confusion surrounding the prohibition of non-members of the CDIC from representing themselves as being insured by the CDIC. That prohibition applies to institutions and all persons acting as their agents. The legislation goes further. CDIC insured institutions that solicit funds for investment on behalf of their investment company subsidiaries or non-members of the CDIC must give notice to investors that such companies are non-members and that such funds are not insured by the CDIC.
Second, another Bill, Bill C-56, introduced minimum capital requirements for life insurance companies. That will push the insurance industry to develop new forms of insurance to cover deposit-like instruments in the industry. The work is still in progress but it will result in coverage for insurance company annuities similar to the coverage for deposits provided by the CDIC. I am sure you would agree that the solution coming from the private industry where people work 24 hours a day would be much better than us as Members of Parliament trying to impose something from Ottawa. As we all know, we simply cannot cover that myriad of human relations and interactions that occur out there and it is much better if the protection comes from the field rather than from Ottawa.
I can assure the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) that the Government is moving effectively to deal with potential consumer protection issues as they relate to the Government's remaining legislation on financial reform. That legislation will allow federal financial institutions to offer their
clients a wider range of financial services. In particular, financial institutions will be able to enter into networking arrangements. This will help financial companies to remain competitive at home and abroad. It will improve services to Canadians.
However, these developments also raise concerns with respect to consumer protection since the companies involved in the networking arrangement may not all be members of the CDIC. In view of this fact, the trust and loan companies legislation that we have drafted will enable the Government to make regulations imposing terms and conditions on the networking activities undertaken by these companies. Similar provisions will apply in the new legislation for banks and insurance companies.
I could go on because I have notes covering it, but I know my time has expired and there is another Member who would like to speak on this important issue.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, there is another Member whose duty it is to speak on this issue.
The House of Commons works in wondrous ways. The idea presented to us this afternoon by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is quite simple. Maybe you would not get that from listening to the debate that has now been going on for something like four and a half hours, I believe. The idea is really simple. Someone walks into a deposit-taking institution, a bank or trust company, and puts his hard cash down on the counter. There is a general assumption there that that money will be covered by CDIC or it will be insured. However, there are certain circumstances when it is not insured and what the Hon. Member wants to make sure of is that a person should be told whether or not that particular deposit is insured. In order for them to know he wants them to have to sign a little form, a little waiver or something like that.
It seems to me like a pretty simple idea and all the pros and cons of that could be debated maybe in half an hour at best and then maybe we could have a vote on it. That is not the way the House of Commons operates, unfortunately. It seems like we must have five hours debate on this. I am sure that certain people within the Department of Finance and the Ministry of State for Finance are rather hoping that this matter will die on the Order Paper and then our friend can resurrect it in the next Parliament in the unlikely event he is re-elected.
Eventually, 1 think the idea will come to fruition. Certainly a lot of thought has been given to the whole idea of deposit insurance and making sure that people know what they are getting themselves into when they put that money on the counter.
It is evident from things that have happened in the recent past, with the bankruptcy of trust companies-Principal Trust is a good case in point which has been brought to our attention several times already-where people who thought or had every reason to believe that their deposit was insured found out that it was not. The usual reason was because the deposit was for a
August 18, 1988

term of more than five years. Occasionally it might have been when the deposit was for an amount in excess of $60,000. We have been in debate in this House before as to whether or not it might be a good idea to up the $60,000 amount of $100,000, which I believe it is in the U.S. That is something that I personally would favour.
However, when someone walks into a deposit-taking institution, very often there is a big sign up there, or a little sign somewhere, that they can see which says this institution is a member of the Canada Deposit Corporation. It gives everyone the expectation that the deposit is insured. Sometimes I think these signs can be misleading, not deliberately so, but it might be a good idea if on that sign it would specify which deposits are insured and which deposits are not. It would have to be done in not too small a print but a fair size print on that sign so that people know.
It is also surprising the lack of knowledge on the part of many bank or trust employees. When you ask them whether a particular deposit is insured or not, they frequently do not know the details.
Anyway, I see that I have successfully concluded my mission. It is now six o'clock and I look forward to debating the issue again when it next arises.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the Order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 18476) and of Mr. Langdon (p. 18476).
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this group of motions. The purpose of these motions is to try to reduce some of the harmful effects that will arise from the free trade agreement and Bill C-130 if they become established.
These motions, of course, cannot stop the Bill or reduce it in any way, or they would not have been allowed on the Order Paper. The one I want to speak about particularly is Motion No. 22 which reads:
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 35 at page 5 the following:-
It refers to the Government's power to establish a committee or committees and it proceeds to say:
-One such committee that the Governor in Council may establish, under
this section, shall monitor and review matters arising out of the Act or the
Agreement, including
(a)	the adjustment impact on company workers and communities;
(b)	the activities, economic viability and ability to compete within a given sector of all companies doing business in Canada and the United States of America; and
(c)	agricultural pressures in Canada resulting from the agreement."
I want to speak most particularly about part (a), the adjustment impact on company workers and communities, and I will have a few words to say also about part (b), the economic viability and ability to compete.
On part (a), I am concerned with one of the major industries in Spadina and in other parts of Canada, the clothing, textile and footwear industries as a group. This is an industry which has been suffering in recent years from a defective policy of the present and previous Governments on international trade and some tens of thousands of jobs have been lost during the 1980s and are not being, for the most part, recovered.
One reason why this industry is threatened-and in fact, the Chairman of the SAGIT, Mr. Nygard, who took part in the negotiations, says that it is threatened and that it should be withdrawn from the agreement-is that the current tariff levels in these industries are well above the average level of Canadian duties and therefore there is a wide consensus that this industry will suffer severely by the trade deal.
In the clothing industry, there may be a few specialty firms that will do well, but in general, with a tariff of around 23 per cent, the trade deal cuts will have a serious impact, particularly on major employers who are producing standardized, high-volume clothing. Canadian plants working by licence from foreign-owned firms are expected to suffer seriously. In Ontario alone, it is estimated by the industry, by the labour movement and by the Government that there will be 20,000 jobs at serious risk. That is in the clothing industry.
In the textile industry, the tariff averages close to 17 per cent. When these tariffs come down, the industry will suffer serious loss, as it did when the Government removed the import restrictions on leather footwear. Industry estimates show that Canadian producers of man-made fibres and cotton, cotton/polyester yarns and fabrics will not be in a position to compete with American imports. In fact, imports accounted for about 32 per cent of the market in 1986, up from only 26 per cent four years before.
We had a trade deficit in this industry in 1986 of $635 million and it will get worse under the trade deal, especially for Ontario where close to 50 per cent of the firms are located. Many, many of the workers will be out of work.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: That isn't where the competition is coming from, it's coming from Third World countries.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Much of the competition is coming from Third World countries, but the cut-back produced by this trade deal and by its restriction on Canadian exports regarding the fabrics used will make a difficult situation far more difficult.
The tariff on the footwear products runs close to 21 per cent. This deal would bring the tariff down to zero by 1998. There will be tens of thousands of workers in these three industries displaced, and the majority of the workers in these industries are women.


John Horton McDermid: Do you like keeping women in those ghettos?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Of those women, the majority are immigrants, often with no more than grade school education.


John Horton McDermid: Low-paid ghetto. You like keeping people in those positions. You support that.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Those are the jobs these women have been able to get in our economy, and they will be forced out of those jobs by the reduction of the tariffs.


John Horton McDermid: And into better jobs, and they deserve better.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The Hon. Member says they deserve better jobs, and I agree with him, but the Hon. Member and his colleagues have done nothing to provide them with better jobs. Most of the new jobs created around Toronto and in central Ontario have been low-paid clerical and sales jobs, not better paid manufacturing jobs or professional jobs.
The Hon. Member who generally makes his interventions only when other people have their time to speak is not addressing the situation of these women whose education and language hold them back from these fancy jobs with fancy wages that the Hon. Member is dreaming about. The fact is, these women were brought here to be cheap labour, as the Chinese were brought a century ago by John A. Macdonald, only he was truthful enough to say that as soon as they had done their essential job of building the railway, he would make sure that they were got rid of. It didn't happen that way. Some of their grandchildren are still here with us, but this is the attitude that is being applied now to these women who work in the garment industry. Therefore, there should be a committee to monitor what is happening to the workers in the garment industry and its related industries so that if the Hon. Member survives the next election, he might become educated about the facts of life of people who do not work in the expensive industries in his riding. There are others in his riding that are not expensive, but he is probably not aware of them.
What 1 am asking for is simply a committee to monitor and follow the fate of what is happening to the people in the garment and textile and footwear industry and in other
industries like the computer service industry in which the Chairman of the Canadian Independent Computer Service Association estimates that there are already over 200,000 jobs lost and that the loss could go 300,000 jobs higher than that.
It is worth keeping track of several hundred thousand jobs so that we know what we will have to do to find these better paid jobs for those people who the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary wants us to dream about.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak particularly to Motion No. 19. This motion would delete Clause 9 which would give the federal Government the authority it needs to impose the wine and spirits chapter of the agreement on the provinces. 1 and my Party believe that Clause 9 should be opposed, in fact that the whole agreement should be opposed, on the grounds that it allows the federal Government to enter unilaterally into provincial jurisdiction.
The Mulroney Government has boasted about how it has created a new era of federal-provincial co-operation and understanding. Yet, through this trade deal with the United States it turns around and unilaterally attempts to intrude in a way the provinces, especially the Province of Ontario, are not willing to accept in an essential area of provincial jurisdiction. This is a strange way to carry out, in a more meaningful and effective way, co-operation between federal and provincial governments. As is the case in so many matters, the Government has been saying one thing but doing another.
In short, Motion 19 not only allows the federal Government to intrude unilaterally into provincial jurisdiction but upsets, as a result, the federal-provincial balance and, above all, sacrifices the Canadian grape and wine industry. It is not only the farmers who grow the grapes who are sacrificed but the thousands of people who work with them during harvest and the thousands of people who manufacture the machinery and supplies they use and sell them to the grape growers of Ontario and British Columbia primarily.
If this deal goes ahead it will, as I have said, sacrifice the Canadian grape and wine industry. It has been estimated that some 20,000 direct and indirect jobs connected with the wine industry will be sacrificed in Ontario alone and thousands more will be sacrificed in British Columbia. That is another case of the Government saying one thing and doing another. The Government has boasted unduly about the jobs that have been created since it came into power. It has not made clear exactly what it has done to create those jobs and I do not think the creation of those jobs has very much to do with the policies of the Government. In fact, we see an example in this trade deal of how the policies of the Government are not creating jobs but destroying them, not by the hundreds but by the thousands.
A spokesperson for Bright's Wines of Canada best summarized the wine provisions of the agreement on the CBC television program Venture last August 15. He said that
August 18, 1988

basically the agreement will allow the United States wine industry to dominate the Canadian market and that once that American domination is established, it is unlikely that Canadian wine consumers will see significant price reductions as a consequence.
In fact, my recollection of that program is that the spokesperson for Bright's Wines said that the price of wines, both Canadian and American, would actually go up as a result of this agreement. That is again a case of the Government saying one thing while its actions bring about quite a different result.
The Government has been boasting that because of its trade agreement with the United States, consumers would be able to purchase cheaper products. With specific reference to the wine industry, the Government said consumers would be able to purchase cheaper wine, both Canadian wine and wine imported from the United States. Yet, one of the most knowledgeable persons in the Canadian wine industry, the head of Bright's Wines of Canada, has said that consumers will have a rude surprise if and when this trade agreement goes into effect because instead of cheaper wines, wines will be more expensive. That is another example of the Conservatives saying one thing and, through their policies, actually bringing about something quite different.
If this deal goes into effect and the tariffs and other provisions which support the Canadian wine industry are eliminated, not only will consumers, according to the President of Bright's Wines, have to pay more for their wine but in the interim Canadian vineyards will have been pulled out and our wine producers will have been lost.
We must recognize that there have been sound reasons for the policies we have to protect our Canadian wine industry. These reasons are not linked with narrow protectionism. Instead, they recognize the higher costs of production in Canada due to the shortness of our growing season and our over-all climatic conditions.
The Tories may say that it is just too bad, that if we do not have the right climatic conditions and the right growing season we should not have a wine industry. However, we have these climatic conditions not only for the wine industry but for our entire agricultural sector. If we apply the Tory reasoning to our agricultural sector right across the board, the Tories are saying goodbye to Canadian agriculture. As far as the Tories are concerned, Canadian agriculture can go down the tubes. As far as they are concerned, Canada can go down the tubes. They say "Goodbye Canada", because this whole country has to live with the shortness of our growing season and our overall climatic conditions.
The Canadian wine industry is clearly one of the major losers through the Mulroney trade deal. Virtually all analyses made by industry spokesmen predict widespread job losses in Ontario and British Columbia. The trade deal talks about the tariffs being removed over 10 years. However, if I am not mistaken 50 percent of those tariffs are removed in the first two years.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: You are mistaken, it is the discriminatory pricing that is removed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am sorry, I stand corrected, 50 per cent of the pricing provisions are removed in the first two years. That is still a very sharp blow to the Canadian wine industry. We are not talking here about a thoughtful, caring, compassionate program of adjustment for our grape growers and the thousands of people connected with the industry. Instead, the Conservative Government is ready to deliver a short, sharp blow to the industry irrespective of the effect on the thousands of people connected with it.


John Horton McDermid: What about your friends at GATT?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Parliamentary Secretary talks about GATT. If I am not mistaken there is not the same requirement in the GATT decision to bring about the changes in the same short, sharp period. This is something which the Tory Government wants to bring into effect and the Tory Government will have to live with the tragic results of its policy.
As the tariffs are removed and provincial pricing policies are phased out, Canadian wine producers and grape growers will find it increasingly difficult to compete. There is little doubt that thousands of jobs will be lost in the wine industry as Canadian producers lose the domestic market to American imports just to pay more for wine than we are paying already.
If so many jobs are going to be lost as a result of these Tory policies expressed in the trade agreement with the United States, does the Government have in effect a fair program of compensation and adjustment? We have asked the Government and it cannot answer as to what it is going to offer to the grape growers of Ontario. It has announced a program for British Columbia and the growers there say it is grossly inadequate.
It is grossly inadequate for one important reason in particular, among others, and that is because the Government cannot say whether the payments for the acreage that will be taken out of production will be taxable. If these payments are taxable their valve will be sharply reduced and will not have any relation to the value of the acreage in question.
Clause 19 is just another reason to oppose this deal here in the House of Commons. It is just another reason for Canadians to believe and agree that this trade deal is a thoroughly bad deal, not only for the wine industry but for the entire country. We must oppose this deal in this House and, as I have said before, through a general election to ensure that it never comes into effect.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have an opportunity to debate Motion Nos. 17,19, 21, 22, 23, and 25. I rise to address particularly Motion No. 22 which states in part:
One such committee that the Governor in Council may establish, under this section, shall monitor and review matters arising out of the Act or the

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
agreement, including the adjustment impact on company workers and communities.
1 am sure that the House is aware of the all-Party parliamentary committee report on human rights and aging in Canada. That report was adopted by the Human Rights Committee unanimously, without dissent, without quarrel and substantially without debate.
As I am sure you are aware, with the composition of committees in this Parliament, it was composed of a vast majority of Conservative Members of Parliament who must be congratulated for the objectivity, sincerity and concern with which they addressed the problems of the aged and elderly in this country.
They recognized that those who will be most affected in a number of industries that are the targets of closures and rationalization will be older workers who, because of their age, will have extreme difficulty in finding new jobs. The committee was concerned about that.
When one considers the substance of this motion, which is to establish a committee that would consider the adjustment impact on company workers, one is completely befuddled as to why the Government simply does not accept this amendment.


John Horton McDermid: It is totally unnecessary.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I must say I understand the difficulties attended on raising the question of whether those Members have read the recommendation of the committee. It is unlikely in light of the fact the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has not read the free trade agreement and presumably not the Act. I suppose it is too much to ask if they have read anything that impinges upon the agreement or the Act.
Nevertheless, it is important to note what the committee unanimously recommended, with its majority of Conservative Members, and with the full knowledge of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and its impact on older workers. It is a clear endorsement of the amendment that we are discussing before the House tonight. I will read the recommendation because I know Tories are not inclined to read anything. It states:
Wc therefore recommend that the Government of Canada create an interdepartmental task force to explore the multiple impacts of corporate rationalization, plant closures and corporate takeovers on older workers, and seek the co-operation of provincial governments, as needed, in developing relevant measures including a comprehensive safety net including the protection of pensions, adequate notice and severance pay, and special retraining and job-search assistance.


Rob Nicholson: Get to the point.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The point is obvious to everyone in the world except a Tory who can neither read the free trade agreement nor the recommendations of a committee with a majority of Tories. It says quite specifically that the amendment being discussed here, Motion No. 22, should be accepted.
If a committee of seven parliamentarians, five of whom are Conservatives, say that there should be a committee as suggested in this amendment, to look at the questions of the displacement and the adjustment impact on company workers, one would have thought that it would have been a rather easy thing for a majority on the Government side to accept that kind of amendment.
My colleague, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) agrees with me. He is a rational person. I am sure that my colleague, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) agrees with me. He is a rational person. And five Members of the committee agree with me. They are all rational people. They are even more rational than that. I will read further from the report because it is an interesting indictment of some of the provisions of the free trade agreement as it will affect not only older workers but all workers and the interests of Canadians.


John Horton McDermid: You opposed the Auto Pact.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Let me read for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary what his colleagues said in the committee-


John Horton McDermid: You opposed the Auto Pact.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is amazing how we provoke them. We provoke them because they know they are wrong.


John Horton McDermid: Because you are not telling the truth.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: They are provoked because we have spotted an inconsistency here. They are provoked because they know their colleagues support in principle this amendment, and have done so through a parliamentary committee report. That is why they are provoked. They will be provoked even more when they hear what it says further in the report:
The use of Investment Canada in minimizing any adverse employment impacts of foreign takeovers, and the targeting of regional development spending to assist the growth of new businesses in areas hit by major closures, are possible approaches.
That precedes the recommendation consistent with Motion
No. 22.


John Horton McDermid: There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement which prevents that.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, who continues to interrupt without substance or logic, seems to have missed the point. A majority of Members of a parliamentary committee, to wit the Conservatives, say that Investment Canada should have a significant role in protecting workers who may be displaced by plant closures and foreign takeovers. Yet he knows that Investment Canada has been emasculated in this free trade agreement and is emasculated by Bill C-130.


Mr. Witer:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening very carefully to the remarks of the Hon. Member. I cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Member is misleading the House, perhaps not deliberately, but indeed misleading the House by making Members believe that
August 18, 1988

in fact there is any reference to free trade in the report to which he has just referred. There is no mention of free trade in that report whatsoever. The Member is cleverly trying to mislead the House that there is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. That is a matter of debate. The Member for Windsor-Walkerville has the floor.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, let me thank my hon. colleague for having identified this Member as being clever. It must be by contrast to his colleagues.
However, 1 never suggested that the report even mentioned free trade. I did say, and I am glad the Hon. Member indicated this, that it mentions Investment Canada. It does prescribe a role for Investment Canada. As a Tory who, like the Minister of Trade, probably has not read anything, he may not know that Investment Canada for all intents and purposes will not exist as a result of this agreement.


John Horton McDermid: That is wrong.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Canadians ought to know this, Canadians will know this, and the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary knows it, even though he denies it. That is an indictment of his integrity. It is shameful that he should utter the falsehoods he does from across the way.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to say a few words on this group of amendments in my usual calm reasoned way. I want to make Members opposite understand there is still a chance for them to vote down this agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Explain how we can do that.


Don Boudria: I will explain it slowly so the Conservatives will understand. Article 8 of the Bill says: "This agreement is hereby approved". One very clever amendment from my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) would delete this clause from the Bill. That is one of the amendments we are now debating. There is still a chance. I say to these Tories who have got themselves into this mess that there is a way out.


Mr. Siddon:: What mess?


Don Boudria: 1 say to the Hon. Member for Brampton- Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) that he should reconsider his decision. If there is a chance, Mr. Speaker, that you think my comments could be interpreted as partisan, which is probably the furthest thing from your mind, you will be happy to know that 1 an not the only one who disagrees with this trade deal. I am particularly concerned about the impact of this trade deal on the agricultural sector in my province and in my country as a whole.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: Ask your beef farmers. Ask your pork farmers. Ask all the farmers in your riding.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown asks a very good question. He tells me to ask my farmers.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Haven't you asked them yet?


Don Boudria: I will ask the farmers of my riding. I will have the opportunity to do so in the next election campaign. I have not run a public opinion poll. 1 do not have to. I know they are all against it.
The Tory candidate will have some explaining to do to the dairy farmers of my constituency, not to mention the poultry and egg producers which will have 6.2 million kilograms of their production surrendered as part of this trade deal. To pretend that dairy farmers are in favour of this deal is just totally inaccurate. When the Hon. Member opposite pretends that dairy farmers are for this deal, I repeat to him what Winston Churchill said: "The opposite of the truth has never been stated with greater accuracy." I cannot put it any more plainly than that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the grape and wine industry. This is one area of the agricultural industry in my province that has been harmed, I could even say will be wiped out, by the Prime Minister's trade agreement. In his trade agreement, the Prime Minister will abolish measures that have given us our own wine industry, despite a climate that is not very favourable as we well know.
The FTA abolishes customs duty on grapes and wine, and even worse, it will do away with the pricing policies of provincial liquor boards. For instance, in the Province of Ontario the LCBO makes it possible for Ontario producers to sell their wine within a price range that is lower than that for imported wines.
Mr. Speaker, a Conservative caucus seems to be unfolding across the way. I suppose they are trying to clean up the Bill. Maybe they were listening to my representations, and perhaps they intend to support my colleague's measure in order to get rid of the free trade bill. We can always hope, but we can't hope for much, because the odds are against the Conservative understanding what is at stake. In any case, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government, which will be defeated, not just across Canada but especially and rightly so in the Niagara Peninsula, seems to be out to destroy Ontario's wine industry.
First we had the Minister for International Trade claiming in the House that Ontario's wine industry could easily compete with California's, as if she didn't know better.
Subsequently, the Conservative Government changed its mind and, in the case of British Columbia, even offered a program to help grape growers get rid of their vines and switch to another line of work.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Speaker, if they were able to compete, why are they being offered a program to help them get out of this sector and do something else?
In any case, the Conservative Government now wants the Province of Ontario to do the same and participate in a program for helping people in the wine industry change jobs. As we know, the Province of Ontario has been somewhat reluctant to participate in the program because Ontario and the excellent Government we have here in Ontario want the Conservative Government to change its mind and drop the whole free trade program, which means we would keep our Ontario wine industry, protect the sovereignty of our country, the agri-food sector and the rest.
In any case, we still hope the Government will understand, although I'm not holding my breath-Tories are not always very swift.

I have here an assessment of the impact of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement on the Ontario agriculture and food sector. This document was prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Province of Ontario.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, yes.


Don Boudria: Somehow Tory Members opposite want to discredit the provincial Government which is trying to protect the citizens of its province. All the power to the Province of Ontario when it stands up to those Tories opposite.


John Horton McDermid: Have you read that report, the whole thing?


Don Boudria: Of course I have read the report. What kind of nonsense is that?


John Horton McDermid: When was it produced?


Don Boudria: I can give the date the report was produced if the Hon. Member is interested. It was produced in January of 1988. It is known as the assessment of the impacts of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Deal, produced by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, and it was sent to me by the Minister himself. The Minister of Agriculture and food, through this report, in summary tells us, and I will read selectively from the summary-


John Horton McDermid: Very selectively.


Don Boudria: I can read the whole thing if the Hon. Member will give unanimous consent.
The provisions of the agreement that will have the most impact on Ontario's agriculture and food sector arc: tariff elimination; changing liquor board practices on wine; obtaining an exemption from the U.S. Meat Import Act; the expansion of global import quotas for poultry and eggs; and minimizing the trade distortions caused by technical regulations.
Those are the specific areas, just in summary, which have been identified. I say to Hon. Members opposite that if they
will join me and my distinguished and honourable colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, in defeating Article 8 of Bill C-130, there is still a chance. Let us vote against the clause that says this agreement is hereby approved. We can then all go out and celebrate. We will have saved Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motions Nos. 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 25. These motions will be voted on separately-
The first question is on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 19 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
August 18, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 21 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 22 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 23 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 25 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next set of motions is Motion Nos. 24, 33, 42 and 82 which will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 24 will apply to Motion Nos. 33, 42 and 82.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 24
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 12
(a)	by striking out line 36 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
" 12.(1) The Governor in Council may, by order,"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 43 at page 5 the following:
"(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(3)	A committee referred to in subsection (2) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(4)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by subsection (3), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(5)	An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the day provided in the order or, if no such day is provided in the order, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of the motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(6)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (5) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (2), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(7)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (6) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(8)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(9)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (8) that House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(10)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(11)	Where a motion is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the order or on the day provided in the order.
(12)	For the purposes of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 21 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 10 the following:
"(2) A regulation made under subsection (l) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(3)	A committee referred to in subsection (2) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(4)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by subsection (3), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(5)	A regulation referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the day provided in the regulation or, if no such day is provided in the regulation, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of the motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(6)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (5) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (2), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(7)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (6) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(8)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(9)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (8) that House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(10)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the particular regulation to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(11)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the particular regulation to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the regulation or on the day provided in the regulation.
(12)	For the purposes of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by
(a)	striking out line 13 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor: "the Secretariat to be appointed by an order of the"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 15 at page 35 the following:
"(2) An order made under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose.
(3)	A committee referred to in subsection (2) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(4)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by subsection (3), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(5)	An order referred to in subsection (1) shall come into force on the day provided in the order or, if no such day is provided in the order, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of the motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(6)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (5) with respect to a
August 18, 1988

particular order referred to in subsection (2), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
(7)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (6) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(8)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House that the motion has been so adopted and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(9)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (8) that the House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(10)	Where a motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(11)	Where a motion is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the order or on the day provided in the order.
(12)	For the purposes of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits."
Motion No. 82
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136, by adding immediately after line 32 at page 104 the following:
"(3) An order made under subsection (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of Parliament after it is made and it shall be referred to a committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House.
(4)	A committee referred to in subsection (3) shall make its report to the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, not later than the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day the order is referred to the committee.
(5)	Where a committee does not make its report to Parliament within the period specified by the subsection (4), the order is deemed to be approved by the committee.
(6)	An order referred to in subsection (2) shall come into force on the day provided in the order or, if no such day is provided in the order, on the thirtieth sitting day of Parliament following the day that the report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, or at the expiry of the period required for the submission of the report when no report is laid before the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, unless a notice of motion to the effect that the order be revoked, signed by not less than twenty-five members of the House of Commons in the case of a motion for the consideration of that House or by not less than fifteen members of the Senate in the case of a motion for the consideration of the Senate, is filed with the Speaker of the appropriate House.
(7)	Where a notice of motion for the consideration of the House of Commons or Senate is filed as provided in subsection (6) with respect to a particular order referred to in subsection (3), that House shall, not later than five sitting days of that House following the filing of the notice of motion, take up and consider the motion, unless a motion to the like effect has earlier been considered in the other House.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(8)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (7) shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(9)	Where such a motion is adopted with or without amendment, a message shall be sent from the House adopting the motion informing the other House and requesting that the motion be concurred in by that other House.
(10)	Within the first five days next after receipt by it of a request pursuant to subsection (9) that the House receiving the request is sitting, that House shall take up and consider the motion that is the subject of the request, and all questions in connection therewith shall be debated in priority to all government orders for not more than five hours and, on the conclusion of such debate, the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Senate, as the case may be, shall forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
(11)	Where the motion is adopted, with or without amendments, by the House in which it was introduced and is concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates shall stand revoked.
(12)	Where a motion is not adopted by the House in which it was introduced or is adopted, with or without amendments, by that House but is not concurred in by the other House, the particular order to which the motion relates comes into force five days after the failure to adopt the motion or concur therein, as the case may be, if no day is provided in the order.
(13)	For the purpose of this Act, a "sitting day of Parliament" means a day on which either House of Parliament sits.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must agree with the Parliamentary Secretary for a change. This has been a long, long debate. It is a debate which started, as the Hon. Member for Esquimalt- Saanich (Mr. Crofton) noted, in 1985. It is a debate which has continued with different permutations, different combinations, right up to the present. At each stage it has been a debate which has been characterized by the overbearing arrogance of the executive powers of this Government.
It was clear right from the start that this Government did not wish to debate this issue. It did not wish to develop a consensus in the country on something as crucial as this matter. Instead, it wished to direct its own path and to ram through its own policies. We can trace through the different steps by which this was done.
We can take, for instance, the committee, which the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich referred to earlier this afternoon, the committee which met in 1985, crossed the country and talked to far, far more people than any committee has yet had a chance to talk to. It found tremendous divisions on the issues of the trade deal. It also found some remarkably strong suggestions which were put to us by farmers, by people in the auto sector, by people who had concerns about the cultural sector, a vast range of people. Every single one of those recommendations was ignored. The committee said that the Auto Pact should be exempt entirely from negotiations. That suggestion was ignored. It was suggested that agriculture be left entirely out of the negotiations. That, too, was ignored. It was suggested that cultural industries be completely exempt. That, as well, was ignored.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Despite the fact that the committee said that this is the direction in which to go, that was ignored. It also said: "Don't jump right into a comprehensive trade discussion. Instead, talk about the present disputes which face us. See if we can work some of those out. We can talk, too, about the possibility of a comprehensive trade deal". We opposed that. The Liberals supported it. Nevertheless the point was that the approach was to be a step by step approach. That was rejected by the Government.
That was step number one, the first time in which the Cabinet said: "No, we will do it our way. We will decide. We will not follow what a parliamentary committee has suggested".
Then, we went to a second round of detailed considerations in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. It made some very striking commitments. It said, among other things: "We agree, all of us-New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives-that if the United States puts through its omnibus trade Bill without exempting Canada, then we should not take part in this trade deal with the United States". It was an absolutely clear-cut, straightforward conclusion.
What happened? The United States this summer passed the omnibus trade Bill, did not exempt Canada and the Cabinet nevertheless said: "Well, so what? A parliamentary committee has said the opposite but despite that we will take the direction that we want to take". The same thing has been true at each stage of debate with respect to this issue.
At each stage of debate, rather than allowing Members of Parliament to debate this issue fully and completely because it is so important to Canadians in every region and occupation, closure has been applied. It was applied at second reading. At the legislative committee stage there was a deadline put on the committee itself and its capacity to work. There was also a motion passed preventing that committee travelling across the country to hear people.
When we returned to the House of Commons for report stage and third reading, once more the Cabinet moved and stated that it would not permit Parliament to debate this fully. Instead it applied time allocation, cut the debate off, stopped the opposition members from making the very valid effective criticisms that they had been making, and forced this Bill through as fast as possible.
What is striking is that when one actually looks at the Bill, there is the same philosophy of the Cabinet knows best, and the Cabinet unilaterally will decide and direct what is best. Despite parliamentary reform, despite new approaches to our role as legislators, throughout this Bill in section after section it is the Governor in Council, i.e. the Cabinet, that will make recommendations, appointments, establish conditions, and that will set up committees. As a consequence, what we have is the worst possible insult to the Parliament of Canada that could
possibly be conceived of in a single Bill. There are dozens of places in this Bill in which the Cabinet unilaterally, without Members of Parliament having any say in the matter, will make decisions which will shape what happens to this country in the future. We who represent the people in their millions throughout the country will not have a voice even in the House of Commons to deal with these various decisions which the Cabinet can make unilaterally.
It seems to me that that is simply unacceptable in an age of parliamentary reform, it is unacceptable from any democratic perspective, and it is unacceptable in terms of permitting the participation of people to be fully and completely there in this whole set of crucial areas that the Bill deals with. That is why we have moved this set of motions which attempts to do two things. The first is to see to it that the Governor in Council, i.e. the Cabinet, has to report to and have its regulations, appointments, or establishment of committees approved by a committee of the House of Commons. If it is not approved by a committee of the House of Commons, then it has to come to the full House of Commons and there it has to be debated and approved by all Members of Parliament.
What we are talking about here is something which has become foreign to the Conservative Party ever since it took power, and something which becomes more foreign the longer it is in power. We are talking about the re-establishment of parliamentary democracy in this system. That is what these motions are about. 1 hope everybody in the House of Commons, with the possible exception of the Cabinet, will see the necessity of voting in favour of amendments that put constraints on the Cabinet's role to unilaterally and undemocratically shape the future of the country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that our Party will support these motions to amend the trade Bill because they are targeted at a very important and serious trend that has emerged over the years and which the whole trade deal simply exaggerates and emphasizes. Political scientists in this country have called it "executive federalism". It is increasing power that has been taken over by Members who hold executive office, escaping the responsibility to be accountable to Parliament, escaping public exposure and examination of their actions, making decisions behind closed doors, making decisions that do not have to be explained to anybody, and making decisions based on their own arbitrary discretion.
In part that is a natural consequence of a modern government. There is so much going on in so many places, obviously not all things can be examined in the House in a microscopic manner. However, that trend has not been a slow evolution as it was over the years, but it has become a galloping acceleration under the present Government.
The most egregious example is the Meech Lake Accord where executives of the 10 provincial governments and the federal Government met behind closed doors and changed the
August 18, 1988

Constitution without referring it back to the elected representatives of the people. They simply decided that this was good. No one can necessarily argue with that type of decision, but what many people reacted to was not the decision itself, but how it was made. It was the fact that people could assume unto themselves that type of almost unchallengable power to make these decisions.
When one looks at the legislation, the trade agreement substantially expands in all kinds of ways the executive power of the Government to make decisions which affect virtually all aspects of Canadian life, and they do not have to answer to anybody. They can sit inside the cabinet room, pass an Order in Council, get it gazetted about a month later in a whole pile where people have a hard time looking for it. One morning one wakes up and says: "My life has just been changed by the Cabinet and the trade agreement and 1 did not know anything about it".


Thomas Edward Siddon: That's how you guys made law all the time. That's how you ran the country. That's how the Liberals have always run the country.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) is part of that large group of illiterates in the Cabinet who have neither read the agreement nor the legislation. I suppose after they are defeated in the next election they can all go back and take a remedial reading course, which I would strongly suggest they do. They might find out what they have been doing over the past four years if they actually read what laws they have brought into place. I know it would come as a shock to the Hon. Minister because 1 know that he does not run his own Department. He should be more concerned about what he is doing. If he had less interest in exercising his lungs and more interest in exercising his intellect, we might be a lot further ahead in this country.
These amendments direct themselves to the issue of parliamentary accountability. I would ask Members opposite, what is wrong with that? If they are going to make a serious judgment as to how this trade agreement should or should not work, surely they have nothing against Parliament at least examining the surrender that is taking place. At least we will know exactly how many times we have given in, in what places, and how many times. Surely it is a legitimate exercise that if one is going to be asked to surrender his or her sovereignty and independence, at least one should know about it and how it has happened. At least the obituaries can be written when required.
As part of the whole procedure from day one of this negotiation when the famous cabinet document was written, and "Don't tell the people what was going on, sell the program", was passed in the Cabinet that has been the whole trend and direction, and now it carries through to the Bill itself.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
It is bad enough that they have kept Canadians in the dark for two and a half years, that they have not told people what is really in the Bill, what is in the agreement, how it is going to affect them. They have a lot of nerve. They are going to continue that after they get it through and they are really going to pile it on.
This is the mushroom theory of Government gone crazy. They will grow mushrooms, throw manure on it, and say, "That is the way that we make things grow". That has become the new theory of Government under this regime. They no longer have any respect for this institution. By that kind of disdain and contempt for this institution, they are showing disdain and contempt for the Canadian people. They are showing that kind of repugnance. They should at least be prepared to subject themselves to some kind of honourable accounting from time to time.


An Hon. Member:: That is what we are doing right here and now.


Lloyd Axworthy: By giving Cabinet through this Bill the power to make appointments, to make decisions on energy, on culture, on investment, behind the closed door, without any kind of recourse, to make all kinds of appointments to commissions and boards-I suppose that is the way that they do things in the corporate boardrooms-


An Hon. Member:: That is the way Trudeau ran this country for years.


Lloyd Axworthy: The friends that they all associate with, the guys that get together at the Friday night receptions, when they hob-nob and do their fund raisings and talk to their corporate boardroom friends they say: "That is how you do it. Get behind the closed doors. Don't tell anybody".
This is not a corporation; it is the Government of Canada. It is a democratic system. At least I thought it was until these characters came into power.
Have they turned it around? You only have to go through this Bill, all 300 pages of it, to see time after time "Oh, here is a little line, 'Cabinet shall decide'. Here is another line here, 'Cabinet shall appoint'". You look to see the light of day on these important issues. Well, you do not. It is simply not there.
I endorse and support the principle that we should be at least achieving, or trying to achieve, some degree of parliamentary responsibility and accountability, as I said in my speech yesterday when we were trying to argue against closure for the hundredth time in the last couple of months. 1 think closure has become a way of life here. I think the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) walks around with closure motions in his vest pocket. He spills them out like cards in a deck.
I said that the greatest casualty, perhaps the greatest surrender of independence, is in the damage that is being done to this institution, Parliament. It is a real victim of obsessive

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and uncontrollable lust to get this legislation through at all costs, without any sense of participation or responsibility. If they had any decency, any respect for this institution, we would not have a debate of two days on third reading. It is two and a half days on report stage. We spent 58 hours on report stage for the Bill dealing with western grain transportation. That is about three times the amount that we will be spending on this Bill, talking about legislation that covers a much wider range than that. We spent over 60 hours on things on third reading, but this is being limited to two days. 1 suppose we should be grateful for that. I suppose the Government would say: "Well, you should be thankful that we even gave you the opportunity to get to your feet".
Once you become this kind of Juggernaut and once you get used to abusing power and the idea that the majority decides in all cases, and that minority rights, whatever their voices, can be swept aside, well of course it knows no restraints, no limitations.
All we can do in speaking to these amendments is hope that there are some people out there who, when and if and how they get the chance to decide, will remember that this institution that we speak in today, for which people have fought for generations, is being perverted, distorted and destroyed by this Government, by this trade agreement.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in the House tonight with regard to these amendments that have been grouped dealing with the free trade agreement, Bill C-130. In the free trade agreement, this Bill is exactly what Canada needs. We are a trading nation. Three million jobs depend upon it. Thirty per cent of our revenues come from trade. We have to trade to exist. We have to trade to support our programs. With our programs, be they cultural, be they social programs, be they programs to assist in our agricultural areas, we have to trade. Over the past almost four years this Government has created 1.3 million jobs. We have increased productivity and we have increased efficiency.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is the private sector.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: You bet, the private sector. You need to have a climate that allows the private sector to operate.


An Hon. Member:: It did not happen under the Liberals.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: You must have a fiscal regime that they know and understand, not one that brought in an energy program unilaterally from Ottawa that destroyed western Canada, as you so well did.


Lloyd Axworthy: It seems your Premier signed it.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: You destroyed us. We are going to get free trade. Free trade is not only good for all of Canada, but Alberta in particular.
Canada must have a secure market. Over the past 15 or 16 years, we have lost almost the total market to western Europe.
When the EEC was formed, it became stronger and stronger, it became self-sufficient, and indeed, it entered into markets that Canada had. Yes, we have moved out to the Pacific Rim. We certainly have markets there. But our strongest trading partner is obviously the U.S.
Our country is huge geographically. It is also very different, geographically and climate wise. But we only have a population of 25.5 million people. We do not need a domestic market that will support this country. We have to have a tariff-free border with our neighbours south of the 49th, a tariff-free border with our best partners, and a place where 75 to 78 per cent of our exports go today.
This free trade agreement in no way curtails Canada's right to set its own energy policy.


Steven W. Langdon: That is not true.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: It does not. The provinces have the right to control the exploration, the development, the production and the sale of their natural resources.


Steven W. Langdon: Read the Act. Read the Bill.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: The federal Government has the right to set the Canadian energy policy. It has the right to control the resource space as well as the right to control the transportation of energy and the domestic use of energy.
This country has the geological potential of taking conventional oil-that is light and medium crude, proven and unproven-the synthetic crude, which is the heavy oil plus the tar sands and the frontier with a potential of 371 billion barrels, which represents 680 years of oil at 1987's domestic consumption rate.
On the natural gas side, this country has the potential of 167 years supply. The reason that natural gas is not any higher is that over the past eight, ten or twelve years the exploration companies were not looking for natural gas because there was very little market.
We are net exporters of both oil and gas. About 25 per cent of what we produce in oil we export, and about 35 per cent of our natural gas that we produce we export south of the border. Most of this goes tariff-free today, and we want to maintain that. It is extremely important. Energy is the third largest export commodity of this country.
In order for Canada to have security of supply, we have to replace the production. It costs money to replace the production. In order to get the money, we need to have contracts. As I said, we are net exporters. Therefore we must have more secure, long-term contracts. We can get these and sign them with the United States. We shall be reliable producers and suppliers if they will be reliable contract signers, and of course they will.
August 18, 1988

Through these long-term contracts, a great deal of capital shall be raised, increasing cash flows to the various petroleum companies. This will allow us to develop the heavy oil and the bitumen, the tar sands. The development of these two sectors is extremely expensive. Conventional oil is relatively cheap. It costs $7 to $10 Canadian per barrel in finding and development costs. However, heavy oil and bitumen is extremely expensive in its development, production and upgrading. It almost costs between $20 and $22 U.S. per barrel, depending where it is.
As well, bringing on the frontier in the Beaufort would require a pipeline, be it down the Mackenzie Valley or another route. Building this pipeline represents billions of dollars, and we will not build these pipelines unless we have secure contracts to buy our oil and gas.
Let us go to petrochemicals-


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought we were debating Motion Nos. 24, 33, 42 and 82 in a group. For the last seven minutes, 1 have been listening to the Hon. Member and she has not been debating those motions at all. She has been discussing the relationship between the agreement and the energy industry which is not relevant at all to the motions under consideration. Those motions have to do with the accountability of the Cabinet to Parliament through the passage of Orders in Council and regulations and the committees to supervise the agreement. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask her to be relevant to the motions under consideration.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. I think this points out very vividly how the Liberal Party really does not pay attention to what is going on in this debate. One of the motions we are debating is Motion No. 82 which deals with the National Energy Board.
We sat here and listened to the critic of the Liberal Party on trade talk about energy. My colleague, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources in this Parliament is speaking to those particular amendments dealing with the National Energy Board. I think it would do the Hon. Member well to sit back, relax and get a darn good education from her. She knows more about the energy industry than the Hon. Member will learn in a lifetime.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary South has one minute left.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I certainly appreciate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 am sorry, I have another point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my apologies to the Hon. Member, but I think it is important to note for the Parliamentary Secretary that there are specific amendments which deal with energy policy later in the amendments we are looking at.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
This particular group deals with the process of appointments and the process of regulations being set, and I would hope that the Hon. Member would come around at some stage-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Why don't you wait and listen?


Steven W. Langdon: I have been waiting and waiting.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Wait a bit longer.


Steven W. Langdon: I was hoping she would give us a sense of where precisely she stands with respect to cabinet autocracy versus parliamentary democracy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Calgary South still has one minute left.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board does have the right to review and constantly keep in mind the amount of reserves with regard to oil and gas, and it deals with electricity as well. I can assure Hon. Members that any longterm contracts that are signed will have to be reviewed by the National Energy Board.
I would like to say just a few words with regard to the petrochemical business. When we upgrade or do further processing, we get a tariff of between 9 per cent and 18 per cent. This really does curtail that industry. Alberta has a tremendous petrochemical industry, and when the free trade agreement is in place and the tariffs are removed over five years, you just wait. I want Hon. Members to know that nowhere is energy curtailed in this agreement.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 waited until the end of the speech in this case, and 1 think-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: 1 did, I told you all about the National Energy Board. It has to review contracts.


Steven W. Langdon: If the Hon. Member would listen for just a moment, I think the fact that the Hon. Member is the-


Mr. Mantha:: That's not a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: Perhaps that Hon. Member could listen as well. The point of order is that this is a set of motions about process, and the key points made within it have to do with seeing to it that, for instance, the energy committee has the right-


John Horton McDermid: That's not a point of order. He has already said his piece.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to take part in the debate on some amendments that have been put forward by my hon. colleague, the trade critic for the New Democratic Party caucus, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). These

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
amendments attempt to reduce the damage of the trade agreement.
Certainly we are very opposed to the very principle of the sell-out of our autonomy and the loss of the political power that is the constant theme throughout the trade agreement, Bill C-130. These amendments attempt to bring back a bit of a political review to give the House of Commons and parliamentary committees a chance to look at some of the rules and appointments that will very much affect how different bodies which deal with the free trade deal, should it go through, will operate.
The deal is all about getting rid of political power, getting rid of the power of a community to elect representatives to make decisions on its behalf and to see them implemented. The trade deal binds future Governments, cuts away from the scope of political decision-making and says that it will be determined by market forces, by a dispute-settlement panel and by the United States-Canada trade commission. These bodies of experts or these very diffuse forces will make the decisions that were previously made by Members of Parliament who were responsible to the people, Members who can themselves be thrown out of office by their electors at the next election. This is an opportunity to bring back a bit of political review at least.
Let us look at Motion No. 24 which seeks to limit the vast power of Cabinet to make appointments without any kind of review. Motion No. 24 would make appointments to the Canadian contingent of the Canada-United States Trade Commission reviewable by a parliamentary committee.
This is very important because the United States Trade Commission makes all kinds of extremely important decisions. Its members are, in effect, the trade ministers and other appointees. They decide on things like monopolies. There is a section in the Bill, put there with scarcely any discussion across the country, which uses American terminology such as "monopolies". We do not call them monopolies, we call them social services.
This relates to things like medicare, and whether we are going to have a national child care system. Suppose we want to extend medicare to include denticare or pharmacare. Suppose we want to do some other things as a community. If a company in the United States which is making money in health insurance does not want us to have medicare or does not want it to be extended in some way complains, the matter will go to a dispute settlement panel. The dispute settlement panel has a process to go through and its report goes to the commission, which accepts it or rejects it.
Who is on that commission and who is on those dispute settlement panels? Those are very important questions. Those are the kinds of bodies which will decide whether or not we can
have medicare or whether we will be forced to pay compensation in order to have it, which would make it prohibitively expensive.
These are the bodies that will make the crucial decisions which heretofore were made in Parliament or the provincial legislatures. There is terrific interference with the rules of provincial legislatures in the social sector and regional development in their own provinces. Municipalities which want to create jobs or start new social services could also be dealt with as infringing upon the future profitability of American corporations and could be subject to a challenge in the monopoly section.
If we ever have Indian self-government in this country, which I sincerely hope we will, the Indian bands will lose their power under the trade agreement to make all kinds of decisions on job creation, promotion of tourism, and starting their own social services. In effect, it is one of these bodies which we are reviewing in these motions that will decide whether or not they can do that. It is, therefore, very important who will be on these bodies.
In the case of the dispute settlement panel there will be five people; two Americans, two Canadians, and one to be appointed by those four people. Crucial decisions affecting our welfare system and regional development system will be made by supposed technical experts in trade matters. The majority will probably not be Canadians. If the four people have trouble selecting the fifth, that person will be selected by lot from a list. We could have three Americans and two Canadians deciding upon an absolutely crucial principle of Canada's social welfare system. This is an appalling abrogation of responsibility which will bind future governments.
If the present Government does not want to start a national child care scheme or to improve medicare, it is entitled to make those decisions. It was duly elected and for five years we suffer the consequences, then the voters have the chance to throw the rascals out. That's politics, that's parliament. With this agreement it is not enough just to throw the rascals out because the decision-making power has been taken out of parliament and cannot be reinstituted.
In the case of this Government we have the example of foreign investment review. The Government has substantially diminished foreign investment review, and the free trade agreement will diminish it further. Only the very largest corporate takeovers would be subject to investment review under this trade agreement.
If we elect another government on the platform of bringing back foreign investment review as part of the way in which to stimulate job creation in Canada, because of this free trade agreement it would not be able to do that. That political power will be lost and future governments will be bound by this trade agreement.
That is why it is so patently unfair for it to be rushed through against the will of provinces which disagree and with
August 18, 1988

no mandate from the people. This is so flagrantly immoral that I am surprised that the Government has the nerve to proceed. It does not have the nerve to take it to the public in an election.
The provisions in these motions do not make it impossible to have Conservative patronage in these appointments. We know that review by parliamentary committees does not stop Conservative patronage appointments. I have sat on committees. They are dominated by Conservatives who bring in their hack friends. The hack friends are asked token questions by the Conservative members and at the end of the discussion decisions are made by a majority. With government Members making up that majority, the appointment will go through. There is, therefore, nothing in here that will guarantee an end to patronage appointments. It is only when the public throws this Government out of office that we will have an end to that. 1 hope we will see that very soon.
However, these motions do not guarantee what we would like to have guaranteed. They do not undo the damage of the trade deal, but they do give Parliament a little bit more scrutiny. They do give the elected Members of Parliament, the people who are responsible to the public and could be thrown out at the next election, a bit more of a chance to do their job. The trade experts on the dispute settlement panel cannot be thrown out at the next election. They are appointed experts and are not responsible people. That is a violation of our parliamentary principles. I support these amendments because they at least provide for a bit of review of this corrupting practice although the far more desirable thing would be to get rid of the trade deal entirely.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) could probably be labelled "Alice in Wonderland" or "Lynn in Wonderland". She may have great expertise in getting a Private Member's Bill through the House in order to stop smoking in public places, but she certainly does not understand the free trade agreement signed between Canada and the United States.
She talked about binding municipal and provincial governments and about social programs, all of which are outside of the agreement. The provincial governments can discriminate on health care. The provincial governments can make up the rules on how their hospitals and senior citizens' homes are going to be run. They can insist that they are run only by Canadians and they will not be in violation of the free trade agreement.
The Hon. Member told so many myths in the last 10 minutes that it is very difficult to respond to them all. I am sorry that she was not in the House when I explained that provincial government procurement is totally outside the agreement. It has nothing to do with it. It pertains to health care, education, and so on and so forth. The free trade agreement says that if a province decides to allow American firms into the health care field as consultants, then they have
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
to be treated fairly. That is all it says. They do not have to let them in and opposition Members know that. They are absolutely and totally wrong. Provincial government procurement is totally outside this agreement. Let us get that straight,


Steven W. Langdon: Health care is not.


John Horton McDermid: Entirely outside the agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Health care is not.


John Horton McDermid: All the free trade agreement says is that if a province decides to allow them to come in they must be treated fairly, but they do not have to allow them in.


Steven W. Langdon: They do.


John Horton McDermid: They don't.


Steven W. Langdon: I can quote you this section.


John Horton McDermid: They don't have to allow them in.
Then I listened to the Hon. Member who said that we are binding future governments. She knows full well that one Parliament cannot bind another. She knows that full well. She should know it.


Lynn McDonald: It is in the agreement.


John Horton McDermid: I will read her something else in the agreement that she might be very interested in. She probably has not got this far in the agreement because it is the last article.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like it to be very well understood that I, unlike the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), have read every page, paragraph and word of this agreement, and I disagree with it all.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member says that she disagrees with the entire agreement, yet the policy of the NDP is to remove tariffs. Obviously she now disagrees with the section in here that removes tariffs.
She just said she disagrees with everything in here. Does she disagree with Article 2106 which states that "This agreement shall remain in force unless terminated by either Party upon six months' notice". Some bind.
We are discussing amendments which say that Parliament will decide on all these commissions. It will take votes on all these appointments to these various commissions, including the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) who will head the commission. The Minister will be the Canadian representative of the Canada-U.S. Trade Commission. The Opposition wants Parliament to decide whether the Minister for International Trade should be head of the commission. That is what Motion No. 24 states. That is absolutely ridiculous.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The other appointments are order in council appointments which can all be reviewed by the standing committees. They can bring these people before the committee any time to question them and put them under the gun to see if they qualify to serve on these commissions. That is provided for by the new parliamentary rules brought in by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
There have been examples of people coming before the committee who did not have the credentials and therefore did not carry on with their appointments. There are other examples of people who have come before the committee and, regardless of their political stripe, the committee unanimously decided that the person was highly qualified for the appointment.
A former NDP colleague of the House, Ian Deans, was appointed. Does the Member for Broadview-Greenwood think that his appointment should end automatically the day the Government goes to the polls? Is she saying that the appointment of our former colleague from Prince Edward Island to the Pension Review Board, which is a very good appointment, should stop the day the election is called? Should all the boards and commissions and all the work of Government stop automatically? Is that what they are saying with these amendments? That is nonsense and the Hon. Members know it. These are some of the frivolous amendments they are introducing to the House. These are negative resolution procedures.
These amendments would allow the Senate, those unelected people in the other place, to decide who will be on these boards and commissions. The Senate has caused this country enough trouble. We do not want the Senate deciding who will be on boards and commissions. However, that is what these amendments provide.
1 can understand the Liberals supporting these amendments, but it is the New Democratic Party which brought them in. The NDP, whose policy it is to abolish the Senate, introduced amendments that would allow the Senate to decide who is on the boards and commissions. They are saying in these amendments that if appointments are created by Governor in Council they have to come before the House, which will then have to go up to the Senate for a decision on whether it is right or wrong. I cannot believe the New Democrats did that.


Steven W. Langdon: That is the system we have.


John Horton McDermid: The NDP brought in amendments that would allow the Senate to decide who goes on boards and commissions. What is this world coming to?
When the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party learns of this, I am sure he will do back-flips. I am afraid the Hon. Member may even be removed as critic for international trade. I would hate to see that after having spent so much time with him.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been a complete misrepresentation. If you look at Section 2 in each of these motions, it indicates that it is a committee of the House of Commons which has to approve these.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brampton- Georgetown has one minute to complete his speech.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will just make a final comment on Motion No. 25 which seeks to delete Clause 12.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are in the wrong group.


John Horton McDermid: This would prevent Canada-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are in the wrong group of amendments.


John Horton McDermid: We already defeated that one. I have more paper here than-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Brains.


John Horton McDermid: Another great speech by the Hon. Member from the seat of her pants. The Hon. Member for "right on" is speaking to the House in her usual eloquent style.
These amendments which have been brought forward by the New Democratic Party are totally unacceptable. They are negative resolution procedures and we cannot accept them.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I just heard 10 minutes of absolute non-defence of a Government method for order in council appointments. I know that it is difficult to defend the indefensible, but I think the Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) has a particular knack for trivializing some of the important objections to his Government's trade legislation.
I want to support the amendment by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) which attempts to put some sanity into the Government appointment process and these organizations that will be reviewing this trade legislation.
In order to examine the situation, I think the public should be aware of how the original teams that came up with this trade deal were established. They were the so-called SAGITs. Those organizations were called together supposedly to represent the people of Canada in the negotiating process. Many people may recognize that the agricultural community has really had the proverbial boots put to it by this agreement. Is it any wonder, when one considers the formation of the groups that were appointed to consult with the Government on this issue.
We had a SAGIT in which the head of the Canadian SAGIT dealing with questions relating to agriculture happened to be the president of a Canadian subsidiary of an American company whose president just happened to be sitting on the American side of the negotiating table. When the two equal partners came together to discuss and consult on issues of mutual trade agreement, we actually saw the president of an
August 18, 1988

American company supposedly negotiating with his employee, the president of the Canadian subsidiary.
The Government asks us to trust it and the people it is going to appoint to sit down and negotiate away the very social fabric of this country. Trust us. That is what the Government said about senior citizens' pensions. Yet if you look at the composition of the individuals who were named by the Government to negotiate this absolute sell-out to the U.S., it does not represent the broad spectrum of the Canadian public. Where were the women on these SAGITs?


John Horton McDermid: There are lots of women on the SAGITs.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The trade agreement is going to negatively impact on women more than any other group. More women will lose their jobs as a result of this agreement. Where were they in strong numbers on the SAGITs?


John Horton McDermid: They were there.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They were not there. Where were the unions? Where were the members of organized labour sitting at the table with the Americans on the SAGITs?


John Horton McDermid: The Canadian Federation of Labour, the CLC?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Canadian Federation of Labour and the CLC were where on SAGITs?


John Horton McDermid: They were invited but turned it down.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They were not there. Where were the steelworkers? Where were the church groups? Where were the people in this country who have a social conscience about our future direction? They were not there because the Government and the Minister are interested only in one point of view, the big business point of view.
If you go into my riding and talk to the President of Proctor and Gamble, he is of course going to say "Great. Free trade is going to be fantastic". He is the plant manager of a 100 per cent American-owned company that would like nothing better than to pull up stakes and move its whole operation south of the border.


John Horton McDermid: Ask Stelco and Dofasco what they think.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Heinz Canada, a food production company, 100 per cent American-owned, have already chosen a site for a plant south of the border.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They are planning to move if and when this deal sees the light of day. McCain's Food Company, the largest Canadian-owned company in this country-
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: Who were invited to appear and turned it down.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -are against this deal. They said quite specifically that it will destroy the food processing industry in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: No, they did not.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Most food processors do not care because of the 25 or 26 major Canadian food processors, 23 are American-owned. You have only two or three Canadian-owned operations. Of course, the 100 per cent American-owned companies do not mind.
Cameo, an appliance manufacturer in Hamilton, is scared silly that if and when this deal goes through the appliance industry in this country and in my city will be dead. Talk to the appliance manufacturers.
The wine industry. Gallo Wines in California spills more wine than is produced in the whole of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: So?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sure you do not care if the Canadian industry is wiped out, which is what will happen as a result of this deal.


John Horton McDermid: We can compete. You are afraid to compete.


Sheila Maureen Copps: All this amendment calls for is an opportunity for Parliament to review the appointments of people who sit on these committees that are going to determine what-


John Horton McDermid: You see what they have now.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, I saw what they came up with. They came up with a deal for big business which does not respond to the needs and aspirations of ordinary people. The Hon. Member talks about the health care system. I wish he would stop spreading the same kind of fallacy that his Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spread when he said he was not going to touch senior citizens pensions. He says health care is not included. The management of health care systems is included right in the annex and commercial blood banks are part of the trade deal. His colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), publicly stated that the trade deal includes commercial blood banks.


John Horton McDermid: If the provinces allow them.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member may laugh but he does not know the composition of the national blood committee. It brings together people from every province. As a matter of fact, it is under the auspices of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


John Horton McDermid: Is the committee appointed by the House?

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Sheila Maureen Copps: The committee regulates the distribution of blood across Canada. I am sorry the Hon. Member does not understand the distribution of blood in this country, but it is done by that committee under the auspices of the federal Minister. It is the Tory Party that will do anything for a buck that for the first time in the history of this country has permitted the opening of a clinic in Montreal where you can buy and sell blood for profit. He laughs, but why is it in the agreement?
Why do you expect us to trust you to appoint competent people representative of the Canadian public to the subsidy groups which will be reviewing this agreement when history shows that the Conservative Party represents big business? That Party has done nothing to secure the needs and aspirations of ordinary Canadian men and women. The only people they truly consulted in this deal were the presidents and chief executive officers of major multinational corporations who do not care where the money goes. Capital knows no national boundaries. They will move to the States.
Do you know what my own community got from the American bosses of Firestone in Akron, Ohio? A three paragraph Telex. After I believe 143 years of continuous operation in that city they got a three paragraph Telex which said "we are closing down''. All this amendment calls for, and I think it is quite reasonable, is an opportunity for Parliament, not the privileged, prurient Tory Party which has been involved-1 cannot even begin to make the kinds of allegations that were made today by a former cabinet Minister of the Tory Party. However, let us face it, are we going to trust the Tory Party and Government to appoint people who will represent the views of Canadians when it comes to negotiations on things like what constitutes an unfair subsidy? Do you think the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), who does not care about the sale of blood, is going to protect our health care system? Do you think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, who has obviously demonstrated over and over again that he does not even understand the blood distribution system in this country, will represent and defend the interests of ordinary Canadians?


John Horton McDermid: You bet.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is clear that we need protection from the Government and a Conservative Party that would consult only the elite, only the moneyed, only the people who really have no vested interest in building the kind of national identity that we have struggled for as Canadians. In fact, the protection brought in with this amendment is the kind we need to make sure that at the very least with this extremely negative deal for Canada, when we go to the negotiating table we will not see pregnancy leave rights or minority rights eroded. I can imagine that if the Member were sitting over there making all these appointments it would look like a who's who of the Fraser Institute. That organization is against the minimum wage. We know it does not believe in affirmative action. We know it does not believe in any kind of support programs for women and
minorities. Those are the people we do not want on these committees and that is why we in Parliament need the power of review.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address a few words regarding these four NDP amendments. I noticed with interest that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) supported them wholeheartedly.
I would like to make a few comments on what the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) said earlier about patronage. She indicates one of her amendments addresses that very subject. She said the Conservative Party would just use this device to put in its friends and neighbours and those who support this Party. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the individual I defeated in 1984 was a member of the NDP and Howard Pawley gave him a $50,000 do-nothing job. If that is not patronage by the NDP I would like to know what the dickens it is. They are very capable of patronage and don't think otherwise. It is this Conservative Party which has appointed New Democrats and Liberals and other people who have no political background at all to do the right kind of job. I would ask her to bite her tongue a little bit when she comes up with statements like that.
Let's get on with these amendments. I also noticed with interest that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East referred to the people who would benefit as the great corporate leaders and presidents. She said they were the only people with whom we consulted. Well, let us look at the facts. The Hon. Member may find this very interesting. How about what D. R. Eastcott of the Canadian Organization of Small Business says. That is not a big corporate giant.
Small businesses provide the majority of Canada's new jobs, new wealth and new business. Free trade will enhance the potential for growth-competition on even terms, free from tariffs, unfair subsidies and limited markets. It will open up what is already the largest trading partnership in the world.
Small business will gain a larger, fairer share of the market-place, not only in the U.S. but within Canada as well. Free trade is our future for success.
That is a representation of small business and small businesses create the majority of jobs. This association is steadfastly behind this agreement. That is something the Hon. Member should have taken into consideration.
Let me go back to the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood who stood in her place and reflected that everything in this book, that is the free trade document, is what that Party is totally against. She said there was nothing in here that she could support. Yet what did the New Democratic Party do? It could have just taken one clause in the free trade agreement, and I believe it is Article 7, and added only one amendment. Article 7 says: "The agreement is hereby approved". The Opposition could have amended it by stating: "We disapprove of this and, therefore, this agreement should be unapproved". That is all they had to say. They did not have to add all these other amendments to try to improve the free
August 18, 1988

trade agreement because they do not agree with it at all. What nonsense. I suggest that even if these amendments for some silly reason could be passed in this House, those Parties would still defeat the free trade agreement.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The proposal of the Hon. Member would have been ruled out of order because it was contrary to the intent of the Bill.


Felix Holtmann: That is a very strange point of order. Let me get back to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood. Her Party has a resolution which has not changed, going back to 1961, which the NDP still confirms is its policy on trade. Let me indicate to this House and to the people of Canada what the policy is of the New Democratic Party in terms of trade. It is very clearly spelled out and it is exactly what has happened in this agreement. Let us remind Canadians of this. It states:
Expansion of our trade with any and all countries willing to trade on a fair and equitable basis will benefit both ourselves and them. Careful planning is needed to adjust our production to the trade requirements of a fully employed economy. Tariffs are outmoded patchwork attempts to protect domestic industry;
That is what this agreement does. It reduces tariffs.


Lynn McDonald: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member is referring to multilateral trade and this agreement is about trade with one country only, bilateral, and it sells out the country and loses our political autonomy at the same time. That is why we are against it.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I am so happy she pointed that out to me because this statement goes on to say: Any direction this country can make to a trade agreement to reduce tariffs with any country, any given country, is what the policy of the New Democratic Party is. Here it is in written colour.


Lynn McDonald: No sell-outs.


Felix Holtmann: So she ought to be very careful about what she calls a sell-out in her statements in the House with respect to those amendments and how they affect this free trade agreement.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that if the Member wishes to correctly put forward New Democratic Party policy, he read the policy passed at this year's convention in Montreal, not something which is 27 years old.


Ross Belsher: When did you last rescind it?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I think all Canadians would like to know in a very open way what the policy of the New Democratic Party is with respect to free trade. Certainly, we have not heard anything but criticism of this Government in its effort to reduce tariffs. It is nothing more than that.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this very Member in fact stood up one day and tore up the 62 page booklet which dealt with our alternatives to the free trade deal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He should not have done that. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I know not what he is referring to, but it was probably some nonsense printed in his office and sent to me. I would like to get back to these amendments. How about the president of Dofasco.


Steven W. Langdon: That is a good ordinary Canadian.


Felix Holtmann: I suppose anyone, in the mind of the Member opposite, who becomes a president of a good company which does a great job for Canada is not ordinary anymore, but he has to have some brains and I suspect he is doing a great job. What did he have to say with respect to this free trade agreement?
We believe the free trade agreement provides a special opportunity for Canadian manufacturers to develop their businesses to fit a more open global trading system during the next decade and into the next century. Our focus at Dofasco now and for the future is to produce top quality steels so as to provide the best materials available to our customers. A commitment toward innovation, modernization and value-added products is essential to thrive.
That is a Canadian talking about value added because of this trade deal. I think that is an essential key element in what he says.
Better and more assured access to the U.S.A. will provide our customers an excellent opportunity as a first and more familiar step toward world-wide competitiveness.
Sure it is a big company, but we have small businesses which want this agreement to go ahead. We have big business. That is a Canadian business, by the way, which employs people who, perhaps, are represented by Members of this Parliament. Of course, these companies speak for increased economic development as a result of this free trade agreement.
Adding these amendments which have nothing to do with the reduction of tariffs is nothing but a ploy to confuse the public of Canada that because some of these particular irritants to someone is not in there, all havoc will take place. The whole exercise is to reduce the tariffs of trade between Canada and the United States. But what do those Parties do? They suggest it is just a ploy to create more patronage for the Conservative Party. That is what those Members suggest. They suggest that because of this free trade agreement, our sovereignty has gone, it is history.
One has to look at what was said in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press. I see the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is here. He must have read this recently with some awe. It was an editorial on August 9. The headline in the Winnipeg Free Press with respect to this free trade agreement reads: "Tell the people the truth". It refers to the Leader of the Liberal Party. The article is so well written that I am sorry Canadians watching tonight cannot get a copy

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of this editorial. It has been taken up recently in every other paper, even the Ottawa Citizen, which I do not believe has written too many great stories about the Tory Party. On August 18, the Ottawa Citizen put out a pretty dandy little editorial. The headline reads: "Turner trade pitch simply isn't buyable". That is a pretty direct statement.
1 would like to refer to the last paragraph of the editorial, although I am sure 1 do not have time to read it all. It is important for the Hon. Member opposite to listen to this. It states that these proposals for international change are longterm goals beyond the control of any single nation. It goes on to state that the Liberals are intellectually and politically bankrupt, and on free trade, as on many other issues, they offer Canadians no viable option. I think that is pretty significant coming from that paper in the many, many years that it has been pushing the Liberal side of things.
I would like to return to the Winnipeg Free Press article. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry must have had a hair or two turn grey when he read the bottom paragraph.


Lloyd Axworthy: I don't have any grey hairs, Felix.


Felix Holtmann: I am getting a little grey. It states:
John Turner these days has a liking for slogans. Let the people decide is his latest". Before the people do decide he might direct another slogan to himself: "Tell the people the truth."
Do not try to redirect what the Government has tried to do other than to reduce trade barriers to enhance our ability to enter that market which certainly has to be the objective of all Canadians, taking into consideration that it is not a super perfect document.


Steven W. Langdon: You recognize that. You told the truth.


Felix Holtmann: We said that right from the beginning. From time to time it might need some adjustment; and from time to time it allows that adjustment to take place.


Steven W. Langdon: Tell us its problems.


Felix Holtmann: By introducing the type of amendments that do not relate at all to this matter, or to throw in a scare tactic that the Conservatives are using it for patronage, or that we are going to lose our culture just does not fly. I am just as Canadian as anyone else in this room. I do not intend on losing the culture of Canada. That is not going to happen. I think Canadians are starting to understand that it is not going to happen. We cannot expect every Canadian to read this document from one end to the other.


Steven W. Langdon: Especially the Minister.


Felix Holtmann: There is lots more to it. I can only refer to the many other possibilities by which Canadians can get the information on free trade. For instance, they can write, as the advertisements tell us to do. I am certain that a better
understanding all around of how good this trade agreement is will happen.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) telling us that the trade deal deals with nothing at all except tariffs. That of course is baloney of the sort for which he is well known. It deals with all kinds of things, including the takeover of Canadian investment businesses and Canadian services such as management health services and so on. Nothing at all of those things relate to tariffs. In fact, for most people who work in the service industry-two-thirds of Canadians-tariffs are of secondary importance. So 80 per cent of trade is without tariffs. We will do away with the other 20 per cent. That will affect some of the manufacturing people. But the takeover of Canadian services will affect far more Canadians than the destruction of our manufacturing industry.
However, as could be expected, what the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake was saying had nothing to do with the subject being debated at this time, namely, certain amendments that have been proposed by our Party. These amendments, roughly speaking, propose to introduce a measure of democracy into the operation of this new law in order to make up for some destruction of democracy.
Motion No. 24 proposes that appointments to the Canadian contingent of the Canada-U.S. Trade Commission should be reviewed by a committee of Parliament. Motion No. 33 proposes regulations regarding the operation of the procurement review board, the board that will decide whether the Government's policy of procuring goods is fair or unfair to the United States and that the implementation of the procurement chapter should be reviewed by a committee of Parliament.
The appointment of the Secretary to the Canadian Secretariat that will administer the dispute settlement panels and committees should be reviewed by a committee of Parliament. Orders and directives to the National Energy Board should also be reviewed by a committee of Parliament.
It seems by the excitement and anger of the Hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake and the Parliamentary Secretary that this proposal for democracy so frightens them that they had to talk about everything and anything else except the motions that are before the House at this time.
The Parliamentary Secretary taunts us not with debating. In fact, he does not debate. He just shouts, generalizes and tries to bulldoze. The point we are making is that government appointees who carry a huge responsibility for the conduct of the political economy of Canada and its relationship with the United States ought to have the approval, the scrutiny and the obligation to report to the elected representatives of the country-Members of Parliament.
Judging by their response to this proposal Members opposite think that this is some crazy, radical proposition; or they think it is something that could only be put forward by people who
August 18, 1988

have no interest in or knowledge of business. I point out to them that what we are proposing is no less than what is done by Constitution in the United States of America.
In the United States of America when the President appoints senior officials in various lines, his appointment must be validated, must be subject to the approval of Congress and Senate. There are a variety of regulations but that is the general principle. There are some times when his appointee is turned down, because the committee of Congress or Senate examine him and find him or her unsatisfactory, and the President must appoint somebody else. Tie has the power to name but not the power to put the person finally into office. We are suggesting that that development of democracy in the United States is something from which Canadians could learn, particularly if in this trade Bill we are going to have to do business with the United States. If they are good enough to do business with, if they are good enough for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to sing When Irish Eyes are Smiling with the President of the United States, then I think we could at least look at their structure for holding senior powerful officials to account before the elected representatives of the people.
That is what these amendments before us propose. They are absolutely essential if we are not going to lose a great deal of the more informal kind of democracy that we have now. The informal democracy that we have now meant that the executive of the Government, the Prime Minister and those he chooses to have in his Cabinet, ought to lay things before Parliament before final important decisions are made.
One example of that occurred about 30 years ago when the Government of the day under Mr. Diefenbaker negotiated the NORAD Treaty. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Pearson, said as a matter of Constitution it ought to be brought before Parliament. Mr. Diefenbaker agreed. It was brought before Parliament and voted upon. Unfortunately, Mr. Pearson and his successor in Liberal office forgot the rule that Mr. Pearson had put forward and this rule of course has been totally forgotten as well by the present Government. In fact, Mr. Pearson was right in 1958, and so was Mr. Diefenbaker, in putting that treaty to a vote of Parliament. There is no written law that says they must, but it was an essential obligation of democracy.
We are asking for essentially the same principle here. As I say we are following a very useful model in the United States of America that, when these officials are appointed, they should first be subject to an examination, a questioning by a committee of Parliament. If the committee does not approve their appointment, then it has to come to the full Parliament. If the Parliament does not approve their appointment, then the Prime Minister has to find somebody else who would be more acceptable.


Ross Belsher: Is that the way you would run it?
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is the way it is being run in the United States which is the country that is so admired and followed by our Prime Minister. We are asking that he be consistent.
We do need to restore to Parliament some of the democracy that was taken away in the past two years. As my colleague from Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has said, not only in the 1985 hearings which were a sham-not a sham carried out by the Members-but in that the Government showed that it had no interest in paying any attention to what hundreds of Canadians said at those hearings.
Also during two years of negotiations when the Prime Minister was asked whether the auto industry was on the table he jeered at the questioners. He made fun of the question, denied it was on, and it has turned out that his denial was totally false because it was on the table through the removal of the tariffs which are the only lever which makes the Auto Pact possible.
Last fall there was the publication of what was called the essence of the agreement. Then a committee was struck in order to cross the county to hold hearings. Any time a person criticized or objected to something in the essence he was jeered by government Members who said: "Wait for the final details". In other words, the hearings were created as a farce. The final details were published in December after the hearings were finished. Since then the Government has refused to allow any hearings across Canada on this subject.
Now we have Bill C-130 which amends 27 Acts including agriculture, banking, income tax, radio broadcasting, and so on. According to the Government it was to be treated as one Bill, not as amendments to 27 major and important Bills. What we have here is the deliberate destruction of the ability of elected representatives to do what the people expect us to do, which is to come to Parliament and vote on matters of importance. They are asking that Parliament should renounce and sign away our responsibility as Members of Parliament to the people who elected us. What I am saying is that the principle of democracy demands that the Government now give consideration to these amendments and that they be adopted.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments with respect to Motion Nos. 24, 33, 42, and 82 which were grouped for debate. As I read through them I had mixed feelings. I join with the Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) in finding that it is somewhat amusing to be seeing more responsibility given to the Senate. Coming as these motions do from a member of the New Democratic Party, I am sure there are many dedicated socialists who are turning in their graves tonight at the thought of the NDP proposing even more powers to the Senate. I consider that nothing more than amusing.
I am somewhat heartened when I see amendments brought forward such as the motions we are discussing tonight, because I know that this attempt to gut the Bill by motions such as

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
this, and kill the free trade legislation, does a lot of good for the Progressive Conservative Party, and certainly I am pleased for that. The House will know that the trade agreement is supported in the regions of this country. As a result, 1 feel good about the fact that every time a member of the NDP rises and attempts to bury this Bill, makes amendments to gut the legislation, and opposes the free trade agreement, 1 know it will help some people whom 1 have known and admired these last three years.
I see my colleague, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), and the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher). I am happy for those Members. I know the NDP is helping those Members return to the 34th Parliament to work on family values and some of the things that are important to so many Canadians. 1 see the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) is present. I am pleased for him and other Members when I see members of the New Democratic Party digging their own graves here in the House of Commons and ensuring that that they will not return to the 34th Parliament.
I stated that I had mixed feelings, and I guess that stems from the fact that when I read through each of these motions for this section of the debate, 1 noticed they were presented by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). 1 am very proud to say that a few years ago 1 was a student at the University of Windsor. Like most students who go away to school, 1 developed a certain affection for the city in which I resided for that part of my life.
It saddens me to see the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, joined by other NDP and Liberal colleagues from that area, doing something that I know is diametrically opposed to the best interests of the city of Windsor. I think that all of them would agree, if they were completely honest, that the city of Windsor is very dependent upon trade with the United States. That trade does not hurt the city of Windsor, rather it helps the city of Windsor. In the same manner, my own area of Niagara Falls is very dependent upon trade. If Members were honest, they would know that in the past few years there has been pressure brought to bear within the United States from different elements that would like to tear up the Auto Pact. I believe that the Auto Pact is important to the best interests of Windsor, the Niagara area, the area of Oshawa, and several other parts of the country.
Now we have an agreement which we are discussing this evening, and motions that have been put forward to try and hurt that agreement that enshrine the essential elements of the Auto Pact which is so good for the city of Windsor. It is an agreement that also protects the auto parts industry. The NDP will say that that is not true, that it has nothing to do with that industry, that it hurts it all. The evidence that always does them in is the fact that the auto industry and the auto parts industry support the agreement.
1 will use an example in my own area. Many of these companies are also represented in the Windsor area. 1 know of
no auto parts company in the Niagara Peninsula, and I know of no automobile manufacturer in the Niagara Peninsula that opposes the free trade agreement because they know that it is good. They know that the elements of the Auto Pact are enshrined in the free trade agreement. They know it gives protection for auto parts, and that is why they all support it.
I have before me a number of quotes in the notes that I made before 1 rose, and different comments made by different people from the auto industry. The general manager of General Motors has stated: "The Canada-U.S. free trade agreement signals a major breakthrough in the trading relations between our two great countries. It also sends an important signal to our other trading partners around the world that protectionism is not the way to long-term success. From our perspective this agreement will contribute significantly to making the trade and investment climate in North America more rational, predictable, and fair". Who benefits the most, Mr. Speaker, when trade is rational, predictable, and fair? It is the city of Windsor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor on a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: 1 appreciate the concern of the Hon. Member for the city of Windsor. It would seem to me that what he has spoken about so far has absolutely no relevance to the subject matter of the amendments which are before us which attempt to establish parliamentary democracy in the face of cabinet dominance as established by this Bill. Perhaps on a point of order he should speak to that issue. As a back-bencher he may prefer the Cabinet to decide everything, but I doubt it.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my comments are as a direct result of reading the motions put forward by the Member for Essex-Windsor. I do not think that there is anybody in this House who would disagree with me that the intent of these and other amendments are to gut this Bill, to hurt this Bill, and ultimately to destroy it. 1 think that my comments are properly in order. I can appreciate that the Member is sensitive.


Steven W. Langdon: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: I think, if I have read the rules of the House properly, it is not proper to attribute motives, as the Member is doing with respect to my moving of these motions. I certainly moved them with the intention of improving a situation which I saw as most unfortunate in the Bill.


An Hon. Member:: Even though misguided?


Rob Nicholson: 1 started my comments by saying that 1 was delighted to See anything good come from the City of Windsor, and to the extent that the Member may
August 18, 1988

be shifting his position toward coming into agreement with the free trade agreement. That is good, in the over-all context. It is for the well-being of that community and certainly-


An Hon. Member:: It is not a point of order, it is debate. He is debating.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor on a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: It is important for the Member to recognize that second reading is the debate in which we approve or disapprove of the question of principle. As the Member should know, I voted against this Bill on principle. That does not mean that at report stage one is not permitted by the rules of the House to move motions that are consistent with the intentions of the Bill to try to improve it. That does not mean that one approves of the Bill or of the agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Please get back to the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Niagara Falls.


Rob Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 have always said that half a loaf is better than none at all. If the Member now is trying to attempt to improve the situation, improve the free trade Bill, I am certainly pleased about that, and I would be delighted if now, or perhaps later on in debate or maybe in future intervention, he may come all the way over and support this legislation which is so clearly in the best interests of his area, the Province of Ontario and the whole Dominion of Canada.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, we are presently debating four motions to amend the free trade Bill, C-130. The purpose of these amendments is to put some democracy back in the process and to put some democracy back in the administration with respect to the free trade agreement.
The four amendments require that several of the appointments to the boards and commissions that will administer the free trade agreement come before the House of Commons so that the House of Commons can consider them by 25 Members forcing a debate and perhaps reject them in certain cases. It also requires in some cases that the regulations and Orders in Council passed by the Government and the regulatory bodies be sent to the House of Commons so that it can consider them and have them debated and voted on in certain situations.
The purpose of these amendments is to put some democracy back into an agreement, into a Bill, into a process, which has been very weak on democracy. As a matter of fact, this whole process has been filled with undemocratic instances. We can review them one by one. For example, there has been closure at every stage in this debate. At second reading there was
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
closure after only one day, and second reading debate was limited to five days.
At report stage, after one and a half days of debate, the Government moved closure on the report stage and limited it to four days. It has limited third reading to two days. The entire debate in this House-second reading, report stage and third reading-is limited to 11 days on a Bill that the Government suggests is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this Parliament since the Second World War. We on this side agree that it is one of the most devastating pieces of legislation to come before Parliament since the Second World War. Yet, the Government has imposed closure at every stage of the proceedings.
With respect to the legislative committee, as soon as they met, before they could determine how many groups and citizens wanted to appear before the committee to give their views, before that even happened, the Government set a date to close off the committee. It decided that the committee would only hold hearings in Ottawa and would not travel throughout the country, as many other committees have done in the history of this Parliament, to hear the views of Canadians. It has been undemocratic in that part of the process. It has also been undemocratic at every other stage of the procedure.
We all know that the negotiations with respect to this free trade agreement started in 1986, after an election in 1984 at which time there was no mention at all of a possible free trade agreement with the United States. Not only was there no mention at all in the 1984 election campaign, but the only statements on record from leading members of the Government are that they were opposed to a free trade agreement with the United States.
I put these quotes on the record before, but I think that we have to repeat them because Canadians must know what was said by the leading members of the Government, by various cabinet Ministers.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said in 1983: "Unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear".


An Hon. Member:: What was the first word?


William Warren Allmand: "Unrestrained free trade with the United States".


An Hon. Member:: Ah.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, ah. That is pretty much what is proposed in this agreement. The Canadian public will judge that.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said in 1983, and I quote: "Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to diminish our ability to compete internationally". The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in 1983: "Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would do so again in 1983. Canada must

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
increase its share of total world trade, which has dropped by 33 per cent in the past two decades".
These are the sorts of things that the Prime Minister and his leading Ministers said in 1983. They entered the election campaign of 1984 and they did not suggest in any way at all that there would be a bilateral comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States. Two years later, after the Prime Minister met with President Reagan at the Shamrock Summit, all of a sudden these negotiations are under way. That was undemocratic.
Then we have the process by which the Government consulted with Canadians, the so-called SAGIT process. There were groups on agriculture, textiles and clothing, and various other sectors of industry. However, the Government picked the people to serve on the SAGITs. It swore them to secrecy so they could not tell the public or the media what was going on in these discussions. Here we had for the most part individuals who were friendly to the process in the first place picked by the Government in a phoney process to consult with Canadians.
After one and a half years the elements of an agreement were concluded on October 5, 1987. A 35-page booklet with a lot of principles in it were printed. Some of it was bad enough and a lot of things were not in it. We were told that you cannot judge the whole agreement by this short document. Wait until we get the full agreement.
We got the full agreement on December 11, 1987. It was 1400 pages, including the two annexes, of very complex, technical material. After tabling it in the House, the Prime Minister announced that he was going to sign that agreement with the President of the United States on January 2, 1988, less than a month later. He was giving Canadian labour, consumers, businessmen and Members of Parliament less than a month to examine the details of this very complex 1,400 page agreement. We were allowed three days' debate in this House in the middle of December before the recess for Christmas. That is another example of the undemocratic approach of the Conservative Government-three days on a 1,400-page agreement which took nearly two years to negotiate. "Take
It then took the Government from January until May 24 of this year to put a Bill before the House. Then, as I say, we are given five days on second reading, four days on report stage, and two days on third reading. Compare that with many other Bills which have gone through this House, and which are much less important than this, which will not have a long-range impact on Canada and change it so dramatically; their time has been much longer. I can remember Bills on the Western Grain Transportation Act and other such measures which took an entire year to debate. There were committee hearings in all parts of the country. Yet, for this particular Bill, the Government wants to rush because it does not want Canadians to
know what is in it. It has been timed so we would have to debate it in the middle of summer when most people are on vacation.
The whole process has been undemocratic and the purpose of these four amendments is to restore a bit of democracy to the process. The amendments ask that certain appointments to the commissions which will administer the agreement will have to come before Parliament so Parliament can review them and possibly force a vote and debate on them. Why can the Government not accept that? I guess it is because it is either afraid to open up the process to public scrutiny or it just feels it is not good enough to be supported in a long democratic examination.
From time to time in this debate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible has risen and participated. His theme, every time we disagree with what is in the Bill, when we put forward amendments to change it, is that we do not understand the Bill. In other words, only the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and government Members understand it. None of us understand it and therefore we should not attempt to change it. Our motions to amend are based on a total misunderstanding. 1 guess we are all stupid. We cannot read. Therefore we should totally accept whatever the Government tells us in this $6 million worth of publicity it is putting in the newspapers and television and radio. We should just believe everything the Government says and not question it for a moment. The Canadian people will decide who understands and who does not understand this agreement in an election, and that is the way it should be done. Let us hope it is done soon.
How many minutes do I have left, Mr. Speaker? My time is finished? I will return to the debate later and cover some other points.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have read these four amendments with great interest and, I must say, with enormous disappointment. As I read these amendments and listened to the speeches by NDP Members who put them forward and were supporting them, and 1 listened to speeches from Liberal Members who were supporting them, I was really disappointed. I could not really believe my ears.
The essence of these amendments is to create more democracy, we are told. They will democracize the Bill and democra-cize the process. Yet the process which the amendments will apparently make more democratic really repeats an Order in Council appointment review already set out in the Standing Orders of the House. Specifically, it is set out in Standing Order 103 and Standing Order 104 of this House.
As you know, those Standing Orders were changed in the course of this Parliament at the initiative of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who suggested provisions allowing parliamentary committees to review the appointments made by Order in Council. The provisions of those two Standing Orders are in essence the same sort of provisions as those which have
August 18, 1988

been put forward in these amendments by the NDP, with one slight exception. That slight exception is the fact that there would be a power in Parliament to reject the appointment.


Steven W. Langdon: A major change.


Alan Redway: Under their suggestion, Parliament would not just review it or comment on it, but would actually perhaps say no, you cannot make that appointment.


Steven W. Langdon: A major change.


Alan Redway: If the Hon. Member will just calm down for a minute and let me continue my remarks-


Steven W. Langdon: Tell them the truth.


Alan Redway: Exactly. I believe that he and I should be telling the Canadian people the truth and that is what I am doing. As I pointed out, the essence of these amendments is exactly the same as the Standing Orders with that one small exception.
However, Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the criticism which the Opposition makes of the provisions for review in the Standing Orders is based on the fact that they say the Government of the day has the majority on those committees. It can control the whole situation and do what it wants anyway and so the rule virtually does not matter. We know that in essence the rule really works, but the Opposition criticizes it and says it does not matter because there is such a thing as Party discipline, a parliamentary majority, and for that reason the whole process as set out in the Standing Orders, they claim, does not work.
Now, with this small change-


Steven W. Langdon: Major change.


Alan Redway: -whereby Parliament has to approve or disapprove the appointment itself, what changes are there as far as parliamentary discipline is concerned? What changes are there as far as the majority in Parliament is concerned? 1 am sure if this were passed, if it were implemented and put in the legislation, we would find the same members of the Opposition standing up and criticizing the process. There is such a thing as a majority Government. Therefore, this process would rubber stamp the appointments just the same as the Standing Orders now rubber stamp them, in their words, even though you and 1 know that this review process as set out in the Standing Orders, as developed and put forward by the Prime Minister, has proved to be very effective as far as reviewing these appointments is concerned, appointments which some refer to as patronage appointments.
All of that is very disappointing to me. I am disappointed for another reason, and that is that at least one of the NDP Members has suggested that the reason this is such a great improvement is that it is an American method. The American
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
congressional system actually has some right to approve or disapprove certain appointments made by the President of the United States.
Every day, opposition Members tell us that they do not like the American system, that they do not like the way the Americans operate their Government or their country, they do not want to Americanize culture, they do not want American social policy and they do not want anything that is American here. Here they are putting forward an amendment which they are telling us will Americanize our system. It seems to be very strange to me and it is very, very disappointing to me that that is the sort of amendment they would put forward.
If opposition Members truly believed in democracy, if they truly wanted to put forward something that went to the essence of democratizing the process, they would have looked at Private Members' Motions and seen a motion standing under my name, Motion No. 93, which I put forward on January 18, 1987. That motion reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a new appointments process such that an Appointments Office be established which would, following the first of each year, publish in all Canadian daily newspapers a list of coming vacancies on the various boards and agencies, indicating that those who wish to be considered for such an appointment should contact that office to obtain the information specific to the desired appointment, and such that each application will then be reviewed, short-listed and investigated further, and a final selection made subject to a review by the appropriate House of Commons committee.
If the opposition Members had seriously wanted to create a democratic process, and if they had not simply wanted to delay this Bill by putting up some amendments to cause further debate, they would have incorporated the process I have put forward in Motion No. 93. I would like to take a moment or two to talk about that because that is true democracy and that is the sort of thing that should have been put forward here.
The first step, of course, would be to create an appointments office so that this Order in Council appointment process would be taken out of the political atmosphere altogether and institutionalized. We would then advertise and make sure that all Canadians had an opportunity to apply if they thought they were qualified for this appointment. No one would be shut out of the process. They would all have the opportunity to apply and put their names forward. Their credentials would be examined very carefully. A short list would be made and a certain number of people would be interviewed. Then a selection would be made, and that could then be reviewed by a committee. That would truly make the process democratic, unlike the farce that has been proposed by the NDP.
In fact, members of the NDP are trying to enshrine in legislation something that is in the Standing Orders. They are trying to enshrine in legislation the status quo. That is why it is no wonder that for many people, the initials NDP no longer stand for the New Democratic Party but rather for the New Dinosaur Party.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Because this motion has been supported by the Liberals, papers like The Ottawa Citizen, speaking about the Liberals, are saying that the Liberals are intellectually and politically bankrupt and that on free trade as on many other issues, they offer Canadians no viable option. With amendments like this, it is no wonder that people feel that way about the NDP and the Liberals.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am trying very hard to keep each of these legitimate points of order.
Any Member of Parliament had the right to put forward amendments to this Bill, and 1 am frankly surprised, after hearing that speech, that the Hon. Member did not in fact put forward amendments as he could have which would have reflected exactly what he was saying.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order, which is not a point of order.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should be aware, the process that has been the subject of the amendment of this Bill is a very narrow point dealing with a few modest Order in Council appointments. What we need is a general principle applying to all Order in Council appointments, and that in fact is what I put forward in Motion No. 93.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A vote on Motion No. 24 will apply as well to Motions Nos. 33, 42 and 82. Therefore, we will vote on Motion No. 24 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motion No. 31 will be debated and voted on separately.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 31.
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 6 the following:
"(3) This section shall not come into force until equivalent and effective
bid challenge procedures are available to Canadians in the United States."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this amendment, I would like to spend a moment, before I get to the substance of the issue, commenting on the debating style of my colleagues in the Conservative caucus. Talking about bankruptcy, I suppose it is interesting that rather than presenting their own case, they seem to be relying upon the editorials of one or two newspapers. Rather than organizing their own thoughts or presenting any kind of analysis based upon their own judgment, they simply use quotes from various newspapers.
One good turn deserves another and I thought I would quote some other newspapers just to show them how silly it is. In order that the Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holt-mann) and the Member from Toronto do not think that they are the true repositories of opinion, I will first refer to the distinguished newspaper, the Montreal Gazette, which said:
John Turner took the bravest step of his political life yesterday when he asked the Liberal-dominated Senate to block the free trade deal until the people of Canada have a chance to vote on it.
But what Mr. Turner is doing is utterly democratic. He is saying that Parliament-both houses of it-should submit itself to the will of the Canadian people.
The paper with the largest circulation in Canada, The Toronto Star, said:
In his bid to force Prime Minister Brian Mulroney-


John Horton McDermid: That rag.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Winnipeg Free Press is not a rag because it happens to agree with the Government, but The Toronto Star is a rag. Is that not an interesting judgment by the Parliamentary Secretary? The article goes on to say:
-Liberal leader John Turner has offered Canadians a fair and democratic
deal.
The most interesting article is from the Edmonton Journal, the paper with the widest circulation in the Province of Alberta, the so-called great pro free trade province. It says:
John Turner's extraordinary political gamble dispels any lingering doubt about his ability to lead the Liberal party.
No other leader of his generation has chosen to risk his entire political career on one issue, with a singular act that breaks radically with Canadian parliamentary tradition.
Such political courage is rare.
I notice that that has not been said about the present Prime Minister. It seems that every time the Winnipeg Free Press writes an editorial our popularity goes up and that of the Tory Party goes down. According to the polls they printed last weekend we were at 45 per cent and the Tories were at 29. I am prepared to trade the editorials of the Winnipeg Free Press for the opinion of the people of the Province of Manitoba who
August 18, 1988

obviously support the Liberal Party in far greater numbers than they support our colleagues in the Conservative Party. I hope the Winnipeg Free Press will keep writing those editorials, because every time they write our vote goes up.
I will give the Member for Selkirk-Interlake one small piece of advice. He should stop reading the editorials in the Winnipeg Free Press and start talking to the people in his constituency because they are the ones who will decide, not the editorial writers, and they will decide that he will not be at the next Christmas party.
1 thought I would provide the Conservatives with that small interlude of their own kind of medicine, which they obviously do not like. Isn't it interesting that they do not like their own kind of medicine very much? The characteristic of the bully is that he likes to insult other people, but when he gets a little bit in return he backs off. Of course, they take their cue from the Minister who simply can't take the heat. We have noticed that he has not taken much heat in the House during report stage. In fact, he has not been here at all.
I want to raise the question of procurement.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. international trade critic of the Liberal Party knows that we do not talk about attendance in the House. As well, I remember that when he was Minister he did not show up in the House either when some of his Bills went through. His Parliamentary Secretary was there. That is part of the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary. Quit misleading the people. The Minister attended committee twice. He gave a lot of time to the committee on this issue. Please, do not mislead the House like that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, when we brought in the Western Grain Transportation Act I was in this House every single night at second reading and report stages. I defy the Member to check the record on that. I wanted to know what was happening to my legislation. His Minister not only did not read the agreement, he has not even bothered to read the legislation or the debate at report stage. God forbid that he should try to understand the Bill. Why would we expect any Minister who is so derelict as not to read the agreement to read the legislation? However, I would expect him to be here in order to know what the amendments are.
We know where the Minister stands from his own admission. He did not think it was too important. He says that he listens to his bureaucrats. He gets all his information from his bureaucrats. There is the judgment of a real Minister, someone who cannot rely upon his own wit or intelligence but has to borrow it from other people.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) introduced the trade agreement he promised Canadians a bonanza on national television. He said that we would get access to the great cornucopia of $400 billion or $500 billion of U.S. procurement. That was his promise. Well, we know what the Prime Minister's promises are like. They evaporate in the wind the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
moment they are spoken. They disappear into the vapours as soon as they appear. They are part of the great ozone layer that we are all destroying. They simply no longer exist.
One of the primary reasons the Government gave for starting the negotiations was access to that procurement. Of course they did not get that, they did not get anything they wanted. They were not even able to get the security of access they talked about.
When you look at the legislation it is interesting to note not only what they did not get but what they gave up. We once again have a clear example of an imbalance between what the Americans are writing into their legislation and what we have in ours. We have an elaborate section setting up a procurement review board to make sure that all the challenges to procurement that American firms can make on Canadian government contracts will be properly administered. In fact, we are prepared to administer huge fines if they do not do it. We provide for all kinds of penalties if they do not do it.
Do you find similar initiatives in the U.S. legislation, Mr. Speaker? Of course not. The Americans say that they do not need it, that they do not have to provide us with a review board.


John Horton McDermid: It is already set up.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Parliamentary Secretary, the great fount of wisdom, says it is already set up, except it does not work. Even the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the friends of the Member for Selkirk-Interlake, have said a number of times that because of the way in which the American law works they get around those requirements.
I bring to your attention the fact that in 1959 we signed the Defence Production Sharing Agreement which was supposed to provide free trade in defence production between the two countries, yet we get access to less than 30 per cent of it because over the years 11 different Congressional Acts have created set-asides for American business. Every time they bring in a defence appropriation Bill they write in another little exemption for someone getting a piece of the action, and no one has ever been able to challenge that.
We have a system under which we will provide open, unfettered access to procurement but the Americans say that they already have a system in place and do not have to do what we are going to do. It is a system which has clearly operated with an unmistakable bias. They have set-asides based upon security, set-asides based upon small business, set-asides based upon minority rights, and set-asides based upon whether or not you are in an urban area. There are more exemptions than there are rules.
Yet, our negotiator and the invisible Minister did not have the wit to insist that our requirements in the Bill for a procurement review board would only come into effect when the Americans did the same. Once again, as we did with softwood lumber, prescription drugs, and all the other sell-outs, we are

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
going to impose penalties upon Canadians and put more restrictions and restraints upon ourselves, with no similar obligations or requirements on the part of the United States under this agreement.
Does that make sense, Mr. Speaker? It is symptomatic of the whole agreement. This obsessive ambition to get any kind of deal at any price means that the Government is prepared to sacrifice once again the protection of Canadian interests. It is prepared to respond to American demands that we live up to the terms of the agreement. However, when it comes to insisting upon equal obligations on the part of the United States Government we do not say a word, we just clam up. The Minister goes into a fetal crouch, the position in which he is most comfortable. He gets his intellectual stimulus when he is in a fetal crouch.
We have moved this amendment to demonstrate once again that the Government is a failure when it comes to standing up and protecting Canadian interests in this agreement. It is up to the Opposition to point out the problems, present the amendments, and see whether someone in this House is prepared to defend Canadians for a change.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 31 that we are debating states that:
This section shall not come into force until equivalent and effective bid
challenge procedures arc available to Canadians in the United States,
It is a situation in which the Conservative Government and its weakling negotiators gave away an advantage to American corporations in Canada without getting an equivalent procedure for Canadians in the United States. One of the basic ideas behind a trade agreement is that we would have access. The reason the Conservative Government gave for pursuing this bilateral trade agreement with the Americans was new business opportunities for Canadian corporations in the United States. It was for access to markets, the reduction of tariffs, the elimination of retaliation through tariffs, quotas, countervail measures, as well as a dispute settlement mechanism. All of these were supposed to give advantages to Canadians that we did not heretofore have.
When we read the fine print we find out that there is no equivalency. Americans get advantages in Canada for which there is nothing remotely comparable, even on paper to what was given away.
In other clauses of the Bill, as in other parts of the agreement, there is all kinds of equivalency on paper. There is the level playing field on which the Americans have the same access to our energy resources as we will have to their energy resources. We will be able to get water from Arizona on the same basis as Americans will be able to get water from us. There is this theoretical, very abstract equivalence in many respects in the trade agreement. Yet it is not at all an equivalence in reality. This deal is entirely skewed to the United States. The Americans had their list of objectives with which
they did very well. The Conservative Government got precious little on its modest list of objectives. It did not even get some of the most important items on its very reduced list.
There is phoney equality on questions of energy security and things like culture. Either party can retaliate if the other party wants to use certain measures to promote culture for that party.
The United States does not need any particular measures to promote and protect its culture. It has vast markets which spill over into Canada. There are these so-called equivalent measures by which either party can do what it wants to protect its own culture, and the other party can retaliate. If Canada takes any steps forward to promote independent Canadian culture, the United States will retaliate. It will not work any other way.
The American Government does not need a CBC, a Canada Council or a National Film Board. It has a private sector in such vast markets that it does not need state institutions to do those things. We do not have any choice in Canada. If we are going to develop our Canadian culture we need to develop our own institutions. Our population is not large enough. We have two major language groups and a population that is spread across the country, with a greater cost of communication. We could not have done it any other way.
Therefore, there is this phoney equivalence in the area of culture and energy, so that the United States can protect its culture and Canada can retaliate, and Canada can protect its culture and the United States can retaliate. But we know how it will operate.
The Government does not care because it is so keen to link up with the neo-Conservative trends in the United States and to take advantage of them for its own gains in Canada that it is prepared to sell out. Where equivalency is provided, it is a phoney equivalency. The clause that is the subject of the motion before us does not even provide phoney equivalency as we have in culture, energy, or even monopolies where Canadian corporations dominating the health care system in the United States may threaten retaliation if the Americans brought in a medicare scheme. It is not very likely that the U.S. will bring in medicare. Canadian corporations do not dominate health insurance. That type of occurrence would not take place.
Where there is equivalency on paper, it is phoney. In this area, the Conservative Government did not even get paper equivalency. That is how callow it is at defending Canadian interests. It did not even get the same advantages for Canadians as the American negotiators obtained for Americans and their corporations.
This is a timid Government that wanted this agreement for the crassest of reasons. The Government was oriented to the sell-out. The Americans had tough negotiators with a very strong list. They sought and achieved what they had on their list.
August 18, 1988

They also managed to protect the areas that they wanted to keep to themselves. They did not want Canadians to get into American shipping, so shipping was wiped out.
The Americans use the arms industry as a major means of regional development. They have a very large military industry and arms production industry in the United States. It is a major way of producing jobs in particular disadvantaged areas. Such an area is provided with a new arms plant, which produces jobs and spin-off effects in that community. Arms plants are entirely excluded from the agreement.
While I am not arguing that they should be in the agreement, or that we want to be in that business, it is an example of the American way of promoting regional development which has been protected. Yet the Canadian way of promoting regional development has not been protected. We do not promote regional development by establishing arms plants in certain areas. We do it with regional development plans, which are in trouble. They are unfair subsidies and may be thrown out of the window now or in the first five to seven years of negotiations about what constitutes subsidies.
A local government or provincial government that wanted to create jobs in a way that would fall under a monopoly category would be in trouble. The Canadian way of doing things has not been protected, yet the American way has been protected. There is no equivalency.


Pauline Browes: Nonsense!


Lynn McDonald: The Hon. Member says it is nonsense. It is reality. The American way of job creation is well known.
Mr. Red way: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I understood that we are currently debating Motion No. 31 which reads:
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 6 the following:
"(3) This section shall not come into force until equivalent and effective bid challenge procedures are available to Canadians in the United Stales".
I have not been able to grasp the relevancy of the remarks of the Hon. Member to that particular amendment. Perhaps you could draw that to her attention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood has approximately 30 seconds in which to complete her speech.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 have said it once and I will say it again. In some areas there has been a phoney equivalency. It will not work in practice. The Americans manage to get what they want.
In the area with which we are concerned here, there is not even a paper equivalency. There is no semblance of Canadians having the same advantage in the United States as American corporations will have in Canada. There are two situations and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
we are disadvantaged in both. This is the more flagrant of that kind of giveaway and bad negotiation.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we are just discussing one amendment, Motion No. 31, with respect to procurement review. I just want to cover a couple of points my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), talked about. He talked about the small business set-aside in the United States and that there is nothing equivalent to that in Canada. The $3 billion to $4 billion for procurement that will be available for Canadian entrepreneurs to bid on, is not a guarantee they will receive $3 billion or $4 billion worth of work, but it opens up $3 billion or $4 billion to bid on. That figure was reached after the small business set aside in the United States was factored in. That is the first point I want to make.
The second point I want to make is that we have the equivalent in the agreement for Canada. That is one of the things not mentioned by any of the opposition Parties tonight. Under Annex 1304.3, Entities Covered, the very last part found at the bottom of page 187, it says: "Notwithstanding the above, this agreement does not apply to contracts set aside for small businesses". That is purely Canadian. That permits us to set up a small business contract set-aside program, or whatever program we wish to set up.


Mrs. Finestone:: You don't have it.


John Horton McDermid: No, we do not have it, but this allows us to set those types of programs up. What we do have is a Western Diversification Fund which helps small businesses. What we have are regional purchasing plans set up by the Department of Supply and Services about which the Minister talked so eloquently in the House today. He talked about how successful those plans are becoming. I could go on and on. However, suffice it to say that we are covered on that end of things which were raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, and touched upon by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald).
There is a quid pro quo here. We have looked after the small businesses, and the procurement that has opened up for the United States entrepreneurs to bid for Canadian contracts comes to a total of about $600 million. In the United States, for Canadian entrepreneurs, there is about $3 billion or $4 billion. So we negotiated, I think, a very good deal when it came to procurement.
Let me read this amendment to Clause 14 into the record. Motion No. 31 states:
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 14 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 6 the following:
"(3) this section shall not come into force until equivalent and effective bid challenge procedures are available to Canadians in the United States."

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
There is already in the United States an equally effective bid challenge procedure. It is in place now. It is there. It is open to Canadian firms and entrepreneurs. They have equal access to it, as do American entrepreneurs. It is already in place in the United States. It is something new for us. The procurement provision of the section about which we are talking will not come into force until the Governor in Council is satisfied that the United States has taken satisfactory steps to implement the free trade agreement, including Chapter 13, which is the procurement section. If Members want to refer to Section 153(2) of Bill C-130, they will find that the approval procedure is already there.
Furthermore, if for some reason the Americans deny benefits to Canadian entrepreneurs under this agreement, we would have every right to take it to the bi-national dispute settlement mechanism, and in fact, take actions which would come out of those hearings that are open to Canadian entrepreneurs and to the Canadian Government. Therefore, this amendment is totally irrelevant. It is not required because it is fully covered in the free trade agreement. Therefore, I am recommending to my colleagues that they defeat this amendment.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to speak in this debate because motion no. 31, to amend Clause 14, touches on the crux of the debate which is: "Access to the U.S. market." Since the beginning of this debate, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all those who support the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, claimed that even if we lost our political and cultural sovereignty, even with all the inherent risks for Canada, the fact that we would have access to the U.S. market was worth it.
And now, Mr. Speaker, we have just.. . my colleague just gave a demonstration and despite what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) just quoted, he forgot that the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses said the exact opposite of what he said a few moments ago in the House.
Of course the Americans are protecting all their industries! For instance, the garment industry will not be able to sell, to export to the United States under free trade, as the agreement claims. Manufactured goods must have a certain material content and a certain percentage, so that not all Canadian garment manufacturers will qualify to enter the United States. So in fact, we are restricting access.
Mr. Speaker, the big surprise came after analysing the Bill and the entire document. Hardly a month ago, everyone thought small business was well protected and that a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States was a good thing to have. Now the Canadian Federation, which was actually advocating this agreement, has just said, and I will give you the direct quote later on Mr. Speaker, that there was no provision for allowing Canadian small business to bid on U.S. contracts. A thorough analysis of both the Canadian
Government's policy, announced wiht great fanfare not long ago, and the U.S. policy shows that we lose on both fronts.

A lot of people were surprised to hear criticism from the Canadian Federation of Small Business in The Financial Post of July 5, 1988, and I quote:
Canadian small businesses are unlikely to benefit from the $4 billion in U.S. Government spending available to Canadian enterprises under the free trade pact, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business says.
That is exactly opposite to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) said a few moments ago. The article continues:
American small businesses will receive preferred status over their Canadian counterparts when Washington allocates the portion of U.S. spending set aside for this category of business, CFIB Research Director Catherine Swift said in an interview.
Meanwhile, American small businesses can bid up to $400 million in annual Canadian Government spending provided for in the agreement without any Canadian preference as to nationality or size of enterprise.
We do not have any of these things to protect Canadian small businesses. Why do Americans protect their small businesses? If it is free trade, then why are we not treated equally? Why is there this difference? In the same article it is stated:
"We're not delighted with the government procurement provisions in the agreement," Swift said. "There's no advantage to small firms. It's likely to benefit large companies."
Swift's remarks came in the wake of news conferences yesterday in Toronto by Supply and Services Minister Otto Jelinek and Montreal by Bernard Valcourt, Minister of State for Small Business & Tourism.
They were trumpeting changes in federal procurement policies aimed at increasing the share of federal spending awarded to small business.
Jelinek pointed out that the free trade agreement allows up to $4 billion of U.S. government spending to be awarded to Canadian enterprises. That compares with a total of $8.7 billion allocated by Ottawa in contracts to all firms last year.
But Swift noted that U.S. law requires a certain portion of U.S. federal contracts must be set aside for American small businesses, leaving little if any-for their Canadian counterparts.
It is very clear that what the Parliamentary Secretary told us a few minutes ago really does not make sense. Since July 5 the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has defended the free trade accord as a bonanza for small business. This article is clear. It says that the procurement policy of the Canadian Government and the American Government in the free trade accord does not protect Canadian small business. It does not give anything to help that sector of our economy.
Last Tuesday the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) announced in a press conference, along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), that they were creating an institute of entrepreneurship. They have sold the shop in terms of defence of small business. That
August 18, 1988

is what happened to small business. The institute of entrepreneurship has nothing. It has no budget and no mandate. That is how the Government is telling people that it will do something, when we look at the facts and read the fine print we see that there is nothing for small business.

Mr. Speaker, this is unfortunate, because we are talking about a sector that creates most of the jobs in this country. Ninety-two per cent of Canadian businesses are small businesses. When an agreement of this magnitude penalizes this sector, that is something we cannot accept. This sector, even during the recession, created more jobs than any other sector. How will the Government be able to protect small businesses in its negotiations with the Unites States? The Americans have protected their small business sector, but we did not protect ours, and that is unacceptable.
I strongly support the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) who proposed this amendment which is aimed at protecting small business, and I urge all Members of this House to support the amendment as well because it is so important. If we can't protect small business now . . . How can the Canadian Government go off on a tour, which is what the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) (Mr. Valcourt) is doing, and tell people triumphantly that it is going to announce programs without budgets or funding or a mandate, when at the same time, in a free trade agreement of this kind, they completely overlooked small businesses in the section on government contracts and services, and many more sectors like the garment industry which, in fact, affects a large segment of small business?
I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that we must reject this agreement and support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it has been, I suspect, for some of the people who are watching this debate a difficult one to follow because there have been charges, countercharges and insults and counter-insults. It is important in the context of this particular amendment to start with the point which the Parliamentary Secretary made to ail of us in the Chamber earlier with respect to this particular amendment which looks at systems being set up to establish effective fairness for foreign firms bidding for contracts under these new procurement areas which are open to each country.
It js crucial in this debate that we set out precisely wbat we see in the agreement, what therefore to us appears to be true and what therefore is something that the people of Canada should be concerned about as they consider the questions that are going to be discussed and debated in the election which is coming up and, of course, in the evaluation of this debate itself. The Parliamentary Secretary said that we do not have to worry about the United States because it already has effective bid challenge systems for prpcurement purposes which are in place.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I put the question to people who are watching this debate: If that is the case, if that is the reality, then why it is that Article 1305.3 states:
Each Party shall introduce and maintain, in accordance with the principles
contained in Annex 1305.3, equitable, timely, transparent and effective bid
challenge procedures for potential suppliers of eligible goods.
Why would it be necessary to have a commitment from the United States that it will introduce such an equitable, timely, transparent and effective system if in fact it already has such a system? Clearly, the people watching are going to realize that in this, as in other areas, the Government is trying to paint a picture which is not a true picture of reality, but a picture which in its implications for Canadians does not convey what is accurate.
For instance, if we look at a number of other points with respect to this whole exercise besides the procurement area, the Government said it would seek this trade deal in order to get an exemption from countervail. It said that specifically. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in New York said specifically: "We want an exemption from countervail". It was also stated that we had to have a subsidy code on which we agreed as a key objective of the trade negotiation. Neither of those crucial and absolutely fundamental goals that the Government stated it wanted was achieved. That is one reason we are so dead set against the deal.
The other reason is that when one looks at the immense losses that this country gave up in the trade deal one realizes that we gave up the power to review takeovers of virtually any Canadian firm by American companies. It is now possible for an American company to take over a Canadian firm, shut it down, lose those jobs, and as a country we can do nothing about it. That is one loss.
A second loss is that it is no longer possible for us, when we have a shortage in energy in the future in natural gas, or electricity to redirect exports which we were sending to the United States. We can cut back, but we can only do so to the degree that we let the Americans have access to (he same proportion of energy as they had previously. That is the second loss.
The third loss is in cultural policy. We have given in print to the Americans something that they never have had before, the right to retaliate against us if we take action to protect our culture. Never in the past has a Canadian Government given that right in writing to the United States, yet this Government has done it.
Fourth, we have given up major concessions in health care. Under the agreement we have reached with the United States it is now possible for an American company to establish a hospital for profit in this country, and we cannot stop them. It is also possible for the United States to operate that hospital because it is a covered service. Therefore, it becomes possible for our health care system to be taken in a for-profit direction.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Chapters 16 and 14 of the agreement establish those conditions. Those are facts, those are realities, and they are a fourth area which we have lost.
We have lost major concessions with respect to the Auto Pact. It used to be protected by tariffs which would have to be paid.


Alan Redway: I am striving to understand how this is relevant to effective bid challenge procedures, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you can help me, Sir.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor has the floor.


Steven W. Langdon: I am sure my hon. friend will remember that I started my speech by talking about that as one area in which we had lost already. As I say, another area is the Auto Pact. We have given up the right to protect Canadian jobs with tariffs in the future. That is the fifth loss.
A sixth loss is with respect to monopolies. As a country, in the future we will be stopped from establishing, for instance, dental care, pharmaceutical care, or auto insurance programs in Ontario, because it will require a certain cost to American companies that already provide such insurance services. We will have to pay compensation to those companies for that service.
Therefore, we have a totally unbalanced deal, which is why we reject it. That is the truth, and that is what the Government is not telling people. At least in one small area this amendment establishes, as a condition for bid challenge procedures on our side with a procurement board, that the United States demonstrate clearly that it has established precisely the same thing for the new procurement areas to which we will have access. That will not give us a completely fair balance by any means, but it is at least one small correction.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, one of the joys of being here on an August evening is listening to speakers such as the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). In his normal fashion of addressing the Chamber he has featured a very reasonable analysis in tempered tones and clear logic. It is the type of speech when one hears it, if one accepts the step taken by the following step and the successive step, in which one can feel that there is a logic unfolding, the analysis is pristine and it is taking one to a new height of understanding, a new level of insight as to what is before us.
The true and profound pity is that this logic and fine thinking is misdirected because it begins with a false premise. It is like the rocket ship that is aimed for the moon. It may just be the slightest bit off as it leaves, but, by the time it gets there, it misses its target entirely. That is what I fear I have to report to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor. Although it is a true joy to listen to him, by the time he reaches his conclusion one realizes that he has gone far astray. He ended off by saying that what we have in the free
trade agreement negotiated between Canada and the United States is "a totally unbalanced deal".
In the context of the amendment that we are debating here dealing with procurement review, there is a small example of the general thesis of how the New Democratic Party, of which the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is a spokesman, through its efforts to continually misinterpret so many of the facts that relate to this treaty between our two countries, has rendered such a gross distortion that members of the New Democratic Party may even have persuaded themselves that it is a totally unbalanced deal, but here is the fact and let us bring it into sharp focus on the amendment before us.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to impose a condition on the implementation of the procurement review board. Motion No. 31 specifically states:
"(3) This section shall not come into force until equivalent and effective bid challenge procedures are available to Canadians in the United States."
In spite of what the Member has said on this issue a few moments go, as I say, step by step in his logical unfolding of the issue, he has overlooked the fundamental starting point, that there is already an equally effective bid challenge procedure in place in the United States to which Canadian firms and entrepreneurs have equal access. However, that is not all. There are sufficient safeguards in place in Bill C-130, and in the free trade agreement itself, to ensure that the United States will live up to its obligations under the procurement chapter. Specifically, the procurement provisions will not come into force until the Governor in Council-that is the Canadian Government, our Cabinet-is satisfied that the United States has taken satisfactory steps to implement the free trade agreement, including Chapter 13. Those are the Canadians who have the final say on this; the Government and the Cabinet of Canada.
For the Member to say that this is a totally unbalanced deal is to fly in the very face of the fact that the decision to be taken on this is the decision of the Canadian Government.


Steven W. Langdon: The Conservative Government.


Patrick Boyer: He adds the Conservative Government. Well, 1 do not have to defend to the Member for Essex-Windsor a Party with the record of our Party, standing for the national interest in this country. The Conservative Party in this country-although he tries to cast aspersions on our history- from the time of Borden, in establishing an independent role for this country in foreign policy right down to the present day, has never stood second to anyone in terms of defining and defending the Canadian national interest.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Patrick Boyer: 1 would say that there are still many examples today in this Parliament of a Government that is now leading the country to a new plateau of Canadian nationalism and a
August 18, 1988

strong position, recognizing that this country has come to maturity.
The Hon. Member, speaking from the lofty heights where he sits, one row even more removed from the back than that which I currently occupy, says, "What about selling off Air Canada?" He gives a few other examples of some changes in national policy. Well, when you are talking, as he does, about the Conservative Party in our history, it was Sir John A. Macdonald who proposed a series of customs duties to establish those protective barriers behind which Canadian industries could grow and expand and come to prosperity.
Are we to deny the meaning of our own Canadian history and the intrinsic unworking of those policies, to say that as a century has gone by and Canada has grown to maturity, our industries have become strong, we are an exporting nation and we have seen the wealth that has been generated as a result of those prosperities, we are today not to proceed to the ultimate fulfilment of Sir John A. Macdonald's national policy, and say, yes, those tariffs were there for a temporary period to see the building in this country of a strong economy in this country? That is now happening. The time has come to move to the next stage.
How much longer will those people, such as this Member from Montreal and that Member from Windsor representing as they do industrial areas, who still find something wrong with what we are doing, deny to western Canada and to the hinterlands of this country, the resource-based areas and other parts of this country, that put up for decades with those high tariffs in order to foster the development of a strong industrial sector in this country? It is high time that we got on to some fair play for all of Canada and saw the full unfolding of the natural logic of Sir John A. Macdonald's vision for this country, realized in our present times right here under the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in this thirty-third Parliament. That is the logic, not the kind of logic that led the Member for Essex-Windsor to say that this is a totally unbalanced deal. Totally unbalanced! Get out the dictionary, examine the meaning of those words. You would find that to have a totally unbalanced deal it would have been necessary to have people who had no sense of this country, no knowledge of what we are doing, and that is simply not the case.
1 have read statements by the Member and 1 must say that I agree with the analysis of Mr. Douglas Fisher, who once sat in this Chamber as a member of the New Democratic Party and who has analysed a lot of the positions taken by that Party, under its current leadership, in relation to the free trade agreement, and he finds, running throughout, a strong antiAmerican streak that goes beyond the basis of rational analysis. It becomes almost a knee-jerk reaction. That is where the flaw begins in the otherwise excellent thinking and the logic that that Member brings. It is fine, except that it begins from a flawed premise.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Anyone with a serious intent and with a straight face who can stand in the House of Commons and describe the free trade treaty negotiated between the sovereign country of Canada and the United States as a totally unbalanced deal, is engaging in unreasonable hyperbole.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, we are presently debating an amendment to Bill C-130, the Canada-U.S. trade legislation, an amendment which deals with government procurement. If we look at the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, in Chapter 13, which is the chapter that deals with government procurement, we will see that it provides that Canadian businesses will have access in bidding to certain types of government contract in the United States, and that American businesses will have the right to bid on certain types of government contracts in Canada. The provisions of Chapter 13 provide for a slight improvement with respect to access in bidding on government contracts than has existed up until now. I say a slight improvement. This chapter provides for this access to bid on these government contracts in both countries.
As you read through the chapter it states that each party, meaning Canada and the United States, shall introduce and maintain, in accordance with the principles contained in Annex 1305.3, equitable, timely, transparent and effective bid challenge procedures for potential suppliers of eligible goods. So it is saying in that article that both Canada and the United States should introduce and maintain bid challenge procedures for suppliers, that is, businesses which have complaints against the system of either country, complaints that they are not being treated fairly in accordance with the agreement.
What has happened as a result of that provision in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement? As a result, Canada, in drafting its legislation, provided a Part II, entitled "Procurement Review Board", and they did just what was required in Article 1305.3 of the agreement. They did set up bid challenge procedures in accordance with that article. They set up a board to deal with the complaints of businesses, American businesses, which feel that they are not being fairly treated in accordance with the agreement in Canada.
Here is the Canadian Bill. It has Part II, dealing with this matter. Here is the American Bill, and if you look through it, there is no such provision. The Parliamentary Secretary and other government Members have said that there is no need for the Americans to provide a similar procedure in the United States because they already have similar procedures which existed long before this Canada-U.S. trade agreement was negotiated and agreed upon. That is what the Conservative Minister and the Conservative Members said.
When Canadian businesses look at this, they do not agree. This is not Liberals or Conservatives who do not agree with the Government on this; this is Catherine Swift, the Research Director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

August 18, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Catherine Swift disputes whether the provisions on government procurement will benefit Canadian small business. She has grave doubts whether the long-standing procedures in the U.S. really satisfy the requirements of the agreement as set out in Article 1305.3. This is reported in an article in the Financial Post of July 5, 1988, only a month or so ago. The article reports that Canadian small businesses are unlikely to benefit from the $4 billion in U.S. government spending available to Canadian enterprises under the free trade pact. American small businesses will receive preferred status over their Canadian counterparts when Washington allocates the portion of U.S. spending set aside for this category of business.
It goes on to deal with these particular matters and refers to the inadequacy of the American system to meet the needs of Canadian small businesses as opposed to the rights of American businesses when they are in Canada. As I say, that is because if you look at the American legislation it does not have the same provisions as the Canadian legislation. What they had in the past is open to doubt, not just by the Liberals and NDP but by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
In responding to us, the Parliamentary Secretary says we Liberals and New Democrats do not understand. We are not very smart. I guess he has to direct that allegation at the Research Director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business as well. I think Canadians want to judge for themselves.
This is another example of the inconsistency or imbalance between the Canadian legislation and the American legislation. There are other things in the Canadian legislation to benefit Americans doing business in Canada which are not in the American legislation to benefit Canadian businesses in the U.S. If we in the Opposition had not campaigned for weeks and weeks against the former Article 8 which said that everything in this Bill and the free trade agreement would prevail over every other piece of legislation in Canada, we would have had a second Constitution. The American legislation had exactly the opposite. For months and months we tried to convince the Government that this was a very imbalanced approach. It was wrong. The Minister said week after week, no, it was not, and he would not do anything about it. Finally, I guess, he came to his senses and withdrew that article.
Of course, he took the same approach on water. He resisted and resisted, said it did not mean anything, and finally he put an amendment in the Bill to deal with export of water to the U.S.
One of the things that concerns Canadians is that when you put the American Bill and the Canadian Bill together, you do not find exactly the same provisions. Canadians are right in saying that if this is an agreement, surely the laws in both countries should be the same and have the same provisions.
Before I sit down I want to deal with a point raised in the debate by government Members. They said that if we oppose this agreement in principle, and if we oppose it in its entirety, why are we making amendments to different sections? They are accusing us of simple obstruction in doing that and of wasting time. The reason we are making amendments to many clauses of the Bill is to show how inadequate, how faulty, how completely wanting this piece of legislation and this agreement is. The only way we can do it is to go through it part by part, section by section, chapter by chapter, moving amendments, debating them, and thereby informing the Canadian public just how bad this free trade agreement is and why it should be rejected in its entirety.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on Motion No. 31 in group six. I think we should be disappointed, and Canadians should be disappointed, that there have not been representatives of the Government getting up to reply. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has expressed some very important and trenchant concerns. The points he made cry out for an answer.


John Horton McDermid: Read my speech. I answered everything he said.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: How did you answer everything he said? Are you a mind reader? You spoke an hour and a half before he got to his feet.


John Horton McDermid: Because he did not say anything new, Herb.


Charles James Mayer: Because the Parliamentary Secretary is very astute.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Very astute? I can think of some other adjective, but I am not sure it would be parliamentary. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary's speech but unless the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East sent him a copy of his notes about an hour and a half ago, I do not see how the Parliamentary Secretary's speech could be taken to be answering in any way the remarks of the Hon. Member.
The Parliamentary Secretary attempted to answer the concerns we expressed that because of the various set-asides built into American legislation there were not in fact $4 billion in potential procurement benefits for Canadian small business as a result of the Government's trade deal. It is interesting that an organization which is supposed to support the Government's trade deal, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, does not agree at all with the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary with respect to the degree of access that Canadians will have to American government procurement in light of the American set-aside programs.


John Horton McDermid: That is factored out, and they did not know that.
August 18, 1988


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: There are many set-asides, not only the small business set-asides. There are also minority set-asides. It is not enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to say the Canadian Federation of Independent Business did not know all these things. One has to assume that an organization, whether or not we always agree with it, which is one of the principal spokesmen for Canadian small business, has a research staff capable of coming up with some sound analysis of government programs and how equivalent programs work in the U.S.
We cannot overlook the fact that the Director of Research, Catherine Swift of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, told The Financial Post that they were not delighted with the government procurement provisions in the agreement. She is speaking of the trade deal. She says there is no advantage to small firms. It is likely to benefit large companies. That was in The Financial Post of July 5, 1988. If the Government had not choked off committee hearings on the trade deal as quickly as it did, we might be able to call Miss Swift before the committee and deal with this contradiction between the Government and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
It looks as thought it is almost ten o'clock and I think we ought to call for the vote. However, whichever way the vote may turn out on this particular amendment, I am sure that when the real vote comes, the general election, it will go against this agreement and it will go against the Government.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 31 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until ten o'clock tomorrow morning.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, August 19, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers