1988-08-22

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-5098 and 332-5103.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present a petition signed by several of my constituents from the federal riding of Brant under Standing Order 106. These petitioners call upon the Government to call an election immediately over the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States which they feel will help to destroy our country and our independence.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions on two separate matters. The first petition is signed by approximately 130 people from the southeast corner of Saskatchewan in Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Area 3. The petitioners are concerned about the possibility of PFRA turning over the jurisdiction of their irrigation works to the Saskatchewan Water Corporation. They call upon the House of Commons to stop that transfer of the administration to the Saskatchewan Water Corporation and retain the PFRA in its present form.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I also have a series of petitions from people in various parts of the country who request the Government of Canada to introduce legislation containing national objectives and appropriate mechanisms for the development of a comprehensive non-profit child care system accessible to all families throughout Canada. The petitioners believe that the proposed
Child Care Act is not in the best interest of young children, women or the families of Canada.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a series of petitions from groups of Canadians in different parts of the country who are strongly opposed to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. They believe that Canadian industries will not be protected by U.S. trade laws and that there are serious giveaways in areas of agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services and investment. They, therefore, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement. I present these petitions on behalf of these Canadians.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present, both dealing with the question of child care. They come from Victoria and Vancouver, British Columbia, and indicate that in the view of the people presenting the petitions, families throughout Canada need high quality, available and affordable child care services. There have been repeated recommendations to have legislation introduced to establish such services as national objectives.
The Child Care Act proposed by the Government of Canada in the view of the petitioners, contains neither national objectives nor the necessary funding arrangements. The petitioners say this will not ensure that families have access to such high quality child care. Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw the Child Care Act forthwith.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions under the provisions of Standing Order 106 in which the petitioners state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States; and that the proposed free trade agreement not only denies Canadians a secure access to the U.S. market, which was the key objective of the negotiations, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.

August 22, 1988
Order Paper Questions
[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the first opportunity available to me today to raise a question of privilege and clarify the false impression some may have got from the comments reported in the Ottawa Citizen of August 19, 1988.
Some may have got the impression that I witnessed certain questionable incidents. I wish to state categorically that I have no knowledge of any illegal or dishonest acts. The article gives an unfortunate interpretation of what I wanted to say about the need for politicians to maintain high moral standards.
If my comments resulted in some confusion, it is because I did not make myself understood clearly. The interview in question was conducted over the telephone, alternately in French and in English, and English is my third language. I deeply regret any inconvenience this may have caused or the negative impression it may have unfairly cast on others, including my colleagues in the House. For this reason, it was important that I clear up the matter in this House, out of respect for this institution and my colleagues. I ask them to accept my most sincere and profound apologies.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, August 18, 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.
Mr. Speaker:: It is now my responsibility to put forward further motions. They are Motions Nos. 30, 32, 38, 41, 43, 44, 50, 56 and 58.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 32 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"appointed by the Governor in Council subject to review and approval by a committee of the House of Commons."
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 14 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"21.(1) The Governor in Council, subject to review and approval of a House of Commons committee, may"
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out line 30 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"report to the Governor in Council and committee of the House of Commons on the".
Motion 41
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 13 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"with the consent of the Minister and a committee of the House of Commons and the".
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 14 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"Governor in Council, subject to review and approval by a Committee of the House of Commons, to hold office for a".
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out line 35 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"77.27 The Governor in Council, subject to approval by a committee of the House of Commons, may, on".
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out line 12 at page 41 and substituting the following therefor:
"5.1 The Governor in Council, with approval of a committee of the House of Commons, may".
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 53 by striking out line 15 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"27.1 The Governor in Council, with the approval of a committee of the House of Commons,"
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 57 by striking out line 20 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) The Governor in Council, subject to approval by a committee of the House of Commons, may make".
He said: Mr. Speaker, over the weeks we have seen a process throughout this development and furthering of a trade deal with the United States which, as I said to the House on Thursday, was very much directed by the Cabinet, very much kept within the secrecy of Cabinet itself. I suspect in fact that it was kept within the secret context of the committee of Cabinet which was responsible for these negotiations.
As a consequence we have reached a trade agreement with the United States which is unbalanced and, which, frankly, is
August 22, 1988

unfair to Canadians, and which provides to the United States far more in the way of benefits than it provides to Canada. With that as a background it is important to learn some lessons, to draw some conclusions out of that process which tell us that Members of Parliament, individual Members of Parliament and those who have developed expertise as part of the standing committee, could and should be deeply involved in any further steps that are taken with respect to this trade deal. It is for this reason that this whole set of amendments has been brought before the House.
I will very quickly indicate the different areas with which the motions deal. Motion No. 30 suggests that the appointment of the chairman of the procurement review board should be an appointment which is subject to the approval of the appropriate Commons committee.
Motion No. 32 deals with the powers, duties and functions of the procurement review board which is a very important board within the Bill. Yet the regulations which establish how this board will operate are set forth as being very much the controlled purview of the Cabinet itself. Again, it seems to me that it makes eminent good sense in this period of parliamentary reform for those regulations to be subject to review and approval by the appropriate parliamentary committee.
Motion No. 38 is an attempt to see to it that the Canadian International Import Tribunal reports not only to Cabinet and to a Minister, but to a Commons committee with respect to the questions of whether, as a result of tariff reductions, U.S. imports are causing serious injury to Canadian producers. I think that industries and workers have to be able to petition the tribunal directly when they experience injury resulting from U.S. competition. That is not a part of the Bill either, but at least in this context there will be a parliamentary committee which will play an important role in overseeing the work of the Canadian International Import Tribunal. That will give a possibility for testimony from groups outside the bureaucracy and outside the Cabinet itself.
Motion No. 41 would, in the same way, increase the role that a parliamentary committee would have by giving it the necessity to approve the establishment of dispute settlement panels and committees, and their operation within the agreement itself.
Motion No. 43 would give the same committee the chance to review and approve the appointment of the secretary of the Canadian secretariat that will administer the dispute settlement panels and committees. Again, this is a crucial role that is going to be played within the agreement which has been signed, if it goes ahead, and this parliamentary committee should be able to have some say in this appointment.
Motion No. 44 deals with the question of regulations with respect to a number of powers of the dispute settlement panels and committees established by the Cabinet and states that these too must be subject to approval by the appropriate parliamentary committee.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Motion No. 50 makes the same point with respect to regulations regarding agricultural standards which are related to the standards harmonization provisions of the agricultural chapter of the agreement.
Finally, Motions Nos. 56 and 58 follow the same direction. Motion No. 56 gives the appropriate parliamentary committee the capacity to approve and review decisions regarding the manner in which the CRTC should interpret the television retransmission provisions of the agreement, which is Article 2006. Motion No. 58 gives that same committee power to approve and review the question of regulations defining distance signals and local signals for the purpose of copyright payment on television retransmissions.
Throughout this entire set of amendments there is an attempt to see to it that instead of Cabinet autocracy we recognize the principle of parliamentary democracy through its various committees. We see to it that these committees have the opportunity to carefully review and hear testimony from people about regulations and appointments with respect to this agreement, and consequently we give the Member of Parliament the chance to speak out with reference to these very important decisions which otherwise will be subject only to discussion and debate within the cabinet room itself.
I suspect that the Orders in Council which establish these various regulations, appointments, and committees, will not be subject to any detailed scrutiny from the Cabinet, but will simply be taken through in some very rushed manner without that scrutiny. These committees will permit scrutiny. They will permit the input of Members of Parliament. They will make for a much more democratic system should this agreement ultimately go forward.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this occasion to speak to this grouping of amendments. Last Thursday in speaking to a similar set of proposals concerning the increasing power of Cabinet and the expansion of the whole authority of the executive branch, I took note of the increasing trend of executive federalism and the attempt to make the decisions of government less and less accountable. The general tenor of these amendments further demonstrates how the trade agreement will distance and separate the question of accountability and the ability of elected Members trying to hold to account the decisions of Government on this issue more limited.
This morning 1 want to talk to Motion No. 41. Primarily it deals with the dispute settlement panel and the proposal that is in the Bill. In many ways this is the heart of the agreement. It was certainly put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as being the primary reason for undertaking a negotiation with the United States.
In 1987 the Prime Minister stated: "Our highest priority is to have an agreement that ends the threat to Canadian industry from U.S. protectionists who harass and restrict our

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
exports through misuse of trade. Let me leave no doubt that first a new regime on trade remedy laws must be part of the agreement".
I have poured through Bill C-130 and looked at it extensively. I did not follow the example of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), and I actually read the documents and the agreement line by line. Nowhere in Bill C-130 or in the agreement itself do I see a new regime on trade remedy laws. In other words, the fundamental priority that the Prime Minister announced in 1987 somehow did not make it into the legislation or into the agreement. In other words there is no new regime. The agreement and the application of the dispute settlement mechanism will continue to apply existing trade law on both the Canadian and the U.S. side.
There are no limitations on United States industries taking their existing law and using it to continue the harassment of Canadian industry. That has not changed. In fact, as I have gone through the Bill and looked carefully at the whole section dealing with the dispute settlement mechanism, I found that we may end up with a worse regime than we started out with, a regime that will take longer to settle disputes and provide more cost to the Canadian businessman, simply because the way in which the dispute settlement mechanism works does not come into play until a final decision is made by the U.S. trade commission Department of Commerce. It may sound like a technical point, but let me remind you of this. Under present circumstances, as soon as there is a preliminary ruling by the International Trade Commission in the United States on their law, we can immediately ask for a GATT panel to review that.
Furthermore, under the existing circumstance, we can challenge the basic law itself. We can go to the GATT panel and say that this U.S. law is against international trade rules, that it confronts the rights and obligations under international trade requirements. But under the panel that is being established here in this clause of the Bill, we cannot do that. We cannot challenge U.S. trade law. We have to accept U.S. trade law as being the standard which has to be applied. All that this review panel will do is determine whether the law has been judiciously applied in a way that is fair and impartial. But the fact is that we can already do that. With the International Court of Trade in New York, we can already ask for a review that is based upon a fair, impartial adjudication.
For those who try to make out that that review system is unfair-and I have heard the Minister for International Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary and others claim that to be- I put in evidence in the House a statement made by Gordon Ritchie, the Ambassador for Trade Negotiation, a public servant who, when asked in committee, whether the International Court of Trade is a fair, impartial forum, said yes. He agreed. So we have a refutation of the Minister of trade through the senior civil servant who negotiated the agreement.
I have to scratch my head a little and say, what did we get? We did not get any new U.S. trade laws. In fact, the same trade laws are there. Indeed, the trade laws are now tougher than they were when the negotiations started. The United States has written into its implementing legislation new powers for the trade negotiations office to review and monitor Canadian exports in order to determine if there are Canadian subsidies. That was not there before. The reason why it is important is because the U.S. industry no longer has to pay to do its own research on Canadian subsidies. The Government of the United States will do it for them.
One of the great results for which I am sure the Conservatives will take great credit is that the negotiation has resulted in tougher trade laws being applied to Canada than when we started out.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Lloyd Axworthy: Once again we see the superior negotiating ability of our Prime Minister. On the weekend he gave an interview to Le Devoir. He promised to negotiate an agreement on acid rain based upon what he did at Meech Lake and the trade agreement. God forbid! Stop him before he goes ahead. Please, Mr. Prime Minister, do not negotiate an agreement on acid rain similar to what you did in Meech Lake and similar to what we got on free trade. Please, for the sake of Canada, don't do it. My goodness, if he negotiates on the same basis, we will end up drinking acid rain in our coffee cups every morning. He will provide that kind of wholesale giveaway on acid rain that he gave on the other kinds of agreements.


An Hon. Member:: The U.S. will get the rain; we will get the acid.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. I say if that is what we are asking for, goodness gracious, let's watch out. Please restrain the Prime Minister. Use your good offices to hold him in check. This country cannot afford another agreement so totally one-sided against us.


Miss MacDonald:: So he is against Meech Lake?


Lloyd Axworthy: We come back to the review panel and what do we have? We have tougher U.S. trade law and we have made it more difficult to go to GATT. It will take longer to have a review undertaken because under existing rules we can ask for a GATT panel 20 days after a preliminary decision. Under this section of the Bill we have to wait until the final decision, which may take a year or two, and that could cost Canadian industry one, two, two and a half, three million dollars. It goes back to the historic words of the Prime Minister: "Let me leave no doubt that the first of the new regime of trade remedy laws must be part of the agreement". Now we know what he meant. Now we know what the new regime is. It is tougher laws, it takes longer, it costs more. That is the new regime. I wish he had spelled it out then. I wish he told us that in fact what we are asking for is a regime that will work less in our interest, be tougher for us to implement, be
August 22, 1988

more discriminatory against Canada and will provide for greater harassment for our exports.
We should have guessed that because we know what the record is of the Prime Minister in his negotiation. I suppose if we really looked at it carefully, we would say that now we end up in the glue. While I approve of the amendment, I think the mover of the amendment, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), will admit that the amendment does not deal with what is really the problem, and that is the dispute settlement mechanism entrenched in this Bill. It is a disaster and a serious mistake. It does not deal with the problem. In fact, it makes it even worse.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to get in on the debate of these amendments early because some of the statements that have been made this morning are totally outlandish.


Finlay MacDonald: It is not surprising.


John Horton McDermid: They must be-


An Hon. Member:: Challenged.


John Horton McDermid: -challenged. Thank you. That is the word that I was looking for. On the dispute settlement mechanism, we had testimony at the committee from a Mr. Pinard. Mr. Pinard is the chairman and executive vice-president and the chief operating officer for Domtar. He appeared with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I will not quote him verbatim because his language was rather colourful. He was asked about the dispute settlement mechanism by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). He commented on the tariff reduction. I will not use his words, but he said that it was not the important matter on this. As far as he was concerned, as a manufacturer, the important thing was the dispute settlement mechanism. I quote:
This agreement allows Canada to have a special arrangement for disputes and countervailing duty. We now have a bilateral tribunal, and that should make a hell of a difference. I know what I am talking about because I have been in the court in the U.S. several times for my company and this tribunal in the States is worth nothing; it is very biased. If you challenge a decision, it takes five years to get an answer. You go back to square one for a rehearing. The U.S. found it very difficult to agree to this tribunal because this puts them under the spotlight.
They do not like this bilateral tribunal. There is certainly a body of expert opinion that says if we had had this bilateral tribunal we would probably not be stuck with this .. . duty on lumber. So we have something there.
That is the testimony from Mr. Pinard, who was at our committee. He made it very clear that this was a very, very important part of the agreement. Almost all the amendments that have been brought forward are from the New Democratic Party. There is a quite a list of them. There is one from the Liberals and the balance are from the New Democratic Party.
What these amendments basically say is that the House of Commons is going to start administering this legislation, as well as being parliamentarians and creating the legislation.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The NDP now wants the House of Commons to start administering all the boards and commissions involved in the free trade agreement and probably any other agreement that comes along or any organization that is set up through legislation. That really is the job of the bureaucracy through Order in Council. We hire the bureaucracy to administer legislation that we bring in. The whole purpose of delegating power to the Governor in Council is to remove from Parliament the burden of dealing with administrative detail. If we got involved in administrative detail in every piece of legislation that has been passed by this House of Commons, the House would be at a complete standstill. We could not operate. These proposals will basically do that. It would be an exceptional departure from normal practice to make administrative actions of this type subject to approval of a committee of the House.
We are talking about Governor in Council appointments. By virtue of Standing Orders 103 and 104 they are now automatically referred to the appropriate standing committee for review. Its members can call up these appointees and question them at the committee hearings to find out if they qualify for the positions.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What happens when we say no?


John Horton McDermid: That has happened. The qualifications of an individual suggested for an appointment were found not appropriate and the appointment was not made. I believe the standing committees have an important role to play. Appointments to the CRTC are subject to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting. The members of the Standing Committee met these appointees, put them through the grill, ensured that they qualified and had the necessary experience for those positions and approved them. Very little opposition has been raised by the New Democratic Party and the Liberals, if any, in these hearings. Members have all the time in the world at these meetings to question appointees on their qualifications.
We have found that the appointments made by the Government by and large have been of people well qualified.


Mr. Keeper:: It is a rubber stamp.


John Horton McDermid: Was it a rubber stamp when Ian Deans' appointment was made? He was questioned before the committee. He was qualified. He had good experience in labour relations. He was in that field before serving here. He served provincially as well as federally and is fully conversant with those things. What about the latest appointments to the CRTC?


Finlay MacDonald: Absolutely.


John Horton McDermid: The statement was made that the appointments to the CRTC were of very high quality.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Opposition is putting forth requirements that will double the work of parliamentarians, which is typical of the New Democrats. They will bog everything down with this proposed administrative cloak of the House of Commons. It is totally irresponsible. I might also point out that all regulations brought forward by Order in Council are referred to the Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. I have been involved in regulations where the Government had carried out a program incorrectly. The Joint Committee found that the regulations were wanting and reported that to the House of Commons. Those matters were changed. Why do we want to duplicate things that are already in place? That is what the Opposition is suggesting with this series of amendments Nos. 30, 32, 38, 41, 43, 44, 50, 56 and 58.


An Hon. Member:: Jackpot!


John Horton McDermid: That is right, it is like a bingo game. The Opposition talks about this House making regulations. If we start getting into the House making regulations, we will never get anything accomplished.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We may be able to understand it.


John Horton McDermid: My hon. friend from Brantford says that the public and we would probably understand better.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Right.


John Horton McDermid: I would be willing to wager that we would not. I think the system we have in place now is fully adequate and will protect any of the Opposition's concerns that they have brought forward today in the House of Commons.
I will recommend to my colleagues that they defeat this series of amendments because they are totally unnecessary and it is duplication of what is already in effect.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I support these amendments. Unfortunately, this is not the place where we can demonstrate how bad the proposed Bill is. At this time the amendments go part way to deal with some major difficulties.
I remind Members of Parliament that when the Conservative Government started to promote this deal and when questioned and challenged about it, we were promised that there would be no deal unless its dispute settlement provisions were so specific and clear that when any segment of Canadian industry, agriculture or the service sector believed that the Americans were being unfair in their competition that a tribunal would be able to make a finding which would be binding on both Canadians and Americans. What we find now is that this so-called tribunal will have to deal with any challenges brought to it but deal with them under the provisions of U.S. law. Where U.S. law is different from Canadian law, the tribunal will have to find in favour of the Americans.
I want to deal with two facets of the Manitoba economy which will be adversely affected by what this Bill does. First,
the clothing and textile industry. In my City of Winnipeg we have about 10,000 workers involved in the industry, most of whom are women. Many of them are new immigrants from the Philippines, Hong Kong and Vietnam. The industry in Canada has been and is under tremendous pressure from imports from Third World countries where the wage rate is a fraction of what it is in North America. Now, as a result of this agreement, the Canadian industry and its workers will have to compete not only with imports from the Third World but with imports from the United States.
What do people who work in the industry say about this agreement? Let me begin by putting on the record an article which appeared in March this year in the Winnipeg Free Press. The heading is: "Clothing factories threaten to close". The article begins by saying:
Two Winnipeg clothing manufacturers are threatening to close their operations if the federal Government does not go ahead with a package to shelter them from the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.
Peter Nygard, President of Nygard International, and Gary Steiman, of Gemini Fashions of Canada Ltd., said yesterday the industry needs a minimum bridge of $200 million to help it compete with larger American companies.
Without the aid, they say their businesses will be destroyed by American competition under free trade and they will be forced to close domestic operations and relocate in the United States.
I remind Hon. Members that Peter Nygard was the Chairman of the Advisory Committee this Government set up to examine the effects of the agreement on the clothing and textile industry. Peter Nygard, despite some changes in details which went a small way toward meeting his objections, has made it very clear and has been quoted in the Financial Post as saying that he opposes this agreement. Mr. Nygard speaks for the industry.
Let me put on the record the views of the unions. I will quote from a pamphlet put out by the International Ladies Garment Workers' Union. The opposition expressed by that union is the same as the opposition expressed by the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers and by other unions in the industry. This is a pamphlet which the union's Toronto office put out, but that office certainly speaks for the members in Winnipeg who have the same views. The pamphlet reads:
ILGWU and Ontario New Democrats are fighting the Mulroney trade deal.
Lower wages. Layoffs. Fewer benefits. Cutbacks on your medical care. Fewer health and social services. This is what free trade will bring to garment workers. This is why your union, ILGWU ... say "NO" to free trade.
Prime Minister Mulroney is spending $12 million to convince Canadians that the deal he signed with Ronald Reagan is good for us. But Mulroney isn't telling the truth about this bad deal.
The Liberals are no better. They're confused. Federal Liberal leader John Turner says he'd rip up the deal and David Peterson says he wouldn't.
It was the Liberals that opened our shoe market to more imports in 1981 and cost thousands of Canadian workers their jobs. Look what happened. Orders for Canadian-made shoes dropped, the level of imports went up and prices went up too.
August 22, 1988

Now, Mulroney's deal will hit even more jobs in the garment industry, and in textiles, footwear and food processing.
Under the Mulroney trade deal we will have to compete directly with larger U.S. companies which pay their workers lower wages and fewer benefits. This means that Canadian companies will be demanding lower wages from us in order to compete. Many companies won't survive.
Women, immigrants and older workers will lose the most. The industries that are most threatened by this deal are where they work.
ILGWU and New Democrats have always fought for better wages and working conditions for these workers. We will continue to fight for these jobs and industries but it'll be much tougher under the Mulroney deal.
Mulroney promised that health and social services would not be included in the deal. He lied.
The Mulroney deal will let American companies run our hospitals, ambulance services, homes for physically disabled and mentally handicapped, home care services and many other health and social services.
In the United States health care is more expensive, employs fewer staff and provides worse care. And it is run for big profits by private companies. Forty million Americans have no health care protection at all.
If they get sick they have to pay out of their own pocket for their medical treatment.
No matter how you look at it, this deal is a bad deal for women, for immigrants and for all working people and their families. It's good for big business, bad employers and the Americans.
1 have heard some Hon. Members say that this is nonsense. Let us just look at one aspect of this deal. This deal provides that Canadians companies will be able to compete in the much larger American market. This also means that the American companies will be able to compete in Canada. In Canada, corporations-


John Horton McDermid: Eighty per cent is free trade now.


David Orlikow: I wish the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary would sit back in his seat. He can speak again if he wants to.
In Canada, Canadian corporations pay, as part of their corporate taxes, part of the cost of hospital insurance and medical insurance plans, the Old Age Security system and the unemployment insurance plan, all of which are far superior to those that are in the United States. If we are to continue these programs, those taxes will have to be higher than the taxes American companies pay. This alone will give the American companies a tremendous advantage in producing and selling their products cheaper than the Canadian industry. That is just one illustration of what is wrong with this Bill, and that is one of the many reasons we oppose this Bill. That is also why we have moved these amendments.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested, in listening to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, to hear that he somehow seems less favourable to the idea of elected Members of Parliament having a role in scrutinizing appointments to boards by the Government than appears to be the official Party policy. The Conservative Government always pats itself on the back when reference is made to reform of the rules of Parliament which allowed parliamentary committees to question appointees to a number
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of Order in Council positions, positions which are within the executive discretion of the Cabinet.
We now have before us a set of motions which would extend this concept to appointments to various key panels and committees required to implement the dispute settlement mechanism provided for by this crucial trade deal the Government has negotiated with the United States. It was interesting to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary now seems to feel that the whole concept of parliamentary scrutiny of Order in Council appointments is somehow open to question and is on the verge of going too far.
I do not recall seeing the Parliamentary Secretary get to his feet to question the proposals which were not initiatives of the Conservative Government but which were rather a matter of all-Party agreement on reform of the rules to allow Parliamentarians through Standing Committees to question the qualifications of various Governor in Council appointments. This approach was very sound and very acceptable. Changing the rules of Parliament was a matter of all-Party agreement, but now, when it comes to the Government's trade deal with the United States, this is a concept that should not apply. According to the Parliamentary Secretary, it would mean too much work for parliamentarians. All of a sudden, what was once acceptable and in fact desirable has in fact become less acceptable and desirable when it comes to the trade deal with the United States.
I am wondering if this hesitancy on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary is not linked to a very clear fact connected with the Government's trade deal with the United States, and that is that this deal does not achieve what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said was the key objective for a trade deal with the United States. That is, the complete exemption of Canada and Canadian business and Canadian exports to the U.S. from the impact of American trade legislation.
We must remember that while the negotiations were under way, the Prime Minister said there was one condition, a bedrock condition, which had to be met. If it was not, there would be no trade deal between his Government and the U.S. The words that come to mind are those the Prime Minister used in an interview with the Wall Street Journal in which he said that Canada has to be exempted from American trade remedy laws, period. I am pretty sure that is the exact quotation. He did not qualify the condition in any way. He did not say that a partial exemption would be satisfactory. He said that Canadians would have to be exempted from American trade remedy laws, period.


John Horton McDermid: He did not say that at all.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We know the deal the Prime Minister and the Government negotiated with the U.S. does not in any way exempt Canadians from American trade remedy laws.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: Nor does it exempt Americans from Canadian trade remedy laws.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In fact, what the deal does, now that we realize that grandfathered by it is the American omnibus trade legislation that just passed the Congress, now that we see the way the Americans intend to apply and interpret the trade deal from their side, is actually to expose us even more than we were before the trade deal was negotiated to harassment by American trade remedy legislation. They have added to what was already on the books a new form of investigation by the American Government in response to the slightest pressure of concern from American business.
There has to be a new, immediate type of investigation. There is no discretion, as I understand it, on the part of the U.S. Government to reject the investigation. Therefore, right away, under the American omnibus trade legislation, right away under the legislation the Americans have adopted or are on the verge of adopting to implement the trade deal in their country, Canadian business will have to take time, make effort and spend money to begin responding to additional forms of trade harassment by investigation which did not exist before the current Conservative Government began to negotiate its trade deal with the U.S.
The Government will boast about the dispute settlement mechanism provided for in its trade deal with the U.S., but let's make something very clear: that mechanism does not exempt us in any way, shape or form from American trade remedy legislation. All it does is enable a panel to say whether or not that American legislation was properly applied according to its own language. This panel cannot be called upon at the beginning of an effort to apply American trade remedy legislation. It comes in at the end of the existing process. It just adds another level of bureaucracy to what exists already.
One of the claims by the current Conservative Government in support of a trade deal with the U.S. is that what was going on under the American law took too long. They said that the length of time taken in applying the American trade remedy legislation was itself a form of harassment. Yet the deal the Government negotiated with the U.S. did not cut by one day the length of time that process was taking. Instead, it has made it even longer by adding at the end of that process this new dispute settlement mechanism set out in the Government's deal with the U.S. We do not find that Canadian exporters will spend less time than before dealing with American trade remedy legislation. On top of that, we do not find any exemption whatsoever from the current American trade remedy law. Instead, there is a panel which will do nothing more than confirm whether or not American law has been properly applied according to its language.
This is a far worse situation than was available to Canadian exporters and the Canadian Government under the dispute settlement approach made available through GATT. Under that approach, the panels that were set up could rule whether the American law as such was proper or whether it should be
overturned and not applied. The GATT dispute settlement mechanism did not look only at the language of the American law to see whether the decision was consistent with the language. Instead under the GATT the panel set up to look into disputes about the proper application of American law or other member countries' laws could say whether those laws were proper in light of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade itself. If the panel said they were not, then those laws could not be applied.
This treaty takes away the right of the Canadian Government to go to GATT on behalf of Canadian exporters to the United States. This deal, instead of helping Canadian supporters get greater access, without harassment, to the American market, exposes them to more harassment and takes away rights that Canadians had under GATT.
We certainly should look at the points being made by these amendments, but the real point linked with the amendments we are now discussing is that the dispute settlement mechanism set up under the Government's trade deal with the U.S. does not help and will not help Canadian exporters. This is still another reason why this deal should be defeated in this House and in the country during the next election.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the group of motions we have before us at the moment. It consists of some nine motions proposed to be debated together because they all have a number of things in common. Most of them seek to some extent to limit the power of Cabinet to make far-ranging decisions with regard to many areas of the agreement. This is, I think, in keeping with the concept of open government which the Party now in power has been espousing for many years but dropped on coming in to power.
These amendments are not perfect. They do not portray with very much accuracy the kind of agreement we would have preferred to have seen with regard to our relations with another country. What we are left with is the kind of dilemma that building contractors are left with when they are asked to repair a faulty building. All we can do as opposition Members is to propose amendments, short fixes, that would try to make it more usable with some repairs, although it will still be a faulty building. We find the procedure cumbersome, certainly less than ideal, and it will not result in the kind of structure that Canadians ought to have had in the first place, although it will be somewhat better than it is now.
For example, Motion No. 38 requires that the Canadian Import Tribunal make its report to a Commons committee as well as to Cabinet. That is in the interests of more openness. It is not going to necessarily result in more work for members of committees. It will perhaps make their work more efficient because they will be as informed as members of Cabinet. I have great difficulty believing the proposition that a few members of Cabinet, albeit the biggest Cabinet the country has ever had, will be able to find time to handle this workload while the 240 or 250 remaining of us are too busy doing other
August 22, 1988

things to be able to understand or comprehend something as vital as recommendations of the Canadian Import Tribunal.
I do not think there is any harm in allowing those reports to be available to the committee members who may or may not decide to do something with the information. The process would certainly be more open and available to the public if they knew what the recommendations were.
A few moments ago the Parliamentary Secretary was telling us that the ideal behind these amendments, namely, that the parliamentary committee have an opportunity to review appointments and regulations before they come into effect, is unnecessary because we have an opportunity now to call before committees, for questioning and scrutiny, proposed appointees. Those committees do not have the power to stop the appointment, they simply have the power to make inquiries. The Government and Cabinet are still in control of whether or not that appointment proceeds.
With regard to the issue of regulations already being fully observed, I think the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations. That committee has gone through some name changes over the past few years, but its function has basically been one of looking at regulations as they come about and determining whether or not the Cabinet or Government complied with the laws of the land when they struck the regulations. That is all they can do. They cannot make comments on the appropriateness of the regulations and as long as the regulation is within the purview of the law of the land, there can be very little public discussion of the regulations prior to their coming into effect. This proposed amendment would permit that kind of comment and public disclosure to occur.
The regulations regarding agricultural standards are mentioned in Motion No. 50, which would require the committee to look at those prior to their coming into effect. This is especially pertinent because of the actions of the Joint Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations or its immediate predecessor which found, after regulations had been in effect for quite a number of years, that in fact the regulations we were using to regulate the importation of certain fruits, vegetables, and agricultural products did, in the opinion of the joint standing committee, go beyond the powers which Parliament had granted the Government to use in the Acts concerning Canadian agricultural products standards. Parliament therefore had to amend those Acts to provide the Government with the powers it had need of and which the industry was convinced it should use in order to make those regulations legal.
The process takes a number of years. We have gone on with this process for eight or ten years. I believe we may have avoided that had there been a more open procedure, and had the committee been able to look at it prior to the regulations coming into effect and had the opportunity to discuss whether
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
or not this was in fact a legal way to proceed. It could have questioned the objectives of the regulations and would have made Canadians who are in the business of trading back and forth across the border more aware of the thinking of the Government and of the process under which they would have to live.
I believe these proposals would go some way toward creating more open government and a more open understanding of what our trading arrangements are under this new agreement with the United States and would put us on a more equal footing with some of our counterparts across the border who have the opportunity to involve their politicians much more closely in trading decisions and trading relations than is the case in this country. Under our constitutional monarchy we have always attempted to keep such decision making within the Cabinet. When we get into a trading dispute, it is very difficult to find that political action is being taken almost immediately and in almost every case on the other side of the border, regardless of what is stated in the trading arrangement, whether in the current trading arrangement or the new one which we are now debating.
The Americans have a great advantage over Canadians in that they are always able, as exporters or importers, to call on their politicians in Congress to interfere on their behalf. We in this Parliament are not given the same kind of ability to interfere because we do not have the kind of constitutional arrangement which they have. These motions are moved in order to highlight the differences between the two systems and to try to make this very shabbily-built structure a little better. If we are going to be stuck with it, we would like to improve it in order that it might be of some use to Canadians.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to re-enter the free trade debate. We have debated the legislation in the Elouse before, but it goes without saying that we ought to continue to debate this legislation until the public is aware of the full implications of it and until the Government comes to its senses and decides that it is not in the best interests of Canadians and will therefore not proceed with it.
I would like to refer specifically to the nine amendments before the House at the present time. The first motion refers to the appointment of chairmen of the procurement review board. The next one refers to the regulations regarding the powers, duties, and functions of the procurement review board. The third requires that the Canadian Import Tribunal report to a Commons committee as well as Cabinet as to whether, as a result of tariff reductions, U.S. imports are causing serious injury to Canadian producers. The next motion requires committee approval for the establishment of dispute settlement panels and committees in the agreement. The next motion requires the appointment of the secretary of the Canadian secretariat that will administer the dispute settlement panels and committees. A further motion makes reference to the powers of such dispute settlement panels. The next motion

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
refers to the regulation of agricultural standards, and the final two motions refer to the retransmission of TV signals.
I will use the first motion as an example to illustrate what this is about. The first motion requires that the appointment of chairmen of the procurement review board be approved by a Commons committee. The procurement review board will consider the fairness with which companies are being treated when they seek to get contracts with the Canadian Government or other levels of government in Canada. So this affects a very important area of the economy. What this Government is doing, and we want to make this clear to the people, is giving to Cabinet the privilege of appointing the chairman of this board. It is also giving Cabinet the privilege of making the regulations with respect to this board, that is, the powers, the duties and responsibilities of this board.
The same thing is being done with respect to the Canadian Import Tribunal and the other aspects I have already mentioned. What we have here is the introduction of a notion of cabinet legislation. This Commons is being asked to approve a piece of legislation so broad in its nature that it outlines legislative authority for Cabinet. Cabinet will determine just what are the powers, duties and functions of the procurement review board. In other words, when we set up a board that will determine whether or not the competition for contracts with the federal Government are being distributed fairly among Canadian and American companies, Cabinet will be able to outline the criteria and rules under which this will take place. Cabinet will also appoint the czar, the chief, the boss, who will determine whether or not this is being carried out in a fair way. What we have is a Government which is substituting cabinet rules for parliamentary democracy.
What the Government is saying is that it wants Cabinet to have the capacity to set the rules, to draft the regulations and it does not want to define legislation in such a precise manner that Parliament will know what the rules will be so that it has an opportunity to speak on these issues, and so that the representatives of the people will have an opportunity to be involved in debate. It does not want public opinion to affect the outcome of the debate. The Government wants to do all of this behind closed doors. That is what it is saying.
That is, of course, not surprising given what the Government has done until now. If we consider what the Government has said about a commitment to openness and democracy, we are shocked by these provisions. But if we measure these provisions against the Government's behaviour, particularly as it affects this trade deal, then, of course, we are not particularly surprised.
When the Government ran for office four years ago, it made no mention of a comprehensive free trade deal with the United States. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ran for leadership of his Party, he said that such a deal would be destructive to Canadian society. The Government cooked up
the idea of a trade deal with the United States behind closed doors and if the truth be known, it was the Business Council on National Issues, the leaders of the major corporate enterprises of this country, that hatched this idea.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: And the Chamber of Commerce.


Cyril Keeper: Along with the Chamber of Commerce, as my colleagues points out. They then took their pet project to the Government and behind closed doors said: "This is what we want. Do not pay any attention to public opinion. This is what we think is good for the country". That is what this set of regulations reflects. It reflects a closed and manipulative approach to Government. It reflects the idea that all Cabinet has to do is read public opinion polls in order to devise its regulations, strategies and policies behind closed doors and thus manipulate public opinion. That is what is distasteful about this aspect of the trade deal with which we are now dealing.
If the outcome was beneficial to Canadians, perhaps we could hold our noses and go along with it. However, if we examine the outcome of the trade negotiations, the deal that Canada is entering into with the United States under the leadership of the Prime Minister, we cannot in any way see it as beneficial.
I would like to read into the record some of the comments of people who have been excluded from this debate. The garment workers in my riding are some of the lowest paid workers in our country. These people live in the greatest of insecurity and their voices should be heard. The International Ladies Garment Workers' Union is one of the unions in that industry, and I would like to read its assessment of this trade deal with the United States. It indicates that this deal is going to lead to lower wages, lay-offs, to fewer benefits, to cut-backs in medical care, and to fewer health and social services. This is what will happen to garment workers because of free trade. That is why the International Ladies Garment Workers' Union says no to the free trade deal.
These workers, of course, know that the Liberal Party in this House and its Leader are opposing the free trade deal. I would like to read its assessment of the Liberal stand in this respect. The Union says: "It was the Liberals who opened our shoe market to more imports in 1981", which shows it is paying more attention to the behaviour of past Liberal Governments rather than to the words of the present Liberal Leader. The International Ladies Garment Workers' Union says that the trade agreement will be detrimental to the garment industry and to Canada. I am sure it would agree with me that it would be far better if this agreement had been negotiated in an open fashion rather than behind closed doors.


John Horton McDermid: It's all public information. Don't be silly.


Cyril Keeper: If the Conservatives believe in open Government, why do they want us to pass legislation that will give
August 22, 1988

arbitrary power to Cabinet to make regulations and appointments, and to be able to do this without public input, without the Canadian people having an opportunity to have a real impact on the decisions Cabinet makes? I call upon this Government to withdraw this legislation and take an open approach to Government.


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to make a few comments with respect to this debate on free trade, particularly as it relates to the wage factor. Not only the New Democratic Party but the Liberal Party have continued to drag a red herring across the floor of the House of Commons with respect to wages and how the wages of employees will be affected by the free trade deal. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) went so far as to ask on June 29 of this year: "Do they want us to harmonize our minimum wage rates with Texas where the rate is $1.40 an hour, or the nine other States in the American Republic which have no minimum wage rate?" I guess the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) wanted to get into the act because he thought perhaps he was being outdone by the Leader of the Liberal Party.
On July 5, 1988, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said: "Eight states in the U.S. have absolutely no minimum wage whatsoever, and three are set at less at $ 1.60 an hour." This is a real red herring. While in Canada the provinces primarily look after minimum wage legislation, in the United States the Americans have both state and federal legislation dealing with minimum wages. In fact, whichever is the larger will prevail in the states. In other words, if a state does not have a minimum wage, then the federal minimum wage law is in regulation.
To give Hon. Members an idea of comparisons of the minimum wages in the two countries, in the United States virtually all workers are protected by federal or state minimum wage laws, whichever is the greater. Most workers in the states where there is no minimum wage protection are in fact covered by the U.S. federal minimum wage, $3.35 U.S. per hour. If we translate that figure into Canadian dollars it is equivalent to about $4 Canadian. This is in line with the minimum wage that applies in five out of ten of our Canadian provinces.
Further, the state minimum wage prevails when it is higher than the federal standard. Thus, for example, most workers in California have an hourly minimum wage of $4.25 U.S. per hour which, when translated into Canadian funds, is equivalent to $5 per hour.


David Orlikow: Tell us about Georgia and South Carolina.


Clement George Minaker: If the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) had been in his chair when 1 was opening my remarks, he would have heard me say that where there is no state minimum wage the federal minimum wage prevails.


David Orlikow: They have minimum wages-they are low.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Clement George Minaker: The greater of the two standards apply in instances in which materials are purchased from another state, or when the product is shipped outside one state. The competitive advantages to trade arising from low minimum wage laws in the U.S. are virtually nil. Yet members of the Opposition would try to create a situation in which there was an extreme difference. It is interesting because the NDP concern about the U.S. minimum wage laws is curious, given the foreign aid policy of dropping barriers to manufactured imports from countries in the Third World, where wages often average less than $1 per hour. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has never read the NDP policy bible entitled "Resolutions Reference". We see that these people are trying to create a red herring on the wage situation.
Further to that, I received a very interesting letter in July of this year from the President of the C. D. Howe Institute, Maureen Farrow. The letter was written to me as a Member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.


Steven W. Langdon: Who finances them?


Clement George Minaker: The letter states:
Dear Mr. Minaker:
I am pleased to enclose an advance copy of the C. D. Howe Institute's latest publication, Evaluating the Free Trade Deal: A Guided Tour through the Canada-U.S. Agreement, which will be released on July 19, 1988. In this study, authors Richard G. Lipsey and Robert C. York analyse and interpret the contents of the bilateral treaty.
The authors' main conclusion is that the Agreement represents a win/win situation for both countries. From Canada's perspective, the Agreement will increase access to the U.S. market significantly and make that access more secure.
The Agreement goes most of the way toward completing the policy of trade liberalization that Canada has been pursuing since 1935. It also represents a complementary strategy to Canada's active participation in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations.
The next paragraph in the letter is very important. I quote:
The authors work through the Agreement chapter by chapter, reviewing the content of each chapter, analyzing the significance of that content, and examining the major concerns that have been voiced with respect to the chapter. Altogether, they examine over 50 such concerns, making the text an invaluable handbook for all those interested in the public debate on free trade.
They show that Canada has not relinquished its sovereign right to pursue independent policies on energy, social services, cultural industries, investment, and public ownership-assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
That is from a letter signed by the President of the C. D. Howe Institute, Maureen Farrow.


Steven W. Langdon: Who finances them?


Clement George Minaker: It is an independent study. I suggest to members of the Opposition that they read that book. They would find that the myths they are trying to create are completely wrong. They are trying to put falsities into the minds of the people of Canada. The people will recognize that as they come to understand that the C. D. Howe Institute supports the trade Bill. The Economic Council of Canada has made recommendations that this deal is good for the country.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The people of Canada will recognize what the Opposition is trying to do to this good treaty that has been negotiated between our two countries.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I join in the debate this morning on motions put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), with pleasure. Before the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) leaves the Chamber, perhaps I should take a moment to deal with one or two of the things that


Clement George Minaker: I am not leaving the Chamber. I am going across the way to talk to someone.


Abram Ernest Epp: He is going to the other side to listen. I am pleased to see that.
I would like to make a couple of points. First, the C. D. Howe Institute is always of some interest for me as a Member for the constituency represented once upon a time by the Hon. C. D. Howe, the old riding of Port Arthur, now Thunder Bay-Nipigon. The C. D. Howe Institute began life as the Private Planning Association of Canada Operations, an affiliate of an American organization in Canada. It was latterly turned into the C. D. Howe Institute. It has always had that American connection. As my colleague was trying to point out a few minutes ago, it has been abundantly funded by the large corporate interests of Canada which have their own interests to support. They find the C. D. Howe Institute perfectly useful in supporting those interests.


John Horton McDermid: Just like the CLC does with the NDP Party.


Abram Ernest Epp: Perhaps in regard to that I should read from a copy of an advertisement which I have in my hand published by Georgia, "The International State". It is entitled: "138 Reasons To Do Business In Georgia." I take it from the content of the ad that there are 138 companies operating in Georgia, with no less than $950 million U.S. of Canadian investment in that state. Why are so many Canadian corporations operating in Georgia? For a number of reasons. It points out the productivity growth of the labour force is 36 per cent higher than the U.S. average. It focuses on the fact that the costs of labour in Georgia are among the lowest in the U.S. It observes that fewer than two in ten workers belong to a labour union.
The Parliamentary Secretary just moments ago was evincing his own anti-union, anti-labour attitudes in the House by his jibes across the floor.


John Horton McDermid: I used to be a union member.


Abram Ernest Epp: I am not surprised that he would be a proponent of this trade deal which will encourage more investment in the U.S., investment in states such as Georgia where everything that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James has been trying to assert about good incomes
resulting from economic investment would seem not to be particularly true.
I note among the 138 reasons for Canadians to look to Georgia, the international state to invest, the firm Dominion Textile is mentioned. Anyone who has been observing Dominion Textile-this great corporation put together in 1905 by a union of other companies to try to achieve a dominant position in certain lines of the Canadian textile industry-will see that it has been moving out of Canada at a pretty tidy rate over the last while. It has been putting its investment into the U.S., and hiring labour in America states where it can produce much more cheaply, and reducing the employment in Canada in a process which one of these days could very well see Domtex producing nothing in the province of Quebec.


John Horton McDermid: Why have they not all moved down there if it is so good?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: They will after free trade.


Abram Ernest Epp: I wonder about support of the trade deal by members of the Conservative caucus from the Province of Quebec, and those who represent textile workers employed by Domtex in Quebec City, in Montreal, and in other cities in Quebec. This trade deal will encourage Dominion Textile, a great enterprise built up behind tariff barriers in Canada, to do its producing in the United States and importing into Canada to meet the demand here. That is Canadian prosperity under the trade deal.
The focus in these motions is on some particular matters of accountability to Parliament on the part of the Government when it appoints persons to boards and when it establishes regulations. In the last months in certain parliamentary committees, and in the legislative committee on Bill C-72, in dealing with the Official Languages Bill, we saw some interesting developments. I witnessed this development in the regulatory functions of the federal Government in ways that seemed to me to coincide exactly with what my friend, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is putting forward in these motions.
In the Official Languages Bill there is a measure that is essential to national unity. Here we have an elaboration of official languages provisions dating back to 1969. In those provisions there was an elaboration which was repugnant to some members of the Conservative caucus, one or two of them being present in the House at the moment. Those persons resisted those provisions. It was a drawn out process that was fought by Conservative back-benchers against Bill C-72 which was just about worthy of comparison with the valiant struggle which my colleague has been fighting in the legislative committee, in the House, and on the hustings against this trade deal. Conservatives put up quite a fight. In watching the response of the Government, what was interesting was the manner in which it finally came forth with some proposals on regulation.
August 22, 1988

The provisions are now in the Official Languages Act which has passed both Elouses of Parliament and been given Royal assent. We were assured that, when the Government published regulations under the Act providing for recognition and provision of services to the official language minorities in various parts of the country, those regulations would not simply be published as they had been in the past, but there would be a complex and carefully developed process during which they would be given to the world in the sense of notice being given. Members of Parliament would be informed that the Government planned to put regulations forth on these matters. After some weeks of digesting the fact that regulations were coming, the regulations would then be published in draft form. There would then be time for Members of Parliament and committees to consider whether these were desirable regulations. After they had been given proper scrutiny by Members of Parliament, then finally these regulations would be published in the Canada Gazette, proclaimed, and be in force.
That particular process of responding to anxieties in various parts of Canada, anxiety about the extension of our official bilingualism in federal government institutions into other parts of the country where they are not so operative now, struck me and other members of the committee as an impressive elaboration of the regulatory function of the federal Government. One might be somewhat of two minds about why it was happening, but it is a democratic country and we want it to remain that way. When Canadians, who may be a minority in some regions and not in other regions, expressed concerns about what the Government of Canada planned to do, then it was right and proper for the law of the land to provide opportunity for additional consideration. Now under the Official Languages Act we have precisely that.
That is largely what my colleague wanted to do with the motions. Given the anxiety that exists across the country, which is perhaps stronger in some regions than in others but which exists everywhere about the impact of the trade deal on Canada, and the impact of Bill C-130 on Canadians, it seems to me the proposals made in this series of motions are eminently sensible ones.
In addition, where these motions provide for consideration in committee of the House of Commons of persons to be appointed to head boards, surely parliamentary reform envisioned movement in that direction. Particularly in a debate on a trade deal with the United States that certain patterns of activity of congressional review of appointees of the President to the executive branch in the United States, that style of congressional review which very often is a fairly ready acceptance of the appointee, and in other cases where there are serious questions to be asked when it is a dubious appointee that is before the American citizens, surely this particular activity of the U.S. Congress is one that we might easily emulate in Canada.
It is shameful that the Government, which has spoken so much of parliamentary reform, and which had before it
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
proposals for some development of a tradition of parliamentary review of appointees in committees, has neglected and has failed to follow through on those initiatives. I am anticipating the attitude of rejection of opposition efforts that we have had time and again, and presumably there will be a decline of accepting the motions put forward to achieve that goal in this very important matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. King):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. King):: The question is on Motion No. 30. The vote on Motion No. 30 will be deemed to apply to Motion Nos. 30, 32, 38, 41, 43, 44, 50, 56, and 58. Therefore, we will vote on Motion No. 30 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.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. King):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. King):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. King):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. King):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 39
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 37 at page 21
the following:
""48.2. That the Tribunal be empowered to oversee the agreement; in particular it shall;
(A)	1. Report to Parliament to include;
(a)	quantity and nature of Canada-United States trade;
(b)	United States federal and state programs which affect Canada-United States trade;
(c)	determine whether the rights and benefits to which Canada is entitled under the agreement are being denied;
(d)	if the determination of the tribunal is affirmative under paragraph (c), then the Tribunal shall also determine and report what corrective action is necessary.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
2. (a) The Tribunal shall be empowered to receive petitions from any entity, including a trade association, firm, union or group of workers who represents a Canadian industry and who has reason to believe that
(i)	the industry is likely to face, as a result of the Canada-United States trade agreement, increased competition from subsidized American imports, including those supported through the United States defense programs; and
(ii)	the industry is likely to experience a deterioration in its competitive position during the time negotiations occur between Canada and the United States on subsidies
(b) Upon receipt of a petition under paragraph (a) the Tribunal shall:
(1)	compile and make available to the industry, information on the amount of subsidization to the American industry, the increase in market share since the agreement came into effect, and the impact of those imports on the Canadian industry.
(ii)	update this information annually or as requested by the industry;
(iii)	provide to Parliament a copy of any reports undertaken as a result of subparagraphs (i) or (ii).
(c) (i) The tribunal shall review information obtained under paragraph
(2)	and consult with the industry to decide whether action may be appropriate under section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, and recommend such action be taken by the Minister of Finance in conjunction with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
(ii) The Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs shall, upon receipt of any recommendation under subparagraph (i) determine whether to take action and shall on determination that action be taken, give preference to actions that most directly affect the products benefitting from governmental subsidies unless the application of action under section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff Act to other products would be more effective.
(B)	Be empowered to implement and oversee adjustment programs for those firms and workers who will be dislocated as a result of the agreement including:
(a)	specific programs for groups most disadvantaged; older workers, new immigrants, women, aboriginal workers;
(b)	procedures for application by firms to be designated dislocated and apply for adjustment assistance;
(c)	generalized programs for workers to insure that they are retrained for jobs that become available.
(C)	Monitor and report to Parliament the extent to which United States exports are subsidized by U.S. defense expenditures and the impact such products have on Canadian industry.
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 146 by adding immediately after line 26 at page 113 the following:
''"(5) Implementation through section (4) of this Act is conditional on:
(a)	the Tribunal's report to Parliament on United States Defense Department subsidization of transportation
(b)	proof that the United States government does not assist the transportation of agricultural exports to Canada.""
He said; Mr. Speaker, in rising to present these amendments, I want to underline why I consider that in the context of this Bill it is one of the most important set of amendments that we can present because of two things: First, it substantially improves the Bill; second, it points out the serious, glaring inadequacy in the entire trade negotiation and the trade agreement. What the motions in fact do is provide additional powers to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to monitor United States exports in this country, to present a
report on those exports to determine whether in fact they meet the so-called benefits that are supposed to accrue to Canada as a result of the agreement. They provide for the ability of Canadian industry to petition the Canadian International Trade Tribunal where they believe that Canadian-U.S. exports are being unduly subsidized. They provide for the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to initiate action to ensure adjustment for workers, and they specifically require the trade tribunal to monitor U.S. exports to deal specifically with the question of defence-related subsidies.
One would want to ask why you would apply additional new powers on an agreement dealing with free trade. The answer is very simple and obvious. This is what the Americans are doing. The United States has taken advantage of the trade negotiations to strengthen their own powers and procedures to apply actions against Canadian trade. It is a paradox, a joke, an irony. However you want to describe it, the fact of the matter is that it is contrary, in fact totally opposite to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in a statement back in 1987 when he said that there would be a new regime against U.S. protectionism. We have in fact ended up with the United States, in both the implementing legislation and the omnibus trade Bill having tougher trade laws against Canada. That in itself should be sufficient to tell Canadians what a hoax this whole thing really is. All the efforts of government propaganda, the $30 billion or $40 billion of taxpayers' money that they are spending to sell the trade agreement, cannot avoid that one fundamental fact, that the United States Congress has written into new trade laws tougher laws against Canada.
All that I am proposing in this amendment is that we mirror the legislation, that we at least acquire similar powers to provide a balance, some kind of parallel with the U.S. legislation so that we will not be at a severe disadvantage. I do it to point out just how singularly ludicrous the situation is and how deceptive the statements are by government spokespeople when they go across this country and say; "We have won a free trade deal". In fact, they have won a pyrrhic victory. They have acquired new U.S. trade legislation where, rather than giving Canada exemption, an easier ride, some kind of special preference, we have been singled out for tougher laws.
The Baucus-Danforth amendment that was introduced has given what I consider to be a very important new advantage to U.S. industry. Under the present laws, if a U.S. industry, whether it is potash or pork or uranium or steel, thinks that it is being affected by a new Canadian export, it has to undertake the research, develop documentation, and provide for the kind of inquiry that is necessary to make their case. Then it can go to the International Trade Commission and ask for countervail or an anti-dumping on that. Now it can petition the U.S. Government to do it for them. The trade office will now undertake to do all that research and investigation, which will give an open sesame, open invitation for U.S. industry to provide enormous harassment of our exports.
August 22, 1988

Furthermore, if you read the so-called Baucus-Danforth amendment, they have changed the reading so that it does not say that there has to be injury; it only has to be affected by a Canadian import. Then you can bring in the new provisions under the omnibus trade Bill, which will apply as part of this agreement and be part of the U.S. trade law, the new Section 301, which will give the President expanded powers and changes the definition of a subsidy. They substantially narrow what they expect a country like Canada can provide for its natural resource industries. Put together all these things and you end up with a package of U.S. procedures and laws that are much tougher than we had before.
In committee, when I raised this point and brought forward this amendment, the Parliamentary Secretary and officials said: "Yes, but we could do almost the same thing under existing law". They pointed to the Special Import Measures Act and the Customs Tariff Act. I went back to check those things out. It is not the same. Under the Special Import Measures Act it has to be the Governor in Council that requires the trade tribunal to undertake an investigation. There is a big difference in having a government decide to take that investigation, with all the kinds of pressures it is subjected to by its counterpart, the United States, as opposed to giving the industry that right.
Then they point to Section 59 of the Customs Tariff Act, which gives the right to Canada to respond. But it has never been used. There are not even any regulations determining how it will be used. It is a dead letter.
I say: "Well, let me call your bluff, put it into the Bill". At least this Government, for all its surrenders that have gone on, should be prepared to give Canadians the same rights that our American partners are acquiring under the trade agreement. I suspect that they might not. The reason they will not is because they would not want to provoke our powerful American partner, the powerful American Congress, into further action. So they are going to quietly sneak into the darkness once again, with a smoke screen behind them, trying to cover up, saying that it has been watered down.
We phoned around. We asked the Canadian Embassy in Washington and the Department of External Affairs and the trade office if they could analyse for us the impact of the omnibus trade Bill upon Canada. There is no analysis, they said. They have not bothered to do it yet. Or, if they have done it, they are not going to have it public, they are not going to give it proper exposure. They are well aware of the statements that were made last March by our Ambassador, Mr. Gotlieb, who said that the specific measures in the omnibus trade Bill that were contrary to the obligations of international trade law and were damaging to Canada have not been changed. They are still in that Bill. We are now incorporating those very laws
into the trade agreement that we will have to administer on behalf of the United States.
The case must be made that the one thing that the Prime Minister achieved with his negotiations is a tougher protectionist law against Canada. I ask him if he is going to tell all those people out there in the hustings that that is what he achieved. If he is not, he is not going to be telling the truth, because that is the truth as it is written in the U.S. legislation.
I will make one final point, if I may, before you rise to your feet, Mr. Speaker. The important amendment 93 deals with the U.S. Defense Department subsidies. The Americans claim that that is national security. In fact, it is a massive form of subsidy to their industries, which should be examined and we should be prepared to apply our trade laws to them. This amendment would do it. I say to you that these amendments will certainly tell us the real tale as to how prepared the Conservative Government is to protect Canadian interest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. King):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, studies by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicate that lead is dangerous at levels far lower than those considered dangerous so far.
Until recently the presence of 25 micrograms of lead in a decalitre of blood marked the danger level. The new report says that 10 to 15 micrograms are enough to retard mental development. Lead pollution has been a suspect in that area and others for more than 20 years. It is believed to interfere with the synthesis of key substances in the blood, and is considered especially harmful to children. Lead has been held responsible in some instances for premature birth, hearing loss, and low birth weight.
Public health impacts should convince the Government to accelerate the lead reduction policy initiated in 1984 and achieve by December, 1990, the standard of 0.02 grams per litre of gasoline already enforced in the United States.

August 22, 1988


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, if a business is going to be viable it must be competitive, and that is just as true for business in the national parks as elsewhere.
Two ski businesses in the Banff National Park were authorized and are in operation but are rapidly becoming noncompetitive because Parks Canada will not permit the operators to run their business like owners elsewhere in Canada. Both the Lake Louise and Sunshine Ski Companies want to erect a quad chair lift and to make other improvements in order to be competitive with other ski areas, but Parks Canada says "no dice!".
Canadians invested their money in these ski areas on the understanding that they could manage their businesses, and if Parks Canada is going to interfere and stop these businesses from being competitive it will bankrupt the businesses and be a betrayal of these investors.
We need these chair lifts, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, a curious thing has happened. The Government's nuclear submarine program has submerged.
For months the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) proudly proclaimed that his flagship program was going full speed ahead. But the long overdue decision on a final design seems to have been put into the dry dock for the fall. Perhaps the nuclear submarines have run into rough weather. The U.S. may not have given the Minister blanket permission to use their nuclear technology. His own Cabinet and caucus colleagues seem doubtful that the Minister can deliver them for $8 billion. Perhaps others aren't exactly sure why we need them. But one thing they are sure about. They don't want the nuclear submarine issue floating around during an election campaign.
Meanwhile, the Minister is making a flurry of announcements on much lower priority items. He seems to think that throwing around a lot of money will keep people from noticing that his pet project has taken a dive. But the people of Canada will soon have the chance to remind him that the whole nuclear submarine project was a bad idea from the beginning. And when they finally speak, the nuclear submarines will be sunk for good.


CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the efforts made on the weekend by all Hon. Members from Quebec in the Conservative Party caucus meeting in Saint-Hyacinthe, to confirm and reassert our unity and our intention to continue to work all together for the betterment of all Canadians, especially Quebecers who put their trust in our integrity and our dynamism, in order to put Canada back on the road to prosperity by trying in every way to strengthen our economy and thus improve life for all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, that is our ultimate goal.
Further to the talks and discussions of the weekend, I am quite hopeful that Canadians have realized that the Conservative Government is on the right track and that they will trust us again in the next general election, because they are convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative Government is the only one that can lead our beautiful country Canada to its proper destiny.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, despite the repeated reassurances of Transport Canada officials, aircraft continue to fly over the homes of my constituents well after midnight until the early hours of the morning. This ongoing problem has not reached a satisfactory solution despite meetings with transport officials, and petitions and letters to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard).
Passenger aircraft that violate the midnight curfew are often fined only $500 of the maximum $5,000 penalty and view this imposition as only a landing fee. Other aircraft not restricted to the curfew, such as courier jets and non-passenger flights, continue at all hours, to the displeasure and discomfort of awakened York West residents.
I ask again that the Minister of Transport eradicate this annoying situation by imposing harsher fines on violating airlines. As well, noise and air pollution should not be a burden solely on our community. Rather, all runways should be equally utilized so as to minimize the difficulties on any one community. The Minister of State for Transport (Mr. St. Germain) vowed in the House on June 29 to lessen run-up noise of engine testing.
My constituents would sleep and live a lot better if the Minister would also act on the unfair and unacceptable levels of overhead aircraft noise.
August 22, 1988


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, this Government recognizes the toxic chemical problems of the Great Lakes and has devoted considerable resources to their resolution. Specific actions include amendments to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in November, 1987, as well as a number of provisions dealing with toxic substances; substantial research, monitoring and surveillance effort on the lakes which has been undertaken to identify and assess toxic problems and appropriate remedial strategies; development of remedial action plans for 12 longstanding Canadian areas of concern where water quality is impaired, and development of studies and management plans with the United States on interconnecting channels of the lakes where toxic chemical problems are highlighted.
In a broader context the Canadian Environmental Protection Act passed earlier this summer will provide comprehensive management of chemicals so that Canada will not in the future be confronted with the kinds of problems which are prevalent today due to the neglect of the previous Government.


TECHNOLOGY
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, computers have become an integral part of all aspects of Canadian society. Governments, industry, and individuals rely on computers to cover the entire spectrum of usages. However, this very efficient means of information storage and transfer can be brought to an abrupt halt by viruses.
Computer viruses have the same effects as biological ones have on humans. A computer virus can reproduce, mutate, lie dormant, attack at a set time resulting in the shutdown of systems, modification or destruction of data. The ramifications are mind boggling. Just think of the crimes which could be performed. An example would be money transfers from banks and then having systems crash. Terrorists, organized crime, disgruntled employees can wreck havoc with our computer systems.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) must enact legislation which will impose harsh penalties on those who deliberately set out to manipulate or destroy data which actions can have a detrimental effect on Canadians.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: There is nothing like a deathbed repentance, Mr. Speaker. It amazes me how a vision of Heaven will so concentrate the mind.
This weekend the Pearly Gates parted in St. Hyacinthe, Quebec, and the Conservative Party glimpsed the Heavens beyond. The Tories repented, Mr. Speaker, and they swore to follow a new morality. After four long years of marching through the desert, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) claimed to discover that elixir of life-honesty and integrity. No more corporate contributions, he proclaimed from the mount. "Political Parties have to go out and get their money from ordinary citizens, in limited amounts".
But while the scent of death and corruption lingers, we smell a more earthy odour arising from St. Hyacinthe. Can we really believe that Quebec's Conservatives will refuse the $6.7 million of corporate donations raised in 1987? Will the Prime Minister renounce the $260,000 donated by the big banks, or the $10,000 given by Inco in 1987? And will Tory MPs outside Quebec turn as pure as the driven snow? No, Mr. Speaker, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.


FISHERIES
Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, recently I announced federal contributions in my riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine regarding the development of aquaculture industries.
Since my election in 1984, this Progressive Conservative Government has emphasized new technology regarding the fishing industry in our area. In the riding of Bonaventure- Iles-de-la-Madeleine we now have substantial private investments in the area of raising blue mussels, Atlantic salmon, and giant scallops.
I thank the Government for its interest in developing these new industries.

And also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure all consumers wishing to buy products from Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine that these are of the best quality. Good eating, everyone!

August 22, 1988


AGRICULTURE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend 1 took a disaster tour through the drought stricken areas of Essex County and I saw devastation which I have never seen before on the farms of that county. I saw cuts in normal production of as much as 40 per cent on farms which were fortunate and as much as 85 per cent on farms which were not fortunate. I saw seed corn which had been totally devastated because of the drought.
I saw examples of all sorts of crops of every kind that demonstrated that there must be in Essex County, just as in western Canada, urgent action on drought. It must come fast so that farmers can make decisions and predictions and be in a position to be able to plan for the future.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, having been away from the House of Commons for a few days, I noticed upon my return this morning an official, formal statement that the socialists and Liberals intend to live together. For a long time, the two leaders had been exchanging compromising winks, but it was not official. On August 15, 1988, the socialist and Liberal love-birds signed their marriage contract. A marriage of love! A marriage of self-interest!
I wish this new couple, this embryonic socialist-Liberal family, as few children as possible and a golden wedding anniversary in the Opposition, with pleasure.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend Canadians listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who pretended to be concerned about the environment. In my own constituency there is an inventor by the name of Bill Haines, of Vankleek Hill, Ontario. Eleven years ago he developed a formula to save Canada's sugar-maple trees. Some three or four years ago he approached the present federal Government to get assistance
to further develop and to test this new product made of silica which would assist in the protection of our forests.
Much to his chagrin, and even with the help not only of myself but of the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), Mr. Haines has been unable to obtain federal government funding for the project in question. I call upon the Government to listen to the good advice offered to it by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and by me, and to assist with this project which could go a long way toward reducing the damage done by acid rain to our sugar-maple trees.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my riding is heavily dependent on the petrochemical industry. Unfortunately, as the rest of my province was booming, the Lambton County and Sarnia area was suffering high unemployment rates and a very depressed economy.
The industry has finally recovered from the disastrous results of the National Energy Program. Never was there a program so ill-conceived. It ravaged the entire industry: the primary sector in the West and the refining and petrochemical industry in the East.
I have good news. The industry is finally rebounding, buoyed not only by the abolition of the National Energy Program but also by the very positive aspects of the free trade agreement for that industry.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago on August 20 the tanks of the Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact countries rolled into Czechoslovakia to put down one of the most courageous, determined struggles for genuine freedom that this century has witnessed. Today in Czechoslovakia there are courageous civil libertarians who want the same basic human rights that we take for granted in this country, civil rights, the right to organize trade unions, and the right to participate in a full and humane way in society.
The neighbouring country of Poland participated, under a communist Government, in the invasion by the Warsaw Pact countries of Czechoslovakia in 1968. In Poland today there are men and women struggling democratically to form a free trade union.
August 22, 1988

I say as a parliamentary leader of a Party in this House, joining with all other Members of this Elouse-


An Hon. Member:: You're a bunch of socialists.


John Edward Broadbent: If the central European-what profound ignorance has just been uttered from the other side of the House. I leave that to him. I say to him that it was Social Democrats who were put down in Czechoslovakia who fought for freedom like we are calling for here. I call upon the leadership, both in Poland and in Czechoslovakia, and particularly in the Soviet Union, to live up to the commitments to freedom and allow freedom to flourish both in Czechoslovakia and in Poland.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: You are so ignorant, you're despicable. Where was your Party on the War Measures Act, on the Japanese-Canadians? Tell me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I'll tell you who stands up for freedom in this place, it's not you guys.


Mr. Lewis:: Oh, boloney.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the Prime Minister's apparent double standard of political morality shown over the weekend. The Member of Parliament for Rosemont is kicked out of the Tory Caucus for what the Prime Minister called irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour. She is on the side of-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. The Hon. Member may be rising on a matter of considerable political interest, and there certainly may be other places to pursue it, but I am having some difficulty here because, as Hon. Members know, a question directed to the administration has to deal with the administration of government. So far the Hon. Member is not persuading me that that question does involve the administration of government. Perhaps the Hon. Member can help the Chair.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I believe the question I will ask does comply with the rules of the House, but in the preamble I wanted to raise circumstances which have been much in the news over the weekend and which
Oral Questions
reflect on the political morality of this Government as a Government.
I contrast the treatment of the Member for Rosemont with the Member of Parliament for Gamelin who faces 50 charges of influence peddling, and yet he remains in caucus.


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked the Hon. Member, who is an experienced Member, to assist the Chair and stay within the bounds. I do not want to interrupt a lead question, and I do so with great hesitancy. However, I do ask the Hon. Member's co-operation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I wanted also to contrast that with the Member for York-Peel who, after having 14 violations-


Mr. Speaker:: The difficulty the Chair is in is that the rules by which we are bound are designed ultimately and primarily so that questions do not create disorder and, second, that they be pertinent to the administration of the Government. The Hon. Member, I know, understands this, and I would ask him to put his question. Otherwise, I may have to move on to another Member.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's condemnation of the MP for Rosemont is based on an RCMP press release which I have here which says simply that she had no evidence to justify initiating a criminal investigation. Whether she had anything new to add on that day, August 19, we all know she has evidence of alleged kick-backs because she is a key witness for the prosecution against the MP for Gamelin.


Mr. Gormley:: Kangaroo court!


Mr. Speaker:: I will exercise considerable patience and allow the Hon. Member to put his question, but the preambles are going too far.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Then to come right to the question-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -the Deputy Prime Minister accused the Hon. Member for Rosemont of irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour. Will he acknowledge what RCMP Constable Trevor Edwards is quoted as saying, namely, that there is an ongoing investigation? As well, why is the Prime Minister trying to undermine the credibility of the Hon. Member for Rosemont who will shortly be a witness in a criminal proceeding?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is taking the lead question for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and, as I said, I do not like interrupting, but we are now treading into another even more difficult situation because there is an ongoing criminal investigation. I do not know where all this is leading but I have an obligation to ensure that the questions are within the rules. If the Hon. Member can put his question-

August 22, 1988
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: -and keep it within the rules, I will hear him.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If I can repeat my first question, it was simply to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the Prime Minister is making adverse statements about the Hon. Member for Rosemont. Exactly what has she said that he objects to?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised a lot of allegations. One he noted is that the Hon. Member for Rosemont has evidence of kick-backs. That is totally contrary to the report issued by the RCMP. I find it very strange that a former Solicitor General, who was a spokesman in this House on behalf of the Government for the RCMP, would second guess the RCMP. I find that totally unacceptable.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They said no such thing, Mr. Speaker. They simply observed they had no information from her to initiate a criminal investigation. There was already one ongoing.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR DUVERNAY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister about the statement we all heard this morning made by the Hon. Member for Duvernay, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State. He is in the House and perhaps he would like to answer the question because his statement was far from enlightening.
Did anyone on behalf of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State ask that Hon. Member exactly what he meant when he said "I could put a dozen people in prison"? What does that mean?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member was in the House-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I was in the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -when the Hon. Member made his statement, but perhaps I can just refer to it because I think it explains what was said and the unfortunate interpretation placed upon this. Referring to the article in question, he said: "This article presents an unfortunate interpretation of what I wanted to say concerning the necessity of maintaining the highest moral standards in political life. If my thoughts brought about confusion it is because I did not clearly express myself. This was done through a telephone interview, alternately in English and French, with English being my third language".
I think we have all been misquoted and misinterpreted. I think the Hon. Member admits the fact there was a misinterpretation. He has apologized to the House. He rose at the earliest opportunity. In his opening comments he said: "I rise today at the first available opportunity on a question of
privilege to clarify an erroneous perception which may have arisen from the comments of mine reported in The Ottawa Citizen on August 19". Just the other day the Hon. Member for York Centre himself was misinterpreted and we gave him an opportunity to make a clarification. What is good for him should be good for Members on this side of the House as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the problem is that he did not qualify or clarify the statement he made to the media.


STATEMENT REPORTED IN LE DEVOIR-CLEAN-UP OF POLITICAL MORALS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Third, I would like to ask why the Prime Minister is so angry with the Hon. Member for Rosemont, when in his statements as reported in Le Devoir, he admitted that even after four years as Prime Minister, it was still necessary to clean up political morality here in Ottawa.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member wants to blame the Prime Minister. My understanding is that the decision taken was a Quebec caucus decision. There are certain decisions that are taken in the Liberal caucus and in other caucuses. I do not know why the Hon. Member would take offence at that.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO MEMBER FOR LASALLE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Prime Minister's role in protecting ethics in government and his role as administrator of the conflict of interest rules.
Over the weekend another Conservative Member, this time the Hon. Member for LaSalle, said, referring to political contributions to his Party:
"What goes into (the party coffers) is public", he says. "It's what falls off to
the side, the crumbs that drop off the table" that bother him.
When did the Prime Minister find out about these new allegations of a diversion of funds and what does he intend to do about it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, here we have another allegation with regard to the-


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, from another one of your Members.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -comments that appeared in The Globe and Mail today. I am advised by the Solicitor General that the RCMP is today conducting an interview with the Hon. Member. I would hope that for the time being it may rest there until such time as information is provided.
August 22, 1988

When the Hon. Member talks about the Prime Minister and his responsibility with regards to ethics and morality, I think the answer is very clear. He has acted decisively on many occasions where there has been inappropriate conduct. Conflict of interest legislation has been brought before the House. We have dealt with lobbyists legislation. We have brought in reform with regard to the appointment process, reform with regard to the appointment of judges. There have been reforms in the contracting process. We are trying to get changes to the Elections Act. This is the first Government that has had to operate under the full supervision of the Access to Information Act, so indeed there have been many, many improvements.
The fact of the matter is that what is evident today is that the system has improved considerably over what it was in previous years.
[Translation\


ALLEGATIONS REPORTED IN MEDIA-GOVERNMENT MEASURES
Don Boudria: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would like to remind the Deputy Prime Minister that he did not answer my question. I would like to put it to him a second time: When was the first time the Prime Minister heard of the allegations made by the Hon. Member for LaSalle, as reported in the media on the weekend? Did the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister know about these allegations before the weekend? If so, what specific action did the Government take and when?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was certainly not aware of it. My first information with reference to what the Hon. Member said was that which was included in the report in The Globe and Mail this morning. I will check with the Prime Minister to make sure, but I am not aware of his being advised of this. I would suspect that would not be the case. I am sure he got his information the same way I did.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister on the same subject. We have just had reference to another Conservative Member making what could be euphemistically described as perhaps bizarre statements about financing and how it is being handled in the Conservative Party. At the same time on the weekend the Quebec wing of the federal Conservatives said that it will go into the election campaign without relying on corporate donations-


Some Hon. Members:: NDP and the Unions.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: -and union donations. They would rely only on donations from individuals.
Some 18 months ago the NDP called for federal legislation in this House not once, not twice, but three times. Therefore, why has the Government of Canada not proceeded with this legislation up until now? Will it give us assurances that it will put into place, not simply moral persuasion legislation but effective law, before the next election, for all of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course this is an important matter which I believe all Hon. Members want to address. Obviously the Quebec caucus has come up with an interesting approach which I think-


John Edward Broadbent: For the next election.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member thinks it's a joke.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oshawa has asked a question which, of course, is completely within the rules. I ask Hon. Members to respect the Minister's right to reply.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to answer the question as best I can. I know the Hon. Member posed it in a very serious vein. This is an experiment which the Quebec caucus wishes to adopt on a voluntary basis.
With due respect, these are the kinds of things we could have studied had we been able to move Bill C-79 into committee. The Member's spokesman behind him shakes his head in the negative. I realize that the present Bill does not suit all the needs of the New Democratic Party. We acknowledge that. However, we wanted this Bill brought into committee in order that we could study it fully and consider some of the suggestions which have been advanced by the Quebec caucus.
The Hon. Member also suggests that this should be adopted before the next election. The Hon. Member's Party is calling for an election immediately. According to the Chief Electoral Officer, if we were to make these changes by mid-September it would take three to four months for them to be implemented. I ask them to consider that.
As I said on Friday, I think discussions have already started between the Deputy Government House Leader and the Acting House Leader of the New Democratic Party in an attempt to advance this particular piece of legislation.
There is more to it than only the matter of corporate contributions. There is the definition of election expenses, the issue of third party advertising, the extension of voting rights to people abroad, and the structure of the enforcement commission. We had hoped that we would be able to deal with all of these things and are still prepared to do so.

August 22, 1988
Oral Questions


PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S EXPENDITURES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the Bill in question does not deal with election expenses and does not deal with party financing. He knows that a year and a half ago I asked the Government to bring in such a measure at that time. Apart from repeated promises to do so, he knows that the Government has stalled ever since and has refused to bring it forward.
The Conservative Party in Quebec has said that it will impose a moratorium on itself on collecting money from corporations during the campaign. The national campaign of the Conservative Party pays the expenses for Leader's travels, all the television coverage in English and in French, and newspaper ads. Corporations in the Province of Quebec as well as corporations on Bay Street gave a total of over $6 million to the Conservatives last year. Will the Minister admit that this money will be spent in Quebec just as it will be spent elsewhere in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member was posing his questions in a very serious vein and was not going to go to the bottom of the sink-hole on a question which I take very seriously.
First, the Member is absolutely wrong when he says that we were not prepared to deal with the election expenses Bill. There have been letters. Just because there is a disagreement between his Party and our Party with regard to the definition of election expenses is no reason it should not go forward into committee for further study. We have advanced a definition and are prepared to meet again and advance another one. We are prepared to deal with this.
The Hon. Member also suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the proposal which has been advanced by the Province of Quebec. I am not going to get into specifics on this particular issue right now, but I can assure him that this would be an issue more appropriately discussed in committee where all Parties could sit down with their representatives to deal with it. As I said on Friday, Mr. Speaker, we stand ready to do that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister knows that the New Democratic Party, to our knowledge, is the only Party that has submitted a definition of the kind he has requested. There has been no such definition proposed by the governing Party. We have been consistent and we want reform.


CONTRIBUTIONS OF LARGE CORPORATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question is just this: The Conservative Caucus in the province of Quebec promised that as a Party, it will not accept contributions from corporations or unions. It only wants private donations. My question is quite simply: Is it true that during
the next campaign, in the province of Quebec, the Conservatives' national compaign will use money donated by the big corporations on Bay Street in Toronto and on St. James Street in Montreal? Is it true that the big corporations will pay for the national campaign in the province of Quebec?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. I regret that I did not get the full thrust of the question and I would like to hear it before I respond to it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question very clearly, and if he can get his colleagues to shut up maybe he will hear it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that in the forthcoming election campaign, notwithstanding what the Quebec Conservative caucus has had to say, money collected from corporations on Bay Street and on St. Jacques Street in Montreal, which totalled over $6 million last year, will be spent in the national campaign coming up in the Province of Quebec to finance the Leader's tour, newspaper advertising, and television ads? Will he answer yes or no to that question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics but my understanding is that the Quebec caucus has decided to run its local associations on the basis of the new funding rules which could put ceilings of $5,000 on individuals and would not allow for corporate, association, or union contributions. That is my understanding.


THUNDER BAY-DECLINE IN GRAIN TRAFFIC
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Government's policies with regard to the Port of Thunder Bay are having a devastating impact. Some 700 grain handlers and port workers have been laid off, four of the 13 grain elevators are shut down, and 20 of the 64 grain handling ships in the Great Lakes are lying idle.
What is the Government doing to correct this situation and to try to ensure that this port gets its fair share of grain handling and the employment of those workers in Thunder Bay is preserved?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly are in a very difficult situation. This shows once again just how interdependent we are. When there are tough times on the
August 22, 1988

Prairies there are tough times along the entire St. Lawrence Seaway. If we stick together we can pull through it.
On this specific issue I can tell the Member that the Ministers are meeting at a high level. They are trying to come up with a proposal as a result of representations made by a grain coalition. I am sure the resolution will be satisfactory to the Member and all Members in the House.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could confirm that the Government has a secret report that indicates that over 1,150 workers will be laid off by this time next year. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could say exactly what action the Government is going to take to equalize opportunity for the Thunder Bay port and whether the Government is going to take other action to ensure that a reasonable share of these jobs is maintained.
For instance, the Prime Minister announced a couple of months ago in the Lac-Saint-Jean by-election that he was going to provide $164 million. Is there going to be specific action taken to help the port of Thunder Bay to ensure it continues to operate and employment is maintained?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, there are dozens of situations which have arisen over the last four years where a certain sector of our population found itself in deep trouble and the federal Government has been there. It will be there in this situation in the appropriate way.


LAID-OFF WORKERS-GOVERNMENT MEASURES
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the devastating impact on the Port of Thunder Bay and on seafarers and grain handlers throughout the eastern system. The Minister is one of the Members of the Cabinet who have been meeting to discuss remedial action to be taken in the short and long-term. I wonder if she is prepared to advise those people who are already laid off, and those who are about to be laid off, what specific action the Government of Canada is going to take to protect their interests.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, like my hon. colleague, we recognize and sympathize with the local difficulties. The Industrial Adjustment Advisory Service has been working with groups in Thunder Bay. It will continue to work with these groups and we will try to come up with appropriate solutions, but it will take some time to work these things out.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, as every day passes, more and more men and women are being
Oral Questions
laid off. Their families are wondering what is going to happen to them. I am wondering if someone in the Government can at least tell us when the Government is going to announce what kind of plan of action it has been able to come up with. The Government has being working on it now for nearly six weeks. It has known the problem was going to happen for three years. When will there be some action taken for these people?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think the people most familiar with this, and who are working the hardest on it, aside from my own Department, are the Minister of Labour and the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds. They have been actively engaged in seeking solutions to this problem and seeking the help of their colleagues. We will come up with a solution as soon as we can. We have the co-operation of a number of parties as we try to work out what can be done.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Over the weekend the Prime Minister was quoted in an interview with Le Devoir as saying that the ratification of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement could be delayed beyond the January 1 deadline. In fact, he would be unconcerned whether the implementing legislation was to be considered beyond that.
Considering that the Prime Minister is unconcerned, that he is prepared to delay the ratification of the Bill, and considering that a large majority of Canadians want an election before that ratification takes place, I wonder if, on behalf of the Government, the Deputy Prime Minister can give us the assurance today that the Government will call an election before the ratification of the trade agreement so that Canadians will have what is their right, that is, to decide whether they agree with this terrible agreement or not.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding with our free trade legislation. It has not passed third reading in the House of Commons as yet. When it does so, it will go to the Senate. Then, of course, Senators will be put to the test. Are they the house of sober second thought, or are the Liberal majority merely automatons, to respond to any hint or direction given to them by the Liberal Party?
In other words, is this country governed by the Liberal Party when it is elected? And is it also governed by the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party is not elected but their majority in the Senate governs for them? That is the question we are going to

August 22, 1988
Oral Questions
be interested in seeing, and that is the question the people of Canada might have to decide later this year or next year.


Lloyd Axworthy: I just say to the Hon. Minister, Mr. Speaker, that he has it wrong. The real question is will the people be given the right to decide. It is a very simple question. That is what it is all about.


UNITED STATES OMNIBUS TRADE BILL
Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to ask the Minister this question, if he is now prepared to answer questions on trade. We have now had public statements by the French Government, the Japanese Government, and representatives of the European Economic Community, condemning the United States omnibus Trade Bill as being contrary to the rules of GATT and contrary to the rules of international trade. Yet we have had this Government in full retreat from its March 1 statement on that legislation. The Government has not provided any full statement as to the impacts of the U.S. omnibus Trade Bill on Canadian exports or Canadian business. In fact it is beginning to sound as if once again it is caving in.
Why will the Government not issue a statement and full analysis of the U.S. omnibus Trade Bill, condemning its actions, condemning its impact upon Canada, and asking the President of the United States to veto that Bill because it is contrary to the spirit of international trade rights and agreements?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's Leader seems to have a slogan and I think it is "leave it to the people". I suggest to him that we should leave it to the people when the Leader of the hon. gentleman's Party starts telling the truth. When is he going to tell the truth on his trips around this country? I would be more worried about my Leader than I would be about the omnibus Trade Bill which is passed by the U.S. Congress and which neither this country, nor any country, can do anything about, just the U.S. Congress.
Ask your Leader to start telling the truth so we can have an honest-


Lloyd Axworthy: Tell your Leader to stand up for this country for a change. That's what I am asking.


INDUSTRY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the plight of former employees of Massey Combines Corporation in Brantford. Exactly four months ago today I asked the Deputy
Prime Minister in a letter if the Government would sell its holdings in Varity Corporation and use the money to help the workers who lost their jobs at Massey Combines Corporation of Brantford. Why is the Government still sitting on over $30 million worth of shares that serve no public policy purpose, and continuing to ignore the needs of workers who have lost their jobs and benefits, particularly the retirees?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this unfunded liability falls within the jurisdiction of the province. I may be wrong, but that is my recollection. I have to advise the Hon. Member that I have not fully apprised myself of the latest developments in this respect, but that is my sense of it. In so far as the Government of Canada is concerned, whatever funding is required by the federal Government has in fact been provided. I stand to be corrected on it, certainly, and 1 will get back to the Hon. Member, if I might.


VARITY CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT SHARE HOLDINGS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: No, what I am talking about is the fact that the Canadian Government and the Province of Ontario both hold about $54 million in common shares in Varity as part of the restructuring for Massey Combines Corporation a couple of years ago. What I have been asking for the past four months is for this Government and the provincial Government to sell their common stock and put it in a trust fund, the proceeds of which could be used to fund the benefits for the retirees. In addition, there would be money left over annually to assist the workers. There is a precedent for this already established by the federal Government with respect to its help to the workers who were laid off and terminated at Hawker-Siddley in Central Nova.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what covenants, if any, may apply to this particular fund to which the Hon. Member refers, but I will check into it and get back to him.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Nothing is more important to the people, especially those in eastern Metro, than saving the Rouge Valley. Affordable housing is also important but not in the Rouge Valley. Taking into consideration the massive lands that are now owned by the federal Government which were put together for the Pickering Airport, would the Minister consider attempting to negotiate a trade of some of these lands with the Ontario Government for the Rouge Valley lands, thus assuring preservation of the Rouge area for our children and their children?
August 22, 1988


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge that the Hon. Member has been making continued representations to express his concern about the Rouge Valley. It is a very complex matter. There are very substantial lands held by the federal Government at Pickering Airport. There is a process now under way to see how the Government might dispossess itself of those lands. I will certainly take the Hon. Member's representations and pursue discussions perhaps with the provincial Government and those interested.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. As he probably knows, it is now three years since the Government received a report on federal water policy. That was in September, 1985.
In that time we have heard in the House on many occasions the Government promising legislation, particularly on water exports and diversions. Most recently, as the Deputy Prime Minister will recall, six weeks ago a promise of that kind was made. Is this another empty promise by the Government? Does the Minister have the intention to introduce this piece of legislation? If so, can we know when legislation on federal water policy will be introduced in this House? Canadians are expecting it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, no, it is not another empty promise, as the Hon. Member has said. It is indeed a very positive initiative that the Government is taking. It should have been taken by previous Governments which failed to do so, particularly when the Hon. Member himself was the Minister of the Environment.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the legislation is in its final drafting stage and will be introduced soon.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, that is very much like the Prime Minister promising action soon on acid rain. The fact is that if the Government has had this report in its hands for three years it is because the previous Government initiated the report itself.
We now want to know whether we can expect to have it this month, next month, or next year. When is this legislation going to be introduced?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is in its final stages of drafting. I think the Hon. Member will
Oral Questions
recognize that there can always be drafting glitches. If I might just modify my answer from soon to very soon, perhaps that might make him satisfied.


REVENUE CANADA
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. About 10 days ago I raised a question in the House concerning Revenue Canada's reassessment of farmers who have traded in used farm equipment and the propensity of Revenue Canada officials to try to rewrite those contracts which had been arrived at competitively.
The farmer goes to where he can get the best deal. After the fact Revenue Canada says: "Oh, no, that was too good a deal. Your trade-in was not worth that much", and then begins to reassess the farmer for more taxes.
Now that the Minister has had a chance to review this practice, has he stopped it?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, this is a responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. He is the more appropriate individual to whom the Hon. Member should put his question.
I have not reviewed the particular question since the Hon. Member put it to me because that has been done by my hon. friend, the Minister of National Revenue.


COMPUTATION OF TAXES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue would the Minister tell the House just why the Government chose to permit the redrafting of the procedures that are to be used in computing these taxes and the liability that the farmer has to pay in tax on these kinds of contracts? Why was it that this procedure was not made clear until last December on contracts that were written in 1984 and 1985?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to bring that particular question to the attention of my colleague. However, I think the Hon. Member is aware of the approach that the Government has taken here whereby the Department of National Revenue has reviewed those cases in which there has been some suggestion of an excessive write-up in the value of the particular asset being traded in. It is those particular transactions which are under review. I am sure that the Hon. Member will understand the reason why.

August 22, 1988
Oral Questions HOUSING


METROPOLITAN TORONTO-USE OF FEDERAL LANDS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for housing. While the crisis of affordable housing in Metropolitan Toronto is reaching alarming proportions, the federal Government has refused to offer any leadership or action with a view toward easing the housing burden facing average and middle-class Canadians in Metro.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister this question. Given that the federal Government is an extensive owner of real estate property in Metro-some 25,000 acres in all-why does the Government continue to refuse to utilize its surplus federal properties for the construction of affordable housing units on a first priority basis so that we can attempt collectively to put on the brakes to a city that is speeding toward becoming an exclusive backyard for only the well-to-do?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, we know that the McLaughlin report identified certain federal lands that might be made surplus for certain purposes in the Toronto area. We have been examining that report in some detail. I am happy to advise the Hon. Member that I think in the next reasonable period of time we will be able to indicate what position we might take.
I know that there is pressure on housing in Toronto. We are aware of it. Many representations have been made by members of the Conservative caucus to the Government. We are taking them very seriously.


GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, not only has the federal Government failed to use its real estate arm to try to ease the pressures but, in addition, it has also failed to introduce any new or innovative programs in the housing area that might help Canadians.
Given that the dream of young Canadian couples to own their own home is quickly evaporating and, indeed, becoming a nightmare, why has the Government not re-established a RHOSP-like program, which it cut several years ago, or a mortgage deductibility program or initiative so that first-time home buyers can have an opportunity of making Toronto their home rather than Toronto only becoming their place of work and forcing them to become commuters from longer and longer distances away? Will the Government at least initiate programs, financially speaking, so that young Canadian couples can stay in Toronto to live rather than forcing them to leave the city of their choice?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I am able to advise the Hon. Member that one-fifth of the social housing units in Canada, that is, 100,000, are situated in Toronto. Last year, Toronto received 18 per cent of
the housing portfolio. Pursuant to a very substantial consultative process undertaken by the Government three years ago, the decision, on the advice of all concerned, was to dedicate all our funds to those most in need. That is what is being done in co-operation with the provinces so that more people than ever before are receiving assistance in Canada.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Earlier in Question Period he said that if the Government tried to move now to provide a definition of election expenses that it cannot do it because it would take three or months before it could come into force. My question is this. Since it was over six months ago that the all-Party Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, after investigating the affairs of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, said that that loophole with regard to election expenses must be closed, why has the Government not acted?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have always been prepared to deal with this particular issue. Just because the NDP does not get its way all the time does not mean to say that there are other people in this Chamber who do not have some ideas that are legitimate and workable. The NDP considers itself to be dead right on every issue.


Iain Francis Angus: Let's see your ideas.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We are prepared to put forward-


John Edward Broadbent: You haven't put forward anything.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have. The legislation has been introduced in the House. I have written about three or four letters to Members opposite indicating the changes that we are prepared to make. We have indicated our willingness to deal with the election expenses issue. I do not know what more we can do.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well, and I am asking him to confirm this, that he has not made one proposal, given one definition or one procedure with which to resolve the issue of election expenses. He has not made one proposal. We have. We have asked him any number of times for a definite definition of election expenses. It is not a matter of wanting our way. We want him to make at least one offer.
August 22, 1988


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in an exchange of letters we have even gone so far, because we want this piece of legislation to move forward, to suggest, if we could not agree on a definition before hand, to move the legislation ahead and debate this issue at the committee stage. There has been an exchange of correspondence on a number of occasions where we have outlined the intended areas with which we were prepared to deal, which were in addition to what is contained in the Bill at the present time.


John Edward Broadbent: But not election expenses.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In a letter that I sent to the Leaders on May 3, I went through the whole list of changes that we were prepared to advance, including No. 8, "a new definition of election expenses which would be incorporated". I have the letter here and I would be prepared to table it.


John Edward Broadbent: Where is the definition? It is not there. Classic hypocrites. Union Nationale rides again in the Tory Party. Give me the PQ any day; at least they were honest.


INDUSTRIAL AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Industry and Science. The Industrial and Regional Development Program expired on June 30. The Government has proposed replacement programs for every part of Canada except for the Province of Ontario south of Parry Sound. This means that communities in eastern Ontario that qualified for relatively high levels of industrial development assistance have no program available to them, and communities such as Windsor that want assistance for economic diversification also have no equivalent program to the IRDP.
Why has the Government not proposed a program to replace the IRDP for the Province of Ontario south of Parry Sound? Does the Government intend to do so? If so, when will it bring forward this type of program?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has already indicated in the House that the new programming under the Department of Science and Technology would be announced as soon as it is approved at all levels of government.
In regard to that area of Ontario, the Member seems to imply that there are no government programs.
Point of Order-Mr. Pennock


Don Boudria: No, there are not any.


Bernard Valcourt: That is completely false. There are programs still applicable in that part of Ontario. We have received applications under IRDP up to June 30. They are in the process of being evaluated.


Don Boudria: It's expired.


Bernard Valcourt: The Defence Industry Productivity Program is in full swing in that part of Ontario. As a matter of fact, tens of millions of dollars-


Don Boudria: Name one program in my riding.


Bernard Valcourt: -are given to companies in that part of Ontario. As for the general programming of the Department of Science and Technology, as soon as they are ready to be announced, they will be announced.


REQUEST FOR REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism) is it not true that the only applications that can be considered under the IRDP are those that were received before June 30, and it is impossible to submit new applications for assistance for establishing new plants, modernization of existing plants, and for studies of diversification that were possible under IRDP before June 30?
If that is true, why has the Government not proposed a replacement program for all of Ontario south of Parry Sound, as the Government has done for every other part of Canada? Why this neglect?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should speak to his colleagues. His colleagues from Quebec are complaining that all of Quebec has no program as of today. Even though the program expired June 30, the answer is the same. As soon as the programming is ready under the new Department of Industry Science and Technology, they will be announced.


Mr. Speaker:: That concludes Question Period. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to attempt to correct an improper impression left by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) related to an issue I raised in the House last Wednesday concerning a potential health hazard to all Canadians. Canadians have a

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
right to know that a health hazard exists because of a waste disposal problem at Pearson International Airport.
In her statement to the House on Thursday, August 18, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East jumped to the conclusion that I had accused the City of Hamilton of creating a potential health hazard at Pearson International Airport. An examination of my comments in Hansard will prove otherwise.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East attempted to turn this into a "we versus they" or a "Toronto versus Hamilton" issue, which it is not. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East attempted to turn it into a garbage issue, which it is not. It is a health issue. We are dealing with a potentially serious health hazard which could have ramifications for the people of Canada and animals, particularly cattle, if it is not dealt with expeditiously.
I would like to state for the record that Pearson International Airport is not within the boundaries of the City of Toronto, as the Hon. Member suggested. It is an international airport in the great city of Mississauga and one, if not the major, gateway to Canada.
I have concern when an issue involving public health and safety in Canada is attempted to be brought down to the level of partisan politics. International garbage is coming into Canada from countries where foot and mouth disease is a very serious concern. In 1952, a foot and mouth epidemic was started by a single piece of sausage. Today a sea-gull could pick up a similarly tainted piece of meat and fly to the City of Hamilton.
Unlike the Hon. Member, I have taken the time to research the background and-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member asked for a point of order to clarify some comment that he made at some other time. I do not think that it can trespass into an attack on another Hon. Member, even though it may only be by implication. The Hon. Member has probably corrected the record, and I will hear him very briefly.


Robert Pennock: May I say that at no time did I suggest that Hamilton takes Toronto's garbage but recommended that, on a short-term basis, Hamilton could play a major role in alleviating a temporary crisis. I would encourage the Hon. Member to research this issue, and after she has done so, she will find that a very serious health condition exists in Canada that we could all work together and help to alleviate. If Hamilton would take the garbage on a temporary basis, I would be first to rise in the House and congratulate it.



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 amendment of Mr. Axworthy (p. 18609)
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to indicate our strong support for these two amendments. I would like to focus on one of the questions which is stressed in the last part of the motion, the suggestion that the Canadian import tribunal would have the power to monitor subsidies to U.S. industries to see the effect of those subsidies on Canadian competitiveness.
One of the most ridiculous things about the discussions between the United States and Canada has been the suggestion from the United States that Canada massively subsidizes its industry, while the United States is completely guiltless with respect to that type of support. I want to put on the record some realities as opposed to some myths put forward by the United States. I start with an article quoting Robert Reich, a prominent American economist who has looked very carefully at this question of subsidization. He said, with respect to the United States:
When you add in all the (U.S.) government subsidized loans, loan guarantees, tax rebates and other subsidies, you get total government aid to the private sector that makes Canadians look like pikers by comparison- even as a percentage of GNP (gross national product).
The article continues:
Reich noted that in the U.S., 35 per cent of all research and development undertaken by the private sector "is, in fact, financed by the federal government. So when the U.S. points a finger at Canadians and says you unfairly subsidize your economy, why not point to that figure?"
Why not especially do that when, over the next five to seven years, this Government is going to have to face the fact of its failure in this negotiation so far? It went into this negotiation committed-and we have heard this from Minister after Minister-to see to it that a common subsidy code would be agreed between the two countries. We got the agreement back and I looked carefully through it to find the common subsidy code which would establish the level playing field between the two countries, and it was not achieved. This Government failed to achieve what it set out to do. It failed to establish that common subsidy code.
What does this mean for Canadians and for Canadian workers? It means, for instance, if we take just the auto industry as an example, that the Mazda plant which has been built in the United States received $184 million U.S. in terms
August 22, 1988

of subsidies. Most of it was in tax abatement, some of it in infrastructure, some of it in training. It means that Chrysler and its Mitsubishi plants in the United States and of which it has an interest, received $175 million in subsidies. It means that the Honda plant in Ohio received $130 million in subsidies, of which $124 million was in terms of infrastructure. In the case of Toyota in Kentucky, there is a further example of this Government's failure, with $269 million received, and this Government did not even achieve a common code of subsidies for our two countries. In the case of the Chrysler plant on Jefferson Avenue in Detroit, right across from my constituency, $366 million in subsidies were received.
Much of this comes from state and local Governments in the United States, so it does not appear when we look at federal grants and subsidies. Much of the rest comes from the Pentagon, in the form of support from defence contracts.
I will give you another quote from the careful analysis of prominent United States economist Robert Reich:
-the Pentagon and its sister agencies have become the source of America's high-technology industrial policy-a policy that is more costly, complex and intrusive upon the private sector than any ever imagined by our trading partners. The problem is not that they do it and we don't. The real problem for us is that we do it under the aegis of national defense.
Yet, what do we find when we look at the free trade agreement? We find that the United States can do anything in the name of national defence, and we cannot do anything about it. Even with subsidies with respect to national defence that come from the Pentagon, it will not be part of this five years to seven years of negotiation. They certainly should be if this deal ever goes through, but the United States has already won an exemption in this trade deal for that crucial part of its support to industry.
It is not just big plants. I could take us through dozens of subsidies to small Japanese parts producers from different states, from different communities. In virtually every case Japanese supplier satellite plants, which are shaping themselves up around most of the Japanese auto parts producers in the United States, are receiving massive amounts of support from local and state Governments. I predict that, having lost once in trying to get at the subsidy question through this trade deal, we are not going to be able to succeed, if this thing ever did go through, in the next five years to seven years.
It is not just industry. There are subsidies to fishermen in the United States. They get tax deferrals under the fishing vessel capital construction fund. The Fishermen's Protective Act provides funds for fishing vessel and gear damage. The Nicholson Act forbids foreign vessels from landing directly in U.S. ports, thus forcing Canadian boats to land in Canada and ship overland by truck, thereby increasing Canadians costs and making the Canadian fish less fresh than U.S. product. We also failed to get that changed as part of this trade deal. We let shipping and all associated connections slip away from us, as the United States shipping lobbies got themselves into high gear and stopped us from being able to get fairness in that area.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We can deal with agriculture. There are huge subsidies in the United States to agriculture. There are preferential procurements to small business. There are state subsidies right across the board in coal producing states to coal producers, so much so that I wrote earlier this year to the then Minister for International Trade, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), and suggested that if we were ever going to get western coal brought to eastern Canada on a fair basis we would have to attack those massive state subsidies to coal producers.
In 1986 the U.S. lumber industry received $1 billion in government assistance through special capital gains treatment, below cost sales of some federally owned timberlands, reforestation, and forest management assistance. All that shows that the United States has been the country which has put its Government behind every sector of its economy, subsidized it across the board, and that we failed to tackle, that we failed to win, and that is part of the biggest hole in this trade agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will try to reply to both my colleagues, the critics in the opposition Parties. First, my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), in his remarks which I was pleased to hear, spoke about American subsidies. All we hear normally from the Opposition is that we cannot subsidize any more in Canada; we cannot provide regional disparities any more; we cannot have health care any more; and we cannot have unemployment insurance any more.
When speaking about subsidy programs, the Americans said: "You guys up there in Canada, in the wild and woolly North, subsidize quite a bit." With that, Ambassador Reisman brought out a lot of the information my colleague mentioned today and much more. Had my friend from Essex-Windsor had two hours, he could have probably filled them very easily speaking about the subsidization that goes on in the United States. The Americans fast came to reality after the Canadian negotiators said: "Wait a minute. You subsidize down here as well. Let us sit down and talk about this." The Americans said: "We didn't know you had all that information. Let us sit down over a period of time and try to come to a conclusion about what a subsidy is, when a subsidy is a subsidy, when does it become an unfair trade practice, and when is a regional development, just that", and so on.
Both sides have agreed to sit down for a five-year period and, if they have not reached a conclusion at that time, they will sit down for a further two years to discuss the subsidy programs of both countries, including state subsidies and municipal subsidies about which the Hon. Member spoke about and all subsidies within our respective Governments in Canada and the United States. There are certain items, as was the case in the negotiations on the free trade agreement, that will be the policy of this Government not to negotiate away.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
There is a wish list from the United States that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and his Leader like to read around the country as if it were gospel. One minute they are knocking the Americans, and the next minute they are quoting the Americans as being gospel and saying "this is what will happen to us". It is a wish list and it takes two to negotiate. I think people understand that.
The Hon. Member spoke about the defence programs in the United States as being a form of regional development and subsidy. That is true. It is in Canada as well. It was treated that way by the Liberal Government. It is treated that way with the frigate programs.


Steven W. Langdon: Smaller, much smaller.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member refers to a smaller size. It certainly is. We are dealing with the largest country in the world that is, on many fronts, protecting the rights of shipping in the Persian Gulf and so on in which Canada does not participate. To compare the two defence initiatives is like comparing David and Goliath. It is not the same thing at all. I agree.
I want now to get on to the first amendment about which my friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry spoke. This is the Baucus-Danforth amendment that everybody speaks about as being such a terrible thing. I will provide evidence today, Mr. Speaker, that the Baucus-Danforth amendment is nothing but puffery. It is smoke and mirrors, I believe. The U.S. Government already had the powers which Baucus-Danforth gave. This was more for the folks back home than it was to do anything effective. I will also read into the record why we believe we have the answer. This is what I said in committee when giving testimony:
The Baucus-Danforth amendment does not extend new powers to the United States administration; it only spells out a process for gathering of information on subsidies and the possible use of this information in the context of existing United States trade law.
Canada currently has the ability to gather information on subsidy practices, to examine the competitive position of an industry, and to take countervail or other trade actions as appropriate. Let me quote the section to which I am referring in the Trade Act of 1974 in the United States. This is found on page 23:85 of the testimony as found in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-130, dated August 4, 1988. I was speaking at that time to my friend from Essex-Windsor. Here is what section 305 of the U.S. Trade Act says:
The Trade Representative is required to make certain information available to any person requesting it. If information is not available from the Trade Representative or other federal agencies, the Trade Representative must, within 30 days, collect the information.
That was section 305 from 1974. The power was already there to collect the information and to do with it what one would. The Baucus-Danforth amendment is really puffery. It does not do anything new within the Act. It has different
wording, but the Americans have always been allowed to do the same thing.
In Canada the process is as follows, as I stated in committee:
If a Canadian producer is facing increased competition from subsidized imports and that competition is likely to cause deterioration in its competitive position, it can raise its concerns with the Minister of Finance.
In the United States it is raised with the trade representative. I went on to say:
He will talk to the Minister of International Trade.
In the United States it is with the Secretary of Commerce. The Minister of Finance, following consultations with the Minister for International Trade, will forward all reasonable requests to the Canadian Import Tribunal for an inquiry. Let me read some more of what I said:
Any decision by the Minister of Finance in forwarding the request does not prejudice or substitute for any action subsequently taken under the Special Import Measures Act or other trade legislation.
Here is the important part, Mr. Speaker:
The tribunal's reports will be available to the industry-
Free of charge. It will be collected by the Department and provided to the industry. It continues:
-and the industry will be able to request annual updates.
We have a comparable situation in Canada to this Baucus-Danforth amendment to the legislation in the United States. For the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry to stand up, again twisting the facts on this situation and saying that we have nothing comparable in Canada for our producers, is totally wrong. When he says that this Baucus-Danforth amendment kind of corners Canada and that we are the only one to be treated this way, it is total nonsense and the Hon. Member knows that. He fails to mention all this evidence that was presented at committee. He might not have been there at the particular time when it was presented. I do not know, but he could have read it afterward.


Lloyd Axworthy: It was my amendment that was being debated.


John Horton McDermid: Those are the facts on this instance. These two amendments that have been brought forward by the Liberal Party are totally unnecessary in this legislation because we already have them in our Canadian import tribunal legislation which protects Canadian producers from subsidized imports that are adversely affecting their industry. I will recommend to my colleagues that these two amendments be defeated.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That is sad news, Mr. Speaker. If the Parliamentary Secretary had understood the point being made on this side of the House, he would have recommended support. He missed the point entirely in his expose this afternoon. He did not inform the House about how the United States will proceed in its legislation when it comes to a report on Canadian practices.
August 22, 1988

Within 60 days after the date of the enactment of the Act the U.S. is now advancing, but not later than December 18, 1988, the United States trade representative shall submit to Congress a report identifying, to the maximum extent practicable, major current Canadian practices and the legal authority for such practices that, in the opinion of the United States trade representatives, are not in conformity with the agreement and require a change of Canadian law and regulation, policy, or practice to enable Canada to conform with its international obligations under the agreement. This is sufficient not only to make us worried but to have us see the absolute necessity of taking an action to provide a balance to what the United States legislation is developing. This is why, when the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) spoke this morning about counterbalancing the U.S. legislation, he put forward a very convincing case.
We see something developing on two fronts. The United States domestic trade legislation developing in 1988 is stronger than any legislation it has ever had before. Second, U.S. legislation is becoming much stronger in relation to Canadian legislation.
For instance-and I regret very much that the Parliamentary Secretary had to leave-the United States legislation contains paragraph 409(b)(3) which requests annual reports on Canadian practices in any particular sector. It is quite true that this matter was debated in committee on August 4, 1988. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) raised it with the Parliamentary Secretary, and the discussion established the fact that the legislation available to the United States would permit it to offer information and valuable information to American industry.
This point was made on the same day by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry when he put to the committee the fact that the investigation will be carried out in the United States upon the request of the industry affected, at the expense of the administration and not at the expense of the industry. It will no longer be required that injury be proven, as apparently was the case until now, but simply that deterioration in the competitive position of the United States is proven. I do not need to explain the difference between injury and deterioration. We in Canada must prove serious injury caused by imports.
If the United States petition were unsuccessful in this procedure, then the U.S. industry could go through any other trade remedy or law on the same issue because we do not have the same guarantees in Bill C-130. Very clearly, industry in the U.S. can petition the United States trade representative to do its work for it. This means the representative will do all the investigation into Canadian imports and whether they are subsidized. That provides an enormous opportunity for possible harassment because it will be cost-free to U.S. industry. It does not have to spend the money developing the research or putting together the information. It gets the Government to do it for it.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The purpose of Motion No. 39, as proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, is in a way to reply to this piece of U.S. law. It provides that we in Canada would have an arrangement that would be similar and would put our industry in a position that would be parallel or at least comparative to the position the American industry will be in as a result of that legislation.
With respect to any Act, policy, or practice in Canada that is identified in the annual report submitted under this section in U.S. law, the United States representative has the power to include a number of measures, all related to information, it is true, though we know how important information is in trade matters and in competition. For instance, information with respect to the action taken regarding such Act, policy, or practice including but not limited to any action under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, any action under Section 307 of the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 and negotiations or consultations, whether on a bilateral or multilateral basis, can be included.
The combined effect of these two amendments would be to give us a chance to compete with the legislation south of the border which will give American competitors a very strong position with respect to knowledge about us. I would be very surprised to see government Members not taking into account the importance of these two amendments. I fail to understand why the Parliamentary Secretary, with his rather superficial analysis of the amendments, would simply slough it off as though it were something of secondary importance. It is of basic importance, in the light of legislative momentum that is being developed south of the border, that we equip ourselves with the legislative teeth that are essential in order to function.
Let me give some examples of what the legislation south of the border will provide the U.S. industry. There will be a working group to write a report within two years on the nature of the subsidies in Canada. Hon. Members will recall that the Parliamentary Secretary informed us that subsidies will be the subject of discussion in the next five years. There is a provision for a working group to write these kinds of reports on Canadian subsidies. In the Canadian legislation, there is nothing on this subject. There are no such provisions.
On the American side, industry can petition the United States trade representatives to carry out investigations on Canadian industry. On the Canadian side, all we have is Cabinet petitioning a tribunal. In other words, industry in Canada will have to undertake a political action rather than administrative action. It will have to initiate political pressures which, as we know, are time consuming and not as speedy as the petitioners may like them to be. Again, there is another advantage on the U.S. side.
Third, the U.S. industry would not have to prove injury, as we have already heard from the intervention of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I see you are giving me a signal that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your indulgence.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, since the proposal for this so-called free trade agreement was brought forward, Members of Parliament and the people of Canada have been deluged with a barrage of so-called factual information from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), from cabinet Ministers, from that great negotiator, Mr. Simon Reisman, and from innumerable editorials in newspapers like The Globe and Mail of Toronto. The information was, first of all, about all the advantages that will accrue to the people of this country if we go ahead and complete the deal. Second, they warned us of all the things we Canadians will have to do to get our act together to get rid of practices incompatible with the way we will be required to do things after this agreement is signed. No mention is made by Mr. Reisman or cabinet Ministers or editorial writers about the things we are being lectured on, things we will have to do, ways we will have to change with respect to our economic life, things which are going on and will continue to go on in the U.S.
For example, we have had meetings of provincial premiers to discuss what we need to do to eliminate some of the ways in which provincial Governments, particularly some of the "have not" provinces, give advantage to companies in their own province doing business with the provincial Government or any of its agencies. Yet we find, according to information supplied to us by our own Department of International Trade, that 48 of the 50 states in the U.S. have legislation which ensures that when the State is making a purchase of goods or services, an advantage of up to 5 per cent will be given to any company located in the state making the purchase. If they impose a 5 per cent penalty against every other state in the U.S., can anyone really believe that they will not impose the same kind of penalty on Canadian companies wanting to do business with those states, regardless of this agreement? Of course there is nothing in this agreement to prevent that.
How many times have we been told that many, if not all our regional development programs, will have to be set aside when we finalize this trade agreement? The Hon. Member across the way shakes his head. I remember not so long ago when the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec, through some very substantial financing, helped with the modernization of the GM plant in Quebec. We were told that once we had this free trade agreement we could not do that kind of thing because it would constitute an unfair practice. I am sure that if the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia were to propose to help financially in the opening of a new coal mine in Nova Scotia, the coal mining interests in the U.S. would say that was illegal and improper because it would be contrary to the provisions of the free trade agreement. There is talk now about major investment by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba in upgrading and modernizing the pulp and paper plant at The Pas in that province.
This country, particularly the "have not" areas, have been helped immeasurably by regional development programs which will be endangered if and when this agreement is passed. The reason I raise this is that we have not heard a word publicly from our negotiators, from the editorial writers, from Mr. Reisman, or anyone else about the fact that the Americans do exactly the same thing. I have here a document entitled "U.S. Incentives for Construction of Foreign-Owned Vehicle and Satellite Parts Plants", prepared in the Department of International Trade. It was prepared by Mr. J. D. Miller, Planning and Analysis Division, Automotive, Marine and Rail Section, dated April 25, 1986. In the few minutes I have I am going to put on the record not my version of the facts but the facts contained in this document prepared by a senior public servant working for the Government of Canada. Let me try to summarize some of what he reports.
U.S. incentives for construction of foreign owned vehicle and satellite parts plants have included the Honda plant in Ohio and the Japanese supplier plants to Honda. For the motorcycle plant, incentives such as state grant number one, $5.2 million; state grant number two, $11.1 million. Union country tax abatement, present value of $1,004 million.
For their car engine plant, Shelby County tax abatement, $850,000. State training grant arrangements not yet made. For the car assembly plant, state grants, $74 million. City waste treatment plant, $7.5 million. Union County tax abatement, present value $4,259 million.
I do not have the time to go on with all the details, but let me turn now to what they have done for the Volkswagen plant in Pennsylvania. Loan from the State of Pennsylvania, present value of $25 million based on an interest rate of 8.5 per cent, a very favourable rate. Road construction, $20 million federal exempt tax bond. Railway construction, $10 million bond, likely federal tax exempt. Employee training grants, $3.8 million.
We can turn to the Mazda plant in Flatrock, Michigan. Tax abatement worth $101 million. To upgrade the roads, sewers, and water lines, $25 million. For the Nissan plant in Tennessee, according to a study done by the University of Tennessee, the estimated value of the subsidy, $70 million. Assistance for building the natural gas line, sewer improvements, water improvements, $20 million.
In the State of Illinois, the Diamond Star motor plant, a joint Mitsubishi-Chrysler project, the state acquired the land for $11 million. Pollution control state subsidy just less than $10 million. They classified it as a foreign trade sub-zone facility which will mean a subsidy of between $29 million and $60 million over the next ten years. Job training paid for by the state, $40 million over the next three to five years; most of that, incidentally, coming from the federal Government of the United States.
Toyota Motor Company in Georgetown, Kentucky: the state paid $30 million to acquire and prepare the site. Again they

August 22, 1988
classed it as a foreign trade sub-zone facility and that is worth $35 million to $70 million over the next ten years.
A very valid question could be asked of the people of Canada or the people of the U.S: Why is it necessary for the people, through their federal, state, provincial, or local Governments, to subsidize automobile companies which are among the most profitable corporations in the world? That is a very legitimate question.
Of course these multinational corporations have no loyalty to any particular country. They are interested in maximizing their profits as best they can and playing one country off against the other. If Canada or the United States will not help the construction of new plants through subsidies, the plants will not be built in Canada or the United States but rather in Taiwan, Brazil, the Philippines, or anywhere where the wages are lower and the taxes paid by the corporations are lower. One cannot blame the companies. Their main purpose is to make as big a profit on their investment as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the debate this afternoon and particularly to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon). It seems to me that my colleague has done a lot of hard work in this area. As far as subsidies are concerned, he is really catching on to the real situation. I congratulate him. He has given us figures this afternoon which should ease the fear of all those people who have been saying that Canadian subsidies are going to be attacked by the United States and we are going to be in great difficulty.
A few months ago the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade travelled across Canada to hear the concerns of people about the preliminary agreement. As it turned out, the final agreement was very little different. It was certainly not different in any major way from the preliminary agreement which the committee studied.
As we travelled the country we heard that we would not be able to subsidize any more and that our regional development programs would have to go, that those things would not be allowed under the free trade agreement. We heard that the Americans would challenge us and destroy Canada. It mattered not that the numbers involved did not in any way bear that out.
The committee took a quick look-quick because some members of the committee were not interested in studying it in depth-at the fishing case. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the American industry challenged us on 52 to 57 federal-provincial and provincial programs which they charged were subsidies. Unemployment insurance was among those.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Everyone made a big fuss about that. It did not take long for the Americans to throw that out. They knew that that was not a subsidy in the sense that anyone has used it.
Of the 57 some 5.6 per cent might have been charged to offset that subsidy. Of course, none of the 57 were in any way a subsidy because, as the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor said, the Americans subsidize far more than do we. At last we are getting some perspective in this debate. It is about time.
We heard that our social programs would be challenged because of these subsidies. As we travelled across the country we heard that we would lose our industry because we would not be able to have these subsidies and would not be able to have regional development. That was spreading fear, as much of this debate has been. I am delighted that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is now beginning to put proper things on the record. He has said that the Americans subsidize far more than do we. We tried in vein for weeks to tell the people the real truth but were not getting very far. At last, the Member has said that it is the Americans who subsidize. Canada does too, of course.
The Member who spoke before me said that we would not be able to subsidize certain things in the Maritimes. I want to remind all Members of this House that the value of the subsidy that would be charged is based on the total life of the subsidy, the total life of the plant, and the total amount of production over that period. When we consider those figures we will find that the subsidy is very small and would probably run at 1 per cent or 2 per cent. The Americans, of course, subsidize far more extensively than that.
We have no concerns about regional development programs because, as we heard the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor say today, the Americans do it in a different way. They make no bones about the fact that they subsidize. Why then are we Canadians so fearful? Why are we backing away from a real study over a five to seven year period of what subsidies really are? I have heard opposition Members say that when these definitions are complete Canada would be the loser. At last today we heard who the loser may well be. It is likely, Sir, to be the United States of America rather than Canada.
Why would the United States want to challenge us any more extensively after the free trade agreement is in operation than they do now? They have the right to challenge us now and they do challenge us now. We have the right to challenge them and we do challenge them now. The free trade agreement does not change the right to challenge. It changes the rules of the challenge and what comes out of it. We have nothing to fear from that.
I would like to conclude by emphasizing that the last two speakers have done us a great service in this House by resolving some of the fear which has been spread in the debate over the last few months. The standing committee heard it and tried to put it down. Perhaps now we can set it to rest.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Americans subsidize more than do we. Canada is on the good end of this. If we look at the numbers we will see that we have nothing to fear. The free trade agreement makes it better for us because at least the rules of the challenge will be clearer. Sometimes debate in this House indeed clarifies things. Again 1 congratulate my colleague from Essex-Windsor for at last getting it straight.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) has just concluded his remarks by saying there is nothing to fear on the part of Canada and Canadians in entering into the agreement which was recently signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States. Yet there is an extraordinary amount of fear in the communities and on the streets across this country. One of the reasons for that fear is being tested today.
Motions Nos. 39 and 93, standing in the name of the Liberal trade critic, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), are important amendments. The failure of this Government and this administration to embrace these amendments is a classic example of why Canadians are very leery about the negotiating stance taken with the Americans by our Canadian officials.
If one was to check every public poll which has been taken in the last number of years, particularly public opinion surveys which asked Canadians who received the best end of the deal, the results would unfortunately show overwhelmingly that the United States is the winner and Canadians are the losers. Motions Nos. 39 and 93 recognize whose interests we should be protecting and promoting. Clearly, we in this Parliament should be defending and promoting the interests of our own society first. When it comes to economics, we should advance the cause of our own Canadian industries in any talks we have, whether it be with the Americans or with other members of the international community.
Therefore, when we see in the American enabling legislation with respect to this trade agreement that the United States requires the U.S. trade representative to submit a report to Congress outlining the major practices in Canada which are not in conformity with the agreement, when we see Section 303 which creates the authority on the American side to have this done on an ongoing and permanent basis, and when we see that Section 303 in fact provides for regular and annual reporting and in addition requires the U.S. trade representative to undertake corrective countervailing action, we say that if the Canadian Government wants to proceed with this agreement, we either have to match the American clauses within the FDA or, if we are not going to allow the same protection to our own Canadian interests, we must negotiate with the Americans to remove it. What we are saying is that not to do either would be very irresponsible. We should not sit back while the Americans protect themselves, while the Americans try to provide that window with respect to looking
at Canadian exports and harassing Canadian exports because they are a detriment to American industry.
Do Canadians not have the right to expect their Government to include in our enabling legislation the same vehicles by which American industry can trigger their elected representatives? Of course, every Canadian expects his or her own Government to stand up for our national interests and concerns, but this Government does not. This Government is prepared to yield to the Americans. It is prepared to stand idly by while the American elected representatives put in place a mechanism whereby safeguards will be offered to their American industries which we will not have.
The Government is not willing to enter into these like-minded clauses on our own side of the trade agreement. It does not have the fortitude of its convictions to try to sit down with the Americans and make it that equal playing field to which so many government members allude.
What we are talking about is giving Canadian industries the same rights, the same mechanisms, the same opportunities that American industries were granted by the foresight of their negotiators around the negotiating table some months ago. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry moved Motions Nos. 39 and 93, to create those very like-minded clauses in our enabling legislation which would allow Canadian officials to monitor regularly U.S. policies and practices with a view to determining whether they deny benefits that should accrue to Canada and to report these findings to the Parliament of Canada. It would also permit Canadian businesses and workers to petition the trade tribunal in investigating U.S. policies and practices and allow us to get into the countervailing positions the Americans will no doubt, without any hesitation, exercise if they believe their interests are being underminded by some aspect of the trade agreement.
We are saying that the status quo as written in the trade agreement surrounding these particular issues is not good enough. We are asking, as we have asked repeatedly and repeatedly it has been denied for the Government to sit down again with the Americans and negotiate those areas which appear to us to be very lopsided in favour of the Americans. If the Government does not have the fortitude to sit down at the table with the American negotiators, then at the very least let us try to equalize the balance. We are not saying to tilt it in favour of Canadians.
We are not suggesting that we take the Americans to the cleaners or to be anti-American. All we are saying is that we are one of two negotiators, and the other negotiating side has seen fit to offer some safeguard whereby their American interests can be maximized in the face of their opinion about Canadian exports. What is so wrong in asking for reciprocal legislation on our side in order to equalize the balance and to send a message to the Americans that we are not going to take their aggression on any Canadian exports lying down. They have the vehicle, they have the ammunition, but so should we.
August 22, 1988

I believe that is very important in negotiating any treaty or any agreement with any international partner to send them a clear message that we are prepared to act and that we have the means with which to act. That is to what Motions Nos. 39 and 93 are speaking. I believe they are fundamentally important. I also believe that the principle at stake is that we should be protecting our territory and our country just as well as the Americans have protected theirs. That is a principle about which all Canadians, I believe, will be completely unanimous. In fact, it is an expectation and demand that Canadian citizens place on their Government when negotiating treaties, that Canada gets a fair shake and that we are not put in the position of being subservient to any other country.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, we just heard a rather impassioned and eloquent statement about the need for protection. We have been told that these two amendments deal with protection and equity. I have a different explanation.
I think the two amendments are on the table today for what that Party believes to be good political reason. The definition of good political reason seems to me to be simply the utilization of propaganda techniques. Propaganda somehow or other to the Liberal Party and the NDP as it concerns the free trade arrangement seems to be their definition of good.
What is the essence of propaganda? It is to create fear, to create a smear. Disinformation lies at its heart. The reason the two amendments are on the table is to create a climate and an opportunity in the House to create disinformation. To stand up to say that these amendments provide protection which does not already exist is disinformation. It is simply not true. The first amendment is totally unnecessary. In a few minutes I think I can explain why. The second amendment runs against the agreement itself. It has nothing to do with protection.
The second amendment, Motion No. 93, simply violates the agreement. Then we hear: "We do not stand up for the national interest. Therefore we should do exactly what the Americans have done. We do not have the courage to stand in this Chamber. We as a Government do not represent Canadian interests. Therefore, we should do what the Americans do".
This is a different country. This is Canada. This is not the United States of America. We have a different system of governing. We have a different Constitution. We have a different set-up for our courts. We do not elect our judges. We appoint our judges, either for life or until the age of 75. We do that because we separate our judiciary in a different way. This is Canada. The legislation should be Canadian legislation to implement an international agreement, an agreement that we have reached with another country. We should inspect the agreement. If we do not like it, then we should vote against it, but we should not unilaterally violate it.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I lived in the City of Calgary when a federal Government unilaterally changed the policies that affected my city and my province, throwing people out of work. It created suicides and turmoil because a federal Government broke agreements that existed over a long period of time, without negotiation.
What the second amendment invites us to do is to break an agreement, part of a whole, part of a package that was arrived at. How was it arrived at? It was with the use of sectoral advisory groups. The most knowledgeable people in the country advised the Government every step of the way. If the area dealt with manufacturing, we had manufacturing advice. The same was true with respect to agriculture. They advised what would be good for Canada, what would be acceptable, and what would not be good for Canada.
To propose in the House that we violate the agreement is insanity. We worked hard at arranging an agreement that would be good for Canada. It will also be good for the United States of America, otherwise it would not have entered into it. Both countries see it as good, but it is a step into some unknown territory in some ways. We had the wisdom to insist on mechanisms that allow the agreement to evolve and develop, to be changed. We have processes in place such as the Canada-U.S. Trade Tribunal. On a daily basis it looks at how the agreement is evolving. Is it good for Canada? Is it good for the United States of America? Is there some little glitch in it that should be changed?
What we have done is put a process in place-and the Opposition never speaks about this. We have a six-month cancellation clause. If it is bad for Canada, we can get out of it unilaterally on six months notice. Members of the Opposition do not talk about that.
What they do is bring forward an amendment and do not tell Canadians that Chapter 18 in the agreement puts in place a Canada-U.S. Trade Commission to supervise on a daily basis the implementation of the agreement. If there are problems, they will surface and be worked out. That is the over-all sense of what is going on here.
Let us come to the next piece of legislation which already exists in Canada. We have a Special Imports Measures Act. We are not dealing with that today because it already exists. Section 48 of that Act gives inquiry powers to the Canadian Import Tribunal.
The NDP Member who spoke a few moments ago spoke about subsidies in the United States to automobile plants and whatever. This Government is so far ahead of the Opposition. If that is happening today, it can be complained about today. The tribunal can inquire into it today. The same will be true tomorrow. The same will be true the minute the new legislation is put in place. That does not change as a consequence of the legislation before us today. This Government has in place an inquiry mechanism, the Canadian Import Tribunal, to look into complaints about subsidies and unfair practices. It does not need an amendment. It is there.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I bring to the attention of the House the Tariff Board Act which is in place today. It is the law of the land. It has broad inquiry powers related to tariffs and tariff imposition. I refer in particular to Section 4 of that Act.
Before the House is Bill C-l 10 which has been on our plate for quite some time now. It has been filibustered by the Opposition. What does it do? It provides an even better mechanism than the Canadian Import Tribunal. That is what it does. We are trying to improve and we are out ahead. We started months ahead of time. With a little co-operation from the Opposition, getting away from propaganda, Canadians will understand. They go across the line and on many items in many places prices are lower.
A senior citizen can exist in comfort on a fixed income with a higher standard of living because prices are lower. This agreement and the enabling legislation is about lower prices in Canada, less costs to raise a child, less costs for a single mother, less costs for a senior citizen. That is what we are trying to do for Canadians-trying to reduce their costs.
At the same time reputable economic groups in the country tell us that there will be more jobs. The Government has created a million and a quarter jobs in four years. Here is another chunk with 100,000, 200,000, 300,000. No one knows for sure. But we know for sure that prices will be lower. We know for sure that there will be more jobs.
If we look at the history of all smaller nations which have entered into arrangements with larger nations, arrangements of this kind since the Second World War, we see that in every single case there are lower prices, more jobs, better paying jobs for the smaller nation. It is good for a less populous nation to enter into a trading arrangement with a larger nation.
If Canadians care about Canada, if Canadians are worried about dependence on the United States, then they should look at history. Today approximately 80 per cent of what we export, representing approximately three million jobs in this country, goes to the United States of America. If it sneezes, gets a cold, or rolls over, we feel it.
By entering into this trading arrangement we are doing something that other countries did, for example, the European Economic Community. That is what we are engaged in. What happens is that the trading dependence on the larger nation goes down. We will not end up more dependent on that larger nation; we will end up less dependent. Why, Mr. Speaker? When we can sell what it is we produce into a market that is ten times as large as the one available today, on a guaranteed basis, the cost of production in Canada goes down. The things we make and use go down, and they become more competitive on the international market-place. We can sell to Europe, to South America, and to Japan, because we can make enough of something, whatever it is, to get the cost per unit down and increase the market. In 20 years from today, instead of being dependent upon the U.S. for 80 per cent of our exports,
perhaps it will be 70 per cent or 65 per cent. Our ability to trade and to sell in world markets gets better because our costs are lower.
I urge Members of the Chamber to defeat these amendments. They are here on our table for propaganda reasons, not protection reasons. In the case of the first amendment, it is not necessary. In the case of the second amendment, it breaks the agreement. This Chamber should not pass an amendment which breaks the agreement.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join again in the debate on some of the motions. As the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard) pointed out a few moments ago, a debate in the House serves to clarify things. It is important that it be a full and open debate. In response to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago, opening great hopes for Canadians, there should be some close consideration of the industrial history of this country, and recognition of what is happening these days in the pre-trade deal climate with more and more consolidation of control of advertising companies, admittedly not manufacturing companies, but this deal opens the door to trade and services. At a time when that is happening, what can one say about having two great Canadian advertising agencies, ironically enough with political connections, one to the Liberal Party and the other to the Conservative Party, falling into close alignment with American companies.
In the globalization of business, one does not have stronger Canadian activities and enterprises being created in this context, instead one has companies being taken captive by American companies so that they will presumably never do anything outside Canada's borders and will recognize very clearly what is their territory.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not think carefully about the history of far too much of the manufacturing that has been carried on in this country over the years by subsidiaries of American companies. The fact is that these companies have been restricted in their trade policies so that they deal only with a parent or sell in Canada and are deliberately prevented from involving themselves in any other export trade. Surely that is a good part of the problem with Canadian industry. The closer tie to the United States represented by the trade deal will not bring us any gains at all.
The most important considerations this afternoon are a recognition of the Canadian situation in North America and in the world, what Americans do, what Canadians do, what Canadian and American industries do, how Governments deal with industries, and how our Government should have dealt with the situation that faced it over the last three years in arriving at this deal.
The motions before us, particularly Motion No. 39, will provide, if passed, for evidence on the subsidization of American industries to be made available to the Canadian
August 22, 1988

tribunal that deals with these matters. On both sides of the House it has been suggested that there is a great deal of subsidization of economic activity in the United States. Over the past three years that has not always been clear in the activities of the Conservative Government.
There has been a failure to recognize the extent to which American industry is driven by U.S. Government activities, particularly by what President Eisenhower called almost 30 years go "the military industrial complex", spending on research and development which strengthens American industry and which we all recognize spills into various areas of production, and recognition that that is as important as any element in the American industrial setting was surely necessary for any Canadian Government that wanted to deal with American activities. I mention that point very deliberately because if anything drove the Government on it was fear about American protectionism, and the particular actions undertaken by American Governments against Canadian industry.
We all know, some more keenly than others, and we in northern Ontario are keenly aware of American attacks twice in this decade on softwood lumber exports. Those in other parts of northern and southern Ontario are keenly aware of American attacks on Canadian steel exports to the United States. What did we have a Canadian Government do, the previous Minister for International Trade when the U.S. industry focused on softwood lumber? We did not see the Canadian Government fight the battle for Canadian producers all the way through, focusing on the realities of the Canadian industry and making it very clear to Americans that there was absolutely no basis for subsidies to be charged against the Canadian industry and for Canadian industry to be found to be unfairly subsidized against American producers. It would have been well worth saying to Americans that their crazy policy on driving the U.S. dollar up to very high levels against other currencies might make U.S. lumber producers uneconomic in comparison to Canadians. However, the Government did not fight the battle in 1986-87 through the U.S. courts and through the mechanisms that existed. Now, having created other mechanisms that are supposed to do the job, does one believe that is the case? I am not convinced that it will work.
The Government did not fight it through those means. Instead, it turned to the negotiations that led to a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber.
Whatever may be true in some other jurisdictions, we in Ontario have never regarded the timber that goes into the mills which is cut into lumber and exported to the United States as subsidized in the way the Americans charged us. In turning to the negotiations that produced this trade deal, this sell-out of Canadian interests on which the Government is now trying to put the best coloration with the paint that the Parliamentary Secretary was applying a few moments ago, he was not talking about U.S. subsidies at the time. In recognition of the importance of softwood lumber as a Canadian resource industry, the Government could have recognized that one area where there is massive subsidies of American production in the American
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
southwest is in the use of water at very low rates of cost. That water is charged to the growers at something under one fifth of what the water should actually be valued at.
I mention that advisedly, as I have before in the House, because if the American growers of vegetables, and particularly fruit, were charged a fair price for the water that they used, they would be much more careful in using it. If they were more careful in using water, they would be less tempted to turn to the possibility of getting water from Canada, and we in northern Ontario would not feel the same concern we do now about a massive sell-out of water resources through the deal, a sell-out which has been controversial in the House for months past and for which the Government has recognized there may be some danger and has responded to it.
In focusing on these particular instances of a failure on the part of the Government to fight the battle fairly for Canadian industry, by pointing out to the Americans where they subsidize, and by demonstrating in the American courts that we do not subsidize the Government in those particular instances demonstrated its failure to defend Canadian interests properly. So, recognizing those failures, we have every reason for supporting amendments of this sort. I am speaking now about my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus. We have every reason for supporting these amendments, particularly Motion No. 39, which would ensure that the evidence for subsidization is available to the board and provides a fair basis for determining what kinds of adjustment policies shall be followed. It may not be easy for those in an industry or for individuals even in a business association or a union to gather this evidence, but government could dedicate the resources to finding it.
In relating to subsidies for adjustment policies, I will deal with one of the most difficult points of this whole matter. The Government recognizes that there will be massive dislocations resulting from the trade deal. There are various estimates. One of the Government's own estimates has been a dislocation of 800,000 persons from jobs. As far as justifying that, we have been given a net gain of 125,000 jobs over 10 years as the amount of new jobs that we would have over and above all of those lost. Eight hundred thousand jobs involves a lot of people. These are full-time jobs. When these are good jobs that Canadians have lost, what is the Government going to do to ensure that those who lose their jobs have some kind of assistance in obtaining the new jobs that are wanted?
It is very nice, and the easiest thing in the world is to denigrate some of these jobs, to depreciate them, and to say that the people who are doing this work will be able to find new and exciting jobs in that high-tech future that the trade deal involves. Will that sort of thing read very well in the Spadina riding of downtown Toronto five years from now? What about the people who have lost their jobs in the clothing industry and are not able to get in on this high-tech future that

August 22, 1988
Canada-V.S. Free Trade Agreement
has been promised? It is without any provision for adjustments, with no promises made, with a very real danger because of mishandling of the subsidy issue, that any kind of action that the federal Government takes, that conceivably a provincial Government takes, is going to be regarded as one more unfair subsidy. What do Canadian workers have to look forward to in that kind of situation but a disaster that has been brought to them by the Mulroney Government?
So, recognizing the depths of disaster that could strike us, there is good reason to support this amendment, particularly Motion No. 39, get it into the Bill, as long as the Act is going to survive, and someone has noted the six-month termination clause. The Parliamentary Secretary was quite right. That is one that, at worst, we expect to see used. Let us get rid of the thing, if it ever passes, and get ourselves back to focusing on Canadian interests, building up Canadian strengths, as the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested we should do. He thinks that the deal will do it. I do not think that it will, but a Canadian Government certainly should be about those objectives. A New Democratic Government would do so.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have a chance to speak on Motion No. 39, because I think it is the report of the joint Senate and House of Representatives committee which first alerted us to what was being planned for the surveillance and monitoring of Canadian industry. This ultimately resulted with the United States legislation passed as the Baucus-Danforth amendment, which provides for a whole new regime to intimidate and to monitor Canadian industry. This is a very significant development because there has always been that situation where we had to have a coalition of groups and companies and so on to petition against an industry in Canada and to be willing to put up the money to do it. Certainly, in the free trade deal and the Baucus-Danforth amendment that whole situation changes.
In the softwood lumber case, for instance, we had the American Coalition for Fair Lumber Pricing that had to hire lawyers and assemble a group to petition the United States Government and to carry that petition through the Department of International Trade Commission to the Department of Commerce and so on. On the Canadian side, we had to do the same thing. The Canadian Forestry Association spent as high as $5 million or $6 million on reports to fight it through the courts, under this United States amendment, the Baucus-Danforth amendment. Now they will not have to go to all that expense, and it is very expensive. They will simply have an industry petition the United States trade representative to carry out an investigation, so there will be constant harassment regardless of how much injury there is or how much difficulty there is for the Canadian industry concerned. This is really the problem with the free trade deal. It is a bad deal as far as Canadian exporters are concerned.
At the present time with the GATT provisions, if an industry is going to be assaulted with a countervail or a dumping duty, if the case is strong against it, two weeks after
the petition has been filed one can go to the GATT and get a ruling, sometimes within four or five months. Many of our petitions have been very successful to the GATT over the last few years. Yet, with the free trade deal, we sort of set that option aside. I know that the Government will argue that it is still possible to go to the GATT. In the instances of the GATT ever hearing a case where there are two consenting partners in a free trade deal hearing a case, it just does not happen, and it will never happen. The difference for the Canadian industry is that when one goes to the GATT, the Government pays the shot.
When one fights it through the United States International Trade Commission, the Department of Commerce, to the International Trade Court, one pays the shot. It is any forest product that operates in my riding or the softwood lumber companies that operate in your riding, Mr. Speaker, that paid the shot in 1985 and 1986 on the softwood lumber case. They were shot down by their own Government about a month before the deal was consummated, by withdrawing the petition and the complaint to GATT. That is the way that the deal is going to be in the future.
If a Canadian industry has a countervail or dumping duty against it, what it has to do is get all other sectors of the industry to put together the money to fight it through the United States trade dispute mechanism and ultimately to the binational commission, which will have no power to rule on the law itself but just to see if the law was applied regularly and whether they were in conformity with the precedents and the practices in the case.
Members of the Reagan administration, which practically privatized the whole system of government in Washington by increasing the number of lawyers from something like 20,000 to 45,000, are just rubbing their hands in glee. They know that never again will a Canadian group be taking something to the GATT, paid for by the Government and Canada and accompanied by its lawyers. They will be going through the whole legal rigmarole in Washington at tremendous expense, for a longer period of time. Besides going through all the steps of the International Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce, there is up to a year beyond that for the binational commission.
What the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is attempting to do is say: "Look, if you guys in the United States are going to set up a deal where any industry can just petition the U.S. Trade Representative's office and start a harassment of the Canadian industry, if that is sauce for the goose then it is sauce for the gander, and we will have the same thing for Canada." That is what the amendment before us today does.
I cannot imagine why the Government would not want to give our industries in Canada the same powers. They would not be used very often because most of the harassment is by
August 22, 1988

the United States. It was an historical event when we got a countervail duty on corn. We need to have the power so that if the softwood lumber industry, the raspberry industry, the steel industry, or the fishing industry started an investigation of Canada, we would have the power to do the same thing and doing it without costing our industry a lot of money. The Parliamentary Secretary argued that the powers are already there.
Let us do a comparison. Under the Baucus-Danforth amendment the U.S. industry can petition the United States Trade Representative for an investigation of the Canadian industry. Under the existing Canadian legislation only Cabinet can petition the tribunal. Governments do not do this often, but clearly industry likes to. If this U.S. legislation is implemented, and if we think we have had a lot of harassment in the past, we will have to face the fact that we will have an infinite amount in the future. What happened with the dumping duty on potash? Canadian potash producers did not appeal to the International Trade Court in Washington or New York. They did not take the matter to the GATT. They just sawed off a deal with the Department of Commerce in Washington or the International Trade Commission. Now potash which normally used to sell for $50 or $60 a tonne goes into the United States, but it goes in only if it is above $92 a tonne, which is a percentage of the dumping duty applied in that decision by the ITC in the United States. We should give our Canadian industry the same powers to ask for an investigation of a U.S. industry; in other words, level the playing field.
As well, the U.S. industry does not have to prove injury, only deterioration in its competitive position. Under Canadian legislation the industry must prove serious injury caused specifically by the imports.
Surely this is a reasonable amendment to be a mirror image or an approximate mirror image of the legislation which has already been agreed to in Washington for their side of the deal.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the amendments in Motions Nos. 39 and 93 deserve the support of this House. These amendments would add new authority, especially Motion No. 39, to the Special Import Measures Act. This Motion is key because it would mirror the type of authority that exists in both the United States free trade agreement implementing legislation and the omnibus trade Bill. If the Conservatives are not willing to accept the amendments that put into place the type of authority envisaged in these amendments, they are admitting, in effect, that they are unwilling to stand up to the United States by employing the same strategy the United States has and will employ if the Government's trade deal with the United States should ever go into effect.
What is the strategy, Mr. Speaker? It seems very clear if we look at Section 101 and Section 303 of the American implementing legislation. Section 101 requires the U.S. Trade Representative to submit a report to Congress outlining major
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canadian practices which are not in conformity with the free trade agreement by no later than December 15, 1988. Section 303 of the U.S. legislation creates authority to continue this monitoring and reporting function permanently, so there is a continuous surveillance, subtle and perhaps not so subtle form of harassment of Canadian exports to the United States that would be in effect if the trade legislation implementing the trade deal ever becomes law.
We have to look at Section 409 of the American legislation, the Baucus-Danforth amendment also. It is clear looking at Section 409 of the American trade legislation that the United States has developed a whole new process of trade harassment for Canadian exporters. Under Section 409, American industries may petition the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate any Canadian industry and retaliate against that industry or any other Canadian exports if the U.S. industry deteriorates in its competitive position. I use the words "deteriorate" and "competitive position" because these are exact quotes from the Baucus-Danforth amendment. The Canadian industry is defined by the U.S. administration as being "subsidized".
In other words, any American industry which is not competitive for whatever reason with a Canadian industry, and which is considered subsidized by the American administration according to its definition, can be identified under the Baucus-Danforth amendment, Section 409 of the U.S. implementing legislation and, therefore, apply for retaliation against Canadian industry. By the way, Mr. Speaker, there is no injury test. It is not necessary for the complaining American industry to demonstrate that it has in any way been injured by Canadian competition. Moreover, even if the American industry is unsuccessful in its petition under this amendment, it can still harass Canadian exporters through all the current American trade laws.
Canadian legislation in this Bill C-130 does not mirror in any way the American legislation. This Conservative Government has, as a result, put Canadian industry at a great disadvantage, vis-a-vis the Americans, assuming this trade deal should ever go into effect. Once again the Government is willing to put into effect a trade deal which is tilted toward the United States and against the interests of Canada.
The amendments we are proposing would mirror and match what the Americans are intending to do by their legislation. Motion No. 39 would create two basic types of Canadian legislative authority. The first would have Canadian officials regularly monitor American policies and practices with a view to determining whether they deny benefits that should accrue to Canada and to report regularly these findings to Parliament so that they can receive a public airing. This motion would go further by requiring Canadian officials to initiate countervailing action should they determine that Canadian benefits are in fact being denied by American policies and practices.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Motion No. 39 would also permit Canadian businesses and workers to petition our trade tribunal into investigating American policies and practices which are unfairly causing a deterioration in Canadian business. Should investigation determine that the American policies and practices are in fact creating unfair trading conditions, then our Government would be required to take corrective action.
Surely the Government should be willing to accept an amendment giving Canadian authorities these kinds of powers if it is sincere in saying that it wants a balance in benefits and responsibilities between Canada and the United States under this trade deal. If it is not willing to accept this amendment, it is admitting that it is quite ready to sell out Canadian interests in a desperate desire to get this trade Bill through and the deal connected with it put into law and implemented, even though it means allowing the United States to pass laws giving American businesses and exporters to Canada the authority to compel the American Government to harass Canadian exports for which there is no counterpart on the Canadian side.
Motion No. 39 would also allow Canada to introduce adjustment assistance for those workers and firms dislocated as a result of the free trade agreement. Every time we have said that if the Government is to go ahead with this deal which we think is bad for Canada, it should at least put into place measures which would help workers, firms, and communities that are dislocated as a result of this deal, the Government has backed away and said: "No, these measures are not necessary". Just last week, however, the provincial premiers met for their annual meeting and they unanimously said that Canada had to have an adjustment program for its workers before the free trade deal went into effect.
Even the Conservative premiers who are most committed to this deal said that there had to be an adjustment program. They do not agree with the Government when it claims that existing programs under unemployment insurance and retraining are enough. In this, the premiers are obviously correct. Even those premiers who are strong supporters of the deal see that there is bound to be very substantial dislocation if this deal goes into effect.
The Government has said that the Economic Council has forecast an additional 250,000 jobs. However, this is the net result over 10 years. The Economic Council also confirms that tens of thousands of workers will either lose their jobs completely or will lose their jobs if they do not get training to do jobs which will be very different or totally new. There is also the prospect that because of this deal, there will be no alternative jobs whatsoever in the regions where thousands of workers are now employed.
Premier Getty and Premier Devine have joined with all the other leaders of the provincial Governments in saying unanimously that the Government is wrong when it says that no adjustment program is required to account for the dislocation,
the harm, and the damage that will be done to tens of thousands of workers when the Government's trade deal is implemented. We want to make sure that the deal and the legislation implementing it would allow Canada to introduce adjustment assistance for workers or firms dislocated as a result of the Government's agreement with the United States. There has been no satisfactory explanation from the Government as to why, in a heartless and blind way, it is refusing to bring forward measures of adjustment to add to the programs already in place to help workers who, even in the opinion of the most committed supporters of the deal, will be dislocated and harmed if this deal goes into effect.
I also want to say a word about Motion No. 93 which would add to Motion No. 39-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired and there will not be any time for discussion of Motion No. 93.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Motions Nos. 39 and 93. I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry for bringing forward these motions. I am sure that any reasonable Member of Parliament would want to have this kind of change made to the Bill.
If the Government refuses to entertain this type of change, I think that would constitute an admission on the part of the Government that it is unwilling to stand up to the United States and is unwilling to avail itself of the same tools the United States has in dealing with issues involving trade disputes.
We should remember that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that the key objective of this trade deal we are talking about, as bad as it is, was to secure access to the United States market. I remind Hon. Members of the March 16, 1987 statement of the Prime Minister in which he said:
Our highest priority is to have an agreement that ends the threat to
Canadian industry from U.S. protectionists who harass and restrict our exports
through the misuse of trade remedy laws. Let me leave no doubt that first, a
new regime on trade remedy laws must be part of the agreement.
Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? He said that it must be part of the agreement. On April 2, 1987, the Prime Minister said to The Wall Street Journal'.
(U.S.) trade remedy laws can't apply to Canada. Period.
That seems pretty definite. If one did not know better, one would almost believe that the Prime Minister meant what he said on that day,


Maurice Brydon Foster: Oh, no.


Don Boudria: Well, maybe not quite that far, but almost. The Prime Minister made that commitment to the people of Canada. He said that the trade remedy laws with the United States could not apply to this country, that we had to be protected from that.
August 22, 1988

My colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry, the other Liberal Members of Parliament, and I are trying to ensure that Canada has tools available to it that will not go as far as what the Prime Minister has suggested, but will at least go a fair distance toward having an agreement which is even on both sides, or to use the American expression, will create a level playing field.
I know you are far too knowledgeable, Mr. Speaker, to be so naive as to believe that we did get guaranteed access to the U.S. market. Even if you did believe that, let me tell you what Clayton Yeutter, President Reagan's U.S. Trade Representative, said. He said:
The U.S. countervailing duty and anti-dumping laws, defined as U.S.
statutes, legislative history, regulations, administrative practice, and court
decisions-will remain intact and unchanged.
That is quite a bit different from what the Prime Minister told us in this House. He went on to say:
Hence U.S. petitioners will retain all their rights under existing U.S. laws as
Canadian industries will keep their rights under Canadian law.
When we do not have the same remedies to start with, it does not matter that we both keep what we had when we started. The fact is that one party is far bigger and stronger than the other and has far stronger trade remedy laws in any event. What we gained is little more than nothing. We say that even with this amendment the deal would be objectionable, but at least it would be somewhat improved. If the Government listened to us in this House and adopted a number of the amendments we are proposing, at least we would have better legislation, and then the deal would not be as offensive to Canadians as it otherwise is.
I know the time given to me is somewhat limited as Private Members' Hour will be starting shortly. I want to say in conclusion that all of my colleagues in this House should be supporting Amendment No. No 39 proposed by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry. With that, I will end my remarks and continue after Private Members' Hour is finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Robert Nesbitt Horner: that Bill C-264, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use) be read the third time and passed.
Illicit Drugs Promotion
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in debate on third reading of this Bill. You know from your experience that Private Members' Bills do not very often pass through this House. As a matter of fact, 1 believe that of about 300 Private Members' Bills submitted in this Parliament, probably only three have passed third reading.
I do not know what more can be said about this Bill. It is very small in content but extremely large and important in what it does for the youth of our nation. I have been working on it for approximately two and a half years. I have had assistance from the Association of Chiefs of Police, the RCMP, Parents Against Drugs, PRIDE, indeed all the organizations that feel this legislation is necessary.
The present situation is a contradiction in terms. We have outlawed cocaine, and rightly so. Yet in a thousand stores across Canada you can walk in and buy a cocaine free-basing system to make crack. This sends a contradictory message to the youth of this continent. Heroin, hashish and marijuana are all outlawed but you can walk in and buy a pipe to smoke them in any of those stores.
In dealing with the literature part of the Bill some Hon. Members of the Opposition have said that Alice in Wonderland would have to be banned because Alice was on a trip. Sherlock Holmes would have to be banned because he used cocaine or something like that. What we are talking about are magazines like High Times which promote drug use and tell young people life will be better if they use drugs. I have seen on store shelves books which tell you how to cheat your drug dealer, how to grow marijuana in your home, how to make money selling drugs.
People who sell drug paraphernalia and magazines are not all criminals. A lot of them are merchants who sell clothing, posters, souvenirs and many other different things. However, because there is a space in their store and there is a demand for this type of product, they have put in a supply. Assistant Commissioner Heaton of the RCMP, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, stated that if we really want to attack illicit drug use in Canada today, we should stop the sale of this drug paraphernalia.
I was in Washington recently speaking to the ombudsman involved with their program and she told me that 40 states have passed drug paraphernalia legislation. Some 400 American youths have come across to Canada on a visit, purchased drug paraphernalia and because of the American's zero tolerance program at the border, those young people have returned home with criminal records.
I have heard the horror stories that every Member of this House has heard. I have had constituents come up to me and say their daughter is 18 years old and she is in jail for a drug offence. I had a father come to me the other day and say he is worried about sending his son to camp, a ten-year-old boy, in case he was given drugs. The Peel Board of Education in my riding, the largest board of education in Ontario, did a survey which showed that 35 per cent of all young people over the age

August 22, 1988
Illicit Drugs Promotion
of 14 have tried drugs. I do not think we are going to stop illicit drugs by the passage of this Bill. I do not think we are going to get the kingpins. I do not think we are going to see any significant effect. However, I would urge every Member of this House who is thinking about himself and his family, as well as his country, to stand and vote in favour of passage of this legislation. It can do nothing but good, and the people of Canada want it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate this afternoon. This is the second time in two weeks that I have had that opportunity. I must say that had things gone my way and the way, presumably, of the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner), this Bill would have been completely dealt with two weeks ago when it was debated in the House. On April 12, 1988, I remember asking for unanimous consent to move immediately to third reading and pass the Bill that day. Unfortunately, the NDP decided not to give that unanimous consent and they also chose to speak against the Bill we have before us. I regret that very much and I hope they have had a change of heart over recent days.
Before going any further I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for proposing this Bill to us in this House. It is not often that we can deal with issues that cross party lines, good constructive issues involving our young people, and do so in a way which will benefit Canadians, all that without the partisan tone we have in this House from time to time. This is one of those happy occasions, and I am pleased to offer my support to the Bill.
I had the opportunity to meet earlier today with Professor Peter Appleton and his associate, Mr. Jacques Perras, of Carleton University. They spoke to me about some of this drug paraphernalia. Like many other Members in this House, I had heard of some of these products but was not too familiar with how so-called head shops operate.
Believe it or not, at a head shop within a 10-minute walk of this building one can actually buy baking soda with a little kit which explains how to free-base cocaine. Within a 10-minute walk of the Parliament Buildings here in Ottawa one can buy books and manuals on how to grow your own marijuana, how to use cocaine, how to use heroin, and how to use LSD.
This is not happening only in some out-of-the-way area, some rough and tough neighborhood of certain cities of the United States such as Detroit, Chicago, or downtown Miami. I am talking about Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I met some experts today who came to tell me more about the subject. They confirmed a number of things I knew already, but I must say they also made me realize even more the importance of the Bill tabled by the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner).
A Carleton University study tells us, Mr. Speaker, that 2 to 2.5 million Canadians use drugs on a regular basis, and that of this number, between 300,000 and 500,000 Canadians could be described as drug addicts. These statistics are very disturbing to all of us as parliamentarians and to the entire Canadian population.

I hope and trust that we will pass this Bill today. I hope that we will do that with the unanimous support of the House, with a change of heart of some Hon. Members who did not feel that they could support this Bill the other day. If we do that collectively, we will have made a small contribution to the war against drugs. We will not win the war this afternoon by passing this Bill. It would be nothing short of naive to believe that. However, we will at least have sent out a message that as citizens and a legislative body we parliamentarians believe that something wrong is happening and that we can assist our young people and other citizens by making a statement and passing this Bill.
As I was saying a while ago, we are not the only Canadians who are concerned. Carleton University is establishing a Council for Drug Awareness. A number of corporate entities will be participating in it. This is a group completely outside government establishing a Council for Drug Awareness. The membership list includes some very distinguished Canadians such as Mr. James J. Leto, President of AT&T Canada; Sharon Paul, Vice-President, Corporate and Public Affairs of Abitibi Price; William Lomax of the Bank of Nova Scotia; David Clark of Bristol-Myers, and General P. D. Manson, Chief of the Defence Staff of the Canadian Armed Forces. Many distinguished Canadians will be participating in this endeavour of Carleton University.
I want to congratulate Professor Appleton, Mr. Perras, and the others who are working so hard to assist our young people. We ask today that Members of this House do likewise.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what we as parliamentarians should do is make this positive gesture. It is not impressive as gestures go, but it will have an impact, and it will help show our fellow Canadians that we want a drug-free society, and I hope that some day we will achieve that goal.
Meanwhile, I would ask all Members of the House to support Bill C-264, as tabled by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North.


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise to second the motion for third reading of Bill C-264 and to say a few brief words on this very important piece of legislation.
Bill C-264 is very important because it will close an important loophole in our fight against drug abuse. In addition, it shows that once again, as has been the case in the
August 22, 1988

last four years, private Members can and do contribute with legislation and motions which can be passed.
At the moment it is legal for head shops and drug paraphernalia outlets to sell their wares to the public. In fact, this activity serves to encourage drug usage in our society. We cannot have laws against the usage of illegal drugs while, on the other hand, allowing the sale of utensils which are used in their consumption.
Drug abuse among our citizens is a national tragedy which must be brought under control and eliminated before any more of our citizens are affected. Just recently in Toronto an inquest was held into the death of a young boy who attended a rock concert and, after indulging in drugs, committed suicide. His death was a tragedy.
I believe that we, as parliamentarians, have a responsibility to do whatever is necessary to eradicate the use of illicit drugs. Those responsible for trafficking should be shown no mercy. All assets which have been amassed by profits of illicit drugs or the sale of drug paraphernalia should be frozen by the estate whenever these individuals are charged and they should be seized if they are convicted. The message must be clear to all that those who participate in bringing human misery will be severely punished.
In addition, we must ensure that our law enforcement agencies are given every legal means by which to bring these individuals to justice. The RCMP believes that this legislation will stop the promotion of the usage of illicit drugs in Canada.
We owe an enormous vote of thanks to the Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) for bringing this Bill before the House. 1 urge all Members of the House to support Bill C-264, a piece of legislation that I hope will contribute to sparing some lives from the usage of illicit drugs.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words in connection with this Bill and to congratulate the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner).
We all feel sad when we see people on crutches and we try to help them. Many times those who are on crutches are so as a result of something which happened beyond their control. However I remember speaking to a coal miner in the Drum-heller Valley who told me that a particular fellow on crutches deserved every sympathy in the world and every help available to him. He asked that I go to the compensation board on his behalf. He said, however, that he had a son who was using a crutch thinking it would bring him happiness. I asked what he meant. He told me that his son was on drugs and thought that using that crutch would bring happiness to his life.
When I was the Minister of Youth in the Province of Alberta I attended a conference in Vancouver. We were tied up all day in meetings but about nine o'clock at night we were through and I put on a windbreaker and went out to stand beside the fountain which used to be beside the Hotel Vancouver. A young man about 17 or 18 came up to me and asked if
Illicit Drugs Promotion
he could sell me some grass. I was on the verge of saying "No" and asked instead: "Why are you selling grass?" He told me that he had been kicked out of his home in Saskatchewan, had not had a decent place to sleep for the last several nights and had not had anything to eat that day. He said: "I will give you a special bargain on grass". I replied: "For my information, how much would a special bargain be?" He said: "I will give it to you .for $14".
I told him I did not use grass and I do not use drugs, but I would take him over to the hotel and buy him a dinner. I told him he could order anything he liked. He asked me if I was serious and I said yes, I was serious, so he said all right. We went to the hotel across the street from the fountain and he very reasonably ordered a bacon and tomato sandwich. I asked him if that was all he wanted and he said he did not want to take advantage of my kindness. However, I told him to order anything he liked and he ordered a cup of coffee and later on he had a piece of pie. I could see he was hungry because he was taking big bites out of that sandwich, and I felt sorry for the young man. He had a nice appearance.
I asked him how he got into a mess like this. He told me he started to use drugs when he was in high school. He said his father kicked him out of the house and he came to Vancouver. He said he had taken drugs here and had a wonderful trip. I asked him what it was like and he said: "Well, it just seemed like the whole world opened in beauty, a type of sunshine, a beauty beyond description. It was so wonderful it just made me feel like a different person". That was about a month ago, he said. A couple of weeks later, he said, he had another trip and almost died. They took him to the hospital and he did not think he was going to live. He said he was okay now and trying to make a living. I said to him: "I guess you are through with drugs now, are you? He replied: "Oh, no, no". I asked: "You are going to take more drugs now after you had that terrible experience?" He answered: "Yes, because the next one might be a beautiful trip". I said "Young man, the next one might mean your death, but whether it does or not, you are using a crutch". I told him he had no need to use a crutch, that he had a good brain and a good body. I asked him why he wanted to abuse himself with drugs. I do not think I persuaded the young man.
1 heard about a young man in Vancouver two or three weeks later. I do not know whether he was the same young man or not. A lad who had been sleeping in doorways and eating wherever he could was found dead. I do not know if it was the same boy or not. I wish the young people of today could just see some of those people who thought they had to have a crutch to be happy. After the period in San Francisco when drugs were very, very prominent, 1 was down visiting a friend from Edmonton and decided to spend part of the afternoon visiting a hospital which was still full of many people in their twenties and early thirties.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The visit to that hospital, if it did not do anything else, made a person feel that they would never want drugs again. Fine young men were now worn out just like old, old men. Girls who once were beautiful girls were dilapidated with weariness and bad living. I wish the young people of today could see that picture. I wish they could realize that they do not need that kind of crutch to be happy and that by using that kind of crutch they are imitating someone with poor legs who must use a crutch and for whom we should have every pity and to whom we should give all our help.
There is one other thing I would like to say. I wish we could find the kingpins. I wish we could find the people who go out on the streets and persuade young people to use drugs, these people who are making a fortune by destroying young lives. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Mississauga North because he is trying to save human lives. I hope this Bill will pass unanimously. I want to tell the youth of Canada that they do not have to use drugs to be happy and if they use drugs as a crutch, they may well destroy a life that could be beautiful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, since my colleague, the Hon. Member from Mississauga North, has just received third reading on his Private Member's Bill-and the House congratulates him on the fine work he did-and the hour being 27 minutes past the hour of five o'clock, we are now prepared to carry on with the debate on the report stage of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade Bill.
We have heard complaints from members of the Opposition that they do not have enough time to debate this Bill and here we are offering them an extra 35 minutes to debate this very excellent piece of legislation the Government has brought before the House.
I am seeking unanimous consent that this House do now move to Orders of the Day with respect to Bill C-130.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, this is important legislation in terms of changing the course of Canada's future. As the Parliamentary Secretary will recall, the New Democrats felt that approximately two more years of debate would probably be sufficient to cover all the implications this Bill means for Canada's future, so I do not believe 30 minutes will make much of a dent in the two-year request.


John Horton McDermid: You couldn't fill the speaking engagements. You do not have enough Members.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I would ask that the hyenas just shut down for a moment and the sloths and armadillos just hold off for a second. Our critic on this issue was anticipating that Private Members' Hour would go until six o'clock and that we would
probably have a standing vote. Since things have moved more expeditiously than we had thought, and our critic will be back in his place at six o'clock, I suggest that we recess until six o'clock and then resume debate on Bill C-130.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I must decline the Government's offer as well. However, I do accept the offer for an extra 30 minutes. If the Government wants to give us an extra 30 minutes for debate, it can tack it on to the end of the day. Our critic is scheduled to be back for the debate at six o'clock. So if there is an offer to extend time to give us more debating time on the part of the Government, I would gladly accept that offer starting at ten o'clock tonight.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition requested an agreement from the Government on this debate about which the public should be aware, that is that the Government would not call extension of hours.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: As there is obviously not unanimous consent, we will suspend the sitting until six o'clock.
At 5.31 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 6 p.m.


[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. 18609).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Continuing debate with the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, just before Private Members' Hour I explained to my colleagues in the House all the good reasons why they should support Motions Nos. 39 and 93 as proposed to us by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I went briefly over the fact that the Prime Minister had made a promise to us and that he has not lived up to it. That may surprise you, Mr. Speaker, but I suspect that it does not. Your Honour is a very knowledgeable person and non-partisan as Speakers always
August 22, 1988

are. Thus Your Honour would know that the Prime Minister has let Canadians down before.
Notwithstanding that the Prime Minister made a promise here to Canadians that it was his priority to have an agreement that would end the threat of U.S. protectionism. Right after the deal was signed Clayton Yeutter said that that did not happen. He said that this deal in no way stops Americans from retaliating against Canadian policies if they felt in their view that they were protectionist.
We have to remember in the few moments that are left to me that the binational panels which we have under the trade deal will not be insulated from political pressure in the United States, or in Canada for that matter. Of course, we have more to lose because of our relative size. I see that the Minister responsible for the trade deal is across the way. I want to say to him that we are not pleased at all with his performance in defending the trade deal. He was at committee a few weeks ago. I must say he went on in a partisan diatribe accusing opposition Members of everything under the sun. He accused my distinguished and learned colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry of a number of things. He accused him of trying to manipulate people and of saying things which were not true. I cannot repeat the exact words he said because it would not be parliamentary. He accused me of being a Nazi, and so on. Those were the comments that were made right in parliamentary committee by the Minister responsible for the trade deal.
Be that as it may, perhaps the Minister responsible for the trade deal can listen to our remarks in the lobby, or perhaps he could read Hansard or have somebody read it to him. That would even be better. He could have someone read it to him tomorrow and then be apprised of our views regarding Motions Nos. 39 and 93.
We have to remember as well-and I go back to the binational panels-that the anti-dumping and countervail panels will only have judicial review powers. That is to say that the panels will be limited to ensuring that the final antidumping and countervailing orders are made fairly. They will have no authority to hear new evidence.
The binational panels will also be based only on domestic law, which leaves Canada open to future protectionist sentiments on the part of the Americans. The United States can change its laws to Canada's disadvantage. One good instance of that is the U.S. omnibus Trade Bill which threatens to do just that.
The Government has said that the previous procedures that we had to solve trade disputes with the United States were ineffective. In other words, according to the Tories, GATT mechanisms were not effective. I disagree with that. We won most cases when we brought issues before the GATT.
What they say is that this new procedure will be really quick-really quick. First, we know that the binational panels cannot be struck before final order is made. That, of course, has an appellant paying the high cost of litigation in the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
interim. The entire process, including appeals, could take several years to complete, so what we may end up having is a system that is even slower than the one we have now.
Finally, the panel decisions are not even binding. With the exception of the safeguards, decisions will not be binding unless both parties agree beforehand to comply with the decision. In other words, if the United States figures that it will not win in a particular issue, all it has to do is say beforehand that it will not agree with the decision once it is rendered and that seemingly absolves it of everything.
With that I think I have given enough information to convince my colleagues across the way that they should be supporting Motions Nos. 39 and 93. I hope that all the Conservative Members have had time over the last hour or so to have a change of heart and to see things in a new and fresh way, and that they will vote the proper way, the way of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: The question is on Motion No. 39, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: All those opposed will please nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 45
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 45.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 47.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when the Government first proposed negotiating with the United States on the trade agreement, there were two basis objectives set. One was to gain substantial economic benefits, and the other was to gain so-called security of access. We know how minimal the economic benefits are. The Government's own agencies, the Department of Finance, the Economic Council, and others have measured that the maximum, the best possible scenario might be a quarter of 1 per cent growth per year. That is hardly the type of expansion and acceleration in the economy that one would suggest would require this enormous change in Canadian life to achieve.


John Horton McDermid: What change in Canadian life?


Lloyd Axworthy: In fact, someone pointed out that we could achieve a much higher level of growth if interest rates were reduced by half of 1 per cent. The so-called economic bonanza time has simply not been borne out or carried through, and therefore the whole rationale and raison d'etre of the trade negotiation rests on the argument that somehow it will give more secure access for Canadian exports into the United States, based on the fact that it is our largest market, that businesses are concerned, and that the spectre of U.S. protectionism has been raised.
If that security of access is not there, then obviously the rationale, the raison d'etre, and the reason for all this disappears. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it does not exist. I challenge all those Conservative spokespersons who have been running around the country saying "let's deal with all the distortions", to show that they have achieved their objective in getting any further security of access than what they had before.
For example, let me put in front of the House the omnibus Trade Bill that the Government is now acting weak-kneed on and has backed away from. On March 1, the Canadian Ambassador to Washington stated that this was diametrically opposed to the international trade rules, and that it was going to damage Canada-U.S. relations. Those articles mentioned by Ambassador Gotlieb have not been changed. The definition of subsidy still exists. It is still there. The type of reorganization and redefinition of subsidy is still in the U.S. Bill. Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act on unfair trade practices that Ambassador Gotlieb said was contrary to GATT is still there. Section 201 on import relief is still there. In other words, all the items that Ambassador Gotlieb put forward are still there. Did we get an exemption? No, we did not. Yet a Commons committee composed of a majority of Tory members unanimously reported that unless we received an exemption the Government of Canada should not go ahead with the U.S. Trade Bill.


John Horton McDermid: That's not what the report says at all.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is exactly what the report said. I was on the committee.


John Horton McDermid: Quote from it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Did we get an exemption? No, Mr. Speaker, we did not get an exemption. The omnibus Trade Bill will still apply to Canada. We will still be subject to those much tougher, much stronger trade rules than we had before. Did we gain that security of access? I do not think so. That omnibus Trade Bill will become part of the U.S. trade law that we will have to apply under the trade agreement. That becomes a catch-22. One of the clear changes in trade policy that we will face is that we will now have to rely upon a review mechanism based upon a bilateral system, as opposed to being able to use the GATT system.
In its own statement GATT clearly states that where there is a bilateral dispute settlement mechanism, it will not interfere, and it has not since 1948. By putting in the bilateral system we forgo the protection that Canadians used to receive under GATT. There we could challenge the U.S. law itself. We could say that this new definition of a subsidy is wrong. We could say that the Americans are contradicting their international obligations. However, under the system that the Government is introducing, we cannot challenge those assertions. We cannot even begin to say that the U.S. Congress has gone too far, that it is over-exceeding its rights under GATT, under the international trade rules. All we can adjudicate is whether or not American law was fairly applied. That is all. We are stuck. We are giving up a recourse that Canadians have successfully used over the years to challenge U.S. actions, as well as those of others. Now we are putting ourselves in the position where we cannot challenge the law itself. All we can challenge is whether it is fairly applied.
Let us go to the next question. Is a bilateral review mechanism a better way of doing that? First, it will take longer. It will cost more money. Under existing systems, one could ask for a GATT panel immediately after a preliminary decision in 20 days. There could be a ruling in five or six months, and before one knows it there is the ability to respond or retaliate that we had before. Under this proposed scheme for dispute settlement mechanism we must wait for a final decision. We must wait until it is gone from the International Trade Commission to the Department of Commerce and back to the International Trade Commission for a final ruling. Then there are 365 days to wait for a final review. All the time our Canadian businesses are spending money for high priced Washington lawyers and lobbyists. They have stated that the lumber industry costs $2.5 million.
Because of the other Acts written into the U.S. implementing legislation, U.S. industries will have their bills paid for them by the Government. Their work will be done for them by the U.S. trade office. We have put ourselves in an incredibly strong cul de sac that we cannot escape from. We have agreed to stronger U.S. trade law. We have a dispute settlement
August 22, 1988

mechanism which is weaker and less effective than what we have been able to utilize in the past. And, to what end?
We say that we think we may get an impartial reading, an impartial adjudication. It is not on the trade law itself. It is on whether it has been fairly applied. According to Clayton Yeutter of the U.S. trade offices, it is not only a law but it is the practices, the precedents, the rules and regulations, and the procedures. All those are legitimate grounds for making a decision.
Under this dispute settlement mechanism all we are doing is replacing one review system with another. In addition to going to GATT to challenge U.S. law, we can also take it to the International Court of Trade in New York. Government spokesmen say that that is all influenced by political buys and interference. That is not what Gordon Ritchie has stated. That is not what was stated by the Canadian Ambassador in the trade negotiations. In front of the committee he stated quite clearly that the International Court of Trade is impartial and does give a fair rendering of decisions based upon the law.
What did we achieve? We gave up recourse to other forms of solution for Canadian industry, and what did we get? We replaced one review mechanism with another review mechanism. We replaced the International Court of Trade with the so-called binational panel which will be composed of an equal number of Canadians and Americans. I am not so sure that that will be any more impartial.
If one looks at the history of the IJC, one can quickly find out that it is subject to political influence and that from time to time it is subject to the influence of Governments, as we saw on the Columbia River Treaty settlement decision. I would submit to the House that not only are we replacing one review system with another, but in fact we are getting a review system which itself is more vulnerable and susceptible to governmental influence. If it comes to the crunch, one knows which government has the biggest muscle and will push the hardest.
The reason that we moved these amendments was to say that there is no security of access. Any time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), or members of the Cabinet rise and say that, they are not telling the truth. They are fooling the Canadian people because it is simply not the case. They have not achieved what the Prime Minister said was the reason for negotiating in the first place. He stated that it was for a new regime of trade remedy laws. There may be a new regime, but the new regime is tougher on us. It cuts off recourse to the international trade tribunals. It would be more costly for Canadian business, and we will end up with a decision that may be more biased politically than what we have at the present time.
Is that what we call a successful negotiation? Is that why we are going to give up control of our energy resources? Is that why we are going to give up control of our investment? Is that
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
why we are going to give up control of our service industry, to get this? This is the crown jewel in the trade agreement, the dispute settlement mechanism for which we have surrendered all these other rights of decision by Canadians, and we have this? Surely there must be some shame and embarrassment on the other side if they say that this is what they are going to present as being the ultimate great accomplishment of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement when in fact it is a machine that is weak, reduced, and, in fact I submit to you, far less effective and far less capable of protecting Canadian trade interests than what we have up to now. I am not saying that we cannot approve upon the system. I think that we can improve upon the existing international system. We have already presented a number of proposals on how we would want to see things negotiated in the GATT. I see again that you are on your feet, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret to advise that the Hon. Member's time has expired. Is the House ready for the question? The Hon Parliamentary Secretary.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, just before we take a vote on this, I cannot let the Hon. Member get away with the nonsense that he just talked about. It is Mr. Hon. Huff and Puff. He gets up and tells us that we no longer have the GATT available to us. What nonsense! The free trade agreement was negotiated under the GATT rules, for heaven's sake, and the GATT rules still pertain.


Lloyd Axworthy: Read 1801. You better read the agreement yourself.


John Horton McDermid: That is what the agreement is all about. For the Hon. Member to stand up here and say that GATT is not available, what absolute nonsense. He asked that question at committee and he got an answer at committee.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, and it was the wrong answer.


John Horton McDermid: GATT is available.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, it isn't.


John Horton McDermid: That was the evidence that was given by the experts. The Hon. Member tells us about the dispute settlement mechanism. By the way, these four amendments that he brings abolish the dispute settlement mechanism. That is what he wants to do. He wants to abolish one of the best achievements that Canada got in this agreement.
That is what he wants to do. Evidence was presented at committee by those people who have been harassed, who have been taken to commerce, who have appealed through their court systems in the United States. I read some of their evidence into the record earlier today. What did Mr. Pinard from Domtar, who is also with the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, say about it? He said: Thank goodness, tariff reduction is important. That probably would have come later on under the GATT negotiations, but the crowning glory of

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
this agreement is the binational dispute settlement". That is what he said. That was his evidence. That Hon. Member has the nerve to stand up, he is such an expert in manufacturing; he has been out there in the workforce and knows how it works and everything. These are the people who are out there. These are the people who are putting their money on the line.
These are the people who are creating the jobs. These are the people who have been harassed by unfair protectionist attitudes in the United States. These are the people who are supporting this agreement and supporting the binational dispute settlement mechanism. The Hon. Member stands up and says with four amendments "wipe it out". What nonsense! Then he stands up and he says-and he was very careful not to quote-that the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade said that the committee is very concerned that the passage of the omnibus trade Bill, prior to the date in which the proposed agreement would become effective, would impair benefits to Canada under the free trade agreement. Well, it does not impair the benefits to Canada under the free trade agreement, not at all.


Lloyd Axworthy: Your nose is growing, John. Your nose is growing.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member stands up and says that there are parts of the omnibus Trade Bill that go against GATT. That is absolutely right. We said that right from the beginning. Our trading partners have also said that right from the beginning. Do you know what? We can go and complain to GATT about that. We have not given that up in the free trade agreement, not one iota. We are still under GATT. We still play by the rules of GATT. This trade negotiation was under the rules of GATT. It says that the rules of GATT apply. The Hon. Member knows that. For him to stand up in this House and say it that does not is imitating his Leader who is going around the country misrepresenting the agreement. In his local paper in Manitoba-it is not the only paper that we are noticing by the editorials that are coming in these days on the Right Hon. Gentleman's representations around this country-


Lloyd Axworthy: The people agree with them.


John Horton McDermid: -they are saying "Tell the truth". That is what they are saying to the Leader of the Opposition: "Tell the truth". I am not sure if the Right Hon. Gentleman is coaching my hon. friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry or vice versa. I have a sneaking suspicion that it is vice versa. I have a sneaking suspicion that it is Mr. Fudge-It over there, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), giving advice to the Right Hon. Gentleman, who is going around this country quoting the Americans and saying, "This is what is going to happen to Canada. We are going to disappear. We are going to become the fifty-first state". What nonsense. There is not a person in here, there is not a person in this country, that
wants us to become American, and we are not going to become American.


Lloyd Axworthy: There he is, right there. Since 1949 he wanted to become American. The Minister of trade.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret to advise that the time allotted to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has expired. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is remarkable to see the level of rhetoric start to escalate just as the Minister appears in the House. I am not sure if this is a special performance put on for him or if his very presence here somehow heightens the sense of outrage that those of us on the opposition side see when we look at this agreement. These four amendments, as the Parliamentary Secretary has made clear, pass a judgment, and it is a harsh judgment with respect to this so-called great achievement which the trade deal is supposed to have brought us.
I always think, when I think of this deal, of the days when my younger child used to be 15 or 16 years old and I would send him to the store for milk. I would give him some change. If I did not have change, I would give him $10 to go and you would tell him to be sure to bring change back. He would go to the store, he would forget the milk, he would come back with chocolate bars, and he would have lost $5 on the way. Because of the fact that he was a kid that I loved a lot, I forgave him, but one does not forgive a Government that goes off to Washington and says: "We want to get, above all, exemption from countervail and anti-dumping systems that the United States is running".


An Hon. Member:: Are you prepared to exempt the Americans?


Steven W. Langdon: I do not want this deal.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is your alternative, you turkey?


Steven W. Langdon: The Government said what it wanted was an exemption from countervail and anti-dumping. So clear was its message to the manufacturing community across this country that Mr. Phillips from Ipsco testified, after the original details of the arrangement were announced, that we were not exempted from the anti-dumping provisions-


John Horton McDermid: What does he say now, Steven?


Steven W. Langdon: And the basis of that, he said this is not a deal which has achieved its objectives.


John Horton McDermid: What does he say now?


Steven W. Langdon: That is the basic truth, Mr. Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: He supports it.
August 22, 1988


Steven W. Langdon: This is a deal which has not achieved its objectives. It has not achieved its fundamental objectives. If it had achieved, say, 90 per cent of a set of objectives which it had laid out at the start of negotiation, we might possibly be able to say: "Well, you have managed to blow a few but you have done a reasonably good job".
With its typical hyperbole and exaggeration, the Government set itself two objectives above all at the heart of the negotiations. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said in this House, we have got to get an exemption from countervail and anti-dumping, and we have to get a subsidy code which both countries agree to. If we get those two objectives, we will have succeeded in getting fair access for Canadian companies to the United States. The fact is-and it is sad to have to say that the Government has so completely failed to obtain both of those objectives-that it is now in a position where instead of using logic and argument it has to use blatant advertising to try to propagandize the benefits of this deal.
As the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said in 1980, the purpose of advertising is to obscure the truth. That is the purpose of the advertising which this Government has done in newspapers and on the radio over the last few weeks. What we find as a consequence is that we have in front of us a deal which does not even come close to achieving the two basic goals which the Government set out to get. Not only that, the Government gives away a tremendous amount in the process of failing to achieve its goals, but we will talk about that later on. At this stage I think these amendments, which would strike out the mythology that we have actually managed to achieve anything with this dispute settlement mechanism so far as countervail and anti-dumping is concerned, put truth into this Bill instead of pretending that these clauses actually achieve anything for us and are something that we have to prefer.
When we look at the details of Chapter 19, it is clear that there is no exemption from countervail and anti-dumping. That is clear to the hog farmers in my constituency who are still paying countervail duty. It is clear to machinists in my constituency who have had to fight fights in Washington with no government help against countervail.


John Horton McDermid: That is not true.


Steven W. Langdon: That is absolutely true. The mouldmakers of Canada have had to do precisely that. They have, as a consequence of this deal, absolutely no better position than they had before this deal was dreamed up as the public relations gesture it is.
I think this House should pass judgment on this dispute settlement mechanism. It is true that it may cut down somewhat the time span through which appeals have to be dealt, but it is also possible because of the extra challenge provisions within it that it will take longer. It is also possible
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
that the United States courts will find that it is unconstitutional to prevent an American corporation from going to the courts in the United States, saying that it wants to appeal anything which this dispute settlement mechanism does.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret that the time for the Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Edmonton South.


Steven W. Langdon: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been usual for a final sentence to be permitted for an Hon. Member to wind up his remarks. I think it might make sense to follow that precedent which throughout this debate has been applied both to the Government and to the Opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: That is hardly a point of order. I did indicate to the Hon. Member that he had one minute left. The Hon. Member for Edmonton South.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for the Chair because I too had thought that the Hon. Member had consummated his peroration.
I appreciate the opportunity to address some of the issues that have been raised during this debate and particularly to deal with the difficulties presented by those who embrace fantasy, fear, and fabrication when participating in the free trade debate. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) referred a few moments ago to mythology. Listening to him in this debate reminds me of the 15th Century cartographers who, when they were at some doubt as to what was contained in terra incognita, simply wrote in "Here be dragons". I think that, Sir, is what is happening tonight. This canard-I understand that canard a Torange is available not far from here-here tonight of the unconstitutionality of submitting the trade agreement to the tribunal is something new. I honour the Member for his creativity, but the record shows that we have in the arbitration decision process a great many good resources at our disposal now. The legislation is there in both countries on anti-dumping and on countervail and is approximately identical. It is not precisely mirror legislation, but it is approximately the same.
What we have objected to as a nation over the last few years is that frequently the process is perversely delayed in the U.S., and the process frustrates implementation. Under the free trade agreement and the attendant legislation, that of course will be remedied in the sense that appeals will be dealt with expeditiously by a panel composed of an appointee from our country, an appointee from the U.S., and a neutral chair.


Steven W. Langdon: Two and two.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Yes, the Hon. Member is correct. I appreciate the correction. Two and two and one. 1 was thinking of equilibrium. He is an economist and he does point out that two and two counterbalances as readily as one and one. I thank him for the help.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I would like to point out to Eton. Members that of the last ten anti-dumping cases we won eight. I do not believe that we should get rid of that kind of law. I believe it appropriate that we have a proper avenue of appeal to which we can go.
Members opposite are demanding that there be an election before this legislation is passed through both Houses of Parliament and proclaimed as the law of the land. The only assurance I can give, since these matters are out of my hands, is that there will be indeed some day an election with free trade among the issues. I welcome that, because the soundings I have done in my own area show approximately 69 per cent approval of this free trade deal. I know that support is very high in many other parts of the country, particularly in Quebec where I have spoken a few times lately and consulted with the population, rural and urban. Indeed, from Doyles, Newfoundland, to Old Crow, Yukon, I find that people in this country are looking forward with great anticipation to implementation of this agreement.
They also crave information. They do not crave fear, fantasy, and fabrication. I believe we have shipped out of my own constituency office, in response to constituent inquiries and demands, something in excess of half a tonne of information on free trade.


Steven W. Langdon: Propaganda.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Propaganda? If the text of the free trade agreement is propaganda, then it is propaganda, Sir. What is propaganda? It is that which is disseminated, that which is propagated. Those of us who do our duty, Sir, do disseminate information as well and as efficiently as we can.
I have had many demands for information from ridings held by opposition Members in other parts of the country because people say they are getting only opinion rather than solid information from those opposition Members. They appeal to me and other colleagues of mine on this side for solid information: The text of the agreement; the tariff schedules; the text of the Bill. We supply those, Sir. When people ask my opinion, I give it. Otherwise, we are honest seekers after truth.
The Hon. Member who is doing the interjecting on the other side served very faithfully as a member of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-130. I listened with great care to his interventions and questioning of witnesses. I must say that he shows a good knowledge of the text of the agreement and the Bill, but I find Members opposite tend to let their ideology conflict with the practical facts of the case.
As I said a few moments ago, there will be a vote and it is my belief that the people of Canada, when they vote on this issue and others, will try to decide before they go behind the curtain which side served them with the facts, which side strove to do the better thing for Canada. I think for those of us looking for better economic opportunity for our country, and this is nothing more or less than that opportunity, this Bill and the agreement it puts into force is neither a panacea, nor a
disaster. It is an opportunity which, if we take proper advantage of it, will benefit our country in some measure.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) referred to a 1 per cent decline in the interest rate being legislated. I believe that is the policy of the NDP. It was interesting to see the Hon. Member so readily embrace the policies of the NDP, but it did not surprise me in the least. I wonder if members of the Liberal Party or the NDP have consulted any reputable individuals in the field of economics, other than themselves, about to the effect upon the fiscal system of that kind of arbitrary intervention. Have they considered the confusion and confused signals that would send to the international community? Have they considered the flight of investment capital that it would cause? I think not. They are not concerned about that because they are the gang that want to close down investment. They are the gang that want to have a little Canada, an isolated Canada, an Albania of the Americas. That is what they advocate.
We have been advised that the omnibus Bill has changed the entire atmosphere under which this agreement will be implemented. There have been a number of statements about the danger of the omnibus Bill to our trading relationship to the U.S. There are two Bills involved. The first was the original Bill and then the so-called son of omnibus, which is now before the President for his consideration. I would urge Hon. Members opposite to go back and look at that Bill in the context of the testimony given to the Legislative Committee on Bill C-130, particularly that of Ambassador Ritchie having to do with implementation of the omnibus Bill vis-a-vis the current agreement before us and the Bill to implement it. If they are truly seekers after truth they will see the danger is minimized and put to rest.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: I wish I could quickly put my fingers on Ambassador Ritchie's testimony before the committee in order to rebut what the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) just said, Mr. Speaker.
There is an interesting theology emerging here tonight on the Conservative side of the House. I am sure the Hon. Member does not want to offend Canadians of Albanian origin with his speech, but I found it very revealing that he would inform the House that we would be having an election one day. That is a recognition of the democratic system which is at our base, which is very revealing. However, more revealing than that was the fact that all of a sudden the debate on why this deal is necessary seemed to be shifting from what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has been saying over the past four years to the notion that the U.S. process was too slow and frustrating and, therefore, Canada saw the necessity to pursue this agreement in Washington in order to accelerate it or make it less cumbersome and less difficult.
August 22, 1988

If that is going to be the official position of the Conservative Party during the next election campaign, it will be quite a revelation of the difficulties the Conservatives have had in defending the deal because it was never launched as an initiative to improve on the process.
We heard from the government benches about substance. The Prime Minister of Canada launched this initiative with Washington on substance. It is interesting to notice that in this debate the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) very carefully avoid the question of whether or not Canada obtained an exemption from the U.S. trade remedy laws as a result of this agreement.
The fact is that after all this debate, all the negotiations, and all the claims by the government benches, it is clear that the main objective which the Government set out to achieve, mainly to secure access to the U.S. market, was not achieved. Despite the claims, promises, and attempts that were made, U.S. trade laws still apply to Canada. That is why we are here struggling with these two amendments.
As recently as 18 months ago, in the spring of 1987, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the Prime Minister of Canada said that "U.S. trade remedy laws can't apply to Canada, period." The Prime Minister made quite a commitment when speaking in Washington on behalf of Canadians. However, this objective was not achieved. The laws of the United States do apply to Canada. Through our amendment we are saying that there is a better system of dispute settlement, that is, the GATT system which will not be applied as a result of a very elaborate mechanism.


John Horton McDermid: It's in place. Obviously you haven't read the agreement.


Mr. Caccia:: The Parliamentary Secretary doesn't seem to know that there is a dispute settlement mechanism in the agreement which consists of a variety of steps. Before the Parliamentary Secretary interjects he should know what he is talking about. There is going to be a binational panel to monitor changes, a binational panel to replace judicial review, and a Canada-U.S. trade commission to supervise. That is not GATT material; that is the stuff which comes out of this particular agreement.


John Horton McDermid: It was negotiated under GATT.


Charles L. Caccia: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when the Government suddenly came up with the idea that we should have a trade deal with the Americans, the most compelling reason the Prime Minister had for entering the trade negotiations was that we needed to obtain secure access to the U.S. market. That was the main reason. We hear nothing from the government benches as to what extent we secured free access to the United States market for Canadian exports. The initial position of the Prime Minister was that any agreement which did not contain a binding dispute settlement
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
mechanism and would exempt Canada from harassment from U.S. trade remedy laws or legislation would not be worth the paper it was written on.


John Horton McDermid: No, no.


Charles L. Caccia: Not even the Parliamentary Secretary can deny that. That was the basic motive for entering these negotiations, and we did not achieve it. We are not hearing a peep on this, as other speakers have already indicated, because we are at the mercy of a dispute settlement mechanism in which the laws of the U.S. will apply. The Canadian legislation will attempt to apply too, of course, but you know which of the two will prevail at the end of the day.


John Horton McDermid: What nonsense.


Charles L. Caccia: It may annoy the Parliamentary Secretary to hear the truth and that is why he is getting upset. No one likes to hear of having failed a mission.


John Horton McDermid: I only get upset when you don't tell the truth.


Charles L. Caccia: The mission was not accomplished and that is why the Tory benches do not like to hear about this.
United States countervailing duty and United States antidumping laws, defined as United States statutes, legislative history or regulations, or administrative practices and court decisions, will remain intact and unchanged. I challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to dispute that point.


John Horton McDermid: No, you're right.


Charles L. Caccia: Exactly, that is the whole point. The Government set out to obtain a situation in which Canada would get an exemption from U.S. trade remedy laws, and it did not get it. Having not obtained it, the Government is now asking us to approve a piece of legislation which does not contain the assurance that Canada will have secure access to the United States market and does not contain an exemption for Canada from United States trade remedy law. That is quite clear. That is a fact and, if the Minister for International Trade does not agree with what I said, I urge him to get up and repudiate these two points which politically, economically, and in the interests of Canadians are extremely important.
These are the points which we will be debating during the election campaign, not the phoney point advanced by the Hon. Member for Edmonton South that we were unhappy about and frustrated by a slow U.S. process. That is a phoney issue.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to join in this debate. This is my first opportunity to speak on the trade Bill which is before the House. This evening we are dealing with those amendments pertaining the dispute settlement mechanism.
Most of my constituents feel quite uncomfortable about the process which the Government has initiated. I believe that is

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
true for most Canadians. They are still very confused about this issue. They know that it is important. They know that the nature of what Canada is and what Canada will become is at stake in these debates. Yet they are confused because they still do not know what it all means. To be fair, most Members of Parliament here today are really not quite certain what it all means. There are many parts that will not be defined until future negotiations. Other parts will not be defined until decisions are made and the shape and form of future U.S.-Canada relations have become effected. What my constituents are concerned about, and what they feel extremely uncomfortable with, is how the Government has handled the debate.
To begin with, we know, and the Canadian public knows, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) were some of the leading spokespersons for the Government who, in the past, have denounced a free trade agreement with the United States. The Prime Minister on June 2, 1983, stated: "It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it, not during the leadership campaign or at any other time". So the Prime Minister was concerned in 1983 that a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States would affect Canadian sovereignty. Those are the concerns we in the Opposition have. When we express those concerns, we are denounced as being Fascists, small minded and misguided. Yet those are the very concerns the Prime Minister expressed in 1983.
As we enter into this historic debate, we find the Government's initiative in this area has surely not been one of enlightened debate. Rather, one of the first things this Government did after signing the agreement was to appoint the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to stickhandle it through the House of Commons and to the nation, and all we get from the Minister is a thick blanket of fog without any real intelligence or any statements which would lend some understanding to this debate.
It is not a funny matter. It is very important to the Canadian people and to our future. What kind of country are we and what kind of country will we become? That is really what is at stake here. To have a Government that deals with this crucial issue the way in which this Government does is to do a disservice to the Canadian people. I, for one, am not against increasing trade with the United States or with many of our other neighbours. In fact, I welcome all initiatives which would allow more global trade to occur. However, what is involved in this agreement is much more than trade.
What is involved in this agreement, which bothers me the most, and I know it bothers most of my colleagues, are those items that really do not deal directly with trade at all. The concern I have is that what this agreement between our Prime Minister and President Reagan does is cast into stone a certain economic philosophy that is in vogue with this Government and with the Reagan Government of the United States. It
attempts to shut the door on another vision of Canada, a vision that sees that the public sector and the co-operative sector have roles to play as well as the private sector.
What this agreement does is cast into stone the market force economy, the notions of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and the neo-Conservatives across the way. They are attempting to fool the Canadian people with the performances of the Minister in handling the debate so far.
As other Members, especially those of the Opposition, have pointed out, the justification for this agreement in the end was to ensure that Canadian products would have special treatment in the United States, that we would have some protection against the countervail and anti-dumping actions that were becoming prevalent in the United States. There was a fear that the Americans were losing their position as a global trader, that there would be a stronger incentive toward protectionist policies and that Canada needed to negotiate a special agreement with them in order to protect our exporters.
1 remember the Premier of Saskatchewan stating on numerous occasions that if Canada did not achieve an exemption from the countervail and the anti-dumping provisions, there was no sense in signing an agreement with the United States. All those who were in favour of this agreement went up and down the breadth of this country stating we needed this special protection. That was the justification for signing the agreement. Yet we could not achieve that special protection. We did not achieve the protection from the countervail and the anti-dumping. There are hog producers in my constituency who will still have to deal with the countervail duties of the United States in attempting to get their products into the United States, and this agreement will not give them that protection. It will not allow the hog producers of my district unlimited and free access into the United States.


John Horton McDermid: Why are they supporting it then?


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Parliamentary Secretary, ever so anxious to have his voice heard in this House, is asking me why they are supporting it. Let me inform him that the people in my constituency are not in favour of it. In fact, well over 65 per cent are against this agreement. I would suggest as well that the vast majority of the people in the Province of Saskatchewan are against this agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Ask your pork producers.


Simon Leendert de Jong: If the Hon. Member continues to ask his dumb questions, the answers he will get will continue to embarrass him. The polls across this country, not just in Regina East and not just in Saskatchewan, clearly show that the Canadian public is not happy with this agreement. Support for this agreement continues to decline. The more the Canadian people begin to understand the implications of this agreement, the more they are against it. The more they hear the answers from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for International Trade the more scared they become and the more they insist
August 22, 1988

that an election be held on this issue so that the people of Canada can decide and not the fools across the way. That is the sentiment, not just in my district or in my province, but across this country.
The people want to decide on this issue and not the fools across the way because they do not trust them. The people do not trust this Government. They do not trust the Prime Minister who in 1983, and during the last election campaign-


John Horton McDermid: Wrong, wrong. Be honest.


Simon Leendert de Jong: On June 2, 1983, the Prime Minister stated, and I will quote again: "It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it, not during the leadership campaign or at any other time". When the Prime Minister can change his mind so radically on such a basic fundamental issue as this agreement that will shape the future and destiny of our country, when a person leading the Government can change his position so radically, the Canadian public can only come to one conclusion, and that is they do not trust him and they do not trust his Minister.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are presently debating four amendments which would strike out four clauses of Bill C-130, the Bill to implement the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Those clauses that we wish to delete from the legislation are clauses dealing with the dispute settlement mechanism. The reason we want to delete those clauses from the Bill is because they are totally inadequate. They fall far short of what was pursued by the Government when it started its negotiations with the United States.
As a matter of fact, not only are they inadequate, but in some respects they give Canada less than we had under the GATT arrangements. Under the GATT arrangements in certain instances we were able to challenge the fairness of U.S. trade laws such as certain types of anti-dumping and countervailing laws. We were able to challenge the very fairness of those laws.
However, under this agreement and this dispute settlement mechanism we cannot challenge the fairness of those American trade laws. We can only challenge whether or not those laws are being administered fairly, whether the administration has been done correctly and whether the correct procedures have been followed. The laws themselves cannot be challenged.
When the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) was discussing this, he provoked a response from the Parliamentary Secretary who attempted to contradict him and said that we were not prevented from using GATT remedies under the agreement and under the legislation. That is not so.
Article 1801.2 of Chapter 18 states:
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Disputes arising under both this Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and agreements negotiated thereunder, may be settled in either forum, according to the rules of that forum-
Article 1801.1 states:
Except for the matters covered in Chapter Seventeen (Financial Services) and Chapter Nineteen (Binational Dispute Settlement in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Cases), the provisions of this Part shall apply-
This part should only apply to those matters which do not fall under Chapter Seventeen and Chapter Nineteen. Chapter Nineteen deals with countervail and anti-dumping.
If we look at Chapter Nineteen we see that it states:
Each Party reserves the right to apply its antidumping law and countervailing duty law to goods imported from the territory of the other Party.
It then goes on to state that the review of final anti-dumping and countervailing duty determination shall be determined by the process as set out in Chapter Nineteen.
With respect to countervail and anti-dumping, we cannot use the dispute settlement mechanism under GATT. That is exempted by Article 1 of 1801. The Parliamentary Secretary should pay close attention to that.
In addition, and more important, there was a GATT decision in 1949 which stated: "The determination of rights and obligations between Governments arising under a bilateral agreement is not a matter within the competence of the contracting parties", meaning under GATT. During the intervening 39 years since that decision, a dispute arising from a bilateral agreement has not been heard.
By adopting these dispute settlement procedures we lose our right to question countervailing laws and anti-dumping laws under the GATT. With respect to the fairness of those laws under GATT, we are restricted to the dispute settlement mechanism in this legislation. The dispute settlement mechanism under this legislation only deals with how the laws are administered, not with the fairness of the laws themselves.


John Horton McDermid: Read Article 1902.2.


Mr. Allmand:: Read the decision of the GATT in 1949 and see what the result of that was. I would be pleased to hear a further response from the Parliamentary Secretary. He refers to his experts. We refer to ours. The Canadian people will decide on this. This is an important point.
The goal of the Government when it started negotiating this trade agreement with the United States was to obtain an exemption for Canada from the countervail and anti-dumping laws of the United States. That was the principal goal. Let us hear what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said on March 16, 1987. He said: "Our highest priority is to have an agreement that ends the threat to Canadian industry from U.S. protectionists who harass and restrict our exports through the misuse of trade remedy laws. Let me leave no doubt that, first, a new regime on trade remedy laws must be part of the agreement".

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Later, the Prime Minister in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on April 2, 1987 stated: "U.S. trade remedy laws can't apply to Canada, period". That was the attitude of the Government when it started the negotiations. But it did not get the Americans to agree to eliminate the application of trade remedy laws to Canada. As a matter of fact, and I just quoted the article a few minutes ago, American countervail and anti-dumping laws apply fully to Canada. Those are the barriers to the United States which have really been troubling Canadian business.
All Canadians are familiar with the softwood lumber case, the shakes and shingles case, the East Coast fish case, the potash case and the steel case. All those were cases of countervail and anti-dumping. They were not cases of tariff duties.
Since 1979 until the beginning of this year there have been 300 countervail cases in the United States directed at Canadian business. In 70 per cent of those cases the American tribunals found injury against Canadian businesses. This means that a countervail duty was added in 70 per cent of those 300 cases.
That is the principal problem with trade between Canada and the United States. It is a non-tariff barrier. It has not been dealt with in this agreement. These dispute settlement mechanisms do not provide the sort of relief from those laws that we would like and that the Canadian people would like. As a matter of fact, that is what the Prime Minister wanted when he started the whole business.
I was amused when the Hon. Member from Edmonton- and I forget what part of Edmonton he is from-spoke just a few moments ago. He made fun of the point that we were trying to strike out this inadequate dispute settlement mechanism. He said: "Well, it is obvious that the Opposition Parties want to make Canada a sort of Albania. They want to isolate Canada from the rest of the world". What utter nonsense. Anybody who has lived in Canada for the last 20 or 30 years knows that the Liberal Party has pursued a policy of freer trade. As a matter of fact, at this very moment 80 per cent of all trade in goods and services in Canada and the United States are without tariff. That is brought down from a point after the Second World War when a high percentage of the goods and services exchanged between Canada and the United States were subject to tariff. Not only have we eliminated tariffs on 80 per cent of all goods and services, but the average rate of tariff has come down from about 30 per cent to about 5 per cent on that remaining 20 per cent.
Because we are opposing this agreement, and because we are opposing this dispute settlement mechanism, it does not mean that we are opposed to freer trade. We are saying that the system that was in place before this agreement was a better system, and we did not give up our independence, our identity, and our sovereignty to get a few trifles thrown at us by the United States Government.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, sitting here again this evening, one comes to the conclusion that the myth-makers are at it again. One of the comments that we have heard is that there has not been an adequate debate on this issue. I do not know where some Members have been. There certainly has been a lot of debate. Two parliamentary committees have looked at this issue. There have been a countless number of hours spent in debate in the House, and of course across the country. To say that there has not been debate is stretching the case just a little.
In terms of the debate, and in terms of getting information out, how many hundreds of copies of the agreement itself have each of us distributed to our constituents? I tell people: "Read the agreement. Don't take anybody else's word for it. Don't take mine. Don't take theirs. Read the agreement and you will be satisfied that there are too many myths floating around here".
What we have is a case, once again, where the talkers do not like it, but the traders do. Those people who make their living trading, and those people who make their living manufacturing are reasonably satisfied with the agreement. They are the ones who are producing the jobs that drives the economy of this country forward. The opposition Parties do not like the fact that the people of Canada themselves have created almost 1.3 million jobs in the last four years-


John R. Rodriguez: Without free trade.


William C. Winegard: -because we got rid of the protectionist, government-oriented policies that were heretofore.
Thomas d'Aquino, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Business Council on National Issues, stated on August 8, 1988: "The pact is worthless without trade law exemptions". This was one of the myths that he was trying to destroy.
Of all the myths, perhaps this one has been the source of greatest confusion. It is true that Canadian negotiators would have wished to enter into much more substantial reciprocal commitments on the application of trade law remedies, and that the United States balked at the prospect. The result was a qualified success with dispute settlement provisions that can be resorted to where there are alleged changes in the law and in the application of existing laws. While these provisions provide greater security and predictability in the conduct of bilateral business, it is left to future negotiation to establish a common set of rules to deal with cross-border price discrimination and countervail procedures.
Many critics of the Agreement argue that this is unacceptable and that without a clear exemption from the application of United States trade law, the Agreement "is not worth the paper it is written on". Their arguments make little sense. First, they apparently do not realize that it is normal for sovereign-
We have heard a lot about sovereignty. Yet the two opposition Parties would have us give it up.
-powers to possess trade remedy laws aimed at preventing foreign exporters from dumping their products or resorting to subsidies to undercut their prices. Such laws are sanctioned by the GATT, are commonplace in Canada, and are considered essential by Canadian producers. An exemption-
Here is the point, Sir, and one that we have repeated over and over:
August 22, 1988

-from United States laws would require, of course, a reciprocal lifting of Canadian laws.
If we had dared to suggest that in this agreement Canada was going to give up its trade laws and its right to countervail and dump, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the huff and the puff that would have come from members of the two protectionist Parties? They would have said, and this time rightly, that we had sold Canada out. We did not. The Canadian manufacturers did not want us to do that. The Canadian farmers did not want us to do that. The Canadian traders did not want us to do that. They wanted us to keep our ability to countervail and dump, because that is important to the progress of exports in Canada. Therefore, another myth. If we had done what they are suggesting here today, Mr. Speaker, you would have heard the cries all the way from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria.
While I am here let me explode another myth. We are told that we went into this and we sought an exemption. We sought a complete-


Steven W. Langdon: That's what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said.


William C. Winegard: Just a moment. We sought a complete and total exemption from the United States trade law. That is wrong.


Steven W. Langdon: From countervail.


William C. Winegard: At no time did we seek a complete exemption because that would have implied exactly what I have said previously here this evening. That would have implied that we would have no trade remedy laws available to offset those of the United States. We wanted to put an end to the fact that the United States could take unilateral action against us, and we had no comeback whatsoever.


John R. Rodriguez: You haven't.


William C. Winegard: We have. We have the dispute settlement mechanism, which the Opposition is attempting to put down in the course of these amendments. Is it not interesting. The Opposition wants to throw out the dispute settlement mechanisms.


John Horton McDermid: They would rather go to the American courts.


William C. Winegard: They want to do everything with the courts of the United States of America.


John Horton McDermid: That's right.


William C. Winegard: Those people who worry about Canadian sovereignty now want to say to the Americans: "We will follow your laws only, and you can do what you want. We will have no appeal from those whatsoever".
While I am at it, let me also take up the point made by my Liberal friend a moment ago. The Hon. Member mentioned
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Article 1902 in the agreement which is "Retention of Domestic Antidumping Law and Countervailing Duty Law." I believe that the Hon. Member's words were: "We had given up our GATT rights". Perhaps the Hon. Member and others should read the agreement again. Perhaps it is worth while putting it on the record. Sometimes I think that we should read the whole thing into the record and then people might know what it is all about. It states:
Each Party reserves the right to apply its antidumping law and countervailing duty law to goods imported from the territory of the other Party ...
Article 1902, paragraph 2 states:
Each Party reserves the right to change or modify its antidumping law or
countervailing duty law, provided that in the case of an amendment to a
Party's antidumping or countervailing duty statute ...
I will not read all the paragraphs, Mr. Speaker. However, I do wish to read the paragraph that really matters and puts the boots to what has been stated here today, which states:
d) such amendment, as applicable to the other Party, is not inconsistent with
i) the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)...
It seems to me that people had better start reading the agreement instead of The Toronto Star. It would do the whole country a lot of good.
In closing, if we had dared to put into this agreement that we had given up all our rights for countervail, anti-dumping in terms of Canadian law, Mr. Speaker, you would have heard the squealing from one end of the country to the other. We did not do that because we respect the desires of Canadian manufacturers, exporters, and those who make this country go and provide the wealth to give them some protection against anti-dumping against us at any time. I think it would be worth while, Mr. Speaker, for some of our colleagues to actually read the agreement and avoid the myths that have become so common in Canada over the last two or three months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is another myth getting on his feet now.


An Hon. Member:: There is another purveyor of myth.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes. Myth Rodriguez.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Taylor):: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, followed by the Parliamentary Secretary.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate-


John Carnell Crosbie: Why?


John R. Rodriguez: -on these amendments. Well, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), the great promoter of economic union with the United States from Newfoundland, is at least consistent on this question of free trade. In the great

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
debate as to whether Newfoundland should enter into economic union with the United States or whether should join Canada, the man who is now the Minister for International Trade was promoting this deal. At least he was consistent then. During the leadership race, where he failed in his attempt to become the Leader of the Conservative Party, he supported free trade with the United States. He is at least consistent. He is about the only one over there who is consistent.
I want to raise a very important question about this whole debate. It is surrealistic to really understand what is going on here. Here is a Government that has lost favour with the Canadian people. The majority of Canadians have no confidence in this Government.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: They would not trust this Government to negotiate the care and welfare of their pet animals. Here is a Government that according to all of the polls the sampling of Canadian public opinion, has lost credibility. We cannot believe this Government. We cannot believe this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). In terms of honesty and integrity, he is way down the scale. He is only exceeded in the depths of honesty and integrity by the Leader of the Liberal Party. This Government in literally the dying hours of this Parliament, when an election is expected, is ramming through this House of Commons a Bill which has been described by the Prime Minister as the most important Bill in the history of this country and probably, he says, of the world. One knows that he is given to hyperbole.
Given that, how did ordinary Canadians have an opportunity to express an opinion about this Bill which is more than about trade, which goes beyond trade, which deals away in the minds of many, many Canadians, myself included, the heritage of Canadians. That alone ought to require that the Government go to the people of Canada and let them decide.


An Hon. Member:: They will.


John R. Rodriguez: If Canadians feel that this is the greatest deal and it is a benefit to Canada, they will return this Government with a majority.


John Horton McDermid: They will have the opportunity.


John R. Rodriguez: Obviously, if they agree with the Opposition that in fact this deal is wrong and is a bad deal for Canada, they will obliterate them and put them into the opposition benches where they can join the Liberals in being a rump.
We have a trade deal that was worked out by a lame duck President and a Prime Minister who is issuing a swan song. We have a lame duck and a swan song. What is happening here is that they are selling off the birthright of Canadians.


An Hon. Member:: Come on.


John R. Rodriguez: That is exactly what is happening. When we look at those who are opposed to the deal it is not just New
Democrats. The President of the Bank of Nova Scotia is supposed to be one of those boys over there-


John Carnell Crosbie: He is a real pal of yours.


John R. Rodriguez: -but obviously he has moved away from that. He is hardly a pal of mine.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes. You are in bed with him.


John R. Rodriguez: Secondly, we have the printers of this country who are gravely concerned about this deal. Gravely concerned. We have farm groups right across this country which are gravely concerned about this deal. We had a Government that was so intent on ramming this Bill through that it sequestered itself here in Ottawa to hold hearings in a committee. At what point do we invite ordinary Canadians to participate in the democratic process? There were 350 witnesses when it would not allow.


An Hon. Member:: Why did Bob White not show up?


John R. Rodriguez: National groups were grouped on the same day. There were four or five of them. I am talking about ordinary Canadians. The Regional Municipality of Sudbury passed a resolution, sent it to the Government and said: "Why doesn't the committee come here?" In that community they want to speak on the free trade deal-


John Horton McDermid: The CLC walked away.


John R. Rodriguez: The Parliamentary Secretary said that they walked away. The Government apportioned an hour for each group to speak. It is the most important deal in the century for this country and it limits national groups like the Canadian Labour Congress, the CAW, to an hour, an hour and a half.


John Horton McDermid: They all walked away. They did not even speak.


John R. Rodriguez: It was in protest of what this Government was doing.


An Hon. Member:: It was a farce.


John Horton McDermid: They could not handle the tough questions.


John R. Rodriguez: It was a farce. It was a charade. That is exactly what they were protesting. I ask the Government that talks about a new wave, a new era of democracy. "Where would ordinary Canadians be able to go to express their opinions; to the committee? Where?" In fact, this Government was fast-tracked by the Congress. They were fast-tracked. They want to get it sealed, signed and delivered and out of the way. That is not another myth. I say to the Government in all honesty: "Why don't you go to the people?" Let us do that.


An Hon. Member:: Yes. They are afraid.
August 22, 1988


John R. Rodriguez: Let's put an end to this process, to this charade. Let's go to the country and present the positions fairly and squarely.


An Hon. Member:: You never presented anything fairly and squarely.


John R. Rodriguez: If you think you have better rhetoric, present your rhetoric. If you think it is such a good deal, surely you can sell it.


An Hon. Member:: You bet.


Steven W. Langdon: Let them have their propaganda-


John R. Rodriguez: Yes. They are taking millions upon millions of tax dollars and pumping out their position, their propaganda. They are pumping it out with taxpayers' money when this Bill has not even been passed. The Government is promoting this Bill, spending money on it. Why don't you spend your own money, the money that you have collected from all of the corporations, that you have in your kitty? Let's have an election, spend your money out of your electoral funds and have the election based on that.


John Horton McDermid: Please bring home a quart of milk.


John R. Rodriguez: It says here that the Prime Minister is afraid. It says that Brian Mulroney is afraid to face the Canadian people, an ordinary Canadian in the gallery. I want to say to you, ordinary Canadians have spoken. This Government is running for cover. One only has to see what happened during the last weekend.
Now, when they are starting to shoot themselves in their foot, their head and their arms, they are not prepared to face the Canadian people. They are talking now about an election possibly next year.


Steven W. Langdon: They will pay for it.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would not be at all surprised if they trying to work a deal with the American Congress to somehow or other put off this arrangement and the passing of this Bill so they can get it done in the new year, 1989. I say to this Government in all honesty: "Look, you owe it to the Canadian people to present this matter in an election to them. Get a mandate before it is passed because I think that Canadians have to speak on this issue." I think the whole process should be stopped right now and an election called. The Prime Minister can go to the Governor General, dissolve Parliament and off we can go. It is as simple as that. If the Government wins a majority, fine, then the Tories can have it. Until that is done, the Government has no right to have this deal. If the Government wins a majority, it will have the will of the people for something that has been put to the people. But if the Government has not taken the issue to the people-
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if we consider all the attacks on the free trade agreement, it is clear that ignorance, not understanding, is gaining ground, and that is why we have to get involved in this debate because of the way the facts are being misrepresented.
Basically, the FTA is a deal. A deal is an agreement signed by two consenting parties, and it is often a comprehensive whole. The various components, what we call the package, are all part of the deal or agreement. It's like going to a store, Mr. Speaker, and buying a dozen eggs. We don't buy a dozen yolks one day, a dozen whites the next and the shells the day after. They are all part of the same package!
A deal is exactly the same, but let me explain. As a Government, we have every right to stop letting our neighbours push us around and to establish-because basically, the FTA is mainly that-a tribunal to arbitrate any trade disputes that may exist between our two countries, because already 85 per cent of our goods cross our borders unrestricted. There is thus the remaining 15 per cent. What we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is establish an impartial tribunal.
What was the situation like before? We had our problems with cedar shakes, softwood lumber, pork, mustard seed and lobster, all goods that were protected by our neighbours to the south. When we went before the courts, we sent a battery of lawyers to Washington to defend our interests before U.S. tribunals under U.S. law. Mr. Speaker, we will have an impartial tribunal that will hand down decisions, that will have its own rules and conduct its own investigations, and that is what sovereignty and autonomy are all about.
I was talking to one of my colleagues on the weekend about acid rain, and this person said: Sure, but we can force the Americans to do something about acid rain. So I said: Aren't you satisfied with what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) told the U.S. Congress? He was the first Prime Minister to do that. He said: Sure, but that doesn't help! So I said: It will help eventually, and what are we supposed to do when our neighbours to the south who are individualists and have their own parliamentary system and their own political and intellectual way of doing things, what do we do if they won't budge? Do we shoot down one of their planes? Do we shoot down the first plane that crosses the border? No. This is a democratic country, and so we pass legislation that will enable both countries to reach an agreement.
I repeat, 85 per cent of our goods cross the border without any customs interference because . . . Now look at the free trade agreement. I explained about the tribunal. The agreement is concerned with four specific points in particular. It concerns tariffs on about 15 per cent of the goods that now

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
cross our borders; it concerns export and import quotas; it concerns laws, so-called malicious laws that while ostensibly protecting one product, prevent others from entering the country; and it concerns incentives. But basically, how much trade is there between Canada and the United States? Our trade is worth $169 billion annually, and 80 to 85 per cent is with our neighbours to the south.
So we set up a free trade agreement, and all of a sudden some people get terribly upset. That's it, we will have to start exporting. Not any more than we used to. We are an exporting country. We were before the free trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, we export 33 to 34 per cent of our Gross National Product. For instance, the Japanese export about 10 per cent of their GNP. We have to export because we have a small population, 25, 26 or 27 million. But we always had a problem because our markets were not stable.
Remember in 1984 or early 1985, when hog producers in the riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry came to my office because the United States had levied a tariff on pork carcases which were exported by the pound, 5 cents a pound, I think it was $1 per head? So what was the result? It meant that hog producers were stuck with their pigs, and they couldn't sell them anymore. Why? For the simple reason that producers in the U.S. went to see their lobbyists, their politicians and they said: Listen, Canadian pork producers with their Canadian laws and their provincial legislation can produce more cheaply. So you have to stop this, it doesn't make sense. So we had another outburst! There was a problem with lobster and with softwood lumber. It took so long with the softwood lumber dispute, Mr. Speaker-every time we had to go to the United States and defend our case before the U. S. courts. The free trade agreement will establish an international court, and we have every right to do that.
Earlier, some people said we were "shafted" by U.S. protectionist legislation. Certainly not! That particular legislation does not abolish the tribunal set up under the FTA. We are talking about leadership, Mr. Speaker. Just now they were saying, "Call an election and you will see. Campaign on it!" Talk about leadership. We will talk about leadership right now with the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, a by-election was held about a month ago in Lac-Saint-Jean. The NDP had great figures-they are perfect, so perfect they are almost unassailable-but they did not even get 9 per cent of the vote in a riding where normally they should have had more, according to the opinion polls. So let's have an election! The president of the Quebec wing of the NDP did not even get 2 per cent of the vote in the riding of Johnson. They were not even able to put up with Toupin besides, and now they want to go to the people, Mr. Speaker! Let us have an election. We will call an election on that, because the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Speaker, has shown leadership with the Free Trade Agreement, the Meech Lake Agreement and the various tough issues he has had to negotiate! And that is what people will have to judge, leadership and nothing else!
I remember the day after . . . Where does the Free Trade Agreement come from? You remember that the Liberal Party set up a Royal Commission chaired by Mr. Macdonald; the President of the Liberal Party of Canada, lawyer Michel Robert, was on it. They presented a report. I remember the journalists' reaction when this report was tabled in the House. Do you know what they said? They said that Mr. Mulroney would have to stop eating Big Macs and have a real meal. My God, here is a Government that has had a real meal. . . For once a Royal Commission report was not shelved, $20 million was not spent for nothing . .. ! The Prime Minister digested it and moved the negotiations forward, because he asserted the leadership he should as Prime Minister of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in the next election campaign, despite all the trickery, half-truths and ignorance which are having an impact, as I said at the beginning, Canadians will still believe that Canada was built on trade, because we already export 32 or 33 per cent of our gross national product. That is important! We built on that and now we will have an agreement to stabilize it. People who want to attack free trade wrap themselves in the flag and masquerade as true nationalists. Mr. Speaker, they say our culture is at risk. Our culture is not at risk because of free trade. Our culture is at risk because of what we see on television every day. Every day we see American culture, and that is much worse than the free trade agreement. We don't care about that. Of course I don't want to stop magazines and journals at the border. But those are the vehicles of cultural change, not the changes in our trade rules. Certainly not! In fact, those rules may enhance our culture because we are going to be able to defend ourselves under Canadian law before a tribunal that will be recognized by both countries. That may do a lot more to enhance our Canadian identity, our Canadian culture and our Canadian heritage.
Mr. Speaker, the short tempers of our friends opposite have often led to stormy debates here in the House. I will always remember when we had the softwood lumber affair and the pork exports. So what did the Government do? Instead of taking to our guns and settling accounts with our neighbours, we introduced legislation that would provide for economic and trade stability. Mr. Speaker, that is FTA. It is no more than that because when it comes down to it, 85 per cent of our goods already cross the border free of customs duty.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in my place to debate the amendments in group nine put forward by our trade critic, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). In this group of amendments we are addressing the question of the settlement dispute mechanism.
In 1983, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ran for the Tory leadership, he put aside any fears that a party led by him would enter free trade negotiations with the U.S. That was very clear and categorical. In 1984, during the last federal
August 22, 1988

election, there was no national debate on a bilateral trade agreement with the U.S. Notwithstanding those facts, the Prime Minister's most compelling reason for entering into these negotiations with the U.S. was the need to obtain secure access to the American market for Canadian goods.
Then it was the Prime Minister who suggested that an agreement that would not have a binding dispute settlement mechanism, one which would exempt Canada from harassment by American trade remedy laws, would not be worth the paper it was written on. Those are the Prime Minister's words. That is not something the Opposition is saying. It was an undertaking to this country by the Prime Minister of Canada. In fact, on March 16, 1987, the Prime Minister said in this House, and I quote:
Our highest priority is to have an agreement that ends the threat to Canadian industry from U.S. protectionists who harass and restrict our exports through the misuse of trade remedy laws. Let me leave no doubt that first, a new regime on trade remedy laws must be part of the agreement.
Later, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on April 2, he said:
The U.S. trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada.
What have we got now? It seems very clear to one and all that after months and months of discussions the Canadian negotiators were not able to secure access to American markets for Canadian goods. Second, Canada did not obtain an exemption from U.S. trade remedy laws. If one needs to have that point made clearly, one does not have to go beyond the words of the U.S. trade representative, Clayton Yeutter, who, in reviewing the so-called free trade agreement, had this to say:
The United States countervailing duty and anti-dumping laws, defined as U.S. statutes, legislative history, regulation, administrative practice and court decisions, will remain intact and unchanged. Hence, U.S. petitioners will retain all their rights under existing U.S. laws as Canadian industries will keep their rights under Canadian law.
What did Canada obtain after months of negotiations and jetting back and forth between the two capitals? The Government said the priority was a binding dispute settlement mechanism. Yet what we have come up with is a mechanism void of any real protection for Canadian interests. First, we have a panel that can arbitrate and simply determine whether the process was followed, without looking at the fact that the process is very seriously and rigidly flawed. The panels will not be insulated from political pressure. There will be two representatives from both the U.S. and Canada and a fifth member chosen by some unknown procedure. That will not produce an objective result such as we see in GATT where most if not all of the members on the various panels who have to render dispute decisions are taken from countries not involved in the dispute.
Second, the national panels involved in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases will have only judicial review power. They will have to look at whether the process was followed as opposed to looking at the facts underlying the dispute in the first place.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Third, anti-dumping and countervailing duty decisions by national panels will be based only on domestic law. That again leaves Canada open to future protectionist sentiments in the U.S.
Fourth, the panel procedures will be long and costly.
Fifth, panel decisions will not be binding and therefore, with the exception of safeguards, decisions will not be binding unless both parties agree beforehand to comply with the decision.
Canada's retaliatory capacity against the U.S. is weakened in the face of overwhelming harassment from a country that is much larger than ours, much more powerful economically. Who would win that war is quite obvious from the outset.
Perhaps the most important point is that our ability to dispute arrangements in trade with the Americans vis-a-vis GATT will in effect be closed off because GATT will not get into a position of rendering a decision taken between countries in a bilateral agreement. A number of government Members suggested that we are still living under GATT rules and we will be able to access GATT with respect to any harassment by the U.S. Yet a 1949 GATT decision held that the determination of rights and obligations between Governments arising under a bilateral agreement, such as the one we have now, is a matter within the competence of the contracting parties.
Therefore, we have the various components of the Canadian economy added to the cultural and communications industries which are under pressure in this agreement on the one hand.
On the other hand, we do not have a dispute settlement mechanism which can enforce and defend our own interests. Canadians are obviously worried about entering into an arrangement which seems to be lopsided, one way, and doomed in terms of advancing and enhancing our trade numbers vis-avis the Americans.
We have moved these two amendments in order to draw the attention of Canadians to the ills of this dispute settling system which has been put in place by the negotiators of the Canadian Government. They have not realized the first objective of the Prime Minister and are trying to cover that up with various other aspects and colourful language. However, when you remove the rhetoric, you are left with a fragile agreement and a dispute settlement mechanism which certainly does not build the confidence which our industries and our country and its people require and deserve.
It is with that interest in mind that we are trying to get the Government to focus honestly and competently on trying to provide a dispute settlement mechanism which will not only talk about equity and defence but will deliver on both those fronts.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to enter the debate at this time in light of

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
some of the comments which have been put on the record by Members opposite, specifically as they relate to Canada's social programs and the reporting which must be done to Parliament.
The Economic Council of Canada has called the agreement "a timely, historic and mutually beneficial treaty that goes a long way towards achieving Canada's major objectives". The council stated that it was an extension, not an alternative, to Canada's multilateral commitments, an agreement that provides a valuable example for the current global negotiations.
More specific to my responsibilities, the council could find "no reason to think that free trade can be used to alter or undermine Canada's unemployment insurance system, medicare or other programs fundamental to the social safety net". On the contrary, the council believed that "by strengthening economic growth and employment the agreement will increase government revenues and improve the ability of governments to address social issues".
Regrettably, in this debate there has been more heat than light. Opponents have been ignoring the facts and independent analyses. In fact, if one were to believe the recent speech of the Leader of the NDP, you would think that this agreement would lead Canada to a Rambo-like, dog-eat-dog society of street crime, pornography, and sweat shops, that widows and orphans will be out on the street, that our resources will be raped and plundered, and that only the fittest will survive. I think even Members opposite would know that that rhetoric defies both logic and belief.
Where does the Opposition stand? Are we too competitive, which we hear from them, or are we not competitive enough, which argument we hear as well? The Opposition would have us believe that certain very specific provisions of the agreement are the thin edge of the wedge toward the commercialization of our health care system.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not certain but perhaps the Minister has chosen the wrong clauses to speak on. These clauses deal with the dispute settlement procedures and so far nothing that the Minister has talked about would seem to be relevant to those particular amendments. Given the time constraints, I request the Speaker, if possible, to suggest to the Minister that it would be best to make a speech which deals with the dispute settlement issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I thank the Member for his interjection. I am sure the Minister for National Health and Welfare was about to get to the meat of the amendments.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to the amendments. I know that you like to invoke the rule of relevancy. I noticed that the same kind of thing was happening when the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) was speaking. If I am pulling the Hon. Member's chain, I am
sorry, but he has been doing some pretty desperate things around here.
There have been comments made in this House that Canadian blood will be for sale. Canadian blood is not for sale and will not be for sale.


Steven W. Langdon: It is.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will try to enlighten the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). The only reason I am pleased that he is in this House is that he is not teaching at the University of Windsor polluting kids' minds with the kinds of things he has been saying here.
We do buy blood products because we are not self-sufficient. If the Member looks at what the agreement says rather than what he thinks the agreement says, he will find that that is the issue. In fact, in some provinces we buy up to 70 per cent of our blood products from the United States. He should be careful in his use of the wood "blood" as opposed to "blood products".
It is also important that members of the Opposition say that we will "commercialize" our health care system. If you look again at the agreement you will find that if a province so desires it can commercialize the management side but not the health care delivery system. The Canada Health Act received unanimous approval in this House.
It is interesting to note that the Province of Ontario from where the Members come, is the one province which has tried such a management approach. Before Members say that this is going to change health care or that we are going to lose benefits of our health care system, they should look very carefully at what the agreement says and, more important, where that kind of a system has been tried, namely, in one hospital in Hawkesbury.
If you have followed this debate you will know that the Liberals and the NDP have used two totally contradictory arguments to raise doubts about this agreement. First, they have told Canadians that our social programs make us too competitive, that they are subsidies which the Americans will countervail, and that the Americans will somehow force us to change our policies. This argument is simply not true. Why would these programs, developed under GATT rules, now be countervailable subsidies when the free trade agreement does not change the GATT rules on subsidies? The Hon. Member knows that, as does the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry should simply follow the advice of the Winnipeg Free Press, that is, that the Leader of the Liberal Party, and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry should tell the truth.
With regard to competitiveness one can read what the Government of Ontario said in its economic outlook and fiscal review. It said that the costs of production in Canadian manufacturing now compare favourably with the United
August 22, 1988

States and Japan in terms of total hourly compensation, that is, both money, wages, and fringe benefits. It goes on to say that wage rates in Ontario are generally lower than those in immediately adjacent states in the U.S., i.e., Michigan, and competitive with lower wage states such as Georgia. Ontario companies enjoy other competitive advantages including lower health costs and lower energy costs.
As they say themselves, our social programs are not countervailable subsidies and the relevant rules are not changing. I do not generally follow Mr. David Peterson's logic, but I will accept it for today in order to make the point to Members opposite who may prefer to listen to him than to us.
Additionally, they say that we will not be able to bring in new programs. As an example, we are presently bringing forward child care, a $6.4 billion program which the Liberals say is too small. They say that they are going to bring in an expanded child care program in those years when the deficit goes down. However, from 1969 to 1979, or even to 1984, the deficit went down in only one year, in 1979, after they had been in office for three years. I asked the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) about that issue the other day. He said: "Well, we would have to change that. We would have to rethink it", because the Liberal Party wants a universal program but it is only going to do it when its deficits go down. The point is simply that it is not countervailable. It does not affect health care. It does not affect pensions. It does not affect blood banks. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) said that we are going to start selling babies. What nonsense. What absolute pap those Members raise.
It is time these amendments were dealt with tonight, that they be voted on, and that the free trade agreement gets passed because Canada needs the prosperity so that we can develop the social programs we have in place at present and the social programs we want in the future. That is our agenda and that is what we are going to do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The question is on Motion No. 45. The vote on Motion No, 45 will also apply to Motions Nos. 46, 47 and 48. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 49, which will be voted on separately.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 49
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 8 at page 41 the following:
"48. Notwithstanding all the provisions of this agreement on a bilateral dispute settlement mechanism, Canada reaffirms its commitment to the superior GATT dispute settlement mechanism which allows Canada to challenge the law itself as well as its application.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to the amendment and to follow my colleague from Manitoba, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who has just spoken. He is known in Manitoba as the Minister responsible for the CF-18. I am always glad when he provides admonitions that we tell the truth because he is the Minister who sat on the truth for six to eight months while decisions were made that deeply affected our province in a way from which we will never recover. He did not quite have the guts or the courage to tell the truth to the people of Manitoba during that period of time. It is too bad he did not follow his own advice at that time. It is too bad his preachments were not followed by himself. It is too bad he did not at least have the honour to put his own seat on the line in terms of dealing with an honest Government and a dishonest decision that was made during that period of time, and the political interference.
There is only one way the problem of who is really telling the truth can be resolved, and that is to let the people decide. Of course, the Conservatives are afraid of doing that. They prefer to act like kids in a school yard, throwing stones and insults, as opposed to dealing with the debate. They are afraid to get out where it really counts, on the hustings, where the democratic process makes a judgment not based upon editorials in various newspapers which are owned by large corporate concentrations. I think that is the difference.


John Horton McDermid: You hate anyone who has done well, don't you?


Lloyd Axworthy: I will tell the Parliamentary Secretary that people who abuse power, and the Member belongs to a Party which is a clear example of that, is what I fight against.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about yourself?

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Lloyd Axworthy: That is why we are against this agreement. Because this agreement will give more power and more influence to those large concentrations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I listened carefully to the two gentlemen from Manitoba, and I think they are about even now and perhaps we can get back to the Bill.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the amendment we are bringing forward is an important corollary to those amendments we have just debated. It is a very important amendment because it establishes a very distinct difference in the way in which we view trade policy in this country. It is very simple. The Conservative Party of Canada, the Republican Party of the north, the Party that believes in all those great fond dreams of Ronald Reagan, has a very simple principle. It is going to abandon the time tested and effective procedures we used in the past to protect Canadian trading interests both in negotiating with the GATT and at the same time using the dispute settlement mechanism. We, on the other hand, believe that Canada has prospered, our trade has expanded, and our opportunities abroad have been developed by relying upon the international trading system. It is a very clear difference between the two. It is not a matter of who is for or against more trade. It is a question of how do we do it.
How do we ensure security of access? How do we open access up? How do we diversify trade? The Conservative Party, the Republican Party of the north, has clearly adopted the position that they are going to plight their troth and sign the marriage certificate with the United States. We have heard them talk about it: we have to join a market of 100 million people, we have to get behind these walls because those Europeans are after us and the Japanese are after us, and we have to sort of sign up with Uncle Sam. That was the position taken by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) and his family 30 years ago. I suppose if consistency is a virtue, he has one virtue at least. He has been consistent on that. Unfortunately, it is now an argument that has been adopted by the Conservative Party of Canada.
We are saying that our position is very different. We want to establish a trading vision that has a much broader base than that, one that looks at it on a global basis and recognizes that in negotiating an agreement one never gets oneself in a position as Mr. Reisman, who was the chief negotiator said, where one has to put on the table far more benefits than the other side is prepared to offer because they have a larger market. Mr. Reisman said that. He said that was the reason we had to put water on the table. He said in his famous speech in front of the Ontario Economic Council: "When you are asking for a change and you are negotiating with a power that is 10 times your size and you are trying to get some similarity in trade benefits, you have to put chips on the table that are non-trade chips". So we put on investment, we put on energy, we put on resources, and we put on water, in order to get some changes in the trade area.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is exactly what Mr. Reisman said in his speech.


John Horton McDermid: Give us the quote. Where is the speech?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Reisman's analysis was right. Unfortunately, the Government carried through.


Some Hon. Members:: Where? Where?


Lloyd Axworthy: In front of the Ontario Economic Council.


John Horton McDermid: You are putting words in somebody else's mouth. Read us the speech.


Lloyd Axworthy: If these illiterates in the Conservative Party would read these things, they might find out what is going on. They might find out in fact what is in place. The fact is that we are faced with a situation where, because we rely on a bilateral negotiation as opposed to a multilateral negotiation, we end up having to give up far more than we get. That is the clear record and the clear history of this negotiation.
Let us talk about another so-called distortion. The Parliamentary Secretary got to his feet in full dudgeon and said: "We can go to GATT. We still have our rights". He stomped his feet and he blew smoke out of his ears and what other kind of aperture he has. He demonstrated that we are going to be loyal and true and blue to the GATT. Except he and his so-called experts on the government side forgot to mention one small item, that is, that the GATT itself in 1949 made a clear decision which stated that when there was a binational dispute settlement mechanism it would not touch the case. It has not ever since then. It has not gotten close to them. That is its rule.
We are now introducing under this agreement an alternative system which, as was pointed out in a previous speech, is weaker, will be more costly, and will provide for less protection for Canadian industry. It is also more political. As a result, because of that type of convention under the GATT, we will not have that access about which the Parliamentary Secretary spoke.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


Lloyd Axworthy: This is the gentleman who was so insistent that we get the facts straight. Those are the facts.
The GATT decision in 1949 states: "The determination of rights and obligations between Governments arising under a bilateral agreement is not a matter within the competence of the contracting parties," meaning the GATT. What does the Parliamentary Secretary have to say about that?


John Horton McDermid: I will be up.


Lloyd Axworthy: Sure, he will be up. Once more we will have the dance of the seven veils. Once more we will have all the gobbledegook. Once again we will have the same kind of thing
August 22, 1988

that we get in all this propaganda from the Government, that is, they do not tell it straight; they do not tell it as it is.
Let us put the Government to the test. It is simple. We do not have to argue about it any more. If the Government is prepared to accept the principle that the GATT agreement is predominant, superior and provides the basis, then all Members opposite have to do is vote for this amendment. But if they do not vote for the amendment, then we have a clear admission and confession of guilt. They will be saying to the Canadian people, and we will remind them of course, that they voted against a simple clause that establishes a superior precedence to the GATT international system. It is a test. We will find out tomorrow night when we vote. When we come to Motion No. 49 we will see how government Members vote. In Parliament we have one clear way of showing what we mean, that is, we stand up on our feet. We get up on our feet to say yes or no.
The test is here. If the clause does not do damage to the agreement, if it is as the Government says that we will still honour all these GATT obligations, if we are going to overturn the 1949 decision by some miracle, okay, then members of the Government can vote for that motion. That is very simple. But tomorrow night when we see them vote on Motion No. 49 we will mark how they vote. You will see, Mr. Speaker, that what in fact they will be admitting is that this binational panel, this dispute settlement mechanism, this whole system supersedes that clause. It provides an alternative which provides exclusion. It does cut off recourse to those mechanisms. It does weaken our ability. Thereby, it cuts off from Canadians one of the most important and effective measures and remedies that we have had for protecting ourselves not only against the Americans but other very large and powerful trading interests. That is why we are defending it.
We believe that the most important way to defend Canadian trading interests is to have an international rule of law, to have rules apply to large and small. We believe that the same rules should apply whether one is the United States of America or Thailand or Nicaragua. The only way we can get that is if countries like Canada stand up for that international rule of law, whether it is in trade, human rights or disarmament. We will find out tomorrow night just where the Government is prepared to put its commitment, whether it is prepared to put its commitment into this new machinery that it is always talking about, or whether it will be put into one that really works to protect our interests.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I get a very big kick out of listening to the Hon. Member who puts his own interpretation on the agreement that we have signed.
In the overview of the agreement it is laid out very well. It states that the agreement sets a new standard for trade agreements concluded under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. If we were dismissing the GATT would we conclude this agreement under the GATT? Of course we would not. What this agreement does, and it says here, is that
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
it takes various GATT commitments, bilateral arrangements, and ad hoc understandings and transforms them into a treaty based relationship between Canada and the United States which should govern the trade and economic relationship for the foreseeable future. The agreement meets the test of fairness and of mutual advantage.
It also states that this accord sends a powerful signal against protectionism and trade liberalization. It reflects the commitment of both Governments to liberalize trade on a global basis through multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT. All the way through this agreement the GATT rules are mentioned in chapter after chapter.
Let us talk about Article 1902 in the agreement which considers anti-dumping and countervail duty law. It considers the right of either party to amend its anti-dumping or countervail law and to bring in amendments to its anti-dumping or countervail duty law provided that in the case of amendment to a party's anti-dumping or countervailing duty statute-and it goes through a list of requirements, one being such amendments shall apply to goods from the other party only if such application is specified in the amending statute. It goes on and on. Under Section 2(d) of Article 1902 it is stated:
d) such amendment, as applicable to the other Party, is not inconsistent with i) the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-
For the Hon. Member to stand up here to say that this Government has dismissed the GATT, that we have ignored the GATT, that we are not paying any attention to it, is totally wrong. The Hon. Member knows that full well. He knows that the Government has been on a two-track process on trade, both on a bilateral basis with our largest trading partner and on a multilateral basis with the GATT. As a matter of fact, we Canadians can be very proud in the leading role that we have been taking in the negotiations, the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations which are ongoing at the present time and which are almost at the half-way point. However, as we know, these negotiations can go on for a number of years. It is interesting to listen to the Hon. Member talk about us not being committed to GATT. Of course we are committed to GATT.
I listened to him say that Manitoba is in such financial bad shape that it will never recover. Manitoba has the second lowest unemployment rate in Canada. The Hon. Member should be proud of that. With this free trade agreement it will accomplish a lot more. There is no question about it. Let me read for the record an editorial from The Financial Post entitled "Hardly a sell-out". It reads:
As Trade Minister John Crosbie noted in the House the other day, it's curious that the Opposition wants to move about 100 amendments to a trade bill they say they will tear up if elected.
Does the effort to improve the bill mean that in an amended form it would be acceptable? We'll never know because the amendments won't make it. But if the Liberals are elected, we'll look for a new Canada-U.S. trade bill incorporating the proposed changes.
(If such a bill didn't materialize under a Liberal government, it would suggest the amendments being proposed now are merely a stalling tactic, but

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
we know a responsible party wouldn't stoop to wasting Parliament's time in that fashion. Don't we?)
Meanwhile, the general criticism of the Free Trade Agreement continues. The Government "doesn't have a mandate to take this country into the U.S.," the NDP's Steven Langdon says. Liberal Leader John Turner still uses that wonderfully original line about making Canada "the 51st state." (As we have said before, we wish he could accord the whole of Canada more equivalency than Rhode Island, but he's stuck on 51.)
As trade lawyer Christopher Thomas notes on the page opposite, Turner also characterizes the FTA as the "Sale of Canada Act." The problem is, as Thomas says, the agreement offers no evidence of a sellout. The critics give the impression that Canada simply signed away the store, and the Americans committed to nothing. But, as Thomas says, "the vast majority of the agreement's terms are mutually binding."
For the most part, exceptions to the mutually binding terms arise from terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade, to which both Canada and the U.S. are parties, or from particular legislative or regulatory provisions in each country. For example, under the FTA, obligations affecting wine and spirits apply mainly to Canada.
That's because, of the two parties, only Canada is breaching its GATT obligations by discriminating against foreign alcoholic beverages.
That refers to the discriminatory pricing of the provinces. It continues:
In the area of financial services, different obligations are imposed on the two countries because of the different regulatory regimes and the different paces of deregulation.
If the free trade critics would view the agreement in the light of our GATT obligations and the legislative and regulatory provisions in each country, it becomes a less ominous piece of work. Hardly, in other words, the "bill of sale" Turner thinks it is.
That was an editorial in The Financial Post on August 22, 1988. It points out very well that this agreement is GATT consistent, that it was negotiated under the GATT rules, that this Government fully supports GATT, works with it, and as a matter of fact is playing a very leading role in the GATT negotiations that are going on now. This country can be extremely proud of the leadership role that it has taken in the agricultural end of things where there are major problems throughout the world.
It is evident to anyone who understands and who has read the free trade agreement, and it is understood that it is consistent under the GATT regulations. Under that section we can challenge a decision of the United States that it made pursuant to such anti-dumping or countervailing duty law before the binational dispute panel.


David Orlikow: Which would deal with it under American law.


John Horton McDermid: Under Chapter 19 on the basis that the law is being unfairly applied. That is what this is all about.


David Orlikow: It has to be dealt with under American law.


John Horton McDermid: Listen to the Opposition moan and groan.


Mr. Benjamin:: Under American law. Why don't you take our your citizenship down there?


John Horton McDermid: And also under Canadian law.
The final point I want to make as I sit here and listen to my friends in opposition is that they talked about wanting to get exempted from American countervail and anti-dumping law.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There are no exceptions.


John Horton McDermid: Never have they said that they were prepared to exempt the Americans from Canadian countervail or anti-dumping law. They have never said that in all their criticism of this agreement. In Canada what we complain of is the fair application of the law. Generally the anti-dumping and countervail laws on both sides are basically the same. They are done under GATT rules. It is the application of those laws that has caused us the problem. Earlier in one of his previous incarnations the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) mentioned that the application of the law in the United States for the protectionist attitude in the United States was what we were fighting. This binational dispute settlement mechanism will help us with that.
In conclusion, the Government is committed to GATT. This agreement was negotiated under GATT. We will be voting against this frivolous Motion No. 49 not only tonight, but also tomorrow night.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, as I was pointing out earlier this evening, the most serious trade barrier between the United States and Canada are the American laws on countervail and antidumping.


John Horton McDermid: It's the application.


William Warren Allmand: It has not been tariffs for several years now. The most serious and harassing trade barriers have been countervail and anti-dumping. As a matter of fact, I will put the following figures on the record. Since 1979 the Americans have launched 300 countervail cases against Canadians doing business in the United States. In 70 per cent of those 300 cases they found injury against these Canadian business. That means that American tribunals found that the Canadian products being sold in the United States were in some way or another subsidized, according to their laws, and therefore they added a countervail duty on to the price of the Canadian product and set up that type of barrier. The Americans awarded a countervail duty against those Canadian products in 70 per cent of 300 cases.
I also pointed out that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) started the free trade negotiations with the United States he stated that his highest priority was to get rid of American trade laws, such as countervail and anti-dumping. That was his highest priority on March 6, 1987. He did not accomplish that because after the negotiations were finished and the agreement was signed, Clayton Yeutter, the President's trade representative in the negotiations stated: "The U.S. countervailing duty and anti-dumping laws, defined as U.S. statutes, legislative history, regulations, administrative
August 22, 1988

practice, and court decisions-will remain intact and unchanged. Hence U.S. petitioners will retain all their rights under existing U.S. laws as Canadian industries will keep their rights under Canadian law".
The United States laws on countervail and anti-dumping remain, despite the wish of the Prime Minister that this should be done away with in the negotiations.
With respect to the dispute settlement mechanism that was set up to deal with these things, P. W. Slayton, a trade lawyer with the Toronto law firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon stated: "Anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws remain the same in both countries. This is disappointing. Relief from United States application of its anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws was thought to be one of Canada's objectives".
That did not take place. We have moved that the dispute settlement mechanism set up in the legislation be disposed of, taken out of the legislation, and replaced with the GATT procedures.
Under GATT procedures one is allowed to question the fairness of the laws themselves, whereas under the dispute settlement mechanism that is provided for in the agreement and in the legislation, one can only question the fairness of the application of the law, and whether American law is applied fairly in accordance with its own procedures. One cannot question whether or not the law itself is fair. When I attempted to point out to government Members that this was provided for in the agreement, they attempted to rebut what I said by pointing out that each country is allowed to amend its countervail laws, but any amendment to countervail laws must be consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
They referred to Article 1902 of the agreement. Well, to establish that you will have a separate dispute settlement mechanism is not inconsistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. They tried to imply that it would be inconsistent. Well, it is not inconsistent. As a matter of fact, my hon. colleague and I have both referred to a decision of GATT in 1949. The 1949 GATT decision read: "The determination of rights and obligations between Governments arising under a bilateral agreement is not a matter within the competence of the contracting parties; i.e. to GATT". Since 1949, GATT has not established one panel to examine a dispute arising from a bilateral agreement. Where countries have got together and had a bilateral agreement to deal with disputes between them, GATT says: "From that point on, we do not deal with it".
What is wrong with this agreement is that the dispute settlement mechanism under the bilateral agreement says that you cannot question the fairness of the countervail and antidumping law. You can only question the fairness of its application.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
It is interesting to note that the Parliamentary Secretary did not answer me nor did he answer the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) with respect to that GATT decision in 1949. We asked him to explain his position with respect to that GATT decision in 1949, but he never mentioned one word with respect to it, and he cannot. There has not been one panel under GATT to deal with countries that have a bilateral dispute mechanism between them since 1949, and that is 39 years now.
Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary is listening to this somewhere else. How is it that in the softwood lumber case, when we had the problem with the United States, they did not refer it to the GATT tribunal for a resolution? They ignored the procedures under GATT. It is possible, if they had gone to GATT, they would have got a much better decision in favour of Canada than they finally worked out with the United States in the agreement they signed with them. They might have been able to get a ruling through GATT which declared the American countervail duty against our softwood lumber to be an unfair ruling. They did not go that way. We just had the Parliamentary Secretary say a few minutes ago that the Conservative Government believes very strongly in GATT. They support GATT all along the line. Well, their actions speak louder than words. When it came time to go to GATT on the softwood lumber case, they did not go to GATT.
I repeat, the dispute settlement mechanism in this agreement is not acceptable. It is not acceptable because it does not allow us to question unfair American laws relating to countervail and anti-dumping. That is why we want the dispute settlement mechanism in this agreement replaced by the GATT procedures which allow us to question not only the application of the unfair laws but the unfair laws themselves.
As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry said, if the Conservative Government really believes in the provisions of GATT, really believes that we should be able to question the fairness of anti-dumping laws and countervail laws, then let it vote for this amendment tomorrow when the votes take place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this must be a very confusing debate for people who are watching the debate, people who are listening, because we are dealing with a series of technical issues. There are counter charges and counter interpretations. I want to try to suggest two or three things. I want to say first that contrary to what the Parliamentary Secretary suggested to the House a few minutes ago, it has never been the Opposition which said that we should seek an exemption from United States countervail and anti-dumping law. What we have said is that it is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of this country who started on the quest for the great trade agreement which was to emerge. He said that what would be achieved would be an exemption from U.S. countervail law, the law that puts up those special tariffs against our hogs, our fish, our stainless steel, our

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
various vegetable products. That has been what we have been attacking, because the Government said that it would achieve this goal, and it failed to achieve the goal. It is that failure of the Government which is at the heart of the judgment that we have to make about this deal.
I think that the crucial issues with respect to this debate are not in fact being talked about. Though we support this amendment, I think the present GATT framework of dispute settlement is not really very satisfactory. It takes a great deal of time and it is something which we as a country, for instance, could actually win in a dispute but cannot be certain that the other country will be bound by the decision which is made. There are problems with the GATT dispute system.
The point about GATT is that GATT is and was the superior form in which to try to deal with our problems with the United States. GATT gave us the possibility of being able, through negotiation in the present round in which all the GATT countries are taking part, to have the chance to put in some disciplines on the way that the United States is using its countervail system against smaller countries like Canada to block out the products from this country when they become too competitive, too readily able to out-compete the United States products against which they are being sold.
At the present stage, the Americans have a system of countervail which is totally laughable when one thinks about it. They say that if Canada is guilty of putting a subsidy on a factory when it is established, like the Michelin Tire factory in Nova Scotia, it is possible for the United States to put a countervailing duty against tires coming into the United States. It is possible for the Americans to do so because we have put a subsidy into the building of the factory. They do not look at the question of whether they subsidize their tire factories. They do not look at the question of whether fishermen in the United States are subsidized when there are subsidy and countervail actions taken against our fishermen. Those questions are not looked at because American law says that it does not have to look at those questions.
All the U.S. has to look at is whether there are subsidies used in Canada, in Germany, or in Japan. If that is the case, then the United States using its countervail system can put up a special barrier to block profits from countries being able to get access easily into the United States for their products. That is what has to change, Mr. Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: Only if the Americans win their case.


Steven W. Langdon: The only way things will change is if we get a change in GATT whereby the countervail systems of all countries, including our own, have to take into account not just the subsidies that have been put on foreign products coming into the country but the subsidies which go into supporting domestic industry at home. If there is a difference between the two, an unfairness between the two, then a countervail system can fairly and sensibly be applied. For instance, the United
States has far higher subsidies on a product than we have provided here in Canada yet still puts countervail duties against our fish or our hogs. As is almost certainly the case support in the United States for hog and fish production is significantly higher than in Canada, yet the Americans still put countervails against our products coming into that country.


John Horton McDermid: We can countervail them.


Steven W. Langdon: In this case we have a system whereby we are badly hurt by a pattern of law which is itself in its very basis unfair. That is what has to be changed and can only be changed through GATT. It can only be changed through an agreement among countries throughout the world.


Mr. Shields:: That is not true.


Steven W. Langdon: That is what has to happen. That is the only way in which it can happen. If it is not agreed upon by GATT, you get a crazy quilt system that simply will not work. Therefore, instead of working our way through these crazy negotiations with the United States that have worked out so badly and have left Canada so unequally used, so unbalanced and unfairly dealt with in the way things have worked out, we should have worked through GATT where we have influence and where we have a say. We should have concentrated on that and not sold out this country through the various energy concessions, the investment concessions, and the concessions in the health area despite the Minister's suggestions about concessions in the Auto Pact area and the concessions on agriculture which have hurt this country so very badly.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it would be so refreshing if those who oppose free trade for ideological, philosophical, and political reasons would stand up and be frank enough to say that is why they oppose the free trade agreement.


Charles L. Caccia: That is what we did.


Jack Wendele Shields: 
Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I might be wrong but I have the impression that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Shields), as did the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) earlier, is conducting a speech for third reading and not addressing the motion before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I thank the Hon. Member for his interjection. The Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I was polite enough to listen to that Hon. Member and I hope he will give me the same courtesy.
I would like to address countervail, dumping, and the dispute settlement mechanism. I start first with a quote, as I said, of Mr. John Crispo, Professor of Political Economy, Faculty of Management, University of Toronto. He said:
U.S. laws with respect to countervail and dumping cases have not been the problem since they are about the same as Canada's laws in these areas.
In other words, Professor Crispo is saying that our laws on countervail are generally the same as the laws in the United States on countervail. Let me continue with what he said:
Rather the problem has arisen from the unfair administration and interpretation of these U.S. laws over the last half dozen years. Exhibit A of this transformation is represented by the softwood lumber case which Canada won on essentially the same evidence only three years before it lost it before the same U.S. tribunal. In the interval the U.S. switched over from basically economic to essentially political criteria in its countervail and dumping decisions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: If it is necessary to have meetings during the course of the evening, I wish Hon. Members would hold them elsewhere so the debate can go on here. The Parliamentary Secretary is giving an interesting speech and I would like to hear the rest of it.


Jack Wendele Shields: Let me continue with my quote of Professor Crispo:
Under the free trade dispute settlement mechanism Canada has the means to "objectify" once again the U.S. decision-making processes in these types of cases.
This is because Canada can appeal the U.S. decisions-
As can the United States appeal Canadian decisions. He continued:
-on the basis of the administrative record in the case involved which includes all the evidence, information and even hearsay introduced in the earlier proceedings in which Canadian representatives participate.
Had Canada been enabled to appeal the softwood lumber case on its merits it probably would have been reversed. Having the ability to do so in the future will avoid other similar cases, compel the applicable U.S. tribunals to be more objective in their future deliberations, and thus, in all likelihood, eliminate all manner of capricious and frivolous cases ever coming forward in the first place.
I would like to refer to Article 1906 which deals with "duration". That provision of the agreement says:
The provisions of this Chapter shall be in effect for five years pending the development of a substitute system of rules in both countries for anti-dumping
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and countervailing duties as applied to their bilateral trade. If no such system of rules is agreed and implemented at the end of five years, the provisions of this Chapter shall be extended for a further two years. Failure to agree to implement a new regime at the end of the two-year extension shall allow either party to terminate the Agreement on six month's notice.
I think that makes it very clear that we have addressed antidumping and countervailing duties as they exist in both countries. We in Canada can implement countervailing duties just as the U.S. can, but we have a dispute settlement mechanism that now makes it more objective. That is a very clear indication that we have moved in the proper direction.
Why do we constantly hear, as we do from the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), the refrain that we have sold out Canada? What he is really saying is that the premiers and governments of eight provinces, not to mention a ninth premier who says he will not put any barriers in the way if a free trade agreement goes through, are traitors to Canada. Is he really accusing them of that? Is he really saying they are not concerned about their country?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes.


Jack Wendele Shields: I hear an NDP Member saying yes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They will do anything for a buck.


Jack Wendele Shields: I was here when the premiers of the western provinces fought long and hard about ownership of resources. Does the Hon. Member seriously believe that those premiers would work so hard to control their resources and then turn around and hand them on a silver platter to the Americans?


Maurice Brydon Foster: That is right.


Jack Wendele Shields: We are now hearing this nonsense from both the Liberals and the NDP. We know now that the only people who know the truth are the 70-odd people sitting in opposition. They, along with the labour unions headed by Shirley Carr and Bob White are the only ones who are protecting Canada or who care about this country. I most thoroughly resent that. I resent those people saying to me that because I support the free trade agreement, I am selling out my country. I resent it on behalf of former Premier Lougheed. I resent it on behalf of former Premier Manning. I resent it on behalf of the Premier of British Columbia, Bill Vander Zalm. I resent it on behalf of the Government of Saskatchewan and the Government of Manitoba, and the Government of Quebec. They are now saying that the Premier of Quebec and his Legislative Assembly are traitors to Canada. Is that what you are saying?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Exactly.


Jack Wendele Shields: That is exactly what the NDP are saying. That is what the Liberals are getting to. Have the courage to stand up and say why you are against this. You are against it for political and ideological reasons and that is all.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is wrong with that?


Jack Wendele Shields: You will never be able to implement a National Energy Program against western Canada ever again if this free trade agreement goes through and that is the bug in your ear. That is the problem they have on that side of the House. I resent the fact that about 40 Liberal Members of Parliament and 30-odd members of the socialist party, the NDP-


John Horton McDermid: Well, they are not all odd.


Jack Wendele Shields: -are attempting to hijack this House and the people of Canada, using all sorts of innuendo and misleading statements when they talk to the people. We hear it all the time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Let the people decide, Jack.


Jack Wendele Shields: The people will decide if you tell the truth. That is the key. Tell the truth. The Liberals want power in this country because they have been out of office for four years. They want to get back in and centralize control in Canada. It is as plain as the nose on your face exactly what they want. I most thoroughly resent what they are saying in the Opposition about me selling out Canada. I am working damn hard for Canada, I am proud of it, and will continue to work for Canada. This is one of the best deals we could ever get with the U.S. and it will become better over the years.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we invite the Government to send in more Parliamentary Secretaries to participate in the debate. They will help our cause enormously, just like the intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Shields).


Jack Wendele Shields: Call us all traitors again.


Charles L. Caccia: He just gave us a gem of an interpretation of what this place is all about. He seems to believe that we in the House of Commons should not be motivated by ideology and political philosophy. That is exactly what this debate is all about. There is a big difference between that side and this side.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is wrong with it being political?


Charles L. Caccia: There is nothing wrong with developing debate and disagreeing.


Jack Wendele Shields: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Hon. Member will look at the "blues" because I said exactly that. Why do they not stand up and say that they are against the free trade agreement for ideological or political or philosophical reasons? That is the whole point. They are not doing that. They are using all sorts of other tactics.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, because we are driven by ideology, we are speaking in this debate on every amendment. That is why we are in it. We profoundly disagree with the things the Parliamentary Secretary and others have said.
The debate on this motion is on the question of fairness in the application of the law versus the fairness of the law itself. In this amendment we are saying it is wrong to pass a Bill that will not address the unfairness of the U.S. law when it comes to the settlement of disputes. We are saying that the law we are passing here should address the unfairness of the law, not just its application. To do otherwise means whenever we disagree we will deal only with the symptoms of the disease.


John Horton McDermid: Read Article 1906.


Charles L. Caccia: I am just dealing with what the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier. We will deal with the application of U.S. law, not with the cause of the problem, which is the U.S. law. As a result of the Bill we are passing and the clause we are addressing right now, we will be able to deal only with the application of the law and we will not be able to say what is wrong with it, what is unfair and what ought to be changed, as we have done up until now through the system provided by the organization called GATT.
On the one hand the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went to New York in April of last year and, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, said that U.S. trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada. On the other hand Clayton Yeutter, the chief U.S. trade representative, when he revised the summary of the agreement which we are debating here tonight, said that U.S. countervailing duty and anti-dumping law will remain intact and unchanged. This is a complete contradiction of what our Prime Minister said 18 months earlier in New York when interviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Under the proposed Bill we will no longer be able to dispute the fairness of the law, we will only be able to dispute the application of the law. I submit that that is a very serious departure and that it can be very dangerous for future Canadian interest in the legislation.
We have many amendments still to come and only 48 minutes before closure will be imposed on debate on this Bill. I will, therefore, yield the floor to my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry to proceed with the next group of amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
August 22, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has said, we are under closure rules and will not have time to debate all the amendments. Therefore, as important as the next grouping of four amendments is, I would like to defer moving those particular amendments in order that we can move on to the next grouping.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: That is in order. The next motions are Motion Nos. 52 and 70 which will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 52 will also apply to Motion No. 70.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 52
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 28 at page 41
the following:
"49. All processed agricultural products containing the sum of 10 percent or more by weight of farm products defined by the (National) Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act shall be placed on the import control list effective January 1, 1989."


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 70.
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 112 by adding immediately after line
19 at page 85 the following:
"(3) Where it appears at any time to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that agricultural processed products entering Canada from the United States contain 10 per cent by weight of supply or price managed ingredients, those products shall be placed on the Import Control List."


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in examining the very complex and sometimes very technical issues surrounding the trade debate, it is important that at times we bring it back to the basics of people's livelihoods, their jobs, their income, their industry and their commitment across the country. The amendments we have presented focus very clearly on a matter of concern to people in the agricultural community.
If I might, I will quote a statement which appeared in the Portage paper in the riding held by the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer). The article reports a statement made by Mr. Archie McLean, Vice-President of McCain Food, the largest Canadian-owned food processing industry. The article reads:
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
McLean said the agreement, which would eliminate most trade barriers between the two countries over 10 years, is a disaster for Canadian farmers and for workers in factories that process farm produce.
"We're going to survive and thrive as a corporation," he said. "We can pick up our factories and go south, but our farmers cannot do that and our factory workers cannot do that."
Under free trade, processing companies will want to buy cheaper U.S. potatoes, McLean said. And they won't want to pay the shipping costs to move them from American farms to plants in Canada, he added.
"If you look around the world, you will find most french fry factories are near growers."
McLean said about 720,000 Canadians work on farms and in food processing and one-quarter of those jobs could disappear as a result of the trade deal.
He said Canada's geography and climate make it impossible for it to compete with the United States in the food industry and he suggested agriculture be exempt from the agreement.
The article continues with further statements by Mr. McLean. Mr. McLean was a member of the advisory group which we were told was closely consulted. I have in my possession a letter which he wrote to the former Minister for International Trade, the Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), in which he declared that he was a hard-core Tory. He did not say he was a New Democrat, a Socialist, a Liberal, or a Grit. He was a Tory. He said that as a Tory he could say that the trade deal is a disaster. One must assume that he is not speaking from a partisan point of view but from a concern about his industry.
The town of Portage la Prairie, a nice community in the central part of Manitoba, is going to lose its largest industry, and not because Canadians cannot compete, are not entrepreneurs, or are not adventuresome, but because of a thing called climate. Portage la Prairie has temperatures of 20 and 30 degrees below in the winter. We have to put big bins up and pump heat into them in order to keep things warm. Due to our geography we do not grow a couple of crops a year. We have transportation costs.
As a result, if you buy your potatoes further south you can get them for about $90 a tonne. In Portage la Prairie they cost $120 a tonne and in New Brunswick they cost $140 a tonne. The food processing companies which make the frozen French fries, the chicken pot pie dinners, and all the rest are simply saying that they will survive because capital can move. That is the story of the trade deal. This is a deal for big capital which can move and need not worry about boundaries. Mr. McLean put his finger on it. The workers cannot move, nor can the farmers. They have to stay on the land in their communities.
We admit that this deal favours corporate capital but it does not favour farmers or workers because they do not have that flexibility. They cannot push a button and move money around in seconds. This deal clearly discriminates and does not take into account that Canada is on the northern part of the continent, has a harsh winter climate, and must move things long distances, which involves transportation costs which must be paid for.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Over the years we have learned that if we want to be even close to self-sufficient in food, we must provide protection for the farmers and industries which provide that self-sufficiency in food. With one swoop under this agreement the Government, which totally disregards the reality of geography and climate, is going to eliminate those jobs and that procedure. It has nothing to do with the question of whether we are competitive or not or whether Canadians are innovative or not. It simply comes down to reality, a hard sort of reality, but that is what has made us different. We have fought the elements and conquered them. We have found ways of dealing with them and we have used the public sector to do it. We have used the public economy to provide for the means and instruments and policies to ensure we can survive and prosper on the northern part of the continent, and we have always done it in our own judicious way. The fact is that we are changing the right to make those decisions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is incredible. Why did you not say that when you were Minister of Transport?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I will tell you why. It is because our Government retained the right to make choices that modernized the entire transportation system of western Canada, but not according to the Neanderthal from Regina East who did not want us to do anything about it. That is what we mean by being an independent Government with the right to make decisions in this Parliament for Canadians and by Canadians. As a result, we have preserved the great economy of western Canada.


Jack Wendele Shields: That is right, with the national energy policy.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is what we are fighting for today. We are fighting to retain the right of Canadians to make those kind of choices. We say that very clearly to all the loud mouths opposite who are now embarrassed. I can tell the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) is embarrassed because he knows that his own Province of Saskatchewan, a year or two ago when the surveys were done, was in favour of free trade but is now overwhelmingly against it because the farmers of Saskatchewan, just like the farmers of Manitoba and the farmers in southwestern Ontario, realize that it is a bad deal for farmers and a bad deal for the food industry and that it will open up for destruction the supply management system in Canada.
We can put this to a test. We brought in an amendment which will test once again the fate of the Government. The Government says there are no problems. All right, put it on the import control list. Make sure that any produce that faces us can go on the import control list.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is
talking about something about which he knows absolutely nothing. What he should be aware of is that the Government of Canada, this Government of Canada, has placed on the import control list all dairy products that have been requested by the industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I am very tempted to make an aside, about what up until now has not been a point of order, that you must know something about the subject you are speaking about. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Member will have a chance to debate if he is still with us by 9.45.1 would say as well that Winnipeg is in Manitoba. Just because the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has forgotten where Winnipeg, Manitoba is in the last four years is no reason why that Member should.
Manitobans in the next election are going to remember this Government. They will put this Government out of business because it tried to put Manitoba out of business. The fact is that we are moving amendments which clearly address the concerns of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Food Processors. In fact they were raised by the representatives of the largest industry in Canada. In some cases, this goes to the heart of the debate. I think we all basically know that agriculture, the use of the land, is the base of this country. We are not going to stand by and watch this Government ruin it. We are not going to stand by and watch this Government dismantle and undermine and erode the principles, programs, and policies we have built up over the years to ensure that Canadian agriculture can survive and prosper and be maintained in a stable way.
We have done it our own way. If one reads the agreement, one can see that it is not only what is in the agreement which undermines the country; it is the new American legislation which puts on the table for new negotiations, the next round of free trade negotiations, the supply and management system, the standards relating to grain, and all the various programs the Americans do not like. That is on the next hit list.
What kind of leverage will this Government have to deal with that? Is it going to back away and not deal any more? Is it going to say "no"? The Government has said "yes" to every single demand the United States Government has made in the last four years, whether it be steel, pharmaceuticals, or softwood lumber. Every time the American Government says "jump", our Government asks "how high?" That is the problem with this kind of agreement.
This agreement takes away the power of the Canadian Governments, federal and provincial, to ensure that we have the freedom to choose the kind of industry we want and the kind of economy we want. As Mr. McEean, that hard core,
August 22, 1988

true blue Tory from New Brunswick who also happens to be the Executive Vice-President of the largest Canadian food processing firm and speaks for that industry, said, "this trade deal is a disaster for farmers and workers". That is why the farmers and workers are for it, and they can have all the support of editorialists and corporate presidents because they do not have the kind of will and interest and commitment the people of Canada have. That is the difference between them and us. We represent the people of Canada, not the Government's powerful friends.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, lucky for all of you. I want to say to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who was the architect of the destruction of the Crow's Nest Pass rate and who has the unmitigated gall to get up and talk about the problems of distance and geography for Canadian agriculture producers, that his speech has to be the worst kind of hypocrisy I have ever heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the hon. gentleman has had a change of heart, if he has changed his mind, I wish he would have the heart to get up and admit it. What he did to Canadian agriculture producers from 1981 to 1983 was unforgivable then and it is unforgivable now.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to say some things about agricultural producers in my part of Canada and in every other part of Canada with respect to the free trade agreement, and I do not want to hear anymore hypocritical remarks from Liberals.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They have been all over the map, in and out of government. Let us now talk about the Tories who all agreed we have to keep the Crow. Did they bring it back? No. Let us look at the free trade agreement. Let us talk about egg producers. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the trade agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Which page?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let me find the page number. It is page 701, paragraph 3. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to look at it while I am reminding him of a few things. The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency requested to appear before the House of Commons committee. Its request was never even acknowledged.


John Horton McDermid: Wrong.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is a worried public entity.


John Horton McDermid: They are not one.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All right. The U.S. egg industry has attempted to bend the text of the free trade agreement to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
undermine the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. I have some large egg producers near Regina.


John Horton McDermid: Show me where it is undermined?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Just wait for it. There were four items isolated: harmonized standards, tariff removal, allocation of the new global imports, and Article 701.3 of the treaty. The Government has satisfied CEMA, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, harmonized standards and tariff removal. CEMA states that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has guaranteed those two areas and that the other two issues remain unresolved. I want the Parliamentary Secretary who has the same hairdo as I have-and that is about the only thing that we have in common-to listen carefully.


Don Boudria: They have the same barber.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Grass does not grow on a busy street.
"The FTA increases the amount of imports Canada is obliged to accept-" and I want my friend to pay attention "-to approximately the level of global and supplemental import permits-".
When CEMA proposed to the Government elaborating the solution the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of Agriculture, to quote CEMA, "will continue to work with us to find a solution". The Minister of Agriculture assured the agency: "-we are not captured by this wording 'under the current definition of a public entity.' In fact, the Minister and his officials have repeatedly assured us that a dispute panel reviewing this issue would like to rule in Canada's favour." That is what the Minister of Agriculture said.
However, when we get down to what the U.S. of A. is doing, CEMA states:
In the considered view of our Washington counsel "it seems to be beyond a reasonable doubt, now, that once the FTA takes effect, the United States government, with the energetic help of the domestic industry, will closely scrutinize virtually every aspect of CEMA's removal program. It is equally certain that the purpose of this scrutiny is to prepare an action against the removal program under Article 701.3"
In other words, the U.S. Government, the U.S. administration, dictates and butts in with respect to what the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency can do. In fact, they are allowed to do that under everything. Even CEMA cautions the Government against these trade talks and that it holds great risk for Canadian egg producers. Today, states CEMA, it takes the same position. In fact, it goes on to state that the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency holds the same view as it pertains to a threat to the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Everything the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for International Trade have said to us in this House and outside this House has been categorically denied or opposed by the membership of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and by the

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. My hon. friend from Alberta-


Jack Wendele Shields: Athabasca.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -ought to look at what the delegates of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool did last month. They voted 80 per cent against this deal.


Jack Wendele Shields: Because they were listening to uninformed rhetoric.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No. They split 50-50 in December of last year. In July of this year they voted 80 per cent against the deal. My hon. friend from Alberta should go to talk to some of his Tory friends who are members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and he will get an earful, provided that he can listen.
What the Minister of Agriculture told us and what the Minister for International Trade told us has been denied and rebutted by the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, by legal counsel in Washington and by a congressional committee. In fact, the United States administration has clearly accepted and promised to act upon an interpretation of Article 701.3 which would severely undermine Canada's egg marketing-egg supply management system.
The egg industry, let alone poultry, grain or a host of other agricultural producers, including raspberries-and we are sure going to give the Government the raspberry on this one-state that the position is undermined and opposed by the very people that this Government claims it is going to create a market for. The United States has already made it perfectly clear that it will not hold still for any increase in the Canadian ability to market agricultural products in the United States. The Government is wrong on this one, as it is wrong on most of the other ones.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member but his time has expired. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on debate.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke was right on two counts. First, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) speaks out of both sides of his mouth, or with forked tongue. The other thing that he says which is accurate is that we have the same style of haircut. Other than that, he was way off base tonight.
Let me cover the amendment that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is attempting to bring in. I do not pretend to be an expert on agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: I know what the agreement says about agriculture. I watched the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry who says that they represent the people and that he knows all about the agricultural industry and so on and so forth. He waxed eloquent here on it tonight. He is the only
Liberal on the Prairies and he says: "We represent the people". Who is going to believe that?
He has been going around the country for the last I do not know how long quoting Mr. Archie McLean, Vice-President of McCain Foods. Mr. McLean wrote this letter. We invited him to appear before the committee. We had a time slot for him and everything else. We were going to ask him where he got all his figures from, these wild exaggerated figures that he was producing. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? He did not show up. He cancelled out at the last minute because he knew that he could not substantiate the figures that he was throwing around. The Food Processors Association does not back him up on what he is saying. The only person they have been able to quote over the last period of time is Archie McLean, VicePresident of McCain Foods.
Do you want to know what his bottom line is, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you. It is: "Get rid of marketing boards". That is his bottom line. That is what he wants to do. It has nothing to do with the free trade agreement-not a thing. Archie-and he was afraid to come before committee because that is the first question I would have asked him-did not have the guts to show up. He is against marketing boards. He wants marketing boards done away with. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry sitting there smirking knows that full well.
The amendment that the Hon. Member proposes is totally unnecessary. Article XI of the GATT allows countries to restrict imports to the extent necessary to allow the operation of the supply management programs. There are some supply management programs here. As a matter of fact, since the free trade agreement was signed, as my hon. friend pointed out earlier, we have added some products to the import control list. The way the opposition Members talk it sounds as if they have not read the agreement.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, it's your Minister who has not read the agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Article 710, International Obligations, states:
Unless otherwise specifically provided for in this Chapter, the Parties retain their rights and obligations with respect to agricultural, food, beverage and certain related goods under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and agreements negotiated under the GATT, including their rights and obligations under GATT Article XI.
GATT Article XI gives us the right to impose quotas in the future. The authority to do so is found in the Export and Import Permits Act. If the importation of an agricultural product undermines the effectiveness of a supply management program we can, in accordance with our GATT rights and Article 710 of the agreement, place that produce on the import control list. We have done it already.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Now go to Article 701.
August 22, 1988


John Horton McDermid: We have done it already in the dairy end. For the Hon. Member to stand up here and say "listen, we are going to watch how you vote tomorrow night on this particular amendment, you guys, because if you do not support this amendment, then you are against management boards, and farmers" is nonsense.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's true.


John Horton McDermid: What nonsense. Farmers know full well that, in this agreement, we have protected the marketing boards. That is why the dairy farmers of Canada support the free trade agreement.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Go to Article 701.


John Horton McDermid: They came out and supported it. Would the farmers have supported the agreement if we had destroyed their supply management system? Of course they would not.
Then I hear about the chicken producers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Eggs this time. It was chickens last time.


Maurice Brydon Foster: And they are coming home to roost, too.


John Horton McDermid: I probably have one of the largest chicken processing plants in Canada in my constituency. Since the free trade agreement was signed that plant is putting in a $14 million addition and hiring 300 more people. This is a food processing industry in this country. Two young entrepreneurs started selling eggs door to door. Today they have brought forward one of the finest food processing operations in Canada. Are they shying away from the free trade agreement? Not on your life. They are accepting the challenge, expanding, hiring people, and exporting their products into the United States. I hear this doom and gloom about how Portage la Prairie will disappear, and all these terrible things will happen. The doom and gloom boys are at it again tonight. They love to try and convince the Canadian public that, because of this very excellent free trade agreement which was signed between the two sovereign nations that are the best allies and friends in the world, Canada will somehow magically disappear off the face of the earth. There is nothing further from the truth. When the election campaign comes along, and we are looking forward to it-


Lloyd Axworthy: Hurry, let's go.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry will be ducking for cover, 1 guarantee. We recommend defeat of this superfluous amendment that does not mean a thing, because our farmers and marketing systems are protected under the agreement.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary believed what he was talking about, and if he believed that the SAG1TS that were appointed by the Government were meaningful and were going to do anything, the amendment before the House would have been contained
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
in the free trade deal. Mr. Archie McLean, who is a member of the agriculture and food processing industry was a member of SAGITS, and the SAGITS recommended that this be in the deal. However, the Government did not put it in the deal because the Americans did not want it in the deal. They want to take over the whole Canadian food processing industry.
If anyone looks at Mr. McLean's letter, he or she will see that 22 of the 26 largest food processing companies in Canada are American owned, for example, Proctor and Gamble, Nabisco, and so on. They do not want to process food in this country. They want to process it in the United States and ship into the Canadian market.
The Parliamentary Secretary talks about who is in favour of the deal. He should go down and talk to the UPA in Quebec. It is not in favour of the deal. He should talk to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. It is not in favour of the deal. He should talk to the advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board. On July 17 it passed a resolution in which it opposed the free trade agreement because it would undermine the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to be an effective marketing agency on behalf of all Canadian grain growers.
There is a large number of Canadian agricultural groups extremely opposed to the agreement, but nobody is more concerned than the supply management sectors of the Canadian agriculture, the dairy producers and the poultry producers that operate in this country by an administered price. We have in place import and production controls, and we have the most healthy agricultural sector anywhere in western Europe or in North America because of our supply management system. Knowledgeable people who have looked at this deal believe that in the long run it will destroy our marketing board and supply management system.
There are two factors involved. First, there is a provision in the GATT agreement, Article 711, which provides the umbrella that allows us to have import controls. The Americans are going to GATT, as are the Cairns Group and others, stating that they want to get rid of that provision of the GATT. We say in this agreement that we are going to GATT, agreeing to get rid of all agricultural subsidies. Canadian farmers do not think of supply management as being a subsidy, but American farmers and the American Government believe that something like 50 per cent of the income of Canadian dairy farmers is considered a subsidy because it results from the supply management system. That is one aspect. When GATT sees us giving in on many of these things with the import controls and so on, that will be the next thing to fall in the GATT negotiations.
More important is the whole food processing industry. It believes if the tariff is removed on highly processed foods, such as Mr. McLean is stating, then it is much cheaper to process the food in the United States and bring it into Canada, because it is much cheaper to buy it in the United States. For instance, when he made a presentation to our caucus task force in February, 1988, in Fredericton, he stated that their plant

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
which produces pizza at Grand Falls in New Brunswick employed some 250 people. Because of the cost of the cheese used in that pizza production-and they are the largest producer in Canada of frozen pizza-they will simply have to move to the United States. There we lose 250 jobs.
That is typical of the whole system, unless a mechanism is put in place, as was recommended by the SAGITS and as is recommended in this amendment before us tonight, so that all highly processed food that has more than 10 per cent by weight of supply management products such as milk, cheese, butter, eggs, poultry, or turkey, is put on the import control list.
The Parliamentary Secretary talks about putting things on the import control list, such as the Government did for yoghurt and ice-cream. He did not say that they have ever negotiated any limit. They have put them on the import control list but there has been no limit applied. The United States has already appealed that to GATT. If we look at the drafting instructions which came out of the United States Congress, they have a hit list that says: "First of all, we think that you have made fairly good progress in this free trade deal, in knocking down the whole supply management system for poultry and eggs and turkeys and so on, but we want all those tariffs removed in the long haul".
There is no question about what the United States position is going to be at the MTN in Geneva. There is no question of how successful they were and how the Europeans were at the GATT on the wine industry.
This Government is going to GATT, supporting the United States, and saying: "We are going to GATT to get rid of all the subsidies". The United States has a mechanism called the PSM, the producer subsidy equivalent, which applies to our supply management. They are going there and saying: "We are getting rid of all subsidies in this negotiation of the GATT round". This very simple amendment did not come simply from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). It came from the Government's own advisory group. It is a small chink in the armour to try to maintain that supply management system. I do not believe that anybody can honestly look at what the Government is doing, first of all, by removing all tariffs on highly processed food, going to the GATT, saying that it is supporting the American position on Article XI, and really believing that it wants to maintain the supply management system. We are pretty sure that it does not. If we listen to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), he says: "Yes, we want to get rid of it". If we listen to what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) says at the OECD meetings, he says: "Yes, we want to get rid of supply management".
There is no question that if this Government were ever to implement this deal, if it were ever to be re-elected-and hopefully, for the benefit of Canadians farmers, neither one of
those things will ever occur-that the supply management system would be destroyed in Canada, because that is its policy. It is not honest enough to say it publicly, but that is clearly the direction it is taking.
It is very interesting to note that so many of the agricultural groups, in spite of all their tricks and so on, are on to them. I was very, very interested in the decision by the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee to oppose it. I was interested in the Saskatchewan Pool voting 120 to 24 to reject supporting this free trade deal. People in the horticulture industry in British Columbia and Ontario are extremely concerned that their industry will be destroyed.
This is a good amendment. The Government should be accepting it.


John Horton McDermid: Why?


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is the minimum type of thing that was recommended by the Special Advisory Group on International Trade which the Government appointed and, of course, swore to secrecy. Thank heaven there was one who was willing to stand up and say what was going on because, otherwise, this recommendation would not have even been made. It is not only supported by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry; it is supported by practically every agricultural group in the country.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The Canadian Federation of Agriculture supported it. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture supported it. The UPA supported it. Practically every responsible group involved in the dairy and poultry industry, plus those industries themselves, supported this recommendation.
When we were going through that very serious downturn in the agricultural economy in the last couple of years, the sectors that were surviving better than any other were the dairy and poultry producers. They had an administered price relating to the cost of production. That is going to be thrown away in this free trade deal. We do not have to look very far through the recommendations of Mr. McLean to see that this deal not only changes the whole situation with regard to supply management but puts the United States into the driver's seat. As we remove those tariffs, those 80 per cent of multinationals that are now the food processors of this country could easily move back across the border, get their supplies and their produce there, process it and ship it into Canada, and we lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in the deal.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I think that there is probably no sector more volatile to international trade actions than agriculture. I think that all of my colleagues would probably agree with that. We on this side of the House know that our farmers can compete on an equal footing with anyone in the world. We know that.
August 22, 1988


An Hon. Member:: Including supply management commodities?


Jack Wendele Shields: We are convinced of that. This is evidenced by the fact that we export almost $4 billion in agricultural products to the United States alone. We export almost $5 billion to 60 other countries in the world. This is at a time when there has been a trade war in agricultural products between the United States and the European Common Market. Our farmers can compete.


John Horton McDermid: Hear, hear!


Jack Wendele Shields: What we need for our farmers and for the agricultural industry is more access and more secure access to the huge U.S. market. This agreement achieves that, while at the same time it preserves our right to maintain existing marketing boards and our right to implement new ones if we see fit. It is in the agreement. That is what our hon. friends across the way fail to grasp, to express, and to understand.
The agreement also maintains our farm income stabilization and price support programs, not to mention the impact of reduced input cost that this Government has brought in the past.
By the end of the next decade agriculture and food products such as meat, livestock, grain, oilseeds, and all other products we have produced in abundance in this country, will be able to compete on an equal footing in the American market without the burden of tariffs and other barriers at the border. This is important because in 1986 over $1 billion worth of beef and pork and their products were exported to the U.S. by Canadians. This will secure that market and provide the framework to expand. That is what the free trade agreement does for agriculture.
Speaking for the beef industry, Stan Wilson, President of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association had this to say: "For the beef industry, it would mean that processors and wholesalers could develop more permanent markets for finished products, since we would exempt each other from the provisions of our respective meat import laws. Instead of exporting live cattle we would employ many Canadians in processing and adding value to these animals. Our packing industry would become more competitive because of the economies of scale that additional cattle would provide".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The Hon. Member on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: I wish to point out that this debate is ending now because the Government has imposed closure on-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I hope that it will come closer to being a point of order than the last one. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Jack Wendele Shields: I wonder if I could have the indulgence of the House, Mr. Speaker, to finish my remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Obviously, there is not unanimous consent.
The first question is on Motion No. 52 standing in the name of Mr. Axworthy.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The second question is on Motion No. 70 standing in the name of Mr. Langdon.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

August 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not have my full 10 minutes. Could I be first in the debate tomorrow?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to give consent for the Hon. Member to continue tomorrow if the Government agrees to give us a full day of debate tomorrow at report stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that if Hon. Members discuss the matter perhaps agreements would be worked out. I, of course, would be very pleased to hear representations at another time.
It being ten o'clock, pursuant to Order made Wednesday, August 17, 1988, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage motions in amendment to the Bill now before the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Thank you for bringing to our attention the arduous task for the evening. Because of discussions between the three Parties we have worked out a procedure that we think will save the time of the Chair and certainly the House. There are a number of motions still on the Order Paper to be dealt with but if each of the remaining motions that were presented in my name and presented by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) would be deemed to be put and that all recorded divisions be deferred until tomorrow at 6 p.m., I think you would find there is unanimous consent to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposal of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry supported by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. Is there agreement?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and we agree with the proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare all of the motions in the name of Mr. Axworthy moved and seconded by Mr. Caccia, and a recorded division on each motion deferred until tomorrow evening at six o'clock pursuant to a Special Order.
I also declare all of the motions in the name of Mr. Langdon moved and seconded by Mr. Angus and a recorded division on each motion deferred until tomorrow evening at six o'clock pursuant to Special Order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 53.
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 49.
Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 50.
Motion No. 55.
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 51.
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 57 by striking out lines 20 to 23 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) In this section,
(a)	"local signal" means
(i)	a signal that is readily receivable directly from the terrestrial station by a significant proportion of the public within the licensed service area of the retransmitter;
(ii)	a signal of a terrestrial station the Grade B official contour of which, or the equivalent thereof as determined by the Department of Communications, is within 32 kilometres of any part of the licensed service area of the retransmitter; or
(iii)	such further and other signals defined or designated as local in regulations the Governor in Council may make; and
(b)	"distant signal" means any signal that is not a "local signal"
(4) the Governor in Council may make regulations relating to the applications of subparagraph (4)(a).


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 59
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 58 by striking out lines 28 and 29 at page 47 and substituting the following therefor:
"to 50.7 the Board may make regula-".


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 60
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 59 by striking out lines 7 to 11 at page 51 and substituting the following therefor:
"50.4(1) The Board shall, in establishing a manner of determining royalties under paragraph 50.3(1 )(a), ensure that it does not have any material impact upon small retransmission systems serving small and isolated communities.
(2) In this section a "small retransmission system" is a system licensed under the Broadcasting Act having 6,000 or fewer subscribers."
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out lines 4 to 23 at page 58.
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out line 7 at page 59 and substituting the following therefor:
"United States or a project in the United States undertaken by the Government of Canada and destined to become the property of the Government of Canada;"
Motion No. 66
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 91 by striking out line 3 at page 73 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) may be made more than once".
Motion No. 67
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 102.
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 104.
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 2 at page 90 the following:
August 22, 1988

"121. Any restrictions on the export of Canadian grain under the provisions of this Act shall be contingent on the United States administration keeping exports to Canada at the same level while those restrictions are in place."
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 123 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 90 the following:
""87.2 The Parliament of Canada may require a minimum percentage of issued end-use certificates to be investigated annually to ensure compliance with section 87.1.""
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 127.
Motion No. 74
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 128.
Motion No. 75
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 129.
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 130.
Motion No. 77
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 131.
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 132 Motion No. 79
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 133.
Motion No. 81
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out line 32 at page 104 and substituting the following therefor:
"the purposes of this Act. The Board shall retain the right to accept or reject orders made by the Governor in Council."
Motion No. 83
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 34 to 37 at page 104 and substituting the following therefor:
"is not binding on the Board."
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by adding immediately after line 41 at page 104 the following:
"(5) The Board will have the same status and authority with respect to the Agreement and domestic legislation as the United States Federal Regulatory Commission and Economic Regulatory Administration."
Motion No. 85
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 104, lines 1 to 50 at page 105 and lines 1 to 11 at page 106.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 86
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 104 and lines 1 to 5 at page 105 and substituting the following therefor:
Canada-JJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
"84.3(1) The Governor in Council must, by order ensure that exports of energy goods to the United States are in accordance with 83(a) of the National Energy Board Act.
(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, declare that the maintenance or introduction of a restriction in the exportation to the United States of energy goods or of any quality, kind or class thereof is required under subsection (1), or is justified under Article 904 of the Agreement."
Motion No. 87
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 136 by striking out lines 47 to 50 at page 105 and lines 1 to 11 at page 106 and substituting the following therefor:
"84.6 The Board may not, under any circumstances, issue a licence for the exportation of such energy goods to the United States unless it is satisfied that such exports are in accordance with section 83(a) of the National Energy Board Act."


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 88
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 137 by striking out line 33 at page 106 and substituting the following therefor:
"countries including the United States."
Motion No. 89
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Motion No. 92
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 145.
Motion No. 95
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 146.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 96
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 152 by striking out line 22 at page 122 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion (1) unless the Governor in Council, with approval of the Parliament of Canada, is".


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 100
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting the Preamble.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), recorded divisions on the proposed motions stand deferred.

Pursuant to the order of Wednesday, August 17, 1988, the previously deferred divisions are again deferred until 6 p.m. on Tuesday, August 23, 1988.

It being 10 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, August 23, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers