1988-07-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Coucil):: Mr. speaker, under Standing Order 106 (8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to the following petitions: 332-4589, 332-4616, 332-4620, 3324637 and 332-4847.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Hon. John W. Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to table later this day, probably at three o'clock following Question Period, the first report of the Committee on the Central American Peace Process.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



STRIKING COMMITTEE-PRESENTATION OF SIXTY-FIFTH REPORT

['Agreed.']
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Sixty-fifth Report of the Striking Committee
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]



Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and privilege to present a petition signed by Canadians who reside in Hamilton, Burlington, Stoney Creek, and other locations in that general area. The undersigned residents petition that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States; and whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised; and whereas the trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the U.S., the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to be dissolved and to allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Nelson A. Rils (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 106, on behalf of a number of constituents who are very concerned that the proposed trade deal with the United States threatens our sovereignty as a nation. They are reminding Parliament that the federal Government has no mandate from the people of Canada to negotiate this trade deal. They also point out that they feel very strongly that this trade deal would jeopardize Canada's economic, social and cultural programs that could be introduced in the future in the best interests of Canadians.
Therefore, they want to participate in this decision through a national general election, and call upon Parliament to ensure that this national debate takes place before the agreement is actually signed and that that debate occur during a national general election.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on the subject of the Government's trade deal with the United States. In their petition, the Canadians who have signed the petition indicate that they are very concerned that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) does not have a mandate on the trade deal, that indeed the Prime Minister campaigned against such a mandate. They call upon the Government to ensure that there is a national debate on this issue, and that this debate result in a national general election before any agreement is finalized.

July 5, 1988
Petitions


Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents who are concerned about schizophrenia. As Eton. Members will note, schizophrenia affects about 1 per cent of our population, causes severe mental anguish and suffering to patients and relatives. It costs Canadian society more than $3 billion annually in direct health care and other support costs. These constituents humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will in future be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition from a number of Canadians, pointing out that the Canadian-American trade deal would threaten the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty, and pointing out that the Government had no mandate to negotiate a trade deal with the United States, that this deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs that Canadians need and, indeed, would further integrate Canada into the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore, they call for not only a national debate but a national general election before this agreement is finalized.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility under Standing Order 106, to file the attached petition, and it is correct. This petition is signed by many citizens from Edmonton, Alberta, a province in which we often hear that people are very supportive of a trade deal. This petition states that they feel the Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the U.S., and the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
The proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure access to the American market, which was the key objective in these negotiations, but it threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs. Therefore, they ask that Parliament be dissolved and the Canadian people have the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present four petitions humbly declaring that the Mulroney Government has sold Canada out without obtaining anything in return; Canadian industries are not always protected against American trade laws; the United States got everything it wanted in every important sector, including agriculture, energy, automobile trade, financial services and investment; the jobs of thousands of Canadians
are threatened; and the Conservative Government has not made provision for any retraining assistance for Canadian workers.
The petitioners therefore humbly call upon Parliament to censure the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition signed by residents of my constituency, from Wheatley, Cottam, Kingsville, Leamington, Ruthven, Chatham, Chairing Cross and Thamesville, who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that research efforts related to schizophrenia will in the future be commensurate with the seriousness of this illness in Canada. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Madam Speaker, I have here petitions from various provinces-Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario- circulated by people in different constituencies. They request that the Government be censured for having sold Canada out to the Americans in the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement.
These people are complaining, as the UPA's slogan says, that a horse was exchanged for a rabbit, and that Quebeckers and Canadians will be the losers.
Consequently, Madam Speaker, these people have asked me to table these petitions in order to make all Members of the House aware of the serious situation we are in at present.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I, too, have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by a number of residents from various centres in southern Ontario. 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 trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Therefore, the undersigned 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.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to table petitions concerning the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.
I have here two petitions from Quebec, one containing the names of 30 people form Pointe-Claire, Ville Mont-Royal,
July 5, 1988

Saint-Laurent, Beaconsfield, Lachine and various municipalities on the West Island of Montreal.
These people are concerned that Canadian industries are not protected against American trade laws under the Canada-U.S. agreement; the jobs of thousands of Canadians are threatened; and the Conservative Government has not made provision for any retraining assistance for Canadian workers.
Thirty people signed this petition, and I have another on the same subject, signed by 31 residents of Quebec-people from the West Island and other municipalities such as Dollard des Ormeaux, Pierrefond and Pincourt. These people are also concerned and maintain that the Government sold Canada out without obtaining anything in return when it signed the trade agreement with the United States.

I also have a number of petitions from residents of the Province of Ontario. One petition contains 30 names of people in the Kanata area. Another petition contains 25 signatories from people in the Orleans, Ottawa and Vanier area. Also, I have a petition containing 30 names from people in Pembroke-Renfrew and other related areas of the Ottawa Valley. Another petition, containing 30 names is from people in the Hamilton area.
I have another petition containing 26 names from people in Embrun. All of these people claim that the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return in signing the free trade deal. They claim that the United States has obtained everything it wanted in all key sectors, especially in agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services and investment. They are worried that thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and that the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers. All of the petitioners are worried about the Canada-U.S. trade deal and want it pulled out.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of people in Mississauga, the Niagara Peninsula and many other communities across southwestern Ontario, such as, Tillsonburg, Chatham and Delhi, all of whom oppose the free trade agreement and want their voices registered in the Parliament of Canada. They are very concerned about the energy side of the agreement. They are most concerned about agriculture, auto trade, financial services and the investment community. They want to express strong opposition to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
I have another petition here from Niagara Falls, St. Mary's, Toronto, Bramalea and many other areas across southern Ontario, Scarborough included. These people oppose the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal for the same reasons. They are concerned about Canada's energy, our financial institutions and certainly our agricultural community.
Petitions
I have another petition sent in by the people of Stevensville, Port Colborne, Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Welland, and many other areas across southwestern Ontario. They are opposed to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal and want their message registered strongly in the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty also to present to you a petition, from the residents of certain communities in my riding, namely Sainte-Anne, Bouctouche, Bedeque, Saint-Edouard and even Moncton. The signatories deplore the fact that the Departe-ment of Employment and Immigration has completely ignored the unemployment situation in south-eastern New Brunswick in changing the eligibility period from 10 weeks to 16 weeks.
The petitioners humbly pray that the Minister will take the necessary steps to preserve and maintain the eligibility period for unemployment-insurance benefits at 10 weeks, as the rate of unemployment in the rural regions of New Brunswick is three times higher than the rate in urban centres.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the constituencies of Essex-Windsor, Windsor West, Windsor-Walkerville and Essex-Kent, including signatures from Windsor, St-Joachim, Harrow, Tecumseh, Essex and Cottam who indicate in the petition that they are deeply concerned about the lack of a mandate which the Conservative Government had to undertake a trade agreement with the United States.
They feel that this trade agreement will take from Canada the very fabric of political potential decision-making within our country. It will make it difficult for Canada to continue to build a society distinct from that of the United States. Therefore, they ask this Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement in a national general election.
I have a second and different petition, Madam Speaker. This one has been certified correct according to Standing Order 106. The petition comes from Toronto and the focus of its concern is that the trade deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs that Canada needs and would also integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base. They ask Parliament as well to see to it that an election is called on this deal before it is put into effect. The petitioners hope very much that the Government will listen.
The third petition I have is similar to the first one that I have tabled with the House. This petition comes from the Hamilton area and includes people from Hamilton, Caledonia and other towns and cities, one might say of small Canada,

July 5, 1988
Order Paper Questions
within that part of the Province of Ontario. The petition also includes some signatures from Amherstburg, Windsor and Brantford, Ontario. I hope very much that the Government will pay attention to these hundreds of signatures being tabled.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I too have a petition to present, which has been signed by a large number of Canadian citizens in Alberta and also in the Toronto region, protesting that the Conservative government has no mandate from the people of Canada to conclude a free trade deal with the United States; recalling that the Prime Minister had promised that during the course of the negotiations Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised; and [expressing] their fear that this Trade Agreement will deprive Canada of its political freedom to determine its own economic future, which could undermine our ability to build and maintain a society distinct from that of the United States. They therefore pray that the Parliament of Canada will dissolve and thereby give the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the Free Trade Agreement during a national election campaign.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 337, 357 and 373.


Mr. Penner: Since September, 1984, has the Department of Finance conducted studies on the effects of the flow-through share tax incentives and, if so, what were the development projects studied and, in each case, what were (a) the dates of (i) commencement (/'/) completion (b) the findings of the study?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: No, the
Department of Finance has not conducted any flow-through share studies of the nature implied in the question (i.e. studies related to specific development projects). The Department has, however, conducted other studies of flow-through shares.
In formulating advice on this issue, the Department completed a study into flow-through shares in the fall of 1984. This study examined the need for changes to the income tax legislation affecting flow-through shares.
The findings of this study provided background for the technical changes to the flow-through share legislation that were announced in the February 26, 1986 Budget. These changes eliminated the need for costly and complex private arrangements to protect the investor. The changes removed any potential liability from the investor in the event of
accidents-such as a blowout or shaft collapse-during the exploration or development program.
The recent announcement made by the Department of Finance and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the extension of the mining exploration depletion allowance (MEDA) and the introduction of the new Canadian Exploration Incentive Program (CEIP) were also the result of internal studies. These studies evaluated the rate of return and share premiums available to issuers and investors.
Other studies that provided background for the recent improvements to the flow-through share regime were a collection of submissions (both written and oral), requested by the Department of Finance, from the resource sector and the financial community. These submissions examined the flowthrough share regime after the October stock market crash. These submissions were analyzed intensively by departmental officials and provided useful information in helping to arrive at the recently announced changes to assist exploration activity.


Ms. McLaughlin: 1.	With regard to the U.S.-Japan Nuclear Co-operation Agreement to fly plutonium over a polar route, has the Government been consulted regarding emergency procedures if a landing is requested in Canadian territory and, if so (a) what is, or will be, the Government's response (b) is there a policy set out for this matter?
2.	To the knowledge of the Government, has the United States decided that plutonium will not be flown over its territory and, if so, will the Government make the same assertion?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): The U.S.A. and Japan are studying the feasibility of transporting plutonium by air on a polar route between Europe and Japan, completely outside Canadian airspace and jurisdiction. No final decisions have been taken on the route or other aspects of the flights which, in any event, are not expected to begin before the early 1990s.
During the ratification proceedings in Congress, the U.S. State Department indicated that the administration is prepared to rule out air shipments of plutonium under the Agreement from overflying or landing in the U.S.A., except in the case of an aircraft emergency. Neither the U.S.A. nor Japan has approached us regarding procedures if a landing were to be requested in Canada as a result of an aircraft emergency. However, the Government has in place procedures applicable in cases of aircraft entering Canadian airspace in an emergency. These procedures may be supplemented in any specific emergency by safety and security measures related to the nature of the cargo. While Canada has said it would not rule out flights of plutonium in advance of a specific proposal, it has also said it would most certainly prohibit such flights if not satisfied with every safety, health and security aspect thereof.


Mr. Langdon: July 5, 1988

Has the Atomic Energy Control Board participated, or considered participating, in any research into the effects of bordering U.S. nuclear reactors and their waste products on arable Canadian soils and Canadian waters?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: No.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, July 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House opposes in principle and therefore declines to proceed with Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, because that agreement, which was negotiated in a secretive and irresponsible manner in the absence of a mandate from the Canadian people, will undermine the economic, social and political institutions of Canada, because it will fail to provide guaranteed and secure access to U.S. and other world trade markets, because it will create severe adverse effects on many industries and communities and because it will endanger the economic and social fabric and political independence of Canada".
And the amendment of Mr. Langdon:
That the amendment be amended by adding immediately after the words "political institutions of Canada," the words "including our valued system of social and regional development programs,".
Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Now that the debate has been called, this making it the last allotted day for this Bill, I have two points to make, if I may.
First, I understand that the Leader of the New Democratic Party wishes to speak after Question Period today, and I want to indicate that the government Members of Parliament will be prepared to waive the 10-minute time limit to allow the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to complete his remarks.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Second, there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to the final recorded division on Bill C-130 which, under the rules, would take place at 9.45 tonight. There have been discussions among the Parties and I think you would find unanimous consent to defer the last recorded division at second reading on Bill C-130 until 6 p.m. tomorrow evening.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I simply want to say to the Deputy House Leader how much we appreciate this offer to enable our Leader to speak at three today for a longer than usual time under the present Standing Orders, and also to have the vote deferred until six o'clock on Wednesday, allowing Members from the west coast to travel here during the day in order to be here for the vote. I appreciate the generosity.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the Liberal caucus agrees with the general disposition. The New Democratic Party was courteous to us when our Leader spoke last week and allowed him to have unlimited time. We of course realize that this is the last day allotted by government edict for debate on the Bill. It is the Government's intention to cut off debate. We have no alternative but to follow this, and we also have to agree to defer the vote until tomorrow at six o'clock, out of simple fairness to all Hon. Members. I do not like it but I will accept it.


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Madam Speaker, I am addressing this House today because I am firmly convinced that the Free Trade Agreement is good for Canadians in general, and for Canadian women in particular.
I find it unacceptable that certain people are assuming the right to tell Canadian women that the opening of our market on the United States is a threat to their job security and to the viability of our social programs. I find that the whole free-trade debate, in fact, rests all to often on errors in perspective and inaccurate data conveyed by the Opposition.
In fact, the threat to these jobs, especially in the textile industry, comes not from the United States but from Asian countries, and these are the sectors that in the United States are most protectively fenced in by tariffs. There are plenty of Canadians active in this sector who believe they can compete effectively as long as they are given a long enough transition period, and the Accord provides for a ten-year period over which the tariffs will be amended.
Nor will there be any changes in our social programs as a whole. I will add, Madam Speaker, that I think it is dishonest and almost indecent of the Opposition to let such fears persist. We retain our sovereign right to make decisions about our social programs and our social policies. Furthermore, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asserted at the start of the negotiations with the United-States, and I quote:
Our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to
fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity, our special linguistic

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
character-these are the very essence of Canada. They are not at issue in these
negotiations.
It is high time, Madam Speaker, that these so-called protectors of our national identity stopped taking women for simpletons. The Free Trade Agreement aims primarily at extending our economic, social and cultural development even further, and at building a Canada that will be even stronger and more competitive.
How can women help benefiting from the expansion of our country's economy? The Free Trade Agreement represents, for them as for all Canadians, an opportunity to improve their quality of life and increase their chances of success. Our government has already demonstrated and proven its desire to enhance the status of women in Canadian society, and it believes strongly that Canadian women must have an equal chance to contribute to our development as nation and thus to profit equally from our economic prosperity.
This desire is being translated into concrete actions. If I may, I would like to mention just a few:
-Since the Progressive Conservative Party came to power in 1984, the rate of unemployment among women has fallen by
3.6	per cent, while under the Liberals the rate climbed from
8.6	per cent to 12.0 per cent.
-Today there are 653,000 more women in the labour force than there were in 1984.
-And lastly, between 1984 and 1987, the number of women occupying professional or managerial positions increased by
36.0	per cent.
Madam Speaker, I wonder where those critics of free trade were before 1984, when the unemployment rate for women was going up by 3.4 per cent!
What our government wants is to present a blueprint for a new and progressive society, so that we can meet the challenges of the 21st century. This is why it is vitally important that we be able to progress in a stable economic climate if we want women to be represented fairly and equitably in the upper echelons of organizations, and have the same chances of succeeding professionally. And that is what the Free Trade Agreement will mean for Canada.
The Economic Council of Canada predicts that the Free Trade Agreement will result in the creation of 250,000 jobs over the next 10 years, and women, among other groups, will want access to those new jobs. An increase on this scale means that women will have greater opportunities of finding work in non-traditional sectors. In addition, 84 per cent of working women are employed in the service industries. This is the most rapidly-expanding sector of the Canadian economy. We know that free trade with the United States will mean an acceleration in our growth rate. It follows that the service sector will also experience sustained growth. This means better prospects and greater job diversity for women and for all Canadians.
Business women, who represent a significant proportion of the owners of small businesses, will also benefit from this
Agreement with the United States. For all these women, the Free Trade Agreement will make possible access to a bigger market and will safeguard trade relations between our two countries.
Among other consequences, the elimination of tariff barriers will be a direct cause of lower prices to consumers and a greater range of products, which will benefit women as it will benefit all Canadians. It is women who devote a large part of the family income to meeting essential needs such as food, shelter and clothing. It is estimated that a low-income family will be able to save up to $325 a year and that this saving could go as high as $644 a year for single women.
Madam Speaker, it is possible to frighten people. It is possible to spread false rumours. But it is not possible to deny the facts on the grounds that they don't suit our fancy. And the facts, Madam Speaker, speak for themselves.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I am happy to be taking part in this very important debate, which is going to have such serious consequences for the people of Canada. The Minister who just spoke unfortunately has raised false hopes, without any figures or data to back her up. We have seen that kind of salesmanship before. Think back to the campaign, when the Minister and all her Conservative colleagues promised a happy future for the elderly, they were going to make all kinks of progress, and the opposite happened when old-age pensions were de-indexed.
Madam Speaker, today the government is forcing us to accept a Bill, an Agreement called the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement, without really knowing what it involves.
Madam Speaker, to start with, we must bear in mind that the Prime Minister of Canada, when he was running for the leadership of his Party, came out unequivocally against a free trade deal. This is not the first time he has fooled the people, it is the n-th time. In addition, the commitments, the negotiating of an agreement with the Americans, were meant to remove any possibility of the American government's taking reprisals against the Canadian government. Think back to the soft-wood lumber affair. Up to that point it was an excellent idea to make sure, to enable our Quebecois and Canadian enterprises to sell their products on the American market, but first of all there were conditions that the Liberal Party and our leader called for: Canadian sovereignty, the fact of being "maitres chez nous" as we call it in Quebec, had to be protected; second, culture could not be negotiable; third, nothing about our social programs could be affected, they could not be negotiable, they must not be "put on the table"; and fourth, agriculture also had to be completely protected, it could not be negotiated.
Unfortunately, we all know what happened, and as the Coalition du Quebec, which is made up of the Union des producteurs agricoles [Quebec farmers' federation] and the federated unions, has demonstrated, the result is that the
July 5, 1988

Prime Minister of Canada gave the President of the United States a horse and got a rabbit in exchange. That is what the government wants us to approve today. And why do I have reservations about accepting such an agreement? Because the Minister of Transport himself (Mr. Bouchard), who was Minister of Employment and Immigration at the time, the MP for Roberval himself said that according to studies carried out by this Department, as many as 500,000 jobs could be lost. And I have here figures from a study by the Economic Council, which is an organization that approves of the idea of free trade, and these figures-contrary to what the Minister has just said-show clearly that there will be jobs lost in the textile industry, in the footwear industry, in the clothing industry, in the electricity, cables and wires industry, in a number of industries, and in agriculture.
Madam Speaker, we know there will be losers, we know there will be winners. I know in advance that Bernard Lamarre is going to be a millionaire four times over with Lavalin. I'm not worried about him and he has no need of the House of Commons. His shareholders are going to be better off too, that's certain. But one thing I don't know, and nobody can guarantee it, not even Bernard Lamarre of Lavalin: who can put down in black and white a guarantee that their employees are going to be better paid, and that there are going to be more men and women in Quebec, in all of Canada, with jobs? Mr. Lamarre can't guarantee that. My friend Lortie of Provigo, is also in favor of the deal. He's sure his shareholders are going to be better off. But there again he can't guarantee in black and white that there are going to be more jobs in Provigo and Provigain stores opened in Quebec. He won't sign a piece of paper saying that those new stores won't be opened in Plattsburgh-that a new Provigo will provide jobs for the people of Plattsburgh. My friend Lortie isn't even able to sign for me a piece of paper promising that the day after the Agreement comes into effect, a tin of beans will be cheaper. And he wants me to vote for this Agreement with my eyes closed.
Then there's my friend Beaudoin of Bombardier. He's all for the Agreement too, but he can't guarantee me that it will mean more jobs in his factory in Montreal East. He can't guarantee me that he won't open another factory in the United States to give Americans jobs at lower salaries than Quebeckers and Canadians get.
This is what the Conservative MPs want us to approve. And on top of that, everyone here in the House knows that there are going to be workers between 50 and 64 who are going to have difficulty. Recent figures show that despite the improvements in the health of the economy, the rate of unemployment among older workers has risen from 6.9 per cent to 7.7 per cent. There is no program at this time to help the losers. The Conservatives have only set up programs to help the winners.
If you want to get richer, if you are already a millionaire, if you went to school with the Prime Minister, you don't need to worry, your pockets will be lined and re-lined.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
But if you are middle-class, if you didn't attend the same university as the Prime Minister, well nobody's going to give a dam.
We in the Liberal Party-and I think business people will understand this-never put all our eggs in one basket. We believe in not being tied to anyone. We believe in being independent. Our industries, our employers, our small and medium-sized businesses, our big businesses, must be open to the world.
It isn't that I don't have confidence in the people of Quebec and the people of Canada, that I dont't believe them capable of competing with the Americans. Far from it. Our workers in industry, in our factories, give them a chance and they will be able to compete not only with the Americans but with the Europeans and the Asians.
But not under an agreement like this one. This is the same agreement the Prime Minister signed when he agreed to become president of Iron Ore, only to shut it quietly down. It is not with an agreement like this one, to sell Canada and Quebec quietly to the Americans, that our competitiveness is going to be assured.
For us in the Liberal Party it has always been plain that markets have to be opened up. We would negotiate for markets and open them up not just with the Americans, not just with the Europeans, but with the countries of Asia and elsewhere. But one thing is certain, and that is that sovereignty, being "maitres chez nous", which is what has made the Quebeckers of today able to stand tall, being what Jean Lesage called "maitres chez nous", must not be lost. I realize that the Tories have their roots in the Great darkness of Duplessis, they grovel, they sell mines to the Americans. But the Liberals under Jean Lesage called for us to be masters in our own home, and we must never abandon that.
Secondly, our social programs were won with the sweat of our fathers and grandfathers, who over the years struggled with their governments to get health insurance, drug insurance, hospital insurance. It wasn't so long ago that a worker with several children when one of those children got seriously ill, that worker had to declare himself a bankrupt under the Lacombe Act because he had gone into such debt to pay the doctor. After many years of struggle, people sacrificed salary increases to pay for health insurance.
Unemployment insurance in remote regions like the Gaspe and the Atlantic provinces, for fishermen, was a way to survive with a little dignity, a way not to become a beggar, a pauper, a charity case. It was a dignity-insurance program. Since the rich are able to afford RRSP's, no one is insulted. If you think that we in the Liberal Party are going to let this protection for the dignity of all middle-income Canadians disappear, you are wrong! "No Sir!" I say that to the Prime Minister and his Tory Members.
You're in the process of pulling a good one on us with your anti-francophones. There aren't many of us, just 39. But the 39

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of us managed to make you back off over old-age pensions; we made you back off over certain people on unemployment insurance, those older workers whom you had penalized; we made you back off over four issues, including the tax on drugs. You can be sure that the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) and his 39 Liberals will make you back right off the electoral map in the next elections.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam
Speaker, a few days ago hundreds of thousands of Canadians celebrated Canada Day, Canada's birthday, with a feeling of pride in the accomplishments of our country over the past 121 years. There was a great deal of celebration and a great deal of jubilation. I suspect that the celebration on July 1, Canada's birthday, may be the last celebration of its kind that we will experience in Canada because the Bill we are debating today, C-130, should really be called "The Turning of Canada into the 51st American State".
We have spent 121 years building our country into one that is unique in the world, one that reflects ideals and values which are admired by people from all countries. We have built a society here distinct from that of the United States. After 121 years of building, the Conservative Government, in only three years, has sold it out to the highest bidder, in this case the United States of America.
What we have seen in this country over the last three years under the Conservative Government can only be described as anti-Canadian activity. There is no question that we have lost our sovereignty as a nation because of this trade deal. A lot of people have said that we have sold out the country. When you sell something it is assumed that you get something in return. This was a give-away of Canada for all intents and purposes to the United States.
Not only is this legislation anti-Canadian, it is also antidemocratic. You will recall yourself, Madam Speaker, as I am sure many Members will, that just prior to the last general election when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was asked whether he supported a free trade deal, he said that he was against a free trade deal with the United States. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was asked whether he supported a free trade deal with the United States and he said that he was against a free trade deal with the United States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) was asked whether he supported a trade deal with the United States and he said that he was against a trade deal of this kind with the United States.
I could name a number of other senior cabinet Ministers who, when asked that question, said that they opposed a free trade deal with the United States. The people of Canada assumed that the Prime Minister and some of his most powerful cabinet Ministers, having said that they were against a free trade deal with the United States, were against a free
trade deal with the United States. All that we as citizens can do is believe that what the Prime Minister says is the truth.
We then had a general election, and not one single time during the federal election campaign in 1984 was free trade even mentioned. Not once did free trade with the United States come up for discussion or debate by the Prime Minister or anyone else in the Conservative Party anywhere in Canada. Then, on January 2, 1988, the Prime Minister signed a deal with the United States called a free trade deal.
This, then, is undemocratic because the Government misled the people of Canada. I think it is fair to say that those people were dishonest when they said that they were against free trade. They did not even mention it in the campaign and then, after being elected, are going to lock Canada into this deal, sell out the country forever, and turn Canada into the fifty-first state of the United States. The Prime Minister can be the governor of the "Estate of Canada".
This is also unparliamentary. After months and months of intensive negotiations in secret by various negotiators, the Prime Minister, and some of his major advisers, the Parliament of Canada has been given five days to debate this issue. As you well know, Madam Speaker, we sometimes spend four or five days on a fairly simple tax Bill which will amend the Income Tax Act.
This, however, is not a typical piece of legislation. In the Prime Minister's words, this is the most important trade legislation in the world. The Prime Minister has said that it is the most important trade deal ever struck between two nations and he has allocated only five days for parliamentary debate. The Government is now going to use its huge majority to curtail debate, muzzle Parliament, and for all intents and purposes prevent it from working effectively on behalf of the people of Canada.
Not only is this legislation anti-Canadian and anti-democratic, it is also anti-parliamentary. I could add that it is also anti-constitutional. One of the key components of this trade deal is the paragraph which says that this deal overrides all provincial legislation. It does not matter whether this deal goes against the Constitution of Canada or the negotiations which the federal Government has had with provincial Governments over the last 121 years, this deal takes precedence. When push comes to shove we can forget all the arrangements that we have made constitutionally and through negotiations with the provinces. That is clearly unconstitutional.
It is preposterous when you think that this deal is about to be wrapped up through closure when you consider what the deal does for us. Canada set out to accomplish three basic things. One was open, guaranteed, and secure access to the American market. Time and again the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) indicated that if we did not get unrestricted access to the huge American market of 242 million, there would be no deal. We did not get unrestricted
July 5, 1988

access to the American market. The United States administration retains the right to launch countervail and anti-dumping suits against Canada.
In other words, nothing has changed. The situation between Canada and the United States as a result of this deal will be the same next year as it was 10 years ago. The Americans retain the right to launch countervail against Canada as they did on softwood lumber, shakes and shingles, steel, and in other areas. Therefore we failed to achieve that ultimate goal we had set out.
Second, we wanted a binding dispute settlement mechanism so that if there was a dispute between Canada and the United States in terms of trade in a certain commodity, there would be a powerful decision-making body with teeth which could move in quickly and resolve the dispute. We failed to accomplish our second bottom line. All we got was a review panel to ensure that the Canadians and Americans are following the laws of their countries in a trade dispute. This panel has no teeth, it has no ability to move in and make a quick decision. Therefore, we failed to achieve our second bottom line as well.
Finally, we wanted an exemption against the United States protectionist trade laws. We did not get that either. The Americans retained the right to pass what they call trade remedy legislation against Canada and we accepted that. Therefore, we failed to achieve every single one of the three fundamentals which we set out to obtain.
The Americans also had three fundamentals which they hoped to achieve and they got all three of them. First, they wanted unlimited access to our markets. They wanted to be able to move in and buy immediately a company valued under $150 million. The Government gave them that right. The Government said that the Americans can have secure access to our energy resources and we cannot charge them more than we are charging our own customers. Third, they wanted to harmonize the wage laws, workplace laws, pension systems, and so on of the two countries. Canadians do not want the Americans to have any of those three objectives.
I am afraid my time is up, Madam Speaker. I hope I will have a chance to return to this another time.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, the Free Trade Agreement which is being discussed in the form of the Bill now before us, the Agreement reached with the United States, in my view offers innumerable advantages to both countries. It will enable our two economies, Canadian and American, to grow and prosper. It will help the private sector to create jobs. Despite what we have heard in the past few minutes, from alarmists trying to frighten children with bogeymen, I don't believe the people of Canada and of Quebec will let themselves be fooled. We have, I believe, the support of a large and growing majority of the people, and whatever the alarmists say, Madam Speaker, I think we can
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
have confidence in the people of Canada. They will know how to met the challenge of excellence that we have raised over the past four years, and they know now that with a government with backbone, which can offer Canadians the challenge of excellence in the future, with a historic Agreement with our neighbour, they won't let this chance slip.
We have to bear in mind that we undertook these negotiations with our neighbour to the South because we were faced with an unprecedented wave of protectionist measures, and we had to do something. We could not sit by while the various sectors of our economy fell victim, one after another, to protectionist manoeuvres from the other side of the border. We not only had to reply to those attacks, we also had to offer, both to Americans and to Canadians, a new choice and a new challenge in the economic sector. That is what we have done.
We will also be in a position, in the months and years to come, to show the people of Canada and the world an example of what can be done by two trading partners.
Agriculture, whatever some people have claimed-and I was listening to the Member of Montreal-Sainte-Marie just now-Canada never said that agriculture was not a subject for negotiation. That's not true. It has never been true. What we said was that we would protect the various marketing boards, and that in the sectors where we could ensure and expand our markets, we would do so. That's what we have done. We have protected, unequivocally, our dairy, poultry and egg marketing boards. And we have also received the support of the people in the commercial sector. We have quite broad support in the agriculture sector, although I concede that there are still some concerns there.
Quebec co-operatives that market agricultural products have expressed approval of the Agreement. The Cooperative federee du Quebec, which processes and sells agricultural products, Agropur, the largest co-operative, and Agrinove, another dairy co-operative, have expressed approval of the Free Trade Agreement.
And if there is some reticence on the part of agricultural producers, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, when one meets these people in person and can answer their questions, they are, in most cases, reassured.
I have met hundreds and even thousands of agricultural producers recently in the region of the Lac-Saint-Jean constituency, and I think they have given both the Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie and the Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre), who have been going around haranguing these producers for weeks-the producers have not been deceived. They realized where the truth lay.
We made sure with Article 11 of GATT, Madam Speaker- we incorporated that Article in the body of the Agreement. We also added agricultural products in the dairy sector to the list of controlled imports, which will ensure security in the dairy sector in the future. And the dairy sector is the backbone of farming in Quebec especially and in Ontario.

July 5, 1988
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We have safeguarded that sector and the other sectors protected by marketing boards.
In the red meat-beef and pork-sector, the Canadian Cattle Breeders Association and the Canadian Pork Council have come out substantially in favour of the Free Trade Agreement. When one has over one billion dollars worth of trade with the United States, a flourishing trade-it has tripled in the pork industry in recent years-one cannot take the chance, Madam Speaker, of abandoning and jeopardizing that sector. We cannot do what our opponents would do and turn to markets ... I even heard the member for Shefford say at one point: "Forget the Americans; we should trade with Japan." I heard him say that here in the Flouse. It is an absolutely inconceivable misunderstanding of the facts by a Member of this House. We know what growth there has been in our trade with the Americans, in processing industry employment in both Ontario and Quebec, where the jobs are, the people who wear white smocks and process our agricultural products here in Canada so they can be sold in the United States. To say: "Let's ignore that; let's sell it in Japan!", when there has been a severe downturn in that area in recent years, is to put one's head in the sand, Madam Speaker. And that is not what we are here for; we are here to encourage our producers and our processors on this side of the border to meet this challenge.
On that note, Madam Speaker, I will conclude. I think we have a historic opportunity to sign this Agreement with the Americans and to assure the future of Canadian agriculture in the 21st century. I think we must not do as those people are doing, looking in the rear-view mirror; we must look ahead and assure the future of Canadian agriculture. This Agreement is historic, and I think we cannot take the risk of missing this opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne) Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on the amendment 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 (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the		
Members.			
The House	divided on the amendment (Mr. Langdon),		
which was negatived on the following division.			
(Division No. 418)		
	YEAS		
			
	Members		
Allmand	Guilbault	Nystrom	Benjamin	(Saint-Jacques)	Orlikow	Blaikie	Henderson	Penner	Caccia	Hopkins	Prud'hommc	Cassidy	Hovdebo	Riis	Foster	Keeper	Robichaud	Fulton	Killens	Rodriguez	Gagliano	Langdon	Young 30	Garneau	Malepart	Gauthier	Manly	Gray	Murphy	(Windsor West)	Nunziata	NAYS	Members	Binns	Grise	Oostrom	Blais	Hardey	Peterson	Bosley	Hawkes	Plamondon	Bourgault	Hnatyshyn	Porter	Boyer	Holtmann	Reid	Brightwell	Horner	Schcllcnberg	Brisco	Jourdenais	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Cadieux	Kempling	Scott	Caldwell	Kindy	(Victoria Haliburton)	Clark	King	Scott	(Brandon-Souris)	Landry	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Coates	Lanthier	Scowen	Collins	Lawrence	Sparrow	Comeau	Leblanc	Stackhouse	WlCook	Lesick	Stewart	Cooper	Lewis	Tardif	Crosbie	Lopez	(Charlcsbourg)	(St. John s West)	MacDonald	Taylor	Domm	(Kingston and	Towers	Dorin	the Islands)	Tremblay	Duguay	MacDougall	(Quebec-Est)	Edwards	(Timiskaming)	Van De Walle	Fennell	Marin	Vankoughnet	Ferland	Martin	Vezina	Fontaine	McCain	Weiner	gFraleigh	McDermid	White	Fretz	McKenzie	Wilson	Gagnon	McKinnon	(Etobicoke	Gervais	Mitges	Centre)-79	Gray	Moore	(Bonaventure-Iles-de- Nowlan	la-Madeleine)	Oberle	if
fig 111
July 5, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost. Is the House ready for the next question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Some Hon. Members:: Debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins).
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew

Nipissing-Pembroke):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise today to participate in this last day of debate on this reading of the trade agreement, the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement, which is going to change the course of Canadian history. Before any of this happened-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Chair will now hear the Hon. Member.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I said, before any of this happened, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) uttered some remarks that are going to be heard a lot as time goes on and, of course, as did some of his present colleagues. We know that in 1983 the Prime Minister said these famous words: "Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would do so again in 1983. Canada must increase its share of total world trade, which has dropped in recent years." Now, that is from the Prime Minister of Canada. What has he done since? He has done precisely what the electorate of Canada would expect him to do; he has turned around and done the very opposite. His Government is becoming famous for that record.
Then we have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who stands up in this House and answers questions so blandly. What did he say? At the same time, in 1983, the present Minister of Finance said: "Bilateral trade is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally." Does that mean, today, that we are to accept the fact that the Minister of Finance is now naive because he has accepted free trade? He has accepted this trade deal.
Then we have the famous words from another front-bencher in this Government-who has far more respectability across this country than the Prime Minister-the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). He is far more popular than the Prime Minister of Canada today. He said at that time: "Unrestrained trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear." But today, what is he doing? He is marching to the same tune as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and they have the trained seals behind them all going along with them.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We hear from time to time in this debate that Prime Minister Laurier campaigned on free trade in 1911, but they are using it in the sense that he was defeated on that free trade. They are not bringing those points out. I just want to point out today that it is interesting to note that before Sir. Wilfrid Laurier got on the reciprocity bandwagon in 1911, he had 133 seats in this House of Commons. The Conservatives had 85 seats. There were three independents. There were 221 seats in the House as a whole. After the free trade election was over in 1911, the Conservatives under Sir Robert Borden, who opposed free trade, had 133 seats, exactly the same numbers as the previous Government. The Liberals under Sir Wilfrid Laurier had 86. There were two independents. You cannot help but note the complete and precise turnaround in Party standing. Both before and after the election, the Government Party had an over-all majority of 45 seats.
I just point this out because I think that the Government has to be prepared for what is going to happen after this election on the precise turnaround. Let us take a look at it today. There are other things that are the same. At that time the proponents of free trade were bragging about and really pushing it as the great answer to the Canadian economy. We are hearing the same thing today from the front benches of the present Government. We are hearing enthusiastic speeches from the Prime Minister. In 1911 we heard the same thing from the Government of the day.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It was a Liberal Government.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It is not enough for the Government to have a massive majority in this House of Commons. The Tories have to call upon international people to support them in their free trade deal. When the Prime Minister of Great Britain was speaking in this House on June 22, she praised the Prime Minister of Canada. She spoke the following words:
A Canadian Prime Minister at the turn of the century predicted that "the 20th century would be the century of Canada".
Note, Madam Speaker, she did not say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated those words. She said "a Canadian Prime Minister". Then she went on to make this ridiculous remark:
The last 12 months have certainly shown his prophecy to be true.
No partisan comment could be more blatant than those particular words. Later on in her speech, she went on to say:
On the basis of Britain's experience of joining the European Community, you need have no fear that Canada's national personality will be in any way diminished. Fifteen years of European Community membership have left our people no less British and no less proud of their history and independence.
For a Prime Minister of Great Britain to stand up in the Canadian House of Commons, make that statement and expect everybody to believe it is really expecting a lot.
Let us look at the facts. One, Britain has been an industrialized nation for centuries. It has a population of 55 million people. Mrs. Thatcher joined the European Common Market

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
with whom? With Luxembourg which has a population of something less than 400,000, with Holland with approximately 10 million people; with Belgium having around 12 million people, with France with a population of about 40 million and West Germany with a population of about 80 million people. Let us look at this realistically. Here you have Great Britain with 55 million people, an industrialized nation for centuries, joining a group like that. How can any world leader stand up and compare that situation with the situation we have right here in Canada today as we are cut off in debate discussing one of the most important pieces of legislation that this House has ever seen, namely, a trade deal between the United States and Canada?
On the southern side of the Canada-U.S. border there is a nation of 250 million people. Here in Canada we have 25 million people. That would be similar to comparing Great Britain having a trade agreement with Holland. What Mrs. Thatcher did was nothing but plain interference in a major internal issue on trade between Canada and the United States, internal interference in Canadian politics by a British Prime Minister. Let us not be too foolhardy about accepting the ideas that came out of that particular part of the speech.
We cannot help but think that international terrorism has been around for a while and we have been trying to blot it out. Now that this has happened on the floor of the Canadian House of Commons we have a new phenomenon here today. We have international Toryism where one Tory leader comes to another country and supports its Tory leader in the internal affairs of political life and economic history.
If we look at the agricultural industry, we find there is a real danger for our agricultural community.


James Eber Caldwell: Where?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In the case of dairy products, a free flow of products from the United States would mean a loss of sales in Canada to U.S. products. The cost of raw milk for the Canadian dairy industry is more than 25 per cent more in Canada than in the United States. Canada cannot compete. Obviously I am getting the facts out very well because I can hear shouting from the sidelines. This trade agreement would be a substantial threat to the Canadian manufacturers of dairy products, probably the destruction of the dairy farming industry, a serious loss of employment and employment opportunities for Canadians and the loss of control of a stable Canadian food supply. Energy and food are extremely important to any nation and its future. We will be dependent upon the United States for both food supply in the long run and for prices asked for dairy products. In other words, we are losing control of our own price structure and becoming dependent upon another nation. That is not the story of Canada.
It is really a sad day for Canada when this Government brings in closure on a Bill, such as this, which will set the stage for the future of Canada in a very detrimental way and a new
course, one that is diametrically opposite to that which the Prime Minister promised the Canadian people in 1983. He will be reminded of his change of heart every day this Parliament remains open until the next election. Then, we hope Canadians will have an opportunity to express themselves on this, the future of Canadian nationalism and our ability to run our own affairs in our own way.
We will go out in the world and get trade internationally. We have confidence that we can do that, and it will be done.


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be given an opportunity today to say a few words about the legislation to implement the trade deal. Over the last several months I have been asked primarily by senior citizens across Canada what impact this free trade agreement will have on Canada's social programs, our pension system, medicare, unemployment insurance and other programs which many elderly Canadians have fought for over the years. We have established a social safety net that is probably the envy of most countries in the world, particularly the U.S.A.
I have responded to questions that no one can say for sure what impact free trade will have on social programs. Many of the initiatives, if you can call them that, taken under this agreement will take about another five to seven to ten years to negotiate. Most people are under the impression that the negotiations have been concluded when, in fact, they have not. The agreement has not been concluded. Negotiations will carry on for a long period of time. I can say this much, that if you take a look at the attitudes of the people who did negotiate this agreement at the bargaining table, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Canada's social programs were indeed a part of these negotiations.
Mr. Murphy, the American negotiator, made no bones about the fact that as far as the Americans were concerned Canada' social programs were up for grabs, which included old age pensions, medicare and unemployment insurance. The Americans consider Canada's social programs to be far superior to those that exist in the United States, and indeed, they look upon those social programs as being an unfair subsidy in Canada-U.S. trade relationships.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and other cabinet Ministers have denied all along that social programs were a part of these negotiations. Let us go back to the first so-called Shamrock Summit when the Prime Minister and President Reagan first sat down together. What came out of these discussions? Two or three things did. First, we know and the record shows that the possibility of a free trade agreement was first raised between these two gentlemen at that time.
We also know, and there is absolutely no doubt about it, that at that same meeting, President Reagan raised with the Canadian Prime Minister the injustice, as he saw it and as the multinational pharmaceutical industries certainly saw it, of the Canada Patent Act which dealt detrimentally with the
July 5, 1988

pharmaceutical industry based in the United States. In fact, I am thoroughly convinced that as a precondition to any negotiations opening up on free trade, the United States President demanded that Canada amend its Patent Act. There is absolutely no question about that, and that is indeed what happened.
Canada did amend its Patent Act and that legislation went through the House last year. During the debate on amendments to the Patent Act, seniors across Canada predicted that if the amendments the Government was trying to ram through the House and indeed did ram through the House at that time became law, drug prices would return to what they were prior to 1969 when the drug companies enjoyed a monopoly on drug prices in Canada. The Government, and particularly the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), denied that that would happen and continues to deny that that has been happening. Yet we know that since that legislation went through the House, many drug prices have increased by some 50 per cent over what they were a year ago.
We also know that shortly after the Shamrock Summit at which social programs were probably discussed, the first Budget was presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), containing a proposal to deindex old age pensions. That may be a coincidence, but I doubt it very much. In line with the proposal to deindex pensions which senior citizens fought against and forced the Government to back off on, the Government also proposed and still proposes to deindex public service pensions. In my view, that is the opening round of the attack against the pension system.
On top of that, since this Government was elected, it has opened up the medicare system to private enterprise in the United States. Our hospitals are now open to the American style of administration which is medicare for profit, a thing that Canadians have fought against since Tommy Douglas introduced the first medicare program in Saskatchewan. Medicare is a valued program in Canada.
When Canadian seniors go to Florida and see what happens to our American neighbours when they run into medical difficulties and find out how much it costs them for medical services, and then look at what the Government has been doing in terms of opening up the medicare system to multinational organizations which operate it for profit, they become concerned. I do not blame them for becoming concerned, because I can very well visualize that some time within the next seven-year period, this Government, if it is still in power, will open up the whole area of social policy in the free trade negotiations. I hope this Government will not be around after the next election so that it cannot follow that kind of course, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the steps taken since 1984 until this time have been a direct attack on Canada's social programs. I think it will be made even worse after this trade agreement is signed on January 1 of next year.
I expected some Conservative Members to start taking umbrage to what I have been saying.


Mr. McDermid:: I do.


Neil Young: I know you do. Rather than having me continue that line of argument, let me tell Hon. Members what some people in industry have been saying about Canada's social programs and the trade agreement. For example, a champion of free trade, Colin Harper, President of Cameo, a white goods manufacturer, had this to say:
The impact of free trade on Canadian manufacturing is going to be like a wave breaking at the beach-several things would be needed to survive. First of all consistency from the Canadian government in terms of taxation, regulation and legislation which all affect the cost of doing business and hence, our competitiveness.
That gentleman seems to be advocating already, before we have even signed this agreement, that Canada's competitiveness with the United States after the agreement is signed on January 1 of next year will be such that Canadian employers will have to cut back on the benefits they pay to employees in order to be competitive with U.S. industry. If those employers start to attack benefit programs for the people who happen to be employed by them, I can well imagine what the Government will do to support them.
In light of that, I move an amendment to the amendment:
That the amendment be further amended in line 5 after "Canadian people", by adding: "is against the immediate and long-term interest of average Canadian families, and"


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would like to reserve on the amendment at this time and will give a ruling after Question Period.
With the consent of the House, I would like to call it one o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 12.59 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, at the conference on the changing atmosphere held in Toronto last week, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) declared his

July 5, 1988
Government has tackled the immense and urgent task of restoring the integrity of the environment on a priority basis. Yet the record of his Government reveals that renewable energy research at the National Research Council has been eliminated. The marine ecology laboratory in Nova Scotia has been closed. The proposed Guelph-Toronto toxicology laboratory and research centre has been cancelled. Climate research has been reduced. Environment Canada has lost $71 million to inflation, and 336 persons have been laid off since 1984.
The facts reveal prime ministerial doubletalk. Will the Prime Minister ever learn that preaching without practising severely damages his credibility?



ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, in Rome, a Canadian parliamentary delegation of which I was a member witnessed the elevation of Msgr. Paul Gregoire, Archbishop of Montreal, to the cardinalate.
This most impressive religious ceremony was graced by the presence and imposing personality of His Holyness John-Paul II, of course, but all of the delegates from some eighty nations also had the opportunity of noting at first hand the simplicity and moral stature that radiate from the personable Cardinal His Eminence Msgr. Gregoire of Montreal.
Please allow me, dear colleagues of this noble House, to offer our most cordial tribute to this exemplary Canadian who will now be called upon to play an important role internationally.
On behalf of all Canadians in general, Quebecers in particular and Montrealers of course, bravo and long live our Cardinal Paul Gregoire of Montreal!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Government has before it a proposal to build a golf course at Royal Roads Military College at Colwood, Vancouver Island. Local people object to the proposal for a number of reasons. First, the golf course would eliminate an attractive area of bush with several large trees. This would
aggravate an already serious problem with surface water at a nearby subdivision.
Most seriously, however the proposed golf course threatens the Esquimau Lagoon. Golf courses use large quantities of chemical fertilizer to maintain the greens. At Royal Roads much of this would drain into Esquimau Lagoon.
One biologist wrote me to say that the influx of nutrients would stimulate rapid growth of unicellular plants and a tremendous production of biomass. When that died and decomposed it would rob the water of oxygen. Fish and invertebrates would die from lack of oxygen and birds would no longer land. The lagoon would begin to stink. Instead of being a place of life and beauty, it would have been destroyed.
We are only beginning to recognize the importance of lagoons, salt marshes, and estuaries in the total ecology of our world. Since the proposed golf course poses a real threat to the Esquimalt Lagoon I urge the Government not to consent to its construction.



ABORTION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian society today does not, and I hope it never will, permit a doctor, or two doctors, or Parliament, or anyone else to choose whether a crippled senior riddled with disease should live or be murdered. He has a right to live. Why, then, should one or two doctors, or Parliament, or anyone else decide whether an unborn human baby should live or be murdered?
The motion and both amendments concerning this matter presently on the Order Paper permit a choice. Who gave us the right to choose? I cannot support the motion or the amendments. Human life is fundamental to our society. The right to live is not negotiable. That is why I support Bill S-16 which protects human life from the moment of conception. The choice is God's, not ours.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the condition of two harbours in Meaford, Ontario, located on Georgian Bay, was recently brought to my attention.
Last August the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) announced a plan to build a new harbour. This project was to be fully completed within the next two years. This year a drastic drop in water levels rendered the existing harbour
July 5, 1988

unusable. In fact, the Coast Guard had to relocate its vessel to Owen Sound.
Despite numerous requests the federal Government refused to dredge the harbour which was last dredged 26 years ago.
In a letter dated April 22, 1988, the Minister said: It is anticipated that the present water levels will increase by one foot by the beginning of May. This will help reduce the quantity of dredging required to have the harbour at least partially operational for the summer of 1988." The water level has not changed and finally, after a loud protest, the Minister came up with $50,000 for emergency dredging but local citizens would have to match it.
I believe that providing and maintaining safe harbours is a responsibility which deserves proper funding from the federal treasury. To make matters worse, departmental officials have advised local citizens that they will also be responsible for any dredging in the new harbour.
I call on the Government to allocate the necessary funds to ensure that Canadians in Meaford and across this country will have safe harbours.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in July 1969, the federal Government officially recognized that Canada was a bilingual country. From 1969 to 1984, a period of almost fifteen years but for a few months, the Liberal Government did not, during all those years it was in power, do a single thing to promote the French fact in Canada. And today, the federal Liberals have the gall to criticize us! Even if there were a few amendments, Mr. Speaker, we would still have more to be proud of than the idleness the Liberal Governmment indulged in during those fifteen years. Bilingualism is a Canadian reality, and we are going to do everything in our power to make Francophones and Anglophones feel at home everywhere in Canada, in a stronger and more united Canada.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Livestock Producers Co-Operative
Association publishes a weekly market report for its 2,200 members. This publication is devoted exclusively to agriculture and provides practical and essential information for British Columbia cattlemen to enable them to make well informed decisions about livestock production.
The severe drought conditions, coupled with increasing insecurity due to international and domestic market fluctuations, increasing feed costs, unfair competitive practices, and many other challenges, make it mandatory for cattlemen to have all the pertinent information possible to deal effectively and efficiently in today's market-place.
The Association requested second-class mailing status for its informative publication but the request was rejected by Canada Post. Second-class mail status would save the cooperative thousands of dollars in mailing costs. As well, by granting this request Canada Post would add considerably to the viability and stability of the British Columbia livestock industry.
I appeal to the Minister responsible for Canada Post and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to do whatever is necessary to enable the British Columbia Livestock Producers CoOperative Association to receive second-class mailing status for this market publication.



ONTARIO GOVERNMENT'S SEMINAR ON SOFTWARE EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, in an article which appeared recently in the Niagara Falls Review I read that the Ontario Government has spearheaded a two-day seminar under the new Exports to Border States Program for Ontario software companies. The seminar was developed to teach those companies how to export their products to the U.S. It was open to all first-time exporters.
I am pleased and relieved that finally the Liberal Government of Ontario led by David Peterson has seen the error of its ways and has reasoned that the large U.S. market and our access to it are vital to Canada's economic prosperity. It is reassuring to know that Canadian small businesses are not standing idly by but are preparing for that time when the free trade agreement comes into being so they will be in a position to take advantage of that which the agreement affords.
I encourage Mr. Monte Kwinter, Ontario's Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, not to keep his program secret but to tell Mr. Peterson just how well it ties in with the free trade agreement.

July 5, 1988



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, on June 20 the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said that the closure of the railroad in Newfoundland would not mean any job losses in North Sydney. This was confirmed to him by both Canadian National and Marine Atlantic. Yet the very next day, June 21, CN sent a directive to all its offices in Atlantic Canada directing them to send all containers for eastern Newfoundland east of Gander, including St. John's and all of the Avalon Peninsula, to Halifax for shipment directly to St. John's.
The President of Atlantic Container Express has said that the closure of the Newfoundland railroad will mean an increase in cargo shipments from Montreal to Corner Brook and St. John's of 12 to 15 per cent in 1988.
While the people in Montreal are counting new jobs the Government refuses to acknowledge the loss of jobs in North Sydney. Why is this happening? Why is the Government refusing to give compensation to the town and the people of North Sydney? Why is the Government doing unofficially what it refused to do officially, that is, acknowledge the loss of traffic in North Sydney, which is perhaps a prelude to the closure of the railroad in Nova Scotia between Truro and North Sydney?



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF OPPOSITION PARTIES

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) complained that the Government did not allow enough time to discuss free trade in this House. However, he forgot to say that for weeks on end, the Liberal-socialist coalition has not stopped wasting the time of this House, never on substantial issues, always on procedural questions.
Mr. Speaker, he complained during the day yesterday. Last night during the free trade debate that lasted until ten o'clock, there was not a Liberal in the House, including the Hon. Member for Windsor West who did not even dare to come! The Liberals don't even bother to debate when given the time for it, but they ask for time.
That means what they say and what they do are two different things. That is how Canadians will judge them, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, recently I had occasion to meet with representatives of the Manitoba Teachers' Society to hear their concerns about draft amendments to the Income Tax Act and the effect that some of these will have on the early retirement provisions of their pension plan. It is a concern shared by other groups as well, such as the Manitoba Organization of Nurses Associations.
For example, the teachers' plan has, over the years, been bargained from a point of full actuarial reduction between age 55 and 60 to a point where this was eliminated entirely in 1985 with a service requirement of only 10 years.
The Government's proposals would set this progress back 20 years and unilaterally undo an important dimension of a benefits package that was arrived at through teachers giving up other things at the bargaining table because of their conviction about the importance of full early retirement benefits in a stress-filled profession which also has many younger teachers unable to find work. At a penalty of 3 per cent a year, which the Government proposes, a 15 per cent reduction for those retiring at age 55 is almost certain to prohibit such needed retirements and the consequent turnovers.
Furthermore, the proposal to lengthen service requirements discriminates against women, many of whom have had to interrupt their careers. Teachers and health care workers in particular are concerned about these proposals as both groups have a very high proportion of women. I call on the Government to rethink these ill thought out proposals.



DEBATE ON CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, what would happen if a great debate were held in this House and opposition Members of Parliament failed to take part?
That is what happened last night as government MPs filled the gap while Liberal and NDP Members failed to rise. Yet we have heard these same Liberals and NDPers crying the blues day after day about the limited time for debate on this issue.
So the great debate became the great collapse for the opposition Parties last night. You would have heard all about it in the media this morning, but the media didn't bother to show up last night either.
July 5, 1988

"Curiouser and curiouser" said Alice in Wonderland. The more we talk, the less they say. Clearly the Government of Canada is winning the debate on free trade in this nation.
Oral Questions
rezoning be halted until provision has been made for affordable housing as well as for institutional buildings. We need people as well as institutions.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has not respected its commitments on shipyards to Quebecers.
We remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Government promised benefits from the frigates. Quebec got nothing. This resulted in the closure of the Sorel shipyard and of Vickers in Montreal. The workers in Lauzon tell us that the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) has not looked after them and their jobs and that he has let them down.
Moreover, yesterday I met workers from the riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie who told me that the Government has not kept its commitments on rail transport. We know about the Angus shops and Bombardier. We know that the Government allowed 30 locomotives to be built in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, we learned from a study in Le Devoir that once again the Conservative Government is not keeping its commitments on space research. Le Devoir tells us that in the past three months, the Conservative Government has given nothing for research in Quebec. Zero! Nothing! No economic benefits from research for Quebec.



HOUSING


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian and Ontario Governments have a chance to make a large tract of land just north of Metro Toronto available for affordable housing. Over 100 acres in size, it is being sought from Works Canada by the Municipality of Vaughan for so-called institutional purposes.
It boggles the mind that a town of 57,000 people needs over 100 acres for institutional buildings. Not since the pyramids would there have been such an orgy of public construction.
The Canadian and Ontario Governments owe it to the people of the Metro region to ensure that a major part of this land is devoted to affordable housing.
Let the two Ministers involved-Canadian and Ontario-do what only they can do. Let this deal be stalled. Let the



CORRECTIONAL SERVICE


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that a parole and bail centre is proposed for 330 Keele Street in my riding in Toronto. The site being proposed is a building owned by Public Works Canada which also houses the Keele Centre, a federal community correctional centre, in other words, a halfway house.
According to the Metropolitan Toronto Police, this particular centre, which would be operated by the police, would encompass 3,000 to 4,000 visits per week. This would vastly increase the traffic of parolees and those out on bail in this area of Toronto, an area which already has more than its fair share of federal and provincial halfway houses.
Tomorrow night at Annette Street Public School the local ratepayers' association is holding a meeting to discuss this proposal. I would urge the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) or a representative from the Solicitor General's office to be present at the meeting to listen to the concerns of the public. There has been too little consultation in the past and the Government has shown a flagrant disregard for community concerns and views.
I call on the Solicitor General to hold off on this proposal until the public is completely informed of the implications and the impact of this particular proposal on the community.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Government, to the Acting Prime Minister. Only the Prime Minister can and does appoint parliamentary secretaries, who are official spokespersons for the Government. The Hon. Member for Athabasca, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, should have been fired by the Prime Minister when he objected to the hiring of Francophones in his Department. He should also have been reprimanded for stating that only Anglophones should work for Petro-Canada. How can the Prime Minister let the Hon. Member for Athabasca continue

July 5, 1988
Oral Questions
in his post as parliamentary secretary after insulting Francophones across Canada?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, because of their duties, parliamentary secretaries must act within certain limitations. In other words, they have to abide by those limitations or take the options available to them. The question is about official languages. The Government's position was very clear yesterday on Bill C-72, and there will be a vote on Thursday. I think our position is quite similar and the Government is against all the amendments and action of any kind. I think the position of the Government and of the Prime Minister is quite clear in this respect.


QUERY WHY PRIME MINISTER HAS NOT DEMANDED
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary secretaries are official Government spokespersons appointed by the Prime Minister. Another parliamentary secretary, who works for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and I am referring to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assini-boine, holds the view that only English should be used as the language of work in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is an insult to Francophone troops like the Twenty-Second Regiment and many others who have defended the honour of this country on the battlefield. This parliamentary secretary should have been sacked immediately, not the next day or the day after, for approving of this kind of retrograde measure.
Considering the Prime Minister's failure to act on repeated attacks by his own parliamentary secretaries against the Government's language policy, why didn't the Prime Minister show this anti-francophone, anti-bilingualism and retrograde Member the door?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I explained earlier that parliamentary secretaries are subject to the limitations imposed by their duties. The House is well aware of the fact that bilingualism is a fundamental policy of this Government. The Prime Minister has shown very strong leadership in this respect, and he has provided leadership here in the House of Commons and across this country.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER REPLACE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, these are not ordinary backbenchers. These are official spokespeople for the Government.


Ted William Schellenberg: What is wrong with ordinary backbenchers?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Prime Minister and only the Prime Minister is responsible for appointing Parliamentary Secretaries. I just mentioned the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who have insulted francophones and got away with their repeated attacks on the official language policy of the Government.
When will the Prime Minister muster his courage and do the honourable thing by removing and replacing these negative, subversive individuals who occupy important and official positions as parliamentary secretaries?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House, including the Hon. Member who just spoke, can accuse the Prime Minister of Canada of being negligent on the position of official languages in this country.


Mr. Grise:: You know that very well.


Mr. Axworthy:: Get him to do something.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Prime Minister has provided leadership to all Members of the House. He has provided leadership to Members and to the people of this country on the question of official languages.
I hope the Hon. Member who asked the question will recognize that this is an issue with regard to the Official Languages Act. Certainly Parliamentary Secretaries are appointed with limitations on their actions and they know that they must abide by those limitations, operate within them, or take the options available to them. There will be a vote on this very important issue on Thursday. We will see what people do in that regard.
I want to assure the Member and all Members of the House that the Prime Minister has provided leadership on this issue that no one can question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT AMENDMENTS BE WITHDRAWN
Jean-Claude Malépart: Over the past few days, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have been behaving like scaredy cats in the eyes of Francophone Canadians. I have something to say to the lady acting Prime Minister concerning the slap in the face which was given to all French-speaking Canadians by the Tory Members who tabled 136 amendments to the Official Languages Bill, including one which would make English the language of work in Federal institutions and in the National capital. Moreover, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is blaming the department for hiring Francophones. The Hon. Member for Calgary North is also blaming the department of Energy, Mines and Resources for hiring Francophone employees.
My question is directed to the acting Prime Minister. In view of the insult offered by these people on behalf of the Tory Government to the French speaking people of Quebec and
July 5, 1988

Canada, and since the caucus will meet tomorrow, could she ask these anti-francophone Members to withdraw these amendments which are an insult to all Canadian men and women?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are going to turn down all the amendments which are contrary to the principle of the Official Languages Bill. Our policy is to apply the principle of bilinguism in Canada. Bilinguism is a fundamental tenet of the Prime Minister and all his Cabinet Members. No one can deny that. Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure you that the bill in its present form will be adopted on Thursday.


PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES-BILINGUALISM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is entirely out of touch with the feelings of Francophones. It is not a question of legislation, it is a question of pride. Are we in Canada, yes or no? If so you will have to ask the two Parliamentary Secretaries who support anti-francophone legislation to resign. How could a unilingual Francophone citizen or veteran of the Montreal-Sainte-Marie riding trust a Parliamentary Secretary who does not want any Francophones to work in his department? How can the people from the Gaspe accept a Parlementary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who does not want any Francophones to work in that department?
Are you going to ask these people to resign as Parliamentary Secretaries? Also, you should withdraw the amendments and finally on behalf of all Francophones in Canada and those in Quebec in particular, I ask that these people publically apologize to all Francophones.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already stated that we were going to turn down all the amendments which are contrary to the principle of the Official Languages Bill. We have already done so. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that we will adopt Bill C-72 in its present form this coming Thursday.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday Canadians were not only shocked by the reality of the downing of the Iranian jetliner, they were also shocked by the response of the Government to questions about the Canadian response to this event, and its apparent unwillingness to consider requesting an international inquiry into this incident. They
Oral Questions
were shocked by the apparent uncritical attitude of the Acting Prime Minister of the day toward the American version of events.
The Government has had a day to think about it. Does it have a different response today? Is the Government willing to join the call for an international inquiry into this tragic incident?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is not going to react with knee-jerk anti-Americanism as the hon. gentleman opposite constantly reacts whenever any matter comes up in the national or international sphere. There is an automatic Pavlov's dog reaction against the United States by the hon. gentleman opposite.
Of course we attach great importance to the safety of international civil aviation. We regard ICAO as the principal organization for ensuring the goal of safe international civil aviation. We support the convening of an extraordinary session of the ICAO Council to consider the Iran Air 655 incident. We would also support an independent investigation by ICAO to determine the facts.
As I said yesterday, we have no reason to doubt the version of the facts that the United States has presented to the world. We are not going to assume automatically that the United States version is wrong, as the Official Opposition and the NDP seem to want Canadians to believe. We are not going to react with automatic anti-American tendencies as the Hon. Members of the Opposition do. We wait, investigate, and ascertain the facts first.
ICAO is the right agency to look into this.


Lloyd Axworthy: You don't know what you're talking about. You are an embarrassing disgrace to this problem.


John Carnell Crosbie: Pavlov's dogs. They slobber whenever they hear the words "U.S.".


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Shut up!


Lloyd Axworthy: Aren't you a childish little jerk.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are not even Labrador retrievers.


IRAN-IRAQ WAR-UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when the office of a Cabinet Minister has to be so downgraded as it is by the persistent responses of the Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is not a question of uncritical acceptance of the U.S. view, or an uncritical rejection of the U.S. view. It is a question of Canada playing its proper role on the international stage and asking for an inquiry to establish what actually

July 5, 1988
Oral Questions
happened. That is all the Minister was asked for yesterday. That is all that he is asked for today.
We see some progress in what the Minister has had to say despite the preamble. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister this question.
What does the Government of Canada plan to do at the U.N., using its good offices there and the reputation that we still have despite the Minister, to bring international pressure to bear on Iran and Iraq for the implementation of Resolution 598, and measures such as the arms embargo, so that we can suffocate this conflict in that tragic area?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the House the difference, of course, between the present situation and the situation in 1983 when we had the tragedy of the KAL 007 incident. There we had eight of our Canadian citizens who were actually on that flight and went to their deaths as a result. There is a claim that we have made on their behalf against the U.S.S.R. which has never been settled. At that time-


Lloyd Axworthy: Iranian kids are different from Canadian kids, is that it?


John Carnell Crosbie: If I might speak without interruption-at that time we were an aggrieved party. We do not have any of our citizens involved in this incident today.


Mr. Tobin:: Does that make a difference?


John Carnell Crosbie: As Iran has requested that there be a meeting of the ICAO Council, we, of course, support that request since that is the proper body to investigate.
With respect to the United Nations, we are not an aggrieved party. We are not going to initiate action there.
I trust that has answered the hon. gentleman. Our position is no different today than it was yesterday. However, we are not going to react automatically unless there are some facts that indicate to us that there should be a reaction immediately. The mere mention of the name "U.S." does not mean that we are going to react in an anti-U.S. fashion.


PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that we are not an aggrieved party. I submit that we are all aggrieved whenever commercial jet traffic such as this is put in such a position.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We were not an aggrieved party in the Suez crisis in 1956 but that did not stop Canada from playing an important role. That is the type of leadership that we are looking for from the Government.
I ask the Government what is its response to the proposal made only recently by Norway, and in previous days by other countries, with respect to the idea of a U.N. naval peacekeeping force in the Gulf to replace the U.S. presence there which is becoming so destabilizing.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, our position is that we support fully the efforts of our allies, including the U.S.A., which are designed to protect international shipping and freedom of navigation in the Gulf.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Norway is our ally, too.


John Carnell Crosbie: We continue to believe that the continued presence of U.S. naval forces contributes to the lessening of prospects for escalation of this conflict and limits the possibility of a spread to other areas.
We urge today, as we have in the past, and we will continue to urge the belligerents in this situation, that is, Iran and Iraq, to bring this eight-year old tragic conflict to an end. It should be brought to an end. We will lend our efforts to any reasonable position that might hasten the arrival of the end of those hostilities.
The suggestion the Hon. Member makes can be considered. But there has been no viable proposal for any U.N. naval force to be put in the area to keep the peace as he has suggested. We can see if any such development occurs. We can then make a decision as to whether that is a suggestion which is practical and supportable.


IATA REQUEST FOR U.S. AND IRAN DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question which 1 pose to the Acting Prime Minister, the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, is this.
In the answers he has just given he seemed to say that this issue is one of whether one is pro-American or anti-American, or whether we are an aggrieved party. I simply want to say to him that I do not think it is a question of being pro or antiAmerican. It is a question of whether innocent civilians flying on international flights will be safe and secure from military attack. It does not make a difference whether Iranians or Canadians are the victims of this kind of action. They are human beings and therefore we have a responsibility to take some kind of action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: When the Minister says that the Government has changed its position from yesterday, something we are pleased to hear, do the measures which the Government is now prepared to support include those that are proposed by IATA, the international airline association, which asks that both the major participants in this, the United States and Iran, be asked to provide all documents, all information, and all
July 5, 1988

records to ICAO so that there can be a full and impartial investigation?
Will the Canadian Government send a note both to the Iranian Government and to the American Government asking them to comply with that request?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in policy between yesterday and today, or tomorrow. Our policy is exactly the same.
Since yesterday Iran has requested a meeting of the ICAO Council. We will support that request for a meeting of the ICAO Council. We will support an independent investigation by ICAO of this incident. What the resolution will be and what resolution we will support will depend on the resolution that goes before the ICAO Council.
If there is to be an independent inquiry, then naturally it must have access to all the records and all the information, or it can hardly be a valid or worth-while inquiry. We do not need the suggestion of the hon. gentleman that we support a resolution of one type or the other until we see what the resolution is going to be.
With respect to us as a party, there is a difference between having our own citizens on an aircraft and therefore having a direct interest on behalf of our nation to pursue their interests, and being a nation whose citizens are not involved directly. We are not a direct aggrieved party in this matter as we were in the Korean matter.
In addition, we should also remember this. This incident occurred in an area in which hostilities were occurring-


Michael Morris Cassidy: And that makes it all right.


John Carnell Crosbie: -in a hostile zone, not as occurred in 1983. There are a number of differences.
I say again that we have no reason to doubt the U.S. version of events that the U.S. has put out. If there comes a time in the future when there is some reason to doubt that, we would be the first to say so. We are not going to assume that the United States is guilty of any particular set of facts until they are established.


CHICAGO CONVENTION-NON-RATIFICATION BY CERTAIN COUNTRIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in my supplementary question I simply point out to the Minister that no one is assessing guilt or blame. What we are trying to find out are the facts of the case. We are asking the Government to support the request made by the airline association that those facts be properly provided to international agencies. The Minister refused to say whether in fact the Canadian Government would be supporting that position.
I would further ask him this specific question. In 1983 the Canadian Government put forward proposals to ICAO that
Oral Questions
were amendments to the Chicago Convention detailing new rules of procedure dealing with the military interception of civilian aircraft. I am pleased to say that the Canadian Government has ratified that Convention, but many other countries, including the United States and the Soviet Union, have yet to ratify those new amendments to the Convention that would provide and enhance protection for international air travel.
Does the Canadian Government intend to pursue those countries, particularly those which are our allies, to get them to ratify the new rules that would register, monitor, and regulate international skyways in order that we can have a more secure system and not end up with the type of tragedy that we had in the Gulf two days ago?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there is already prohibition against the use of weapons against civil aircraft. There is Article 3 of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation which has been put forward. We were actively involved in the adoption of that article. The present administration of the Government of Canada ratified that article on September 23, 1986.
We have regularly spoken out at the International Civil Aviation Organization in favour of its early ratification by all member states, not only those friendly to us. We have urged all states to ratify that amendment to the convention, and we will continue to do so.
We are glad to see that the Hon. Member opposite supports this being done.


Lloyd Axworthy: I proposed it, John, never mind support.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Quebec senior Minister and has to do with the Conservative caucus internal crisis over the Bill C-72 amendments. Mr. Speaker, the Quebec senior Minister responsible for bilingualism ... I have no idea who he is because both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State are absent.
Does the Minister agree with the Hon. Member for Charlevoix who has stated that he feels betrayed by the amendments introduced by the dinosaurs?
Does the Minister agree with the Hon. Member for Richelieu who has been talking about a schism within the

July 5, 1988
Oral Questions
Conservative Party and who is asking that the amendments be withdrawn because they are an insult to all Canadians?
Does the Government intend to take action against the caucus dinosaurs who question the Conservative Party's commitment to bilingualism? Or will the Government remain paralysed, so much so that the Quebec Conservative Members will split from the caucus because of these amendments?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that the Government has rejected all the amendments which run counter to the principle of the Official Languages Act. The Government has turned them down.


POSITION OF MINISTERS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. She seems to be saying that Conservative backbenchers can put up any amendments in contradiction to government policy, to Conservative Party policy, and to the position of the Government, and there is nothing wrong with that at all.
Can the Acting Prime Minister explain why there has been no disciplinary action? Why have the Parliamentary Secretaries who proposed those amendments not been suspended from their functions? Why there has been no disciplining of those particular back-benchers? Why has the Prime Minister been silent? Why has the Secretary of State been silent? Can she explain why the Government is stonewalling while this crisis is breaking out in the Conservative caucus, which could split the Conservative caucus asunder, and our country as well?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Government and the Prime Minister have not stalled on this particular piece of legislation.


Michael Morris Cassidy: They have been silent.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Not at all. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the actions we took yesterday to bring this Bill to a vote on Thursday speak very clearly of the intentions of the Government in this regard.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre would want to put a muzzle on the House of Commons and in many ways he has tried already to do that. We say that parliamentary action should take place. Parliament should be able to express itself.
On Thursday of this week Parliament will speak. The Official Languages Act will be passed and members of the Government in its Cabinet will be united in their opposition to amendments that have been put forward that are contrary to the fundamental spirit of official languages in this country.


CORRECTION SERVICE
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Government is aware that Stephen Ratkai, who is being held on charges of spying for the Soviet Union, was assaulted on Saturday while in custody in St. John's. He was assaulted badly enough to be taken to hospital.
Can the Government explain why someone charged with such a serious offence as spying would be so loosely guarded? If he were important enough to cause such an international incident between the Soviet Union and Canada, then why was he not kept in more restrictive custody?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that yes, indeed, initially Mr. Ratkai was confiped in special custody. At the request of his lawyer he was released into the general population.
The assault took place several hours after that release. He was taken to hospital. It was determined that his injuries were not serious. He has now been returned to the institution and is being retained in special custody, as he originally was.
I would also point out that the institution in which he is confined is a provincial institution and not under the jurisdiction of the federal Government.


George Baker: If the Government had lived up to its 1984 election promise and built a new federal penitentiary in Newfoundland perhaps this would not have taken place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT BUILD PENITENTIARY IN BUCHANS, NFLD.
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, when is the Government of Canada going to fulfil its 1984 election promise and build that new penitentiary in Buchans, Newfoundland, where everybody in Newfoundland agrees that it should be built-in my future riding?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the question and allegations of the Hon. Member, although I suppose I should not be.
It was the Party of the Hon. Member that for years promised a federal jail in Newfoundland, and it never came good on its promise. But our term has not ended. I am engaged in very fruitful conversations with officials from Newfoundland, I may say at the constant urgings of the Hon. Member for St. John's West, and I am hopeful that in the very near future we will indeed be able to keep our promise as the former Liberal Government never did.
July 5, 1988


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-SMALL BUSINESSES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade who, despite his efforts for Newfoundland, has not done very well for Canada.
Despite the Government's cross-country propaganda conferences, the research director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has now stated that Canadian small businesses are not likely to benefit from the extra U.S. procurement spending open under the trade deal.
How can the Minister justify a deal that leaves Canadian small businesses entirely locked out of U.S. purchases from small businesses when we have to give American firms equal treatment?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman has asked that question so we can try to straighten him out again.
The free trade agreement was negotiated. We know that there is a U.S. small business set-aside program. It was agreed to have a mutual opening of government procurement which extends the multilateral provisions already signed under the GATT, and estimating the size of the U.S. government procurement market which will be opened to competition from Canadian businesses, including small businesses, the portion excluded under the U.S. set-aside program has been netted out. The estimate is that Canadian businesses will be free under the agreement to compete for a portion of the U.S. government spending, estimated at $3 billion Canadian. That was not possible before, Mr. Speaker.
Why is it that the hon. gentleman always attempts to twist the agreement? Doesn't he realize, as Thomas Shelton once said: "The truth shall always prevail above lies as the oil above the water"?


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is my faith.


John Carnell Crosbie: Practise it.


TERMS OF AGREEMENT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Why is it that not just small business offsets have been left out of these agreements? According to the U.S. draft statements of administrative action the following categories have also been left out of possible purchase contracts from Canadians: small business and minority business programs; Department of Defence programs; the hand tools program, cargo transportation preferences; construction contracts; service contracts; purchases by the Department of Agriculture and
Oral Questions
purchases by state and local governments? How can there be so much left out for Canadian small business-


An Hon. Member:: Because of your complaining.


Steven W. Langdon: -when this Minister claims that he is trying to help small business with this deal?


An Hon. Member:: What about the provinces, and the Crown corporations?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how the Hon. Member can ask that supplementary question after the Minister for International Trade just explained very clearly to him that he was totally wrong in his initial question put to the Government.
The set-aside program for small business in the United States has been taken under consideration in drafting the free trade agreement. Canadian businesses will have access to $3 billion worth of new business in the United States.
Further to the announcements made by this Government yesterday, the small business community, which is the backbone of the economic might of this country, will get its fair share of all government contracts in low dollar value contracts as well as sub-contracts for major purchases, so the winners are Canadian small businesses now and in the future.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the Deputy Prime Minister announced some weeks ago a significant increase in the programs in the multicultural sector. He announced an increase of $60 million in new money for new programs to give effect to the commitments made in Bill C-93.
Will the Minister inform the House about his intentions for implementing these programs, and that includes those in Alberta and possibly Edmonton, as well as assure the House that he intends to act swiftly to bring forward the new measures he and the Deputy Prime Minister announced some weeks ago?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, our intention is to proceed now. Program criteria are in preparation for the new directions that stem from the C-93 policy commitments. Announcements will be made very soon and I know the Hon. Member will be very pleased.
1 hope all Members of Parliament will want to endorse the view of the CEC which has given strong support to the improved multiculturalism Bill in which the Government is

July 5, 1988
Oral Questions
bringing forward our continued commitment to the ethnocultural communities.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The Financial Post, which is a newspaper in favour of free trade, and Catherine Swift, Research Director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who is also in favour of free trade, said that Canadian small businesses will lose $4 billion worth of U.S. procurement. Why are Canadian small businesses limited to American procurement while U.S. small businesses are open to Canadian procurement? Why this discrimination?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that once again the members of the Liberal Party are not listening to what is going on in this Parliament. Exactly the same question was posed two or three minutes ago and answered both by the Minister for International Trade and myself.
While I am on my feet, let me confirm again what I and my colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses, announced yesterday. The initiatives which this Government has taken with respect to procurement on behalf of the Canadian small business community will increase opportunities for Canadian small businessmen in Canada with the free trade agreement, as well as with general procurement in Canada, by over 50 per cent.
This is a major step in the right direction and I can assure the Hon. Member that members of the International Federation of Independent Business who were at my press conference in Toronto yesterday were in total and full support of these initiatives taken by the Government.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister gave us smoke and mirrors. He gave us no regulations or detail on how he will accomplish this new policy.
Specifically, will the Minister amend the legislation in order to correct the discrimination between U.S. small business and Canadian small business? Why is Canadian small business not allowed to have total access to the American procurement?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the Hon. Member asking that question again. How much clearer can we put it in saying that
the Canadian business community will have access to an estimated $3 billion worth of United States business while the Americans will have access only to $400 million worth of Canadian business?
Clearly the Canadian businessmen come up on top, nearly 10 to 1 on this initiative. That is just one reason that the free trade agreement is good for Canada, good for Canadian small businessmen, and good for all Canadians.


INDUSTRY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
By this time tomorrow the assets of Massey Combines Corporation will have been sold off unless the Government intervenes to delay that sale when it comes before the Supreme Court of Ontario. Will the Government let hundreds of Canadians jobs disappear forever, or will it screw up its courage at this last chance to buy some time so we can find a buyer who will keep those 2,000 jobs in Canada, in Brantford, Ontario?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows we have been following this very carefully. A receiver has been appointed by the court. Some assets are being sold according to the dictates of the court. That process, as I say, is being monitored very closely.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows the bottom line is to keep the parts manufacturing as a nucleus here in Canada. That parts manufacturing for the conventional combine has already been transferred to none other than Victor Rice whose Varity Corporation wholly owns Massey Ferguson of the United States.
Here is the Canadian owner buying back his own technology at bargain basement prices and transferring jobs out of Canada, out of Brantford, to the United States. I am asking this Minister to intervene tomorrow at Osgoode Hall as a major shareholder of Varity Corporation to stop this scandal, because that is what it is. It is morally repugnant not only to the people of Brantford but to Canada itself.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, first, I dispute many of the claims that my hon. colleague has just made.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: They are facts.
July 5, 1988


Robert René de Cotret: The facts are as I mentioned before in this House, the two very major packages of MCC assets were sold to Canadians with the very specific intention of retaining the technology, particularly the axle technology, and the jobs associated with it in Canada and the supply of combines and parts to dealers in Canada.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: What about conventional combines going to the United States?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds. Today's press carries reports indicating that the baking industry is planning to raise the price of bread by up to 10 cents a loaf as a result of the drought in western Canada. The price of a bushel of wheat to the industry will in fact fall at the end of this month due to the abandonment of the two-price wheat system.
Will the Government allow bakers to increase the price of bread charged to Canadians at a time when the price of wheat is actually falling?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as all Hon. Members know, the drought in western Canada has in fact moved the price of grain up at the export level, but as most Hon. Members know, Canadian bakers have been buying their product under the two-price system for many years and will continue to do so until August 1 of this year. The truth is that even with the increase in grain prices which has occurred these last few weeks and perhaps months, there will be a decrease in the price of grain assuming no further increase as of August 1. Therefore, there should be a saving to the consumers of Canada rather than an increase as of August 1.
Any action by the bakers of Canada or any other food processors to take advantage of the drought by trying to pass unjustified price increases on to the consumers of Canada will in fact be unwarranted and unconscionable.


REQUEST THAT PRICES BE MONITORED
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Now that the Parliamentary Secretary has confirmed that there is no justification for increasing the price of bread even though there is a drought in western Canada, will the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs put in place a tough monitoring system to
Oral Questions
ensure that consumers do not get ripped off and that prices are not unjustifiably increased?


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there are obviously control mechanism in that regard at the level of Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, and I will make sure the Department gives that matter proper consideration.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last month, a landmark decision was made by Justice Barry Strayer of the Federal Court of Canada who ruled that the Unemployment Insurance Act discriminates against natural parents by denying them the child care benefits which are available to adoptive parents.
In his ruling, Justice Strayer makes a clear distinction between pregnancy benefits which are benefits extended to women for purposes of health, and parental benefits which are benefits available to adoptive parents for the purposes of child care and bonding.
When will the Government introduce legislation to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to remove discrimination against natural parents?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, we have received the reasons for the decision and naturally we are waiting for the final decision. When we get it, and we do not expect it before September, we as Government will take the necessary measures.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF LEGISLATION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, there is an urgent need for these amendments. We know that Canada is ranked behind other industrialized nations in the provision of child care benefits. This has been made very clear by the courts. When will the legislation be amended so that natural parents will not be discriminated against?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to reiterate to this House the concerns that I also have as a woman and a mother.

July 5, 1988
Committee Reports
We have, of course, studied the situation very closely and as I have just said, the Government is waiting for the final decision to be rendered before implementing the measures that will be needed to uphold the right of natural parents.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, further to this morning's decision, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the first report of the Special Committee on the Central American Peace Process.

The report is entitled Supporting the Five, and out of respect for those most central to this report, a Spanish version is being produced for distribution in the region.
The committee has examined ways in which Canada could play a constructive and positive role. Clearly, the peace process itself must continue to be directed by Central Americans. Canada's role should be to assist and to encourage those in charge of that process.
Specifically, Canada can immediately help in designing and possibly participating in ceasefire verification systems. In fact, we are awaiting a formal invitation. Beyond that, Canada can strengthen the peace process through human rights and democratic development programs, economic assistance and by the consolidation of diplomatic representation in the region.
This report is unanimous. All our recommendations spring from the single conviction that has guided our work, namely that Canada should do everything in its power to support Central Americans in their own search for peace in ways they deem useful.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 16661), and of Mr. Young (p. 17089).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before the House rose at one o'clock p.m., a subamendment to the amendment
on Bill C-130 was proposed by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). The Chair took the subamendment under advisement and I am now prepared to place it before the House.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, this debate that we are currently involved in is about two possible futures for our country. The one possibility is based clearly and constructively on our own historical traditions and the other represents a clear departure from that tradition and a radical shift away from what has become the Canadian heritage.
Beyond the surface similarities, there are on this North American continent of ours two strongly competing images of the good life. If this deal is consummated, the odds are very great that it will be at once witness and participant to the triumph of one image over the other.
With unintended irony, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in his first speech in the House of Commons: "Give us 20 years and you will not recognize this country". Well, we do not intend to give the Prime Minister 20 years. We do not intend to give him even eight years because we love this country of ours, and it is neither desirable nor his right to change our country beyond recognition.

Madam Speaker, this agreement surrenders our inalienable right to make our own decisions. It takes away our right to control our ancestral heritage. It denies us control over our natural resources. It even makes our water available to the United States. It threatens many jobs in our factories, in the agricultural sector and in our resource industries. It is a threat to the Auto Pact. It is a threat to women, especially those working in the service industries. It weakens our control over the environment. It gives Washington powers that are the prerogative of our provincial capitals. Madam Speaker, it does not even guarantee us access to the U.S. market. This agreement is totally unacceptable.
Although it does all these things, and for those reasons alone, in the opinion of my colleagues and a majority of Canadians who have now become more and more familiar with what is involved, the deal should be rejected. Today I want to talk about the much broader context within which I believe this accord ought to be seen. I do this because I deeply believe that what is at risk is the very idea of Canada as it has come to be known, particularly during the last five decades.

I may point out, Madam Speaker, that I did not say Canada itself is at risk. What is at risk is our present values, those that are shared and respected by all Canadians, both Francophones and Anglophones. If we hold these values dearly, we cannot accept this agreement. I am not talking about economics but about values and principles.
July 5, 1988



This debate is not about whether one narrowly defined economic system or aspect of commercial activity or another should be accepted. That is a much too restrictive interpretation to put on what is clearly involved in this historic decision. This debate is really about whether what I would call the Canadian way or the American way will prevail in our country. Both images overlap, of course, but such commonality should not obscure some very important and quite profound differences.
If you will permit me, I would first like to explain what I mean when I say "The American way". I mean by that a kind of society in which not only market values have been embedded in the system directly, but one in which those values come to dominate virtually every aspect of life. I want to be specific. I refer not simply to the buying of goods and services according to market principles but to the virtual transformation of everything else in society within the framework of those market values. I refer to culture, I refer to religion, I refer to social policy-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Religion?


John Edward Broadbent: -all of which, I suggest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), properly understood in American society, have come to be dominated by market values. The most significant growth in religion, I say to the Minister, is in the fundamentalist sects in the U.S. which have come to equate Christianity with the successful making of money. That is not my view, it is a view which has been expressed not only by some North American but the world's leading theologians.
Market values have come to be all pervasive in the United States. Of course, and I say it right away, there are exceptions, but this is unquestionably the pattern of U.S. development as every serious observer from Alexis de Tocqueville in the past to Michael Harrington in the present has had the intelligence and insight to understand. It has its pluses and it has its minuses, but Canada has marched to the tune of a different drummer.
Yes, we, too, have accepted the market principle in Canada but from the very outset of our country's history we understood the limitations that ought to be put on that system. We have not allowed market values to become all pervasive. We are committed to life and liberty but we are also committed to a sense of community. This has become in my view particularly marked during the historical developments of the last 50 years but also, as I said, right at the outset.
Our founding Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, well understood that if this country called Canada, with its two founding nations but soon to be rich and diverse in language and cultures, was to survive, then something other than market values would have to exist. That was particularly true at that time as illustrated by state involvement in the building of our transportation system, which would never have come into being if we had relied upon the market system of the United States.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
However, as I say, the changes which have come to characterize and distinguish Canadian life from American life have become most marked since the 1930s and, I would argue, have now come to be so pervasive that it makes immense good sense to talk about a Canada distinctively different from the country immediately to the south. It is in this development we have taken on a character as a nation that makes us much more similar to countries in the northern part of Europe than to the United States of America.
Recently, to illustrate a small point, I was invited to speak in another country. I left my home, got in my car, bought gas in a PetroCan gas station, listened to the CBC, and got on an Air Canada plane. All of this was perfectly routine for me. All of those institutions, as Canadians will recognize, are Canadian institutions in the public sector, none of which exist in those forms in the U.S.
Let me be even more concrete in talking about how different values have worked themselves out in our two quite different nations. First, something which is on the surface mundane and practical, is our medicare system. In the U.S., because of a different value system, the medical care system is still regarded as a marketable item to be bought and sold in the market-place like any other good or service. Americans are encouraged to fend for themselves. The consequence, of course, has been that in the U.S. today there are 36 million Americans without any form of medical insurance whatsoever, twelve million of whom happen to be children. In Canada, where we made the decision that the market-place is not something to dictate all values, we took medical services out of the marketplace and have long since regarded them as a right of citizenship, not simply a good to be purchased by whoever can afford it.
If we look again at something as practical in the lives of real human beings as unemployment insurance and minimum wages, we find once again the value systems of the two countries are quite different. In the U.S. there is a strong belief that if a man or woman becomes unemployed, it is predominantly to be understood to be his or her own fault. In Canada we recognize, particularly since the 1930s, in our institutions reflecting the change in values, that if a man or a woman becomes unemployed, overwhelmingly the fault is not within that man or woman but in the economic system. As a consequence of these two quite different value systems the two countries have assumed quite different practical institutions. In the U.S. today only 25 per cent of American workers are covered by unemployment insurance. In Canada, 85 per cent of workers are covered by unemployment insurance. In Canada, all provincial minimum wages are over $3.20 an hour. Eight states in the U.S. have absolutely no minimum wage whatsoever and three are set at less than $1.60 an hour.
Another practical aspect is the right of trade unions, to which people on the other side very frequently allude when talking about countries like Poland. They claim the importance

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of trade unions in that country and other unfree systems but are only very infrequently prepared to defend those institutions here in Canada. I, as a Canadian, believe that apart from the development of democracy itself in the last 100 years, the right of trade unions to exist in developed societies is probably the most important institution giving freedom to workers which has emerged in the last 100 years.
In Canada our rate is hardly yet comparable to western and northern Europe, but 37 per cent of our workforce is in unions. However, in the United States only 17 per cent of the workforce is unionized. While the situation continually gets better in our country, I regret to say that it continually gets worse in the United States.
With regard to agriculture, when subsidies have been brought to bear in the United States, they have been seen to be anomalous to the system and described as exceptions to the rule. They have been said to be temporary even if they have lasted, at times, a decade or so. In other words, they have gone against the prevailing system which is to leave each farmer on his own, not only in the market-place in the United States but in the global market-place.
In Canada our approach has been different once again. With regard to institutions as diverse as the Canadian Wheat Board and marketing boards for egg, poultry, and milk producers, we have not responded simply in an ad hoc fashion to bail farmers out in any given crisis. We have seen farmers and farming families as an integral part of the community with rights which should include certain organizational principles which will not leave them the uncared for victims of a market system which can simply throw them hither or yon. Once again, we have brought an organizational principle to the economy which differs radically from that which exists in the United States.
Another area is regional development. We in this country have developed, particularly since the Great Depression, a commitment to the view that regional development is fundamental to the notion of what Canada is all about. Some of us worked hard in the 1981-82 constitutional period to ensure that the notion of equality was written into our Constitution in terms of regional development opportunities. I can tell you that you will not find that in the United States Constitution where, once again, the concept of a market-place prevails.
I go beyond my Party on everything I have said in terms of value systems. Elements in all Parties and all regions believe that a young boy or girl growing up in this country in 1988 ought not to have to move to Toronto to get a job. Our diverse country has really four or five economies within the bosom of one nation. We believe that the federal Government has a fundamental obligation to deal with regional economic development. In our view the present Government has not adequately addressed that issue.
The principle I am talking about is crucial. We have become aware as a nation of the importance of that principle in our economic development whereas in the United States, apart
from the crisis actions of Roosevelt in the 1930s with the Tennessee Valley Authority, the only major economic policy coming from the national government in terms of regional economic development has been to use the military as an instrument for building jobs in one part of the country or another. The notion that you ought to interfere within the so-called natural workings of the market-place to ensure genuine equality of opportunity and development is not embedded in the philosophical system of that country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Similarly, in cultural policy, our country, again in a tradition much closer to that of Europe, and many Asiatic countries as well, has almost from the start had the view that the Government as well as individual citizens outside the state mechanism have an important role to play in culture. Whether talking about the CBC, regulations in broadcasting policy to ensure Canadian content, provincial and federal Government grants for major art projects, or tax laws designed to encourage the development of Canadian magazines and the fostering of Canadian publishers, we have seen a role of the democratic state in the encouragement and fostering of Canadian individual talent. That tradition, shared elsewhere in the world, has been profoundly absent in the United States.
I want to make the point that important value differences exist which distinguish us from the United States. We have very different approaches to medicare, unemployment insurance, unions, farmers, regional development, wage policy, and culture. In short, Canadian life is remarkably different and, I believe, remarkably better in these crucial aspects of existence than in the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In this context, there are many Americans who share our view. They are not the mainstream Americans but there is the noble tradition of Eugene Debs and Thomas Payne and, in a different context earlier, Thomas Jefferson. There is the modern tradition of Michael Harrington.
Last Thursday night I was in New York at a remarkable gathering where I shared in the celebration of the contribution to American society of one Michael Harrington. I was pleased to be in that gathering with some very exceptional Americans who have gone against the tradition of their own country because they, too, one day would like to have established within their nation a different kind of tradition building on the foundation of their nation, of a minority tradition.
At this gathering was Ted Kennedy, Gloria Steinem, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Michael Harrington himself, all Americans. The very interesting thing was that those Americans said to me, on an individual basis, what they have said countless times in public. Whether talking about equality rights for women, state automotive insurance in our western provinces, or social programs as Michael Harrington mentioned, without exception these Americans are looking to
July 5, 1988

Canada for leadership and they want us to retain our independence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Let me summarize in a graphic way the differences which exist in the 1980s through the following story. Not long ago I was discussing with another Canadian the respective elections which occurred in the United States and Canada in 1984. We were talking about how these elections illustrated, each in its own way, the very different countries which we have come to have at this point in history in North America.
I think this Canadian was dead on when he said to me that Canada is so far advanced over the United States in these respects that even a Conservative Party in 1984 would not have dared to openly attack medicare whereas the United States, in the same year, was so far behind that even a progressive American like Ted Kennedy could not openly advocate a state system of medicare and have it politically acceptable. That says a lot about the difference between our two countries. It is a very graphic and accurate illustration of the difference between our two nations, each very positive in its own way.
Speaking as a social democrat and a Canadian by birth, I certainly have no doubt about which land I would want my children and my grandchildren to grow up in. Therefore, I have no doubt at all about where I ought to be when it comes to voting on this particular measure.
We can either agree or disagree with this argument, but if we agree, there is of course the question: Is there a problem with these principles in the agreement? There certainly is a problem, Madam Speaker. The business world said so clearly enough, and I quote: "Life will become far more competitive for everyone. There can be no free trade, no liberalization even of trade between two countries if one has a host of social programs and the other has hardly any".

That was William Ritchie, President of the Scotia Bond Company. Another business person who spoke candidly about what was involved said:

"We in Canada will be forced to create the same kind of environment that exists in the United States, whether we are talking about unemployment insurance, compensation programs for employees, tax rates or just about anything".
This was said by Laurent Thibault, president of the Canadian Manufacturers Association.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

I could cite many more, but perhaps one other will suffice. Recently I picked up a paper in the airport and read two observations made by the President of the Ford Motor Company in Canada. The first was that he favoured this deal. The second observation was directly related to that. He was speaking from an Ontario perspective and said that he objected to Ontario laws that have evolved over a period of years. He said the laws would have to change in order to compete with the United States. He said that we have labour laws that provide too many benefits-


John Horton McDermid: We compete with them now.


John Edward Broadbent: He said we will have to make changes in terms of safety considerations and pensions.


John Horton McDermid: I read what he said. He was wrong.


John Edward Broadbent: He was expressing very serious concern when he was asked where the Ford Motor Company might locate the next plant. He was quite specific in saying that the Ford Motor Company would have to consider all these important differences that exist in Canada compared to what exists in the United States-


John Horton McDermid: It is $1,200 cheaper in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: This means that as a businessman he well understood the unstated agenda of many people in this country, which is to reduce all our social benefit levels down to those in the United States.


John Horton McDermid: Absolutely wrong. It is cheaper to build a car in Canada than in the United States. Get with it.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is not just a question of businessmen's ideology. If one looks closely at the Agreement, one can read-and even the Minister could read, if he wanted to read the document -that over the next seven years, both Governments are to consider the concept of subsidies. The two Governments are to harmonize the concept, that is to say they must over the next seven years see to it that the notion of subsidy that exists in Canada is brought into line with the American notion.

That is to say, we will be drawing on our tradition and the United States will be drawing on its tradition to discuss and decide on a final common definition of what is to be a subsidy. That is not a small matter.
When we consider recent history in the United States, specifically in terms of the discussions that have taken place between the two countries to determine what they view is a subsidy, it should cause all Canadians who care about the future of this country a great deal of concern.
At a hearing in Atlantic Canada involving exports from there to the United States, no fewer than 50 of our programs

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
were described as constituting subsidies. Of course, these included regional development programs, Canadian pension plans, our medicare system and our unemployment insurance system. All of those are consistent with what I have described as the prevailing American ideology and all of which have become engrained in the belief of our system as not constituting subsidies but constituting an inherent aspect of the Canadian way of life.


John Horton McDermid: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Minister is saying that he agrees.


John Horton McDermid: Thanks for the promotion.


John Edward Broadbent: I do not want to insult the Member by suggesting he is a Member of Cabinet. I withdraw that.
When it is time to consider what will constitute a subsidy, is there any illusion about whose definition will be accepted?


John Horton McDermid: I give up. My hands are up.


John Edward Broadbent: I am saying that if any government in Canada sits down in the next seven years after this deal has been put in place to talk about what constitutes a subsidy, whose belief system will predominate? Is it that of Canada or that of the United States which is 10 times larger in terms of population and power? Anyone who says that the Canadian system will predominate is either misleading the people of Canada or dreaming in Technicolour.


John Horton McDermid: The biggest inferiority complex in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Leading a Party, fully aware that when these discussions started-


John Horton McDermid: "We can't compete". You will make a great leader of this country.


John Edward Broadbent: We will have that competition any time you want to call the election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Ed Broadbent cannot compete. He is giving up on Canada already.


John Edward Broadbent: We hear the bogus argument about being unable to compete. I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that when the Government entered into this deal we were $19 billion ahead in competition. We knew who was ahead. We did not embark on this kind of idiocy.


John Horton McDermid: Because you are short-sighted.


John Edward Broadbent: Because we have confidence in the future of this country. We have decided that we do not have to become Americans to become successful. That is the difference.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: We can compete.


John Edward Broadbent: The Conservatives may want to put all of our value system into jeopardy-


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


John Edward Broadbent: -but we in this Party are not prepared to put what is best for Canada at risk.
It may well be that the Tory vision is the one that Margaret Thatcher came here and preached. Margaret Thatcher is running a country that is more divided than at any period in its history. It has a south that becomes richer and a north that becomes poorer. She is destroying the medicare system and starving her universities. The Tories may want that vision for Canada but the New Democratic Party categorically rejects it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is the same people with that ideology who like Ronald Reagan's model in the United States. During my visit to New York I went to a play where I picked up a program that advertised a watch for sale at $7,000. When I walked out of the theatre, I saw a woman lying on the street covered with blankets. They may want that kind of America, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but we reject that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Even you do not believe that, Broadbent.


John Edward Broadbent: We have no intention of turning this country into that kind of social and economic wasteland for the majority of people.


John Horton McDermid: You can't hang that on us. Come on, get serious!


Mr. Nystrom:: McDermid, take a valium.


John Edward Broadbent: We are saying that regional development programs for Canadians must be made by Canadians, and the decisions for them in the future, as in the past, must be made in Ottawa, not Washington.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Right on!


John Edward Broadbent: We are saying that the way to assess a cultural accomplishment is to look at the work of a Glenn Gould or a Margaret Atwood and not measure it by the commercial success of their records or the number of books they might have sold.
We are also saying that medicare ought to be regarded as a human right and not as a marketable commodity so profoundly believed in by many Tories.
July 5, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We are saying that Canada must remain committed to life, liberty, yes, but also to a sense of community. We are saying, in short, no to this deal and yes to Canada's children for the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall).


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker-


Rodney Edward Murphy: You're getting the same treatment because of his idiotic behaviour-goddam ape.


Mr. Horner:: Watch your blood pressure, Murph.


John Horton McDermid: We heard you last night.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Get back in your cage.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair was under the impression that Hon. Members wanted to debate the subject. The floor belongs to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


John R. Rodriguez: No, we don't have to listen to her.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As a patriot, I, too, rise, but I rise in support of the proposed Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
I wish to discuss three issues. First, the positive impact of free trade on Canadian women-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Sell out!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Does this count as part of my time, Madam Speaker?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Yeah! Did you not hear McDermid? You are goiflg to get the same treatment right now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: McDermid is here, Barbara, so don't bother speaking.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Why not sit across from her, McDermid.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yeah, make an ass of yourself twice today. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.


John Horton McDermid: That's right. You have never let me finish a speech yet.


John R. Rodriguez: Back in your cage, McDermid.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Back in your cave.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Barbara Jean McDougall: The message I have is an important one for Canadians.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I doubt it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Get serious.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I want to talk about the impact of free trade on Canadian women, something Hon. Members opposite have no interest in. In fact, they have no interest in women's issues at all.


John R. Rodriguez: Blame McDermid.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Second, I wish to deal with the impact on our social programs. Third, I wish to consider the impact free trade will have on employment.
Let me make it clear to start with that here is where we are different from the other Party.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Vive la difference!


Mr. Fulton:: Nine Tories turn out for your speech, heavy batting.


Barbara Jean McDougall: We regard women as contributors to the Canadian economy, as workers, as entrepreneurs, and as consumers. Women have a right to a substantial share of opportunities and benefits that will be generated by free trade, and they shall have it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Name one.


Barbara Jean McDougall: If you would listen, you might hear some.
Free trade will mean increased employment opportunities for women in the service sector-


Michael Morris Cassidy: A chance to work for McDonald's.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -where 84 per cent of employed women work.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You would be well advised not to read.


James Ross Fulton: You can't read speeches in the House. It is against the rules of the House to read speeches.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Women can anticipate new employment opportunities and new chances to advance further in their careers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We sat and listened to the Leader of the New Democratic Party respond. I wonder whether or not Members of the New Democratic Party would do the courtesy of allowing the Minister of Employment and Immigration to speak. These

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
people who purport to believe in democracy should allow a free speech on the floor of the House.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Where were you when the Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) was intervening?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Don't complain, never explain.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think you noticed that the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown when our Leader was speaking made a real fool of himself and embarrassed the House of Commons. I think if there needs to be anybody reprimanded in the House it should be him.


John R. Rodriguez: That is a courtesy that you guys have to learn, and you will learn it the hard way.


John Horton McDermid: There is no greater heckler than you around here.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They will never elect a bunch of fools to the House of Commons.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Yes, they will. There is one right there.


John Horton McDermid: Why don't you wait until I speak, and then go after me? Don't go after her, go after me.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Chair has listened very carefully to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. I wonder if he has listened to himself.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Perhaps he would consider acting accordingly.


Rodney Edward Murphy: You never stopped McDermid once.


John R. Rodriguez: McDermid was out of his seat and right up front and you didn't stop him once.


James Ross Fulton: A little bias, I think. That is what I heard.


Barbara Jean McDougall: It is a great pleasure for me today to talk about increased employment opportunities for women. In the service sector, where 84 per cent of women work, women can anticipate new employment opportunities and new chances to advance further in their careers. That is a very exciting opportunity for Canadian women.


John R. Rodriguez: You're very exciting!


Barbara Jean McDougall: More efficient and better competitive industries will mean more and better jobs for women in the manufacturing sector-


Michael Morris Cassidy: How many women's jobs will be lost? What about the textile industry?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Growth in the primary industries will expand opportunities for women in non-traditional areas. I may say as well that women are used to dealing with children, which is what I feel like I am doing now.
For Canadian farm women the free trade agreement will improve access to the U.S. market for agricultural products and make that access more secure. Women entrepreneurs, whose numbers and successes continue to grow, will benefit from new business opportunities created by free trade.
Canadian consumers will find that the agreement will result in more competitively priced goods and a wider selection of quality goods and services. That is important to Canadian women because they are the ones who spend a substantial part of their individual or family incomes on food, clothing and shelter.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think, as the Chair is well aware, there is an enforceable rule of this House that experienced Members cannot and may not read speeches into the record.


Mr. Holtmann:: That's what your boss did.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Tear it up.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, the remarks I want to make today I can make with or without notes. I want to make sure that I cover it all. Hon. Members who are not listening may not be interested but the people of Canada are-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -particularly since I was just approaching a point about elderly women, something which, clearly, Hon. Members opposite are not interested in at all. Elderly women, single women, and women who are heads of households are the ones who will benefit from more competitive prices for a wider variety of consumer goods.
As Canadians, we have good reason to be proud of our social programs and I am happy to say that a good number of these programs were implemented to satisfy needs first brought to light by women and women's groups.
The free trade agreement does not in anyway affect this vital network of social programs nor our ability to create new ones. This means that existing programs, such as the Health Insurance Program, pensions and survivor benefits, and the Unemployment Insurance Program will not be modified by free trade, nor will new programs such as our National Day Care Strategy.


July 5, 1988

In fact, the free trade agreement will cause economic growth that will allow us to put in place a solid financial base for social programs that might be needed in the future.

A major part of that growth has been newly created jobs, tangible indicators of the progress that this Government has made and which will continue under the free trade arrangement. Since September, 1984, 1.2 million new jobs have been created in Canada, and the national unemployment rate has dropped to 7.8 per cent. They are not make-work jobs invented by Government, but dynamic jobs created by the private sector. Another fundamental difference is that our job as a Government is to create the climate for a vital private sector. That is what we have done, and we are very proud of it. Our programs for economic renewal and revitalization are working, and so are Canadians.
As we have pointed out before, Canada's job creation performance has been the best of any OECD nation. Furthermore, our average rate of growth over the past four and a half years has been the fastest among the major OECD nations.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Without free trade, so why go into free trade?


Barbara Jean McDougall: But we will not maintain this growth momentum, as the Elon. Member knows, unless we secure our markets and expand our ability to trade-


Michael Morris Cassidy: You failed to secure the market.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -because that is where tomorrow's jobs will come from.
In today's environment to stand still is to lose ground. That is why the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is so important.

The analysis of the economic impact of free trade carried out by the Department of Finance shows that by 1993, the agreement will have brought about the creation of 120 000 additional jobs. In addition, the number of new jobs will continue to increase when the agreement is applied in its entirety.
There is no doubt that these new jobs will require more skilled workers, and that is consistent with the objectives of the labour market development programs of the Department I am responsible for.
As a Government, we have recognized that we must take conclusive and innovative measures to help Canada's labour force adjust to the rapid development of markets and technology-

Over the past three years, unlike previous administrations, our Government has worked closely with provincial governments and with the private sector to develop the skilled and flexible workforce that Canada must have. Adjustment will be
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
necessary but that is true today; it is true today without free trade. Adjustment, and the ability to adjust, are signs of a healthy economy. Some industries will have to make changes, as they do today. Some workers will have to acquire new skills, as they do today.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Like cooking hamburgers at McDonald's.


Barbara Jean McDougall: But these adjustments will be small in comparison to the large numbers of jobs that free trade will create.
We already have proven programs in place that will help workers and help employers respond to the new opportunities. For examples, an old program, the Industrial Adjustment Service that brings together business and labour to address adjustment and find their own solutions, has been doing that and proven itself for more than 20 years. So, too, is a new concept, the Canadian Jobs Strategy that has developed a reputation for responsiveness to changing labour market needs at every level.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Time. Madam Speaker, 15 minutes.


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Canadian Jobs Strategy is unique. There is no question about that. It is new. It encourages communities and their industries to find their own solutions to labour market challenges. In a modern environment, this flexible response to new opportunities will be invaluable.
We are confident that our programs are sufficient to meet the adjustment needs caused by free trade.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Eton. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: You assured me today, Madam Speaker, of your desire to maintain objectivity in the House of Commons. I would like to point out to you that it is now some 15 or 16 minutes since the Hon. Minister rose. Perhaps you allowed a minute or two because of interventions, but certainly the time now is excessive, unless you are taking the view that Ministers have the right to finish the text prepared and written for them, whereas ordinary Members have to be confined to 10 minutes. I would urge you to bring the Hon. Minister's speech to an end. She has far exceeded the time available.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There were quite a few points of order that were raised once the Minister tried to get the floor. Actually, the Hon. Minister commenced her intervention at 15:48, and now another minute has gone by. Therefore, the Hon. Minister will have the floor until 15:59.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I rise on a point of order. I have to abide by your judgment, Madam Speaker. Certainly the clock that the New Democrats can see from this side of the floor indicated that the Leader of my Party took his seat at 20 minutes to the hour, some 16 or 17 minutes ago. If that is not the Speaker's finding, then let her live with it.

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When I first gave the floor to the Hon. Minister it was 15:43. We were interrupted until 15:45. Then the Hon. Minister was given the floor and actually started her intervention at 15:48. The last time 1 gave the time I said it would be 15:59, now it will be 16:00 hours.


Michael Morris Cassidy: But you wouldn't intervene for the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) when the Member for Brampton-


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member does not want to hear that our programs are sufficient to meet the adjustment needs that will be caused by free trade.


Michael Morris Cassidy: We want a Speaker who will be fair to both sides of the House.


An Hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Kempling:: Are you challenging the Chair?


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Withdraw.


An Hon. Member:: Throw him out.


Mr. McKinnon:: Most boorish Member in the House.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Ask him to withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Different things have happened. First, I would like to comment on the Hon. Member's statement that I let other Members make comments from across the aisle while his Leader had the floor. At no time did his Leader, or any member of the Hon. Member's Party, let it be known that it was bothering the Hon. Member. In fact, at one point the Hon. Member engaged in what seemed to be a conversation with the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Keeper:: Boy, you are biased!


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Cyril Keeper: Are you the Chair, or not?


Michael Morris Cassidy: This is serious, Madam Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I know that this is very serious. At that time no one asked for the Chair to call order. No one said anything.


Cyril Keeper: Has the Chair no ears itself?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will wait a minute.


Cyril Keeper: Has the Chair no ears itself?


John V. Nunziata: Throw them out.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I interrupted the debate when the Hon. Minister asked for help. Two Hon. Members have made remarks which are totally unacceptable. I will give them time to think, while I listen to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston who has asked for the floor on a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: We in the Liberal Party have been sitting back patiently listening to the debate. We find it absolutely disgusting that members of the NDP should carry on in the fashion they have been. On a number of occasions several members of the New Democratic Party, and it appears that their behaviour is condoned by their Leader, have been challenging the impartiality of the Chair. There is a longstanding tradition in the House that the impartiality of the Chair not be challenged. The NDP Members are doing so openly.
I would submit, Madam Speaker, that you have no alternative but to name the Hon. Members who are challenging the impartiality of the Chair.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I very distinctly heard the Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper)-as was also indicated by the Liberal Member who made an intervention just prior to mine-use the word "biased", that the Chair was biased. I believe you will find that that is unparliamentary, and I think that the House has no recourse but to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw those remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would not have risen, but the Member mentioned me specifically. I want to point out that, while my Leader was speaking on a question of historic importance to this country, he was constantly hassled by a member of the Conservative Party, and that the Chair at that point made no intervention. That is what I call biased. That word is unparliamentary and I withdraw it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: I stand by the fact that that Member was allowed to hassle my Leader without the Chair intervening, but when we heckled the government Member, the Chair intervened. I see a difference in those two behaviours. I do withdraw the word "bias".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) for withdrawing a remark which was totally unparliamentary. As to his further comment, he may want to recall the fact that one person may have interfered during his Leader's speech, whereas, when the Hon. Member rose, there were quite a few Members who, together, interfered.


Cyril Keeper: In response to that speaker.


July 5, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister asked the Chair to intervene, which the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) did not. Now there is another point in front of us. I would imagine that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) may want to rise on a point of order at this time.


Michael Morris Cassidy: My comments with respect to fairness may be unparliamentary. I do withdraw them. However, I do want to indicate in a serious way my concern, which I have reflected upon a minute ago in the House, about the behaviour of the Hon. Member from Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid) when he was out of his seat, when he was deliberately sitting directly opposite my Leader, the leader of one of the three Parties. The failure of the Speaker to take any notice of that does lead to grave misapprehensions and inquietudes on the part of my Party.


An Hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I did.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Can the Hon. Member assure the Chair and the House that he has totally withdrawn the implications-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I preceded my remarks by withdrawing those comments and, I repeat, I withdraw.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are three minutes left in the Hon. Minister's speech.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I want to talk about our programs and how confident we are that they will be able to meet the adjustment needs caused by free trade. As I have outlined, adjustment is part of a healthy and growing economy. But to ensure the fastest and most relevant response to change and to opportunity, to ensure that Canadians can take advantage of opportunity, the Government has an established advisory council on adjustment. That council consists of representatives from business and labour and consumer groups and educational institutions, with ex officio representation from the Government. It will assess our programs to make sure that existing programs are being used effectively and, also, to ensure that we keep ahead of emerging opportunities in the labour market, because opportunities are such an important part of adjustment.
Let me end where I began. For Canadian women, free trade will mean new opportunities for employment and new opportunities for advancement in their service careers, in the manufacturing sector and in their farming and entrepreneurial lives.
Free trade-and this is where it catches the imagination- presents Canada and Canadians with both challenges and opportunities. It challenges the status quo, slow growth and limited opportunity and restricted expectations, all of which have hampered women's chances of fulfilling their potential in a country that is bursting with promise.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Free trade also offers Canada opportunities to broaden our economic and industrial capabilities as a nation and to expand the employment choices in the manoeuvrability of our workforce. This will surely benefit women, who represent a major source of our nation's potential for future jobs and, as I said in the beginning, who are full contributors as entrepreneurs, as consumers, and as workers.
New opportunity is what this agreement is about, for our regions, our industrial sectors, for individual Canadians, for men and for women and, most particularly, for our children and for our grandchildren who are going to look at the opportunities that we have left them, who are going to look at how they can afford the social programs that we have today, who are going to look at the history of our country, which began with traders and has continued with traders. Whenever we have expanded our trade potential, our opportunities have increased. We owe our children and our grandchildren no small legacy. What we owe them is the opportunities that we have had over the past 40 years and will continue to have through the expansion of our trade opportunities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, it is probably fair to say that no one can predict with any accuracy or any great certainty either the economic effects or the impact of this Canada-U.S. trade deal. I think the Government's propaganda that this will open the door to unprecedented future prosperity, that it will be the panacea for all of our future economic woes, has to be overstating the case, must be challenged and can be challenged.
The Hon. Mitchell Sharp, himself a former Trade and Commerce Minister, as well as Minister of Finance and Minister of External Affairs, a gentleman who served with great distinction in this House and was respected by all, has written recently, and I believe written objectively, the following:
It is difficult to contest the assertion, at least theoretically, that the removal of remaining trade barriers between Canada and the United States would, after time-perhaps a difficult time-result in a net economic benefit to both countries, and that Canada would share this benefit, which would however be relatively modest.
So I would like to refer to three aspects of the agreement that are involved in Bill C-130. First of all, those remaining trade barriers, second, the difficult times which this agreement will undoubtedly bring for some and perhaps for many; and finally, the benefits and the costs of this agreement to our Canadian nation.
First of all, let me say that the Canadian resource sector seems generally to favour the trade agreement. They do so mainly because they believe that this agreement will provide them with a secure access to an ever expanding U.S. market. I think the question for Hon. Members is: Will it? The forest products industry has already paid heavily for this agreement in the form of a 15 per cent export tax or, now translated in some parts of Canada into higher stumpage fees, additional

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
government costs imposed upon the industry. The forest products industry paid dearly and paid heavily. They did so because Canadian lumber prior to the last countervail action was taking a larger share of the U.S. market. They were doing so as a result of our Canadian industry being more efficient and competitive, coupled with the advantage that we had from a favourable exchange rate.
Michael B. Percy and Christian Yoder, in an outstanding piece of work, a study of the softwood lumber dispute, concluded:
It is clear that once a Canadian industry increases its market share in the United States, the formidable array of contingent-protection mechanisms will be brought to bear on it.
And he said:
Canadian industries are thus very aware that continued access to the U.S. markets depends critically on not exceeding some implicit or explicit market share.
I contend and I say to you, Madam Speaker, and to all Hon. Members, that this principle was in effect before the trade agreement was negotiated and signed, before Bill C-130, and this principle will be in effect after Bill C-130 and the trade agreement go into effect. Surely, everyone of us in this House can understand that for any beleaguered U.S. industry all competition tends to be unfair and injurious, even if that competition stems from true market-based cost advantage. That is a thesis that has been tested in the past and will be tested in the future.
Market share, I predict, will continue to be a problem for Canadian industries selling into the United States of America. At the same time, the pricing of our resources will in many cases cease to be under our control. If a province, for example, were to restrict production of a particular resource in order to raise the export price of that resource, the province could very well be faced with a challenge under the agreement we are ratifying today. Thus, on the one hand, our access to U.S. markets will continue to be restricted and will continue to be a problem for many Canadian industries and on the other hand, U.S. access to our resources at the best possible price for them will be assured. That being the case, Madam Speaker, is it any wonder that the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) when he was Minister of Energy in 1979 told Jack McArthur of the Toronto Star.
Free trade in energy with the Americans is like wife swapping with a bachelor.
Second, while I acknowledge that there may be a modest economic gain for Canada after a period of time, perhaps a time of some difficulty, what can be said of these difficulties which are almost certainly to be encountered by a large number of workers in this country? What can we say about these times of trouble? During the adjustment period I asked what help would be available for displaced workers. I tried to listen with great care to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall). She tried to leave the
impression in this House that the existing programs, labour adjustment and job strategy will be enough. I would like to challenge her and all members on the government side and say to them that 1 doubt that very much.
The Government of Canada has not tied this comprehensive trade agreement to a comprehensive adjustment program for industries that will be adversely affected, for employees that will be displaced or for the communities in which they live to be assisted.
1 want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that I do not share the total faith of this Government or the faith of President Reagan or Mrs. Thatcher, a total faith in the intrinsic value of unrestricted, unfettered free market forces. Of course, it is true that they create enormous wealth for some. Undoubtedly that is the case, but at the same time it also imposes terrible poverty and tragic hardship on others, and we can expect to see more of that in Canada as a result of this Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Finally, what will it cost Canada to embrace this policy of continentalism, which is implicit in Bill C-130? Sir Robert Borden said in an election message to Canadians in 1911:
We must decide whether the spirit of Canadianism or if continentalism shall prevail in the northern half of this continent.
That message won for Mr. Borden an election in that year. Again, I refer to the analysis offered by Mr. Mitchell Sharp. He told us it is difficult to determine with accuracy the economic benefits. He went on to say:
It is equally difficult to contest the assertion that a comprehensive preferential trade agreement with the United States would to some extent at least erode Canadian independence and sense of identity.
W. L. Mackenzie King is quoted as having said in 1948:
I felt sure that the long objective of the Americans was to control this continent. They would want to get Canada under their aegis.
In his diary in 1950 he wrote:
The more I think over the whole situation, the more I believe... that the U.S. foreign policy at bottom is to bring Canada into as many situations affecting themselves as possible with a view to leading ultimately to the annexation of our two countries.
Despite Mrs. Thatcher's purring assurances in this House that national identity is not at stake in comprehensive trade agreements, I do fear that a large, powerful, rich and influential nation like the United States of America can easily overwhelm us if we let it happen. I believe that Bill C-130 and this trade deal will help make that possible.
There is an old Indian elder in my constituency who lives along the shores of James Bay. I consider him to be one of the wisest gentlemen with whom I have ever had the privilege of conversing. He said to me not long ago when we were speaking about this trade agreement with the United States, and I end on this:
Beware, when a small nation makes a treaty with a large and powerful one-look what happened to us.
July 5, 1988


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 am interested in participating in the debate on Bill C-130. I would like to spend another moment or two tracking the history or, as I have said before, tracking the genetics of this deal.
It was not a proposal that swelled from northwestern British Columbia or from British Columbia or from any of the provinces or either of the territories or from any single identifiable group within Canada; it is a business deal that was hatched in the late 1970s in the United States and became part of the campaign platform of Ronald Reagan. It took a number of years for the Republicans to find someone who could carry it forward in Canada but they certainly found a willing person in the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney).
Prior to being elected in 1983-84 he went on the record time and again openly opposing the concept of a trade deal with the United States. I suppose if one looks back at the track record of the present Prime Minister of Canada, one can see perhaps, in his handling of Schefferville, how the Iron Ore Company used him as a proxy for the United States to close down that community and to close up Schefferville and turn it into a ghost town. Perhaps going back even earlier to his childhood, one finds that he used to sit on the knees of visiting American dignitaries and, for a couple of bucks, sing Danny Boy.
We should look too at the present Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). As I said yesterday evening, it was that same Crosbie family who wore black arm bands in 1949. They were so discouraged that Newfoundland would join Canada and Confederation rather than becoming part of the United States, that they thought it was something to mourn over.
There are a certain number of tests to which one must put any piece of legislation in order to determine whether or not it is worthy of a nation's approval. I suppose one would have to start by asking if the deal is reciprocal, does Canada get as good a deal based on a careful reading of the text as the United States does. The answer, of course, is clearly no.
The principle that was enunciated time and time again by government Members across the country as being the absolute bottom line was that unless there was a binding dispute settlement mechanism, the deal could not fly, the negotiations would have to be called off. Anyone would know after taking a look at the agreement that there is no binding dispute mechanism in it because U.S. law prevails under all circumstances.
Bill C-130 places all Acts of this legislature, all Acts of Parliament, beneath it. It places all Acts of the legislatures of the provinces and territories subsidiary to it, but it is not the same situation on the U.S. side. Bill C-130 places everything below it in Canada. It rises above all other Acts. However, in the United States, of course it is U.S. trade law that will prevail.
Let us take a moment to contrast our two nations, the two systems, and see where this deal is likely to go. Let us begin
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
with a point of evaluation made by the present Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher). While he was holding another portfolio, he calculated that the dislocation in the labour market will affect about 800,000 workers in the short term. The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard), while he was the Minister of Employment and Immigration, estimated that up to 500,000 Canadians could lose their jobs because of the trade deal. Those are not figures that came from the NDP research department or figures that I saw written on the back of the curtains somewhere. Those are figures developed by the Government of Canada for the Conservatives to be used publicly.
Let us look at the binding dispute settlement mechanism. Binational panels are bound only to U.S. laws and practices whenever U.S. firms want to challenge how we do things in Canada. They have no powers to investigate, gather facts or direct national agencies to make specific judgments. All they can do is to judge whether American trade legislation has been applied properly.
Governed by U.S. law and precedent, the U.S. can define subsidies almost any way it wants to. It can continue to harass Canadian exporters and block free access over such issues as research and development grants, seasonally-adjusted unemployment insurance and regional-provincial-local development schemes. That is something of which the people of my constituency are well aware as are most northern Canadians. The regional development programs that have been developed particularly since the end of the Second World War will no longer be possible in their present form.
Since all Canadian producers are to some extent subsidized by government-run hydro, telephones, postal services, health care systems and so on, failing U.S. firms will never run out of grounds for filing unfair trade practice suits. Following a suit brought by the New England fishing industry, for example, the U.S. International Trade Commission identified 58, not five, not eight, but 58 Canadian government programs it labelled as unfair subsidies for the Canadian fishing industry.
That will mean that in the future, under the so-called binding dispute settlement mechanism, those same kinds of trade harassments on softwood lumber, shakes and shingles, fish, potash, pork, you name it, will still be able to proceed, and because American law prevails, the Americans will still be able to sustain the kinds of incredible harassments they have been practising against us in recent years.
A couple of areas deserve particularly close scrutiny. What about the impact on the first citizens of Canada, the aboriginal people? The only major study I have seen so far on what the impact will be on the First Nations of this country-and I do not think the Department of Indian Affairs has even touched on it-has been done by the Native Council of Canada, and it shows that the implications are devastating. This is principally because of the kinds of occupations in which most of the First Nations are still involved, including tourism, trapping and other indigenous activities including those activities in British

July 5, 1988
Canada-V.S. Free Trade Agreement
Columbia that are highly evolved in the forestry and fishing sectors. Both of those sectors, particularly in British Columbia, are under enormous threat.
What about the environment? There has been very little talk about the environment, particularly from the government side. Where is the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan)? Where has a position paper from Environment Canada been hiding, or has it been developed yet? Having studied with great care the impact of acid rain on our country, we now know that the losses in terms of tree growth is billions of dollars per year. We know that the sugar maple is dying. We know that 40,000 lakes are in the process of dying as a result of acid precipitation. Nothing is being done by the U.S. or by the present Government to deal with a very serious problem.
What is being done about the greenhouse effect? What is being done about the hole in the ionosphere caused by chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals that have an industrial origin? These are major planetary and global matters that not only are not addressed by this deal but in fact will be made worse.
The underlying desire is to lower wage structures, to lower the availability and accessibility of social programs in order to make the systems more competitive. We must understand that in making things more profitable in the present market-driven systems we see particularly in the United States, most of the major costs are externalized. Acid rain is an externalized cost.
I was in the United States when the Hudson River caught fire. Canadians would scratch their heads and say, "Rivers catch fire in the United States?" That is how much pollution there has been on a number of occasions on the Hudson and on other rivers in the United States that they have actually caught fire from the crap floating on the surface.
What about the Niagara escarpment, the Love Canal and all of the various waste dumps there? If our industries are to be bilaterally competitive with those in the United States, will we have higher environmental standards? Do we hear the Minister of the Environment trying to sustain that argument? No, we do not, because our environmental laws will be degraded by the impact of this deal.
Let us take a contrasting look at some of the main components of Canada's economic and social system versus that of the U.S. We in Canada have universal hospital and medical coverage with compulsory employer contributions. In the U.S., 40 per cent of the population is eligible for publicly-funded hospital and medical services and 36 million Americans have no insurance. Employer contributions are voluntary. All provinces have minimum wage laws as do both territories. Nine U.S. states have no minimum wage laws, and in Texas the minimum wage is only $1.40 per hour.
In Canada we have unemployment insurance. The rate of unionization is double that in the United States. Five point 3 per cent of our national income or $3,420 U.S. per pupil is spent on education in Canada. In the U.S., it is only 3.7 per
cent of the national income. We have a much fairer system of income distribution in Canada than they have in the U.S. We know that the Canadian hospital system is the area that will first come under attack from this deal.
What do U.S. health care corporations look for when minimizing costs? In the words of a U.S. corporate executive:
You cut down on people, cut down on space, cut down wherever you can. If
you still can't solve the problem you try to find out if there are abuses.
You let some doctors go; if you feel you're doing too much indigent care you
just put a cap on the level of indigent care you will accept.
If any thinking Canadian were to take a look at what the impact on energy, the environment and social programs will be and what benefits may possibly flow from the agreement and weigh the two against each other, he or she would come to the intelligent conclusion that this deal is bad for Canada and should be opposed by every single thinking Canadian.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, after all that doom and gloom, I categorically, enthusiastically support the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement because it represents significant opportunities and benefits for Canada but specifically for Alberta from where I come.
Free trade is best understood as enhanced trade, as encouraging free enterprise, as encouraging our ability to work and progress, the basis of our capitalistic, democratic society. Canada is a trading nation. The Canadian economy and society have been built and structured on foreign trade. Our ability to trade creates prosperity for Canadian families. Canada must have enhanced trade to compete in an aggressive, international market-place. Free trade means more jobs, greater job security, and lower consumer prices.
A broad spectrum of respected economic agencies promote the benefit of a secure trading market with the world's largest free enterprise economy, the United States. The agreement respects Canada's political independence and cultural sovereignty, our unique social programs and regional development policies.
At present Canada is the only major free enterprise economy that does not have unrestricted access to a market of 100 million people or more. Thus, we are economically isolated unless we trade with the U.S. For example, Israel entered into a free trade relationship with the U.S. but not with the same benefits and not as all-sweeping as ours. Israel has not lost its unique cultural or linguistic identity because of its economic trade relationship with America. The European Economic Community also expanded its market potential for Britain, France, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands. These expanded trade markets are proof that the old systems of trade protectionism must be replaced with open markets.
The free trade system will of course create significant economic benefits for Alberta's economy. Alberta will no longer rely upon domestic markets only in buying and selling
July 5, 1988

its resources. The Alberta Cattleman's Association and the Alberta Petroleum Association are avid supporters of free trade and the opportunities it will create for Albertans. An expanded and secure resource industry will create permanent service and support sector jobs.
The agreement will build a stronger future for Canada's youth. Long-term growth means existing plants must grow, and new and better facilities must open. The youth of Alberta must have the opportunity to be employed by new as well as traditional industries, or start businesses on their own. New industries will be established as a result of the agreement. Canadian industries will remain in Alberta, no longer having to relocate in the U.S. to avoid protectionist trade barriers.
Of great importance to Alberta youth are the agreement's precedent-setting arrangements regarding trade in the service sector. Alberta is world renowned for its tourist and travel opportunities as witnessed by the success of the Calgary Winter Olympics. With service sector jobs growing faster than any other sector, the agreement will ensure that opportunities abound in this area.
Most analysts agree that the free trade agreement will benefit western Canada, especially Alberta. The Canada West Foundation, a non-profit, western based research institute has done extensive research on the Alberta free trade issue. Their study confirms that free trade is beneficial for western Canada.
The agreement assures secure market access for Canadian energy exports to the U.S. Alberta oil, gas and electricity producers support the enhanced access and security to the American market and easing of National Energy Board export regulations as a positive development for the western Canadian economy.
In talking about energy we might think only of the big companies, but it involves much more than that. It affects the petrochemical industry, research, transportation by truck, rail and air, steel manufacturing, skilled trades, and construction. The service sector will expand. An increased population will result and that creates a demand for education, public services, hospital care, recreation services. All this from an expanding energy sector.
Meat packing, the largest food processing sector in western Canada, will benefit from free trade. Oilseed mills will also benefit from the removal of high U.S. tariffs on processed oilseeds. Projections indicate that the sectors directly benefiting from the agreement account for 33 per cent of Gross Provincial Product. Most important, 75 per cent of Alberta's exports depend upon a secure American market.
Again, the agreement does not and will not adversely affect existing social programs such as medicare, child care, maternity benefits, job training, pay equity, the Canada Pension Plan, pensions for the disabled, and unemployment insurance. Neither does it prevent the introduction of new programs. We must remember that all those programs must be paid for by
Message from the Senate
the Canadian people. Under the protectionist system there will be mass unemployment. We must remember that two million Canadians are working because of our exports, most of which go to the U.S.
I heard the Leader of the NDP talk about how great Canada is, and we all agree with that. He talked about the shortcomings of the Americans. After all, not every country can be as good as ours. However, essentially what he was advocating was protectionism. That is the way of the fearful. It is for those who have no self-confidence. It is for those with an inferiority complex. History has clearly demonstrated over and over again that protectionism is the way of a weak and insecure country. The NDP preach protectionism and that will lead Canada, and Alberta in particular, to stagnation, economic rust and high unemployment.
Our parents and grandparents could have said they were not going to leave the comfort of their own countries. Yet they did. They took risks, asking only for an opportunity. If this protectionist sentiment existed among our grandparents I wonder if there would have been any NDP Members here today. What if their parents or grandparents had been afraid to come to a wild country such as Canada? Wild, yes, but with opportunity.
I am suggesting that it is very important that we have this opportunity for free trade with the Americans. Theirs is the richest country in the world and they are one of the only countries who have the money to purchase some of our products and natural resources.
Several years ago we had another Government and it was supported by the NDP. Our national debt rose from SI8 billion to over $200 billion. Today we pay $29 billion in interest on that debt annually with no increase in productivity to show for it. We are now paying more in interest on that debt than we are for our social programs, and if in the last twenty years we had a Government such as this we would have been able to pay for all our social programs and we would have been eminently successful.
In conclusion, free trade offers Alberta many challenges and Canadians many opportunities. The lowering of tariff barriers and a more stable business and investment climate will stimulate economic growth and create new jobs. This will result in higher wages, an improved standard of living for Albertans, and that is why we need this agreement between the U.S. and Canada.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-17, an Act to authorize Montreal Trust Company of Canada to be continued as a

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
corporation under the laws of the province of Quebec, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (p. 16661), and Mr. Young (p. 17089).
George Roland Henderson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a few moments today, I guess 10 minutes is all I have, to speak on Bill C-130, an Act respecting free trade between Canada and the United States.
At the outset, I do not think there are too many people in the House who do not believe in improved trading relations, from wherever they may come. However, it is one thing to talk about improving our trade relations with any country and quite another to talk about jeopardizing the sovereignty of our country.
When he was campaigning for the leadership in 1983, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, "This country could not survive with a policy of unfettered free trade. I am all in favour of eliminating unfair protectionism where it exists. This is a separate country, we'd be swamped. We have in many ways a branch plant economy, in many ways in certain important sectors. All that would happen with that kind of a concept would be the boys cranking up their plants throughout the United States in bad times and shutting their entire branch plants in Canada. It is bad enough as it is".
During that leadership campaign in June of 1983 he went on to say the following with regard to free trade, "It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it, not during leadership campaigns or any other time".
I do not think anyone could have said it better. What the Prime Minister was saying at that time was absolutely correct. It was absolutely correct in June of 1983, and it is probably even more correct in July of 1988.
In the Province of Prince Edward Island, from which I come, our most important industry is, naturally, agriculture. Our second most important industry is fisheries, and our third most important industry is tourism.
With regard to fisheries, we were told that with this Mulroney-Reagan free trade agreement we would have guaranteed and unfettered access to American markets.
Nowhere in this free trade agreement do I find that we have any protection whatsoever for our access to the United States markets as far as American remedy law is concerned, neither the laws which exist in the United States today nor the omnibus trade Bills which are before the United States Congress and the U.S. Senate at the present time.
Therefore, not only are we subjected to laws which are presently in effect in the United States, we will be further subjected to their laws in the future. There is nothing in that agreement which gives us protection from them. This agreement does not give us any more access than we have had in the past number of years. We will always be subject to American trade law.
The dispute settlement mechanism is, in my opinion, a farce. If an American manufacturer or supplier says that his product sales are being affected by subsidized goods coming in from Canada, the dispute settlement panel can only judge whether or not American trade laws have applied correctly. That is all we have, same as in the past. There is no provision whatsoever to lower the risks of such manoeuvring by American business.
On Prince Edward Island there are about 28,000 people employed, directly or indirectly, in agriculture and the fishery, that is, those involved in the processing of agricultural and fisheries products as well as the primary producers involved in the harvesting of these resources. That is about 50 per cent of our total employment force in the Province of P.E.I.
Harrison McCain is a very important business person in Atlantic Canada. Not only is McCain Foods established in Atlantic Canada but in almost every country in the world including Australia. An article in Business Watch, written by Peter Newman, quotes McCain as follows:
"We're free traders by nature," he told me. "If the government were to just come out and say, 'Hey, McCain, do you favor lowering tariffs in every case that's practical' I'd of course say 'Yes.'"
The key here is "that's practical". The article continues:
But, McCain continued, "in the case of this particular deal, I'd have to say, 'Don't dupe us in the food industry.' The problem is that we have to buy our mozzarella cheese for the pizzas we make in Canada through marketing boards. That means it costs 39 per cent more than it would in the United States. At the moment, the Americans are not allowed to ship their cheese into Canada, but with free trade, they'll be selling their pizzas here duty-free. How do we buy cheese in Canada at 39 per cent more and still be competitive? We can't be. And we have exactly the same problem with our frozen dinners because of chicken marketing boards, and so on."
That is what Harrison McCain is saying. The article continues:
"What I'd really like to hear," came McCain's parting shot, "is somebody standing up in Vancouver, or Halifax, or Toronto right now and declaring: 'Free trade is such a great deal, I'm going to start building a factory tomorrow. I'll double my capacity! I'll build a whole new industry! My God, just let me at it!' Why aren't we hearing that? I wonder ..."
A lot of Canadians are wondering that. We hear a lot from the business world in Toronto and Montreal saying what a great thing free trade is. However, I do not hear them saying
July 5, 1988

that they are going to expand tomorrow. It is not going to happen.
Returning to the fishery, a GATT ruling was imposed on fish processed in British Columbia. A fisherman by the name of Bruce Burrows wrote me an interesting letter which I want to read into the record. He said:
Before I leave to go fishing this summer I have to do a little spleen-venting about yet another example of our federal government's stupidity and spinelessness. I am referring to Brian Mulroney's decision not to contest the recent GATT ruling on exports of west coast fish.
Just to refresh your memory, this was a ruling by an international trade board, resulting from American complaints, that Canadian regulations calling for some of our fish to be processed here prior to export are contrary to the GATT Treaty.
I'll deal with the economic effects later, but the first thing that angers me about this ruling is that it's a clear violation of Canadian sovereignty. These are our fish, our natural resources. We should have the absolute and final say on how they are disposed of. If we want to rule that every salmon exported from British Columbia must have a cherry stuck in its mouth and be called a sea pig, that is our right. Our Conservative government, whose normal negotiating position in matters of American wants is either kneeling or supine with legs spread, evidently disagrees.
I think that is a good indication of the negotiations the Government has had in the past. This is not from a processor, but from a fisherman in the Province of British Columbia. He concluded:
We have, I think, only three possible courses of action-order a spine transplant for Mulroney and his cohorts, buy them all knee-pads for their next round of negotiating, or vote the mendacious sychophants out of office at the earliest opportunity.
I certainly would agree with that. The free trade agreement with which we are faced right now is certainly the most important agreement into which this country has ever entered. I believe that the people of this country must have an opportunity to express their views on it before it is passed and signed. I challenge the Prime Minister and the Government to dissolve the House immediately, to go to the electorate, and to let the people decide whether free trade is good or bad for this country. I, for one, welcome that opportunity. I would not mind coming back and supporting free trade if the people supported it. However, I can say that people from a province like mine have nothing to gain and everything to lose with free trade.
If free trade and access to the American market is such a good thing, why are the farmers, the fishermen and the forest industry in the State of Maine not making a lot of money? We know that they are far worse off than we are. They are far worse off in the hills of Kentucky than we are in this country.


Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the leader of the socialist Party outline the many things that make us distinctly Canadian. I support most of what he said about what makes us different, because we are different. We are Canadians.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I differ with him in how we perceive the results for Canada if we sign a commercial trade pact with one of our trading partners. In the past 20 years, trade between Canada and the United States has increased dramatically. In that same period, many of the programs that were identified by the leader of the socialist Party were either started or improved dramatically.
We must ask, why should any further improvement or expansion of trade endanger any of those programs that we enjoy, support and that make us distinctly Canadian?
Many of the programs we enjoy require funding. The best way I know to preserve and fund those programs is to have a strong and vibrant economy.
Let me take a minute to respond to the Liberal Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) who asked a question that I believe deserves an answer. He asked why people were not standing up and announcing their plans to build plants. One reason is that his leader is entirely negative and is threatening to tear up this agreement if he becomes the Prime Minister of Canada, heaven forbid. I am sure that upon final approval of this agreement Canada will embark upon a period of stability and economic growth. This stability, in great part, will be due to the removal of the uncertainties that face our industries and traders in dealing with our largest trading partner, the United States.
I believe this arrangement will not be a disaster for Canada, nor will it be a panacea. Other problems in trade will exist, as recent rulings by GATT have shown. However, anything we can do to level the playing field for Canada is a positive step forward.
It is my intention to limit my remarks to the impact the trade deal will have on my riding, which is predominantly agricultural with a number of small industrial plants concentrated in the urban centre, as well as a single large petrochemical plant. My riding is probably not much different from many other ridings in Canada and is a fair reflection of all of Canada.
When this Government initiated the negotiations on this pact, we made certain commitments to agriculture. We promised to consult, and we did, setting up sectoral advisory groups from the private sector to assist and advise our negotiators.
The group representing basic agriculture plus the food and processing industry was made up of individuals highly respected by their peers for their experience in various sectors. Having known some of these people personally, I can assure the House that they were of the highest calibre and brought much to the bargaining table. As Canadians, we owe these people thanks for a job well done.
We also made a commitment to the supply management sector that their marketing system and the underpinnings which are necessary for it to survive, namely import controls, would remain intact. Not only did we deliver, but in the dairy sector we have added to that list a number of processed

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
products which the industry indicated were vulnerable. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has stated many times that if a secondary processed product threatens any of the supply managed systems, it will be added to the list. As well, just last week this House, under the leadership of the Government, passed in all stages a new Canada Agricultural Products Act that will protect our horticulture industry from seasonal dumping by U.S. producers.
For those who have any doubts about this Government's commitment to this sector, the Government approved the establishment of a national boiler hatching egg agency at the very time the bilateral trade negotiations were in progress.
It was our Party that established the chicken marketing agency in 1979, which the chicken producers of this country now enjoy.
Let me turn to those sectors which stand to gain by this arrangement and are supportive of the initiative. These sectors include the grains and oilseeds and the red meat groups, as well as a large number of secondary processors in the food and beverage sector.
Red meat producers have had free movement across the border with very limited tariffs for some time. Under this agreement, that access will continue.
Pork is our second largest export commodity in agriculture. We operate in what is considered to be a North American market in red meats, both cattle and hogs, where meat and meat products move back and forth across our borders with limited or no tariffs. In all cases, those tariffs are reciprocal.
Some 20 years ago, when I first became involved with the pork industry, we had 9 per cent of that North American market. Today we have 16 per cent of that market because we outsmarted and produced a better product than the Americans.
The Canadian oilseeds sector has punitive tariffs against it, which effectively has shut it out of the U.S. market. According to this agreement, those tariffs will go. End user certificates in grains will maintain our quality control system. It is a system that has made us a world leader in supplying quality grain to the export market.
According to this arrangement, the U.S. will not be able to use export subsidies for products going into the Canadian market. Canada maintains the right to protect our horticultural sector from seasonal dumping by the United States. Canadian agriculture can and will prosper.
I want to outline the benefits the trade agreement will bring to other industries in my riding. Like all other petro-chemical plants in the neighbouring riding of Sarnia-Lambton, commonly known as chemical valley, the plant in my riding is
fully supportive of the trade initiative. This plant is world scale and is looking forward to the day when the punitive tariffs against its industry will be removed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. Unfortunately, I must interrupt the Hon. Member. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to conclude his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: The other main component of my riding affected by this deal is the small industries located in the urban centres. While some have concerns, almost without exception they believe there are opportunities.
The best way I can illustrate this is to relate what one of those small industries has done. This company previously had no involvement with the export market. When the initial announcement was made that a tentative agreement had been reached, did they cry that they would not survive? No. Did they tell their employees that their jobs would be finished? No. Did they come asking for the Government to exempt them from the deal? No. Instead, they identified their concerns, immediately hired a U.S. sales manager and participated in a major trade show for their industry in the United States.
They are convinced that they can compete. That opinion is shared by most of the other small industries in my area. In fact, most are grateful for the opportunity provided through this agreement.
We as Canadians do some things very well. Quite often we do not give ourselves credit for those things that we do so well. What has become apparent from the outset of this debate is that those people who are presently traders are fully supportive and think that this is a good deal for Canada. Those people who have never traded outside Canada have the greatest concern. I suppose that is a natural reaction, as nothing promotes uncertainty more than fear of the unknown.
I believe as Canadians that we must reject this fear. We must reject those who have no confidence in our abilities. We must take this agreement for what it is-an opportunity for our country to grow and to prosper, not only in the North American economy but in the world economy.
We can no longer hide behind the protectionist barriers of the past. We have to reach out and take our place in the world. That process begins right here with this agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
July 5, 1988


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ADVISABILITY OF INFORMING DEPOSITORS WHEN DEPOSITS ARE UNINSURED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Riis:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provinces in establishing a system whereby those individuals who deposit money in financial institutions not covered by deposit insurance be required to sign a waiver form indicating that they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured in the event that the institution goes bankrupt.
Marion Dewar: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion since I think it is an important one. If we have watched the evolution of the financial institutions in our country over the last decade then we have seen some pretty disastrous situations happen. I know that we have recognized the fact that there are certain depositors who are not protected. What we have seen as a result of the inquiry that is taking place right now in Alberta is the fact that many of these people did not realize that their deposits were not protected by insurance. Therefore, they are the ones who became innocent victims.
In this resolution what we are looking for is the ability of the federal Government to co-operate with the provinces so that there will be a consistent policy in place across the country as well as protection for those people who very often think they are protected but are not. We have grown up in a country in which there has been a great deal of trust in our banking system. Certainly, our Bank Act protects us in ways that we do not see south of the border. We now recognize that with the amendment to our Bank Act. It has allowed banks to go into the selling of securities and that type of marketing. Under the free trade agreement we no longer have the freedom to establish banking institutions in the United States. Yet the Americans can come here to establish banks because that action is not consistent with their Bank Act, whereas their banking and our selling of securities in our banks is consistent. That shows a great lack in the free trade agreement.
What we are really talking about in terms of this resolution is the fact that people who often think they are protected are not protected. As a result of the change in the Bank Act there is not the same type of protection for small investors. We certainly know that the Canadian way very often is to put the very last bit of savings that these people have into banks thinking that no matter what happens they will be protected. It seems to me it is important that we provide such protection and that it be given in consultation and through working with the provinces.
As Hon. Members know, Canadians are becoming more and more mobile. People move from one province to another. It
Financial Institutions
would be a real tragedy if there were new legislation in place which was not consistent in every province and territory. That is why the author of the resolution suggests that such a measure be undertaken with the type of co-operation that would be needed with all the provinces.
As parliamentarians we have a responsibility to look at what has been happening in our society over the last decade. We have seen some of the tragedies that have taken place. That evidence is coming out as a result of some very expensive public inquiries which have and are taking place.
My background is in prevention. When I look at public policy I like to think that we are stopping things from happening that could hurt people rather than waiting for them to happen and reacting afterwards. It is important that we look to changing the habits of investors and attempt to give them the protection that they do not now have.
As we look at this matter we see that we are not just protecting the individual as an investor but that we are protecting society collectively. Now when we get into situations where there is not this type of insurance, small business hurts. Small communities are often hurt very badly in such instances. All that is needed is the failure of one financial institution in a small community in which many small businesses have invested to see this happen.
This type of motion makes a great deal of sense to me. I hope that everyone in the House will support it. We have seen in some cases that accidents have happened, while in others we see that their cause was verging on fraudulent behaviour. This is what has been coming out of the inquiries. Unfortunately, it is always the small person who is the most vulnerable. If a person must sign a piece of paper that says that a certain amount of money is not insured and that the investment is at a greater risk, then that is very important. Very often we know that it is information that can save a great deal of heartbreak later on. That is exactly what the author of the resolution is getting at when he suggests that this become the norm for people who are participating in investment if insurance is not be in place.
We must continue to encourage people to insure the majority of their investments, particularly small investments. This would help the public, our consumers, to understand the level of risk that they are taking. It would ensure that there would be broader protection in a collective, community sense. In this way the whole financial environment could be stabilized. That is very important.
There are a great many Canadians who were shocked in the early eighties when they began to realize what could happen in the country. Up until that time we had been fairly free of that type of risk. But once the world got into financial risk situations we also became victims of it. I saw it happen in municipalities. I saw it happen with individuals. I know a great many people who thought their investments were secure and had no idea that they would suffer the losses that they did suffer.

July 5, 1988
Financial Institutions
Not only would such a measure protect the consumers, making them aware of the risks they are taking, but it would also help to give education to the consumer about the type of obligations that financial institutions are under. It would show consumers that they are not just faceless, souless types of institutions in which one puts one's money thinking it will be safe for ever and ever. It would show people that there are certain types of activities that take place that put some investments at risk. This is a good resolution.
I hope Members of the House will support the motion. I know members of my Party will support it. It is one way of helping ordinary Canadians become better informed about the type of society in which they are living, and what financial institutions can and cannot do for them. Therefore, they will be much more cautious in the investments that they make and feel much more secure about it.


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, I have a strong interest in the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). As a member of the Finance Committee I participated in our investigation into the situation of the Canadian Commercial and Northland Banks. I also participated with that committee in our study of the regulation of financial institutions. Approximately two years ago we issued a report which included major recommendations in that area. Subsequently the Government has moved in a legislative sense on most of those recommendations, not always completely in agreement, but addressing all the areas of concern.
One of the problems is that the federal Government does not have complete jurisdiction in this area. Essentially, this motion is suggesting that the Government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provinces. There has never been any lack of intent to co-operate with the provinces in achieving the intent of this motion. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) has been attempting to do that. I suppose that is one of the difficulties of the federal system, but it is heightened in a system where people do not necessarily know under what rules the institution may be operating.
In large measure the motion has been triggered by the collapse of the Principal Group, with which I am familiar because it is resident in my own city. I might mention that none of the 127 companies associated with the Principal Group were federally registered. In fact, only one company, Principal Savings and Trust, was CDIC insured. I would suggest that if the Principal Group had been federally registered, none of those problems would have occurred, because in large measure those problems were the result of or compounded by what is referred to as "self-dealing" which are transactions between related companies. Many of those transactions would not have been allowed under the proposals put forward by the Finance Committee in the new legislation, or even under the existing legislation.
When the CCB and the Northland Bank collapsed, the federal Government paid insured depositors, as was required under the CDIC Act, and it also acted to reimburse insured depositors for two reasons. One, it felt there was an element of fairness required to reimburse those people. The Government had indicated that it wanted to see those banks continue, and that it wanted to play a part. Therefore, to some degree the Government was a partner in continuing those institutions prior to their collapse. Second, in paying out more than $1 billion to uninsured depositors, the federal Government recognized that at that time the economy of western Canada, particularly Alberta, could not stand the blow of losing $1 billion.
One of the dichotomies of this is that the Party, and the Member who proposed this motion, was one of the leading critics of the federal Government acting to reimburse a billion dollars or more of uninsured deposits. I read in an article in The Globe and Mail of March 1 that the Hon. Member is suggesting that this rule should be put in place to protect uninsured depositors, and that the CDIC Act should be amended to cover investments not backed by any form of government insurance. These include deposits of more than $60,000, foreign currency deposits, deposits with a term of maturity of more than five years, and about $3.5 billion in deposits placed with investment dealers. It behooves me to understand why day after day that Party, and the Member in particular, criticized the Government for reimbursing uninsured depositors, and now as part of this motion the Hon. Member is suggesting that it should be an every day practice.
Notwithstanding the desirability of that motion making the Government liable for every type of investment that people might make, which is obviously impractical, in a large measure we must consider that the Hon. Member is talking about areas that fall completely under provincial jurisdiction, for example, the $3.5 billion in deposits placed with investment dealers. As we know, those fall virtually under provincial jurisdiction. To suggest that the federal Government should take responsibility for insuring people who place their money with investment dealers or stockbrokers is a questionable strategy and one that I find a little strange coming from a member of the New Democratic Party.
All of us in the House believe in the concept of deposit insurance. I question that we want to insure everyone against all potential losses. The current existing deposit insurance of $60,000 protects very small investors. Those persons with greater than $60,000 in assets should have some responsibility for looking after their own affairs.
On the question of having people sign for an uninsured deposit, where the deposit is placed with what would normally be regarded as a deposit-taking institution such as a trust company, that is a reasonably and possibly effective method of consumer protection. Many of the problems that have arisen have arisen with quasi-financial institutions. The problem and the difficulty would be to define what is a legitimate deposittaking institution. Is a lawyer who receives $50,000 from each
July 5, 1988

investor and invests it a deposit-taking institution that would be drawn in under this law? Given that there is no definition or suggestion of how this might operate, we will find great difficulty in the House in accepting this motion.
In closing, the Government has been acting in the area of consumer protection. There are new measures being put forward. I agree with the Minister of State for Finance when he states that new and up-dated legislation must be brought forward. I will be supporting those Bills. I expect that the House will move on them quickly to allow the type of protection that we are all seeking. It will also prevent the type of abuses that we have seen in some of those situations.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make submissions with regard to this particular motion which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provinces in establishing a system whereby those individuals who deposit money in financial institutions not covered by deposit insurance be required to sign a waiver form indicating that they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured in the event that the institution goes bankrupt.
That particular resolution has been moved by a member of the New Democratic Party. I find it somewhat curious that the New Democratic Party should move such an amendment, because it often purports to represent the ordinary Canadian, the little guy.


Mr. Hovdebo:: This protects ordinary Canadians.


John V. Nunziata: Hear me out. The NDP has mastered the art of heckling, but I ask with respect, hear me out.
We are talking about people who deposit in excess of $60,000. I do not know about NDP Members who talk about protecting the little guy, or how much money they have stashed away, but there are not too many of my constituents in the federal riding of York South-Weston who can boast of having more than $60,000 in a bank or in a trust company, because anyone who does have under $60,000 is insured.
The NDP says that those who deposit or have on deposit more than $60,000 in a trust company or some other financial institution, a bank or whatever, should be required to sign a form that says that they are aware that their deposit is not fully insured, that the excess of over $60,000 is not insured, and in the event that the financial institution should go bankrupt, that they cannot look to the Government or to any one else for any type of compensation or recompense. It is a motherhood type of issue, but it is somewhat curious, and I found it amusing, that the New Democratic Party should be so preoccupied with protecting rich Canadians, Canadians that have more than $60,000 in the bank.
Be that as it may, I believe that no financial institution, whether it is a bank or a trust company, should ever go bankrupt if you have the proper system of regulations in place
Financial Institutions
to ensure that they do not mishandle moneys that are on deposit.
We can look at examples of banks and financial institutions that have failed-the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank. Those two institutions went under because you did not have the proper system, the proper laws, the proper regulations, the proper inspection in place, to ensure that they acted as trustees and that they acted in a reasonable, prudent fashion in the handling of the moneys that they were holding in trust for depositors.
I hope that a lesson was learned by the Government of Canada and, indeed, by all the provincial Governments, from one end of the country to the other, that they cannot just hope that the financial institutions will regulate themselves and will act prudently, that there is an absolute necessity that we have some very strict and stringent legislation, rules and regulations in place, with proper inspection procedures, to ensure that no bank and no trust company ever goes bankrupt. There is no reason for it. If you have the system in place, you will not have to worry about people signing waivers, people who have more than $60,000.
I know the Hon. Member from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is well-meaning and he is concerned about all the rich people in Kamloops-Shuswap, all those who have in excess of $60,000, but does he really believe that people going into banks really read forms? If I had the opportunity, I would put the question to him, and the Hon. Member is in the House now. Does he read every document, every form that a bank hands to him when he opens a bank account, or when he transacts business with the bank? I suspect not, because most Canadians do not. You have dozens and dozens of forms that have to be signed. Does he really believe that someone is going to be deterred-some of his rich friends on Bay Street and elsewhere-from depositing $100,000 or $150,000, or a quarter of a million dollars, because they have to sign a waiver of sorts?
I would submit that people who have that amount of money surely must be sophisticated to the point where they know that only a portion of it is insured. We are talking about people with big bucks. We are not talking about ordinary Canadians who do not have savings. They have debts.
In any event, I know that the Hon. Member is well-meaning, and he is concerned. I would submit to the Hon. Member that his efforts would be better spent, better utilized, if he were to participate with the Liberal Opposition-and hopefully members of the government side-to ensure that proper regulation and inspection, very stringent regulations, are in place to ensure that institutions do not go bankrupt.
We have a big problem, even with deposit insurance, and that is because of the terrible precedent that was set by the Conservative Government of Canada. A few years ago the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank went belly-up. They went bankrupt. All those who had $60,000 or less were reimbursed because they were insured up to that

July 5, 1988
Financial Institutions
amount. There were a great number of uninsured depositors, people that had more than $60,000. They were not insured for the portion invested that was over $60,000. The Government, in its wisdom, decided to pay off those people, those unnamed people. To this day, I do not know who those people are. I believe at the time the Government refused to submit a list. I say that they were not ordinary, poor Canadians. They were people that had substantial assets and interest.
As a result of the Government's negotiating over a billion dollars, the integrity of the system has been affected. If another financial institution goes bankrupt in the future, those people that are uninsured are going to look to the Government of Canada and they are going to cite the precedent of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank that went under during the Conservative rule of Government, in that short-lived Government between 1984 and 1988.
Regardless of the short tenure of that particular Government, the precedent was set. It was a bad move. It was an imprudent move on behalf of the Government of Canada, because it was paying off or compensating people who took risks in two financial institutions that maybe gave out more interest than a chartered bank, for example, might give on a deposit. Those people who take those risks have to be prepared to pay the price, in the event that, statistically, they are caught in the remote situation where a financial institution goes bankrupt. Where the Government went wrong is that it compensated those people. In effect it set a precedent.
In closing let me say that the resolution does not do any harm. It is motherhood in nature but, as I indicated earlier, I am surprised at the concern of the Hon. Member from Kamloops-Shuswap about his rich friends on Bay Street, those who have more than $60,000. It does not do any harm to co-operate with the provinces and have the people sign one extra form to say that, in the event that the institution goes bankrupt, they cannot hold anyone responsible. I reiterate that a more comprehensive approach ought to be taken. Unfortunately, the NDP at times look at problems in a very narrow, simplistic fashion. If they do not like the banks, nationalize the banks, they say, in their policy platform. If they do not like cable companies, nationalize them. In terms of the problem before us, and that is the trust in banks and financial institutions, a comprehensive approach is necessary to ensure that laws are in place here in the Parliament of Canada, in each of the legislatures across the country, to make sure that these financial institutions are properly controlled, properly monitored, so you do not have a situation where these institutions go bankrupt. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me the chance to say a few words on this subject.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) which says, and I quote:
... the government should consider the advisability of co-operating with the provinces in establishing a system whereby those individuals who deposit money in financial institutions not covered by deposit insurance be required to sign a waiver form indicating that they are fully aware that their deposits are not insured in the event that the institution goes bankrupt.
As many of my colleagues did earlier in this debate, I would like to start by thanking the House Leader of the New Democratic Party for giving us this opportunity in the House to address the matter of protecting consumers of financial services in Canada.
I am sure Hon. Members will agree that financial institutions should provide their customers with more information about the deposit insurance available to them.
As you know, a great deal has already been done in this respect, and I am thinking of the reform of our financial institutions, and the federal Government has initiated various attempts in this direction in connection with its responsibility for the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, and I am referring more specifically to Bill C-42, legislation that reinforces federal supervision of financial institutions. Watchdog agencies will be regrouped in the new Office of the Superintendant of Financial Institutions. Thanks to the new powers conferred on it by this legislation, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation will be in a better position to protect the interests of depositors and other creditors. Federal regulators will also have more definite and more specific powers that allow them to take over financial institutions that are insolvent or have failed to meet their legal obligations.
At the present time, the Government is committed to reinforcing its ability to supervise financial institutions as part of a comprehensive reform of the financial sector. Formerly, four federal agencies were involved in a supervisory role. The Office of the Inspector General of Banks supervised chartered banks; the Department of Insurance supervised insurance companies and federally-chartered trust and loan companies; the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation insures deposits and the Bank of Canada plays the role of lender of last resort. The other important measures contained in the bill are the consolidation of the Office of the Inspector General of Banks and of the Department of Insurance into a new Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, and some provisions would amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
Thus, any unauthorized statement by agents of a member institution of the CDIC that their institution or its deposits are insured is prohibited. Secondly, any member institution that takes an uninsured deposit must provide written notice of that fact on the deposit receipt, and member institutions that solicit funds for investments for a person who is not a member of the CDIC have an obligation to advise their clients of the fact that such investments are not insured.
Furthermore, the Government is considering new measures to protect consumers in light of the growth of one-stop shopping for financial products. These measures will aim to ensure that consumers are informed, firstly, of the identity of the person they are really dealing with when they purchase
July 5, 1988

financial products or services sold by a financial institution, and secondly, of whether their deposits or investments are insured or not.
All federally-regulated financial institutions, including banks and insurance conpanies, trust companies and lending institutions with federal charters, will be governed by these new measures.
The motion, seen in the context of Government policy, proposes the selection of a specific provision in the overall context of the implementation of Government strategy. Like most of the Members who took part in this debate, I feel that this or a similar measure certainty deserves to be examined by the officials of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
However, I must point out that the measure proposed in the motion raises a number of questions. It overlooks the fact that we do not realty have a single deposit insurance system. In fact, our system here in Canada consists of a number of insurance plans covering deposits and similar investments held by financial institutions. These deposits may be insured under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, but also the Regie de Vassurance-depot du Quebec which, like the CDIC, insures deposits with loan and trust companies and credit unions chartered by the Province of Quebec; by the Corporation de fonds de securite of the Desjardins Group, which also covers credit unions in Quebec; by various stabilization funds and deposit insurance companies that provide a similar service for credit unions in the other provinces; and by compensation plans for holders of life insurance and general insurance annuities and policies. Deposit insurance plans vary, depending on the institutions-banks, credit unions, insurance companies, and so forth-and the federal or provincial authorities responsible for their charter.
When the motion refers to insured deposits, it is therefore not immediately clear what is meant. And it is not a foregone conclusion that the proposed measure is the best way to ensure that consumers receive all the information they need. The motion also suggests co-operating with the provinces. That is not a problem, because since 1984, this Government has promoted co-operation and reconciliation with the provinces, and we have proved that we can agree and enter into agreements with the provinces. Nevertheless, we must not forget that these institutions are federally chartered and are thus supervised by the federal Government.
For these reasons I cannot support the motion in its present form. With my other colleagues, however, I want to join the House Leader of the New Democratic Party in asking the authorities responsible for various deposit insurance plans at both levels of government to set a priority on implementing measures that will improve consumer access to information on deposit insurance.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak on this important subject. We have now spent just half
Financial Institutions
our allotted time on this motion and it is the fourth time the motion has been called for debate. I hope our time is being used well. Certainty Members on this side of the House have been making effective contributions to our understanding of the basic issues which underlie this motion.
Let me go over what we understand the key issue to be. We do not believe that the issue is the form of consumer protection, that is, the precise mechanics and wording of the regulations. We believe that the real issue is the fact of consumer protection; the concrete steps already taken by our Government to ensure that legitimate rights of depositors are effectively secured. Financial issues, with implications for consumer protection, have been raised in this House many times in the past. We are all well aware of the kinds of problems that have arisen and might conceivably arise again. I do not suppose any Member in this House is not aware of some of the dimensions of the problems.
But when I turn from the underlying situation and the very real issues which can be discussed to the particular motion we are debating this afternoon, I begin to have certain problems. Let me go over them. First, this motion raises the subject of consumer protection and, of course, that is well done. But it assumes that the Government has not already acted effectively through legislation and regulation. The motion ignores the further measures to protect consumer interests that will be an important part of further legislation to reform the financial sector.
Finally, the motion makes a single proposal as if that measure, and that measure alone, were a perfect and sufficient solution to the problems. I happen to believe that we can agree on a goal of consumer protection without accepting the rightness of this particular solution.
While I have no problem with the Hon. Member's choosing to raise the issue in this House, I do have difficulties with his tactics and with his motion. As I have said, it is important to be aware of the concrete steps taken by the Government to overcome problems in the system. While I am satisfied that a good system is in place already, I would certainty agree that if improvements can be made, they should be made. Let me go over the provisions of the present system so that all Hon. Members are clear on what is happening already.
Our financial sector reform to date has involved two Bills passed and proclaimed last summer. Even before the Government moved on these two Bills, however, non-members of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation were prohibited from representing themselves as being insured by the CDIC. For some time, there has been a requirement that uninsured instruments should be stamped as such.
As I understand it, some people have from time to time had problems with institutions falsely claiming coverage or falsely claiming that specific instruments were covered. That is a problem with all regulation. We cannot regulate against

July 5, 1988
Financial Institutions
misrepresentation, whether it is intended or not. If the existing provisions of the law have been ignored, that is not in itself an argument for adding to the regulations, the tack being taken by those who support this motion. Rather, it is justification for more stringent administration of the regulations, such as that which has been encouraged in our reforms of the financial sector.
Bills C-42 and C-56 which implemented the first stages of that reform included both general and specific measures relating to consumer protection. Together they established a more effective supervisory authority. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions replaces the former Inspector General of Banks and the Superintendent of Insurance, and the new office has been given greater powers and resources to ensure that its duties are well carried out.
In addition, this stage of the reform strengthened the CDIC. As a result, that corporation is better able to carry out its own functions. Together, this means that the kinds of situations which have arisen in the past, in part perhaps as the result of overstretched supervisors without the resources or powers needed, will not happen again.
Bill C-42 also added three further important elements to the existing CDIC regime. First, it made clear that the existing ban on unauthorized representations of insured status of member institutions or deposits received by them applies both to the institution and to all persons acting as their agents.
Second, the Bill made it a statutory requirement that when an institution takes a deposit which is not insured, this must be indicated in writing on the deposit contract. This provision comes very close to the proposal made by the motion before us, and the change made in Bill C-42 moves it from the regulations to the law itself.
Third, Bill C-42 instituted a new requirement that institutions that solicit funds for investment on behalf of their investment company subsidiaries or other non-members of the CDIC must give notice to investors that these companies are non-members and that such funds are not insured by the CDIC.
I have already mentioned that the Government will be proceeding as quickly as possible with the remaining legislation to implement its reform of the financial sector. Among other things, those proposals will grant broader in-house powers to federal financial institutions to enable them to provide their clients with a wider range of financial services.
Specifically, financial institutions will be permitted to own or to enter into networking arrangements with other types of financial institutions. We expect that this will provide Canadians with more choice and more convenience in obtaining the financial services they want. As well, the diversification of institutions into new lines of business should enhance their ability to meet the challenge of increasing competitiveness, both domestic and international.
A number of consumer protection issues arise, of course, in this new situation. For example, insured deposit-taking services may be only one of the services offered by a group of related financial institutions, not all of which are members of the CDIC. The draft trust and loans legislation takes account of this by enabling the Governor in Council to make regulations imposing terms and conditions on the activities that companies undertake in the areas which will be open to them. Similar provisions will be incorporated in the legislation governing banks and insurance companies. Although there will be a more complex situation than at present, we have already taken steps to ensure that consumers are protected.
Bill C-56 also dealt with certain aspects of this general problem. Some of its provisions will facilitate the creation of annuity and policy-holder compensation plans. The final details are still being worked out, but these plans will fill a gap in the insurance of deposit-like instruments. They will extend a form of coverage for insurance company annuities similar to that which the CDIC provides for deposits.
Work is already taking place to implement the measures set out in Bill C-42. The CDIC is always vigilant to ensure that it takes account of concerns expressed by others, especially Members of this House, and that it considers changing circumstances as well.
I am satisfied that a good system is being put in place, and I believe this motion ought not to be accepted as it stands. It does not recognize the many measures now in place. Nonetheless, I hope we will see the degree of co-operation the Hon. Member wants and that this country will continue to enjoy a financial system that protects the interests of all involved.


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Madam Speaker, today's debate on the motion of the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) gives me a welcome opportunity to address a number of concerns about consumer protection in the financial system. I know these concerns are common to many Members on both sides of the House. I think it is particularly appropriate to be looking at the consumer protection issues raised in this motion at a time when other consumer protection issues in the sector are also in the news.
Hon. Members opposite, or alongside of me in the House, and I share concerns in this case, but I have to be frank and make it clear that our common goals do not mean that we agree on the motion. Indeed, we approach this motion in very different ways.
Earlier in the debate when the motion first came before the House, I heard it being used as a springboard from which to attack the Government for its position with respect to the Principal Group's activities rather than as a means of discussing the most effective way to secure protection for the interests of consumers. That was disappointing, both because it diffused attention that should be paid to the issue of consumer protection and because it showed that this motion's mover either did
July 5, 1988

not know or did not care about the jurisdictional limits on the federal Government's role in the financial system.
Having said this, I want to return to the important issues raised by this motion. Events of past years have ensured that we are all very sensitive to situations in which it appears that additional measures or actions are needed to protect the interests of consumers, depositors and others. We must always be vigilant, we must always have concern for the legitimate interests of the people who use our financial system. As a Government, we have already moved to make significant changes in the former regime to do just that.
To set the scene, I want to remind Hon. Members that even under the former regime, the law prohibited any institution other than a member of the CDIC from representing itself as a member of the CDIC. Then in Bill C-42, proclaimed last July, the Government undertook a number of specific improvements to the CDIC regime. It made three specific improvements to the provisions about which the Hon. Member is concerned. We have now entrenched in legislation regulations which ensure that when institutions take deposits which are not insured, they must indicate that in writing on the contract.
Second, we have extended the ban on unauthorized representations of the insured status of institutions or deposits to persons acting as agents for institutions.
Third, we have also required that member institutions soliciting funds for investment on behalf of their investment company subsidiaries or other non-members of CDIC must give notice to potential investors that these funds are not insured by CDIC.
The CDIC covers all federally regulated deposit taking institutions and the major provincially regulated deposit taking institutions as well. It seems to me that for companies within federal jurisdiction our measures go almost as far as the Hon. Member's motion if we assume that people signing contracts read them. That is surely not an unreasonable assumption to make when we are drafting laws and regulations. As a result, I think the legislation and regulations which govern these institutions is already in an acceptable state.
The motion before us draws attention to institutions and other types of instruments other than classic deposits. Many of these other institutions and instruments are already being used. As the Government's reform of the financial sector continues to be implemented and as the sector grows accustomed to the new opportunities it has, we can expect even more options and new developments. That means that it will be increasingly important to pay attention to consumer protection. For example, the new networking proposals which will undoubtedly give new opportunities to institutions and new options to their customers will also mean that customers will need more knowledge of these institutions. We have already seen links growing between banks which are members of the
Financial Institutions
CDIC and security dealers which are not. Our reforms will now permit even further linkages.
At the same time, in order to deal with legitimate concerns, our reforms lay out requirements for organization, for corporate and individual behaviour, and for disclosure which will provide a significant increase in consumer protection. I hope that the legislation on trust and loan companies will soon be before us. In the meantime, we have been assured that the remaining legislation to implement reform will follow the outlines of the draft released in December, 1987. On that basis the Government is clearly moving effectively to deal with potential problems.
However, the legislation, when considered and passed into law by Parliament, will give the Government the power to make regulations imposing terms and conditions with respect to the potentially confusing activities of member institutions which are linked to non-members and which offer a variety of services, some of which are insured deposits and some of which are investments.
I think it is appropriate that the Government is also working with the insurance industry to arrive at an acceptable way of dealing with some deposit-like instruments. In effect, we want to find a way of insuring CDIC-like coverage for policy holders in both sectors of the industry. I understand that the two plans, one for the life and health companies and one for the property and casualty companies, should be in operation by the end of 1988 or the beginning of 1989.
I want to congratulate the Government, and particularly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), on their concern for consumer protection in the financial sector. Their actions and proposals enhance disclosure. They strengthen the regulatory and supervisory authorities. They have added significantly to the requirements of the CDIC. They ensure that those who take reasonable care and are not the objects of deliberately misleading activities will have the proper information and can make decisions without confusion.
No doubt there can be improvements. I do not know of a perfect system anyway. However, I do not think there is the kind of urgency for further change that lies behind Motion M-143. We are after all looking at an evolving system where many new provisions have to be allowed to settle down. It would in my opinion be premature to mandate further changes at this time, especially when, as I pointed out, the substance of the Hon. Member's proposal has already been effectively incorporated in changes made last year by this House.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that all of us have heard from constituents worried about the stability and safety of Canada's financial institutions, particularly given the high profile failures of certain institutions over the past decade.
These incidents have pointed to flaws in the existing system which must be addressed by both federal and provincial Governments. The federal Government has given top priority

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
to protecting the consumer. In fact, it has been one of the most important principles guiding the Government's reform of the financial sector ever since it first came out with its Green Paper in the spring of 1985. Indeed, on the very first page of that discussion document the Government committed itself to 9 principles designed to better serve the public interest in the regulation of financial institutions in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is with deep regret that I must interrupt the Hon. Member.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the Order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 16661) and of Mr. Young (p. 17089).
Marion Dewar: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to this Bill before us. This is probably one of the most important debates which has taken place in this country in many a decade, as other speakers have said. There is great concern that we do not have an in depth understanding of what this Bill means. This Bill amends over 27 of our statutes. We seem to be just putting it through in five days and not worrying too much about it. I think it is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that the committee travels in order to hear witnesses across the country. It is very important that that happen.
We first became suspicious of what was happening when we learned that the trade agreement was going to go on the American fast track and had to be ready by October. It was then delayed until January. A committee of the House travelled across the country to hear witnesses without even having the text of the agreement. When such a thing is pushed at you, you immediately become suspicious and realize that it is time to take a good look at it.
Many Canadians organized themselves very quickly in an effort to have a look at it. Most of them came from national institutions including the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canadian Auto Workers' Union, the Confederation of Canadian Unions, the National Action Committee
on the Status of Women, many churches and social agencies, the native peoples' organization, and immigrant women's groups. These groups studied the agreement and have maintained their opposition to it.
It is important to look at the facts. I have heard people saying that it is going to create jobs, others saying that it is not going to create jobs, and some saying that we have an inferiority complex which makes us afraid to enter into the agreement. We must look at the reality.
The Finance Department released a study in January which indicated that rather than the 8 per cent to 10 per cent growth in the economy which it expected, there will probably be a 2.5 per cent growth, not annually, but for all time. The Economic Council promised us 350,000 jobs and that number was trumpeted across the country. We are now told by the Economic Council, after it looked at the service industries and so forth, that the jobs had dwindled to 120,000 over five years, or about 25,000 a year. The economy is now creating about
300,000	jobs a year and we are talking about 25,000 jobs. Are we willing to sell our heritage for that number of jobs, which is exactly what we are doing?
I heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) speak this afternoon about the fact that the Canadian Jobs Strategy had the ability to do the training so necessary in a restructured economy. I was on the employment committee when it studied the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We heard from people right across the country. Government Members recommended a massive input of money into the Canadian Jobs Strategy if it is to deal with the restructured economy with which we are faced.
It is all very well for people to say that women will do well by it, but the reality is that women in the textile and garment industries cannot get training now to give them portable skills or language skills to enter into other areas of the economy. We are actually dealing these people out of our society for the long term future. That is grossly unfair.
We must also recognize the fact that the service industry employs many women. We know that jobs will be lost in the service industry and in data processing. That has been well documented by the study done by the Canadian Computer Association. It recognizes that it will lose jobs to south of the border.
We also hear about the great possibilities for foreign investment, that American money will flow into Canada and will be a great stimulus. We must recognize that from 1978 to 1985 Canadian owned companies created 876,000 jobs. U.S. investment in this country created 1,400 jobs and other foreign investment created 12,000 jobs. That certainly proves without a doubt that Canadian investment in Canadian plants is certainly a much greater job creator.
Apart from all that, we must deal with the allegation that we have no confidence in ourselves. When we consider the way the economy has been growing, and the fact that we have been
July 5, 1988

in a trade credit situation with the United States, we must recognize that we do not have to give away our sovereignty and access to our resources in order to continue in that way. The one thing that we do need more than ever is secondary manufacturing in order that we do not just sell our resources. This deal makes it even more difficult for us to have secondary manufacturing.
I have heard a lot of people ask what the alternatives are. The alternatives are to look at the skills which we have here. Anyone who understands economic development knows that you build on the strengths you have, you invest in your own country, and you start to get control over your own corporations. You do not have to give away your energy or treat every American company as a national interest.
We have enough confidence to know that by building Canadian companies and a Canadian economy we can compete anywhere in the world. That means that we must reduce the amount of foreign ownership. It means that we must do the economic planning that we have never done in this country. We must start to recognize that there are a whole lot of things that we can do very well. We do not have to be on our knees to anyone else.
The time has come for us to consider this. If the Government were sincere when it says that this is a good agreement, it would not be afraid to show it to the Canadian people and let them analyse it section by section. The Government refuses to go to the Canadian electorate with it. It should at least give the Canadian people the opportunity of having a close look at it, and it will recognize, as it is reading it with the Canadian people, that this is a very poor agreement.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak on the most significant legislation before this House. The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act is the culmination of months of negotiation, consultation, and debate. That is as it should be, for the magnitude and scope of the free trade agreement is unprecedented. To most Canadians the free trade agreement is not about legislation; it is about economic growth, opportunity, and prosperity. It is also about the future of this country.
We all know that this agreement incorporates a gradual implementation process which will not be completed until 1999. The full benefits of the trade agreement will not be felt until the next century. This Government will leave a legacy of assured prosperity to Canadians for years to come.
Since the agreement was agreed to in principle in October, my colleagues and myself have been carrying the message of the agreement to our constituents. At town hall meetings, on the street, in homes, in high school gymnasiums, and in auditoriums across this country, we have explained to Canadians that our country is dependent on trade, that 25 per cent of our GNP is dependent on trade, that more than 3 million jobs
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
are dependent on trade, and that 76 per cent of our trade is with the United States.
The Opposition has questioned whether or not this Government has a mandate to initiate the free trade agreement. I believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to examine and explore the possibilities of the best method of economic development for all regions of Canada. Yes, this Government has a mandate to create jobs, and the free trade agreement will do just that.
This Government has a mandate to maintain and improve the standard of living in this country. This Government has a mandate to expand and ensure trade markets. The trade agreement will increase jobs and lower consumer prices, which will translate into increased consumer spending further contributing to an expanding economy.
The reality is that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is absolutely necessary to our economic well-being. The trade agreement offers co-operation between the world's largest trading partners.
The trade agreement provides for the reduction and the removal of trade barriers and affords Canada the opportunity to export processed goods rather than raw materials. It will encourage investment which will in turn encourage development and create jobs.
The Economic Council of Canada estimates that nearly
350,000	jobs will be gained. In addition, Canadians will enjoy lower consumer prices on a wider range of goods, and real income will be higher for the average Canadian.
Citizens in my home Province of Alberta are well known for their common sense. Common sense tells them that a trade agreement that removes barriers, encourages investment, and creates jobs is a good deal. It is a good deal for Albertans and it is a good deal for Canadians.
Alberta wants the opportunity to do business with certainty and to trade within a secure market. Alberta has always recognized the benefits of trading. The United States is Alberta's largest export market, representing 75 per cent of total exports, amounting to $10 billion in 1986. Albertans are well aware of the difficulties of trading in a market fraught with increasing protectionism. Without a trade agreement, the United States will continue to build a wall of protectionism that excludes Canada from its best customer. The trade agreement serves to replace the wall with a bridge that provides for a secure market. Alberta needs the trade agreement to ensure long-term access to the U.S. markets. The trade agreement will give Alberta that assurance.
Secure access to the U.S. market will provide a framework for a tremendous surge in Alberta's economy and Canada's economy. With respect to energy, Albertans are very much aware of the tremendous benefits to the energy, agriculture, forestry, petro chemical, service, and investment sectors. These are areas in which we can compete with the best in the world.

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Agriculture and energy are the mainstays of our economy. Alberta's oil and gas industry has been developed to serve a huge market which encompasses Canada and the United States. The United States needs our energy exports and Canada needs the cash to maintain a strong producing sector, as well as a stable and predictable market environment to attract the investment necessary to develop our reserves.
I strongly believe that our energy security lies in development and not in reserves locked in the ground. The trade agreement will create a very favourable climate in which to develop Alberta's rich reserves.
Two basic principles underlie the trade agreement with regard to energy. Canada will be a reliable supplier if the United States is a reliable customer. Both countries will share their energy supplies in the event of a shortage. These are sound principles for any trading relationship.
The trade agreement will give Alberta and the rest of the western provinces a measure of equality in national affairs. The days when a Government can put in place an energy policy that discriminates against the owners of the resource are over. Never again will there be a national energy policy that discriminates against the West. Alberta has the resources, the ability, and now we will have the means to develop our full potential.
Turning to agriculture, the United States is Alberta's No. 1 export market in agriculture, a primary key to the future growth of our agri-food industry. The agreement provides for increased access, duty-free, to our largest customer while maintaining our supply management systems.
In the grain and oil seed sectors, the trade agreement offers potential for expansion in the United States market for rapeseed oil, high quality oats, malting barley, and wheat. Certainly the removal of tariffs will hasten this expansion. For Alberta's beef and pork producers, secure access provided by the agreement is vital to the well-being of the industry.
The riding of Pembina, located in north-central Alberta, is closer to the California market with 25 million people than to the Montreal market with 10 million people. We wish to penetrate further this established U.S. market, free from tariffs and artificial barriers.
In Alberta, free enterprisers are developing new industries. We are diversifying our economy and we need additional secure markets. Our business people are confident of their products and of their ability to compete in an enhanced market. Albertans are ready and eager to get on with free trade.
Alberta has long recognized that free trade with the United States is key to the development and well-being of the West. Peter Lougheed carried the message of free trade from the early 1980s, and Premier Getty has worked tirelessly in support of the free trade initiative.
It comes as no surprise that this agreement, which is so beneficial and so necessary to the West, is opposed by the NDP and the Liberals. The whole debate surrounding free trade comes down to our vision of Canada. Are we an outward looking country confident of our ability to compete in the market-place, or are we to be strangled by an unreasonable hold on the status quo? Are we to be limited by protectionism or free in a competitive market?
We are Canadians. We have a bright future. We have faith in our ability and a determination to succeed. Our vision of Canada is forward looking and full of optimism. The trade agreement gives Canada the tools with which to build our future and our children's future.
In conclusion, I speak now not only as a proud Albertan but as a strong Canadian who is determined to see Canada rise to the challenge. Free trade will bring equality and prosperity to all regions of Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I must say that I did not agree with very much of what the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Van De Walle) had to say. However, I certainly agreed with his idea that the trade deal really boils down to what is each Canadian's view of Canada for the future.
Every day I believe that more and more Canadians are opting for the view put forward by the Official Opposition and by the NDP. We want to see Canada trading around the world and not locking itself into a continental policy, a fortress North America approach in which we are the hinterland providing resources to the United States and taking highly processed goods in return.
I say that because of the results published last week of a very important poll. The results appeared in The Globe and Mail and were with respect to a poll conducted by Environics a few weeks before. They clearly show that the country is very divided on this issue but that in most cases the majority of Canadians are opposed to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
For instance, in the Province of Ontario some 48 per cent are opposed to this deal while some 31 per cent are in favour of it. However, when we look to those who are strongly opposed and to those who are strongly in favour, we see that a disparity comes into view. Those who are against it, some 28 per cent of that 48 per cent, are strongly opposed. Only 9 per cent of the respondents in the Province of Ontario, which is a province of some 9 million people, are strongly in favour of this deal. Similarly, in Saskatchewan some 49 per cent are against the deal while some 29 per cent are in favour of it. However, if we look behind those figures we see that those who are strongly, vehemently, determinedly opposed to the deal account for 36 per cent while only 9 per cent are in favour.
The figures with respect to the Atlantic provinces show that those for and against are evenly split. However, in practically
July 5, 1988

every case those who are opposed are strongly opposed. They will get out to fight the deal all the way. This is in spite of the fact that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) is spending some $25 million to $35 million to try to sell the deal as if it were soap, a vacuum cleaner, or an encylopaedia. These millions of bucks are not working. When the Minister admitted that he had not read the deal, we see that that is understandable.
Canadians are not very impressed with the deal, or with the Minister's salesmanship of it. We can at least say that the Minister is consistent. He was opposed to Newfoundland joining Canada. He is in favour of this deal, the free trade deal. He said so in the 1983 Tory leadership convention. All the other candidates were opposed, as was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). At least the Minister for International Trade is consistent whereas the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), the former Secretary of State, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) have done a complete flip-flop. But Canadians are gradually and determinedly coming down against the deal.
I do not believe that Canadians are opposed to the liberalization of trade. I do not believe that in most cases they are opposed to the removal of tariffs. In this deal our average tariff is something in the range of 5 per cent. The tariff coming back from the United States for goods coming into Canada is even less. I do not believe that most Canadians are opposed to the removal or the reduction of tariffs, which have been taking place in any event. As a result of the Uruguay Round of GATT, most of those tariffs will be removed. In fact, some will be removed faster.
I travelled with the committee across the country. There were various delegations that appeared before the committee. It seemed that when the Americans wanted a resource that was great. They were delighted to provide access, especially when talking about energy and resources. But wherever they were not competitive, such as in softwood lumber, an export tax was put in place. If they were not competitive, for instance, in coasting or shipping, then the Jones Act was put in place. But the Jones Act was not good enough. The Maritime Union got to check it out and said: "Oh, not only do we want the Jones Act in now but we want it into the future". Thus that whole section was pulled out of the deal. In pulling it out I think Simon Reisman's comments to the effect that "we really licked the pants off them in this deal" are particularly hilarious. Clearly, the Americans got the best of the deal in every round, whether it be in agriculture or whatever. That is why Canadians are opposing this deal more and more and those who are opposing it are doing so more strongly.
Clearly, when the Americans gave something up or pulled it out, as in the case of coasting and transportation, they received full access through foreign investment. In the case of coasting, for instance in the Great Lakes, Algoma Central Steamship Lines in Sault St. Marie do a great job. It can compete on the Great Lakes. However, that was pulled out of the deal. That company cannot now go in to set up a company in the United
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
States, but an American can come in to set up a company in Canada and have 100 per cent ownership of it. Clearly, we saw that the Americans generally gave full access in most cases for commodities that were already being freely traded. Wherever there was something that was not competitive, then they had a law, a regulation, or they did not put it into the deal.
At the end of the day they kept countervail duties and dumping duties. These are items which are controlled by the Government of the United States. If potash producers in a non-productive potash mine in New Mexico are concerned, they simply slap on a dumping duty, as they did, and saw off a deal in which no potash can go into the United States unless it goes in at $92 a tonne. That is great. Inefficient potash producers can be maintained forever in that way.
In agriculture we gave up practically on every front. We gave up supply managed commodities, the Wheat Board, and transportation subsidies. On top of that we agreed to go to the GATT negotiations in Geneva to state that we support the Americans in the removal of tariffs and agricultural subsidies. That may be true. They are our best friends, our allies, and our biggest trading partner, but they are also involved in international trade. In farm commodities such as grain, wheat, barley, and oats they are our competition.
It is ridiculous to say: "We will support you regardless of your position." I am not sure about the Government and the Minister for International Trade, but generally Canadian farmers do not support the removal of Article 11 of the GATT which would destroy farm marketing boards. The farmers of Canada will not be pleased with the removal of the import control arrangements provided in the GATT.
We are looking at the vision of Canada. Is it a vision where we want to trade world-wide? Is trade with the U.S. important? Maintaining our independence to trade internationally, not throwing ourselves into a continental energy agreement but moving down the barriers to trade through the GATT, is our vision. This arrangement is designed to give less power to the House of Commons and the legislatures of the country, and to put more power into the hands of the multinational corporations and of the Senate and the Congress of the United States.
That is not what we want to do. We want to trade more broadly, but we want to maintain our independence as a sovereign country and maintain the economic regional development and social programs that are distinctive to our country and to our communities. That is why we do not support this deal and we do not think it is good for Canadians.
In the past week the polls indicate that the majority of Canadians no longer support the deal. They want liberalized trade, but they do not want the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the debate on a subject that holds so much promise for Canadians-the free trade

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
agreement with the United States. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), chastise the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) for being responsible for conducting seminars throughout the country that would enable business people to have the tools to invade the United States market and to assist them, when indeed the Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Technology in the Liberal provincial Government, the Hon. Monte Kwinter, has been conducting seminars so that business people in the software industry in Ontario can invade that very rich and potential market in the United States. The Hon. Member is criticizing our Minister for doing the same thing.
It was a privilege to be one of the members of the committee whose mandate was to listen to and question witnesses on the free trade agreement. The committee heard more than 200 witnesses, so it was little wonder that I came away from those meetings with a greater understanding of what was at stake for Canada and its economic well-being in the face of the protectionist mood so much in vogue with numerous American industrial and interest groups.
It has been emphasized over and over how much Canada is a trading nation, how its economic development is dependent and geared toward its export markets, and that no market is more valuable to us than that of the United States. Nearly all of our trade is with the United States, but that market may have been severely jeopardized had not a reciprocal agreement been reached.
The Province of Ontario relies heavily on its export market. Specifically, in 1986, 92 per cent of Ontario's goods were exported to the United States, trade greater than that of Japan, trade greater than $170 billion annually.
As 1 said before, Canadians were in danger of losing a market 12 times greater than our own simply because there were 200 restrictive trade Bills, including the omnibus legislation in the United States, which threaten our industries' access to the United States market.
I also had an opportunity to question what prompted the Hon. Donald Macdonald, co-chairman of the Canadian Alliance for Trade and Job Opportunities, to become a proponent of free trade. He replied: "If Canadians wanted to have an increase in their standard of living, they were going to have to remove themselves from a substantial dependence on resource exports and look to the manufacturing sector and the services to do that. In order to do that, they are going to have to get access to a very much larger market. We should therefore be prepared to give up the restrictions on ourselves involved in running a protective policy and seek to negotiate better access for Canadian manufacturing".
During our committee hearings I put the following question to Mr. John Bulloch, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and it is one that is frequently asked of me in my riding of Erie: "If Ontario is currently experiencing an economic boom, why should we change the status quo?
Why not just remain as we are and continue to build on our successes?" Mr. Bulloch replied that the "status quo is not something you can be too comfortable about-you cannot guarantee prosperity. The labour markets and the business community are dramatically changing every day". We must keep in mind that history shows that where trade barriers are down all involved prosper, and in all cases the small country prospers from access to the larger market.
We hear criticisms that the free trade agreement was hastily put together, that it was written without consultation with the people upon whom the agreement will have the greatest impact, the public. I would like to take a moment to explore this criticism, to present a chronology of the history of what led to the free trade text as we have it here in the House of Commons today, and to make clear just how much public input there was.
In March, 1982 a Senate committee which had examined the issues since 1980 recommended that Canada seek bilateral free trade with the United States in all sectors. The committee heard more than 100 witnesses.
In November, 1982 the Hon. Donald Macdonald was appointed by then Prime Minister Trudeau to head the Royal Commission on Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada. There were 13 people named to work with him; 1,513 written submissions were received from individuals, the private sector, the voluntary sector, educational and research institutions, municipalities, labour, provincial and territorial Governments, the federal Government, women's groups, aboriginal organizations; and 72 volumes of research studies were commissioned. Public hearings were held in 32 cities in all provinces and both territories. Public debates were held in Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto, each lasting three days. The work completed in 1985 contains three volumes and 1,911 pages. There are 71 pages of recommendations. The total budget for the Macdonald Commission's report was close to $25 million.
In August, 1983 the Hon. Gerald Regan, former Minister of International Trade with the Liberal Government, called for sectoral agreements. In August, 1985 the Special Joint Committee on International Trade released its interim report pertaining to bilateral trade and recommended immediate bilateral trade negotiations with the United States. In February, 1986 sectoral advisory groups on international trade, SAGITS, were set up across the country dealing with every major sector of the economy including agriculture. Those groups met on 145 occasions and reported regularly to the International Trade Advisory Committee.
SAGITS are now permanently in place and will continue their work on multilateral trade. Their work has been extremely vital, and Canadians will be grateful for the tremendous work that they have done, even if some Hon. Members in opposition do not concur. Finally, in the autumn of 1987 the
July 5, 1988

Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade held two weeks of hearings in Ottawa and two weeks of hearings across Canada.
By nature of our government infrastructure, we expect MPs in opposition to oppose, to proffer concrete and reasonable suggestions on how the free trade agreement may be improved upon, but opposition Members have chosen to grope, to nitpick, to distort fact, to fictionalize, to incite blatantly, and to foster anti-American sentiment in their efforts to draw attention away from what is a very substantial accomplishment of this Government.
The Opposition attempted to claim that the free trade agreement encroached or affected our culture, regional development, our marketing boards, the CBC, and our social services such as medicare, unemployment insurance, old age security, child care, education, welfare. The latest attacks are over water, of all things. What nonsense, what utter nonsense. Despite all the flighty rhetoric and verbal somersaults by some of the Members included in the House that are here today, all are 100 per cent Canadian and will remain so.
The Opposition is reduced to a condition that is aptly described by the following editorial The Globe and Mail. "The less there is to complain about, the wilder free trade's opponents become in their similes, in their metaphors, in their epigrams, their prophecies and their sermons".
It is at this point in the one minute I have left that I would like to comment on the strength and resourcefulness of the Canadian people and to assure them that our Canadian identity is not threatened under the terms of the free trade agreement. In the words of the Hon. Gerald Regan, former Minister for International Trade with the Liberal Government: "The greatest assurance of protection of our sovereignty and of our culture is the maintenance of a strong economy. Free trade, with the greatest market on earth". Or, in the words of Dr. Richard Lipsey, Senior Economic Adviser to the C. D. Howe Institute: "Do your country and your national identity the honour it deserves by understanding that it is more than skin deep; that it is not only admirable, it is also deeply rooted, and that whatever sensible, if misguided policies that we follow in the future, our identity as Canadians will be around for quite some time".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I am sorry, however, that the Government has chosen to limit debate to only five days on an issue which I believe is the most important issue to affect this country in this entire century. In fact, it may bring our country to an end.
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has been blustering about this issue ever since he became the Minister. The fact is that public support for the trade agreement has been consistently going down since he became the Minister-
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Mr. Crosbie: Like hell it has.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -to the point where now a majority of Canadians are opposed to the trade agreement, where before there was a very small plurality who were in favour of it. I would like to read a letter from Mary Anne Burke, who is a constituent of mine. It states:
After reading material published by the Federal Government to sell the idea of Free Trade to Canadians, (the recent insert in my family allowance cheque, and The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Synopsis published by External Affairs, brought home from school by my twelve year old daughter, being two examples), I can't help but wonder how we are different from centrally-controlled societies where citizens, including school children, are regularly fed propaganda on only the Government's view of reality.
What I am asking you, as my elected representative, are: first, to provide me and my fellow taxpayers with an accounting of how much of our money has been spent on propaganda for Free Trade, and secondly, will an equal amount of money also be spent to inform me and my fellow Canadians of the other side of the issue so that we can carry out our responsibility, and right, to make an informed choice?


John Carnell Crosbie: You should be ashamed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I also have a letter from Howard Schwartz who is a resident in my constituency. These are what the people of Canada are saying. If the Minister for International Trade is not interested in the views of average Canadians, then he should not be in government. That is one reason why my Party wants an election now, so that people like Mrs. Burke and Mr. Schwartz can have their say.


John Carnell Crosbie: Your Party would be desolated.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Eighty per cent of the people that I consulted in my constituency said: "We want an election before Canada is locked into a trade agreement with the United States".
Mr. Schwartz said, and I quote, "If Canada is to enter the year 2000 as a world-class industrial competitor, then the Canadian Government will have to actively support and protect promising Canadian industries. The Canadian Government should support the manufacturing and service industries that can compete against products made in Asia and in Europe". This is an argument for an industrial strategy for this country.
This morning 1 read an article by Jim Gillies, a former Minister, a former Member, a former adviser to the Conservative Government, who also argued that this country needs an industrial strategy. We will not have the capacity to implement an industrial strategy if this particular trade agreement goes forward as it is proposed right now.
Yesterday I heard the Government House Leader talk about big Canada and small Canada. Small Canada means all those average Canadians who do not support the Conservatives' view- working women, people living in small towns, trade unionists, members of the Pro-Canada network. There is a group in the Council of Canadians who have been holding a picket, a vigil, on Parliament Hill for the last seven weeks, since this trade agreement was submitted in legislation to the

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
House of Commons. They intend to be there all through the summer. I pay tribute to them. They are small Canadians, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I do not believe that the Government should demean average Canadians, the majority of Canadians who say: "We have doubts". Some say: "I am not sure why I have doubts, but I think this is just too far too fast". Some say: "Good fences make good neighbours. To tear down all of the fences between this country and our good neighbours to the south, the United States, is just going too quickly".
I heard the Government suggest that this country lacks selfconfidence if people like myself, as financial critic for our Party, suggest that the trade agreement is not an appropriate agreement and goes too far.
I look at a country which is full of self-confidence, and that includes my Party and the people, the 31 per cent or 32 per cent of Canadians who now are supporting the New Democratic Party. We have not lost confidence in this country. We are not trying to erect protectionist walls. We have been supporters of liberalized world trade over the course of the last 30 or 40 years, and we will continue to be so. In the course of saying that, should we as a country be on the forefront in an agreement which is the first international agreement in the world that entirely removes barriers to trade in the service sector, without looking at what the implications should be? Should we expect that Canada with a tenth of the population and the economy of the United States, would generally be working on a level playing field with our friends in the United States? Do we need to make this move all at once?
People say that there are huge protectionist barriers. What are they? The fact is that close to 90 per cent of our trade with the United States-and it is the largest two-way trade flow in the world-is tariff-free right now.
I saw some figures the other day on the trade between West Germany and the Soviet Union. The trade between those two countries is not even 10 per cent of the current flow of two-way trade between Canada and the United States. This country is one of the major trading nations. We have one of the highest percentages of exports in our Gross National Product of any country in the world. Who says Canadians are not confident? Who says Canadians are not effective world traders right now?


An Hon. Member:: The Tories do.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Who says that the economy of this country is now on its knees in order to have the trade agreement today? In fact, it is the contrary. The Conservatives will go into the election talking about economic growth.
We have reached the point where the Bank of Canada in monetary policy, which is supported by the Government and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), has determined that any time there is any increase in jobs in central Canada and
southern Ontario it will jack up interest rates and jack up the exchange rate in order to nullify that increase in jobs. If we had the trade agreement today, before the optimistic predictions of its proponents were to be fulfilled, if we were starting to see new jobs created in Canada through the trade agreement, every job created through the trade agreement would be nullified by the actions of the Bank of Canada. In other words, according to the Government's current monetary policy, we have reached the limit and, therefore, we are not even in a position where we could benefit, if benefit were to be achieved, from this particular trade agreement.
On top of that, Mr. Speaker, last fall the Canadian dollar was running at around 76 cents at a time when we had these desperate last minute dramatic negotiations in Washington over the trade agreement. In the interim the Canadian dollar has gone up in value by some 10 per cent to about 82 cents or 83 cents.


John Carnell Crosbie: Because we have good government in Canada.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The increase in the value of the Canadian dollar, which has been a part of the Canadian Conservative Government's policy, has totally nullified any gains that will be made through tariff cuts in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement over the course of the next 10 years. We have done that in one year. If we wanted to continue to have secure access to the United States markets, one thing we could have done was to ensure that the Canadian dollar would not go through the roof, that the Canadian dollar would not go to such levels. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the forest industry, and the Canadian Exporters' Association all say "Enough is enough. You are hurting our ability to export into the United States". I do not know how high is up. I am not sure how much further the Government intends to take the dollar, but all of this means that any benefits from the trade agreement have in fact been removed because of what is taking place right now.


Mr. Oberle:: Do you want currency controls?


Michael Morris Cassidy: We have been concerned because the Government went into this trade deal promising to get secure access to American markets, which it failed to do, and promising to get a binding dispute resolution mechanism, which it also failed to do. What we have seen is an agreement where in the United States the U.S. Congress passes a law or has a law proposed before it, that will ensure American law supersedes the trade agreement. In Canada, we are asked to pass a law which says that the trade agreement will supersede all other Canadian laws. That is a recipe for inequality as far as I am concerned. The U.S. Congress can pass a law which would effectively nullify portions of the trade agreement, but here in Canada, any law that is found to be contravening the trade agreement will be null and void. Not only that, we have seen again and again that the Progressive Conservative Government has said "thank you" for small concessions from the Americans when their bargaining objectives fail to be achieved.
July 5, 1988

I want to quote Clause 153(2) of the Bill. I read this to those Canadians who I know are watching this particular debate-


John Carnell Crosbie: No one is watching by now. Everyone has gone for supper.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It reads:
No order shall be made under subsection (1)-
That is, this free trade Act will not be proclaimed unless:
-the Governor in Council is satisfied that the Government of the United
States has taken satisfactory steps to implement the Agreement.
In other words, if this Bill is passed, we in Parliament will be allowing the Government, which has been supine in terms of its acceptance and its tolerance for the American definition, the Cabinet to decide whether or not the Americans have lived up to the agreement. I suggest that that is not good enough.
We have suggested again and again that it is time to have an election on this particular issue. We have suggested that the process being followed right now is inadequate. To have a few weeks of debate in committee over the summer is not adequate. It is not good enough to have a pro-American Cabinet, headed by a pro-American Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), headed by a Minister for International Trade who belongs in a Republican Cabinet in Washington, determining whether or not this agreement should be ratified. That should be up to the people of Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, as you know, it takes a great deal of confidence, dynamism, and unrelenting effort for organizations and people in a country such as ours to adapt to changing economic and social conditions. This constant and permanent challenge is what allows us to remain prosperous and competitive.
Because of its diverse economic activity, Canada must remain extremely alert, on the cutting edge of technology, and must adapt to constantly changing foreign markets.
More then ever, we are called upon to outdo ourselves in this global village we all share. In the face of that reality, two reactions are possible: to grumble and cling to the status quo or to take a resolute stand and begin making changes to reflect daily reality.
Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau, in the beautiful riding I have the honour of representing here, in Ottawa, free trade is welcomed as a sign of leadership, as a sign of the confidence we have in the ability of our businesses, and the vast majority of my constituents support the free trade agreement.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Let me, by way of illustration, name some of the businesses in my riding that are in favour of free trade and that have explained why: The Thundercraft Company of Lachute, Mr. Speaker; here is an example of entrepreneurship, a dynamic company that provides work to 300 persons, 80 per cent of whom are employees of less than 30 years of age.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that at the outset, the Thunder-craft Company was sceptical, but now, after studying the issue, after carefully examining the agreement we have before us in Parliament today, it wants to jump on the bandwagon of prosperity and it now admits that it is rethinking its marketing strategy and wants to penetrate the very lucrative American pleasure craft market. And, might I had, it says that this agreement has been a motivating factor in its undertaking.
The Lyosan Company, a company that freeze-dries food products, also in Lachute, is not worried at all by free trade. In fact, it already exports 18 per cent of what it produces to the United States. According to the President of Lyosan, the agreement will help him increase his exports. So, Mr. Speaker, this means growth for the company, growth that would not be possible without this agreement.
Les Bois Murray of Grenville makes finished wood products like magnificent wooden staircases. For them, the New England market is a wonderful opportunity and they even expect to triple their sales. They now have 40 employees and logically, tripling their sales should mean two new jobs will be created thanks to this agreement for every one that now exists.
Mobilier Forme-D of Lachute is another company of which we are all proud in our beautiful riding. This company designs top-of-the-line furniture. Last year, it won all the awards: Salon Via Design, Salon du meuble, Salon de l'habitation, Mercuriades, to name only those, and the Argyrose from the Conseil d'expansion economique d'Argenteuil at an annual gala for business people ... So this company in the so-called soft sector is not at all worried about losing jobs, although the Opposition claims that the furniture industry will suffer. I am giving you an example of a dynamic company led by four young entrepreneurs who are convinced, Mr. Speaker, that they will win with this free trade agreement.
FRE Composite of Saint-Andre-Est, a high technology company, is completely in agreement with free trade, of course. They are much more concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the changing value of the Canadian dollar compared to the U.S. dollar than about free trade.
Another company in Saint-Andre, H.B. Fullers-Sesame, now imports filaments from the United States and for it, free trade quite simply means survival. At present, their imports are subject to tariffs and we are now working to have this tariff eliminated because it is detrimental to this company's ability to compete in a highly specialized market. It is therefore very important to this company that the tariffs be eliminated.

July 5, 1988
Canada-V.S. Free Trade Agreement
Charlebois et Fils in Lachute, Madam Speaker, a company that manufactures doors and windows, does not feel threatened by free trade. In fact, they intend to take advantage of the specific opportunities offered as a result of this agreement.
In Argenteuil we have La Pepiniere, a company that is involved in greenhouse production, also very dynamic. Madam Speaker, the Durochers invented and are applying new technology for greenhouse production. To them, tariff barriers don't make any sense at all. They stand to benefit from free trade, and I can tell you they are enthusiastic and ready and willing to take on the lucrative U.S. market.
In Mirabel, Madam Speaker, there are any number of companies that are in favour of free trade. There are companies that will not be affected one way or another, and I would like to name Nora, a company that bottles top notch spring water. In fact, the area around Mirabel is well known for the quality of its spring water. Nora, a company that started a business using the latest technology in this area, will simply go on exporting its bottled water to the U.S. market. The same applies to Bell Helicopter, and there are many more, Madam Speaker.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), on a point of order.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I don't think we have a quorum. There may be five or six Conservatives who are enthralled by the Hon. Member's speech, but if I am not mistaken, there should be more Members in the House. Would you agree?


John Carnell Crosbie: Let the record show, Madam Speaker, that there is one Liberal and one NDP Member in this House-two Liberals, and they are claiming that there should be further debate. The only people on the other side of the House are three people, two Liberals and one NDP Member, a disgrace.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I think the record should show that the Minister has not read the Bill. At least the Members on this side of the House have read the Bill.


John Carnell Crosbie: If you have, why are you deceiving the public about it?


Maurice Brydon Foster: You are the ones who are deceiving the public. Why are you spending $30 million?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. Order, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Whatever the Minister of International Trade chooses to call me, I believe it is not parliamentary for him to
accuse another Member of deceiving the public, and I believe that that comment by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) should be withdrawn.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We now have a quorum. The Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mrs. Bourgault).


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to see that Hon. Members are interested in hearing the names of businesses in Argenteuil-Papineau that favour free trade. And I must say it was worth being interrupted for that reason alone.
Madam Speaker, as you well know, free trade simply means the economic survival of this beautiful country of ours. I would like to take advantage of this opportunity, since Argenteuil- Papineau is a heavily agricultural riding, to reassure my farmers, and I would like to do so by quoting what was said by Professor Guy Debailleul who is with the Department of Rural Economy at Laval University and who analyzed the agreement.
He states that the agreement in its present form appears to be relatively limited in scope as far as Quebec agriculture is concerned. We know, madam Speaker, that aside from the President of UPA, the big agricultural co-operatives-that are, by the way, also members of the UPA, because when one is a member of a federative association or of a co-op, one is also a member of the UPA-thus the two positions are extremely contradictory. In fact, they are conflicting positions, but for farmers what is important is the organization that buys their products, their co-operative. And the big agricultural cooperatives in Quebec have come out in favour of the agreement. In other words, their position is diametrically opposed to that of the President of the UPA, because we have kept our commitments and have complied with their request to include Article 11 of the GATT. That being done, the Minister of Food and Fisheries of the province of Quebec, Mr. Page, is also in favour of the agreement.
Madam Speaker, I could go on about this agreement for hours. You are indicating however that I have used almost all of the time allotted to me. I would, for instance, like to mention comparable arrangements elsewhere in the world. We all recall full well that there are examples such as the European economic community, and I have mentioned this each time I have spoken on the issue. It is to be expected, madam Speaker, that the groups that are opposed to free trade agreements are socialists, labour unionists, unfortunately, and all those who are resistant to change generally; if we want to measure up to those who are in the fore front of progress, we have to step boldly into the new era of free trade. I will conclude with a message to consumers, who will be the big winners under free trade. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did a study. We have documents to back up what we are saying, and, for instance, consumers will see an
July 5, 1988

increase of at least 2 per cent in real income, which means approximately $450 per year per Canadian.
And so consumers stand to benefit a great deal from the agreement, and they are too easily forgotten on the other side of the House.


An Hon. Member:: Good news, wonderful!

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, this evening, I want to discuss a number of myths that have been put forward in this debate. As you know, Madam Speaker, a myth is a misleading statement or a distortion of the truth.
The first myth that has been put forward in this debate is that this is a debate about free trade. This is not a debate about free trade, despite how it might appear. I repeat, this is not a debate about free trade.
This is not a debate about whether or not we in Canada are for free trade or are against free trade. That suggestion is a myth. This is a debate about a particular trade agreement with the United States. We are debating whether or not that particular agreement concluded by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States is a good agreement for Canada.
We are not debating whether free trade is good or not good in theory. We are not debating multilateral free trade. We are debating a very particular trade agreement between Canada and the United States and we are asking Canadians to look at the provisions of that agreement and to make a judgment. That is what we ask Canadians to decide upon, not theoretical free trade.
We are opposed to this agreement because we say, and I think Canadians would say as well if they examined it, that we gave too much to the U.S. for what we got in return.


John Carnell Crosbie: And they say the opposite.


Mr. Allmand:: We gave such things as unrestricted access to our energy, which has no place at all in a free trade agreement. We gave up the right to screen foreign investment, which has no place at all in the free trade agreement. We gave national status to American companies in Canada and vice versa, which really has no place in a free trade agreement. We say that in this agreement we gave up our identity as a country and our sovereignty as a country, and we gave too much power to the U.S. to control our destiny in the future.
I want to make it clear that the Liberal Party is not and has never been opposed to freer trade. If one looks at the record since the end of World War II, one finds that trade barriers between Canada and the U.S. have declined considerably. Even the other side admits that. As a matter of fact, as we debate this agreement, 80 per cent of all trade between
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada and the U.S. is conducted without any tariffs whatsoever. We are talking about only 20 per cent of the trade between Canada and the U.S. That occurred under Liberal Governments.
In addition, that 20 per cent of trade has an average tariff of about 5 per cent. At the end of World War II it averaged about 30 per cent. Obviously Liberal Governments have pursued freer trade and have been very successful at it, both bilaterally and multilaterally.
The second myth is that this agreement is absolutely necessary for economic prosperity. When the Conservative Government went to the U.S. seeking this agreement, we had a balance of trade with the U.S. of over $200 billion in our favour. You have to ask, in whose interest would it be to conclude such an agreement? Of course, it was in the interests of the U.S. and not in Canada's interests.
In addition, to say that this agreement, which sells out our sovereignty and identity, is necessary for economic prosperity is to ignore the past. If one looks at the economic history of this country, both before and after World War II, one will conclude that we had economic prosperity and good economic relations with the U.S. without an agreement such as this. As a matter of fact, in the 15-year period between 1965 and 1980 we had an average rate of unemployment of 5.6 per cent. Times were good during that 15 years of Liberal Governments without this kind of trade agreement.
The third myth which has been propagated in this debate is that the agreement is like the Common Market in Europe. It is not at all like that agreement. The Government has argued that if the Common Market is a good thing, this agreement with the U.S. must be a good thing. The Prime Minister of Great Britain put that same proposition to us when she was here. That is a myth. The Common Market is a trade arrangement between the approximately twelve countries in which no one country dominates. In addition, there is not a common language between any two of those countries. You have the British who speak English, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Belgians and so on. There is a wide variety of countries with different languages and cultures and no one country dominates the other.
In our situation we have the U.S., a country of 250 million people, speaking English, concluding a trade agreement with a country of 25 million people with two-thirds of its population speaking English and in which there is already a dangerous cross-current running between the two countries in the media, cultural industries and so on. It is quite different from the Common Market.
Another myth is that this agreement is like the Auto Pact. Again, that is not true. That pact is a sectoral trade agreement in which the U.S. is obliged to invest in jobs and plant and equipment in Canada. They are forced to invest in Canada. It is a managed bilateral trade agreement. It does not leave the

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
U.S. free to do what it wishes with respect to Canada. The Auto Pact is not like this proposed agreement.
The fifth myth is that we have had enough debate on this agreement and that we can close it down. As a matter of fact, the Government has passed a motion of closure and it is going to close down second reading debate on this Bill this very evening. The Minister responsible for the Bill says that closure is justified because the Conservative Party has made up its mind with respect to the Bill. That Party is unequivocally supporting the Bill and the opposition Parties are unequivocally opposing the Bill. Therefore, what need is there for more debate?
The Minister completely misunderstands the role of Parliament in the Canadian system. That role is not simply to inform Members of Parliament on either side. The purpose of continuing debate is to inform the Canadian public so that they will have a better understanding about the Bill, the issues, and make a decision for themselves. If we prolong the debate, as we should, then the Canadian public will be able to decide much better than now whether the Conservative Government is right or whether the opposition Parties are right. By closing down the debate so quickly we cut off that opportunity, and that is what is wrong with closure. It is a question of keeping the debate going so that what we say here gets out to the greater Canadian public and they can make a decision of their own so they will be stimulated to examine the Bill itself and the agreement.
In the few minutes remaining I want to talk about what I consider to be one of the most dangerous articles in this Bill, Article 8. That article says that all the provisions of the trade agreement with the U.S. and of this Bill prevail over every other piece of Canadian legislation wherever there is some inconsistency or conflict. In other words, the Government is saying that this agreement will have precedence and prevail over every other piece of legislation. It will prevail over our agricultural legislation, our regional development legislation, our employment equity legislation, our labour legislation, and our environmental legislation. As a result, this Bill becomes in a sense the most important piece of legislation next to our Constitution. By the way, it is not only so with regard to legislation passed up to this point but any legislation passed afterwards.
That is bad enough, but what is really shocking about this whole situation is that the draft American legislation does not contain that same provision. Their Bill is exactly the opposite. It can be amended by any other legislation, and that is not acceptable.


Robert E.J. Layton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join in the debate on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The legislation, Bill C-130, is now being debated at second reading and those opposing it are making their best efforts to confuse and to undermine the
confidence of Canadians for political purposes before it passes into law. And pass it will, Mr. Speaker, both here and in the U.S. Congress.
It will pass because it is good for Canada and its future. It is good for all Canadians; consumers, students, businessmen, workers and investors. As much as the Opposition would have us believe that the agreement was thrown together-in fact they have adopted a "tear it up" or "tear it down" policy depending upon which part of the Liberal-NDP coalition you talk to-many of their past leaders and supporters, like Donald Macdonald and the Member for St. Henri-West-mount (Mr. Johnston), whom, I was sorry to learn, will not be standing for re-election, favour the trade agreement.
When you include the members of the negotiating team and all those who participated in the sectoral groups of the international trade advisory committee, more than 250 men and women from across Canada participated in these negotiations on Canada's behalf. The negotiations went on for over a year. What an effort, and what a success.
My background, prior to entering politics four very short years ago, was consulting engineering, a sector for which Montreal and Canada have become internationally renowned. My firm of engineers and architects, with which I worked for over 37 years, provided design and project management services to industrial, institutional, and commercial clients around Montreal, but also across Canada and sometimes in the United States, that is, when we could satisfy all the regulations and overcome the obstacles. However, the contracts we won in Vermont and New Jersey were won in competition, and memory assures me that they were very profitable.
Why then is there such mystery, such concern over increased trade in services with the United States? Murray G. Smith, Director of the International Economics Program at the Institute for Research on Public Policy in Ottawa, has made a special study of this part of the trade agreement and I believe that his observations and conclusions will be useful in this debate.
He says that trade in services perhaps can be best understood by contrasting it with trade in goods or tangible commodities. International trade in goods, whether it is in primary commodities such as wheat or lumber, or high technology products such as computer chips and compact discs, involves items that can be counted or measured by customs officials at the border. It may be hard to determine the value of a computer chip or a compact disc but, at least in principle, the existence of the product can be readily verified when it crosses international boundaries. In contrast, trade in services involves intangibles and it is often difficult to determine when or if an international transaction has occurred.
The FTA provisions apply only to specific services, industries. These include a broad range of businesses and consulting services to the resource and manufacturing industries, as well as insurance, real estate and wholesale distribution. In addition, there are specific sectoral agreements that apply to
July 5, 1988

tourism, architects, and computer services and data transmission.
Major service sectors are explicitly excluded from the provisions of the FTA. The major excluded sectors are the cultural industries, about which we have heard so much, the transportation industries, and basic telecommunications services. Various other services, such as day care, health services, education, and other social services are also not covered under the service provisions. Thus, not only can existing discriminatory policies affecting all these service industries be retained and new non-discriminatory regulations be imposed, but also new discriminatory regulatory, tax, or subsidy measures can be imposed by either country. We each have our own rights under this agreement.
Finally, differential treatment can be justified for prudential, fiduciary, health and safety or consumer protection reasons.
The professor concludes his review by saying:
Over the decade ahead, Canadian services industries will be challenged to
find their vocation in the emerging global services economy. In turn more
competitive Canadian services industries will enhance the competitiveness of
Canada's resource and manufacturing industries.
To return to my first love, the Association of Consulting Engineers of Canada represents almost the totality of our skills in that field. As I said earlier, it is world-renowned. It has made a major study on behalf of our industry to see how this agreement will affect us. The ACEC raised, in its brief and its subsequent meetings with External Affairs, Canada's International Trade Office, the Trade Negotiations Office and the Sectoral Advisory Group on International Trade, the following major points of concern: professional qualifications, licensing and registration, which are always a problem when we go across the line; cross-border movement of consulting engineering firms' personnel; duties on plans, drawings, and specifications; industrial and regional development programs; local or regional preferences; selection of consulting engineers; foreign ownership of the manufacturing industry; and government procurement of services.
Totalling the reviews of all of those, the ACEC representing the consulting engineers of Canada endorses the final text of the FTA as a positive step toward liberalized trade between Canada and the United States. The agreement breaks new ground and establishes a precedent for the forthcoming multilateral GATT negotiations, particularly those addressing trade in services and government procurement which are of paramount importance to the industry represented by the association.
The association believes that the FTA will be beneficial to Canada and, in particular, to the consulting engineering industry to the extent that it will lead to increases in trade and investment in capital projects and freer movement of people. The association has gone further and has entered into negotiations with its counterpart in the United States as a result of the FTA.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Their president writes: "I wish to inform you that as stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between our Association and the American Consulting Engineers-a joint committee of both Associations has now been formed" to exploit the agreement. I have a copy of that very modern agreement in front of me.
If time permits, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the record the opinion of the construction industry of Canada. It
says:
The Canadian Construction Association, whose members employ 600,000 workers in this country, has closely followed the Free Trade debate as it has evolved over the past 18 months.
After careful examination of the elements of the proposed Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, CCA is convinced the Agreement will be good for Canada and good for the construction industry.
The Free Trade Agreement-will significantly reduce other trade barriers which for years have hindered the free flow of goods and services between our countries.
CCA is confident the Free Trade Agreement will have a positive impact on the construction industry in Canada. As a result, it estimates the volume of employment in our industry will increase.
The construction workers and their leaders and engineers in this country say:
It's a deal which is good for Canada, good for the construction industry in general and one which warrants the support of us all.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in this debate as a Member of Parliament from Saskatchewan. You may have noticed the Environ-ics poll in The Globe and Mail last Friday which showed that Canadians are pretty equally divided on this trade deal. In fact, I think about 2 per cent more oppose it than support it.
The Province of Saskatchewan is one of two provinces where the overwhelming majority of people strongly oppose this deal, as a bad deal for Canada and a bad deal for Saskatchewan. Forty-nine per cent of the decided people in Saskatchewan say that it is a bad deal for Canada, 29 per cent say that it is a good deal. That is almost two to one against the trade deal. Only 9 per cent are strongly in favour of the deal, while 36 per cent strongly oppose it.
The overwhelming majority of people in Saskatchewan, representing all political Parties, oppose this deal as destructive to the future of Canada. On behalf of the people of Saskatchewan, I call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to either withdraw this legislation or go to the people of Canada and seek a mandate to implement this deal. If we on this side of the House win the election, we will have a mandate to terminate this deal and save the traditions we have developed in this country in the last 100 years.


An Hon. Member:: Why do you not want it to go ahead if you are going to win the election?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We need an election because if the Prime Minister passes this legislation through the use of closure and

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
time allocation and stays on for the full five years, we will have to serve the six-month notice after we win the election in order to terminate this deal. Members opposite may think it is funny that people in Saskatchewan strongly oppose this deal, but there will be very few Conservative Members elected in Saskatchewan because of this kind of trade deal.
I say to Members opposite, particularly my friend, the Elon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), that she is a very honest and trustworthy person. It must hurt very badly in her heart of hearts to see her Prime Minister do this when he said in the last election campaign that a free trade deal with the United States is like a mouse sleeping with an elephant. He said that in 1911 the Conservative Party campaigned against this kind of trade deal which the people rejected then and which they reject again in 1983. That is what the Prime Minister said.
The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) agrees. He knows that every Conservative in the leadership campaign in 1983, except for the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), took a very strong stand against a comprehensive trade deal with the United States. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the former Secretary of State, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) took that position. Now, like the Liberal Party with wage and price controls, they are doing a flip-flop and trying to introduce a deal that will transform this country beyond recognition in the next 20 years.
The Minister for International Trade is in the House. He has not even read the Bill that he is trying to sell to Canadians. At least he is being consistent because he has always supported this kind of deal. He wants to transform this great country into something which his Party strongly opposed for some 100 years. He is probably an old Liberal at heart. I believe he and his family campaigned to join the United States rather than Canada back in 1949. At least that Minister is consistent when he wants to tie our country even more closely to the United States.
Let me explain why the people of Saskatchewan, including Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals, oppose this deal.


Mrs. Mailly:: They do not.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They oppose this deal because they are afraid we will lose our sovereignty in this country.


John Carnell Crosbie: Get your security blanket. Run home with your security blanket.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister has not read the agreement, but I refer him to page 233, which deals with investment. According to this article, the Prime Minister and Mr. Reagan have agreed that each country will treat each other's investors exactly the same. We will provide national treatment for each other's investors. A wealthy American investor in this country will be treated the same as a wealthy Canadian investor, like the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle). I say as a Canadian that that is not right. Canadians
should maintain the right to set our own rules, to be the master in our own house.
I am not saying anything radical. We should maintain the right to set our own rules for our people.
Article 1602.1 on national treatment states:
1.	Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, each Party shall accord to investors of the other Party treatment no less favourable than that accorded in like circumstances to its investors with respect to its measures affecting:
a)	the establishment of new business enterprises located in its territories;
b)	the acquisition of business enterprises located in its territories;
c)	the conduct and operation of business enterprises located in its territories;
and
d)	the sale of business enterprises located in its territory.
In other words, American investors will be treated the same as Canadian investors. We should not give up our sovereignty in establishing our own rules. That is the position the Conservative Party took for some 120 years.
I can hardly believe that Article 1602 would go on to state:
2. Neither Party shall impose on an investor of the other Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity (other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations) be held by its nationals in a business enterprise located in its territory controlled by such investor.
We Canadians cannot determine a minimum amount of equity for our own investors. That infringes on our sovereignty and independence and I, as a Canadian, want to ensure that at least a minimum number of shares and equity in many sectors of our economy is kept by Canadians.


William James Kempling: You never bought a share in your life.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Member for Gatineau is looking through the agreement. It is on page 234 of the free trade agreement, Article 1602.2.
Article 1602 states:
3.	Neither Party shall require an investor of the other Party by reason of its nationality to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment (or any part thereof) made in its territory.


Claudy Mailly: What is wrong with that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: What is wrong with that? There are many cases in Canadian history when we have legislated Canadian ownership and Canadian investment. Foreign investors have been told in the past that such enterprises as broadcasting and banking should be Canadian.
In the 1970s, our Government in Saskatchewan decided to buy out American and other foreign owners of potash mines in order to Canadianize the potash industry in our province.


Claudy Mailly: We are still doing that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Just read the section. One cannot necessarily legislate to ensure that the industry is Canadian.
July 5, 1988

It also states in Article 1062:
4.	The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraph 1 shall mean, with respect to a province or a state, treatment no less favourable that the most favourable treatment accorded by such province or state in like circumstances to investors of the Party of which it forms a part.
Had this been in force in the past, Saskatchewan may not have been able to take over the potash industry. This country might not be able to nationalize the oil industry in the future-


An Hon. Member:: Or nationalize the banks.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Or take over public ownership of one of the banks. That is exactly the blueprint.
One of the greatest Parties of public ownership in this country has been the Conservative Party. It began the CBC, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian National Railways. Premier Lougheed in Alberta implemented much public ownership. Bill Davis established Suncor in Ontario.
According to this trade agreement, Canadians will not be able to make those kinds of decisions in the future. I resent that and ask Canadians to rally against this Party that is trying to turn our country into a shadow of Reagan's America or Margaret Thatcher's Great Britain.
I also refer my friends to page 146 of the agreement which refers to energy. It states that we cannot charge a higher price to the Americans than we charge to Canadians. That too is wrong. We cannot impose-


Claudy Mailly: Look at page 224 and you will see what it says.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Edwards):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member in full flight that his time is up. I recognize the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Brightwell) on debate.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter into this debate on Bill C-130, a Bill enabling the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
In the fall of 1987 it was written that the major trade agreement with the U.S.A. is a giant step toward a bright future for Canada. It dismisses the theory that Canada should draw into itself and exposes the American market to the initiative and free activity of Canadian business. It is a plan for the future and offers the only window of opportunity for Canadian manufacturers to have easy access to a market of over 250 million people.
Canadian jobs have been protected. The number and quality of jobs will be improved and consumer prices will drop. We have done this while protecting supply managed agricultural products.
I particularly like that piece. I bring it to your attention, Mr. Speaker, although I must admit I wrote it myself.
I am pleased to enter into this debate today to try to bring some reason to it. Two years ago when we began talks about
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
enhanced trade with the United States we ended up in a variety of cute little arguments about the fact that it was not enhanced trade, it was in fact free trade. I am sure the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) will remember that since I would not be surprised if he participated in that debate at that particular time. But tonight we find the same Member arguing the other way. And this is supposed to be an important debate on the free trade agreement.
Also, today, another Member stood up-and I will not name his riding because I think he would be embarrassed-and talked about the great threat of the free trade agreement to supply managed commodities. He referred to the fact that milk can be produced cheaper on the other side of the border and that with the free trade agreement it would flood into Canada putting the dairy people out of business. Frankly, that demonstrates a great lack of knowledge about this agreement.
I believe it is time we talked about the facts of the deal.
Therefore, in the time I have available I want to talk about supply managed products and in particular about the poultry industry. You will know, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, that I am a supporter of supply managed products. I believe that the supply management process has provided adequate supply of product at a reasonable price with a reasonable return to farmers. In fact, that is how the plan was set up by the Conservative Government many years ago in order to provide some stability to the farming sector.
During the negotiations on the free trade agreement there was a great deal of concern expressed by those who produced supply managed commodities. They had reason to be concerned, because, surely, if anything is different from free trade it is that we close the borders and make sure the production that is utilized in Canada is produced in Canada. They had reason to worry that under a trade agreement that right of protecting their market may be destroyed.
As we promised early in the negotiations, we protected supply management. I must say that quite a few people in that sector still cannot get over that very extensive and energetic lobby that was generated so long ago. That same thought is generated still by speakers such as we heard today who do not understand what is in the free trade agreement.
The free trade agreement is no threat to supply management. Of course, there have been some small alterations. I will talk about them in a minute. But we have left everything else intact.
There are threats to supply management. The fact is it is difficult among the provinces of Canada to adjust the amount of quota that each would utilize. Some provinces consume much more than they produce, and the opposite is true in other provinces.
There are also problems with respect to quota values. I checked with the Farm Credit Corporation which does a study on this subject once in a while. Quota values in Canada in

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
1984 amounted to $5.1 billion. We are presently studying farm debt. We know that the total farm debt in Canada is $22 billion. I know that the amount of quotas has gone up since 1984. I am wondering whether the amount of the quotas is not a significant part of the excess farm debt in Canada.
Supply managed commodities have no way of responding to markets and pressures. In poultry, if a new plant opens up there is no way for producers to direct their production to that new plant. This resulted in the payment of bonuses over and above what was an adequate rate of return for that particular commodity. That method of bonuses has been stopped now. In fact, it was stopped a year and one month ago. However, for a year and a half in the poultry industry extensive bonuses were paid.
With respect to the GATT, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) brought up the fact that we in Canada agree with the United States that Article 11 should be taken out of the GATT. That is simply not a fact. However, if we are going to go to GATT, if we are going to talk trade as we did with respect to the free trade agreement, then we have to talk about everything. The Americans have said if everything can go right through they will take out their Article 20 which allows them to have supply management. We Canadians do not expect supply management to exist in the States.
In a very far off situation in which all other subsidies were gone, Articles 11 and 20 might in fact be negotiated. But it would be so far off that I believe I can almost guarantee that this is not part of what is going to happen in the future. What did happen under the trade agreement with respect to poultry?
It appears that the base quotas went up from 6.3 per cent to 7.5 per cent. I say that it appears that way because, frankly, that is exactly the average amount of poultry produced over the last five years. The fact that we had a 6.3 base quota before and another 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent in supplementary quotas means that there would be no change in the amount of poultry coming into Canada from the United States. Because of the great economic boom that has occurred in Canada and because of the change in eating habits of Canadians the poultry industry has unprecedented demand. This is in part due to Mcnugget attacks, I guess I would call them. The broiler industry has increased by some 8 per cent. In truth, the demand for Canadian poultry is increasing in the face of what is apparently an increase in quotas.
Tariff reduction will have an effect. The fact that 7.5 per cent of poultry consumed in Canada after 10 years will be reduced in price about 17 per cent may put pressure on the other 92.5 per cent of poultry produced in Canada. I say "may" because we are not at all sure whether all of that advantage will be passed on to the consumer, and we do not know the effect in that regard.
Another area of concern, in the poultry industry one which I can understand, is with respect to the 2 per cent of poultry products put into further processed products. I refer to products such as Cordon Bleu and chicken pot pies. This area of business is expected to go up to 4 per cent in the next 12
years, by the year 2000. The tariffs will come off in that particular area. At present there are no controls in place to stop the influx of the product from the United States.
To compete in that market, to compete in the world market, manufacturers will have to be able to buy poultry products at a world price. Is that possible? I think it is. People in good authority have told me that efficient producers in Ontario, given the right to produce in their barns full time can in fact produce poultry at the world price and make a profit. I have a feeling that that statement will generate derision among the poultry people, but I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, what I have in fact heard.
The effect on the poultry industry of the 17 per cent reduction in tariffs on 2 per cent to 4 per cent of its production will mean a net decrease in income of some .6 per cent after 10 full years of production, that is if nothing else is changed. We have to remember that the free trade agreement covers many areas, including lower consumer products. Every poultry producer is a consumer. It includes more economic development, more jobs and higher paid jobs. The fact that more people will be able to buy more products will stimulate this economy.
The total negative effect of the free trade agreement on the poultry industry is less than the variation that occurs year to year in the industry. When all is netted out, when everything is balanced out, the poultry industry, the dairy industry-in fact agriculture as a whole-will benefit from this great agreement between Canada and the United States.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this year approximately 40 per cent of farmers' incomes have come from various Governments. One out of every 10 farmers is on the verge of bankruptcy, quitting, or foreclosure. It is important to the farm industry to know exactly what good the free trade deal will do for the farming industry. Will it improve the life of farmers? Will it save the 10 per cent who are going broke?
We must recognize that the trade deal will not make any difference to farmers. In fact, in the short term it may exacerbate the situation. In the short term the real impact of the trade deal will be relatively small, but what will be threatened is the viability of federal and provincial farm support and supply management. The previous speaker suggested that supply management was protected. I suggest that it is far from protected. In fact, the deal undermines the basic structure of supply management. Those programs have been an integral part of the maintenance of the family farm and the social fabric of many of the rural and small town communities. This deal encourages the trend toward continental integration in agriculture and food processing through the large agricultural conglomerates.
The trade deal provides for the elimination of agricultural tariffs over 10 years. In their negotiations the Conservatives
July 5, 1988

recognized that the trade deal will eliminate the fruit and vegetable industry in Canada. Consequently, 20 years have been given to adjust to the new competitive environment. That is the terminology that has been used in this agreement. That means 20 years to get out of the production of fruits and vegetables in Canada and into something else. In the deal there is also a snap-back provision which is supposed to protect the horticultural industry. However, people in the horticultural industry tell me that it will not protect them. By the time it can be put into effect, and it goes into effect if the prices drop below 90 per cent of the past average price, the Canadian market will be flooded. Most of our products are seasonal, and the U.S. season is two or three weeks earlier than ours. Consequently, people in the horticultural industry tell me that those products are on the market long before theirs and that they are unlikely to be able to stop that flood by any snap-back provision.
Growers must forgo the tariff protection if they increase production. That guarantees that Canadian producers can never increase their share of the domestic market. If they do then they will not have the snap-back protection that is supposedly available. This concession has grave implications for the 27,000 horticultural farmers and the 24,000 processors who are mostly located in Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic Provinces, and British Columbia.
Article 704 is supposedly the section where there is a guaranteed improvement as far as farmers are concerned. This is the article that applies to red meat. Article 704 is cited as the most substantial gain for Canadian farmers. The deal reflects the current practices and the situation as it presently exists between Canada and the United States. Secure access for red meats, which was what was supposed to be sought in this deal, was not achieved. The United States still has the power to put in place quantitative restrictions on Canadian exports, and the 1985 4.4 per cent per pound countervail on live hogs is grandfathered and remains in place. United States beef growers are looking for markets for their beef in Japan. They tell us that there is no room for expansion into their markets by our beef producers. In fact, they told me very specifically that, if California needed more beef, they would produce it in Montana.
The selling or importing of grain into Canada has been regulated in the past by the power of the Canadian Wheat Board to licence the import of wheat, barley, oats, and their products. Article 705 will eliminate this power of the board under certain conditions. Eventually, there will be no stopping grains. Cheaper and lower quality grains from the United States will have no problem replacing our production in certain areas, and at whose expense? Article 705 is a very significant curtailment of the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. Now the two-price system is phased out. With increases in the price of grains it probably would have been phased out anyway, but the free trade deal will mean that it has to stay phased out permanently, because under the circumstances of the free trade structure it will be impossible for the two-price system to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
be put back in place if it were ever required. That is or was a very significant portion of the stabilization program for wheat.
Other stabilization programs such as the Western Grain Stabilization Program are coming up for scrutiny. During the next seven years the Western Grain Stabilization and other agricultural programs which are meant to secure the farmers' income will come up for review, renegotiation or negotiation of a definition of subsidies. The Americans already consider them subsidies. Therefore, it is quite likely that programs such as Western Grain Stabilization, the Special Grains Program, and drought relief may be designated as subsidies and will also have to be phased out.
My colleague who just spoke suggested that Article 706 allows increases in quotas for chickens, turkeys, and eggs. The increase in those quotas seems small on the surface, but it is part of what the producers may put into the market. Therefore, it will affect the amount of products that they can put on the market in the future, and consequently it undermines the supply management programs in the feather industry.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-130. In doing so, I would be remiss if I did not express my regret that Members of Parliament, because of Draconian measures introduced by the Government, are reduced to discussing something as important for Canada's future as the trade Bill, or what I would call the economic union Act between Canada and the United States, in a period of only 10 minutes.
It is instructive to note that, because the Government has never wanted, from day one, to have a comprehensive debate about what this economic union proposal between Canada and the United States really means. It has always been this Government's contention that the less Canadians know about the details involved in this proposal, the less Canadians understand all of the intricacies involved in this package, the better the Government's opportunity to sell this deal.
That is why it is tragic that the debate on free trade has been reduced to a discussion or a polling exercise among Canadians, whether or not they believe in free trade. There is nothing in Bill C-130 that in any way, shape, or form reflects the concept of free trade. Canadians are not being asked to judge, in reality, whether they are for or against free trade. Because being for or against, conceptually, philosophically, religiously, the notion of free trade, in my judgment is not a good enough reason to be for or against this deal.
This deal is not free trade. This is a comprehensive trade agreement that results in the economic unification of Canada and the United States. That is not free trade. So being conceptually for free trade is not a reason to be for Bill C-130. Being against conceptually free trade-if one were to be perfectly honest-is not even a good reason to be against Bill C-130. This is not free trade arrangement.

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
To understand what it is that the Government has before us today by way of this legislation, it is important to cast our minds back, to remember how it is that we got into this free trade or economic union agreement with the United States in the first place.
Canadians should recall, a few years ago, when we had a Prime Minister who was making predictions like, "You can bet your bottom dollar that when the protectionist winds blow off the shores of the United States, those winds will not be directed at Canada because of our special relationship with the United States". Canadians remember those brave words, a Prime Minister who said, "the flames were being fanned in Congress, but the smoke was being directed at Japan, not Canada".


An Hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: A good friend and neighbour. And then the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), much to his surprise-


An Hon. Member:: Where did he say that?


Brian Vincent Tobin: 1 suspect, much to his chagrin, he discovered when he woke up one morning that the smoke was so thick he could not see beyond the windows and grounds of 24 Sussex Drive. What happened? There was an action taken against British Columbia softwood lumber. Initially, there was an action taken against cedar shakes and shingles. There were a number of actions taken against Canadian fish. There was action taken against Canadian steel. Non-tariff barriers were erected against Canadian agricultural products, primarily pork.
What was the response in the country, a country that "you can bet your bottom dollar" would not be subjected to American protectionist action? There was dramatic response, anger, a nationalist fervor. There was a response from the Government.
The Prime Minister said not to worry, "we will go south of the border and if you still have a dollar left, you can bet that bottom dollar that we are going to get a trade arrangement in which Canada will be exempt from this kind of U.S. protectionist winds and all the smoke and fire associated with it and that we will have a guaranteed access to the American market".
He told the New York Times that U.S. trade law could not "apply to Canada period", when he finished his negotiation.
It is important that we reflect and remember how it is that we got into the trade deal. The Prime Minister's bottom line, that he established by suggesting that we bet our bottom dollar, was that Canada would have guaranteed access to the American market. So, let us ask ourselves the fair question. Did Canada, in the negotiations that we undertook, achieve Canada's-as established by the Prime Minister-bottom line? It is not the NDP bottom line, the Liberal bottom line, Madam Speaker's bottom line, Canadian's bottom line, but the
Prime Minister's bottom line. Did we achieve it? No, we did not. There is nothing within this legislation, nor is there anything within the agreement out of which this legislation flows, that gives Canada guaranteed access to the American market. It did not happen. So we did not get our bottom line.
To be fair, if one is to weigh a deal one has to ask two questions: what did you get and what did you give in return? Any company, if we were to assume that Canada were a company-and the Government would like us to assume that-that considered a joint venture with a partner 10 times bigger and 10 times more powerful which of course looks attractive on the surface, would want to examine what it was that you as a smaller player doing a joint venture with a larger player would get in return for this economic union.
I know one thing any business man, no matter how much his eyes may light up at the prospect of doing a joint venture with a company 10 times larger and 10 times bigger, would be less excited if at the end of the negotiation he read the bottom line, the fine print, and found that he that his new partner had 52 per cent of the shares in his company, and he suddenly became not an owner but a tenant to a much larger partner.
What did we give in this deal? We gave on investment substantially. We gave the United States of America the right to come and buy, outright, the valuable resources of this nation, resources that the Americans cannot get access to in any other way. We gave on investment.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We gave on energy. We put an end to the day when Canada could be considered to have a Canadian energy policy made in Canada, for Canadians, by Canadians, and we made ourselves part and parcel of the continental energy grid.
The day is gone when a Canadian can expect one scintilla more from a Canadian resource found within the boundaries of this country within our coastal waters than a resident of the City of Los Angeles. Canadians in this deal have exactly the same rights to Canadian energy as any citizen of the United States. Canada has become part of the continental energy grid.
What else did we give? There is a whole area called subsidies which we could not define in time for the agreement to be signed, so we put that concept of subsidies aside. We said that over seven years we would harmonize our relationship. I am five foot eight inches. I know that if I get into a harmonization exercise with somebody six foot eight inches, who gets harmonized-I do.
I conclude by saying to the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who began his career at his father's elbow in 1947-48 fighting the battle of our Confederation, yes, the battle of Confederation in which Newfoundlanders given a choice, one that Canadians have not been given in this deal, made a choice for Canada. I will tell you who led the charge on the other side. The Hon. Member for St. John's West, his father, and his family led the charge for economic union
July 5, 1988

between Newfoundland and the United States. This Minister attempts, some 40 years later to achieve through the back door what he could not achieve through the front door 40 years ago. This time it is not economic union between Newfoundland and the United States. I tell him that Canadians are a quiet people. We are placid people. We do no wear our emotions on our sleeves nor do we practise our nationalism like they do in the United States. Scratch a Canadian, in particular a new Canadian from Newfoundland, Canada's newest province, only that deep and you will find a backbone of steel.
The people of Canada will not give away their country in the interest of a corporate climate put together by a Government that has no sense of nation, no sense of sovereignty, and no respect for the fundamental concept and value of a nation on the northern half of the North American continent called Canada. We will not lay down and die, Madam Speaker. This deal must be rejected.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, before speaking to this Bill, to explain why my riding massively supports the free trade agreement-not just the principle of free trade but this agreement in particular-I would like to inform the Hon. Member...

He is always good for about 10 minutes of entertainment. For instance, he has forgotten to mention-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claudy Mailly: Shut up. He has forgotten to mention, when he was talking about selling out Canada, that on page 265-


Mr. Rossi:: Sit down, Mailly! Sit down! You don't even know how to behave in the House of Commons. Go back to your riding, they don't want you here!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member just speaking is a Parliamentary Secretary. Her answer to Canadians and those who oppose this particular agreement is to "shut up", to quote her words. The Hon. Member should know that those words are unparliamentary. But I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to direct the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member who has the floor, to withdraw those insulting remarks that she has made to opposition Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) will do the right thing.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation]


Claudy Mailly: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would refer, for instance, to page 265 of the free trade agreement to show that what the Hon. Member just said had no basis in fact, to put it politely, and we read the following:
... Canada retains the right to review the acquisition of firms in Canada by U.S. investors but has agreed to phase in higher threshold levels for direct acquisitions... These changes to the Investment Canada Review Process will not apply to the oil and gas and uranium sectors.
So what is he talking about? He is leaving, Madam Speaker, because he knows perfectly well that what I am saying is the plain truth. It doesn't apply to the resource sector, and he knows that.


An Hon. Member:: Disinformation!

Moreover, a previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), surprised me very much today when he started quoting from polls on the free trade agreement, suggesting that because the polls were divided evenly it made the free trade agreement a bad agreement.
I remember when we had the debate on capital punishment and he said that polls did not matter even though 82 per cent of the people were for capital punishment and that what we had to do was the right thing. He was against capital punishment. Now the Member is telling us that the polls are right and that we must not do the right thing, that we must just follow whatever the polls tell us.
He omitted to say when he was quoting particular sections on investment that he skipped a few lines. I will quote them in French because I have the French text here. It says:

The obligation to grant national treatment does not mean that such treatment must be identical in every respect.

That means the same. It does not have to be the same. There is no customs union. There is no giving away our identity. It goes on to say:

A party may grant different treatment for legitimate reasons such as consumer protection or security, to the extent that the treatment is otherwise equivalent. Furthermore, regulations may not be used as disguised barriers to trade.
It also says:
The parties must ensure that licence criteria are not discriminatory.
The agreement also says:
That these undertakings are prospective. In other words, they do not oblige either government to change its current legislation and practice.
Further on in the same article it says:
That the agreement does not prohibit the negotiation of product mandate, research and development and technology transfer requirements with investors.

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

So much for a customs union.

Moreover, this article does not preclude the negotiation of performance
requirements attached to subsidies or government procurement.
Madam Speaker, they tend to quote very selectively. And with all due respect for the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), and in fact I do have a great deal of respect for the Hon. Member because of his many years of experience in the House and because he usually is very accurate when he is quoting ... Unfortunately, when he quoted section 8, he omitted some vital words. It says, for instance:
That the agreement prevails in the case of inconsistancies in any other Act
of Parliament or any regulation ...
Always within the meaning of section 2 of the Interpretation Act.
This particular paragraph bears the heading: "Inconsistant federal laws". Inconsistencies is between federal laws, not. ..

Supremacy of this law over other laws.
[ Translation]
And when he mentions the Charter of Rights, he knows perfectly well, Madam Speaker, that the Charter of Rights prevails over all other laws in Canada as far as rights are concerned. So it is ridiculous to confuse the issue and have us believe that just because there is a section that says there should be no inconsistencies, that this means supremacy. I wanted to say this before explaining why the people in my riding are massively in favour of the free trade agreement, not just the principle, as I said earlier, but the agreement itself.
Rodrigue Tremblay, an economist, expressed it very well in an article in Le Devoir on February 24, 1988, when he looked at the concessions made by Canadians and Americans in the free trade agreement. Because that is what an agreement is all about, Madam Speaker! To arrive at an agreement, the two parties involved sit down and decide to examine a problem and to say: We want to arrive at a solution which will be equitable for both of us, a solution that we can live with and that will improve both of our situations. An agreement always entails some measure of compromise. Opponents to free trade have stated repeatedly that the Canadian Government sold off the country to the Americans. Mr. Tremblay quotes those who are against free trade. Several have also said that Canada made too many compromises. But the fact is that Canada made four important concessions to the United States and the United States made four in return. Firstly, Canada will no longer be able to resort to tariffs and quotas to limit the quantity of a product coming into the country and to block American products in Canada. Canada will no longer be able to discriminate between a Canadian-owned company and an Americanowned company. That is what the Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was referring to.
We are talking about discrimination, and not about preventing Canadians from running their own country and adopting the policies they see fit, policies that will further the progress and development of their country. This means that an American company will be subject to the same laws and regulations as Canadian companies, and as our legislation prohibits foreigners from acquiring our industries, this protection will continue to apply. And I have quoted the relevant article. Thus, it is untrue to say that we have a union. It is also false to say that we will no longer be able to protect our industries. Nor are we giving away our resources. That is not in the agreement. It is very clear.
What concessions did the Americans make? Like Canada, they have agreed to relinquish the use of tariffs and quotas. But we must remember one thing, Madam Speaker: There are 25 million of us, and 250 million of them. It follows that that concession was much more consequential for the United States than for Canada.
We will have access to a market that is ten times the size of ours. It is a concession, as Mr. Tremblay said, that is weighted in our favour.
The United States has accepted that complaints of dumping and unfair
practices be settled by a group of experts.
That is the key concession. In fact, Madam Speaker, the whole agreement almost foundered on the issue, because the United States is a very powerful country and the Americans are used to having the upper hand, and they were not particularly taken with the idea of an objective tribunal to settle disputes. Several of these controversies were mentioned today, shakes and shingles, for example. Why did we have a problem? Because the United States use their own tribunal to settle these matters and we always lose. So it was absolutely essential for us to have a dispute settlement mechanism and that is what we have. That is another concession that was very important for the United States.
Canada will be excluded from trade disputes that the United States may
have with other countries.
That is very clear! So why do people tell us the opposite?
Finally, the United States agreed that some sectors be exempted.
Madam Speaker, "exempted" means "outside of the accord".
a)	Cultural industries.
We keep our culture and our sovereignty. For example, films, radio, television, books, the National Film Board, Telefilm, the CBC are all excluded from the agreement.
b)	The brewing industry.
This must please many men.
c)	Canadian magazines can continue to enjoy postal rates subsidized by the
Canadian government.
d)	Social programs are protected.
July 5, 1988

Madam Speaker, you know that social programs are protected.
e)	The provinces continue to require the processing of logs and fish before export.
That is wonderful!
f)	The exchange rate of the Canadian dollar (its value compared to the U.S. dollar).
That continues.
g)	Agricultural marketing programs and agricultural price supports are maintained as well as the right to establish new ones.
We have the right to do so.
h)	Canadian clothing manufacturers can use foreign fabrics and export their products duty-free to the United States.
That is maintained.
So, Madam Speaker, if they try to tell me that this is a customs union, a sell-out to the Americans, if they try to scare me, if they try to tell me to do what the NDP Members have suggested,...
Let us march from the cradle to the grave, except this time they want us to march with crutches. We are not going to do it. We are not going to do it in the Outaouais, we are not going to do it in Quebec, and we are not going to do it in Canada.


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Conservative Government has chosen to limit debate on the trade agreement, Bill C-130, and that I am only permitted to speak for 10 minutes in this debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why did you try to block it? Why did you have all these hours of wasted time in Private Members' Bills? Don't be such a hypocrite.


Jack Harris: Therefore, I must limit myself to the most important issues in this debate by setting out on the record-


John Carnell Crosbie: You were afraid to have the Bill debated. You tried to stop it for a month.


Jack Harris: The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) does not want to hear the other point of view.


John Carnell Crosbie: You don't have a point of view. You do what you're told over there.


Mr. McCurdy:: You are unparliamentary, John, just like "hypocritical".


Jack Harris: Madam Speaker, despite the objections of the Minister for International Trade, I must put on the record my belief and my concerns about what this Government is doing to Canada and to Newfoundland.
First, let me say that New Democrats do not oppose but do support a gradual elimination of tariff barriers that is done in
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
a way that is fair to Canada and that allows time and provides for programs to help in any adjustments that must be made. What we have here is not that kind of program at all. This Government has acted in the interests of multinational corporations and their Canadian subsidiaries and partners to give them a free hand to act as they see fit. This Government wants to leave future Canadian Governments powerless to control the destiny of Canada in the interests of average Canadian men and women who do not own multinational corporations and whose livelihoods and well-being depend on having a Government they can trust to act for them.
We in Newfoundland were all shocked when we heard that the Minister for International Trade who represents the riding of St. John's West had not even read the agreement. We know that he tries to be a buffoon as part of his big act, but most of us in Newfoundland thought that at least he did his homework, that behind all the quick wit was some knowledge about what he was talking about and a belief, at least in his own mind, that he was right. We were all wrong, and I join with the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, June 29, in which an article read:
So that's it. The reason Trade Minister John Crosbie keeps making such preposterous statements about the Canada-U.S. free trade deal is that he has not read it.
The Minister for International Trade has called this trade agreement the Auto Pact for Atlantic Canada. He has obviously not read that agreement either. If he had, he would know that under the Auto Pact American companies had a choice. They had a choice either to pay the tariff or guarantee jobs and production in Canada in return for access to the Canadian market. If the Minister had read the trade agreement, he would not be calling it an Auto Pact.
Article 1603 of the agreement reads:
Neither Party shall impose on an investor of the other Party, as a term or condition of permitting an investment in its territory, ... a requirement to:...
d) achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content.
Those are the kinds of requirements that are contained in this agreement. It is the removal of any obligation and of any possibility of requiring that a foreign investor from the United States has Canadian content, Canadian jobs, and Canadian production to have access to this market.
The maritime provinces, excluding Newfoundland, joined in Confederation, which was a sort of a free trade agreement, back in 1867. Ever since then, they have lost economic ground to the point where now, with the addition of Newfoundland, the four Atlantic provinces are the Cinderellas of Confederation. They have the lowest per capita earned incomes, the highest unemployment rates, and the greatest lack of opportunity in Canada to live, work, and raise a family in their own communities of all the Provinces and Territories of Canada.
A full 10 per cent of Canada's population suffers as the victim of market forces, government neglect, and a lack of government resolve, either Conservative or Liberal. That is the fate brought on by the free market forces that have existed in

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada untrammeled and unchained by government policies that would act in the interests of protecting all Canadians across the country.
We have heard the Government boast about ACOA, saying it is a regional development program which will do something about this. The Economic Council of Canada stated in its most recent annual review that the programs administered by ACOA were likely to be the targets of U.S. countervailing actions. That is despite and regardless of whatever is in the agreement negotiated by this Government.
This American trade agreement will put Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada up against even greater market forces, which will force us either up against the wall or to compete. Companies can compete, but they compete at the expense of individual workers and their families who will pay the price in lower wages, lower social benefits, lower government services, parttime employment and part-time futures, such as we are already experiencing quite severely in Newfoundland.
Competition results in a number of factors. The President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Laurent Thibeault, said:
It's simply a fact that as we ask our industries to compete toe to toe with American industries-we in Canada are obviously forced to create the same conditions in Canada that exist in the U.S. whether it is the Unemployment Insurance scheme, workman's compensation, the cost of government, the level of taxation or whatever.
We in Canada are worried. The Canadian Teachers' Association says that it is concerned about the downward pressure that business will place on the cost of government and warns of a great long-term hazard to education of the free trade agreement. In Canada keeping the cost of government competitive in terms of education would mean cutting spending for education. Canada now spends about 5.3 per cent of total personal spending on primary and secondary education, whereas the U.S. spends 3.7 per cent. In American dollars we spend about $3,420 per child compared to $3,199 in the United States.
In the Atlantic Provinces Harrison McCain of McCain Industries, a very large international company, no small potatoes in New Brunswick, said that if economic factors were to make his plants' continued presence in the province untenable, "we're a multinational and have other options. Unfortunately, our employees and our growers don't". He is honest about the prospects for Atlantic Canada under this agreement.
Regional development programs are vital to the development of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. The Economic Council of Newfoundland warned that regional and industrial development policies, local preference and procurement policies, and agricultural subsidies have been identified by the U.S. in recent actions as being incompatible with the tenets of free trade, but these same policies are seen as important tools for economic development in that province and region.
Yet, we are told that the agreement does not interfere with regional development policies. Whom do we believe? Unfortunately, we must believe those who have read the agreement and studied it, not those who have not read it and are prepared to tout it anyway.
In the United States social benefits are quite clearly seen by business leaders to be a cost to business. When proposals were put in the United States for federal legislation for compulsory maternity benefits for women, the biggest opponent to such benefits was the business community. It said that that would bring about an economic catastrophe and make it uncompetitive. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spoke out strongly against granting time off without pay and a guarantee of a return to a previous job for a women who was pregnant. These programs are seen by business leaders in the United States as a cost of doing business. In Canada business leaders will come to see it in the same way. In Newfoundland we have already heard the St. John's Board of Trade speaking out about high hospital costs and how we must lower them.
We are told by the Deputy House Leader that big Canada is in favour of this deal and small Canada is against it. Well, there are more of us than there are of them. As Tennyson said: "Some work of noble note may yet be done, Come my friends it's not to late to seek your newer world". We will help build that world. We will defeat the Government. We cannot defeat this Bill because we do not have the numbers, but we will defeat this policy and this Government.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to intervene in this debate because to us in Alberta, those of us who are able to think large and dream big dreams, this is an opportunity not to be missed.
The final comment in the peroration of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) was unfortunate. He referred to a comment made by the Hon. Government House Leader. In that particular comment the Government House Leader was referring to small-minded Canada rather than small town or small Canada. We all have small town roots, and it is quite evident that small town Canada and rural Canada as well as urban Canada support this trade agreement.
We sounded some views in my own constituency of Edmonton South. One of the first questions in a recent scientific poll that was taken in the constituency asked what was the most important issue facing the country. Bear in mind, Madam Speaker, that this was an open-ended questionnaire in so far as that particular question was concerned. The question was simply: "What is the most important issue facing Canada today?" It was a write-in question.
It is interesting that the issue which led all the rest was the free trade agreement with the United States. Twenty-seven per cent of the respondents said that it was the most important issue facing the country. The next issue was far down the line. It was economic questions and questions of employment which were at 11 per cent. There were many others down the line.
July 5, 1988

Later on in the questionnaire we took the opportunity to ask the view of constituents on the trade agreement which had been negotiated with the United States. The combined figures of those who supported it and those who strongly supported it was 66 per cent. Fully two-thirds of those polled in this scientific survey supported the free trade agreement which has been entered into.
I have been listening with great interest to the progress of this debate. 1 took care this afternoon to pay attention to the comments offered by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I listened with some fascination because he is an academic and has a good knowledge of Canadian history, although our analyses may differ. He traced the evolution of the American psyche and the evolution of the Canadian Zeitgeist. He came to the conclusion that we are different nations when we examine ourselves, when we consider our role in the world, and when we consider our priorities for our nations. I agree with that fully.
Later in his remarks, through omittendo and some innuendo, the Hon. Member for Oshawa strove to imply that because we are entering into a trade liberalization agreement with the United States we will become the United States or become like the United States. That is where logic fails the distinguished Leader of that Party.
He, in that respect, is not unlike a fellow Edmontonian, Mr. Mel Hurtig, who also uses the slippery slope argument. As I understand it, the argument goes something like this: Once you have entered into a trade liberalization agreement, the next slide takes you to a customs union. Further the skids are greased so that you descend into some kind of a political union. Ultimately you are politically absorbed.
Mr. Hurtig and others dine out on this argument quite well, but never have they traced the causal connection, either through logic or through historical example. I put it to the House that it is rather irresponsible, at this very important stage in Canadian history, to torment Canadians with fear, fantasy, and fabrication when facts are what they crave. Tonight, in the time available to me, I intend to present some of those facts.
Before I do so, Madam Speaker, I want to comment on some of the other speeches we have heard here tonight. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), for example, suggested-and again in the fashion of his Party he did not come out and say it-or implied that because of ownership facilitation that is contained in this agreement somehow our broadcasting and banking industries were to become prey to the American eagle. He knows well, because he is a well-informed Member, that that is truly not the case, that there are clear safeguards and protection under Canadian law to prevent that from happening, and that the free trade agreement takes those aspects of Canadian law well into account.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville lamented that this free trade agreement might prevent the nationalization of the Canadian oil industry. If there is one reason why we should embrace and adopt this agreement, that is the reason. The biggest plus of this agreement is that it would not only preclude the nationalization of the Canadian oil industry but would prevent a Government of Canada from ever again bringing in a national energy program. That means something to an Albertan who has seen $60 billion skimmed off the top of the market price and transferred to central Canada. Sixty billion dollars is what the National Energy Program rape and pillage amounted to.
The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who is normally a very straightforward, honest, and forthright Member of Parliament, said that fruits and vegetables were specially recognized under the agreement in that they were given 20 years to disappear as a Canadian industry. That is not the case. They are given 20 years in which to flourish as a Canadian industry. There is special recognition given for the necessity of an extended period of time because of the seasonal disadvantage in growing certain fruits and vegetables.
The Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) said that we had no sense of nationhood. Where was he when the Meech Lake vote was taken? He says that we have no sense of sovereignty. He omitted to recognize that the very embodiment, the repository of our sovereignty, which is our cultural sense and our cultural pride in terms of how we regard ourselves as being Canadian, is totally excluded from this agreement. I say again that that distinguished Member is falling prey to the temptation of dealing in fear and fabrication.
Last week, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), in responding to a question I posed to him about certain discussions that had been entered into with the leaders of the Congressional Democratic Party in the United States and a group of Canadian parliamentarians, suggested that it was out of fear that Canadians had entered into this agreement. He suggested that we are driven to the agreement out of fear.
I believe that what attracted Canadians to this agreement and what will attract them in greater numbers as the days go by is the reality of the growth of the protectionist sentiment in the United States. That reality has resulted in 38 protectionist Bills targeted at Canada being put on the desk of the Chairman of the House Trade Committee, Congressman Sam Gibbons of Florida. To the credit of that hon. gentleman, he is delaying those Bills because he has believed in free trade all his life and would like to see the arrangement go forward.
In referring to the facts of this agreement, I am drawn to some comments that were offered by the former Premier of Alberta, the Honourable Peter Lougheed, when he testified before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
International Trade in November. Mr. Lougheed said that it became clear to him in the latter part of 1984 that Canada's future competitiveness, its future as a productive country, was dependent upon entering into broadened trade, first with the United States and later with the Pacific Rim.
In his view there were three options: The status quo, a sectoral agreement, and a comprehensive agreement. Perhaps all Members of the House would agree that the status quo is not the answer. What about the sectoral solution? Sectoral trade would not have been acceptable to the other party, and there are many problems with a sectoral agreement which did much for us in the remaining 20 per cent of our trade that is not now duty-free.
Mr. Lougheed came to the conclusion that a comprehensive agreement under Article 24 of the GATT was the correct way to proceed. No agreement is perfect. However, he said that he felt good about this agreement.
I wish to associate myself with the view of this distinguished Canadian and advocate to all Members of the House, particularly members of the Opposition, that they reconsider their position and embrace this, not as a panacea but as an opportunity for our country to grow and prosper.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, in exactly 59 minutes, second reading debate in the Canadian House of Commons will end because of the Government's decision to invoke closure on what is without question the most important debate in the history of our country. There are 59 minutes left at second reading stage to determine whether or not this particular piece of legislation affecting the very heart of our country should or should not be endorsed in principle.
Bill C-130 is 123 pages of legislation amending 27 different Acts of this Parliament. The Government has the audacity simply to dedicate five days of debate to this important piece of legislation.
It is no coincidence that second reading debate is ending today, on July 5, 1988, in less than an hour. It is a belated birthday gift to the United States of America.
The Minister responsible for this particular agreement made an astonishing admission last week. He said: "I did not read the agreement". He is the key Minister responsible for the free trade agreement, which we like to refer to as the Mulroney-Reagan agreement. He has admitted that he has not even read the agreement. What utter contempt for his portfolio. What utter contempt for this Parliament. What utter and absolute contempt for the people of Canada. How can Canadians have trust in the Minister and the Government? How can they trust that the Government knows what it is doing when the Minister admits he has not read the agreement?
What Canadian would have a lawyer go to court for him or her without the lawyer knowing the facts of the case or reading the law involved? What sane Canadian would go to a doctor
who is intent on simply cutting the person open without knowing what organ to operate on?
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) says: "I once sold vacuum cleaners but I have never vacuumed a house. I once sold encyclopaedias but I never read the encyclopaedias". If given the opportunity, Canadians will say to the Minister responsible for this terrible agreement: "Go back to selling vacuum cleaners. Go back to selling encyclopaedias. You have no business affecting in such a negative and irresponsible fashion the future of our country".
Is it too much to ask the Minister to read 123 pages of legislation? All too often the Minister has trivialized the issue in the House. He has been seeking laughter and making humour. This is a serious matter that affects the sovereignty of our country. It affects the future of our country, and the only thing the Minister can do is make jokes. He is the clown of the House of Commons. The Minister admitted last week that he was winging it. He did not know what he was talking about. The people of Canada do not want a wing-nut Minister. They want a Minister who acts responsibly and who knows what he is doing.
The Minister has hightailed it out of the House of Commons because he cannot stand the truth. The Government has decided to invoke closure on this measure. As a Member of Parliament I am given but 10 minutes to express my point of view on this most important piece of legislation affecting my constituents in the riding of York South-Weston and affecting all Canadians from coast to coast.
Why is the Government limiting debate? Why is the Government rushing into this so-called free trade agreement? Because the United States, Ronald Reagan, and the White House have given our Prime Minister his marching orders. They have given the Minister for International Trade his marching orders. They have been told to get that free trade agreement through and to give them a birthday present. It is a day late, but they are still giving the United States a birthday present.
Is it too much to ask for this Government to go to the people of Canada? Members of the Government said during the last election campaign, during the long hot summer of 1984: "We will consult. We will keep Canadians informed. We will consult with people from coast to coast on any national issue of importance". What happened to that promise? It is but another broken promise.
If members of the Conservative Government were true to their word, they would be consulting with Canadians now. They would be giving Canadians an opportunity to review this agreement. While the Minister may not be interested in reading this agreement, other Members of Parliament and other Canadians are very interested in it. Why is he so afraid to read the agreement? Why is he so much of a coward as to allow Canadians the opportunity to enter into a meaningful
July 5, 1988

and intelligent discussion about something that will affect Canadian sovereignty?
It took three years for the Government to negotiate this particular agreement. It is now ramming it through Parliament in a dictatorial, Draconian fashion. It has allowed but five days of debate on it. No doubt it will limit debate at committee as well.
We know that the Conservatives, led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), want to go into an election campaign to talk about what they have accomplished. They think that the people of Canada will give them lollies for having passed and endorsed the free trade agreement here in the House of Commons. We say to the Minister for International trade that if he is so confident the agreement is so positive, and if he is so confident it is in the best interests of Canada, then why rush it? Why not go to the people in a general election? We will debate the Minister in any riding in Canada on any political platform during an election campaign. Let us be given the opportunity to present our side of the story, and the Minister can present his limited side of the story.
The Government is afraid. If the Minister took the time to read this particular agreement he would notice a few interesting facts. In Clause 2 it is interesting to note that those who drafted this particular agreement defined "United States". What is the United States? We all know the United States to be a country, a large country to the south of us, but for some reason it was important to include a definition of it in the Bill. I do not know what motives the Minister had in instructing the drafters of this legislation to define the United States, but it is defined as follows:
(a)	the customs territory of the United States, including the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
(b)	the foreign trade zones located in the United States and Puerto Rico, and
(c)	any areas beyond the territorial sea of the United States-
I suppose the Minister wanted to make it absolutely clear that we were not talking about Canada when we are talking about the United States.
No where in this clause is Canada defined. There is no definition of Canada, yet there is a definition of the United States of America.
We see that in Clause 130(9) it was important to define what an American is. Why define what an American is? Why define what the United States is and not define what Canada is? "American" means an individual other than a Canadian who is a national of the United States or is lawfully admitted for permanent residence. I just do not know what the ulterior motives of the Minister were.
I know that the Minister for International Trade can read. I know for a fact that he passed high school. I would ask him simply to take the time to read the agreement. I know that it might be a little complicated for him. He might have had some difficulties when he went to law school, but any lay person
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
could at least read through the agreement and try to understand it.
I want an opportunity to express my view. You might find it necessary, Madam Speaker, in a few moments to cut me off, but I am not going to sit down voluntarily. I want to make submissions. I have a right as a Member of Parliament to make submissions on the most important issues facing my constituents.
In the last election campaign free trade was not an issue. It was not an issue in the riding of York South-Weston. It was not an issue in Manicouagan. It was not an issue anywhere in the country. This Prime Minister lied to the people of Canada, Madam Speaker, during the last election campaign-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The time at his disposal has now expired.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, the people of Canada will be given the opportunity to reject that Prime Minister-


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston knows the rules. We know he is only seeking publicity. Nevertheless, he has said that another Member of this House lied. In fact, he referred to the Prime Minister. He should do the proper thing and withdraw that remark.
He should remember this as well. He should remember that truth does not lurk in rat holes.


Fernand Robichaud: You should know, John.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member will do the honourable thing. The Chair heard him as well.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, there is another word that rhymes with rat hole, and that is what the Minister is.
The Prime Minister of Canada, the integrity, the honesty, and the credibility of that Prime Minister


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Andre:: You are disgusting, Nunziata, do you know that?


Carlo Rossi: Superbox Harvie, keep quiet.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have not as yet
heard the Hon. Member withdraw. I am sure he will do the honourable thing and withdraw the term that was unparliamentary which he used, I know, in the heat of debate at the end of this long day. I am sure the Hon. Member will withdraw.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, out of deference to the Chair, on occasion I do get carried away, but I did call the Prime Minister of Canada a liar. I know that to call the Prime

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Minister a liar, or any Member in this House, any Conservative Member, is unparliamentary. I withdraw the fact that 1 called the Prime Minister of Canada a liar.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure that the Hon. Member knows that this rule applies not only to a member of the Government but to any Member of the House.
The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for South West Nova on debate.


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker-


John Carnell Crosbie: Back to your rat hole now.


Carlo Rossi: Go back to your cheese.


John V. Nunziata: Go back to law school, John, and try to pass this time.


Fernand Robichaud: Go read the agreement, John.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for South West Nova (Mr. Comeau) has the floor.


Gerald J. Comeau: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the lateness of the hour and the emotion with which some Hon. Members approach this subject. I also appreciate the opportunity to add my few words to the debate. First, I would like to say that Atlantic Canadians have been waiting for more than 100 years for this very significant achievement. Free trade offers the hope that we can return to the once great prosperity that we had in Atlantic Canada.
In the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries Atlantic Canada was a prosperous nation. There was a freer flow of goods based on natural north-south trading patterns. Our ancestors were building a nation and they had confidence in themselves, their ability to compete, and in their future. They were exporting lumber, fur, agricultural products, fish, and coal, among others.
In those days there were no socialist reactionaries to hold back the progress of our nation such as we have today with the NDP socialists and their socialized Liberal partners. Socialists believe that we can solve all the problems of the world by throwing taxpayers' dollars at the problems. Socialists believe that when one runs out of money one simply prints more. Socialists wanted to choke off investment from coming to Canada, and now want to shut off our market access to the United States. They give the weak excuse that one cannot have a mouse sleeping with an elephant. Well, they are the mice, and they are afraid of their own shadows. They are a bunch of wimps.
We have not heard business state that it is afraid of the free trade. On the contrary, those who shout the loudest against free trade are the big union leaders and the academics who do not make business and investment decisions. On this subject, who is the judge that you would like to listen to, Madam
Speaker-NDP Shirley Carr or John Bulloch who represents
80,000	independent small businesses across Canada?
The other day a constituent of mine gave me a good reason for supporting the free trade agreement. She stated: "If the big union leadership is against it and small business is for it, then it must be good". I agree with her.
According to the socialists, free trade will cause pollution, it will affect the environment, and it will somehow divert our water. When the socialists are challenged they wrap the Canadian flag tightly around themselves and shout that we will lose our culture, our language, and many other nasty things will happen. For all we know, we may even go bald, or I may lose my accent.
The socialists are afraid that Atlantic Canadians may taste the good life, such as is evident in the riding of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). They say to Atlantic Canadians: "If you have prosperity, you might somehow lose your culture, and we cannot have that". There is nothing cultural about not having a job. Quite the contrary. Free trade will provide jobs in Atlantic Canada. With the dignity of jobs we will be just as cultural as the Member for Oshawa who, incidentally, rarely complains of the billions of dollars which have been invested in his riding.
Can we trust the socialist anti-American rhetoric, treating the Americans as enemies rather than as our friends and closest neighbours and allies? They somehow forget that 2 million direct Canadian jobs are dependent upon continued access to U.S. markets.
To move a little closer to home and the benefits to Atlantic Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy).


Howard Douglas McCurdy: In listening to the reading by the Hon. Member, my attention was drawn to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, Citation 309, which states:
(!) It is a rule in both Houses of Parliament that a Member must address the House orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech. Bourinot, p. 335.
(2) On April 19, 1886, a resolution was adopted by the House, which reads:
"That the growing practice in the Canadian House of Commons of delivering speeches of great length, having the character of carefully and elaborately prepared written essays, and indulging in voluminous and often irrelevant extracts, is destructive of legitimate and pertinent debate upon public questions, is a waste of valuable time-


Philip Derek Lewis: Which is what you are doing right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has listened with a lot of attention to the Hon. Member reading a rule which, according to the year he was mentioning, seems
July 5, 1988

slightly archaic to me. Many people have been using notes. I am sure that the Eton. Member is really for debate, as are all Hon. Members in this House. As we were reminded a few moments ago, there is very little time left for debating this Bill. I am sure that the Hon. Member will want everyone who can speak at this time to speak. Therefore, we will not waste any more time on archaic points of order.
The Hon. Member for South West Nova.


Gerald J. Comeau: Madam Speaker, I am just using copious notes anyway, and if the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) does not like comments about his great leader from Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), what can we do about it? That's his problem!

Members of the NDP like to dish it out, but they cannot take it.
Returning to my precious notes, I wish to refer to the benefits that will accrue to Atlantic Canadians. First, it will give us more assured and improved access to American markets and an end to the continued trade harassment which has been affecting industries in Atlantic Canada for the past few years.
If the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville were to check with his Atlantic Canadian colleagues, he would know that every two or three years the American fishermen come after us and attempt to place countervail on our fish. Under the free trade agreement, it will be much more difficult for American fishermen to come after our fishermen and attempt to take away our markets.
By removing the tariffs on processed goods that we export, we can do more value-added processing, thereby creating jobs in fish plants, saw mills, farms, and manufacturing facilities. We have shipped our raw resources long enough. With the removal of tariffs on processed fish, we will be able to produce consumer ready products such as TV dinners, adding value in Canada and creating jobs in Atlantic Canada.
It does not stop with fish. We will be able to use our vegetables from our farms in TV dinners. The value adding plants will require construction workers, electricians, plumbers, and repair people. As far as the NDP is concerned, this will create jobs in Atlantic Canada and we cannot have Atlantic Canada enjoying some prosperity. The NDP is against Atlantic Canadians.
The energy provisions of the agreement will assist hydrocarbon and energy development in Atlantic Canada. Security of access and stronger foreign investment guarantees will spur exploration and development of Atlantic Canada's energy resource base.
The socialists have painted a picture of doom and gloom, a picture of what they say are the three evils of the Government.
Business of the House
Those three evils are: privatization, deregulation, and free trade.


An Hon. Member:: Right on.


Gerald J. Comeau: They are saying "right on". They are against privatization, deregulation, and free trade. This means that they support the opposite. They are for nationalization or state control of business, regulation, and central planning by the NDP, and finally, if they are against free trade, they are against trade. Simply stated, they want increased state bureaucratic and political intervention in the market-place, more central planning from Ottawa, and the creation of more Crown corporations.
The opposite of a national free trade policy is isolation, protectionism, and no trade. It means building a fortress Canada, insular and paranoid. Even socialist Russia has realized that centralized bureaucratic planning and intervention in the market-place is inefficient. It leads to low wages, low standards of living, food shortages, and long line-ups. You would think that Canadian socialists would learn from the experience of their socialist counterparts in the U.S.S.R. Business and entrepreneurship are dirty words to the socialists and the big union leadership.
We have heard the anti-American rhetoric. We saw the sheer anger when Margaret Thatcher said it like it was, when she dared to say the truth in the House of Commons about free trade and NATO. We all know what will happen if the NDP and the Liberals form a coalition Government. They will be against trade, against NATO, and they will drive this country into the ground.
I appreciate the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to have said a few words.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister of Trade on a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, the Hon. Minister of State.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, that is about the only thing I have not done in the last week.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If I may, I want to apologize for the slip of the tongue at this late hour. I certainly

July 5, 1988
Business of the House
did not intend to put a cabinet shuffle in motion at this point. The Hon. Minister of State for the Treasury Board.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, it has just been pointed out to me by the Whip of the Official Opposition that I made my first error as Deputy House Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Philip Derek Lewis: This morning when I suggested, because all Parties had discussed the matter, that we would defer all recorded divisions until tomorrow at 6 p.m., I unfortunately said "the final recorded division".


Marcel Prud'homme: Stick to it.


Philip Derek Lewis: It was the intention of the House that we would give as much time as possible for debate today and this evening. Therefore, I would like to correct the record and have it read that "there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to the final recorded divisions on Bill C-130", which would, under the rules, take place at 9.45 p.m. tonight. I think you will find unanimous consent to defer the recorded divisions on second reading of Bill C-130 until 6 p.m. tomorrow evening.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, since I was brought on to the scene, I did bring the matter to the attention of the Hon. Minister. He has my copy which I underlined for him. This morning the Minister made a Freudian slip. It was clear to me that he wanted the final recorded division, but later on he said "the last recorded division". There was no "s" to make the word plural. I took it that it was the main motion that would be put tomorrow night and that we would deal, as we did this morning, with any subamendments or amendments that were before the House prior adjourning tonight. I thought that was the disposition.
Tomorrow, we will be debating Bill C-72 if I understand correctly. Maybe the Minister could confirm that to me. If we are, there may be several votes if the amendments are still on the books. I think it could be a very long evening. He is just adding to tomorrow night's voting patterns.


Marcel Prud'homme: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I must tell you that I also read the Order Paper for the House this morning, and it is just like-because the Minister knows that it must be unanimous, anyway. That is what I understood this morning, that we would hold all the votes on amendments this evening, today, but that the final recorded division would be tomorrow night. So I do not see why we do not dispose of all the other minor votes, the subamendments, this evening, as we did today. I am just repeating what our whip said.
Now, if my whip, not the house leader, but my whip tells me that he agrees, I will give my support, but I still want to say very clearly that this is not what we agreed on today.
I am looking at my whip there and he is busy talking. If my whip tells me that he agrees, I will agree with my whip, but otherwise, I will not give my support. But if my whip tells me that he understood it could be done, I will gladly do so.

Make it the final recorded division.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: To respond to the invitation of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I have only one request and a modest one at that. I would like to ask the Government and the New Democratic Party to give the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) who is sitting here in the House, who is waiting very patiently and would like to take part in the debate, a chance to speak. If the House agrees to let the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides speak for the ten minutes he is allowed before we adjourn this evening, I will agree to the changes proposed by the Minister.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I confirm what the Deputy House Leader has said, that we will be voting on the free trade legislation tomorrow before report stage on Bill C-72. That was the understanding and agreement at the House Leaders' meeting today, I am told by the House Leader of our Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Maybe it is the late hour, but things still seem a little confused. I suggest that we continue with debate and maybe the House Leaders can get together and come up with a final decision to help the Chair.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, didn't I make it very plain? Anything clearer than that would be Calabogie spring water.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Government proposes that all divisions be deferred until tomorrow night at 6 p.m. We accept that on one condition, namely, that the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides has a chance to make his 10-minute contribution to the debate today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If points of order are put aside, we will have time to hear at least one Member from each of the Parties before adjournment. We would hear first the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, followed by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier said that there was agreement, as long as the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides was heard tonight. The Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville has the floor now, and I will come to the other Hon. Member a little later.
July 5, 1988


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 16661) and of Mr. Young (p. 17089).
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I should not have thought it possible that over a century of struggle of this nation to maintain its independence would end with the fulfilment of the American notion of a manifest destiny within the House of Commons of Canada.
I talk as one who loves his country and not as one who is anti-American. As a matter of fact, my colleague to my right and I participated over the last three weeks in a joint celebration between the Cities of Detroit and Windsor celebrating our friendship, celebrating our mutual independence, and honouring our differences. Those who would allege that those of us opposed to this particular deal are anti-American ought to recognize that from where I come we have cousins, uncles, sisters, and brothers on the other side of the river. We marry and have children that are often American, as my children are. My wife is American. Let us not engage in allegations that because we stand for the preservation of a Canada that we love that we are anti-American.
Canada is a rich and a wonderful country, richly endowed with many natural resources becoming increasingly a nation that reflects the many peoples of the world. It is a country that perhaps can be described as one of the most civilized, if not the most civilized of the world, because it pursues not just the prosperity and the enrichment of the few but has a total commitment to social justice that marks us as different from many other nations of the western world. But because we are civilized and richly endowed does not mean that we have done all that we could have done.
Historically the many natural resources that we have had have been traded off to Europe, to Great Britain, to our neighbour to the south, and to Japan. We have done so with fair rewards and a fair degree of comfort, but those resources were traded off at the cost of jobs that might have been created in Canada if we had appropriately exploited the comparative advantages of our rich endowment of natural resources, including energy. It is historically true that those who in the past were willing to enrich themselves grandly by sacrificing jobs that might have been created to enrich a small portion of the population of the past, constitute the same sector of our society that would now perpetuate Canada as a resource source for our neighbours to the south.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada must now face a world that has changed tremendously, a world in which we understand that Canada must be much more open than it has been in the past, in order to compete effectively in a free trade environment.
Let me dismiss another allegation that is addressed to us who are opposed to this deal, who are opposed to free trade, that we are afraid of competing. It has been said by those who advocate this deal that there are going to be certain losses, certain sacrifices, in order to achieve long-term gain.
I would say that if the Canadian people are to suffer losses in order to achieve long-term gain, then let it be at the price of the sacrifice that must be made to maintain our independence, and not to give away a country that is a rising star to a nation that is a falling star. There is no doubt that critical changes must take place. Surely those changes should not be constituted in giving away the comparative advantage which our resources present us. They should not be on the basis of conceding our energy resources that could give us the ability to compete in a variety of areas with the rest of the world. They should not be at the expense of giving away our industry to those in the south. They should not be at the cost of allowing the acquisition of our businesses and our industries without being able to impose even those minimal and nevertheless yet costly conditions that we were able to apply when we entered into the Auto Pact.
We have heard a lot of talk about the Auto Pact. I do not want to enter into a long discussion about the Auto Pact in particular, but there is one thing that characterizes this deal clearly, namely, benefits. I would say that the Auto Pact was flawed, but nevertheless the benefits which it provided in terms of an assured level of production in Canada and jobs therefor have been excluded by this deal.
What other nation would give away its comparative advantages? What other nation would give away over the long run control over its financial institutions? One would have to be a pretty crude idiot not to understand that those who ultimately control the financial institutions of the country determine where investment will take place.
What kind of a country would state what no other countries in the world have done, because they recognize the neocolonials aspect of it, that our service industries will be open to Americans on an equal basis with Canadians?
We understand that the elements of information and so on constitute the mode of control of nations. Even Third World countries understand that concessions with respect to the service industries are concessions with respect to ultimate sovereignty.
The future of this country does not reside in becoming part of the continental divine mission of the United States. Our future must reside in Canada driving a hole in its future, takings its competitive advantages, its cheap energy and its resources and building from them the industries that will

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
create jobs, not just for the Canadians who are here but for the Canadians who should be encouraged to come here in the future. Canada should have as its century the 21st century because we present a different kind of model from that of our neighbour to the south.
There are those who argue that somehow Ontario is trying to resist the opportunities that would lie in the future for the West and the East in this free trade deal. In 10 minutes I will not be left with very much time to examine an issue of this sort in great detail. I would ask those in Alberta and Saskatchewan whether they have seen that North and South Dakota and Wyoming have become the industrial giants that the Conservative Government says that they will be. I ask those in the Maritimes whether they really think that becoming more like Maine will make them more prosperous. Will the fate of this country and the fate of those regions reside where so many Canadians have told us over and over again? They want control of their economic future in their hands. They do not want an ACOA that is controlled from Ottawa, nor do they want an economy that is controlled from New York or Washington. They want the opportunity to shape their own fate.
If there is an alternative to the free trade deal, certainly it must be admitted that that future will not be gained without struggle, without sacrifice. The struggle and the sacrifice is to ensure the future of a country that has so much to offer.
We have said repeatedly that we must allow those in the regions to control their own regional economical development by decision making at the local level. We must make it possible for every community to shape its future through the financial resources and the expertise necessary, but we must recognize that this country is going to be competing in a knowledge based world economy. The Government is selling this country down the river if it truly believes that it can achieve the kind of innovation and the production of new products that this country will need if it intends to compete in the future. We are robbing our children of their future.
There are who say there will be job losses in the textile industry and in the service industry over the short term, but the real sacrifice will be the loss to Canada of the opportunities that this land offers us and the opportunities to shape a new model for the world about what a country can do if it pursues not just prosperity but social justice.
I do not want the cities of Canada to look like Detroit, New York, or Chicago with a market oriented philosophy, allowing the kind of degradation that that kind of market-driven philosophy which the Reagans and the Thatchers have allowed. Let us retain our independence. I stand with the majority of Canadians who are firmly against this deal, and in the future will be a majority of Canadians as demonstrated in an election. I dare those people over there to do two things: Read the agreement and then go talk about it to the electorate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take a few minutes to speak to Bill C-130, which deals with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Ten minutes are of course hardly enough to address all the aspects of a Bill that contains so many pages and schedules and so forth. I will therefore concentrate on two issues that are of particular concern to me: agriculture and energy. Within these two sectors, I would like to deal with some very specific questions, namely marketing boards for agricultural products, including supply management, and our food processing industries which are located across Canada, including a number in the province I represent, the province of Quebec.
Madam Speaker, the Government has been saying that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement does not in any way affect Canada's supply management policy, what we call supply management marketing boards. Government Members maintain that article 710 of the agreement allows both governments to set up marketing boards and to maintain existing ones. They maintain that this is consistent with our obligations under GATT, where article XI allows the creation of such boards.
However, it is extremely difficult to reconcile article 710 of the agreement with other articles in the same agreement, for instance article 703, which invites the parties, Canada and the United States, to improve access to their respective markets by eliminating tariff barriers and other barriers to imports. Furthermore, section 3 of the Bill provides that the purpose of this legislation is "to eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States". And this is followed by a whole series of objectives.
So how do you reconcile Article 710, which seems to allow some marketing boards, with the restrictions of Article 703 and clause 3 of the Bill, which seek to eliminate these tariff and non-tariff barriers?
Since, as we saw in the debates in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, the United States considers marketing boards to be barriers limiting the imports of American products into Canada, we are entitled to wonder whether we can set up such boards or after the process of harmonization, whether existing marketing boards can resist the pressure from the Americans, who will certainly use Article 703 of the agreement and Section 3 of the Canadian legislation to try to eliminate these barriers that marketing boards and supply management are in their view. Personally, I believe that as it is written, the agreement that was signed, as well as Bill C-130 that is being considered, will limit Canada's ability to set up marketing boards and to control supply. And this seems to fit in-this concern is found in the articles I mentioned and it is consistent with the spirit in which the Bill and the agreement seem to have been written, in particular the interpretation given by American legislators to these articles I just mentioned.
July 5, 1988

Also, clause 8(2) of Bill C-130 stipulates that "no person shall-do any act, exercise any power or carry on any practice that is inconsistent with or contravenes this Act or any regulation made under this Act, or the Agreement." In other words, this clause stipulates that marketing boards may no longer exercise their present powers if they are contrary to this agreement, for example, by limiting imports. But that is not all! In practice, the policy of controlling agricultural production results in slightly higher prices, as we see for milk, eggs and poultry. So these marketing boards, especially with supply management and limits on imports, make prices a little higher in Canada. In a way, this is the price we pay for greater stability in agricultural production, which protects the family farm and the income of family farm operators.
The sector that will be hardest hit by the agreement is certainly the whole food processing industry.
To survive, that sector will bring pressure to bear on the Government to do away with marketing boards or prevent the creation of new boards, but it will press even harder on governments to prevent quota limits or again the imposition of new import quotas which would reduce imports from the United States. The Canadian processing industry has said on several occasions that if the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement comes into force and if marketing boards and supply management are maintained it will be forced to set up shop in the United States to take advantage of the lower cost of American basic products. Should the food processing industry choose to leave, the related agricultural industries will also disappear. In other words, the FTA will make it even harder to establish marketing boards.
Madam Speaker, the agricultural sector is bound to be hit the hardest, and if that is not in the short term it will be in the medium term because for the processing plants the result of the gradual quota increase will be that the entire organization of production which Canada took 18 years to set up under various governments might be eliminated in the time required to harmonize Canadian and American programs.
That is why I will vote against Bill C-130, Madam Speaker, and I urge all Members from rural ridings, not only in Quebec but throughout Canada, to insist and pressure the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister responsible for this Bill so that they secure much tougher guarantees not only for the short term but for the medium term as well.
The other part of the agreement I want to talk about is Chapter 9 of Section 904 dealing with energy and stating that in times of short supply, Canada would be able to limit its exportation of energy products, providing that such export restrictions do not reduce the proportion exported to the United States prior to the imposition of the restriction.
In other words, the energy problem of Canada is subjected to a guarantee as far as exports are concerned, a proportional guarantee which would apply whenever Canada would be forced to reduce its domestic consumption as well as its exports because of short supply.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
So, you see, Madam Speaker, we find ourselves in a situation somewhat similar to that of a farmer producing, let's say, 10 sacks of potatoes, and eating 5 sacks a year. Our farmer goes to his neighbour and says, "I have five sacks too many. If you want to buy them, I'll export them." Now, let's assume that the following year, for some reasons, there is a short supply or a drought, and our farmer produces only five sacks of potatoes. Since he himself needs five sacks a year, he would go to his neighbour and tell him, "Sorry, but this year I don't have anything to sell. Because of the short supply, I won't export." But under the agreement, Madam Speaker, in terms of energy products, if I go back to my example, Canada would not be able to reduce the proportion exported due to short supply unless we cut down our own consumption by 50 per cent, in order to sell the other 50% to the United States. For my potato producer, that would mean that although he has only produced five sacks instead of ten and needs five sacks for his family, he would still have to sell two and a half sacks to his neighbour.
That is the meaning of Article 904, Chapter 9, in the Trade Agreement concerning energy shortages. The government maintains that this article is in accordance with the Emergency Oil Sharing System which Canada adhered to in 1974 through the International Energy Agency.
However, a study of the matter reveals that obviously the trade agreement goes much farther than the Emergency Oil Sharing System and differs from it on several points. Firstly, the international agreement signed in 1974 only concerns oil while the Trade Agreement covers as well electricity, natural gas, etc.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, energy products are not the only products involved.
You are indicating to me that my time is up, Madam Speaker. What a pity that, on such an important agreement, we should be held to the 10-minute deadline.
Madam Speaker, I am sure that, if Canadians and, in particular, businessmen like me who agree with the principle of freer trade and farmers for that matter, took the time to read the bill, their perceptions would change radically. The more the people read it, the better they understand it, the more they're against it. That is why the governement has chosen to limit the debate because, as we go into details about the bill's provisions, Canadians will realize the seriousness of this agreement and will condemn it in much greater numbers than the polls presently show. I invite people to take a closer look at this agreement and the bill implementing it.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been further discussions among the Parties, and I think you would find unanimous consent that all final recorded divisions on Bill C-130 which would normally take place under the rules at 9.45 p.m. tonight would be deferred until 6 p.m. tomorrow evening.

July 5, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the remarks of the Hon. Minister of State. Is there unanimous consent for that?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, just to make sure that I understand, the Standing Order says that the Speaker must interrupt the proceedings at a quarter to ten. It is now forty-seven minutes before the hour of ten. I take it that that does not modify in any way Standing Order 117, and that the Minister is proposing that at 15 minutes to 10 p.m. the Speaker will interrupt proceedings, put the questions to the House, and whatever happens after that will be deferred to tomorrow at 6 p.m.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, Madam Speaker, if in fact there is a recorded division requested, it will be deferred until 6 p.m. tomorrow.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, it seems to me unfortunate that if there is unanimous agreement that the vote will be tomorrow there cannot be an extension of the debate until 10 o'clock to permit the last few arguments to be put in this attempt by the Conservatives to cut debate to a minimum on this major issue facing the country.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Does the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) seek the floor?


Marcel Prud'homme: I am sorry, but there have been so many orders from the House ... I am sorry, Madam Speaker, please be patient, it is almost over. But I cannot speak on my point of order if you are standing, since that is against the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I first asked the question to the Elon. Member to find out if he wished to have the floor.


Marcel Prud'homme: It was concerning a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I think that it would help, Madam Speaker, if I said in answering my colleague from the NDP that section 117 of the Standing Orders is very clear on that
point. There have been orders from the House. If we start changing everything in this House that the Honourable Minister has been helping us to understand, there will be no end in sight. There is a section of the Standing Orders which is called section 117. The Honourable Minister has made concessions. My colleague the whip has accepted. The new Democratic Party has accepted, but I realize that it is 9.45 p.m. So I would think that my point of order . . .


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 9.45 p.m., pursuant to Order made in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 117 on Monday, July 4, 1988, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the Bill.
The first question is on the amendment of Mr. Young. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to agreement reached earlier this day, the recorded division and the putting of the questions on the amendment and the main motion stand deferred until 6 p.m., Wednesday, July 6, 1988.
It being 9.48 p.m., pursuant to Order made June 23, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.48 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 26, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers