1988-07-04

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petitions Nos. 332-4618, 332-4678, 332-4819, 3324831, 332-4835 and 332-4837.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Gauthier:: Try to tear it up. We cannot tear this up, Mr. Speaker. We cannot even read it because there is no index.
I ask the Government to ask its specialists in the next few days to give us an index to this Bill so that we can explain it, read it properly, assess it properly and possibly comment on it intelligently, which is more than the Government can do.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise Hon. Members that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) indicated to me last week his unhappiness with this particular Bill, Bill C-139.
1 want to advise Hon. Members that I have looked through it, but 1 have not read all of it. I will now hear the Hon. Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) on the matter.
MO)



POINT OF ORDER


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 1988, the Government tabled Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal-Post Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, and certain related Acts, a brick of some 500 pages.
I find that not only is it complex and difficult but, to make matters worse, the Government did not append an index to this Bill. For those of us who are not specialists in this field, it is next to impossible to read the Bill. I know that members of the Government sometimes read Bills, and that sometimes Ministers use Bills to inform us as to what is in them. However, I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, having read this Bill, found it easy to read such a Bill without an index.
In days gone by, members of the Conservative Party would have given hell to the Liberals if we so much as came in with a Bill that did not have an index in it, a Bill one third the size of this Bill. As a matter of fact, the Government has the habit of putting in an index. That is what it did with respect to Bill


Mr. Lewis:: I do not remember any income tax legislation as progressive from the previous Liberal administration. Second, I do not remember any indexes.
I will make inquiries to see if it is possible to prepare an index, if one is not already in existence, and report back to my hon. friend and the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps on that the matter could rest, at least for a while. The Government is probably procedurally sound in presenting the Bill. However, there is something to be said for the fact that when Bills are introduced, especially of such complexity, those of us who have had to practice in the field of income tax law know that even with indexes it is not easy to find one's way through those Bills. I am pleased that the Hon. Minister of State has indicated that perhaps he can find some way to accommodate the Hon. Member, although I believe the Government is probably within the rules procedurally.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Since this matter has been raised, Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that there is a bit of a jam-up in printing, that there is an index being prepared and it should be available very soon.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier for raising the matter, and I thank the Minister of State for responding so expeditiously to the wishes, I am sure, of all Members.

July 4, 1988
Motions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that there have been discussions among the Parties. I thank my colleagues opposite for their assistance. Under the provisions of Standing Order 115,1 wish to state that the representatives of all Parties have reached an agreement with regard to a proposed allotment of time for the disposition of report and third reading stages of Bill C-72, an Act respecting the Status and use of the Official Languages of Canada.
I therefore move:
That, in relation to Bill C-72, an Act respecting the Status and use of the Official Languages of Canada, one day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and two hours to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill, and
That fifteen minutes before the end of the sitting day allotted to the report stage consideration, and the two hours allotted to the third reading consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the said stages of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stewart:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


John B. Stewart: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I wish to reiterate my appreciation for the expeditious manner in which this was handled by the opposition Parties. I want to advise the House that the report stage of Bill C-72 will be on Wednesday afternoon of this week, and that we will call third reading on Thursday morning of this week.


PETITIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition which is signed by citizens of Saint John, New Brunswick, and a number of adjoining towns and townships. The petition has been certified correct as to form
and content. It indicates that when the issue of such fundamental importance to the future of Canada as the proposed trade pact with the United States of America comes before Parliament, it is the opinion of the petitioners that the people of Canada should be permitted an opportunity to vote to accept or reject such a trade pact before it is put into force.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition deals with the trade deal between Canada and the United States. It points out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had no mandate to negotiate this deal, that it would reduce Canada's ability to plan economic, social, and cultural programs, and that it would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore, the petitioners call for a national debate on the trade deal, and that this debate result in a national general election before the agreement comes into effect.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with low-level flight training of pilots of NATO at the Canadian Forces Base at Goose Bay, Labrador. The petition points out that it disrupts the way of life of the native people, that hunting, fishing, tourism, and mining can provide more stable, healthy, and peaceful employment than this type of training, and that this training is provocative in terms of flying under radar in eastern Europe, and therefore endangers world peace.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ends all low-level flight training at the Goose Bay Canadian Forces Base.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present four petitions signed by residents of the cities of Winnipeg and Brandon, and towns and villages including Dugald, Selkirk, and Seven Sisters.
The petitioners state that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The petitioners state that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada 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 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. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and the responsibility to present a petition signed by residents of Toronto, Ontario. The petitioners point out that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social, and cultural programs that
July 4, 1988

we need. Furthermore, this deal would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base.
The petitioners call for an election in order that the people of Canada can decide once and for all whether or not they want to enter such a deal.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians from British Columbia to Halifax, and many other parts of the country in between, who are concerned that the Conservative Government has no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The petitioners are concerned with the threat to Canadian sovereignty in the trade negotiations. They believe that 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 United States.
Therefore, the petitioners 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. Speaker, I also have the honour to submit a petition signed by a number of residents of Quebec and my Ottawa-Centre constituency, who also believe the trade agreement between Canada and the United States creates a situation in which Canada would lack the policy freedom to determine its own economic future. They believe that hundreds of thousands of jobs are jeopardized by the trade agreement and they call upon Parliament to dissolve and give Canadians the opportunity to determine the country's economic future in a general election.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility to register with you a petition that comes from Toronto, Scarborough West and surrounding municipalities. According to Standing Order 106, the attached petition is certified correct. There is also a translation in this petition in Chinese, so the signatories certainly did understand everything that they were signing. They feel very strongly that this Government has no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States, and that the Reagan trade deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan an economic, social and cultural program.
It would integrate Canada further into the North American defence industrial base, and for these reasons they would like Parliament to dissolve and have a general election.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, it is a holiday in the United States-Independence Day-and I
Petitions
am pleased to table petitions calling upon the Government to withdraw its Bill and cancel its agreement with Mr. Reagan.
The petitioners humbly declare 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.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to table a petition signed by 228 residents of St. Hyacinthe, Sorel, Longueuil and Mont St. Hilaire. These 228 petitions are added to the previous ones tabled in the House, making a total of 33,168 petitions.
The highway safety campaign continues because the petitioners hope that car manufacturers will soon incorporate their request in the production of future cars. Since 1974, the highway safety regulations allowed the installation of air bags for drivers of passenger cars in the belief that this device would reduce the number of serious injuries on the road. For these reasons the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to order car manufacturers to install air bags in the front seats of cars and to install adjustable seat-belts with shoulder straps for rear-seat passengers.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of citizens of Alberta-Edmonton, Fort McMurray, Calgary, St. Albert, Leduc, Spruce Grove, Edson-who call upon Parliament to dissolve and to allow the people of Canada an opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election. They point out that the free trade agreement did not give Canadians what they were told they could get and that the Government did not have a mandate to proceed with this agreement.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Province of Saskatchewan who, in response to the proposed trade legislation, petition this House with regard to the sell-out of Canadian natural resources in the oil and gas area, agriculture, trade, financial services and investment.
They ask the House to denounce the Government for signing the Reagan trade agreement. This petition is presented on

July 4, 1988
Questions Passed as Orders for Return
behalf of some 30 to 40 residents on behalf of the Province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions here from constituents of mine concerning the Government's proposed trade agreement with the United States. My constituents object to the devastation that is going to be caused to Canadian agriculture and the energy sector. They complain about the one-sided nature of this agreement whereby the United States will gain much and Canada stands to gain practically nothing and, in fact, lose a great deal. I would submit this to the Elouse for its consideration.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions here, one from people of Ontario in the Brampton area, Mississauga and Bramalea, who petition Parliament against the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. They feel that Canada has certainly received the worst side of this deal, particularly in the areas of agriculture, in energy, in trade and financial services, in the areas of investment, and that this will hurt Canadian jobs, particularly in the area of energy where Canadians have spent a lot of money developing hydroelectric power in this country. Now Americans can buy energy from us at the same price Canadians will have to pay for it at a time when the Americans have no investment in the industry at all. This is totally unfair for Canadians.
These people from British Columbia and Ontario petition Parliament to reject the Conservative trade deal.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my duty to present petitions signed by residents of certain communities in New Brunswick including Saint-Antoine, Saint-Paul, Notre-Dame, Sainte-Marie, Saint-Louis, Saint-Edouard, Cocagne, Sainte-Anne and Cote Sainte-Anne.
The petitioners deplore the dicision of the federal Department of Employment and Immigration to increase the qualifying period for unemployment insurance from 10 weeks to 16 weeks and they deplore the fact that the Government has failed to consider the situation in rural New Brunswick.
The petitioners therefore humbly call upon Parliament to restore justice to the situation by maintaining the 10-week qualifying period for the rural areas of New Brunswick.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition concerning the Mulroney Government's agreement with the United States. Again, the
petitioners are from New Brunswick, particularly Edmund-ston, Saint-Franqois, Saint-Hilaire and Saint-Jacques.
The petitioners humbly declare that the Mulroney Government has sold Canada out without obtaining anything in return; the jobs of thousands of Canadians are threatened; and the Conservative Government has made no provision for retraining assistance for Canadian workers.
They therefore call upon Parliament to censure the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 318 and 340 could be made Orders for Returns, the returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 318 and 340 be deemed to have been made Orders for Returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant): In the fiscal years ending March 31 (a) 1985 (ft) 1986 (c) 1987 (d) 1988, excluding statutory transfers to provinces and individuals, was money spent in the constituencies of (/') Brant (ii) Oxford (iii) ttaldimand-Norfolk (iv) Hamilton-Wentworth and, if so, in each case, by which departments and in what amounts?
Return tabled.


Mr. Nunziata: For (a) the period between September 4 and December 31, 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988 to date, have any departments or agencies of the government spent money or provided grants in York South-Weston and, if so, in each case (f) by which department or agency (ii) in what amounts (Hi) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 4, 1988

[DOT] (M30)


PRIVILEGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question of privilege. First, I want to apprise the House of a word which was used by a Member of this House as recorded in Hansard at page 16989. In a response to a question put to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) made an intervention which I will quote:
Let's go outside the House and make that accusation, you scumbag, and you
are not even an honourable scumbag.
My friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell did not appreciate the accusation. I looked up the word in Beauchesne.


An Hon. Member:: You had to look it up?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I had to look it up, yes, because that is not the kind of language I would use.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I looked it up in Webster's Dictionary. Webster says "Scum: impurities that rise to surface of liquid- worthless person-worst-"


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can help the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It is the opinion of the Chair that that word, if used, is unparliamentary. I don't need any more authority.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want the Member to withdraw that word if it is unparliamentary. The Member knows, just as well as anyone in this House, that such allegations are uncalled for. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell usually backs up his statements in the House. I would like the Member for Brampton-Georgetown to withdraw that uncalled for comment.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I abide by the decision of the Chair and I withdraw the remark.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have another question of privilege arising from Hansard for Thursday, June 30. On page 16991 in a question I put to the House regarding the-

Voluntary compliance. Consumer protection ...
and what the Government intended to do about bank charges. I asked the Government and I quote:
Privilege
Mr. Speaker, the Government proposes voluntary compliance, that is leaving it up to the banks. That is the position of the Government. On the other hand we have the New Democrats who said this morning the option was to nationalize the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
And then the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) said:
That is a lie. That is a lie.
Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate being called a liar. I was at the press conference that morning when the Member for Nickel Belt said publicly to the media that one of the options being considered by the NDP was in fact to nationalize the banks.
I also object to the use of such unparliamentary words as "lie" in reference to a Member in this House.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in light of the comments which the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) made when he put his question to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), I was properly incensed because the nationalization of the Toronto-Dominion Bank was not an option that I had put forward at the press conference.


An Hon. Member:: Which bank was it?


John R. Rodriguez: I was asked by the chairman of the press conference whether 1 thought the Toronto-Dominion Bank should be nationalized because it stayed out of the agreement, not to go along with the Government's proposals. I said, "No, that was not an option at this time". If you look at the transcript of the press conference, that is exactly what you will see, Mr. Speaker. I was incensed by the preamble of the question put by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier when he said, as recorded at page 16991 of Hansard for Thursday, June 30:
On the other hand we have the New Democrats who said this morning the option was to nationalize the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
That is not true, Mr. Speaker. I know that it is not parliamentary to use the word "lie" in this House. Maybe it is too blunt a word to use to describe something that is not the truth. I will withdraw the word lie and say that the Member uttered a terminological inexactitude.


Mr. Speaker:: Sir Winston Churchill managed to withdraw by using that exact term and I suppose that is a precedent. In the opinion of the Chair, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has withdrawn and has done so in a Chur-chillian manner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

July 4, 1988
17000____________________________________
Time Allocation



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That, in relation to Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, one further sitting day be allotted to the second reading stage of the Bill; and that, at Fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on the above mentioned sitting day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: If you find the motion to be in order, I would like to make a few remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to accept the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in case there had been some request for debate, I prepared a few remarks that I would like to put on the record now.
I think it is fair to say that the subject of free trade has been in the public domain for some time. The issue has been studied by two parliamentary committees which held extensive hearings and travelled across Canada. I do not think in my meagre experience in this House there has been any issue that has so consistently dominated the period for Standing Order 21, the Question Period, Opposition Days, and speeches on various Bills. The issue of free trade has very definitely been in the public and in the parliamentary forum. I would say that this time allocation debate and motion is not about five days debate on Bill C-130, it is about the conclusion of the debate on the issue of free trade.
We on the government side, Madam Speaker, feel it is time to decide. I would point out that the by the time we are finished debating this Bill we will have had four long days- excessively long days because we are in a period of extended hours-and one short day. When we originally discussed this matter with counterparts opposite, the Opposition House Leaders, we offered three long days and two short days under the usual formula of time. We did that with a view to receiving a counter-offer. At no time did we receive a counter-offer which we could then mull over and come back to the House Leaders, our caucus and Cabinet with. No counter offer was made.


Michael Morris Cassidy: We are prepared to debate it all summer.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The early reply was procedural tactics which delayed proceedings on anything substantive.
The delays took place from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. every day and at three o'clock we were at Orders of the Day. Those delays in effect curtailed time on debate.
We have delivered on our promise. By the time we debate this today, and we intend to allocate tomorrow to this debate as well-


Michael Morris Cassidy: Your promise was not to bring in free trade. That was the Government's promise.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We have delivered on our promise.


Michael Morris Cassidy: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was against it in 1983.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I see the ex-Leader of the NDP in the provincial legislature here today. I would hope that he would see fit to enter into the debate today and to participate during the time allocated.
Because my time is limited to 10 minutes and I may not have an opportunity to participate in the debate, I want to say something about the issue of free trade, if I may. There are two points that I want to make, and they are connected to why we have to decide this now. Our opponents are wrapping themselves in the flag and declaring that we have sold out our sovereignty. That is nonsense. Years after the creation of the European Common Market, there is still a Spain, a United Kingdom, a Germany and an Italy.
Those opposite call themselves nationalists and say that they are the only true Canadians. The Canadians who are going to build a stronger Canada, the Canadians who have some faith in the future, are the Canadians who are in favour of this Bill. We do not have to take a back seat to anyone when it comes to sovereignty because our record is full of initiatives which establish our sovereignty as a country.
I am talking about the multiculturalism Bill which is at report stage, I am talking about the Official Languages Act, Bill C-72. We announced a water policy. We have an Environmental Protection Act which was passed and given Royal Assent. The Atlantic Opportunities Agency, the Western Diversification Fund, the National Defence White Paper and the construction of an Arctic-class ice-breaker are on the record.
This Government awarded for the first time the contract to monitor our North Warning System to a Canadian firm. We took it away from the Americans who had it for 30 years under previous Liberal administrations. That is sovereignty. Sovereignty means being able to look after yourself. It means believing it and demonstrating it. Strong countries execute international agreements with other countries. Weak countries are afraid.
July 4, 1988

That brings me to the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said that this agreement is a declaration of confidence in ourselves, of confidence in our ability to compete with the best in the world, of confidence in our ability to adapt in a tough and demanding international environment.
I would ask my friends what is the concept of Canada that they have. Big Canada welcomes the challenges and the opportunities of the free trade agreement. Small Canada is afraid. There is small Canada right over there. Big Canada says we can compete with the Americans and small Canada has a massive inferiority complex. Big Canada says we can coexist with our neighbours and small Canada wraps itself in the flag and says it is afraid. Big Canada looks to the free trade agreement as a basis for prosperity and little Canada has no alternative.
This is an agreement for the 21st century. It is time our industries started to grow from a Canadian base, to encourage new investment and jobs, to create a more stable and certain framework between these two great countries. The opposition Parties have battled against the concept of free trade from day one. Nothing we can do in this debate will change their minds. They represent the status quo. There they are, the Parties of the status quo, afraid of the 21st century, afraid to compete, afraid.
I say in closing that we intend to look to the future with Bill C-130. We intend to execute an agreement with our biggest trading partner which will mean prosperity, opportunity and jobs for Canadians. I suggest that we get on with the debate, close it off and send the matter to committee so that we can pass this Bill which will mean increased prosperity and opportunity for all Canadians.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, we have all just returned from celebrating July 1. I think it is important to note that this is an important day in the history of Canada. We all recognize the disappearance of one of the most useful and valuable institutions that has helped build Canada over the last 121 years, and that is the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. It has disappeared. It has been replaced by the Republican Party of the North.
We now have in Canada a Government that is headed by someone who ran a branch plant. He now has a branch plant Party. He wants to turn Canada into a branch plant country. The Progressive Conservative Party, the Party of John A. Macdonald, the Party that used to stand for Canadians' opportunity to make choices of their own, that used to use the instruments of Government as an effective way to build a nation, has now disappeared into the branch plant Republican Party of North America.
The Progressive Conservative Party which used to stand for the rights of Parliament, for the concept of open debate, for the concept of free dialogue and for the opportunity for Canadians to be heard, has also disappeared and been replaced with a Party that simply uses its majority in a tyrannical
Time Allocation
fashion to suppress debate, to close off dialogue and to ensure that Canadians will not have an opportunity to be heard. I am here partly to lament the passing of that institution, because it did represent something that was important. I disagreed with its policies, but at least it had Canadians roots and Canadian outlooks and it respected Parliament.
Now that that institution has disappeared and we have this Republican Party of the North appearing in the House, we have to recognize that the only way to deal with it is simply to say that it is an alien force with a series of alien ideas and a very alien attitude. The real victim is the place in which we stand today, our own Parliament. The Republican Party of the North does not recognize the value of a parliamentary system. It does not recognize the opportunity that Canadians must have for a proper debate.
The Minister of State (Mr. Lewis), the Government House Leader, has tried to perpetuate the myth that there have been all kinds of opportunity for debate. Let us look at the record. A committee in the summer of 1985 looked at two issues, the star wars issue and the concept of free trade. The recommendations it brought to the House were all rejected by the Government. Not one was adopted. The primary recommendation was that there should be a parliamentary debate in the House of Commons to establish a mandate for the Government to negotiate a trade deal in order to ensure that before the negotiations even began, there would be the opportunity for Canadians to know what they were getting into. That recommendation was rejected by the Government.
The first committee was thrown in the ashcan in typical fashion. The second committee to which the Government House Leader referred was established just before Christmas before it had the final agreement. It did not even have the details of the agreement. It did not know what kind of arrangements were going to be made.
We have to recognize that there is a major difference between the concept and the application. A real estate agent might say to me: "I would like to sell you a house," and I would say "I would like to buy a house". However, before I buy it, I look at the contract. I see what interest rates I am paying. I see what the terms of payment will be. I see what the obligations of the buyer and the seller will be. However, this Government does not want us to look at the contract. It does not want us to see what the specific obligations, rights and duties will be.
The Government is saying that this is just a debate about the concept of free trade, a debate about the concept of motherhood, fatherhood or sisterhood. The fact is that we have to see what the deal is. No Parliament has yet had the opportunity to look specifically at the deal that is now on the table.
The Government is giving us a couple of days to have a few rounds at it. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), Canada's answer to illiteracy, is now saying that he will not even allow the committee itself to cross the country to

July 4, 1988
Time Allocation
ensure that Canadians from New Brunswick to British Columbia, Canadians who will be directly affected, will have the opportunity to be heard.
When I say "the Republican Party of the North", there can be no clearer evidence of that than the total rejection of parliamentary procedure which we see in front of us today. No committee has had an opportunity to look at this agreement. Parliament is being short-changed in its attempts to debate this issue. Already we have the threat of the Government using its majority to simply ride roughshod over the right of Canadians to have their case heard and representations made on their behalf.
The Government is trying to defend the indefensible. It is trying to put forward a case that somehow or other a Bill that goes to the very heart of this country can be dismissed as a peripheral or marginal matter. We have spent more time in this House debating a sales tax on dog food than the Government will allow us to debate this country's future. That is the hard reality. We can cite Bill after Bill where this Parliament has had a fair opportunity to be heard. Members have had a fair opportunity to put forward the case for their constituents region by region, community by community. Yet an omnibus Bill which will affect 28 Acts of Parliament covering energy, investment, agriculture, natural resources, indeed every part of Canada, will not be debated because there is insufficient time for Members to make their case. That is an incredible example of the kind of arrogance and indifference the Government shows toward the parliamentary process.
There is no way it can be sugar coated. There is no way the Government can create the big lie that there has been a full opportunity to be heard. I defy any member of the Conservative Party to stand up and tell us how much time we have spent in debate on the hundreds of pages of the Bill now before this House. I will tell them. Less than two days. That is the sum total of time allocated for debate on a document affecting the future of this country.
I think members of the Conservative Party should be well aware of the latest poll published on Friday which shows that since they announced this initiative two and a half years ago, when they had 70 per cent in support, their support has dropped to a minority. With each week and month that goes by they lose support. This latest poll shows the opposition are now in the majority and that is why we have closure. They know the longer this Bill is debated, the more opportunity Canadians will have to see what is in it and the quicker the Conservative's case will be lost.
I remind the House that two and a half years ago, when the Government put forward its original proposal, we saw a cabinet document on the communications strategy. That document said the only way to still this deal is not to tell Canadians what is in it. The only way Conservatives could make sure of their case was to hide the real implications.


Mr. Kempling:: Produce the document.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have the document and I will table it. I will be glad to table it. I hope the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) will read it. The document said that the more Canadians know about the deal, the more opposition there will be. They were right.
The Government is using the traditions of this House in its attempt to sell a bad deal which it knows cannot stand up to the light of public exposure. We know once this Bill is in committee there will be a further effort to steamroll over the rights of Parliament and deny Canadians the right to be heard. We have seen it before in committee and we will see it again.
We say regardless of the merits of the issue, which must be debated, what must be respected are the rights of this institution. Yet the Conservative Party of Canada is trampling on those rights. That is why there is no longer a Progressive Conservative Party. They are acting as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has always acted, as a branch plant of the U.S. Republican Party.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, my grandfather, when he was 22, I think, joined the Conservative Party because he saw it then as a party of decency and honesty, a party that would stand up for the rights of this country. He saw it as a Party that believed in the independence of this country, one that could make its way in this world on its own, with pride, self respect and a sense of confidence. If he were alive today this would be a tragic day for him.
To try to convince me to become a Conservative, he looked at the pipeline debate in 1956 and the Liberal Party. He said that is the kind of Party that will do this sort of thing to this country. It will sell us out to the Americans; it will run roughshod over the rights of Parliament. The Conservative Party, he said to me, and I remember it very clearly, would never do that to the rights of Parliament and the rights of the people of Canada. Yet here today we have the final act in a shameful set of episodes which have marked this Bill's passage, this accord's development, this concept's progress throughout the last two and a half to three years. It is shameful.
The Government is making a complete U-turn with respect to the commitments it made before the election. It is shamefully ignoring the recommendations of committees that looked at this issue in detail. It is shamefully and desperately trying to keep every possible piece of information hidden from the public. It is shamefully running roughshod over the rules of Parliament to extend this sitting just so it can please its friends in Washington.


John R. Rodriguez: Its bosses.


Steven W. Langdon: Perhaps, but I think the Conservatives have taken the position they have not because they have been ordered to, but because they have lost their confidence in this
July 4, 1988

country. Why? For reasons that, fortunately, the opposition Parties have not been able to follow along with.
We see a shameful, disgraceful performance which has wiped out, at each stage throughout this discussion, the democratic rights of the people of Canada. This is the most anti-democratic process which I, as an economic historian, have seen take place in this country since it was formed 121 years ago. This anti-democratic process now meets its culmination in the decision that, after two and one half days of debate on the 27 different Bills which are amended by this piece of legislation, the Government has decided it has had enough.
1 can understand why the Government has had enough, because it is losing the debate and being hurt by it. The consequence, as seen in the polls, is that the overwhelming position of support with which the Government started out has shrunk to a minority of Canadians, which minority, I predict, will shrink further and further as people find out more and more about the ridiculous sell-out which the Government is now forced into by this motion. We cannot stop it. You cannot stop a raging mad elephant when it is charging.
We must recognize, however, that this is what is behind the laugh. The Government decided it would try the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), that he would get the country laughing so much that it would forget what was happening to it, that the country would laugh itself into dependence, laugh itself into becoming a colony. It did not work. Instead, I predict that the Minister will laugh himself into political oblivion with statements such as that he had not even read what he was responsible for trying to tell the nation as being for its very best, for its very future.
It is a sad sell-out, a sell-out which cannot be defended by the weak and ridiculous arguments of the Deputy House Leader who has tried to tell us a set of things, only one of which is true. He said that big Canada is in favour of this Bill and small Canada is against it. Well, I am pleased and proud to be able to speak for the small people of this country, for the small towns, and for the small cities. These are the people who stand for the true values of this country and have stood for them since Borden had to fight Laurier. They have stood for them throughout the course of our history and will stand for them in the future. This fight is not finished. This fight is just moving into its next phase and it will ultimately demolish the Government rather than demolishing this country.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, in opening this debate or sharing my comments with you, 1 must, like you and, I assume, all the other persons present here today, conclude that the reaction of our opponents, the opponents of the Free Trade Agreement and of prosperity for Canada, has not been very original and has provided few surprises today. I cannot say we are really
Time Allocation
surprised by what we have just heard from the representative of the Liberal Party of Canada, and even less by what the New Democratic Party's representative has said. There was very little originality in their statements.

I was a bit amused by the comments of my two colleagues who preceded me. The Member from the Liberal Party was full of secret documents. For a while I thought he would get out his secret decoder ring and give us an idea of what is really in those documents. As for the NDP, I guess the attitude has not changed. The Member only repeated today what they said from the very beginning, that they would fight this concept in any way imaginable and would use every tactic in the book to do so. That is what the NDP is on the record as saying, so this was really no surprise today.
When my hon. colleague, the Deputy House Leader, said that those who think we should have a small Canada are opposed to the trade agreement, he was referring to people like those within the Liberal and New Democratic Parties who would rather have a small Canada, a Canada which has no ambition and which does not want to prosper. That, and nothing else, is what he was referring to. We very proudly represent in this House all Canadians from all parts of Canada.

Madam Speaker, to understand fully the meaning of our debate, I think it would be worth taking at least a few minutes to see exactly what is involved, and it cannot be pointed out too often that Canada is an exporting country. In referring to this debate and the Free Trade Agreement, this basic fact must be borne in mind. Canada is probably the country whose gross domestic product depends most on its exports. That means Canada is probably the country that depends most on its exports to put bread and butter on the table. That, in essence, is Canada. And everyone agrees that this is so; even my colleagues in the federal Liberal Party and my colleague in the New Democratic Party agree. The fact is that more than one of every three jobs in Canada depends on exports.
Plainly the issue we are debating today is by no means an insignificant one for us, for our country. That is clear. If more than one Canadian in three depends on exports for their jobs, then this question is of the utmost importance. It is a question of the utmost importance when you look at our relations with the United States, because 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States. Around 23 per cent of our gross domestic product here in Canada depends on our trade with the United States. That is what we are talking about today. So it is a question of the utmost importance.
Madam Speaker, the three federal political Parties agree on the fact that Canada is an exporting country, and that it must remain an exporting country. The divergence of opinion comes when we discuss the means that must be employed to try to maintain our existing export capacity.

July 4, 1988
Time Allocation
In recent years there has been an important change of perspective, I think, a change that must be taken into account and that must be explained more clearly, so that the people of Canada can understand their government's motivation. I am referring here to our attitude, if you like, our political will, our approach to trade, from the Second World War to roughly the 1980s. During that period, that is to say since World War II, there has been an intensification of the economies of Canada and the United States, which was accelerated by the war effort.
From that time to the 1980s, Canada's perspective on its trade relations was always more or less the same. Our intention, our will, were always directed toward being able to diversify our trade relations, because we realized that we were very dependent on a single market, that of the United States. To give you an idea of the form this took, in 1960 Prime Minister Diefenbaker wanted to diversify our trade relations toward Great Britain, arguing that we should not put all our eggs in one basket. That was the political thinking of the day. In 1976, the Trudeau government signed a general agreement with the European Economic Community, with about the same aim in view as Mr. Diefenbaker had had: to diversify our trade relations toward partners other than the United States, because we were largely dependent, and at the time thought to be too dependent, on that one market.
In 1980 the so-called third option was formulated, that is to say, an attempt to step up trade relations, this time with the developing countries, with, as always, the additional objective of making ourselves less dependent on the American market.
Madam Speaker, the great change occurred in the early years of this decade, particularly after the recession. The approach changed, and instead of having a continental vision of its trade, Canada has slowly but surely developed a more global vision of its policy and international trade.
The first sign of change occurred in 1982, when a Senate Committee, mandated in 1974 to study our relations with the United States, published a report which I can only assume my Liberal colleagues know well, since it was they who published it in 1982. This report recommended that the government of the day sign a free trade agreement with the United States.
So this is not a new proposal. And when my colleague from Winnipeg tells us that he has not studied the report, and that this is a question that has simply appeared from nowhere, and that we are going into it with our eyes closed-well, then I think there is quite a gap between that and the facts, Madam Speaker. Already in 1982 there was a Senate Committee, chaired by a Liberal Senator, recommending unanimously that we sign a free trade agreement with the United States.
And what did the Liberal government of the day do? In 1983 it issued a discussion paper on that very topic, Canada's trade relations. Again in 1983, in one of its Speeches from the Throne, the Liberal government of the day announced its intention of undertaking sectoral negatiations, Madam
Speaker. What a surprise! Already, in 1983-wait for it, I'm getting there-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean J. Charest: -I'm getting there. Already, in 1983, Madam Speaker, let's see what came of those sectoral negotiations, since my Liberal friends are wondering.
In a speech made in Washington on October 11, 1985, a speech given by none other than the Honourable Marc Lalonde, a Cabinet Minister in the same Liberal government I referred to a minute ago, Mr. Lalonde explained why the sectoral negotiations had not been successful: First of all he explained in his speech, which I have here, Madam Speaker, that because of the very nature of the negotiations, it was very difficult to reach an agreement, because one sector was connected to the next. The second reason, he said, was that basically the negotiations had never really got off the ground. This second reason reflects the fact that there was little political will on either side of the border in favour of a deal of this kind. So those were the reasons given by Marc Lalonde, Minister of Finance at the time, to explain why the federal Liberals' initiative had failed.
Next stage: in 1985, the Prime Minister and the President of the United States met at the Irish Summit and mandated their respective Trade Ministers to undertake consultations on the possibility of reaching an agreement.
At that point, Canada's Minister of International Trade did an extensive tour throughout the country to find out from business people and all the other interested groups what they thought about free trade and any other proposals they wanted to discuss. In 1985, Madam Speaker! In the summer of 1985, an initial Parliamentary Committee was set up to study the question. In the fall of 1985, more presicely in the month of September, that Parliamentary Committee submitted its report, recommending the signing of the free trade agreement. The two Ministers, American and Canadian, submitted their reports to their respective Heads of Government, the Prime Minister and the President, recommending that they undertake negotiations with a view to signing a free trade agreement. But the final touch was undoubtedly the publication of the Macdonald Commission report, on September 5, 1985. This Commission was chaired by a former Liberal Finance Minister, Donald Macdonald, who recommended unequivocally that the Canadian government undertake negotiations to reach an agreement on free trade with the United States.
I will point out in passing that Mr. Macdonald, your former Liberal Minister of Finance, today supports the free trade agreement that we are recommending to the country.
So no one can say now that this came out of nowhere. That's crazy! It's poking fun at the people of Canada. Basically that's what you're doing today. You're making fun of the people of Canada and denying they have any brains, when you try to make out that they haven't been consulted about this. But this isn't the first time, either.
July 4, 1988

Madam Speaker, our colleagues tell us today that they haven't been consulted and so on. Fine. Then can the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada (Mr. Turner) tell us to what extent he had consulted the people of Canada when he got up in this House the day the Agreement was signed to say he would tear it up? An Agreement supported by Mr. Bourassa, Premier of Quebec, Mr. McKenna, Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Parizeau of Quebec, the Consumers' Association of Canada?
Madam Speaker, ordinary common sense means that the people of Canada will accept and welcome this Agreement, because Canada's economic future depends on it.
Madam Speaker, I see my time is already up. May I request the unanimous consent of the House so that I may complete my comments?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member has spoken over his time.
[ Translation]


Jean J. Charest: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


@Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the Honourable Minister of State for Youth and Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.


Jean J. Charest: At the moment my colleague from Prince Albert rose to point out that my time was up, I had already asked the House for unanimous consent to my completing my remarks.
As you see, the Opposition refuses to hear me. They don't want to hear what I have to say. I regret that very much. You are afraid to hear what we have to say.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I oppose this motion and I must begin by saying that it is shocking to see a Minister of the Crown treating a question of such great importance to our country with such lightness and frivolity.
We have in front of us the most important issue on which any Parliament in our entire history has had to make a decision. And all we get from these Ministers are weak jokes, instead of a debate on the substance of the question before us. And that question is: should we limit to only one more day debate on second reading of Bill C-130?
Madam Speaker, the Minister who just spoke, and the Acting Parliamentary House Leader, spoke of question periods, they spoke of committee studies, they spoke of discussions with the public, but there is a large hole in their argument because none of this public consultation, none of these Royal Commissions, none of these Senate Committees, none of these Committees, none of these discussions, dealt with bill C-130 or, more importantly still, with the Mulroney-
Time Allocation
Reagan Free Trade Agreement which the Bill attempts to bring into effect.

The Deputy Government House Leader and the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) have given us a long catalogue of events at which time they allege there was discussion of the free trade deal with the United States, entered into by the Conservative Government.
I suggest that there is a fundamental flaw in that argument. None of those committee hearings, none of those royal commissions, none of those exchanges in Question Period dealt in any way, shape or form, in a parliamentary sense, with the deal signed by the Conservative Government and the Government of Ronald Reagan. Specifically, they did not deal in any formal, parliamentary way with Bill C-130. It is a Bill designed to change 28 Acts of Parliament in order to make that trade deal with the United States come into effect.
What the Government is saying is that not only does it have no respect for the sovereignty and independence of the country, but at the same time it shows this by saying that it has no respect for the fundamental means of operation of our parliamentary institutions. If it had respect for the parliamentary institutions of the country, and therefore for the sovereignty and independence of the country, it would not try to choke off debate on the most important question to come before this House since Confederation after only four or five days of debate.
What does the Government have to fear by allowing the same type of discussion to carry on that the Conservative Party, when it was in opposition, insisted on and received from other Governments on measures far less important, far less serious than the trade deal with the United States? I remember the months and months and months that the Conservative Party took on measures such as the National Transportation Act and the Crow rate, both very important measures, but certainly not as fundamental as this trade deal with the United States. It would not accept this type of limitation. Yet measures of the type I have mentioned, as important as they are and as important as they were, were not as broad-ranging and as fundamental as the Government's trade deal with the United States.
I give you, Madam Speaker, one example of the absolute folly, the foolishness of the Government in trying to choke off debate on second reading of its trade deal with the United States. As yet there has not been presented to the Congress of the United States the American legislation to implement its side of the trade deal. We do not know yet exactly what it will be. We have seen the drafting instructions. But these drafting instructions are subject to negotiation between the Congress and the President. This legislation was promised to the Congress weeks ago but we have not seen it yet. We do not know exactly when it will come forward. We do not know to

July 4, 1988
Time Allocation
what extent it will tilt the Government's trade deal with the United States even further in the direction of the United States than the deal does already.
Surely it is the height of folly, a lack of real concern for the well-being of this country to try to proceed with the Bill to implement the trade deal with the United States before we know what this American legislation will state, and before we know how the Congress will react to it. This is exactly the same type of irresponsibility we have seen connected with the Government's approach to its trading relations with the United States from the very moment it came into office.
What we now have from the other side is nothing but a pile of stale jokes. First, just in the last few days we had the Minister who is in charge of this measure saying that he had not even bothered to read the deal all the way through and yet he expected Canadians to accept his salesmanship of this deal. He said that he used to sell vacuum cleaners but he never vacuumed a house. How shameful it is for the Minister for International Trade to deal with the future of the country in the same way he used to deal with vacuum cleaners. This country is more important, no matter what the Conservatives think, than a vacuum cleaner. However, when the next election comes the Conservative Party will be vacuumed up and right out of office.
If the Government really did not fear the reaction of the Canadian public to its legislation, if it really had a vision of a big Canada as distinct from a vision of a small Canada, it would say: "We don't mind that this debate goes on for several more weeks. We will also say that when this debate comes to a natural end we will allow full committee hearings across the country". In so saying this Government would say that it has confidence in itself, in its ideas, including this trade deal that it negotiated with the United States.
By trying to choke off debate at this point the Government is saying to the Canadian people that it lacks confidence in itself and in its ideas. It is saying that it knows the more the idea of the trade deal is studied and discussed and then understood by the Canadian people, the less the Canadian people will like it. This Government is showing its lack of confidence in itself. It is showing its lack of confidence in Canada. When it says, as the Minister says, that it stands for a big Canada, the vision of the Government of a big Canada is one absorbed into the United States so that there will be one big North American country dominated by Washington.
What happened to the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald which was brought forward so gloriously on July 1, 1867? What happened to the vision of successive Conservative Prime Ministers? Mr. Diefenbaker would not have gone for this deal. He would have stood up and said exactly what he thought of the cowardly and fearful Government that has replaced his vision. The current Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) did not do this. He would not have done this.
If we want to look at a non-parliamentary expression of this deal, if that counts as much as discussion and formal decision
in Parliament does, then why does the Conservative Party not look at the words of its Leader when he was seeking to head the Party? He said that when it comes to free trade with the United States, it would undermine our sovereignty and he would have none of it now or at any other time. If nonparliamentary discussion counts for the Conservative Party, then let it give full weight to the words of its current Leader when he sought the leadership of his Party and when he seemed to be speaking for all time. We now see how empty those words were, just like everything else he has been saying ever since, just like everything the Conservative Party has been saying.
The Conservative Party does not care about Parliament. In presenting this motion it showed that it does not care about Canada. That is why we should vote against this motion and press the Government to call an election as soon as possible so that it can be shown that while the Conservative Party does not care about Canada, Canadians care about their country. They will get rid of the Government. They will be the ones who will save Canada.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak on free trade and its significance in Hastings- Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. I certainly support the Government's initiative in time allocation.
It is important that people understand the benefits of free trade, the potential it offers for growth, for investment and for jobs. The federal Government sought an agreement that would limit trade harassment. We wanted to end tariffs between our two countries. We wanted an agreement that would govern the important areas of trade and services and government procurement.
From the beginning it was made clear what would not be at issue in the negotiations-our political sovereignty, our unique cultural identity, our social programs, or our commitment to fight regional disparities.
When the federal Government embarked on negotiating freer trade with the U.S. we understood that Canada, and all its regions, depend on trade for our prosperity. We set out to achieve a bilateral agreement with the United States, our largest trading partner, while at the same time pursuing global negotiations and initiatives.
In my view the freer trade agreement negotiated with the United States presents eastern Ontario with its greatest opportunity ever to catch up with other parts of this, our great Province of Ontario, and other manufacturing sectors. Furthermore, it allows us to maintain a share in high quality, high-skilled jobs which young people seek as their future career choices, their future career options.
That is the message I am hearing from business, from professionals and from academics in eastern Ontario. The people who understand what the vocal opponents of free trade do not is that in this modern world there are linkages between
July 4, 1988

trade, technology and investment which hold the key to prosperity-


Steven W. Langdon: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a very important debate. Since there is such limited time, it seems to me that it is crucial that the people who take part in this debate actually deal with the subject matter of the motion in front of us, which is not what the Hon. Member is doing. The Hon. Member is not explaining why the Conservatives are cutting off debate.


John Horton McDermid: I rise on the same point of order, Madam Speaker. We have heard speeches from the Opposition today on their opposition to the free trade agreement. That is all we have heard from over there. The odd person has mentioned the debate. We have listened to the Opposition flail away at free trade. The Hon. Member has full rights to speak for free trade which is beneficial to this country.


James Douglas Manly: I would like to point out, Madam Speaker, if we did not have this motion before us and allowed a full debate the Hon. Member would be able to speak on Bill C-130. At the present time we are debating a motion to bring in time allocation, and the Hon. Member should be speaking to that motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.


William John Vankoughnet: I mentioned earlier that I favoured time allocation because we must move with this important trade legislation to get on with the governing of the country, not the frivolousness the NDP and its social policies. To date, opponents of free trade have fought this initiative not through engaging the federal Government in debate on the merits of what the agreement contains, but by raising the spectre of dangers that do not exist, a process designed to confuse the public.
Thomas d'Aquino, President of the Business Council on National Issues, has characterized those tactics as "intellectual terrorism". The opposition Parties would have the public believe that free trade is a threat to our culture, our social programs, our identity as a distinct people, and will inevitably lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.
This is not the first time that the federal Government has heard such criticism from the opposition Parties. One point that should be stressed is the opponents of free trade are largely those who said that our other policies would doom the nation; that the pursuit of deficit reduction was single-minded cruelty which would cost the country thousands of jobs. We endured that criticism then, and we persevered in our policies because we knew we were right. They said our policies would cost tens of thousands of jobs. We said our policies would create an environment in which tens of thousands of jobs would be created.
Time Allocation
Over 1,228,000 jobs have been created since 1984. In my riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, unemployment is now at its lowest point in over a decade. With such new industries as Goodyear and D. & E. Wood and the multiplier effect that this will have, unemployment will be reduced and new economic activities will be created.
These are the national results of national policies. These are the job creating industries and are not only producing for Canadian markets, but for North American and world markets. The results will be a boon to eastern Ontario, and an opportunity for youth and for jobs in this country.
When people attempt to hold up government legislation as important as Bill C-130,1 have no alternative but to support a Government that wants to get on with governing and doing what is right for the people of Canada who want to work.
Under the free trade agreement, for the first time, world-class Ontario businessmen and services will be able to expand and grow as they seize the new opportunities available through this agreement. The new rules governing services and regarding temporary work in the United States will put our service industries and professionals on a level playing field. There is no part of Canada better positioned to seize these opportunities than the border regions of eastern Ontario.
A second sector for opportunity in this area is our manufacturing sector. This agreement will enable the manufacturing sector to grow from its Canadian base, encouraging new investment in world-scale Canadian enterprises. No province has more to gain under free trade than Ontario. Its economy was built on trade with the United States. Today, 90 per cent of Ontario's exports go to the United States. In turn, the United States provides 83 per cent of Ontario's imports.
In addition to the benefits offered by free trade's phase-out of tariffs over 10 years, we stand to gain from the $4 billion U.S. government purchasing market which will now be opened to Ontario firms. This is of particular importance to eastern Ontario. We have sought this opportunity for more than 20 years, and firms, particularly in my riding, are ready and able to take advantage of it.
It should be no surprise then that spokesmen for our manufacturing sector have called this agreement a great agreement for Canada and welcome it with open arms. When I hear the enthusiasm of existing industries and their plans for expansion through a freer trade agreement, I am convinced that the days of eastern Ontario being short-changed in manufacturing and employment opportunities are numbered.
Another opportunity lies in resource industries, both agriculture and forestry. I recognize that some people were worried about free trade posing a threat to the dairy industry. It is not surprising that they were frightened. The critics of free trade were consciously raising that fear. Of course, they were the same people who said our economic program would cause a loss of thousands of jobs. They were wrong about the jobs, and they were wrong about marketing boards. As

July 4, 1988
Time Allocation
promised at the outset of the negotiations, the marketing board systems with regulated returns and quota allocation are preserved under the free trade agreement. They were never at risk, except in the minds of people who wanted to scare the farm community. Dairy farmers will continue to enjoy the income stability of long term federal dairy policy which the Government has implemented.
In the forestry sector, industry should benefit from the gradual reduction of tariffs, barriers which have prevented us from processing wood even further prior to export-exporting jobs. That is extremely important for the region, because value added processing creates the potential for more jobs to be created here in Ontario.
Finally, a very important factor in the future development of eastern Ontario is small business development. The federal Government has introduced a variety of policies since 1984 to encourage small business development in Canada. We believe that the free trade agreement will further stimulate this growth. That is not only our opinion. It is the opinion of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Federation President John Bullock has stated that small business in this country should be excited about the opportunities for greater investment in Canada, terming the agreement a "once in a lifetime opportunity for Canada" which will also help us with greater European and Asian investment.
More important, secure access to the United States market means that future Canadian business growth can take place here in Canada. It means we should at least see an end to the exodus of eastern Ontario firms when wanting to expand, set up shop across the border as a means of getting around U.S. trade barriers. The free trade agreement secures the gains already made, and opens new windows of opportunity for greater growth.
I have outlined why I believe free trade is eastern Ontario's best bet for greater diversification and more growth, and why I support time allocation. I do so because I believe the greatest danger to our Canadian way of life lies not in the prosperity of freer trade, but lies in the property of protectionism, and our inability to afford regional development and social and cultural programs which reflect Canadian values.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member who just spoke debate the merits of Bill C-130. I wish that this motion had not been brought in that will limit this debate; that the Hon. Member would have been able to make his case when we are debating Bill C-130, instead of when we are debating this motion which will choke off that debate.
Parliament is a place for speaking, and parliamentary democracy is based upon the right of members of this House to be able to speak out on issues. There is no issue that has been before the Canadian people since Confederation, 121 years ago, that is more fundamental to our future as a nation than this, and yet this Government is choking off debate on this
issue after we have had two and a half days of debate on it. It is the most fundamental question facing Canada today, facing us as to the future of our country, the future of our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.
Speaking of great grandchildren, it is a pleasure to have in the gallery today the great grandchild of Oliver J. Wilcox, a member of the Conservative Government of Robert Borden, elected in Essex in 1911, that helped to defeat the Laurier Government on the issue of a trade deal with the United States. Because of his strong feelings, John Wilcox has made a pilgrimage across Canada with specialty licence plates from British Columbia saying "no deal", trying to alert Canadians to the danger of the trade agreement.
This Government wants to choke off that kind of process. It does not want people in Parliament to be speaking about this issue. It does not want the people of Canada to be talking about it. Instead, a strategy paper from the Government said:
The strategy should rely less on educating the general public than on getting
across the message that the trade initiative is a good idea. In other words, a
selling job... Benign neglect from a majority of Canadians may be the
realistic outcome of a well-executed communications plan.
In other words, this Government wants to sell Canadians on the idea of free trade in the same way that the present Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), who has not read the agreement, said the other day that he used to sell vacuum cleaners and encyclopaedias. They see selling Canada on the issue of free trade as basically on that level. We reject that. We see the whole way in which the Government has dealt with this process as being fundamentally dishonest. The dishonesty began back in 1983 when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was campaigning to be the Leader of the Conservative Party. He, along with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), were asked what they thought about the idea of a trade agreement with the United States, about free trade. They rejected it. They gave good reasons why it should be rejected.


An Hon. Member:: What did the Prime Minister say?


James Douglas Manly: The Prime Minister pointed out that Canadians rejected free trade back in 1911 and they would reject it again in 1983. Of course, they will reject it in 1988, when they finally get an opportunity.
The first people that were betrayed by this Government were the members of the Conservative Party because the Prime Minister campaigned for leadership of the Conservative Party on a platform where he said that it would be foolish for Canada to enter into free trade. He was seconded on that by other Ministers in his Cabinet.
Then in 1984 we had an election. Did we hear anything from the Prime Minister about a free trade agreement with the United States? No. He promised that he was going to end
July 4, 1988

patronage. He promised that he would clean up corruption. He did not say we would be entering into this kind of trade agreement with the United States. He did not exactly keep the other promises either about the ending of patronage and the end of corruption.
In September, 1985, suddenly we were told that Canada had entered into negotiations with the United States on this agreement. For the next two years Canadians were basically kept in the dark about what was happening. It was the mushroom society that this communications strategy talked about.


An Hon. Member:: Explain.


James Douglas Manly: Do not educate the people about what is actually happening, just get across the idea that free trade is a good idea, then maybe the people will go to sleep.


An Hon. Member:: Leave them in the dark.


James Douglas Manly: It is the mushroom society. Keep people in the dark, feed them lots of manure and let the idea grow. The mushroom society is not good enough for Canada in 1988. The House was kept in the dark when we asked questions. Provinces were kept in the dark and, of course, the Canadian people were kept in the dark.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true.


James Douglas Manly: The Hon. Member says it is not true. When were we told that energy was part of this agreement? I remember a debate in which the former Minister for International Trade said: "I will tell you what is in the agreement". She did not mention energy. We were assured time after time after time that culture was not on the table and yet when we look at this agreement we see that it is very much on the table.
Last fall there was a last minute agreement. This Government was so anxious to get that agreement that it caved in on its fundamental concerns. It caved in on the energy issue caved in on culture. We did not get any guaranteed access to U.S. markets. We did not get any binding dispute settlement mechanism, which is what the Government was really seeking.
What we have is a document that gives Americans access to our country and gives us very little in return. It gives big business in Canada some access to markets in the United States, but what is that going to do for the average Canadian? Following that we had a charade of committee hearings; one day in British Columbia to hear all the concerns of British Columbians, pro and con, on this agreement. These committee meetings had to take place before the committee even had the final text of the agreement.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


James Douglas Manly: That was only provided in the last two or three days of those committee hearings. They had this charade, this whistle-stopping across the country, setting up a dog and pony show in each of the provinces to hear for a few hours the
Time Allocation
concerns of the provinces about this trade deal. Then the Prime Minister signed it. He went through the committee meetings so that he could sign it on January 2. We were promised the legislation for February. The legislation was not tabled until May 24. Now the Government wants to rush it through. After only two and a half to three days of debate, it is introducing time allocation. They want to get this through as quickly as possible because they know that the more Canadians know and understand about this agreement, the more they will oppose it.
This travesty of a second reading debate raises some very serious questions about the way in which the legislative committee is going to deal with this debate after second reading. How is the committee going to handle it? Is it going to have the time to study adequately this Bill and its ramifications for the Canadian people? The Parliamentary Secretary nods his head. Well, we will be interested in the answers that the Government gives to this. Will we be able to look at all of the issues and not just, as the Minister for International Trade says, "kind of skim over it quickly"? Are we going to be able to travel coast to coast and to hear people-


An Hon. Member:: He says no.


James Douglas Manly: The Parliamentary Secretary says no. We will not be able to travel, according to the Parliamentary Secretary.


An Hon. Member:: They are not interested in what the people think.


James Douglas Manly: They are not interested in what the people of British Columbia say. They are not interested in what the people of Newfoundland say about this.


An Hon. Member:: At least we listened to Canadians.


James Douglas Manly: It goes back to what the Minister of State (Mr. Lewis) said, that this Government has listened to big Canada. They are not prepared to listen to small Canada, to the people in Kelowna and Penticton who are concerned about the wine industry. They are not concerned about listening to those people.


An Hon. Member:: That is right.


James Douglas Manly: They are not concerned about listening to the fisher people on the Pacific coast or on the Atlantic coast.


An Hon. Member:: They are arrogant. They are as arrogant as Trudeau was.


James Douglas Manly: They say big Canada favours this. Their notion of big Canada is big business. We are opposed to this time allocation because we believe this issue is so fundamentally important that all Members of this House should have the right to speak. The Canadian people should have the right to know what is in this deal and what is involved in this sell-out agreement.

July 4, 1988
Time Allocation


An Hon. Member:: And how it affects them. Right on.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Point of order, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


John Horton McDermid: Yes, Madam Speaker. Before you recognize the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's speech-


An Hon. Member:: What is your point of order?


John Horton McDermid: I will come to my point of order in just a moment, and his point about allowing time to debate.
I am making an offer now that at one o'clock we do not see the clock and we carry on with this debate until the two hours are up. That will give the Opposition more time to debate Bill C-130 this afternoon, starting at three o'clock. If the Opposition disagrees with this offer it is, of course, cutting into its own debating time on the Bill.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is only one group in this House who are cutting off debate and it is the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues. We will not agree and be complicit in their further frustration and dereliction of responsibility in this House.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I think the House should be reminded that it was this Government that brought in the closure motion here today. If the Government were really interested in Members of Parliament expressing their views on Bill C-130, the Government should not have brought in the closure motion, and should allow Members of Parliament to debate fully the whole free trade deal. That is what the Government should have done. It should not be putting this phoney suggestion forward-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Timiskaming. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor on a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: A point of order, Madam Speaker. This kind Of grandstanding ploy-


John Horton McDermid: There is no point of order. It was turned down.


Steven W. Langdon: -on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary may look to people who are watching or reporting as if somehow he has made some-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The Chair fails to see the point of order in the Hon. Member's intervention at this time. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Timiskaming.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, what I want to contribute to this debate today is an Ontario perspective. As the Member of Parliament for Timiskaming, I
have focused a great deal of my attention on the merits of free trade in northern Ontario.


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


Steven W. Langdon: If I recall, Madam Speaker, you recognized the Parliamentary Secretary without him saying anything about a point of order.


John Horton McDermid: I was on a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: The Member did not say that at the start of his intervention. You simply recognized him, Madam Speaker. I think that, in fact, is the Conservatives' chance to make a contribution to the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The "blues" will show that the Hon. Member had risen on a point of order. I certainly recognized him on a point of order. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that we both wait until the "blues" are ready. If necessary, we can discuss the matter again. The Hon. Member for Timiskaming. The Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, if you are reserving judgment in this case, as it appears to me you are until we see the "blues", it would seem that one would then have to go to the next representative of a political Party who has the right to speak other than someone from the Conservative Party. If the "blues" show that, in fact, the Parliamentary Secretary did rise saying "a point of order", then that can be made up for later. I think if you are reserving judgment one would have to follow that course of action.


John Horton McDermid: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On the same point of order, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is an Hon. Member. I think he will accept my word. I rose and said "on a point of order" and "Before you recognize the Hon. Member for Timiskaming". That is what I said. If he does not want to take my word, that is fine. The light may not have been on when I did it, but I did say it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I have no problem with the Parliamentary Secretary thinking that that is what he sought to say.


An Hon. Member:: You are eating up your own time.


Steven W. Langdon: But he did not, in fact, say so, at least as far as I heard it, and I have heard a great deal from him this morning from across the floor. He is not one of the least quiet of the Members in this Chamber.
July 4, 1988

I would respectfully suggest that if you are, as you suggested, reserving your decision that it should now be a member of the Liberal Party who gets the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I can assure the Hon. Member that I recognized the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on a point of order. I heard him say so. What I merely suggested to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor was that he may want to wait until he sees the "blues" and he would say that it was on a point of order that the Hon. Member was recognized. After recognizing many Hon. Members I gave the floor to the Hon. Member for Timiskam-ing who I think would like to continue with his intervention after being interrupted on quite a few occasions. The Hon. Member.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I did not realize this was going to be such an important speech with all of the points of order that we have heard.
Today I would like to take more of a province-wide perspective. Trade is an issue of considerable importance to Ontario, particularly the trade deal with the United States. Fully 90 per cent of all Ontario's exports go to the United States while 83 per cent of this province's imports come from south of the border. That is why the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is so important for Ontario.
We sought an agreement that would secure and enhance our access to the vital U.S. market. We fought hard for Ontario's interest and we have a great deal to show for our efforts. Unfortunately, there is some misunderstanding about the agreement in Ontario, especially with Queen's Park-


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


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, it is absolutely scandalous in my view that the Conservatives should use up this short period of time which is given over to discussing their antidictatorial behaviour by putting speeches on the record with respect to the trade deal itself. There should be lots of time to make that sort of speech in the future. The Member is not addressing what this Government is doing to Parliament and the rights of Canada. It is crucial for you to instruct the Member to make his speech with reference to the motion on the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Timiskaming.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I have always thought that we had the freedom of choice to speak in a debate. I can see here again where the elements of the socialist Party are different from the elements of ours. What I would like to
say-


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


Steven W. Langdon: First, Madam Speaker, the Member has attributed certain motives which is against the rules of order of this House. Second, the Member has still not recognized the fact that the motion we are debating is the motion to limit time to talk about the trade deal, it is not the motion to talk about the trade deal itself. I ask you to rule on that point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure that if the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor and other Hon. Members had shown a little bit of patience, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming would have found a way to make a link with the motion in front of the House. I think that for the Chair to be that strict on the point of relevancy at this point would only scuttle the debate, which is not what any Hon. Members of this House want to do at this time.
As it is one o'clock, I will now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the destruction of 290 lives aboard an Iranian passenger plane as it crossed the Persian Gulf yesterday is an action that cries out to heaven. For its cruel and final nature, it ranks with the shooting down of the Korean airliner in 1983 when innocent lives were also taken for the same argument, namely, that the off-course airplane allegedly posed a threat.
There is a peculiar similarity between the two superpowers in reacting to the two tragic events. Both expressed regret about the shooting, but still defended the legitimacy of such an act. Where the similarity ends is with the unwarranted presence in the Persian Gulf of the U.S. fleet engaged in a role that endangers more the seeking of peace in that region than it prevents war.
As a parliamentarian, I wish to put on record my sense of grief and horror at this senseless act in the hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will transmit it to Iranian and American parliamentarians. Our sorrow is about the fact that such a tragedy can still happen, that innocent civilians die because of unjustifiable and condoned acts of war-mongering.

July 4, 1988



PERFORMING ARTS


Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, more good news from Montreal, Canada's international city. Along with Expo 67, the Olympics in 1976, and its international image in so many fields, this week Montreal celebrates-
[ Translation]
... the ninth Festival international de jazz de Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, what a show!
In fact, it's not one show but a whole series of shows in various theatres, at the Place des arts, in small nightclubs and even on the streets.

This year's festival will attract over half a million local and international visitors to Montreal's St. Denis district, and all Montrealers can be proud knowing that our city is recognized around the world as a vibrant and exciting host and cultural wonderland.
[ Translation]
I would like to mention the tremendous work done by Alain Simard, founder and president of the Festival de jazz de Montreal, by Andre Menard, Daniel Harvey and the 500 members on the team who help to make this event such a success.

It is a success, with the sounds of the world's best jazz performers, including some home-grown talent like Trevor Payne and the Jubilation Gospel Choir, Karen Young, with Michael Donato, and Oliver Jones, to name but a few. To all the organizers and participants-

Congratulations and have a wonderful festival!



IMMIGRATION


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the thousands of Canadians, many of whom live in my city of Winnipeg, who are seeking to reunify their families through the legal procedures set down in our Immigration Act. They follow the law despite knowing that reunification will face long delays because Immigration Canada is woefully understaffed, particularly in Asiatic countries.
If a would-be immigrant is a wealthy business person, the story is quite different. There are immigration consultants and lawyers in Canada who are busily soliciting clients in places
like Hong Kong, offering Canadian citizenship for those wealthy enough to qualify for the business classification. Yet these same business people are told by their advisers that Canadian law is so full of loopholes that it is not necessary to give up present citizenship, to set up legitimate investments in Canada, or even to live in Canada at all.
Is this the kind of law we want for persons entering Canada? Is this the kind of person we want entering Canada? Is this fair treatment for the thousands of Canadians who are following the law to get family members into Canada? The answer to these questions is an emphatic no, and the Government must implement a fairer system for all future Canadians.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride, as a Conservative, that I rise today to bring to the attention of the House that the Government is to provide up to $76.5 million to help western livestock producers cope with the drought that is devastating the Prairies. Together with the provincial Governments, this initiative will assist producers with up to $153 million. This will include a payment for breeding livestock in severely hit areas of up to $60 per head.
The Saskatchewan producers will receive up to $39 million under this plan. For Alberta and Manitoba, the figures are $44 million and $17 million.
The drought relief package will also provide payment of $15 an acre for greenfeed assistance, up to a total of $53 million. This is a boost to the supply of feed and a help for soil conservation.
Together the programs address the drought situation in a comprehensive way and the per head payment allows producers themselves to act in a way that best suits their individual operations. The Government has once again illustrated its strong commitment to the needs of Canadian agriculture and will continue to do so in the future.



CALL FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON BIRTH TECHNOLOGY

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, for months now, researchers in the fields of medicine, ethics, and the law have been calling on the Government to set up a Royal Commission to explore the emerging field of birth technology.
July 4, 1988

I personally have called upon the Government to react to these calls in this very House.
I rise again today because, tragically, we have reached a point where our scientific knowledge exceeds our abilities to make decisions in this field, and some form of action must be taken. This is a moral, social and political issue that cannot be ignored. To do so would be to condemn our society to live with the consequences of the unregulated contracting out of wombs, the possibility of unregulated fetal experimentation, and the commercialization of our most basic relationships. Once again I call on the Government to set up a Royal Commission in the hope that it will address its responsibilities.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Government for proving again that it supports Canadian farmers. As is the habit of this Government, it has consulted broadly with provincial officials and the producers before announcing its part of the $ 153-million drought aid package. This package is designed to help all livestock producers and allows them to choose from an array of options.
Producers can decide if they wish to transport cattle to feed or feed to cattle. They can choose to sell their cattle and restock next year without a tax penalty. Late seeding to produce greenfeed is encouraged.
Grain farmers in western Canada and Ontario still face the damage brought on by this drought. Last week the drought damage in my riding was severely compounded by frost. I know that grain farmers can expect a reasoned response from the Government.
As a member of the Ontario caucus, I applaud the actions of the Government and its support of western farmers. This Government has shown farmers again that when it states its commitment to farmers it can be believed without question.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday's Montreal Gazette reported on a public opinion poll which indicated that 70 per cent of Canadians want Canada Post to put improved service before profits. It went on to
indicate that the survey, conducted by Angus Reid Associates, found that the vast majority would prefer to receive the best possible postal service, even if it means a post office budget deficit that would have to be covered by tax dollars.
There has been a battle of the polls with the Government. This is a scientific poll done on a random sample basis. The kind of polls the Government has been quoting have been done in selected communities and are not random samples. As well, the questions have been biased. It is time for the Government to recognize that Canadians want good postal service. Canadians want the Government to watch the pennies, but they want it to provide service as the number one priority.
To be fair, the poll also indicated that 22 per cent said that the Crown corporation's top priority should be to avoid losing money. That is the portion of the population that the Government is playing to, the portion of the population that will support the cuts in rural services and discriminatory policies in suburban locations.
It is time for the Government to get its priorities straight, to hear what the Opposition is saying and to understand that the Opposition is reflecting public opinion. It is time the Government stopped accusing us of lying when we represent the majority in Canada and we ask for service to be the number one priority at the Post Office rather than the under-cutting of the service Canadians receive.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, as each day passes, the backlog in Canada's refugee processing system grows larger. The backlog could reach 80,000 by the end of the year, and if an election were to be held now, government Bills C-55 and C-84 presently in the Senate would die. The backlog would double before new legislation could be drawn up and passed.
The Liberal controlled other place is responsible for making Canada a haven for bogus refugees, as well as harming our integrity and reputation in the world community. The Canadian taxpayer is footing the full bill for these individuals, of whom the overwhelming majority are liars and cheaters.
What a shame that the Liberal controlled other place, after a year of studying the two Bills, is placing cheap partisan politics above the interests of Canada and Canadians.

July 4, 1988



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the people of South East New Brunswick still have no news about the eligible period for unemployment insurance. Since May 10, when the Department of Employment and Immigration extended the eligible period from ten to sixteen weeks, residents of South East New Brunswick have been signing endless petitions to object to this decision. Workers in South East New Brunswick want the Minister to know how hard it is to find employment for more than ten weeks. Those who work in fish processing plants cannot work for more than ten weeks because in some cases the fishing season only lasts that long.
The New Brunswick Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mike McKee, has met the Minister in order to discuss this problem and find a solution. The Minister of Employment and Immigration must realize that she will make things very difficult for workers in New Brunswick if she still decides to change the eligible period. I suggest the Minister should find a way to apply separate standards for urban and rural areas. The unemployment rate in rural areas is three times as high as in urban centres.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 30, a program relating to livestock producers affected by the drought was announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). To help producers maintain breeding herds the program will provide $100 million in per head payments for breeding stock in designated drought areas, as well as $53 million in payments on a $15 per acre basis for greenfeed and late seeded crops.
While the funding will be helpful, a most important aspect of the program was the announcement of tax deferral for producers who have to deplete their breeding herds as a result of these drought conditions. For many years the Canadian Cattlemen's Association requested a program of tax deferral in circumstances such as we now face. When forced sales of breeding stock take place the tax triggered makes it difficult if not impossible to rebuild the herds when conditions improve.
This is a common sense, practical approach in the best longterm interests of the industry. It does not cost taxpayers money. It does not avoid taxes. Most important, it gives the
individual livestock producer an opportunity to make the right management decision in his particular circumstances.
These changes are long overdue and I commend the Government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for responding to a legitimate concern of the industry with a simple, straightforward and practical solution.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP I wish to express shock and disapproval at the downing of an Iranian civilian airliner by an American warship in the Persian Gulf yesterday. I wish to express profound regret at the tragic loss of over 290 lives.
While the full facts behind this incident have yet to be revealed, we urge the Canadian Government to join in calling for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council and for a full UN sponsored inquiry. Both sides must co-operate in the full disclosure of messages, perceptions, and decisions made in the crisis moments leading up to the shooting. Canada must clearly communicate its disapproval to the Iranians over any acts of retribution.
This indefensible incident raises the question of U.S. deployment of air and naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Rather than discouraging attacks on shipping, they have led to increased instability and greater mutual threat. With the destructive power deployed and the tensions rampant in this region, such incidents are likely to recur.
A common security framework for the Persian Gulf must be pursued, rather than mutually antagonistic military postures. UN Resolution 598 calling for a ceasefire in the Gulf war must be reinforced with strong and comprehensive sanctions, including an arms embargo.



AGRICULTURE


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity today to inform producers that towards the end of September they will get their first payment under the federal-provincial assistance program for loss of livestock due to drought. The second payment will depend on enrolment in the crop insurance program for 1989.
July 4, 1988

I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that payments will be deferred so that the authorities can inspect the fields in the fall and assess the damage caused by drought.
We also want to give producers in other areas the assurance that Agriculture Canada is keeping a close watch on the situation in Central Canada and the Atlantic Region and also in British Columbia.
The announcement about the assistance program demonstrates this Government's commitment to producers across Canada.



THE ECONOMY


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, deregulation, privatization, and Americanization are the package which the Government has developed as a vehicle for putting Canada under the economic control of American multinationals. All three moves are based on an ideology which accepts the tenet that large corporations have the right to direct the economy of the country, indeed of the world.
Which of these policies is going to help the ordinary Canadian achieve a better life? Who do these policies benefit? Deregulation allows multinationals to operate with fewer controls. Privatization allows the Government to pass over to its multinational friends the fruits of the taxpayers' development of many years. Americanization is the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal which turns over Canadian resources to prop up the faltering economy of the U.S.
Deregulation, privatization, and Americanization, the three horsemen of the Conservative Party in power.



AGRICULTURE


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in my place today to draw Canadian's attention to yet another accomplishment by this Government on behalf of Canadian agriculture. Last year the Government made a commitment to protect Canadian agricultural producers through amendments to the Act. On Thursday the Government met this commitment and delivered on that promise, one that is important to the tender fruit industry in Lincoln.
Through the consultative process the Government was able to develop a package of amendments in tune with the needs of
Oral Questions
the industry. In short, the amendments to the Act will provide the Government with the conditions it needs to ensure a safe wholesome supply of products for consumers while, at the same time, allowing the industry to market its products in an equitable and profitable manner.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. We learned yesterday of the tragic downing of an Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf. I think I can speak for all Canadians in expressing deep sympathy and regret over this terrible incident. We also recognize that it raises serious questions about further escalation of the conflict in that area and the potential danger this represents to the security of the international aviation system.
In 1983, when we experienced the horrible tragedy of the downing of the Korean airliner, this House unanimously endorsed the actions of the Government, which were to call for an emergency session of the UN Security Council as well as special sessions of the International Civil Aviation organization to investigate the incident and deal with the problems it posed for international aviation. Does the Government intend to take similar measures in this case and ask for an emergency session of the UN Security Council and a special session of ICAO to investigate this terrible and tragic incident?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada issued a statement and I would like to repeat it.
We learned with shock and profound regret of yesterday's loss of life aboard the Iranian airliner and we extend to the bereaved our deepest sympathy. This tragic event is a grim reminder of the dangers of continued instability in that region. All concerned must recognize the need to pursue with a greater sense of urgency efforts to bring this conflict to an end.
With respect to the incident itself, we have made no decision to take either of the actions which the hon. gentleman mentioned. We will see what the countries immediately involved suggest should be pursued.
The U.S. claims that the aircraft was mistakenly identified as an Iranian F-14 on a direct course with U.S.A. warships which were at the time engaged with five Iranian gunboats which had attacked American forces in the region, and that the Airbus failed to respond to repeated warnings issued by the U.S. vessel on both military and civilian channels.

July 4, 1988
Oral Questions
We were shocked by this but there is no reason at this time to doubt the description of the events as provided by the United States. We will continue to look into this with great interest. We will take a position when we have all the facts.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO ENSURE IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked was on exactly that point, that is, to get the facts, to have a proper inquiry and investigation into all the circumstances surrounding this, based upon the representations of the countries affected the United States, Iran, and other countries in the Persian Gulf.
I do not understand why the Government is not prepared to take action now when we were able to take in 1983. The United Nations was able to respond as was the International Civil Aviation Organization. Proposals were put forward.
Considering the precedent set and the unanimous support it received in this House, why will the Government not take measures to ensure proper, effective, impartial international investigation of this tragic circumstance?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we wish to be fair we will see that the circumstances surrounding the Korean incident and those surrounding this most unfortunate incident yesterday in the Gulf are hardly similar. It was difficult to tell, for a number of days, what had happened to the Korean aircraft. There are a large number of dissimilar circumstances.
We will take a position and exercise our responsibilities as members of ICAO or as members of the United Nations if and when the matter comes before either of those bodies. We will then support what seems to be the correct and best course of action to take in the interests of humanity and the interests of Canadians. That is our duty and that is what we will do.
We are not a party immediately involved in this incident. We will do what is best for the international community of nations when this matter comes forward and is brought to the attention of these bodies by the countries immediately involved.


REQUEST THAT CANADA UNDERTAKE INITIATIVE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not believe that the best course of action would be to try to get a resolution of the circumstances and that, rather than being passive and taking no action at all, it would be far more appropriate for Canada, with the reputation which we have in ICAO and in the United Nations, to undertake an initiative before the problem escalates, before there is further retaliation, and before there are further threats and damage to the international civil aviation system?
For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the position of the Government in totally refusing to take positive, constructive action to find out the causes and to put forward
proposals and measures which might prevent these kinds of incidents from happening in the future.
Are we prepared to propose that there be special meetings to investigate? Are we prepared to ask the countries to ratify the amendments of the Chicago Convention which would provide better rules for the interception of civilian aircraft? Why will the Government not take the appropriate action to forestall future escalation of this conflict?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have explained our position and it is a sensible, reasonable, and responsible one. We have no reason to doubt the U.S. version of what occurred yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz.
As members of ICAO and the United Nations we will support whatever responsible action either of those agencies feels it is necessary to take. I believe that Iran has brought this to the attention of ICAO and has asked for an extraordinary session.
We will play our role when the time comes to play that role. In the meantime, we have no reason to doubt that the United States has given a version of the events which is incorrect. There is no evidence that its version is incorrect. I see no similarity between this and the Korean air incident. At that time it was not even admitted by the U.S.S.R. for a number of days that a Korean airliner had disappeared.

[ Translation]


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Government and I suppose that the Minister of Justice will attempt to reply to it.
The Prime Minister and the Government are tolerating a certain number of Conservative Members who are antifrancophone, anti-bilingualism and almost anti-Canadian, as they are advocating linguistic separatism. Those Conservative Members are always trying to start quarrels on bilingualism and they want to divide the country over language. The one-hundred and thirty-six amendments to the Official Languages Act that were tabled are the proof of this.
Officially, the Conservative Government supports the Official Languages Act, but on the other hand, it allows its Members to move one-hundred and thirty-six regressive amendments that are unacceptable because they derive from hatred. It is insulting and demoralizing, Mr. Speaker, to read all of the proposed amendments.
Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government or the Prime Minister will have the courage to take a stand, as
July 4, 1988

did Robert Stanfield, a former Leader of the Conservative Party, and disallow those Conservative Members who are proposing anti-bilingual, anti-francophone and anti-Canadian measures?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, our Party is the Party of national unity and the Party of healing. Those who would try to use the issue of bilingualism for their own partisan purposes do so not only at their own peril but at the peril of all the people of this country.
I would remind the hon. gentleman of that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The policy of our Party with respect to bilingualism is contained in Bill C-72 as amended by the committee which studied it for a number of weeks. Under the McGrath reform rules Members of this House now have the opportunity to put forward their own views and ideas. They are not circumscribed and entirely subservient to the leadership of the various Parties in this House, as we have all noticed in the last few months.
Not only is it our express policy to extend the principle of bilingualism in Canada, our Prime Minister gave a magnificent demonstration of his belief in those principles in Manitoba before we ever came to power. He is going to continue to give demonstration after demonstration of his belief in those principles, and we will be backing him all the way.


QUERY WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AGAINST CERTAIN PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question, and I will address it to the Minister who knows the issue, the Minister of Justice.
Some Conservatives speak out for bilingualism in certain regions of the country, but other Conservative Members are using the language issue to divide electors and to feather their electoral beds, in their areas, in their ridings, by making statements that are anti-Francophone, anti-bilingualism, and, I feel, anti-Canadian.
Take for example the case of the Parliamentary Secretary who has sworn an oath of loyalty to the Government and who says that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should not hire Francophones, and that is just one instance. Other Members support him.
And so I ask the Minister: When will this Government put an end to this foolishness, this stupidity, and impose sanctions on its own Parliamentary Secretaries and bring them to their senses?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, how short the hon. gentleman's memory is. A
Oral Questions
number of members of his caucus voted against the amendments to the Constitution, known as the Meech Lake amendments, which were endorsed and supported by us for the very reason that we wanted to ensure that Quebec is satisfied and is welcomed into the full constitutional panoply of Canada.
A number of the members of the hon. gentleman's Party, 12 or 14 if I remember correctly, voted against it, as did several members of the New Democratic Party, one of whom was permitted to campaign against the very Meech Lake amendments which the Leader of her Party says he believes in.
The hon. gentleman now wants to raise the point that several Members of our Party have a different view on some issue of government policy and that this is somehow nefarious. That is the pot calling the kettle black.


PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BILL C-72-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and does not concern the actions of the Conservative Party's or rather the Conservative Caucus' backbench dinosaurs. It concerns the silence of the Secretary of State who is responsible for bilingualism and that of the Prime Minister.
Could the Minister of Justice explain the silence that lasted for five days after amendments were moved by his colleagues in the Conservative Caucus, amendments that would make English the language of work in Canada's Armed Forces, in all federal offices in the National Capital region and even in the Outaouais, and that would only oblige the Government to provide services to the public in French in Quebec and in New Brunswick?
Why was there no reaction, no condemnation by the Secretary of State or by the Prime Minister? Are we to conclude that there is a substantial minority of Conservative Members who are opposed to bilingualism and that the Government prefers to tolerate their opposition instead of condemning it?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-72 is in my name on behalf of the Government. When I condemn the amendments as being contrary to the principles of the Bill, I speak on behalf of the Government. I have the full support of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, who all feel at one with respect to the position that we will not support any amendments that are contrary to the principles of this Bill.
Nothing would be a greater condemnation of the position put forward than for us to stand up and defeat the proposals put forward. Indeed, my colleague, the Deputy House Leader, today moved time allocation so that we will have these matters

July 4, 1988
Oral Questions
dealt with expeditiously on Wednesday. I hope we can count on the Hon. Member's support.


ALLEGED SILENCE OF PRIME MINISTER-MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, Canadians can depend on the New Democratic Party's support for Bill C-72, without amendment and as moved today in the House of Commons.
Could the Minister of Justice explain to the House why, for five days, we have been waiting to hear the Prime Minister condemn his backbench colleagues, the dinosaurs? He said nothing, and neither did the Secretary of State, the defender of Quebecers. We haven't heard a thing for five days. And with the passing of time, the damage being done to bilingualism increases.
Why has the Prime Minister remained silent on this matter? [English]


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I made it quite clear on Thursday last that we are not going to support any amendments. In fact, we will defeat these amendments that have been put forward that are inconsistent with the principles of the Bill. That was a clear and categorical statement.
I think it has been pointed out by the Acting Prime Minister that the Prime Minister has shown exemplary leadership in this country with respect to the official languages. When he was Leader of the Opposition, I think he dealt with the matter in the Province of Manitoba with courage. He has led this Party toward very equitable and fair legislation that was never brought forward by our predecessor government. In fact, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier called for such legislation from his own Government which never responded positively.
We brought this legislation forward. We will see it through. We will give the leadership on this issue. The Prime Minister has been at the forefront of this particular matter and we should be proud of the role which he plays.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, one expects that if a general or a prime minister is to lead, he will be heard on a particular subject. The Prime Minister was in Ottawa on Friday, and Canada Day was perhaps the day on which he could have spoken out or issued a press released indicating quite clearly his condemnation of the actions by the back-benchers who are trying to destroy bilingualism in this country.
Will the Minister of Justice clarify the situation? Is the Prime Minister leading on this particular subject, or is he hanging back because it is election time and he wants the Conservatives to take one message about bilingualism to Quebec and another message about bilingualism to areas like Winnipeg- Assiniboine, Peterborough, and Calgary East,
that it is okay to be opposed to bilingualism and vote Conservative?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very sad that Opposition Members are again playing politics with an issue as sensitive as this one, and I am referring to matters that concern our two official language communities. I think the Government has given a very clear message, and that message is Bill C-72. The Bill was given unanimous passage on second reading by all Members of the House. Today, amendments have been proposed. You are being asked to wait and see what the Government's exact position is, and that position will be in line with the positions that have been taken by this Party since 1984. There have been problems with official languages before 1984. The Liberal Party did nothing about it. In fact, it always tried to evade the issue. Now I want to ask you one thing. Mr. Speaker, my question as a Member of this House and as a Minister of this Government is: When will you stop your partisan posturing and stop using official languages to set communities up against each other in this country?


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This morning The Globe and Mail confirmed the unanimous findings of the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration when it said that too many of the job development projects are not training Canadians for a modern economy but simply subsidizing the payroll costs of certain private employers.
The Government is funding through these projects the hiring of waiters, clerks, cleaners, janitors, service station attendants and so on. How can the Government justify the funding of these projects when it has cut back legitimate training of Canadians in community colleges and CEGEPS? How does she justify that?
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, many people who come to the Job Development Program would not really qualify for a community college program. The Job Development Program is designed to help the chronically unemployed. These are people who have real problems in the workforce, the long term unemployed, handicapped persons, and women who have been out of the workforce for a long time. They face particular barriers. To have a full-time job in a restaurant, or as a waiter
July 4, 1988

or waitress, is a real triumph. I think the Hon. Member should know that.
The important consideration is that we have got away from the short-term, make-work projects that existed before, in an effort to give people a real chance at employment they never had.


COMMITTEE REPORT RECOMMENDATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to listen to the Minister today because she is changing the concept of the program that was introduced by the Member for Kingston and the Islands, the former Minister, who said that the program would have an element to give portable training skills to those who took training in these projects. Skill training was one of the objects of the program.
The unanimous committee report of April 13 said that: "Under no circumstances should subsidized training be used simply to lower the payroll costs of an employer". Will the Minister officially change the program to do what she says today, or will she change it to make sure that employers do not use these grants from the Government to subsidize their payrolls?
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we said at the beginning that we wanted private sector involvement in developing jobs, particularly in developing jobs where they are needed.
Let me refer specifically to the Job Development Program and the long-term, hard core unemployed. Three months after their training, 61 per cent had a job. Twelve months after training, 67 per cent had a job; 79 per cent used the training in their jobs.
Anyone who turns the page to read the rest of the story will see that it states:
This is what happened at Casey's Restaurant in Etobicoke, Metro Toronto, where a mentally handicapped woman was hired to wash dishes and has stayed on as a regular, permanent employee.
"It's worked out 100 per cent here''-
-the General Manger said. Let me quote again:
In the end, however, a person who would not otherwise have received a job goes on to put something worth while on resume, which in turn leads to more challenging jobs.
I would like to know what the Hon. Member has against these people who have had great difficulty and are now getting the help they need.
[ Translation]


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. We learned again today in the Globe and Mail that one out of six jobs created in the private sector through the Canadian Jobs Strategy program is poorly paid, unskilled and
Oral Questions
provides no opportunity for training. It is scandalous for the Government to spend $1.6 billion of taxpayers' money without being required to make public the results of this colossal expenditure. Is the Government trying to hide from Canadians that their money is being wasted on the Canadian Jobs Strategy program where the Government provides private sector employers with an almost unlimited pool of cheap labour?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, that is the same question, but asked in French.

Let me repeat what I said the first time. First, it is a very small part of the Job Development Program, a very small part of the $1.6 billion, but an important part because it deals with a particularly difficult sector of the economy. We have made some changes to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. One of the reasons we came in with a flexible program that involves the private sector was to ensure that we can do some fine tuning because it is such a profound change from the kind of make-work projects that existed before.
The numbers used in the article are not totally accurate. It mentions 17,000 jobs. It is not that, it is 17,000 employers or projects. A very small portion is the individually sponsored ones which are the ones where this very hard core get one-on-one guidance in a job.
Some 84 per cent of the people who took this program have said that it helps them to find a job and keep a job. I think that is success for people who have been out of work for two and three years.


MONITORING OF PROGRAMS
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister asked why is it that we have to depend on The Globe and Mail reporters to get this information through Access to Information. Why is it that the Canadian taxpayers cannot get this information through the statistics of our own Government?
Is the Minister willing to reinstate the cutbacks on the monitoring of these programs that she announced last week?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we do some considerable monitoring of these projects, which is why I know that 84 per cent of the people who participated are able to say that they have helped them with their job training and helped them to keep a job. That is monitoring, and that is success.
We do follow up with the people who participate in this. We know that they have jobs. In fact, some 61 per cent have jobs after three months and 67 per cent after 12 months. For people who have been unemployed for a long period of time that is a real success story. I am very proud of it.

July 4, 1988
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the Members' attention the presence in the gallery of members of the Parliamentary Committee on Labour and Social Affairs from the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RENEWABLE RESOURCES-RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of the Environment, my question is directed to the Deputy Deputy Prime Minister.
Given the importance of renewable resources of energy, and in light of the statement made by the Prime Minister in Toronto last week that his Government is committed to the protection of the environment, and given also the fact that since 1984 the Government has cancelled a $40 million renewable energy program of the National Research Council, as well as the Canertech Institution in Winnipeg, and it has reduced climate research programs in Environment Canada, and given the fact that the record of the Government is moving in a direction opposite to what it claims, will the responsible Deputy Prime Minister give an indication to the House with respect to whether the Government is willing to reverse this trend of cancellation in renewable resources research programs and launch a research program that is badly needed in light of the global atmospheric changes, the threat posed by the thinning of the ozone layer, and the environmental situation as it has emerged as a result of the conference?
Hon. Gerald. S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry
and Mines)): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy watched the proceedings of that particular conference with a great deal of interest, as did most other Members of the House of Commons. I can tell the Hon. Member that in no way have we reduced the efforts of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and, indeed, of the Government, with regard to alternative energy sources. In fact, we are spending something in the order of $89 million on just the kind of items the Hon. Member mentions.
In addition, we can affirm to the House and to the public in general that a task force is undertaking a massive consultation program with the public. It is called "Energy Options". That report will be submitted to the Government some time later this summer.
If the Hon. Member has any excellent suggestions, we will be glad to hear them.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REVERSE DECISION PERTAINING TO RESEARCH
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister has not answered my question. My question is very specific.
Will the Government reverse the trend of cancelling research, particularly research that is badly needed in the field of renewable resources of energy? Will it reverse its decision to close the marine ecology lab in Bedford and cancel the research programs in the National Research Council on renewable resources of energy? That is my question.
Hon. Gerald. S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry
and Mines)): Mr. Speaker, once again, in case the Hon. Member missed it the first time, I can tell him that the Department is spending as much as it ever did on renewable energy and alternative energy sources. I can tell the Hon. Member that we want to ensure that the programs that we do have are cost effective, and that they are suitable. We have reviewed some of those programs.
I can tell the Hon. Member that in no way have we diminished the efforts of the Government in terms of alternative energy sources.


IMMIGRATION
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I will not ask her any questions on employment since we have 1.3 million more Canadians working.
My question concerns immigration. Wealthy individuals who were initially denied immigration status by our immigration officials are using an agreement between Canada and the Province of Quebec to gain landed status in Canada. Once they are approved by Quebec these individuals can move and settle anywhere in Canada.
Will the Minister review the 1978 Protocol between Quebec and Ottawa in order that one uniform policy can be applied to all of Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the people who come to Canada, whether under this program or under other programs, have to meet Canadian standards. The Cullen-Couture agreement falls beneath that national standard for immigrants.
Clearly, when people come to Canada for the first time to live they have the freedom under our Constitution to move to other parts of Canada should they so wish. We work very
July 4, 1988

closely with Quebec in terms of the Cullen-Couture agreement, the entrepreneurial program, and the investor program which is somewhat newer. We will continue to work with them. However, it is not my intention at this stage to alter the agreement with Quebec.


AGRICULTURE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. In the last couple of weeks projections of the yield of the grain crop on the western prairies have dropped to the point of suggesting that it will be only 50 per cent or less. Also, the asking price for wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board has increased by about 25 per cent. The price for barley has increased by about 50 per cent.
Given this information, does the Government intend to announce an increase in the initial prices as quickly as possible?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the crop conditions on the Prairies are very uncertain due to the very severe drought. As a result, the price of grain is very volatile. Certainly, we as a Government have been committed to continuing the policy of trying to ensure that as much of the farmer's money is made available to him up front when he needs it most. In other words, we tried to keep initial prices as high as possible.
If the crop conditions are such and the prices are such that it would seem as if an increase in the initial price would be warranted between now and the beginning of the new crop year, which is about four weeks away, then that announcement will be made as close as possible, I would assume, to the beginning of that new crop year to ensure that the price is accurate.
In the meantime I note, and I think most farmers are already doing this, that what little grain is left on the Prairies is very often being delivered. Storage tickets are being taken out to ensure that if there is to be a higher price in place at the beginning of the new crop year then the farmer would receive that.
I also note that some grain companies apparently are beginning to waive that storage fee as well to assist the farm community.
Oral Questions


G450) APPLICATION OF NEW PRICES
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, at present there is a considerable amount of grain still being delivered, approximately 700,000 tonnes per week. Is there any possibility of the Government increasing the initial prices for this period of time in order that producers who delivered grain during the last year will receive some benefit of the increased prices as quickly as possible?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, as I have already indicated, farmers delivering grain have the option of putting it in storage for the next four weeks and taking advantage of any higher grain prices that might be in place as of the beginning of the new crop year.
Second, prices are rising. Quite frankly, that is about the only good news in prairie agriculture these days. One would assume that those increased prices would certainly be reflected in a final payment. Therefore, farmers will benefit from that, on the assumption that prices are rising, as we anticipate that they are.


RAILWAY TRANSPORT
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In 1987, more than 20,000 Canadian National railway cars carrying hazardous materials used the CN track at Saint-Lambert. In Canada, the number of accidents or incidents involving hazardous materials increased from 108 in 1985 to 239 in 1987. I would like the Minister to tell us what he intends to do to guarantee the safety of Quebec's urban residents, especially those living on the South Shore, considering the risk of a disaster that is becoming greater every year.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the transportation of hazardous materials, especially on Montreal's South Shore, considering the kind of factories and the nature of the economy in this part of Quebec ... I agree it has increased. However, the Hon. Member will recall that the Government introduced a series of measures when it tabled the new legislation on the transportation of hazardous materials, and these measures concern training the workers involved, taking preventive action and also measures that are necessary in case of a disaster. Fortunately, we have not had to face that kind of situation so far, but once again, I want to make it clear that with this Bill we have taken a hard look at the situation. We cannot eliminate the transportation of hazardous materials completely because

July 4, 1988
Oral Questions
it would involve the loss of thousands of jobs, and once again, the important thing is to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials so as to eliminate the problems to which the Hon. Member is referring.


SAFETY REGULATIONS-POSITION OF CN
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, since the U.S. experience has shown that deregulation of railway transportation has brought about a decline in safety and maintenance standards, could the Minister give the House the assurance that CN is adhering strictly to the safety regulations for hazardous materials?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to deregulation. I am afraid I don't agree with her because improving safety conditions does not depend on whether we are regulated or not. Improving these conditions is necessary, and this applies to the agencies that must deal with the transportation of hazardous materials. The Government, especially considering its direct responsibility for Canadian National, is going to take care of this, and in fact we have already started. The new Railway Safety Act which, I believe, is now in the Senate, will make it possible for municipalities and other groups to apply for relocation of railway tracks to areas where they would represent less of a hazard for the community. Conditions have improved a great deal in the past four years, but it is a serious problem, and we are taking it very seriously.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-COMMITTEE HEARINGS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to my colleague, the fast reader, the Minister for International Trade.
The Government has released its paper the Free Trade Agreement and Industry. On page 39, as I am sure the Minister will have read, it admits that performance requirements, such as increased exports or domestic content levels, will not be permitted under the agreement.
In view of these types of concerns, will the Minister urge the legislative committee dealing with this legislation to hear witnesses as widely across the country as possible, to have expert staff attached to the committee, and to see to it that Canadians get a chance actually to speak out right across the country to this legislative committee on this trade deal?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have spoken out across this country in support of, for the most part, and some in opposition to, the free trade agreement. There was a day of protest several weeks ago in which a heavily advertised meeting of those who are against the free trade agreement in St. John's, Newfoundland, drew 25 persons to the meeting out of a total population of 200,000, and across the country the same pitiful numbers turned out for those protest meetings.
If the House endorses the principle of this free trade Bill tomorrow, as I hope it will, the Bill will be referred to a legislative committee. My recommendation to it will be that there has already been a parliamentary committee that travelled across the country on this. There have been Senate committees. The Senate endorsed the free trade arrangement in 1982, and the Senate endorsed it in 1978. There have been five or six opposition days in the House on this very matter, and the same in the Senate. This matter has now been debated and discussed for a year and a half. We have had the text of the agreement since last December. We are ready now for action, and the Canadian people are ready for action.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the latest poll shows that 38 per cent of the people of Canada support this agreement, and 40 per cent are against it.
In view of the fact that there has not been a single bit of evidence or a single bit of testimony with respect to this actual agreement, will the Minister not retract that ridiculous statement and recognize that the Canadian people have a right to be able to speak out on this issue right across the country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I recommend to the hon. gentleman that he read Mr. John Crispo's book: Free Trade: The Real Story, where he will find explained for him the free trade agreement in a way that he does not seem to be able to understand it as yet. These are independent authors who explain the document from cover to cover. If the Hon. Member reads it, he will find that he does not need to read every dot, jot, and tittle of the original agreement.
The position is that the House is now ready to deal with this matter. Hopefully a legislative committee will sit in Ottawa and will pursue any matters that people suggest should be pursued, or that the members want to suggest. We hope to have its report before too long, and send this matter on to the Senate. Canadians are waiting to get at the U.S. market with the new opportunities. Our 17 conferences across the country are proving to be very successful in that endeavour to help Canadians take advantage of these new opportunities in the U.S. market.
July 4, 1988


FOOD IRRADIATION-CLASSIFICATION AS PROCESS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health. The Government has now classified food irradiation as a process rather than an additive. This is directly contrary to an all-Party committee of the House of Commons that stated if food irradiation was classified as a process rather than an additive, it would subject it to inappropriate toxicological testing.
At a time when 75 per cent of Canadians are opposed to irradiated food, why is the Government subjecting irradiated food to inappropriate toxicological testing?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather odd that the Hon. Member would put it quite that way, because it was his Government that in fact approved irradiation of certain foods prior to the studies that have been committed.
I can say to the Hon. Member that under regular procedures the proposed regulations were gazetted on June 4 of this year. It was a 60-day period. Groups obviously have the right to put forward their comments during that period of time. But I say to him that, with not only the approval that his Government had given earlier and the changes that we made which he has put in his question, it would still have to be done on a case-bycase basis, and efficacy and health would have to be proven. So, even despite the points that he makes, those conditions are still in place.


PRIVATIZATION OF RADIOCHEMICAL COMPANY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the benefits of food irradiation are not going to be met if the Government is also not going to meet the concerns of the public. The public's concern is going to be heightened with respect to irradiated food. This is a very sensitive area. The Minister would admit that. Yet the Government is going to privatize the Radiochemical Company which deals with the irradiation of food.
Why is the Government, in light of the concerns of the public and the delicate nature of this whole question, going to privatize the Radiochemical Company by April 30th of next year, when, as he says, irradiated food is such a delicate subject and one that needs to be dealt with in such a careful manner?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member, on behalf of his Party I take it-because he is the spokesperson for energy, mines and resources for the Liberal Party-has confirmed in his preamble today the value of irradiated food and irradiation as a process. I am pleased that he has done that.
Oral Questions
Secondly, in respect to the report that has been put forward, I have given the details on it. Thirdly, in respect to any safety, if in fact the privatization takes place, I think as well that that is well covered by the regulations.
The last point that I would make to him, quite apart from what we have done in Canada, which his Government approved in fact and which has been done to this date-in fact, this Government has yet not brought any new processes into place, over all the former Government had in place-is that over 30 years of research has taken place on irradiated foods, for example, not only through the Atomic Energy Control Commission headquartered in Vienna, but also at Seibelsdorf, as well as work being through Third World countries which are looking for storage possibilities for food.
I am pleased that the Hon. Member, though he might disagree on some of the margins, has again endorsed the position that his Party had taken, both before and today.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. It relates to tax reform and arises out of Mona Winberg's column, "Disabled Today", that appeared in yesterday's Toronto Sun.
It is a matter of record that at least in two of the Minister's Budgets he has made changes that have marked significant improvements for Canadians with disabilities, who are taxpayers. In yesterday's column that I referred to, however, there is discussion about the shift of the disability deduction to a credit under tax reform. I will not give the contents of the column, but I did satisfy myself that the Minister has seen it.
The conclusions that were reached there were that by changing to a tax credit the Government is not taking fully into account the special needs of taxpayers with disabilities. My question therefore is to the Minister, to ask whether he can assure the House that Canadian taxpayers with disabilities, or with dependants who are disabled, will not at the end of the day lose these recent advances that have been made as a result of tax reform.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the question of the Hon. Member who, as the Chairman of the Standing Committee on the Status of Disabled Persons, has shown a continuing interest in this particular problem. I might point out to him that two-thirds of taxpayers are in the low-income bracket which was, in part, the focus of this particular column. But 80 per cent of the claimants of the disability exemption-now a credit-are in that same tax category.

July 4, 1988
Privilege-Mr. MacLellan
We have, I think, demonstrated an ongoing concern for the position of the disabled in the tax system. We have broadened the definition of "disability", we have expanded the list of items that are eligible for the medical deduction now to become a credit. We have also increased the size of the exemption in the previous Budgets by $250.
The over-all impact, we believe, on disabled people will be positive in tax reform if you take into account all the elements of tax reform, but particularly the effect on those in the lower-income bracket representing 80 per cent of claimants is clearly higher.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for housing, who has just evaporated. Perhaps I could go to the Minister of Justice then. In The Globe and Mail there are reports that human rights activists in Winnipeg indicate that apartment blocks have a no-native policy, that there is housing discrimination in Winnipeg against native people. When this was first documented in 1981 it was also shown that federal dollars were going into renovating these apartments, and after the renovations the no-native policy was established.
What I would like to ask of this Minister is whether, now that this has come to light again, he would be prepared to appoint an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of this nonative policy, rather than do what CMHC did in 1981, and that was simply to get a promise from landlords and from the people who got the money, that they would not discriminate, and these promises were not policed.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENTPARLIAMENTARY STUDY AND CONSIDERATION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. I want to ask the Minister why he considers a general discussion of the principle of free trade to be a substitute for a full parliamentary and, specifically, House of Commons debate, and House of Commons committee study, of the detailed wording of the actual deal that his Government signed with the United States. Why isn't he willing to have a full and complete study of the actual wording of the deal signed by his Government with the United States, by a parliamentary committee, instead of giving what is an improper direction on the floor of this House to the members of the committee not to have such a study, a direction to the Conservative majority?
In short, why is something like Dr. Crispo's book a fit substitute for a full House of Commons committee consideration of the Government's trade deal with the United States?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there we see the true labyrinthine mind of the Liberal at work. The hon. gentleman's Leader and his Party have said they are going to tear up the free trade agreement. If they are going to tear it up, why should they care what is in it any further? They have made their decision months ago. They have blindly said they are going to tear it up, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party says that they are going to tear it down. Then they ask for another year to study the Bill.
The Bill has been in the House now since May. The agreement has been before the Canadian public since December. The time has come for action, not a childish threat to tear something up. It is reprehensible. Never was there such an irresponsible statement made by the Leader of a Party. And then his House Leader asked for more time to study the document that they are going to tear up. Bosh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman has given a damning indictment of the Government which had responsibility for housing in Winnipeg and in Manitoba, namely, the New Democratic Government of the time, because the hon. gentleman will fully appreciate the fact that housing is essentially a provincial responsibility. We on the federal side, in particular my colleague, the Minister of Public Works responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, have had a policy with respect to our participation of nondiscrimination. Obviously, we have done more than that. We have been pro-active with respect to our policies for native housing.
If the hon. gentleman would get to his socialist colleagues and tell them to shape up, it would be about time.


An Hon. Member:: It is a Conservative Government in Manitoba. Shape up, yourself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) on a very sensitive matter. The Government has reduced the status of irradiated food from a process to an additive. In accordance with an all-Party committee, this is directly contrary to the recommendation. The committee said that to so reduce irradiated food from a process to an additive would subject it to insufficient toxicological test.
July 4, 1988

The Government is saying that there is a definite benefit for having irradiated food in Canada, particularly in the Third World. We really do not know what the benefits of irradiated food are as yet. I do not think this Party or anyone should be in a position to say that there are not benefits from irradiated food. They may not be in ways that the Government is using irradiated food at the present time. The benefits may lie in some other area. The changes which the Government has made may be injurious to the health of Canadians. I am not saying that to try to alarm Canadians, I am saying that to try to put the question in perspective because we do not have sufficient information. There are other very knowledgeable countries in the western world which have not as yet even contemplated changing irradiated food from a process to an additive, and with good reason, because they do not have the information. No country has the information as yet.
When I asked the Minister about this, he said that he was glad to hear that I was agreeing with the use and the benefits of irradiated food. But there was nothing similar or indicative in my question which would indicate that I was approving of irradiated food.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I do not want to take the chance of losing something that could be beneficial. It is something that in other ways could be injurious to the health of Canadians. We should not be using it in a cavalier fashion. To dismiss testing would primarily perhaps injure the health of Canadians. Seventy-five per cent of Canadians object to irradiated food at the present time. The Government, if it wanted to use irradiated food in the most responsible manner possible, should be doing all the testing it possibly could until it had the information that met the criteria of Canadians and other countries throughout the world. The Minister should not say that we are approving, when we are not. He said that this is a sensitive issue. At the same time he said that he is representing a Government that is going to sell the Radiochemical Company, a division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, to the private sector which only feeds on the concerns of Canadians, and will jeopardize perhaps the health standards of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I have allowed the Hon. Member to go on. I know it is a matter which he, other Members and the Minister treat with importance. His point may be a point of order. It is not a point of privilege. I call upon the Minister who may want to comment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is an honourable person in this House and I respect what he said. The issue is moving from an additive to a process. The comments he made, and I think he has now said it again-I do not want to misinterpret him in any way-indicated that the Liberal Party still had an open mind on the issue. In many of the areas-and I say this directly to the Hon. Member-people do not take that position and that is what I meant in terms of that interpretation.
Time Allocation
The testing will continue. There is a further safeguard with respect to irradiated food being approved on a case-by-case basis. The Hon. Member says that other countries have not yet moved in that direction. There is no doubt that Canada has been a leader in irradiated food and atomic energy research, including the associated safety measures. Those of us who know that industry are all proud of it. Having said that, obviously the Government will not move forward unless on a case-by-case basis both the testing and efficacy are approved.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) has in a sense not risen on a question of privilege. His point more properly should have been a point of order or clarification. Normally 1 do not think the Chair would have allowed the point to go on, but it may well be that the exchange has helped to clarify the situation both for the Hon. Member and for the Hon. Minister. It is a matter of considerable concern across the country and in this Chamber.
I thank the Hon. Member, and I thank the Hon. Minister for his reply.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, in relation to Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, one further sitting day be allotted to the second reading stage of the Bill: and
That, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Business on the above mentioned sitting day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: A point of order. The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, just before we broke for lunch a point of order was raised as to whether or not when the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) had the floor he had risen on a point of order or had risen to speak. I believe that you were going to check the "blues". Could you indicate at this time what the results are?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 have not had the
opportunity of actually seeing the "blues" but I can assure the Hon. Member, as I did earlier, that the Hon. Parliamentary

July 4, 1988
Time Allocation
Secretary was recognized on a point of order, and he did say so at the time. I will ask for the "blues" to be brought to me during the Hon. Member for Timiskaming's intervention. He has been interrupted on quite a few occasions by points of order and I think at this time we should allow him to give his message.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, I think mine will be one of the most protracted 10-minute speeches that will have been given in the House. I would now like to return to discussing Bill C-130. I think it has tremendous benefits for all Canadians and, in particular, for those living in Ontario.
Today I would like to take a province-wide perspective. Trade is an issue of considerable importance to Ontario, particularly trade with the United States. Fully 90 per cent of all Ontario's exports go to the U.S. while 83 per cent of this province's imports come from south of the border. That is why the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is so important for us here in Ontario. We sought an agreement that would secure and enhance our access to the vital U.S. market. We fought hard for Ontario's interests and we have a great deal to show for our efforts. Unfortunately, there is some misunderstanding about this agreement here in Ontario, especially at Queen's Park.
First, David Peterson said he would support free trade but only if certain conditions were met. Then, when those conditions were met, he still said, no, he could not support the agreement. Then he said he was going to do everything he could to fight the deal. Now, he says he will wait and see. As John Diefenbaker once said:
The Liberals are the flying saucers of politics. No one can make head nor
tail of them and they never are seen twice in the same place.
Today, Madam Speaker, I want to set the record straight for the people of Ontario about this agreement, beginning with the automotive provisions.
Naturally the automotive provisions are of keen interest to Ontario where the automotive industry is the largest employer in the province. The Premier has said he worries that the Auto Pact could be gutted. His worries have no basis in fact. From the outset of the negotiations we said that the Auto Pact was working well and that Canada would not raise it. We did not. The Government also said that if the Americans made proposals which offered the potential for more production and employment in Canada, we would listen to them. The Americans did have some ideas which we found to be a sound basis for discussion. The result is what has been described as Auto Pact Plus. We have kept the fundamental elements of the Auto Pact and added provisions in the agreement which will stimulate new opportunities for production and employment in Canada.
Let me be more specific. For Auto Pact producers, not much has changed. They can continue to operate as they have been
and retain their third-country privileges which will now be denied to newcomers. For Canadian parts producers, this is a good package. For sales to the Auto Pact producers, the situation will be unchanged except that vehicles assembled in Canada will have to meet a higher standard of North American content to qualify for duty free entry to the U.S. This is a real incentive to procure high levels of domestic parts.
What about parts producers selling or hoping to sell to the transplants in North America? The rules of origin negotiated in the agreement and the end of the duty drawbacks will create a real incentive for assemblers to increase their sourcing of North American parts to qualify for the reduced tariffs. These are highly positive developments.
Just as positive are the provisions pertaining to agricultural trade. In essence, the agreement provides for agricultural trade a balanced deal which makes important gains for our primary exporters and at the same time safeguards our marketing board system for sensitive sectors such as dairy and eggs. Ontario's beef and meat processing industries will gain from the exemption from U.S. meat import laws. Fruit and vegetable producers will be protected for 20 years by special tariff measures which can be invoked when prices are abnormally low.
With respect to investment, David Peterson has expressed considerable concern about the levels of foreign investment, something which sounds a bit strange coming from the man who has thrown open the Ontario securities industry to foreign takeovers, as economist John Crispo has pointed out. The Premier's concerns are ill-founded. Canada keeps the right to restrict U.S. investment in key sectors such as energy, transportation and culture, we also retain our ability to review major direct acquisitions by non-Canadians.
Those who are defensive about foreign investment forget that Canada is now a major net exporter of capital and has been since 1975. As an importer and exporter of capital, Canada has much to gain from a secure and stable investment environment at home and abroad.
Increased investment is particularly important to northern Ontario's key industries such as mining. New investment means more jobs and more secure jobs, especially for northern Ontarians who make up 73 per cent of the province's mining workforce.
Let me move on to dispute settlement, an issue I hear a lot about in northern Ontario where there is concern about the impact of U.S. protectionism on our forestry and steel exports. As Ambassador Reisman has pointed out, our objective in the area of dispute settlement was to ensure greater certainty about the rules of the game. What we have achieved is binding objectivity in the application of anti-dump and countervail laws by both parties.
The dispute settlement provisions make Canada an equal partner in the resolution of disputes and provide for fair and effective solutions to difficult problems. Canadians will know
July 4, 1988

what the rules are and can be confident that they will have a voice in how they will be applied. How can anyone claim that this is not an improvement over what we have now?
For Ontario's service industries, there is also good news. The agreement will ensure that Canadian service businesses can compete with U.S. companies on an equal footing. Our entrepreneurs and businesses will have easier access to the U.S. to sell their goods and services and to supply after-sales service to their customers. This alone is a very practical achievement for Ontario with its large service sector.
With respect to financial services, the agreement promotes the Government's policy objectives for this sector that were set out last December. Those objectives are to increase competition, innovation and efficiency, to broaden sources of credit and options for consumers and to promote international competitiveness and domestic growth.
The agreement will open up a major new area of the securities market for Canadian banks in the U.S. At the same time, we retain the right to control entry of foreign banks into our financial markets and we keep full power to regulate chartered financial institutions operating in Canada.
What about jobs and free trade? Free trade critics claim that there will be many job losses. This is not so according to the Economic Council and the Conference Board, both of which predict increased employment as a result of free trade.
With respect to jobs and women, the Economic Council forecasts that half the new jobs created by this agreement will be in the retail and wholesale trade and in the commercial, personal care and business services. This is very favourable for Canadian women because 84 per cent of Canadian women work in service industries. The C. D. Howe Institute also agrees. It says that since women hold more than half the jobs in the services sector, they are well positioned to benefit from this employment expansion.
What about labour adjustment, another issue which has been brought up on numerous occasions? Critics ignore the fact that adjustment due to free trade will be small compared to normal labour adjustment that occurs each year in our economy. They also ignore the fact that the Government already has in place a wide array of labour adjustment programs. In addition, we have established the Advisory Council on Adjustment which will make an interim report this summer on the adequacy of existing programs.
An example that will need assistance is Ontario's grape and wine sectors which will need to adjust not just to free trade but also to the recent GATT panel ruling. Since December, we have been consulting extensively with provincial officials and the industry on an assistance package for these sectors.
Today, I repeat this challenge. I ask all the enterprising people of Ontario to help us take Canada forward to greater economic growth and prosperity for our sons and daughters.
Time Allocation


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Madam Speaker, it is difficult for Canadians listening to the debates to know where the exaggerations are on both sides of the House.
I myself have had great difficulty understanding the issues in this debate. Canadians are entitled to know why the Government has gagged the Opposition in the House of Commons during the free trade debate. This is the most important Bill before Parliament in the 121 years since Confederation.
Canada's independence and sovereignty are at stake in Bill C-130. We should start by solving our interprovincial problems before getting into free trade with the United States.
A construction worker from Ontario cannot work in the Province of Quebec. We do not even have free movement between the provinces of Canada. For example, professional associations and corporations are under provincial jurisdiction in Canada and state jurisdiction in the United States. We know that the professional corporations in Quebec have very strict prerequisites with which professionals from other provinces must comply if they come to Quebec. We also know that the Americans' prerequisites are less strict and exacting. So we wonder what kind of services we will have in Canada after free trade with the Americans. Are we ready to lower the quality of our services, are we prepared to decrease the health protection of Canadian patients? There are many other imponderables in this Accord. Many decisions will depend on the interpretation given to it. For example, in future, will we need American approval before deciding whether a Government can nationalize automobile insurance, as has been done in Quebec and Saskatchewan?
There are already several other irritants between Canada and the United States. For example, the Americans steadfastly refuse to admit they are partially responsible for acid rain, an environmental issue which could be the subject of long debates.
Hon. Members will recall as well that we lost the fight over Arctic waters sovereignty in 1985, particularly the stealthy saga of the American icebreaker Polar Sea. Mr. Reagan laughed in our Prime Minister's face (Mr. Mulroney) by having him sign the Arctic co-operation agreement. Just what is the meaning of a co-operation agreement? It means that the Americans are stubborn and that under no consideration whatsoever will they acknowledge our sovereignty in the Arctic waters and the Northwest Passage.
Signing the agreement was tantamount to the Conservative Government's admission of being powerless to control the ongoing activities of the American giant in the Far North.
Conservative publicity would have us believe that we are looking at the perfect recipe for happiness, a recipe which is being sold to the Canadian public just like a fairy tale we tell our children. Everything is beautiful, everything is fine, not to worry, everything eventually will turn out all right. No way!

July 4, 1988
Time Allocation
Before going any further I want to make sure that Canadians who are listening realize that the Official Opposition is not against free trade, we are simply against this agreement bearing the signatures of Mulroney and Reagan.
Since the end of World War II the Liberal Party in office has always negotiated freer trade through GATT. It did so successfully and to the advantage of Canada. Nothing prevents Canada from continuing and even improving this kind of negotiations.
My leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), stated in his speech on free trade that this agreement represents the largest sell-out of our sovereignty since we became a nation. He went on to say that with this agreement we are losing the ability and power to govern our own country, to choose our policies and to fulfill our national destiny as Canadians.
The Conservatives want us to believe that a general agreement with the United States is more advantageous because it would guarantee access to the huge American market. But, Madam Speaker, we already have access to a major part of the American market.
Since its creation in 1947 GATT paved the way for tariff reductions-then 40 per cent on average-to an average rate of 5 per cent now. Roughly 80 per cent of those products are already being exported duty-free to the United States. To put it another way, the Mulroney-Reagan general trade agreement is aimed at guaranteeing access to the rest of the market, only 20 per cent. That is clear enough!
The question is this: Does the agreement we have on the table guarantee the access the Conservatives have been striving to achieve? The answer is no, and there are three reasons for that. Last month the American Congress passed its omnibus bill, and henceforth this legislation will impose additional tariffs on all countries exporting to the United States, including Canada. Yet President Reagan had promised to veto this omnibus bill personally to protect Canada. He has yet to deliver and chances are we will face new tariff barriers on January 1, 1989 when the free trade agreement comes into force.
Furthermore, elements of this omnibus bill will be part of the next GATT negotiations. We will therefore not have access to these markets and we will have to renegotiate these items at the next round of GATT when we will already be bound by the Free Trade Agreement.
Second, the dispute settlement mechanism is deficient because we will be subject to U.S. laws.
Gordon Ritchie, ambassador and deputy chief negotiator at the Canadian Trade Netgotiations Office, admitted to the House of Commons Committee that Canada had not obtained any guaranteed access. According to him, U.S. law will continue to apply in this area. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) pointed out to us that Article 1902(1) of the Agreement specifies that the United States
reserves the right to apply its own legislation, its laws on antidumping and countervailing duties, to all products imported from the territory of the other party, namely Canada.
In the case of potash, steel and lumber, we have already paid the price.
Third, the dispute settlement mechanism is wanting. The three panels have no authority to enforce this Agreement.
It is mainly for these three reasons that we do not agree with this Agreement.
First, President Reagan has not yet exempted us from the U.S. omnibus trade bill; second, we are subject to American laws and third, the dispute settlement mechanism is ineffective.
Also, in the field for which I am a critic, the dispute on Class "C" plywood, which is of superior quality in Canada, and Class "D", which is an inferior U.S. quality, is a problem for Canada even before the Agreement takes effect. Although Canada offered to develop a test for the strength of Canadian plywood, the Americans still refuse to submit to it.
This dispute will particularly affect construction of public housing. The Americans are making a big issue of it and want us Canadians to lower the quality of our plywood. There is no question of Americans improving the quality of theirs. It is not as unimportant as it may seem because it shows what will happen every time the Americans want to have access to our Canadian market.
This can have serious consequences for public housing. For example, we have often heard very heated debates in this House when Members exposed the deplorable conditions of housing for native people in Canada.
Houses on reservations last about 15 years. If we lower the quality of the plywood used in building them, we are likely to have to replace them much sooner.
Public housing, which as we know is partly subsidized by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will also be greatly affected by this U.S. decision. The Conservatives well know that I am watching them on this issue. I have made statements in the House, I have questioned the Minister responsible for housing and I do think that the Americans and the Government will pay attention, but we will have to keep on the lookout during the vacation period. It is very easy to have the wool pulled over you, as happened to Quebec, during the vacation period.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member, but her time is up.


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, we now have before the House a motion that will allow us to vote on a matter of vital importance to western Canada. We have heard much in this debate about free trade and its short-term impact on Canadian consumers, businesses and workers. We
July 4, 1988

have heard from those who want to promote Canada to the world and those who want to remove Canada from the world. I want to consider the free trade agreement in light of the long term opportunities it presents, especially for western Canada, and the step forward in global relations that it represents.
Free trade resolves at least one problem which has plagued western Canada for a century and responds to the future challenges the whole country will face. Ever since John A. Macdonald's national policy the tariff system in Canada has worked to the disadvantage of western Canada. We sold our products on the international market at low prices but had to buy goods on the highly protected domestic one. Free trade is about to change that imbalance.
With free trade, western businesses will continue to compete as they have all along and western consumers will have the advantage of access to tariff-free imports from the United States. We can look forward to a revitalized economy, modernization, and real income growth. No wonder Albertans are among the strongest supporters of free trade!
At the First Ministers' Conference on the economy in February, 1985, former Premier Peter Lougheed of Alberta presented his belief that free trade would create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, hie had supported the idea at the 1977 Premiers of Canada Conferences and it was supported again in the provincial Government White Paper on Industrial and Science Strategy. This time, though, the federal Government gave some consideration to western ideas.
What was being suggested was a mutually beneficial package of reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers and that is what has been negotiated. I cannot say that westerners are totally responsible for bringing about the free trade agreement, but former Premier Lougheed was certainly instrumental in getting it placed on the national agenda. I think it is a credit to the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that he has pursued the matter.
At the 1985 First Ministers' Conference it was stated that: "From Alberta's perspective, a free trade arrangement is a viable method of overcoming obstacles to the revitalization of our economy. The benefits from expanded trade, the effect on industrial restructuring, rationalization, modernization, technological enhancement, productivity improvement, and real income growth can be realized if a free trade agreement is put into place ... Federal and provincial Governments must now demonstrate their leadership and show that Canada has the self-confidence and political maturity to pursue a free trade arrangement with the United States".
The Alberta Government was saying then, and I am repeating now, that free trade is crucial for the economic future of the West, and, for that matter, all of Canada. It is also an indicator of the future economic policies that Canada must pursue. Canada dare not complacently accept the status
Time Allocation
quo. We must consider our own style of perestroika, our own methods of securing economic well-being into the future.
U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz spoke before the World Affairs Council in late 1987. He briefly mentioned some of the changes that he saw under way in technology, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and language. He concluded his overview with the comment that "in this time of profound change one of the hardest adjustments to make is intellectual adjustment. We must discard outdated habits of thinking and make room for new possibilities ..."
We must consider that we are working today in measures of speed and magnitude that were only dreamt about a few years ago. Money now moves in international markets as quickly as it can be electronically relayed. We are using substances that were invented yesterday, not only resources that have been with us since the Earth was formed. Information changes as quickly as we can read it. These changes have implications on how we conduct our lives and how we must manage our governments.
Secretary Shultz suggested that countries which cannot or will not compete in the global market-place and interact with ideas from other societies will find themselves falling behind the advanced innovators and producers. Some may absorb these changes and benefit in a small way, others will simply become marginal. Free trade is only the first of many steps that Canada must take to meet the challenges of sharing ideas, coping with change, and being competitive enough to maintain our standard of living.
All countries face challenges, not only Canada. All are looking for solutions. It only follows that other countries have displayed an interest in our free trade agreement and have considered it as a model.
Members will recall the media controversy about the comments of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when she spoke in this Chamber. Putting that controversy aside, I believe it is important to consider what she said and what it implies. The United Kingdom is our third largest trading partner, so she knows that Canadians can compete in the European market. She referred to the fact that Canada, with less than 1 per cent of the world's population, accounts for 5 per cent of its trade. On the basis of her country's experience within the European Economic Community, Prime Minister Thatcher applauded the agreement and the example it sets for other trading nations.
The free trade agreement is part of the Government's strategy to ensure Canada's continued success into the 21st century. It will increase Canadian business opportunities, make it easier for professionals to work on both sides of the border, and lower consumer prices for everyone. The free trade agreement is a triumph for the open market in Canada.
The free market cannot operate with stifling regulation, interference, or political difficulties. That is why our Government's policies, like decentralization, privatization, and

July 4, 1988
Time Allocation
deregulation, have brought increased employment, investment, and record economic growth.
The socialists do not share the view that Canadian businesses can grow with increased market opportunities or that Canadian workers are skilled enough to compete. A few days ago we heard in this Chamber from Chancellor Kohl of West Germany who also spoke of the importance of trade and freer trade. He should know. West Germany is one of the most powerful economies in the world and has the highest percentage of Gross National Product dependent on external trade of all the industrialized countries. Canada is second. West Germany provides a valuable model with its expanding economy and stable position in the OECD.
The East German economy, on the other hand, is restricted by government control, enforced isolation, inefficiency, and a far lower standard of living. We, of course, are favouring the first; the socialists would have us adopt the second.
The socialists are wrong on two counts. First, they have assumed that independence is the ability to go it alone. This is a grave error. The independence of nations is not based on their protectionism or their retrenchment. It is based on their ability to assert themselves on the world stage, their ability to command international respect for their policies and actions. We are proud of leaders, not of hermits.
Second, the socialists have forgotten that education, transportation, communications, and technology are the determinants of the economy. Markets, not governments, determine economic results and there is no way to overrule the market more than momentarily in an age when goods, services, capital and technology flow across international boundaries.
The free trade agreement will provide the mechanism for open trade with the Americans. Beyond that is the fact that global economic power has been dispersing. Ours is no longer a bi-polar world with the United States and the U.S.S.R. determining military policy and economic conditions. Developing countries like Brazil, Korea, China, India and Israel have become important commercial powers. In this new environment it is important to remember that we are trading as parts of blocs, not as individual nations.
Europe is one market, so is the Pacific Rim. We must consider our place within our own corner of the globe then look outward for other opportunities.
We must also remember what Montesquieu said more than 200 years ago for I believe that it is still true.
[ Translation]
The natural effect of trade is to lead to peace. Two nations that negotiate together become mutually dependent; one wishes to buy, the other wishes to sell; thus, all unions are based on mutual need."

The natural effect of commerce is to lead to peace. In other words, our movement toward global trade can be an important
step toward world peace. With a free trade agreement we have established our role within the North American economic unit. We have chosen to compete with the Americans on an equal basis. We are choosing to be active participants in this quickly changing world. This choice will make us better businesspeople, better workers, and better Canadians.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I know that I have only a short period of time and I want to make sure that I fill it with a lot of punch. I remind the House that we are debating a motion of the Conservative Government to stop dead in its tracks the debate in principle on Bill C-130 which Simon Reisman called the greatest deal of the century. Simon Reisman, the negotiator of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, said it was the great deal of the century. After two and one half days of debate the Government has brought forward a motion to stop debate dead in its tracks, to guillotine the debate.
What are the Tories afraid of? Are they afraid of the Opposition? No, I do not think so, they are 200 strong. Are they afraid of the Speaker? No, they are not afraid of the Speaker.
I will tell you who they are afraid of. They are afraid of the Canadian people. They know that Canadians would find out more about this deal through debate that would be coming to them on prime time television with the extended hours of the House. The Tories cannot stand the scrutiny of this Bill. This paltry, porous proposal of the Tories will not stand up to the scrutiny of a vigilant opposition. That is why they have come to close the debate. What a shameful performance.
Let us look at the history of this infamous Bill. First we have the man who signed for Colonel McCormick for $5, singing When Irish Eyes are Smiling, in Quebec City for his American boss. They cooked up this deal.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has exhibited himself to be nothing but a lackey for the American power in Washington. He has switched from Colonel McCormick to Colonel Reagan.
We had the inimitable Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), formerly Minister for International Trade. Of course, they did not want that Minister handling international trade so it was put into the hands of that character from Dick and Jane. When the appointment was made the Prime Minister said: "I have given the ball to Pat. Watch Pat go. See Pat go. Jump Pat, jump. Run Pat, run." The Americans simply held up the hoop and said how high.
We were given an incongruous image of midnight approaching as the deal must be signed. Thank God Simon was not working overtime at $1,000 a day. As midnight was approaching, where was the Minister? She was on the beaches of Waikiki, unable to be there. What a mess. The former
July 4, 1988

Minister for International Trade was not there when she was needed the most. She was on the beach at Waikiki.
The Prime Minister took that portfolio from the Minister and gave it to the new Willy Loman of the Conservative Cabinet, the man who could not sell vacuum cleaners.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It being 3.54 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 117 have expired.
Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion. The question is as follows: Mr. Lewis moved:
That, in relation to Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, one further sitting day be allotted to the second reading stage of the Bill; and That, at Fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government business on the above mentioned sitting day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order, and in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried. Orders of the day.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 29, 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,".
[Stage Direction]
July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Hon. Paul Dick (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, when the Conservative Party was elected to office in 1984 our commitment as a new Government was to undo the damage of the past. We were left with a 20 year Liberal legacy of spiralling government spending, federal-provincial squabbles, squandered economic opportunities and a devalued economy.
During that election campaign we said that we would bring the country together so that we could meet the challenge of change. We said we would fight poverty and unemployment in the only way they can be effectively fought, by creating a stable economic environment, by creating growth and investment, and by creating jobs. We said that we would restore Canada's reputation to what it had been before as an active and reliable participant in global affairs, securely from the positions as a reliable member of the western alliance. All of this has been done, Madam Speaker.
Despite the most dire predictions of the Opposition, Canada is in better shape than it has been for decades. But that fact has not stopped the critics and the naysayers. These same people said that our economic policies introduced in 1984-85 would cost hundreds of thousands of Canadians their jobs. They were wrong. Instead, more than one million new jobs have been created since 1984. Those same people today in the Opposition say that free trade threatens our very existence as a people and a nation. They will be proved wrong once again.
The opponents of free trade have, to date, fought this initiative not through engaging the federal Government in debate on the merits of what the agreement contains, but by raising the spectre of dangers that do not exist, a process that is designed to confuse and to scare the public. Today I join this debate to outline the benefits of free trade to the region and to the people I know best, those of eastern Ontario.
Let me place this latest initiative in its true context. The last time Canada was faced with a free trade debate was in 1911. If we had got together then at some town hall meeting, we would have all arrived by horse and buggy and everyone would have learned of the meeting by newspaper or word of mouth since telephones at that time were not in wide use. In short, we lived in a different world. We now live in a world of satellites and instant communications where decisions taken across an ocean may affect our business dealings the same day.
Where does Canada fit into this modern world? We fit in as the odd man out. Canada is a trading nation but it is in a world of trading blocs. To the south lies the United States of America, 50 states in one economic union with a population of 260 million people. It is a trading bloc unto itself. Second, there is the European Economic Community, which is comprised of 16 nations with a total population of 320 million people. Third, there is Japan and the Pacific Rim nations with hundreds of millions of people. Fourth, the Soviet bloc countries have their own trading organization known as Comecon. Fifth, Brazil and Argentina signed a free trade
agreement earlier this year. Sixth, Australia and New Zealand have recently gone into a free trade agreement. Then there is Canada with 25 million people dependent on trade for prosperity, but we are not a member of any trading bloc, thus we have no leverage, no protection and, yes, we are vulnerable.
We are vulnerable to the wars between the trading blocs. The United States has already demonstrated that with the grain price war. Also we are vulnerable to action taken against us by trading blocs. The United States Congress proved that when it turned protectionist. Industries like softwood lumber, shakes and shingles, hogs and steel suffered severe damage and heavy losses. Many companies went bankrupt. Worse still, workers lost their jobs.
The opponents of free trade say we should stick with the status quo. The examples of the last two years have shown that that is really not a true option. Opponents of the free trade agreement say we will lose our sovereignty. It was only a week ago that Prime Minister Thatcher addressed this House and observed that concerns about our cultural sovereignty were unfounded, just as those same concerns on the part of some of her countrymen about EEC membership were proven unfounded.
Our critics say that this comparison will not work, that we are too small, that the U.S. neighbour is too big. I say to them that the island of the United Kingdom had a free trade agreement before it joined the European Economic Community. Were the Irish ever less sovereign? Were they less Irish because of it? I think not, Madam Speaker. After England joined the European Economic Community, did it lose its sovereignty? Is Maggie Thatcher not the Prime Minister of an independent country? Isn't Queen Elizabeth the sovereign Queen of an independent state? For that matter, look at Australia and New Zealand. They signed a free trade agreement to be phased in over 10 years. It worked so well that the process was shortened to a six-year period. Are New Zealanders any less sovereign? Did the agreement keep New Zealand from taking a radically different international position from Australia on the issue of nuclear arms on visiting U.S. nuclear-powered warships?
We have been working toward freer trade for some 40 years. At the end of the Second World War, the average tariffs in this country were 35 per cent. Today, where tariffs apply at all, the average is 9 per cent or 10 per cent. Eighty per cent of our trade with the United States is already duty free. Trade barriers have been steadily lowered for decades. Is Canada less sovereign because of that? Have Canadians lost jobs because of that? Of course not. In fact, in that period of time we have become more prosperous. This free trade agreement really just completes the process. It phases our the remaining tariffs with the United States over the next 10 years.
When our Government embarked on negotiating freer trade with the United States it was understood that Canada, and all its regions, depends on trade for its prosperity. We set out to achieve a bilateral agreement with the United States, our
July 4, 1988

largest trading partner, while at the same time pursuing global negotiations and initiatives. In fact, if we do not like the free trade deal with the United States after trying it, then the ultimate act of sovereignty is to cancel it, and we can do so with a mere six months' notice.
In my view the free trade agreement negotiated with the United States presents eastern Ontario with its greatest opportunity ever to catch up with other parts of the province in our manufacturing sector and in getting our share of the high quality, high skilled jobs which our children seek as their future career choices, their future career options. That is the message I am hearing from business, from professionals and from academics in my region, the people who understand what the vocal opponents of free trade do not, that in this modern world there are linkages between trade, technology and investment which are the keys to job creation.
In my own federal riding of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton my office surveyed 155 manufacturers. Some 68 per cent of the respondents favoured an agreement with the United States which would eliminate tariffs and reduce other trade barriers to the flow of goods and services between both countries. I believe that free trade is Canada's best best bet for greater diversification and more growth. I ask the people to consider those remarks. I do so because I believe the greatest danger to our Canadian way of life lies not in the prosperity of free trade, but in the poverty of protectionism. If we fail to go forth to expand, to progress, then we will not be able to afford the regional development, the social and cultural programs which are a reality and reflect Canadian values.
I do not have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that the Great Depression of the 1930s started with a stock market crash, but far fewer people understand that the Depression lasted a decade because of short-sighted trade protectionism around the world. Should we turn and run from the opportunities of freer trade? If we choose to retreat behind protectionist walls, I fear we could repeat the mistakes of the past and suffer the consequences.
I am as dedicated a Canadian nationalist as anyone. I believe that the freer trade agreement is the only path to follow to ensure the economic future of my region, in this province and in this country. That is why in the end I am confident that after this debate it is not the shrill negative voices of our critics that will prevail but, rather, the common sense of Canadians who have decided on its merits that this important economic opportunity must be pursued.


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to express my astonishment and indeed embarrassment at the Government's decision to end the debate on the Mul-roney-Reagan agreement. I am, as they say in English, appalled at the way the Government has dealt with the impact on women, when we know that this particular group stands to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
lose the most. Since the Conservative Government came to power, its members have said constantly that giving women their rightful place was one of their priorities. But look at what this Government is doing, and look at this agreement: sadly, the Mulroney-Reagan agreement contains no protection for women and minorities.
For instance, we know that 63 per cent of workers in the service industries are women, and Canada not only has to compete with the U.S. but also with developing countries that will produce and are in fact producing and exporting goods at far lower cost. Many women who work in the services industry have little education. Many are immigrants who speak neither English nor French. If these women lose their jobs, they will have a hard time finding other jobs because it is very likely no retraining will be provided in the services sector. We have asked the Government many times to include this as one of the conditions for the service sector, so that women can retrain for other jobs, especially when we realize that over 65 per cent of single-parent families are headed by women, who in that case are the sole breadwinner. Of course this Government has always refused to commit itself. I would like to quote from a study prepared in Ontario.

In the Ontario study it indicated that 44 per cent of women's jobs in manufacturing will be vulnerable under free trade. That works out to 100,000 jobs being lost. A Quebec study estimated that at least 30,000 jobs in Quebec would be in jeopardy. The job loss could be due to several things. First, the manufacturing industry in Canada is dominated by American subsidiaries. Once the U.S. has access to our markets it will take companies out of Canada to areas where labour is cheaper and where there are fewer labour standards.
Second, as pressure is raised on businesses to cut costs and become competitive under free trade many companies will replace jobs with high technology. This rationalization of production will mean heavy job losses for women.
Within the service industry the impact of women's jobs will be even greater. For services that are international, that is, banking, telecommunications, education, health, accounting and others, women make up 82 per cent of the labour force. Canada's economy is a service economy. We rely on the service sector to generate jobs and to increase our GNP. Services account for two thirds of the national income and provide 70 per cent of jobs in Canada.
Moreover, historically free trade agreements, such as the GATT, have had as their focus the liberalization of trade in merchandise and have not dealt with liberalizing trade in the service industry. The important point here with respect to services is that we have not yet defined what services will be affected by the trade agreement. This service industry might include such things as medical care and child care and thus will affect women as consumers and as employees within those industries.

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation]
We know that today, daycare is one of our priorities in Canada and that the Conservative Government has said it is committed to tabling a child care program before the next election. This is probably one of the services that will be affected by the agreement. Today, American companies are sending us proposals for establishing daycare services in the provinces, especially in the West. I know what I am talking about because I have copies of letters, asking me what I thought and whether I would agree to approve their projects. So in some provinces we are going to see a series of daycare centres run by American companies, centres that will not be subject to Canadian regulations and that will be able to operate, whatever the Government of Canada may decide to do. Madam Speaker, I object to this approach because I don't think we can treat daycare centres like some kind of McDonald chain, because children are much too important for that. This is one of the services where standards will not be observed, and where the emphasis will be on operating daycare centres at a profit. I don't think children should be used to make money.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. The social services sector includes services that would take care of handicapped children and children who are mentally disturbed. There would also be homes for single mothers. There are not many of these today. And it also includes ambulance services and rehabilitation clinics. If private companies are asked to operate these services, well, private services are often less accessible and far more expensive. Fewer people would have access, and we would have two classes of Canadians, like the present situation in the United States.
I was invited by the U.S. Government on a three week tour in 1984, to take a look at the women's programs and other programs set up by the Reagan administration. I later wrote to the President to say that I appreciated the trip, but that since he was elected, there were far more elderly people, including women, sleeping on the sidewalks; that all job retraining programs for women had been cut and that his record in this respect was pretty poor.
So we really have to do something, and this is one of the reasons why I am totally against free trade, because I get the impression that Mr. Reagan is the one who will be calling the shots.

The United States has challenged many Canadian Government programs claiming that they are barriers to trade. These include unemployment insurance, subsidized business, regional development and tax incentives. The pressure will be on the Canadian Government to stop intervening and let market forces prevail. This could prevent any kind of affirmative action programs focused on encouraging equity in employment by means of tax relief. It could also, and will undoubtedly, preclude industrial training programs which now benefit women. It will challenge the extension of maternity benefits
through unemployment insurance as an unfair subsidy to employers.

Madam Speaker, we know that maternity leave is not granted automatically in the United States and that this is left up to each employer, whereas in Canada, mothers are granted a minimum number of weeks off, and we are attempting to obtain parental leave as well. And so this is totally unacceptable.
Madam Speaker, I protest, and I have this to say to the Government. If free trade is as important as the Government says it is, it absolutely cannot conclude such an agreement without having done something quite specific for women, who make up 52 per cent of the population. And, at this time, I find the Conservative Government's approach to women and employment in Canada totally unacceptable. Let me reiterate that is is totally unacceptable! Furthermore, I am asking Canadian women to remember this, since we are heading for an election, and to remember how the Conservative Government handled their priorities.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am sorry that it has to follow on the heels of the vote to limit debate on the free trade agreement.
This free trade agreement is of such historic importance to Canada that, regardless of which side one is on in the debate, we should debate it thoroughly, comprehensively and for however long it takes to cover the document without rushing it through. The speed with which the Government is trying to get this free trade agreement through is illustrated by the fact that the Minister who is in charge of selling the deal has not even had the time to read it.
I would have thought that we should have continued the debate, even if for no reason other than to give the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), the Minister who is in charge of selling the sell-out of Canada, the opportunity to read the document. Perhaps, having read it, he might change his mind about the quality of the document.
The question I want to focus on is whether or not there is anything to fear with regard to the free trade agreement that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made with the American President.


John Horton McDermid: Hysteria of the NDP.


Cyril Keeper: I want to raise that question because of what I have heard from my hon. friend across the way. We in the Opposition have been accused of raising fears unnecessarily, of playing to the fears of people without cause. The Government has been using that line to try to convince people to rest easy about the free trade agreement. Government Members have
July 4, 1988

said that it is just the Opposition raising unfounded fears while in fact what we have is a deal that is great for Canada.
Not only have government Members been saying this but they have been putting these words in the mouths of other world leaders. They attempted to use the Economic Summit to sell their sell-out of Canada. Of course, they got the full cooperation of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher.
Mrs. Thatcher came before this Chamber and said to Canadians: "You have nothing to fear from free trade, it will do you nothing but good, it will not harm your identity whatsoever". She said in Canada that there is nothing to fear from the harmonization of policies with the Americans, from having closer economic links with the Americans. She said that there will be nothing but prosperity ahead of us and that we have nothing to fear.
What happened once Mrs. Thatcher went home? What happened to the Iron Lady when she got back to Britain? She was under pressure from the European Economic Community to co-ordinate her policies more closely with those of the European Economic Community, to establish a central European bank and to turn over the British central bank to the European Economic Community. What did she say to that? Did she tell the people of Britain that they have nothing to fear, this will bring them greater prosperity, let us make this great leap of faith? That is what she told Canadians, but when she got home to Britain, she told her own people that she said no to having a European central bank.
As far as I know, Mrs. Thatcher did not explain in any great detail why she said no to that, but an official of her Government said quite clearly that if Britain were to agree to this greater harmonization of economic policies with Europe and to the creation of a central bank of Europe, they would first have to give up the British House of Commons because the British House of Commons would be stripped of its power to direct the British economy.


John Horton McDermid: There is nothing in the free trade agreement that calls for a central bank.


Cyril Keeper: I hear the Tory puppies whimpering over there, saying that that is not in the free trade agreement. Of course, there is no present policy in the free trade agreement providing for a central bank between Canada and the United States, but the policy direction is the same. The direction is toward the harmonization of economic policies. In fact, every Canadian knows that it is a very rare occasion on which our central bank follows a different interest rate policy than that of the United States Federal Reserve. We already have a de facto lock-step branch plant central bank. We are already marching in harmony with the Americans when it comes to monetary policy.
The point I am making is that Mrs. Thatcher sings two tunes. She sings a tune of praise for free trade when in Canada. She tells us that we do not have to worry about the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
sovereignty of our country or about the powers of Parliament, we will continue to have plenary powers and there is nothing to fear. However, when she turns her back on us and goes back to Britain and is faced with demands from the European Economic Community, she says no because she knows that to acquiesce to such demands means a weakening, an undercutting, a sabotaging of the powers of the British Parliament. She is asking Canadians to accept a weaker House of Commons, a diluted House of Commons, while she herself will not put up with that.
Mrs. Thatcher reassured us that, based on her experience with the European Economic Community, Canada has nothing to fear from entering into a deal with the United States. Yet even the Iron Lady is being forced to succumb. While she was saying no to a European central bank, to a weakening of the British House of Commons, she was forced to acquiesce to a request to become part of a committee studying how to coordinate the monetary policies of Europe and of Great Britain, a first step down the road to a European central bank. It is first step down the road to weakening the British House of Commons. Even the Iron Lady has been forced by the pressures of entering into this kind of deal to move in a direction that will eventually weaken and sabotage the British House of Commons.
We know that we in this country have no assurance of having a Prime Minister who has the courage to stand up for principle and to stand up to foreign adversaries. We have someone who offers a smile to every slap in the face.
The point I want to make is that Canadians have good reason to be concerned about the deal that our Prime Minister has made with the United States. The reassurances of Margaret Thatcher aside, these fears are based on a sound analysis of the free trade agreement. When it comes to investment, this House is giving up the power to set a policy for screening foreign investment, a screening which would see whether or not the foreign investment is to the benefit of Canada. We are being asked to give up the powers of this House to do that under the free trade agreement. At the same time, the Americans are suddenly becoming concerned about foreign investment and are considering policies for screening, controlling and evaluating the benefits of foreign investment in their economy. The Americans are going to be raising their heads when it comes to questioning foreign investment and our hands are going to be tied behind our backs because of this agreement. All of this without an opportunity for the Canadian people to say whether or not they agree with the Government that the agreement is good for Canada, or they agree with the Opposition that there are real grounds for concern and the agreement ought to be put aside and some other more effective way found to regulate our trading relationship with the Americans.
All this agreement has led to is what Mrs. Thatcher said it would not lead to, a weakening of this House of Commons. We

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
on this side of the House stand for sovereignty for Canada, a stronger Canada, a stronger Canadian economy, and we ask those people across the way to read the agreement, wake up, and stand up for Canada.


Mr. Kenneth Albert  Janies@Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to enter this debate on the importance of the free trade initiative. First, I would like to comment on some of the things that have just been said, especially with respect to centralized banking. Nothing like that is even talked about in the agreement. The Hon. Member talked about not reading the agreement. I have a feeling that perhaps he did not have the opportunity to read the agreement. One of the reasons we wanted the agreement was so that we could secure our access to the American market for investment by Canadians as well as investment by Americans in our country.
1 would like to speak today about Sarnia-Lambton as it is affected by the agreement. That is an area very important to me, of course, because that is where I come from. It is the petrochemical centre of the east, and so this agreement is very important to us. The petroleum refining and petrochemical industry accounts for over 50 per cent of all employment in that area. I would like to quote from a statement made by Bill McCagherty, a Vice-President of Dow Chemical of Canada, which has its headquarters in Sarnia-Lambton. He said:
We would be hard to beat. Sarnia has an ample supply of feedstocks, a
highly skilled labour force and a competitive energy position. Unobstructed
access to the large, adjacent U.S. market will lead to expansion.
What could be more positive in our area than expansion? It will make available more jobs to our young people graduating from university.
Sarnia-Lambton chemical valley is efficient, world scale and competitive. The industry has supported broad tariff removal with the U.S. for many years. U.S. import tariffs on petrochemicals range as high as 18 per cent, and have been a major impediment to our industry's ability to expand. Under the FTA, both U.S. and Canadian petrochemical tariffs will be phased out over a five to ten-year period. That is important and everyone across the country knows it. The industry was ecstatic. They thought that if we got an agreement to get those tariffs down in ten years we would be doing a great job.
The proximity of the industry to its major customers in Canada and the United States, and the supplier-consumer relations established over many years, will reduce the potential impact of increased competition from the U.S. gulf coast producers.
Ontario is Canada's second largest producer of petrochemicals after Alberta, accounting for 35 per cent of Canadian productive capacity. Since oil and gas represent up to 70 per cent of the cost of petrochemical production, availability and pricing are of critical importance to the industry. Tariffs of 7.5 per cent to 18 per cent are a significant factor in the Canada-U.S. petrochemical trade. Traditionally, the more upgraded the product in Canada, the higher the U.S. tariff. Some Hon.
Member opposite said that under GATT these tariffs would be removed in the year 2000 or so. I tell him that those tariffs in existence today are troublesome to us because they involve downstream type of work, and a real example of that is the petrochemical industry.
The Leaders of both Opposition Parties have talked about tearing up this agreement. Imagine the importance of this industry in both Sarnia-Lambton and in Alberta. Think of the jobs. The tariff on the industry's products is 17.5 per cent now. There is a five-year countdown for removal of that tariff, so 20 per cent of it will have been removed in the first year. The opposition Parties are going to tear up the agreement and tell the petrochemical industry in Canada, "we are going to raise your prices so that you are less competitive in the American market". Imagine what would happen. That illustrates the ridiculous aspect of this threat to tear up the agreement.
This agreement is so good for Sarnia-Lambton that I want to read another statement, and I think the entire House will be interested in this. It is this:
I think that we feel there are some winners in the free trade agreement and I would think that the petrochemical industry is one.
Let me tell you who said that. It was Monte Kwinter, the provincial Industry Minister.


John Horton McDermid: A Liberal!


Mr. James:: What do you think of that? Monte Kwinter, the Liberal Industry Minister in the Province of Ontario said that very emphatically not too many months ago in Sarnia.
Petrochemicals are heavily export-dependent. Exports account for 40 per cent of our $4 billion worth of production. The U.S. is by far Canada's most important petrochemical trading partner, taking about 60 per cent of Canadian exports. We see a tremendously wide open market with the removal of those tariffs. Within a 500-mile radius of Sarnia-Lambton you will find 54 per cent of the U.S. payroll, some 54 per cent of its manufacturing activity and, what is important to Ontario is that our per capita exports are $6,545 compared to $4,700 for all of Canada.
I talked to you about what Mr. Kwinter has said. I would like to tell you about some of the other statements made by people in our community. This is what the general manager of the Chamber of Commerce said:
In Sarnia-Lambton the impact of the Free Trade Agreement would be enormous. Access to the larger U.S. market for petrochemicals in particular would stimulate our economy greatly, increasing profits and allowing for further growth and more jobs.
If we are to survive the pressures of changing global conditions we must align ourselves with a significant trading partner to remain competitive with the well positioned European and Pacific Rim trading blocs. Without this alliance we will find ourselves quite alone against these stronger trading partnerships.
Sarnia-Lambton can be big winners with a free trade deal, and like the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and this Canadian Chamber of Commerce we would strongly encourage the passing of the critical initiative.
July 4, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I will have to interrupt the Hon. Member at this time but there will be two minutes left in his time after we complete Private Members' Business.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT SUGGESTED REPEAL OF SECTION 17
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 26, 1988, consideration of the motion of Mr. Redway:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the
advisability of repealing Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act and
require that all remissions of taxes, fees or penalties be submitted, each year,
to Parliament for approval.
Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for External Relations):: Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) has indicated, there are essentially two kinds of remission orders.
First, there are a few tariff remission orders of substantial dollar value whose purpose is to promote specific industrial developments. Such duty remissions are given conditional on firms meeting performance requirements with respect to investment, production or employment in Canada.
Use of remission orders in this manner might be called the equivalent of a "program". The purposes of such programs will be examined subsequently by one of my colleagues. I might mention, however, that as a result of the free trade agreement, no new remission programs conditional on performance can be introduced after June 30 of this year or after the agreement is approved by the U.S. Congress, whichever comes later, and existing programs of this type must be terminated before 1988.
I propose to examine the other major use of remission orders- in their functions as a fair and timely remedy. I might call the attention of the House to the fact that this is the reason why most remission orders have been granted over the years.
My argument will be that remissions for timely and equitable relief fulfill a useful and necessary function in our tax and tariff systems. Any reasonable system needs a "remedy of last resort" of this kind. I would also submit that the motion of the Member for York East would defeat the purpose of this useful instrument.
Financial Administration Act
Remission orders to deal with unfairness usually come from two sources, Madam Speaker, corresponding to ministerial responsibilities. The Minister of Finance has the responsibility for tax and tariff policy. In the last six months, he sponsored or co-sponsored a total of two tax remission orders-on the grounds that failing to remedy the problems in question would have offended against the principles of a good tax system. In one case, double taxation was involved. In the other case, retroactive taxation would have been involved as a result of a change in legislation.
The vast majority of remissions on grounds of fairness, however, arise in the administration of the tax and tariff system and are sponsored by the Minister of National Revenue. These orders deal with cases of hardship, administrative error, anomalies and unreasonable applications of tax laws or the Customs Tariff.
As Members will know, a taxpayer is barred by statute from claiming relief for an error in filing taxes if the period in which amended returns can be submitted has expired. Remission orders are occasionally given where extreme hardship results or the circumstances were beyond the control of the taxpayer.
A case from the 1986 Public Accounts illustrates the process, Madam Speaker. The recipient of PC 1985-2/3341 was an Iranian resident who was, at the relevant time, prohibited from leaving Iran and was unable to communicate with anyone in Canada since it was dangerous for Iranians to own property outside of Iran. One can easily sympathize, Madam Speaker, with the reasons why this remission order was given.
Looking at tariff remission orders published in the Gazette or Public Accounts, one can also find many examples where remissions are given because of anomalies in the Customs Tariff. For instance, a remission may be given of the duty on a piece of equipment not available in Canada, used to produce a product which can be imported duty free.
Finally, Madam Speaker, in any tax and tariff system, there are inevitably and regrettably administrative errors. Remission orders are also used to compensate the taxpayer or importer for such errors.
These procedures of remitting taxes and tariffs are an exceptional power, Madam Speaker, and the House might like to be assured that they are used only after careful consideration. I can supply that assurance.
In cases involving administration of the tax system, an internal Committee within Revenue Canada considers requests for remission. Further, tariff remissions are recommended only after detailed examination by an interdepartmental Committee and thorough consultations with parties who might be affected.
There are further steps in the approval process. The larger industrial tariff remission programs are always submitted to Cabinet. All tax remission orders now have to be approved by Treasury Board. Finally, all remission orders are examined by the Special Committee of the Council.

July 4, 1988
Financial Administration Act
Many of the cases I have mentioned constitute the only available remedy to rectify unfairness after the fact. There is another important function of remission orders, however, and that is to provide timely relief where a problem is ongoing or continuous.
As Members will recognize, our legislative calendar is crowded and it is a time-consuming process to change legislation. In these circumstances, remission orders may be used until a problem can be corrected by legislation.
A case in point is the "beer cooler" order passed on March 30, 1988. This order originated because a brewer wanted to get into the "hot" cooler market with a product blending both wine and beer. The problem was that excise tax is paid on wine used to produce the blend and another excise tax would apply to the finished product. To avoid double taxation, a remission order was issued. Should there be a continuing demand for this product, no doubt there will be a change proposed in the relevant tax legislation. What the remission order demonstrates, Madam Speaker, is the willingness of the government to act fast to remove roadblocks that would otherwise get in the way of the private sector going about their business.
Of course, Madam Speaker, there is a possible conflict between the levels of approval required in careful use of this exceptional policy instrument and its function of providing timely relief. Indeed, the Auditor-General has complained about the time taken to pass some remission orders. This is one of the reasons why Treasury Board is being removed from the remission approval process. This has already occurred in the case of tariffs and is also being considered for tax remission orders.
Action is also being undertaken to replace other longstanding remission orders by statutory provision. A case in point is the duties that have to be paid on goods admitted for temporary use in Canada.
Present practice is to remit all but a specified fraction of the full duty on these products and to record this as a remission. When these temporary entries are covered by regulation in the near future, over $200 million will disappear from the value of remission orders recorded in the Public Accounts.
Madam Speaker, that is my position concerning the motion sponsored by my colleague, and I should think it faithfully reflects the Government position in this debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this particular motion. This motion attempts to increase the accountability of the Government of Canada to the Parliament of Canada and, consequently, to the people of Canada.
The Member for York East (Mr. Redway), and in fact all of his colleagues on the Public Accounts Committee, believe very strongly that there is a real need to increase the accountability of the Government in ways which make it possible to zero in
on expenditures which can be looked at. In doing so we found that there are a lot of tax expenditures made by the Government by very simple strokes of the pen which no one can really get their hands on. Not only are we concerned that this can be done easily, there is no mechanism to require Parliament to pass such expenditures.
Government Departments must include their expenditures within the Estimates that are passed by Parliament. However, Government expenditures in the form of tax remissions or credits do not have to pass through Parliament. Consequently, one could almost call these illegal expenditures because a fundamental principle is that such expenditures must be approved by the Parliament of Canada.
According to Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act, the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, whenever he considers it is in the public interest, may remit any tax, fee or penalty. In theory, this may be money being paid to the Government which it is turning back, perhaps for a good reason. However, parliamentary democracy requires that those types of expenditures, even indirect expenditures, should be made by the Parliament of Canada. That is not the case with remission orders, and that is why I support the motion of the Hon. Member for York East which suggests that Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act be repealed and that all remissions of taxes, fees or penalties be submitted each year to Parliament for approval.
While this may sound like a long and involved process, it would not take long to pass it through the House and would require Members to consider what happens in the remission process. For example, the Public Accounts of Canada, Volume II, contains many pages of remission orders which have never been passed by Parliament. They have only been registered as expenditures that have taken place.
The repeal of Section 17 and the addition of a requirement for parliamentary approval would establish control over a considerable amount of money. The latest Public Accounts of Canada, fiscal year 1986-87, contains 36 pages of remission orders totalling over $1 billion. Certain remission orders amounted to over $1 million in themselves, so we are not only concerned with small amounts of money.
A principle of democracy is that everyone be treated the same. This section of the Financial Administration Act allows Cabinet to return tax to anyone at any time for any reason. This leaves room for inequality when Parliament can only consider the Public Accounts reports that are filed perhaps a year after the expenditures have been made or moneys theoretically returned.
There are many good reasons for these remission orders and in most cases Parliament would approve them without difficulty. The point is that they would be considered by Parliament.
July 4, 1988

The tax credit is not covered by this Act, but the principle is the same. The previous Liberal Government provided for a research tax credit which companies that applied could use for a reduction in taxes. The tax credit cost us some $3.4 billion. We might have saved a considerable amount of that if the research tax credit were open to parliamentary scrutiny so that the list of applicants and the credits would have to be approved before the reduction in taxes were allowed. That is the type of procedure that has been suggested in this motion.
We need to review the process of tax expenditure to make sure that all tax money that is spent or credits that are given are authorized by the Parliament of Canada. It has been suggested that 30 per cent more in funds would go to Government coffers with the elimination of all tax expenditures and remission orders. I know that will not happen, but the point is that the remission of tax orders and the tax credit structure accounts for a very substantial part of expenditure. We must examine how to improve the whole structure.
The Public Accounts Committee has dealt with a number of remission orders. One of them is the Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas Company Limited, which cost us $400 million. It is that kind of operation which Parliament should be able to scrutinize before it takes place.


Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, first, I want to express my congratulations to the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) for introducing this particular motion. It is very important that Canadians understand as much about this process as they possibly can since it is so important to us all.
I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on tariff remission under Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act and the new tariff remission authority, Section 101 of the Customs Tariff.
The last time this motion was debated, two of the speakers talked about the openness and accountability of the remission process. Earlier today, we heard about fairness and equity in the process. I would like at this time to speak in greater detail about the tariff remission process itself. I believe that this is important because, as noted during the last debate by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent), there is in fact a rather low level of public understanding of the workings of the tax and tariff remission system.
Prior to January 1, 1988, tariff remissions were introduced pursuant to Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act. However, with the introduction of the new Customs Tariff on that date, most tariff remissions are now made pursuant to Section 101 of the Customs Tariff. As such, most remissions of customs duties would be outside the scope of the motion currently before the House. However, there will no doubt be occasions where certain remissions may still be introduced
Financial Administration Act
under Section 17, notably those affecting imports made prior to January 1, 1988.
While the wording of the tariff remission authorities allows a very broad use without any real restriction, in fact, the vast majority of duty remissions are introduced primarily as remedies in specific cases where the application of the tariff laws and regulations would lead to anomalous, inequitable, or unreasonable results or hardship. The Order in Council remission authorities allow for a quick response by the Government in these very disturbing cases. On March 31, 1988, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduced the first report to Parliament on remission orders.
I would like to point out some cases that were sometimes anomalous, inequitable, unreasonable and caused hardship. In this respect I would like to list just a few of the remissions that have been granted, as well as the dollar amounts involved. In
1987,	the remission of a customs duty and a portion of the sales tax paid or payable on stoves and ovens imported into Canada by Riverside Lions Non-Profit Housing of Winnipeg, which is in my riding, amounted to $9,940. This was done to assist this group in its efforts to furnish apartments for the disabled with stoves and ovens with special features designed to meet the needs of handicapped persons. That was a very important use of a remission order.
Again, in 1987, on the basis of extreme hardship, the amount remitted for a refund that would have been payable to the taxpayer had she fded on time was $654.
Further, in 1988, to prevent financial hardship to a gentleman, particularly in recognition of the fact that the repairs made to his vehicle were covered by warranty with a company in the United States, some $2,676 was remitted.
Again, in 1988, an order remitted on the grounds of administrative error concerning a 1982 tax and interest charge relating to a statute-barred claim for partial dependency of a physically infirm brother was $212.
Again, in 1988, a remission order conditionally remitted on the grounds of an administrative error statute-barred income tax for 1981 and 1982 on registered pension plan contributions which could not benefit from a tax free roll-over to an RRSP was $3,258. The condition was that the funds minus the pension deduction must be transferred to an RRSP before
1988.
We can see that these remission orders are very often granted to rectify cases of extreme hardship to individuals and to groups doing good things in our society.
The primary responsibility for these tariff remissions rests with the Department of Finance. Tariff remissions introduced for administrative reasons are sponsored by Revenue Canada.
The role of the Treasury Board with respect to the remission process under Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act has been to provide a central ministerial forum in which to discuss and debate proposed remissions, in particular the most

July 4, 1988
Financial Administration Act
contentious ones. The board makes recommendations on remission proposals to a special committee of Council, which in turn makes the final recommendation to the Governor-General in Council. The remission process usually starts with a representation to the Government. Most of these are received from importers or Canadian manufacturers who believe that, for one reason or another, they should be granted tariff relief on particular products that they are importing. It is very important on an ongoing basis that there be extensive consultation carried out with all the parties who might be affected by this remission.
The Government of Canada has made several improvements to the duty remission process. First, there is a new regulatory process which requires that a regulatory impact analysis statement be prepared for all tariff remissions, and that the statement be published in the Canada Gazette along with remission orders. Once the remission order has been approved by the Governor in Council, it is published in the Canada Gazette. This is another recent improvement in the process since, in the past, not all orders were gazetted.
Furthermore, all orders remitting over $20 million in duties are tabled in the House shortly after being approved. It is very clear that a $20 million level is set at one place while my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East, would want it to be much lower than that. In another Private Bill to be discussed by the House, Bill C-287, a suggestion is being made that orders over $1 million be tabled in this House before being approved. I think all of us want to recognize that remission orders are very important to the people to whom they are granted. I would not quibble if the $20 million level were set down considerably lower than that.
If the foregoing were not enough to make the remission process open and accountable, the Minister of Finance has undertaken to table in the House, twice a year, a report on all new remissions giving information on their costs and the reasons why they were introduced.
It is rather obvious from this report to Parliament on remission orders that these are done by and large for needy and worth-while cases in small dollar amounts. None of us would want to discontinue the process of granting small dollar remissions for very important causes to individual Canadians. What is at stake here is the accountability of Parliament and the fairness of these decisions.
In closing, 1 will say that the Government of Canada and the Minister of Finance have introduced several changes which make the system more accountable and more fair. None of us would quibble with any suggestions that Hon. Members would make to make the system even fairer and more accountable. I offer the following comment. If we were to introduce every single remission order for adoption in Parliament, then very important cases, very needy cases, might be unnecessarily delayed in a bureaucratic fashion.
I wish to commend the Hon. Member for York East on his suggestion that remission orders be made more accountable to
the House of Commons, but would suggest that having every single one of them heard here might in fact hurt those people who the Hon. Member is trying to support.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join in this debate and say a few things about the motion that is before us. It is a motion standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of repealing Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act and require that all remissions of taxes, fees or penalties be submitted, each year, to Parliament for approval.
Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act states that the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, whenever he considers it in the public interest, may remit any tax, fee or penalty. Remission orders are somewhat different from tax expenditures. Parliament has to vote on tax expenditures. In remission orders there is no scrutiny by Parliament, or accountability by the Cabinet to Parliament. It is totally a decision by Cabinet on recommendations from the Treasury Board. That is how remission orders work.
While we support the thrust of the motion of the Hon. Member for York East, it seems to me that there is something more to it than just giving the information to The Gazette, and it is more than having the information. That is only a small part of it. In this review process I do not think that all remission orders need to be looked at. One has to realize that some are for very small amounts and time should not be spent reviewing all of them. I agree with the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Boyer) that tax remissions of $1 million and up ought to be reviewed.
However, there is more to it than that. We need to know the rationale behind the tax remission. Why was it given? What was the reason for the tax remission? Why was this money turned back to the taxpayer corporation or individual? There must be a statement of explanation from the applicant for the tax remission.
I recognize that many are justifiable. For example, investors in the Principal Group were being taxed on interest that they had not received. It is only fair that a remission order should be put in abeyance to collect that tax, because the investors had not collected the interest from their investment in the Principal Group. That makes sense.
There is one example that I have had difficulty with, and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, has raised it in the House. I wish to give him credit for that. One has to keep in mind that it is a Conservative Government and these ideas are coming from Conservative back-benchers. It is important that we keep the focus. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore has raised the question about Goodyear Tire Inc. in his riding. That company has received $63 million
July 4, 1988

in tax and duty remissions. It has a bit of a fight going on with the union in the shop. It wants to get rid of the union. There are provisions for that type of thing within the Labour Act. Lo and behold, Goodyear has decided to close down its operation in the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore and move down the road to Napanee. It has received $63 million in tax and duty remissions. Then the Peterson Liberal Government of Ontario runs in and says: "Here, you will need some money to start a plant in Napanee, so we'll give you $32 million". Out of the public largesse, the Ontario Government has given Goodyear $32 million to locate in Napanee.
As one studies this particular case one finds out that Goodyear's headquarters in Akron, Ohio, has readjusted its administrative charge structure to the branch plant at Etobicoke-Lakeshore and it will receive the bulk of that $63 million. The bulk of that $63 million will be siphoned off in a pipeline to Akron, Ohio, from the Treasury of Ottawa, and zipped off to the parent company in Akron, Ohio. Members of Parliament have not and will not have an opportunity to review that situation.
When Goodyear does not pay that $63 million, someone else has to pay it. When companies such as Goodyear do not pay their share of taxes, the ordinary Canadian out there has to pick up the shortfall. I do not believe that in a democracy where that type of remission is being given it ought to go unexamined by those who are elected to Parliament to do that job.
While we support the general thrust of the motion of the Hon. Member for York East, we do believe that not only should there be a review, but there should be a statement of explanation accompanying each of those remission orders. As I stated previously, we do not need to look at all remission orders, but a good starting point would be anything from a million dollars up.
If we can approve this particular motion, it does not necessarily mean that the system will be changed tomorrow. I hope that anyone who is watching or listening understands that. This is simply a motion that suggests to the Government that this is what ought to be done. It is a suggestion that is coming from a Conservative back-bencher, and it is supported by other Progressive Conservatives. I know it is a contradiction in terms to think that there is such a thing as a Progressive Conservative, but there is the odd one. I want to make the plea that there is an odd closet Progressive Conservative sitting on the back-benches, or on the front benches. The Government would do well to listen to those voices of reason. From time to time they do have the odd reasonable suggestion, and this is one for which the Government would find support from the NDP side of the House. I do not know where the Liberals stand on it, but the NDP would certainly support a move to give this type of accountability to the whole question of tax and duty remissions.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made a speech in
Financial Administration Act
February, 1984, to the Young Presidents' Organization, at which time he called for changes in the administration of the Government of Canada, opening up the process to greater public scrutiny, and particularly a more important role for elected representatives in the decision-making process. I believe that that was very firmly part of the mandate for change that came later in that year of 1984.
If that is the general proposition, it has to come to rest in particular terms. No better example could be found than in the practice of the Government in granting remission orders under Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act. This practice developed over some time. Previous Governments were counselled to use Section 17 in an ever-expanding interpretation. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duguay) who spoke a few moments ago correctly stated that the purpose of Section 17 was to correct the anomalies, the patent injustices, and the unusual workings of the Income Tax Act.
What we have seen happen, in addition to that, has been the practice for Governments to use remission orders as a means for implementing industrial policy. No one would say that Governments should not have an industrial policy. But the point here is that an industrial policy should not be carried out in a hip-pocket or off-the-record fashion, which Orders in Council granting remission orders are, but rather here on the floor of the House of Commons where Members on all sides who are informed on these issues would have an opportunity to debate, approve, or oppose.
This is not something that has been a concern only for Members of Parliament. In the 1979 decision of Clarkson Co. Ltd. v. The Queen (1979) 94 D.L.R. (3d) 348, 365, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Appeal queried whether Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act was meant to authorize general remission orders which effectively amend the relevant taxing statute, as opposed to the remission of specific tax liability in individual cases.
To me, as a lawyer, that is an extraordinary development when you have a judge opining in the process of a decision that here is a section of the law being used not for its intended purpose but in fact to amend legislation and to do it outside of this Chamber, which is the place where law is passed.
Parliamentarians have focused on this in other forms as well, most certainly the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The New Democrat Member from Saskatchewan earlier referred to such celebrated cases as the Hudson's Bay oil and gas remission order in 1986, as being worth some $4.5 million, but the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, in its Issue No. 26 of its report to this House, estimated the value of that remission order being in fact in excess of $1 billion.
So we are not dealing here with the small amounts that are forgiven from time to time because of unjust workings of the Income Tax Act. We are dealing with the practice that has

July 4, 1988
Financial Administration Act
developed for Governments to use remission orders as a means of implementing industrial policy.
My view is that we have a trend under way now in the House to come to grips with this problem. Certainly, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), on March 6 of 1987, when he responded to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts by letter, saying that he would henceforth table in the House remission orders exceeding $20 million in value, along with an explanation of those remission orders twice yearly, made a step further than what he was strictly required to do. We have the resolution of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) on the floor today, where he goes all the way, and I understand completely his motivation for this, because he shares the concern which I voiced in this Chamber many times that we have witnessed the use of remission orders but we have also, most assuredly, witnessed the abuse of remission orders. His motion before us is an effort to correct that.
Being a moderate, as I am, perhaps there is a compromise position between the stage to which the Finance Minister has moved to date, namely, $20 million and twice-annual summaries tabled in the House, and the position of the Hon. Member for York East, which is saying that every single remission order, even if it is for $11.14, should come before Parliament.
In the Bill which I have introduced on March 16th of this year, Bill C-287, I am proposing a $1 million threshold, and two further features. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has already referred to this Bill, but there are two further features in it. One is that the remission order be accompanied by a justification report. It would be in this way that the Minister of Finance would explain to Members of the House of Commons what justifies giving such an order, along the lines of what we used to see under the Foreign Investment Review Act when justification had to be given that there was net benefit to Canada for this investment to be made. What is the net benefit to Canada of $63 million being granted, for example, to Goodyear Canada Inc.? What benefits outweigh that cost? These should be specified in a justification report, as I am proposing in my Bill.
Second, I am saying that there should be a 60-day period for those remission orders in the House during which the House can approve them or reject them and, at the end of the 60-day period, because the Government must get on and function, if nothing has been done at the end of 60 days, then those remission orders would take effect, without Parliament having voiced an opinion, yea or nay, on the particular remission orders.
As it stands, we now have the Minister of Finance bringing in his report to Parliament on remission orders. This has already been alluded to by previous speakers. I would like to say why I think this is an inadequate step along the direction that we must be going, although it is a step in the right direction, most assuredly.
The reason I say that-and I am contrasting it to what would be included in the justification report-is that here, for example, if one picks one of the remission orders that I am quite familiar with, that given to Goodyear, one finds that the first column is a description of the order; the second column is a sponsoring department or agency; the third column cites the applicable legislation; the fourth column shows the total amount for the life of the order; and the final, fifth column, gives the reasons for the order. Here is where we begin to come face to face with reality. The reason for this one was, to Goodyear, to facilitate the modernization and rationalization of tire production facilities "in order to prevent further plant closures and thus maintain current production and employment levels".
I am not going to take the few moments available to me now to repeat what I said earlier on the floor of the House, but let me say it in brief compass as follows. Those familiar with the two tire manufacturing plants which Goodyear has in Canada in Valleyfield, Quebec, and Medicine Hat in Alberta, understand well that there is no amount of government assistance that will make any difference to the level of production or the number of jobs at either of those plants, for reasons of market forces and tied selling to the GM plant at Ste Therese, Quebec, which last year the Government supported with $210 billion of additional funding. So that production and those jobs are secure.
Then it goes on and says, "to maintain current employment levels". We know in fact that the closure of one plant and the loss of 1,574 jobs in Etobicoke-Lakeshore is matched by the new plant with its projected employment of 800 new jobs. So that in fact is a net loss. This statement in the Minister's report to the House about justifying this report on the basis of maintaining current employment levels does not accurately state what the reality is. It is for that reason that I believe, fundamentally, we should have the opportunity on the floor of the House to hear the contentions made in defence of remission orders, and the opportunity to bring other facts that contradict those on the floor for debate and discussion.
In fact, I would conclude with these two observations. I do not think that any of these efforts, to permit the use of Section 17 or other measures like this, for industrial policy, is the right way to go. Leave remission orders for what they were intended to be, to clear up the anomalous results that are occasionally found-the unfair consequences of the workings of the law. If the Government of the day, of any stripe, feels that it is important to support the Canadian tire industry, then let it bring, on the floor of the House of Commons, a statute called, shall we say, the Canadian Tire Manufacturers Assistance Act, 1988. There we can deal not only with Goodyear, but with Uniroyal and with Michelin, because they both received remission orders as well. We can debate as parliamentarians whether the $100 million or the $200 million that will be the benefit for those companies is worth it. If it is not possible to have that kind of legislation brought before Parliament under the framework of our new trade treaty with the United States
July 4, 1988

then I think we ought to know that as well and we ought to know it now.
Finally, with respect to this continued operation of Section 17 for granting these large remission orders that, in effect, implement industrial policy through the back door, I think the Government could very well find itself open to a legal challenge on this practice. This issue has not for the first time come before the courts. I have already referred to a 1979 decision. It is certainly open to anyone withstanding to seek from the Federal Court a declaratory judgment that the wording of Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act on its face does not support these kinds of tax expenditures, and any authorization of amounts such as this one to Goodyear is outside the wording of Section 17. The authorization would not, therefore, be properly authorized by law and such remission orders would be null and void. I raise as a distinct possibility that that issue could yet be a further chapter in the unfolding battle we have waging before us, that we see the end of the abuse of remission orders and bring true public accountability to the expenditure of public funds.


Murray Dorin: Madam Speaker, the motion before us has been put by the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). I know him well and I know his continuing interest in matters, especially those arising out of the Public Accounts Committee on which he has served and for which he has become somewhat well known. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of repealing Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act and require that all remissions of taxes, fees or penalties be submitted, each year, to Parliament for approval.
I do not have any real difficulty with the general intent of the motion, which is to bring greater accountability to the issuance of remission orders. I question whether or not the motion is sufficiently clear in that it does not really indicate what kind of approval would be sought from Parliament, whether it would be sought for every single remission order or whether it would be sought for matter in advance so that an order could not be granted without parliamentary approval.
Remission orders are used, I believe, because of time constraints sometimes imposed by the House to deal with matters like this in another way. For example, we could pass a Bill if we so chose. But I do not think anyone would suggest that Parliament should pass a Bill to grant a remission order for $654 to remit, on the basis of extreme hardship, the amount of the refund that would have been repayable to the taxpayer had he or she filed on time. Obviously I do not think that this is the intent of the motion, but that has not been made clear.
I suggest that what perhaps we could adopt is a practice whereby enshrined in law could be the tabling of a document by the Minister either annually or semi-annually, which could
Financial Administration Act
then be automatically referred to one of the standing committees of Parliament.
We have seen through parliamentary reform that all Governor in Council appointments are now referred to an appropriate standing committee. Speaking from the point of view of the committee with which I am most familiar, namely, the Finance Committee, we resolved that all appointments would be circulated to every member of the committee, and should any member of the committee, Government, Opposition or independent Member wish to have a witness called before the committee, he or she could notify the clerk, and the witness would then be called at an appropriate time. There is, however, very little use of the practice. We called the new Governor of the Bank of Canada earlier this year, but beyond that the practice has not been widely used. The practice has not been followed by other committees either, but that is not to say the practice is not working. What it has done by allowing automatic review of government appointments by a standing committee is to put upon the Government a greater onus to act with a little extra care and to be more conscious of who is appointed to boards, agencies and committees of government because these appointments may be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
1 suggest the same principle could be applied here and that having now received this first report from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), who has committed himself to table such a report annually in Parliament, we could enshrine that practice. The current Minister has said he will do that, and I have no doubt he will, but future Ministers may not necessarily continue the practice. If we were to enshrine the need to table such a report semi-annually or annually in Parliament allowing it then to be deemed referred to an appropriate standing committee, the committee would then have the authority to review any or all of the remissions that have been granted. Again, as has been the case with Governor in Council appointments, I suggest that that possibility of scrutiny alone would serve to cause the Government to act with a great deal of care in the granting of such remission orders.
I myself have sought to have a remission order granted for a constituent of mine, so I can understand why the practice needs to be in place. It would allow the Government to act in cases where inequities, anomalies or other things occur that were never contemplated when the Act was passed. As yet I have not been successful but I can describe the case briefly.
A constituent of mine inherited a piece of property from a relative who had passed away. At the time of the death, property values were very high. It was approximately a half section of land and it was fairly near the City of Edmonton. As you know, Madam Speaker, there is under the Income Tax Act a deemed disposition of assets on death giving rise possibly to capital gains taxes. In this particular case, by the time the person received the property the land values had fallen dramatically. Nonetheless, Revenue Canada pursued the matter based on the value at the time of the deemed disposition on death. That value was somewhere around $6 million. My constituent has been unable to sell the property for any

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
value. There was one offer which eventually fell through for something less than $1 million. If that offer had been accepted and received, the amount that would have been received from the sale of land would have been insufficient to cover the tax. The only error my constituent made was to inherit a piece of property. The constituent is now being pursued by Revenue Canada for an amount of tax based on the value of the property at the time it was inherited for which only a fraction of the amount can now be realized.
Here we have a case of hardship, I believe an inequity in the law and an anomaly that was not foreseen. In that kind of case I think there should be an adjustment.


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




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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. Langdon (p. 16673).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House began Private Members' Business, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton had the floor and had two minutes remaining in his time.


Kenneth Albert James: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak again on this very important initiative. I was talking earlier about the importance of this initiative to the people of the Sarnia-Lambton area. Most especially, it is important to our concentration of petrochemical and refining industry businesses there.
I thought another example of what has happened in the past might be interesting to all Hon. Members. In Sarnia, this event provided a major discussion point, particularly when we were attempting to bring ourselves out of the chaos of the National Energy Program which made us purchase feedstocks which were more expensive than those purchased by our American competition.
A company called Detroit Plastics and Moulding was looking for a place to locate. It was considering a number of areas, and the Sarnia area looked especially good to the company because of our proximity to the petrochemical industry streams and the fact that power is less expensive. The dollar was in our favour and the company would have lower operating costs. However, Detroit Plastics built its plant with 100 permanent jobs in Marysville, Michigan, right across the border in the State of Michigan.
While the Sarnia area had many advantages, the one disadvantage we had at the time was the 10 per cent export tariff on the plastic resin. To build an efficient chemical plant to do the mouldings, the company would have to make extra which would have to be exported. It would not be competitive because of that 10 per cent export tariff which would cost over $5 million a year. Therefore we lost the plant.
The Vice-President of Detroit Plastics said that the tariff made the difference between making money and struggling. Had it not been for the tariff, there is no question that he would have had a plant operating in Sarnia.
The petrochemical industry in Canada cannot grow without expanding beyond our domestic supply. Today we have enough capacity to supply our domestic needs for basic chemicals until the year 2000, so that just tells us how important it is to have access to that American market which will be ever growing due to the free trade initiative.


Fernand Robichaud: I welcome this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to speak in this important debate on the proposed legislation implementing the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Madam Speaker, although we just voted on a motion for time allocation, I think we should ask ourselves why the Government decided to limit debate in this way. Today's discussion is one of the most important ones we have had in this House for some time, and we should ask ourselves what the Government has in mind. Why does it want to limit debate? One of the first answers that comes to mind is that perhaps the Government is afraid Canadians will find out too much about this free trade agreement.
Recent polls have shown that public opinion is starting to change. People are no longer convinced that this agreement is such a good thing for Canada. Maybe that is why the Governmment wants to push this legislation through the House. We are told, Madam Speaker, that since the Second World War, customs duty dropped from an average of 20 per cent to an average of 9 per cent. We also know that 80 per cent of our trade with the United States is duty free, and that the average duty on the remaining 20 per cent is 9 per cent. So why is the Government rushing to sign an agreement for which it received no mandate? In fact, when he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said it would be unwise for Canada to sign an agreement with the United States. He used the metaphor of the mouse that gets in bed with an elephant. It could be a crushing experience!
July 4, 1988

Today we heard we shouldn't be afraid of the Americans. We should get together and trade and do business with them. Of course we shouldn't be afraid of the Americans. I believe that we as Canadians have enough maturity to take care of ourselves, without clinging to the coattails of the Americans. We shouldn't be afraid of the Americans, but, Madam Speaker, we should not get so close that our identity might be threatened. And I am afraid that this agreement could be a definite threat to our Canadian identity. There lies the danger.
Today we heard Hon. Members comparing the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement to the European Common Market. I don't think we can draw a parallel between the two. It's like comparing apples and oranges. We have a population of 25 million in Canada, while the Americans have ten times that: 250 million. It is indeed an opportunity to be run over and swallowed up. That is where the parallel ends; there is no possible comparison with the European Common Market.
When this agreement was discussed, Canadians were assured that there was no question of signing it unless some concessions were obtained from the Americans. First was guaranteed access to the U.S. market of 250 million consumers. We were also promised, we were told that there would be a commission to settle trade disputes between the two countries. People are trying to have us believe that the agreement gives us guaranteed access to the American market. But I cannot find this guarantee anywhere in the agreement. Access to the U.S. market will only be guaranteed if Canadians produce high quality goods at competitive prices. That is what gives us guaranteed access; the agreement will not be able to do that.
We could talk for a long time about the binational commission. It exists, it is there in the agreement. But unfortunately, this commission has no power except to see whether the countervailing measures sought comply with the law of the country concerned. If so, the commission can do absolutely nothing about it! We are not exempt from duties imposed by American laws.
During the debate, we also said that the Province of New Brunswick supported this free trade agreement. I will point out to you, Madam Speaker, that the Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. McKenna, nevertheless set some conditions, which have not yet been met.
One condition set was to ensure that regional development programs are not subject to countervailing duties. This condition has not yet been met.
A second condition is that Canada no longer be subject to protectionist measures. The omnibus bill is still alive and has not been dealt with. So, Madam Speaker, this condition has not been met.
We had also asked for an adjustment program for our food processing sector. This condition has not yet been met. We in New Brunswick have reason to be concerned for this food processing industry.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
To see just how this pact will affect the food processing industry in New Brunswick we have to listen to Mr. Archie MacLean of MacCain Foods. That company is one of the largest food processors in the world and it is located in New Brunswick.
The food processing industry in New Brunswick employs 11,000 people. Mr. MacLean explained how the industry is threatened because of the simple fact that it has to buy its primary products at prices directed by marketing boards.


John Horton McDermid: He wants to get rid of marketing boards.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. MacLean was saying that in New Brunswick either they or the producers will have to go.


John Horton McDermid: Not because of free trade, though.


Fernand Robichaud: If it were not for free trade the industry would pretty well operate the way it is now.


John Horton McDermid: No.


Fernand Robichaud: Yes, absolutely.

Madam Speaker, for many years now the McCain Company has been operating in New Brunswick. It has been working in the present context with the marketing boards, it has long been buying the products of the farmers and it has been supporting many farmers of the area, but with this free trade agreement, the farmers are in serious trouble and will not be able to hang on simply because the McCain Company will not be able to buy their products anymore. Because if we look at...

When we look at the concept of the level playing field, these processors in New Brunswick will want that level playing field. They will want to have the same advantages in Canada as their competitors in the U.S. have and to buy their primary products at the same prices that the Americans pay for them.


John Horton McDermid: Name the products.


Fernand Robichaud: This means that the marketing boards in New Brunswick will not be able to function any more. Therefore, the primary producers will be just washed down the drain.

Madam Speaker, I see that you are indicating to me that my time is over. I had many more issues to address. I would like to speak of fisheries and other Canadian industries, but I will come back to it later.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by emphasizing that in his book Where I stand, published in 1983, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney),

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
who was already Party Leader then, puts forward his position on all of the main questions, the major issues the country faced in 1983, five years ago, and there is no mention whatsoever of free trade as the key policy of a Government he would be heading.
I would like to make a few comments on free trade because I believe that Canadian men and women should remind the Conservative Government that it has no mandate to sign the free trade agreement that is now before the House of Commons. In fact, in 1983, the Prime Minister did not claim to be for, but rather against a free trade agreement with the United States, and he stated that the issue had been settled in 1911 under Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier, and settled for good, as far as he was concerned. It was not an issue to be settled in the future. Indeed, it was not an issue at all. Until he became Prime Minister. Just one year after his election, in 1984, he suddenly presented Canadian men and women with a free trade policy, by beginning negotiations with the United States on a bilateral free trade agreement, with no mandate whatsoever from Canadians for the negotiation of such an accord.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, the Government has totally bypassed the process it should have followed, according to me, my Party, and the vast majority of Canadians, which is that before launching negotiations with the United States, it should have obtained a mandate for a decision that is so fundamental to the future of our country.
Madam Speaker, we have now five days of debate on second reading of Bill C-130. The Government has given us no assurance that the committee will have adequate time to consider these matters. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) gives us no such assurance and may in fact be considering the possibility that the Bill be sent back to the House within five or ten days.
It is all very well, Madam Speaker, that the committees subscribed fully to the principle of free trade, but they never had access to the agreement itself. Even the committee that sat in the fall, Madam Speaker, had no choice but to draft its final report without access to the agreement, since it was still being drafted in Washington by the Americans and the Canadians.
These past few months, whenever I met with my constituents as well as other Canadian men and women both in Quebec and elsewhere, I asked them: Do you want to have an election before Canada gets involved once and for all with the United States through this free trade agreement? Eighty per cent of them said yes. Madam Speaker, such is also the case of the most recent polls which indicate that the small majority who favoured the free trade agreement are now a minority. Now, most Canadian men and women who have an opinion on this issue are against it. It should also be emphasized that the feeling among those who are opposed to the free trade agreement is a lot stronger than among those who support it.
The men and women who support the Free Trade Agreement come mainly from the business world. It is the Business Council on National Issues, a club made up of the chairmen
and chief executive officers of all the main Canadian and multinational corporations in Canada, which is behind the Government. When business people tell this Tory Government to do something, the Tories say: Yes sir, we will go ahead. And that is what they are doing, Madam Speaker. They went directly to the United States to fill the order of the business people for a free trade agreement. Did they do so because it would benefit the ordinary people of Chicoutimi, the Gaspe, British Columbia or even Lac-Saint-Jean? The answer is no.
For instance, Madam Speaker, I personally visited Lac-Saint-Jean during the by-election campaign. I realized that the economic situation in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area has not changed a bit over the past four years under a Tory government. No regional development program has been implemented. No effort has been made by the Government to remedy the unemployment situation which exceeded 13 per cent when I was there! Madam Speaker, the reduction was maybe 1 or 2 per cent. Since 1984, in that area, the unemployment rate has been higher since the Tory Party came to power than it had been during the recession, say, between 1980 and 1982 under the previous government.
Now, because of the by-election, the Government was compelled to set up a regional development program, but without this program, would the promises made by the present Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) have been formulated? The answer is clearly no.
Will the free trade agreement really benefit those people? I don't think so for the following reasons. First of all, since most of the industrial jobs which will be created, if such jobs are created, will be based along the Montreal-Windsor corridor, the rest of the regions, including Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, will not be affected.
Secondly, we can see that the investments in this region are mostly basic investments, and resource investments, for which no tariff barriers exist between the U.S. and Canada. Thirdly, Madam Speaker, the same thing goes for the timber and lumber industry of that region. Has this industry ever been affected by pressures from the United States, by measures which will still be in effect five to seven years after the free trade deal, and which might never disappear?
The Americans still have the power to put pressure on us. In fact, they have forced Canada to levy a 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber exports, because they felt we were too competitive.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I have read in the newspapers that the governments of both Quebec and British Culumbia recently felt they had to send delegates not to Ottawa, but to Washington, to make sure that the U.S. royalties program relating to investments would allow Canadians to cancel the tax on softwood lumber exports from the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia.
July 4, 1988

And that, Madam Speaker, is the way we will have to handle things if this agreement is passed by our Parliament, by the U.S. Congress, and finally ratified before January 1.
Madam Speaker, I note for example that Quebec, under Clause 6 of the Bill, will have to adjust its legislation to the deal, or else we can expect that the Quebec legislation will be invalidated by the Canadian legislation, and even by the Canadian regulations and the Agreement.
Prime Minister Bourassa says that Quebec will adjust its legislation to the free trade deal. But let us suppose that our Governement is in power, that it is an NDP provincial Government or possibly a PQ Government, and that it does not accept a certain initiative taken by the Federal Governement. Will that Governement have the power to resist?
The answer is no since Quebec has handed over a great part of its powers to the Federal Government. That is what has been done by a Quebec Government, by a Liberal Governement in Quebec, Madam Speaker. And I believe that they are wrong in accepting this.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, according to Clause 8 of this bill, all Canadian legislation will be subordinated to the agreement as well as to Bill C-130 and the regulations pertaining thereto. That also is unacceptable.
Madam Speaker, my time has run out. I would like to speak a bit longer, but I believe that those in Quebec who think that they have made a great step forward with the free trade deal are wrong and that they will find that, unless they are able to stop this bill, in the final analysis Quebec will suffer a loss of freedom in terms of policy making and implementation. Having said that, Madam Speaker, I shall say no more, time forbidding.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, the free trade agreement with the United States will do much to correct Canada's long existing regional economic disparities. It will do more than just give the entire country an economic boost; it will also help regions develop and gain strength, not only from their own regional markets but from the large and rich markets which stretch from coast to coast just south of our border.
Nowhere is the removal of impediments more important than in the international trading system. Everyone is hurt by protectionism. No one can doubt the gains conferred on all countries by the great era of trade liberalization under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Canada is firmly committed to working for freer trading rules in the vital multilateral negotiations of the Uruguay Round. Our agreement with the United States should in no way be seen as an alternative to or inconsistent with our determination to seek further liberalization through the GATT. Canada's commitment to liberalizing the rules is
Canada-V.S. Free Trade Agreement
demonstrated by our free trade agreement with the U.S. The agreement can and will serve as a useful model for the multilateral negotiations, notably including its ground breaking provisions covering the important area of trade in services.
It comes down to a decision on whether Canadians should seek the opportunity and the challenge now presented of securing and enhancing a combined market of 270 million or whether Canadians are prepared to face the real risk of restricted access to a market so vital to their prosperity.
Free trade will encourage job creating investment in energy projects across the country. As we well know, a greater supply means greater energy security for Canada in the future. In the northeast corner of Alberta we have the Athabasca oil sands. These oil sands have within them proven reserves greater than the reserves in Saudi Arabia, immense reserves available to Canada. We cannot bring those reserves on stream unless there is a certainty of demand.
One of the things that will flow from this agreement is that there will be certainty of demand which will guarantee Canada having "made-in-Canada, provided-in-Canada" energy from our own sources brought on-stream because of our arrangements. This is not a continental energy policy. Canada retains full control over all aspects of energy policy that relate to management of the resource base, transportation, or domestic use of energy resources.
What is true of petroleum and carbon resources in Alberta is also true of hydro resources in Ontario, Quebec, and elsewhere in our country. All these benefits will flow to Canada without compromising our ability to maintain agricultural marketing boards, regional development programs, our assistance to the cultural industry, or our wide array of social programs.
It has been argued that a free trade agreement with the United States would derogate from provincial jurisdiction. The free trade agreement does not in any way represent constitutional change or result in a constitutional amendment. It is an agreement between two sovereign nations and is subject to the provisions of the Constitution of Canada. Provincial responsibilities for such important matters as natural resources will be as full and complete after the agreement as they were before.
The free trade agreement provides an environment for the Canadian energy industries to secure and to expand their access to the United States. Our constitutional responsibility over our natural resources is not being eroded. Alberta will continue to own, to control, and to manage its resources on behalf of all Albertans.
I want to address four myths or misconceptions that I have heard being expounded during the current debate. The first is that the Canadian Government has been stampeded into this

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
agreement by paranoia about United States protectionism. In other words, it is alleged that the Government has miscalculated the seriousness of the protectionist threat in the United States and has placed unwarranted value on seeking secure access to the U.S. market. This analysis is false. The trend toward protectionism in the United States is long term and inexorable because it is driven by a fundamental change in the global balance of economic forces.
So long as the United States was the world's predominant economic power and enjoyed substantial technological advantage over its rivals, it was driven by self-interest and magnanimity alike to pursue a policy of liberal trade. The United States is still the world's largest, richest, and most dynamic market, and it is liable to remain so for the foreseeable future.
However, American economic and technological leadership has now been challenged on three successive fronts: First, by the resurgence of a revitalized Europe from the ashes of World World II; second, by the rise of an extraordinarily disciplined and dynamic Japan; and third, by the recent emergence of the newly industrialized countries, particularly on the Pacific Rim.
The second myth or misconception permeating the debate here is that the choice facing Canadians is between a familiar and relatively comfortable status quo and the unknown of free trade. There is no status quo. The world is always on the move. The only difference is that the world is moving far, far faster now than ever before. It is an illusion to talk about the status quo. It just does not exist.
Global technological and economic developments mean that Canada's resource base can no longer finance the maintenance of an inefficient manufacturing economy sheltering behind high tariff walls.
Even Canadian manufacturers have realized that they can no longer prosper from the domestic market alone. They need secure and free access to a larger market, especially the United States market, to invest and thus achieve economies of scale and specialization.
The third myth or misconception in Canada is that the multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT and bilateral trade deals with the United States possibly represent alternatives, indeed incompatible alternatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Regional free trade areas such as the European Community and the Canada-U.S. agreement are fully sanctioned under Article 24 of the GATT.
It would be foolhardy as Canadians to close our eyes to these developments and to rely exclusively on a multilateral trading system whose effectiveness is unfortunately eroding and whose undertakings and disciplines are too generalized, too vague, and too narrow in scope to provide an effective brake to U.S. protectionism.
The fourth myth about the agreement is that it will result in a loss of Canadian sovereignty or independence. If by independence we are talking about the right of Canadians to maintain the unique set of social support measures such as medicare, unemployment insurance, and the Canada Pension Plan, nothing in the agreement prevents Canadian Governments from maintaining these programs.
There is no way that the federal Government would trash medicare, old age pensions, unemployment insurance, or other important social programs. Any politician who tried that would not make history, but would be history.
If free trade results in a loss of sovereignty, let us ask our New Zealand friends how they are making out with the Australians, or the Austrians or the Swedes, whether they have been taken over by other members of the European trade agreement.
Even in the European Community where a measure of political integration has been consciously undertaken, no one ever hears the Danes or the Dutch complain that their culture is being Teutonized or Anglocized as a result of a common commercial market.
One third of Canada's Gross National Product comes from exports. Close to three million Canadian jobs are directly related to exports, and 78 per cent to 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States. Canada must secure the high level of trade we have with the United States. We must bring in a dispute resolution mechanism that is contained in the free trade agreement, and we must enhance U.S. trade to create jobs and maintain our standard of living.
[ Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the House is discussing Bill C-130 and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Langdon, seconded by Mr. Angus:
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,".
Madam Speaker, although there is a ten-minute maximum under the Standing Orders, I will be able to continue later on when I speak to the amendment of my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and subsequently to the main motion, at least when the debate continues.
Madam Speaker, as was said earlier today, the Conservative Party is dead. That's right. The Conservative Party will make way for the Republican Party of North America.


An Hon. Member:: It already has.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is a matter I think the Tories should be worried about. Not so. They don't care. The Conservative Party as we have known it, progressive or not.. . In fact, it is, in a way, a contradiction in terms to say the words progressive
July 4, 1988

and conservative in one breath. However, the fact remains that the Conservative Party is out for the count and in its stead has come the branch-plant Republican Party of North America! The Conservative Party has caved in to pressure from the multinationals. It has tampered with the system, tampered with the Standing Orders and put in place its own system which, in my view, is anti-parliamentary and anti-democratic and a direct contradiction of its proposal to set up a supposedly free trade market with the Americans. In the first place, this is not free trade. Some areas have been excluded, and to call this a free trade agreement is to misrepresent the facts. This is a trade agreement signed by the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States, Mr. Reagan, for the benefit of the agenda of both parties, and to give one of the parties access to the immense natural wealth of our country and the other a political excuse to seek a second mandate as the Prime Minister of the Government of Canada.
Madam Speaker, it is positively ridiculous to limit debate in the House to five days when it took 1,000 days of complex and serious debate to get us a so-called trade agreement, an agreement that the Tories would like us to adopt in five days, an agreement that would change for all time the way Canadians have lived for 121 years. My grandparents and yours, Madam Speaker, built this Canadian federation, and the Party in power, the Conservative Party, is prepared to sell all to the highest bidder, and to adopt or rather make the House adopt, in less than five days of debate, the principle of an agreement that is flawed and, as my Leader said last Wednesday, poses a serious threat to this country.
Madam Speaker, this political and economic agreement, and that is what it is, initialled on January 2 by the two heads of State, is an agreement that, if implemented, could forever threaten the existence of Canada as the distinct society I have known in North America, a society with powers that enable it to influence directly its economic, social and cultural development.
The Conservative Government continues to spend millions, as we know. It was almost a scandal. It is even outrageous to think that it is spending public money to try to sell this bill of goods to Canadians, who according to the most recent polls, as we know, do not like the idea of changing forever the order of things in North America and economically integrating Canada with the United States.
The reason for this partisan propaganda from the Government that is circulated at great expense, some $30 or $40 million, is to sell this Conservative mess of pottage to Canadians. The reason why they resort to such measures is that the agreement itself is not that strong, the contract is not that sound, and we must say that it is not very convincing for Canadians today either, knowing that more than 40 per cent of them are against the Mulroney-Reagan free trade agreement.
Neither government propaganda nor the insults regularly sent our way by the Minister responsible for the negotiations and the mockery and clowning he so often uses to avoid
Canada-JJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
discussing the negative consequences we will suffer once the agreement is implemented.
We know that the Minister was not even able to read the whole document. He did not have the heart to go through the whole document, he only read part of it and God knows that if he has to sell this mishmash, he should at least know what is in it. He was rightly criticized for this last week and we will continue to remind him that when a serious minister wants to sell a serious Bill, he must show that he is serious enough himself to read the whole thing.
Madam Speaker, as the President of the United States said quite rightly, the agreement is:
... an economic constitution for North America.
There we have it! It is an economic constitution! Those are not my words but President Reagan's: it is "an economic constitution for North America." That means a continental step to industrial and economic integration.
I can understand very well that President Reagan is delighted, that he applauds the possibility for Washington, the White House, the American Congress and the powerful lobbies for private interests, to become automatically, yes, automatically, the absolute masters of this social and economic development strategy, and on a continental scale, if you please! This means that we will simply be integrated into the American strategy of obtaining their energy from us, and they will continue, as has been their wont, to press their point of view on us and to make little of the Canadian perspective.
But what is incomprehensible on the part of our Government is the relentless determination with which the Prime Minister is seeking, by every available means, to lead Canada in this direction. To my mind, this is a tragic example of betrayal, Madam Speaker.
It goes without saying that we must further improve Canadian producers' access to the vast American market. I don't know a single Liberal who is against free trade as such. We are for free trade, but not for the Mulroney-Reagan free trade agreement that was signed last January 2. We are against that agreement.
In addition, as we know, we must further reduce the protective tariffs afforded certain Canadian industries. We are in agreement with a gradual reduction of certain tariff-based advantages. We, the Members of the Liberal Party, Madam Speaker, do not have to prove that we support the principle of free trade. We demonstrated our support through the trade arrangements that successive liberal governments have negotiated and implemented since the Second World War. And we shall continue to promote policies allowing Canada to increase its exchange of goods and services with the United States and with other countries, such as the countries of Asia, whose markets promise much for the future.
I agree of course with the notion of increased trading with the United States which are our best friend and neighbour. But

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I oppose the overwhelming continental approach of the January 2, 1988, agreement which was signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), an agreement which this Tory Government is desperately trying to implement before the Canadian people have had an opportunity to assess its full scope, which would deprive all the Governments in Canada, including those of the provinces, of a great many of the powers which they can now exercise to directly influence our social, economic and cultural development. As a matter of fact, if this agreement were implemented, the provincial and federal governments could no longer have access to the same range of measures to protect and promote national and provincial interests.
During the next few minutes, Madam Speaker-as I said earlier, I shall deal again with this issue later on because I have a great many remarks to make, having had an opportunity to reflect on this issue since it was proposed a few years ago-I should like to give support to the statement that we have lost or will eventually lose the power to protect and promote national and provincial interests.
For instance, as soon as this agreement takes effect, neither the federal nor the provincial Governments will be able to require from American consumers for Canadian energy a price which is higher than the price paid by Canadian consumers. It is possible now for the Federal Government to impose an export tax. For instance, a provincial government may, under certain circumstances, protect its own consumers or even Canadian consumers generally by imposing export costs for electricity or natural gas. Provincial governments have full control over their natural resources.
A while ago, I heard the Hon. Member for Calgary claim that we are not going to lose our control. Well, Madam Speaker, I can tell you that the Government will submit this control to enormous pressure by telling the Americans that, whatever the circumstances, they will have a right of access to these resources, which for the most part belong to us, at the same price as Canadians. I am referring to energy for instance. They say it is not true. Well, I challenge the Hon. Member to stand in his place and demonstrate to me that it is not true.
Madam Speaker, I see that you are about to rise. If I may, I will return to this later on when the debate resumes on this issue. I should like to further explain free trade which is at the very heart and fabric of the essence of my country, Canada.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to enter into the debate on free trade. The most important thing that can be said about free trade has to be said from this perspective: From where will we obtain the best advantage? From what standpoint in terms of trading do we say that we can improve our position or remain status quo which is satisfactory?
I found out from talking to grade 12 and grade 13 high school students in my riding that when given a chance to vote
on free trade their vote was overwhelmingly in support of a move toward free trade. The argument that was used by the students, and I know that it is hard for some people in the Opposition to understand it, was that if one makes a widget and wants to sell it but has to hire a salesman to handle 25 million people, would one sooner sell the same widget to 10 times that number of people at the same price or not? The overwhelming answer given by the young people is that they would like a larger market, not a smaller market, not a protected market, but they are willing on their part to accept the challenge and look to the opportunities of an increased market.
Let us look at the corporate sector. I thought the best way to do that would be to write a letter to every major corporation in the City of Peterborough and the County of Peterborough that employs all the people who want to work. I asked the corporations one at a time how they felt about free trade. The first corporation to reply, one of the largest employers in Peterborough, was General Motors of Canada. In the past I was an employee and sales manager for General Motors in Oshawa. I received a very nice letter from the public relations manager for General Motors. That corporation responded in an affirmative manner and stated that it felt that it would create more jobs and more employment.
Mr. G. A. Peapples, President and General Manager of General Motors in Oshawa, stated: "Thanks to the new free trade agreement, we can compete, secure in the knowledge that the trade policy environment will be stable and fair and will permit us to act decisively and responsibly in the interests of our customers, our employees and Canada".
The next largest industry in Peterborough is General Electric Canada. I wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer and to the General Manager and Vice-President of General Electric Canada in Peterborough. In part he stated: "General Electric Canada favours the free trade agreement and at this point would anticipate a net gain in terms of business levels and employment as a result of this agreement for our plant here in Peterborough".
I had heard the argument that Canadian companies would be at a disadvantage if we signed a free trade agreement with the United States, that they just could not compete. I wrote to Mr. Bill Fisher of Fisher Gauge, one of the largest high-tech industrial industries in the Peterborough region. It has three factories in Peterborough and two in the United States. He replied and stated: "Strongly endorse the free trade agreement. Recognize the importance of the agreement for enhanced job creation. Fisher Gauge employs 275 people in Peterborough; 250 of those jobs are accounted for by exports, and 180 of those 250 jobs are maintained by business with the United States. Key to more jobs: greater access to other markets, mainly the United States market".
July 4, 1988

I wish to quote the final paragraph of the chief officer's comments. He stated: "I have no doubt that the free trade agreement will enhance our business in the United States and increase our employment here, but failure to implement the agreement could have the opposite effect, considering the increasing protectionist sentiment in the United States and elsewhere. Without the U.S. market we could be finished as a viable operation".
I wrote to the President, General Manager and Chief Officer in Peterborough of Outboard Marine Corporation. He stated that free trade would make an efficient manufacturer like Outboard Marine a much more effective competitor. The elimination of duty on parts would allow it to reduce the price of its outboard motors and thus be able to compete against cheaper Japanese imports.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That company has shut down 1,500 jobs in the last 15 years.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Now it can invest in more up-to-date technology to meet the challenge of greater competition.


Michael Morris Cassidy: They have been steadily moving out of Canada.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: It puts it on a par with world scale plants. Now the large United States market will be open to it. The President and General Manager of Outboard Marine further stated:
While OMC Canada does support the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, we are not entirely happy with the agreement as we had hoped that the duty would have been either removed immediately or certainly phased out much more rapidly. However, we do believe it is a step in the right direction.
For example, we just recently lost a quote to manufacture component parts to a U.S. vendor. We were competitive on labour and material but lost the business because of duty. Elimination of U.S. duties for Canadian exports would obviously open new opportunities for OMC Canada.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It can also manufacture everything in Wisconsin. That is exactly the problem with that company.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The NDP spokesman is not very familiar with what is going on at Outboard Marine. It has recently rationalized. It has a world mandate to supply all gas tanks, inboard and outboard, for its total industry around the world. The major source of sales is in the United States. It did that because of the free trade agreement.
Outboard Marine in Peterborough was phasing out much of its operation. It has revitalized, modernized, and made its plant more efficient. Now it is one of only two manufacturers of the OMC that manufactures Lawnboys on a world-wide delivery system.
Let us look at Dofasco and Stelco. They are pretty good union operations. They are a very active union in the United Steelworkers of America.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Not at Dofasco there is not. Get your facts straight.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


William Henry (Bill) Domm: One of the union people who sent out a press release, of which I received a copy, Dennis Abernot, President, Local 2251 of United Steelworkers of America, stated: "Local 2251 welcomed federal Government's initiative on free trade when it began two years ago because it was clear to us that growing protectionism in the United States posed a serious risk to Canadian steel production and steelworkers' jobs". The more steel they produce, the more they supply to Oshawa. I am somewhat surprised that the Leader of the NDP has taken such a negative view of free trade.


Michael Morris Cassidy: That was not Dofasco, and it was not Stelco. You should get your facts straight.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The Leader of the NDP and Member of Parliament representing the City of Oshawa is unable to realize or fails to acknowledge the fact that he has created jobs in Oshawa through the expansion of modern technology on a competitive basis to compete not only with the United States- and they produce better cars there than they do in the United States-but to compete on a world-wide basis.
Let us bring ourselves up to date on how other industries think about us around the world. In Peterborough we have recently received a new industry called Pebra Inc. which employed some 300 to 500 people over the period of its phase-in.


Michael Morris Cassidy: What about farmers in Peterborough County as well?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I know the Hon. Member does not want to hear this, because it hurts the NDP to see labour getting jobs and working because of free trade.
If the Hon. Member would care to listen for a minute, I will read from a letter that I received from Pebra. The whole letter is available to anyone who cares to read it. I will table the document, and the Hon. Member can read it if he wishes.
Pebra Inc. opened a factory plant in Peterborough in the Old Pioneer Chainsaw building which was dormant for a long period of time, because neither the previous Government nor the Party that is talking over there that proposes to be the next Government could come up with a solution.
Pebra supplies automotive fabricated induction moulding parts for automobiles. It is a German company that has invested large sums of money in Peterborough in order to manufacture parts to sell world-wide, particularly to the United States. The letter from Pebra Inc. stated, in part:
... the automotive industry can, from a Canadian point of view, only grow
and prosper by expanding our market. The United States, which represent
about one-third of the world industrial market, is of course the most logical
territory to aim for, apart from the fact that they are our neighbour.
The Executive Vice-President continued with the reasons why he supports free trade.
Last week a new industry, Kendall Canada, came to Peterborough. It is an American multinational corporation

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
that arrived in Peterborough. It is spending $20 million to build a plant in Peterborough. It plans to employ 322 people. It manufactures and distributes medical and surgical supplies to Canada and the United States. Its main company is in the United States. Kendall has indicated to me that it also welcomes this free trade agreement. It sees it as a good deal which will benefit the company.
I would like to conclude with one sentence. Free trade is good for business, because free trade employs people. If we employ people and create economic growth we can afford social service programs. Without those dollars that are generated by increased industrial expansion, there will not be all the things that the NDP claims to be protecting without any answers on how to protect them.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to follow the Hon. Member from Peterborough (Mr. Domm). One would not think that he represents an Ontario riding, where the people in his riding oppose this deal as a sell-out of Canada. One would not think that he has had his eyes opened in the last few weeks whatsoever.
What I want to suggest this evening is that the Government across the way should be going to the people, calling an election, and seeking a mandate on this particular trade deal.
I am confident that I speak tonight on behalf of the people of my province and of my constituency. I am proud to say that in a very recent poll in The Globe and Mail by the Environics Corporation, the overwhelming majority of people in Saskatchewan are opposed to this deal. It is a bad deal for Canada and a bad deal for Saskatchewan. There are more people opposing the deal in Saskatchewan than in any other province. In fact, if we look at the total number of people surveyed in the Province of Saskatchewan, 49 per cent are against the deal, 29 per cent are in favour of the deal, a gap of nearly two to one. I say that this is a bad deal for Canada.
For a western province where the concept of free trade historically has been a popular concept, it is quite a startling statistic to find out that the overwhelming majority of people that who a position say that this is a bad deal for Canada. For that reason I want an election on this issue. I want that election now. The Government across the way has no mandate whatsoever to ram something like this down the throats of people. I see it as fundamentally bad for our country and fundamentally bad for the Province of Saskatchewan.
That same survey showed that only 9 per cent of Saskatchewan people strongly support the deal. Imagine that, Madam Speaker, only 9 per cent strongly support this deal that the Government is now using closure on, to make it the law of the land for generations to come. Some 36 per cent strongly oppose the deal. It is four to one in opposition to this trade deal in the Province of Saskatchewan for people who have strong feelings on it. I feel very confident tonight in saying that I certainly reflect the point of view of people in Saskatchewan,
not just people who vote for the Democratic Party but people who vote for all three political Parties in the Province of Saskatchewan.
I invite the Government across the way to consult the people of this country, to call an election on this issue. If it does that, it will be overwhelmingly defeated from one part of this country to the other.


An Hon. Member:: They did, in Lac-Saint-Jean.

... I know the Lac-Saint-Jean region very well, Madam Speaker, and the Conservative Party bought a seat in that riding. They spent $162 million to buy a riding for the Prime Minister's friend, Mr. Bouchard. His seat was bought by the Federal Government through the Canadian taxpayers. But, Madam Speaker, the Government doesn't have the money to buy 200 seats for the Conservatives in the next general election.

That is what happened in Lac-Saint-Jean. Now, I want to debate the issue that is before the House. We find that the overwhelming majority of people in Saskatchewan oppose the deal; in Manitoba, they oppose the deal; in the Province of Ontario, they oppose the deal; and in the Province of Alberta, it is two to one in favour of the deal. I suggest that the reason for it is that no one in Alberta is speaking out in opposition to it because all Members from that province are Conservative Members who support it.
In the Province of Quebec the results are very, very interesting. We find that only 40 per cent of the population is in support of this trade deal and 33 per cent is opposed to it, despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) comes from Quebec, despite the fact that Mr. Bourassa and his Government support the deal, and despite the fact that Jacques Parizeau and the Official Opposition in Quebec support the deal. Despite all that the Province of Quebec is almost divided fifty-fifty in terms of the deal before us. In a general election campaign I am confident that the majority of Canadians in that province will also oppose the deal before us.
If the Members across the way think back throughout history, it has been their Party, historically, that has been in opposition to a free trade deal with the United States that is all-encompassing. If we go back to the election of 1891, it was the grand old man of Canadian conservatism, Sir John A. Macdonald, who fought his last campaign in opposition to the Liberals, who tried to impose this kind of a deal upon Canada.
Twenty years later it was again the Conservative Party that fought against Laurier, and against the Liberals when they tried, once again to bring in a kind of deal to tie the United States to Canada in more than just the economic sense.
I say that this particular deal is against the tradition of Canada, against the heritage of Canada. It is against the history, the tradition, and the heritage of the Conservative
July 4, 1988

Party of Canada and what it stood for, from Sir John A. Macdonald right through to 1984.
It was in 1985 that that Party across the way did a flip-flop and negotiated a deal that will give Canada nothing whatsoever in terms of new access to the American markets. Nothing whatsoever is guaranteed in terms of the deal before the House today. At the same time, we are going to lose considerable independence and considerable sovereignty as a Canadian nation to make decisions that affect our own lives in the years that lie ahead. I take exception to the fact that this is not a free trade deal. It goes way beyond customs and tariffs. It is a deal that is a step toward the economic union of Canada with the United States; the economic union of our two countries. In that case, Canada will be totally dominated by our big neighbour to the South. An example of what I mean is energy policy, where we can no longer have a two-price system in energy, where we must charge the same price to the American consumer that we are charging the Canadian consumer if we export to the United States. That is part of this deal. That is one reason why Peter Lougheed is in support of this particular deal.
Also, in terms of energy, we must guarantee under this deal to the Americans proportional access to our diminishing resource in the time of crisis. Once again, it gives up Canadian political sovereignty.
When it comes to investment, we must treat American investors in the same way that we treat Canadian investors. We can no longer have an agency like the Foreign Investment Review Agency to make sure that investment in this country from the United States-


John Horton McDermid: Not true, not true.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -will be treated in the same way. It is not right to treat American investors as Canadian nationals. That is part of the deal. That is one reason why this deal and this Government will be defeated when the next election comes. The noisy Parliamentary Secretary across the way is muttering about the truth. He would not know the truth if it hit him across the head. He has that kind of reputation in this House.
When it comes to agriculture, we find that the trade deal will weaken the authority of marketing boards in this country. We have no better authority than Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative, and his interpretation document in May that talks about the interpretation of the deal being a weakening of the Canadian marketing board system, a weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board and its pricing mechanism. That is why the majority of farmers in this country oppose the deal. That is why farmers are mobilizing from the Province of Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, and across the West, to oppose the Conservative Party, once it gets the guts to call an election campaign in this country.


John Horton McDermid: That is useful thinking on your part.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Now, the Parliamentary Secretary across the way, who does not know anything about the truth in this House or what the Canadian people think, should just take a look at the Environics poll in The Globe and Mail last Friday, and he will see that the overwhelming majority of people in Saskatchewan oppose this deal, how Manitoba opposes the deal, how the Province of Ontario opposes this particular deal.


John Horton McDermid: Free fall. Do you believe that poll?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 love that kind of free fall. In the Province of Saskatchewan 49 per cent of the people oppose the deal and 29 per cent of the people support the deal. When one talks about those statistics garnered by the pollsters, the Hon. Member from Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) loses his tongue and sits silently in his seat across the way. He knows in his heart of hearts that the Canadian people will not support the kind of deal that has been negotiated by the Prime Minister.
As I said, it is a sell-out of Canada. It is the economic union of our country with the United States. I fear for the loss of our sovereignty. 1 fear for the loss of our independence if this deal goes through. I invite the Conservative Party across the way to put pressure on its Prime Minister to call an election on the issue. It is the most important issue we have faced in decades. The Prime Minister is afraid to face the people of Canada. He wants to ram this deal through the House of Commons by the use of closure. That is not democratic. He does not have a mandate. The only person across the way who spoke about this kind of deal in the last campaign-and you know it as well as I do, Mr. Speaker-was the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) himself. The Prime Minister and other Ministers in this House all took a very strong stand against this kind of a deal with the United States.
To ram this deal through the House is clearly misleading the people of Canada. The Government has no mandate for it. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to join us in trying to force the Prime Minister to call an election so that the people can be consulted in a true, free and democratic manner.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, one of the useful products of a debate is that one finds out things. Hon. Members say things from time to time that they are probably not supposed to say. But this debate shows, demonstrates, and reveals the kind of real motivation, the real raison d'etre for this legislation. Perhaps no truer, sounder statement was made in this House than that made by the Deputy House Leader today. He said, "We represent big Canada". That comes as no surprise to Canadians when we look at what happened in the sell-out of the pharmaceutical Bill represented by the big pharmaceutical companies. When it came to capital gains tax we know who benefited from that. It was the big, powerful, rich Canadian corporations and individuals. When it comes to the question of regulatory policy

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and privatization, we know who benefits from that-the big, the powerful, and the rich.
We finally discovered the reason that we have this legislation. The Government is now simply the hand-maiden for big interests because there is no other rationale for it. At the start one might have accepted the economic argument, until the Government produced its own reports, until the Economic Council and the Department of Finance reported that the promises of economic growth and of additional jobs were simply not there. When the Economic Council report said we may get one-quarter of one per cent economic growth a year, one can hardly say that would be justification for uprooting one's country. The Economic Council went on to say that there would be 180,000 job losses. Putting the rhetoric and mythology aside, the Government's own data, provided by its own research resources, indicated simply that there was no economic growth worth measuring. It is simply not there, and we knew that could not be the reason for the Bill. Surely no Government would be irresponsible enough to overturn the history of the country completely, for the sake of one-quarter of one per cent growth per year.
The other promise made was for consumers. We have Ministers of the Crown saying that consumers will be the big winners, but let us look at the Government's own reports. As we well know, consumers may get over the next five years, if the deal goes through, a saving of 1 per cent on an inflation rate of 20 per cent. Rather than having 20 per cent inflation we will have 19 per cent. That is not sufficient reason for justifying the complete overturn and uprooting of the fundamentals of the country for perhaps 1 per cent. I would say maybe, because the Government was not too sure. As one of the advocates from the Consumers' Association of the Province of Quebec pointed out, the net saving to an average family over five years might be $32, maybe, if all things work as they are supposed to work. Surely no one can say that a saving of $32 over five years is sufficient reason for this kind of agreement.


Marion Dewar: On a 72-cent dollar.


Lloyd Axworthy: And that is on a highly inflated, reduced dollar.
We come to the third reason put forward, that we have guaranteed access to American markets, except the agreement does not give guaranteed access. There is no guarantee. It is not binding. The trade laws still apply. The trade actions still take place. The only thing the Government got was a review mechanism, otherwise known as the Mickey Mouse mechanism, which allows a review to take place even though we already have a review mechanism, one that will probably be more impartial because the compromise reached in the U.S. Congress will give U.S. politicians more input to that review than the one at present. All the grand promises that there would be some kind of guaranteed secure access again are simply ashes. There is no justification for it. One cannot say
that again would be reason for the massive upheaval and change which this agreement will produce.
Why, Mr. Speaker? Finally we had a Minister of the Crown give us the real reason. We finally got to the truth this morning when the Deputy House Leader said that it was because "we represent big Canada". What the Government is saying is that the big corporations of Canada do not want Governments to bring in programs that will reallocate income. They do not want government making decisions in the public interest. They want it all by the rule of the jungle, the corporations' rules. If big corporations with no allegiance and no particular loyalty have capital crossing borders with instantaneous computer transactions, I suppose they feel they have outgrown Canada, that they do not have to recognize the validity of this particular nation state any more. Big corporations find a Government to represent their interests. They find a group of advocates who will come into the House of Commons to speak for them and to bring in legislation to represent the big interests of Canada. Therefore, we have the Bill before us.
The real meaning of Bill C-130 has very little to do with trade. The reduction in tariffs is marginal. It is far less than we have achieved under multinational negotiations. There is far less a reduction in tariffs than we have received over the last 20 or 30 years. The Bill has major restraints, major limitations on the role of federal and provincial Governments to take decisions for Canadians contrary to those that might be taken by the big interests, to quote again the Deputy House Leader, "that they would take". It may mean that we would want to take decisions on environmental rules, on equity rules for women or for those with handicaps, or that we would want to take further decisions on Canadian content rules. That does not serve the interests of those big players about which the Deputy House Leader spoke. If we go through the legislation passage by passage, whether we are dealing with investment, Crown corporations, or resources, the Bill is really one designed to put a strait-jacket around government. The corporations are not satisfied in just putting a strait-jacket around the federal Government; they want a strait-jacket around provincial and municipal Governments. They are basically eviscerating the public economy of Canada. That is the tragedy, because that is how the country was built.
It was not built by the market-place. There are lots of very effective and good private entrepreneurs. If we look at our history we see that Canada was built by public decisions, oftentimes in partnership with private companies. It was built by a mixture, a partnership, a mixed economy. Now, for the first time in our history, the big interests have a Government which represents them. Now they will change forever and entrench into an international agreement the inability of government to take those kinds of decisions in the future. That is the tragedy of this legislation. That is what this Government does not want Canadians to find out. That is why the Government is afraid to go across the country and hold public hearings.
July 4, 1988


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin the remarks I have prepared, I want to say that I find it a bit strange that already the Liberal Party has to go to second speakers. Members of the Liberal Party were talking earlier about the travesty of justice being committed, but now an Hon. Member has spoken on the Bill for the second time today.
Today and tomorrow, many Members of Parliament of all three Parties-


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member would want to correct himself. This is the second time I have spoken, but I spoke on the closure motion which had nothing to do with this specific legislation. The Hon. Member might know the difference after he has been in Parliament for a while, and I would ask him to withdraw that comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The Hon. Member for Don Valley East has the floor.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I hit a bit of a sore spot there. It was the same speech on the same topic.
Today and tomorrow, many Members of Parliament of all three Parties will be sharing their views on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. My Government and my Party have proposed this historic agreement, and I want to say that I am strongly in favour of it.
It is interesting that on some issues it is difficult for the public to see how the three Parties may differ. In the case of the free trade agreement, however, the picture is very clear. The Progressive Conservative Government is whole-heartedly
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
in favour of it and both opposition Parties are totally against it. The battle lines have been drawn. In the next election, Canadians from coast to coast will be able to tell us if they want a bigger, healthier Canada because of the free trade agreement.
The importance to Canada of the FTA cannot be exaggerated. Currently almost 80 per cent of our exports flow to the United States. These exports account for 25 per cent of everything we produce, and over two million jobs are dependent on trade. For over 100 years, most Canadian Governments have pursued improved trading relations with the United States. In the early 1850s, Canadian farmers and commercial interests wanted a trading agreement with the United States. Our economy had become vulnerable due to Britain's commitment toward free trade.
For over 80 years, Canada had imported more goods from the United States than it had from Great Britain. However, up until 1942, our exports to the U.S. were less than those to Great Britain. This changed in 1942. Since then, the United States has been our number one market for exports. As stated earlier, the Americans now buy almost 80 per cent of the goods and services we export.
There have been attempts in the past by Governments to diminish our dependency on the U.S. by trying to increase trade with Britain and other European countries and with Pacific Rim countries. Their attempts to implement this strategy were not successful. Indeed, our trade with the United States increased during this period.
Professor David J. Bercuson of the University of Calgary sums up the situation very well with these remarks:
Much has changed in Canada since the reciprocity treaty of 1854, the 1911 General Election, or the uncertain days of the late 1940's.
Now it is the manufacturers who most want free trade while the farmers are reticent.
Now it is the Liberals who oppose free trade, even though the Liberal Party has traditionally been its major supporter.
But one overall factor remains as it did in 1948, in 1911 and earlier: There are those Canadians confident of the future and of their identity as Canadians, who seek to expand trade across the globe but who also want to compete as equals in the U.S. market.
And there are still those who, out of fear, wave the flag and shout jeremiads about the future of a Canada linked to free trade and the United States.
They are certain as their forebears were, that Canada is a fragile country that will not be able to resist the siren call of total immersion with the great republic.
Times and faces have changed, but the message remains the same.
I agree that times and faces have changed. I do not believe that Canadians will be swayed by emotional, flag waving scare tactics. Canadians know the world is changing. They realize that no country can be an economic island when an integrated global economy is emerging. The private sector in Canada had a brutal reminder of this during the recession of the early 1980s.

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
It is abundantly clear that our service, production, and distribution sectors are affected by competitive companies in other countries around the globe. Canadians do not seem to be aware of how strongly the business community in Canada supports the free trade agreement. For over 100 years, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association supported tariffs with the United States. In 1983, however, it made a dramatic reversal by appearing before the Macdonald Commission in support of a bilateral trade agreement with the United States.
Many other businesses also submitted briefs in support of the FTA. Surely if the small business community, which generates most of the jobs and wealth in Canada, believes the FTA will mean economic benefits to Canada, then Canadians should not be seduced by the emotional arguments of the doomsayers, the Liberals and the NDP. Liberal and NDP Members say that the Tories want to hand over our jobs and our future. This is nonsense.
The energy sector is another area where the Opposition has tried to mislead Canadians into believing we will surrender control over energy. This assertion is false and opposition Members know it. Canada will still be able to control the pace of development and production of its energy resources. Canada will still be able to prohibit foreign takeovers of financially healthy oil and gas companies. Canada will continue to be able to use fiscal incentives to encourage exploration and development. Canada will retain its right to cushion the impact of any future sharp energy price increases by regulating prices or using the national tax transfer systems. Obviously, we are not losing control of our energy resources.
Many myths about the loss of our sovereignty and our culture are being propagated by the Liberals and the NDP. Again, the facts refute these myths. During the last two years of negotiations, opposition Parties have gloomily predicted that the Canadian Government would be pressured to give up important and highly regarded social policies such as unemployment insurance and free medical care. However, none of our social policies have been bargained away, not one.
The FTA protects current policies in two ways. The grandfathering principle has been applied to almost all things other than trade in goods, even if they are inconsistent with the rule of national treatment. This is applicable to a wide range of policies such as those prohibiting the sale of viable Canadian oil firms to foreign interests, to those regulating the export of raw logs.
In addition, many sensitive industries are totally exempted from any national treatment obligation. These include all cultural industries, day care, health, education, and Crown corporations.
Another falsehood being touted by the Opposition is that somehow the free trade agreement will be detrimental to women. In fact, free trade will deliver enhanced benefits to Canadian women as workers and as consumers. Many of the new jobs to be created will be in the service industries where female employment is already dominant.
High tariff barriers are particularly harmful to women since a larger proportion of their pay goes toward the purchase of basic necessities such as food, clothing, and living accommodations which are more expensive because of tariffs. Women can be winners from the free trade agreement. They have the innate capacity to adjust to changes in the workplace and the market-place.
I have talked to many men, women, and young people from Markham and Whitchurch-Stouffville about the free trade agreement. Some have genuine concerns, some lack enough information, and many are being influenced by the fear tactics of the opposition Parties and the media. However, on balance, I believe most residents of the area of Markham are supportive and they know that today's youth will benefit in the future through job creation opportunities.
I would like to end with the words of Professor John Crispo who said:
It will be a shame and tragedy if the proponents of the Free Trade
Agreement allow its detractors to so dishonestly distort its significance for the
country's long-run well-being that the F.T.A. somehow goes down to defeat.
Mr. Macdonald who headed the commission believes so strongly that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is wrong to denounce the free trade agreement that he will not campaign for the Liberals in the next federal election. It will be the first election in almost 35 years that he will miss. Another high profile, long time Liberal, Milton Harris of Harris Steel, has abandoned the Liberal Party for its irresponsible anti-free trade stance.
I believe that Canadians have all the necessary facts about the free trade agreement and, when all the emotional and fear mongering myths have been dispelled, they will embrace the initiative with enthusiasm. Canadians do not run from challenges. They certainly will not turn their backs on the greatest economic opportunity of the century. The free trade agreement is a nation building initiative if there ever was one. Let us get on with the job and get it passed by this House and the other place.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I think, if the Hon. Member had read the speech before he delivered it, he might have been concerned about the accuracy of some of the statements he made.


Bill Attewell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I go on record as saying I wrote the speech myself.


Steven W. Langdon: Then it is even worse. We were giving you the benefit of the doubt.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Back in 1956 we had a debate on a pipeline Bill proposed by the then Liberal Government and piloted through this House by Mr. C. D. Howe. Mr. Howe ran roughshod over Parliament and allowed very little democracy
July 4, 1988

with respect to the issue of putting that pipeline in place across the country.
At that time the Conservative Party was piloted by the previous Member for Prince Albert, John G. Diefenbaker. I wonder what he would say about what is happening here today. I can hear his call now: "We will fight this in the country. We will fight this in the small towns all across Canada". How disappointed he would be today if he had been forced to face this closure motion.
The trampling of parliamentary democracy would not have been the only thing that would have disappointed the Chief. The very idea of a free trade deal would have been a much greater disappointment. For all his faults, he had a vision of Canada as strong and independent. He had faith in the ability of Canadians to stand on their own two feet and make their way in the world. We would be a friend of but not subservient to countries like Great Britain or the U.S., particularly the U.S. What would he think of this lilly-livered approach to what Canada can do for itself?


John Horton McDermid: You choked on that.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Yes, almost. What would he think of a Conservative Government that even thought that Canada should be subservient to the U.S.? That would be a very bad situation for the Chief, but to muzzle Parliament in order to get something through which is of more benefit to the U.S. than it is to Canada would be the last straw. If we hear a rumble tomorrow when we vote on this, it will be the Chief letting us know what his position is.
Democracy is a fragile thing. Many of the communist countries call themselves democratic republics. They have made that term illegitimate by ignoring what it really means. They have extinguished democracy. Their Governments no longer support democratic procedure. Is that what our Government is working toward? Is it extinguishing democracy not to give Members of this House and the people of Canada an opportunity to speak out on and to know what is in the free trade deal?
There is only one real deadline in this debate and that is December 31. That is the only real deadline for this legislation. Yet here we are six months before that deadline and the Government is pretending there is some kind of emergency and it must muzzle Parliament by closure. It appears that the real reason is to make sure that Canadians do not hear too much about the deal. In this case, knowledge, in the minds of the Conservatives across the way, appears to be a dangerous thing. If people get to know too much and start recognizing the impact of this deal on their lives and the sovereignty of Canada, they will not accept it. They will reject it out of hand and reject the Conservative Government along with it.
Democracy requires the consent of the governed. We all accept that. Yet this deal does not have the consent of the governed. It did not have the consent of the governed when the Conservatives started it, and it does not have that consent now.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
In fact, if anything, the Government started off by telling the world that it would never bring in free trade. That was the basis under which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was elected. That was the position the Conservatives had when they went into the last election. That was the position under which they won the election. They did not have a mandate and they do not have the consent of the governed. That is why they went from a high of 60 per cent in the polls down to a low of 22 per cent. They did not do what they said they were going to do back in the election. We now have a very undemocratic approach to one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have had before this House.
I would like, and possibly I will get the opportunity, to have spent a considerable amount of time talking about agriculture, both about what this deal is going to do to agriculture in Canada and the advantages that the U.S. thinks it will get from this free trade deal in that respect. We in Canada have a difficult time competing with the United States in agriculture, not because we are not efficient and effective but because we live in a climate which is much different than that of the United States. They have the advantage of a longer growing season. We have the disadvantage of lower levels of population, therefore longer distances to transport our goods, and higher building and energy costs. We have overcome these disadvantages to a great extent by efficiency and our ability to produce at a level nearly equal to that of the United States.
As I am out of time, I will finish my remarks at another time.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I did speak earlier today, but since the government is imposing closure, I will rise once more to debate the amendment proposed by my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort-Garry (Mr. Axworthy). In my remarks, I would like to stand up for Canadian consumers. I have obtained my information from one of the government's promotional publications paid for by Canadian taxpayers. The Conservative Government is trying to convince us that free trade is a positive thing for Canadian consumers. In this publication entitled The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and the Canadian Consumers, we learn that the average household will save between $5,068 and $7,857 on furnishing a new home. That is what a young couple, for example, would save when furnishing their first apartment. To inflate that figure, everything was included: towels, linen, sewing machine, iron, clothes, etc. In that assessment, I have found four weak spots.
First, study after study there is a constant decrease in the economic benefits flowing from the Agreement as assessed by the University of Maryland in the States and the Economic Council of Canada. That was confirmed by Mr. Kerton, an economist with the Consumers' Association of Canada, when he declared that the maximum savings which Canadian consumers can expect will be less than one fifth of one percent

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
a year. It is so small as to be insignificant. Furthermore, Mr. Pierre Racicot of the Federation nationale des associations des consommateurs du Quebec stated before the Standing Committee of the House, and I quote: "We have calculated that a household earning $35,000 a year could save $38 a year over a 10-year period. A household earning $20,000 a year and therefore living under the poverty threshold would save $32 a year over ten years. These statistics represent an improvement of one tenth of one percent. Needless to say, Madam Speaker, that slim benefit will be eaten away by additional taxes from the Wilson budget.
Secondly, tax reform as a whole will cancel all the small benefits resulting from the Trade Agreement. The Canadian Real Estate Association views the tax reform as a major problem impossible to overcome because the business transfer tax and the profit tax, a new tax under tax reform, will increase the other costs involved in land development and home building.

The "Wilson" tax reform will amplify the problems of the Mulroney-Reagan accord for the Canadian construction industry. I am speaking about the new transaction tax and tax on profit. This new tax will be disastrous for the construction industry. The Canadian Homebuilders' Association estimates in an October, 1987 report that the proposed tax on the purchase price of new housing would immediately increase the average purchase price of a new home by approximately $10,000. It would reduce accessibility for firsttime home buyers.
This new tax would prohibit 60,000 renters from becoming homeowners. According to the Canadian Homebuilders' Association it would reduce the accessibility of new rental housing for about 200,000 renters. We will likely see a sharp decline in housing construction and the whole Canadian economy will suffer. These added costs alone will wipe away any advantage gained through free trade.
The third point I want to raise about the Government's document regarding consumers is the fact that a national survey relative to housing is practically impossible to carry out. In fact, economies attributed to free trade may be very different in housing markets depending upon where one lives, whether it be in Toronto, Calgary, or Trois-Rivieres. The $5,000 or $7,000 savings through free trade may mean absolutely nothing in Toronto's overheated market. Why is the Government presenting Canadians, in this glossy document paid for by my tax dollar, with statistics which may or may not be possible?
Finally, this document does not take into account the rising prices of housing. On page 22, Table 5.5, the Canada-U.S. agreement does not take into consideration the increase in costs associated with housing. Costs such as lot levies slowly but surely eat away at average Canadians' disposal housing dollars. If the Government were really serious it would supplement its free trade efforts with a national housing policy
designed to encourage home ownership. It would not impose new taxes on the construction industry, and it would cut the red tape associated with that Department.
I can only conclude that the statistics used by the Government to try to persuade us of the so-called advantages of the U.S.-Canada deal are not worth the paper the agreement is written on. That is why we are voting against this Bill. The independence and sovereignty of Canada is at stake. Never in 120 years has this House faced such a dilemma.


Mr. Pat Binns (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate this evening. Not only am I pleased, in fact I feel it is a duty to participate in this debate on free trade because it is such an important debate.
This debate is about our roots. I say that because when most of us trace our roots back a couple of generations we realize that our grandparents settled this country to establish trade centres here. If our ancestors were French, they probably penetrated the St. Lawrence area in the 1620s to establish trade centres to trade with their mother country. If our ancestors were British, they came in through the Hudson Bay area in the 1670s and again established trade centres. Those settlements competed with one another for the trade available in this country. Our ancestors grew up around trade. They came here because they saw an opportunity on this continent to better themselves and to provide a way of life for their families.
Cycles come and go. Trade moved to the West as settlers moved into Canada, and during a period after 1850 the Atlantic area had to push its trade west for a number of reasons. First, there was a civil war in the United States and Atlantic Canadians sensed that the United States was becoming increasingly hostile to its neighbours to the North. Second, the British stopped giving Canada preferential treatment as a colony.
We were forced to consider how to expand trade among ourselves in this great domain. The need for East-West trade contributed to Confederation in 1867. Sir John A. Macdonald encouraged East-West trade when he built the railroad, and Prime Minister Laurier continued that trade policy.
That cycle has come to an end. We have filled the market for goods and services for 25 million Canadians. In 1988 we need a new trade arrangement and new opportunities. We have to look again to the South and create more North-South trade than we had before.
The Atlantic area always had much trade with the South, particularly the New England states. The most prosperous time in our history was when Atlantic Canada had free access to the New England area. Today, 75,000 Canadians in Atlantic Canada depend on trade for their jobs.
July 4, 1988

We need a trade agreement now because we have been facing rising protectionism in the United States. Trading blocs have been building up in the world. The European Economic Community is a major trading bloc, which gives preferential treatment to its partners. Australia and New Zealand represent another trading bloc in that area that looks after its own interests.
Who will look after our interests in this changing world where trade blocs are forming and partners are establishing preferential treatment for one another?
Prince Edward Island needs access to the United States market, where 20 per cent or more of our potatoes are sold each year. We must sell our lobsters, and 60 per cent to 70 per cent of them go to the U.S. market every year. We do not need more restrictions on those products.
One of the most successful companies in my riding is a firm called USENS Fisheries in Surrey, Prince Edward Island. That company is owned by Americans, but it provides jobs to Prince Edward Islanders for most of the year.
Its head office for the area is located in my riding. That company provides jobs and pays good money because it has access to 52 states and 250 million Americans for fish processed in Canada. That benefits workers in my riding. I am not afraid of that kind of relationship, if that is what free trade means. Free trade means a better opportunity for my children and their children.
Trading countries succeed in this world. One only need look at Japan, one of the strongest trading economies in the world. The Japanese have the lowest infant mortality rate and the longest life span. They have the lowest unemployment rates. There are many advantages to a strong economy.


James Douglas Manly: Tell us about medicare.


Patrick George Binns: We can look at other trading countries that have succeeded. Even without a large land mass, Hong Kong has succeeded because of its trade.
Hon. Members opposite ask about medicare. Social programs are not affected by this deal. In fact, they are assured as a result of this trade deal. The programs that are not affected include family allowance, maternity benefits, child care, pensions for the disabled, Canada pension, job training programs, pay equity.
We celebrated Canada Day on Friday. After 121 years of Confederation we are ready for a deal like this one. We have secured our sovereignty. Our country is made up of 10 provinces and 2 territories. We have major cities that have over a million people. We have a Constitution, we have the Meech Lake Accord, and we have a Charter of Rights. All that makes us strong. This Party has a vision for the country. We want to keep it strong and dynamic.
I have wondered what my grandparents would do if they were in my place today. They came here from England and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Ireland seeking new opportunities in Canada. They wanted a place to grow, develop, and raise'a family. They were prepared to take a risk. I do not think they would tell me to sit back and live on the comforts they have established for me. They did not rely on the past but used their initiative. They would tell us to find our own way in the world rather than depend on what is given to us. One must continue to move forward in this world.
Canada wants a free trade agreement. Three out of four provinces in Atlantic Canada want it. Quebec wants it. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia want it. Two Liberal provinces, Ontario and Prince Edward Island, are against free trade. However, the people of Ontario and the people of Edward Island want free trade. It is good for farmers, fishermen, and consumers. It is good for women. It is good for manufacturers.
The free trade deal will make us winners. I am proud to be Canadian and proud to try to help my country. My grandparents would not have any less for ourselves or our children. Let us make Canada a better place by supporting this agreement.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill C-130. The Hon. Member who just spoke said that he was not sure what his grandparents would think about this deal. I am not sure what my grandparents would think about it.
However, what concerns me is what my grandchildren will think about it. What will our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren think about this legislation when they look back at it some years from now and ask what happened to Canada and the possibility of creating an independent, sovereign nation that was in control of its own destiny? They will ask why they are a satrapy of the United States rather than an independent and proud country.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, particularly since the Government has introduced time allocation. There are Members who will want to make important comments on this Bill but will be unable to do so because the Government has closed off debate.
The fundamental importance of this Bill has been stressed on all sides of the House. It has been stressed by President Reagan who calls it a new economic constitution. It has been stressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It has been stressed by Simon Reisman who talked about it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
What we are dealing with here is an understanding of Canada, our vision of Canada. The vision of Canada that this Bill presents is basically that Canada is America's attic.
The United States often looks to Central America and the Caribbean as its backyard. Canada is the attic to which the Americans come to rummage around for resources, for our

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
water and our energy. They can bring down into the United States whatever they want.
The vision we in our Party have of Canada is of a nation that has a unique social and cultural contribution to make to our world. The trade agreement that the Tories are so intent upon rushing through the House would surrender this. It would surrender the possibility of this for the future. The historian Arthur Lower has pointed out that "growth into nationhood in our sphere of culture" is more difficult than the achievement of political sovereignty. That is particularly true for Canada where we live right next door to the United States with its very powerful mass market for its culture.
We share a common language with the United States. We share many of the same values. Americans have a strong popular mass culture in the areas of news, television, movies and novels. All of us from whatever Party share in a great deal of that culture.
We recognize that if we are to have an independent culture, then we have to take special measures. It is for this reason that we have seen that there has always been a much greater role for the Canadian Government to play in helping to create our Canadian culture.
The agreement states that Canada is going to be able to take those measures that it has been able to take. It can take measures to assist culture, which is okay by the agreement. However, in the very next phrase in the agreement it is stated that the United States can retaliate against Canada for taking those measures.
A culture reflects a nation. The mass culture of the United States is driven by its bottom line, by the fact that there is cash involved. Thus the Americans want to have some kind of cash compensation if Canada takes measures to protect Canadian culture. They see this as being basically a commercial transaction, and that they should be entitled to take some kind of commercial action against Canada, some type of bottom line recompense.
One of the oldest works in Canadian literature published in 1836 is Thomas C. Haliburton's The Clockmaker. The main character in his book is a Yankee trader named Sam Slick. He used to come up into Nova Scotia to sell clocks to the people of Nova Scotia. Generally speaking, he had a very low opinion of Nova Scotians. He said: "We go ahead. The Nova Scotians go astarn". The reason that he felt that was that the Yankees knew how to cipher. In other words, they were able to calculate everything to the bottom line.
At one point he said: "I tell you, if we had this country, you couldn't see the harbours for the shipping." At another point he said:
The remedy-is at hand; it is already workin' its own cure. They must recede before our free and enlightened citizens, like the Indians; our folks will buy them out, and they must give place to a more intelligent and ac-five people. They must go to the lands of Labrador, or be located back of Canada; they can hold on there a few years, until the wave of civilization reaches them,
and then they must move again as the savages do. It is decreed; I hear the bugle of destiny a-soundin' of their retreat, as plain as anything.
This is 1988 and we are talking about some of the same attitudes that the Yankees had in 1836 which they still have now in 1988.
Sam Slick was the spiritual ancestor of the present Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). He said that he could sell clocks to people who did not really need them on the basis of his knowledge of soft sawder and human nature. If he was living today he would be selling vacuum cleaners or encyclopaedias. He might even be trying to sell the free trade agreement. He might be trying to sell things to people who do not really want them.
But, like the Minister, Sam Slick sometimes told the truth. At one point, when he was asked about the attraction of the U.S., he said:
It ain't its attraction-it's nothin' but its power of suction; it is a great whirlpool-a great vortex: it drags all the straw and chips, and floating sticks, drift-wood, and trash into it. The small crafts are sucked in, and whirl round and round like a squirrel in the cage-they'll never come out.
Not all Canadians are going to be sucked in by this trade agreement. Not all Canadians want to get caught up in the American whirlpool and get dragged in as the Tory Government seems to want to do.
Canadians do not want to be Americans. We are not anti-American-we are just different. That is important to recognize. That is something that the Conservative Party used to recognize up until the time of John Diefenbaker who recognized it. The Tories have forgotten it under the leadership of their right hon. gentleman who used to sing for Colonel McCormick.
We have a different role in history. We recognize that the Americans are a great power. They have the burden and the responsibility of a great power. We might not think that they always discharge that burden and responsibility in an intelligent way, but we recognize that they have it. It is a different burden and a different responsibility from what we as Canadians have.
Canada's role is different. We are a smaller power. We have a role as a mediator. We have a different type of culture, a culture different from the mass U.S. culture. Our culture depends more on the responsibility of Government, which is why the basic organizations of Canadian culture are sponsored by the Government. I refer to such organizations as the Canadian Film Board, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canada Council.
The trade deal threatens all this. The fact is that the longer this debate goes on, the more people understand what this trade deal is doing to Canada. The more they understand how it threatens their culture, the more they understand how in the long term it will threaten social programs. Make no mistake about it. Business people are going to want what they call a level playing field. On both sides of the parallel they will be
July 4, 1988

talking about how our social programs are not fair. Social programs will be threatened. Our culture is threatened.
The people of Canada have good reason to reject this deal if for no other reason than that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself in 1983 pointed out that a trade deal with the United States was not in Canada's interests. What we need is an election so that the people of Canada can speak on this deal themselves. We indicate our opposition. Now let us give the people of Canada a chance to show their opposition.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased to take part in this debate on an extremely important issue or subject that I would call a challenge to our resourcefulness as Canadian citizens. I will be brief, merely hoping that my remarks will shed more light on a situation which some people enjoy making more confusing than it really is.
Ever since Canada and the United Sates signed the trade agreement I noticed two major trends of thought among the public. First, a noisy minority made up of Liberal and NDP Members relentlessly calls for cancellation of the agreement and maintains that Canada has sold out to the United States, that we are handing our sovereignty over to them, or so they say, in short they openly claim that we are selling the country to the Americans.
Madam Speaker, their claims are only a small part of the political picture because we must not forget that the majority of Canadian provinces are already committed to endorsing the free trade agreement.
Madam Speaker, earlier today I listened to some Members of the Opposition who said that the agreement would impose strict limits not only on the country but even more so on the provinces.
Well, Madam Speaker, either I do not understand anything at all or the provincial premiers did not even realize the Canadian Government was challenging them. Indeed, at least eight of the ten provinces-and the federal Government, of course-unreservedly support the free trade deal.
So when I hear people suggesting that we need a new mandate to justify the delay in implementing the FTA, I wonder just what kind of mandate they have in mind, once again considering that not only most Canadians but practically all provincial premiers are in favour of the agreement, including and especially Quebec.
Quebec Premier Bourassa of course agrees with the Prime Minister of Canada, they want Quebecers to forge ahead, become prosperous and get their fair share of the market.
On the other hand, Madam Speaker, the fact is that from public forums we hear about the satisfaction of business quarters and their nearly unanimous endorsement of the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada-U.S. trade deal. Those most concerned with free trade are precisely business men and women who are directly involved in commercial deals with the United States, and most of them are prepared to face up to the challenge the free-trade deal represents. They are the men and women who will make or break the agreement.
Earlier, Members of the Opposition referred to bad aspects of the agreement. Still, as Government Members we are not trying to sell something unsaleable. We are fully aware of the fact that the agreement is not without fault, that it could be improved. We are fully aware of that. But we have full confidence in mankind, in Canadian men and women, in their capacity to adapt well enough to face the free trade challenge. Big businesses, particularly those involved in resource development, have made their position known. They are united in their strong belief that they will gain from free trade.
Besides, large companies have always been a factor of prosperity for small and medium businesses, if at no other level than subcontracting. If the industrial giants gain from free trade, the same will be true for small and medium businesses, that is obvious. Not surprisingly, at this moment, about two thirds of associations representing small and medium businesses have made it known they also approved the principles of free trade.
You can see, Madam Speaker, that the so-called betrayal the Opposition is talking about does not scare business people at all. While a handful of politicians blinded by partisanship are forcing upon us the desperation of their uncertainties, the industry stopped listening to them and is intensely getting ready to forge ahead. For the last few months, we have been witnessing an important move in the business world in all industrial and commercial sectors of Canada, precisely to plan the way their relations with the United States will develop.
The message delivered by the Economic Council of Canada, the Conseil du patronat, the Chamber of Commerce, the Board of Trade, at conferences, seminars, etc . . . Madam Speaker, is quite clear: Given Canada's trade history, it is more than likely that free trade will bring about an important increase in productivity and general business activity in this country. Canada's manpower is flexible, our exchange rate is attractive and furthermore we are closer geographically to the main U. S. population centers than a number of American states such as California and Texas. Certain firms are already looking at new ways of doing business with foreign counterparts. That is what I call positive thinking. Even among American Senators and Congressmen who are avowed protectionists, the principles of free trade have recently gained support. For his part, the President of the United States is even considering some form of free trade with Mexico, thus laying the groundwork for a North American economic community.
I must admit, Madam Speaker, that no trade agreement can satisfy everyone. There will always be those who will refuse to accept the need for change and to adapt to new situations. Others still will not want to sacrifice anything temporarily,

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
even if the development or the future of their business depends on it. I can only ask these people to keep a cool head, to put things in their proper perspective and most of all to avoid the pitfall of emotional argumentation, since that would mean closing the door to any honest and enlightened discussion. Madam Speaker, that would mean a step toward a new type of isolation, a kind of ideological separatism, possibly more dangerous for Canada than the commercial isolation from which we have been able to get away, thanks to the courage and the determination of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
We will face the challenge, since we have many of the tools required to strike new business deals in the United States. Also, with the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology, we will be better prepared and better equipped to benefit from the free trade deal.
Madam Speaker, I ask all Canadians first to review, in an unbiased way, the past behaviour and accomplishments of the Progressive Conservative Government. Then, they will see that we have really listened to each and every group of the population. We have chosen our priorities in order to create a new harmony as far as the Constitution is concerned and to give a remarkable, and above all constant, boost to our economy. That is what we have been doing for the last three years.
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has been successful in surrounding himself with a team knowledgeable in economic matters, and I am sincerely convinced that with the free trade agreement we will be able to further excell.
Our duty is to transcend the words and the ideologies, because we have to face the reality of the more challenging world that is awaiting us in the year 2000. So, together, with our heads held high, let us fight like we have done in the past, and the victory will be ours!


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this evening to speak on the subamendment to Bill C-130. I wish to commence by reviewing where the so-called trade proposal came from, the Mulroney-Reagan deal, because it certainly did not come from any MPs in the House.
It originated with Ronald Reagan during his campaign to win the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. Reagan proposed a "North American accord: a new system of economic co-operation between the United States, Canada, and Mexico". Seven years later we found out what Ronald Reagan thought of it. In October, 1987, he said, "The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement is a new economic Constitution for North America. This is our new policy, not only to Canada but to the rest of the world." What did Prime Minister Mulroney have to say during the 1984 federal election? He said, "Don't talk to me about free trade. That issue was decided in 1911. Free trade is a danger to Canadian sovereignty. You will hear no more of it from me." Who is peddling this
trade agreement now? Well, none other than John Crosbie, from the same Crosbie family, as I was reminded by the pro-Canada network when they were here in Ottawa. They reminded Members of this House that this is the same Crosbie family that, in 1949, wore the black arm band in Newfoundland, saying, "No, no, Newfoundland, don't join Canada. Join the United States". This is the same Crosbie family.
This is the same guy being held up by the Conservatives as the buffoon, the one who has never read the deal, who travels around and says, "Oh, well, I sold encyclopaedias and I never read all of them". What kind of preposterous hypocrisy! If hypocrisy was a parliamentary word I would use it to describe the present Minister of trade.
This is the Prime Minister, who, whenever any travelling American businessman came up from the United States, when he was a small boy, loved to sit on his knee and, for a buck, would sing them Oh Danny Boy.
There were an awful lot of Canadians who were not listening to the dulcet tones of the same man who, just four years ago- let us look at some of the other things that he had to say.


An Hon. Member:: He sings better than you speak.


James Ross Fulton: He said, Canadians rejected free trade in 1911. They would do so again." There is the person who calls himself Prime Minister.
Let us look at some of the other Tories. Let us look again at the same quote of Brian Mulroney. "It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it", he said, "during the 1983 Tory leadership race". Shortly after winning the 1984 election, the Mulroney Government started on it again. Or how about the Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson?


An Hon. Member:: You said that. You are being redundant.


James Ross Fulton: "Bilateral free trade . . . "-they are getting sensitive now.


An Hon. Member:: Every one of your speakers sings the same song. Don't you have anything new over there?


An Hon. Member:: Get a new speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All Hon. Members know that it is the way of this House to refer to Hon. Members by either their title or the name of their riding. As your Acting Speaker, I have been quite lenient today, but I think the Hon. Member is taking advantage of that leniency and has been repeating names, family names, of Hon. Members. I am sure that from now on he will be very careful. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had this to say prior to being elected, of course, much like other people I will refer to in a moment:
July 4, 1988

"Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally", he said. How about David Crombie, the former Secretary of State for Canada, who said: "It is silly. Our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak sister".
How about our friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees)? He has been around this House for some time. He said in this House: "An examination of the facts as they are today, gives a clear indication that a move toward free trade with the United States would not be a good thing for this country, from either the economic or the political point of view. I believe that from both points of view it would be a disaster". There we have the Minister of Veterans Affairs who has been around for some time.


An Hon. Member:: What do you say?


James Ross Fulton: Let us consider the country with which we would be having these closer economic ties. Between 1978 and 1985, according to Statistics Canada, 92.3 per cent of the new jobs in the growing services sector were created by Canadian firms. In the same period, the goods-producing sector saw Canadian firms create 89,500 new jobs, while U.S. subsidiaries cut 61,400 jobs, and other foreign firms cut 26,500.
Where did the Tories get these scintillating ideas? They got their energy policy from Richard Nixon in 1970. He said: "Preclude Canada from using indigenous natural gas and oil as a means of industrial development and nullify the comparative advantage we could attain from these resources".
Let us not forget that this is the same Party that agreed to implement the largest self-imposed penalty in the history of the world; the 15 per cent softwood export charge. Talk about a gutless bunch of wimps! These guys are incredible.
It is costing $800 million a year now. This incredible sellout, grandfathered into the deal, is costing $800 million a year. I cannot wait until these Tories hit the campaign trail, in B.C., I will be torching their tails.
Thomas Niles is watching across the street, under the stars and stripes. Members opposite say that the Liberals and New Democrats just don't like Americans. What a lot of piddle-paddle. People on this side of the House like Americans just as much as they do on that side, but we don't crawl on our bellies for the United States the way they guys do.
Let us take a look at what Tom Niles had to say in Senate confirmation hearings about the forest industry in British Columbia: "Canada should be willing to open up its timber-lands on the West Coast to American loggers, who could cut down Canadian trees and haul them to U.S. sawmills, at the same price that Canadian companies pay for timber on Crown land". Here is what the Tories stand for. They want Americans from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California and Alaska, coming in to B.C., cutting down our trees. I will tell you, I will have none of it. I will kick those guys back down to the U.S.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
even if the Tories do not have the guts to stand up for one thin minute.


Mr. Schellenberg:: Rambo.


James Ross Fulton: When Thomas Niles was asked if he did not think Canadians might view the proposal as an easy way of exporting Canadian jobs as well as natural resources, he said: "These are the kinds of things that need to be discussed". What kind of wimps did we send to Washington? What does Simon Reisman say? The way to get a trade agreement with the U.S. is to give them all our water. A brilliant strategy! How many of these brilliant sell-out artists do we need? Give them our water. Give them our timber. Give them our uranium.


An Hon. Member:: Give them our country.


James Ross Fulton: Give them the country. Those Members are tough.


An Hon. Member:: Give them the Tories.


James Ross Fulton: They are tough.
Niles has the experience of discussing pressing issues with Canadians. From 1981 to 1983, he was the head of the U.S. inter-agency negotiating team that met with Canadian officials to solve the acid rain crisis.
After three years on the payroll of Reagan and Nixon, saying: "We will solve acid rain with Canada", what has happened? There is more acid rain falling from the U.S. today than when the Prime Minister took office. He is brilliant. Not only do we have the largest self-imposed penalty in the history of the world, this is the largest self-imposed political and economic act of colonialism in the history of the world. This supinely, acquiescent, cloaca-mouthed Government is incredible.
Let me give some more information. Let us compare health care.
We know that our health care system is better. The Americans would love to have it. We have universal hospital and medical coverage in which employer contributions are compulsory.
What about the U.S? Forty per cent of the population are eligible for publicly-funded hospital and medical services. Thirty-six million Americans and 12 million American children have no insurance of any kind. This is what the Tories want to bring to Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Come on.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true. You know it.


James Ross Fulton: Bring all those good things. That is right. Perhaps the Tories would like to tell us the clause that protects social programs. Perhaps they would like to tell us the precise number. They cannot, Madam Speaker, because that is not

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
protected. What about minimum wages? All provinces and territories have minimum wage laws, but only in Alberta is it below $3.20 U.S. an hour. In nine U.S. states there is no minimum wage. In Texas it is $1.40 an hour. What about unemployment insurance? Eighty-three per cent of Canada's unemployed collected benefits in 1986. The average payment was 60 per cent of the average weekly wage. What about the United States? Only 25 per cent of the U.S. unemployed workers received UI last year. The payment was 35 per cent of the average weekly wage.
I know there is not a lot of time because the Government only wants five days of debate on the most major piece of legislation in this century. Every single major personality on the front bench opposed this kind of a deal with the U.S. when running for office. Then the Tories came in with their hidden agenda. If they had any guts, they would take the issue to the people. If treason were a parliamentary word, I would use it to describe those Members for trying this hidden agenda on Canada.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, having heard the speech of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), a member of the New Democratic Party, I understand why they got only 9.5 per cent of the votes in Lac-Saint-Jean. The people of that region think it is Disneyland rather than the land of Broadbent because from what he says, Madam Speaker...


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, Hear.


Michel Champagne: . . . from what he says, we realize that the New Democrats haven't read the Free Trade Agreement, do not understand a single thing about it and that they are only trying to undermine the credibility that has taken Canadians so many years to build in order to develop a strong American-oriented external market.
That, Madam Speaker, shows the arrogance and the working philosophy of the New Democratic Party and I understand why they only got 9.5 per cent of the votes in Quebec and will be unable to do any better.
The Free Trade Agreement is first and foremost an economic agreement. I don't understand why the two opposition parties, the Liberals and the New Democrats, are talking about cultural sovereignty, linguistic identity, social and energy programs and concluding that we have sold out Canada to the American economy as a whole.
Madam Speaker, this purely economic agreement is based on existing trade; 80 per cent of Canadian exportations go to the United States. We did not invent it. That is what the Canadian Government wanted to do. As a responsible Government, it wanted to maintain those benefits and create an environment in which Canada, a country dependent on
exports, can have secure access to the U.S. market, with the attendant opportunities for expansion and for developing programs in this country that are available to all Canadians, programs that will improve our quality of life and improve the productivity of all sectors of our economy, with the result, Madam Speaker, that Canadians will take greater pride and feel more independent and stronger in their Canadian identity within a market of 250 million. That is what our free trade agreement means.
Madam Speaker, when we consider that our trade with the United States provides one job out of three in this country, and when we consider that both Opposition parties would put these jobs at risk, one example being the Liberal Leader who said he would tear up the agreement... The next day he said that if they were elected, they would have to live with the agreement once it was signed. All of a sudden he was interested in international markets. He doesn't know where he is going, Madam Speaker, and he wants to become Prime Minister of this country. Frankly, that makes no sense at all.
Consider the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He was against the Auto Pact. He said it would destroy the Canadian automobile industry. He said he was against the Pact. And today, what do we see, Madam Speaker? Today we see a leader who defends the interests of Oshawa, a party leader who says free trade isn't good for the rest of Canada, but we in Oshawa want to keep the Auto Pact. We want to keep the industry and we want to keep our zero rate of unemployment. Let the rest of Canada suffer! Madam Speaker, we are not going to do what the New Democrats want us to do. We will proceed, and we will implement an economic policy that is fair and equitable for all Canadians. We want an economic policy that looks to the future, not a regressive policy of the kind favoured by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, but an economic policy that reflects the will of Canadians to expand and to become independent traders in an international market.
Madam Speaker, when I hear the Opposition Members, when I hear the New Democratic Party Members tell us their stories claiming that most Canadians and Quebecers are against the agreement, they have not seen the latest polls: in Quebec, 40 per cent are in favour of free trade. Forty per cent, Madam Speaker, is a majority. And they are trying to tell us that we do not respect democracy. But what does that mean in the case of Quebec? Madam Speaker, the Government of Quebec and its Premier are in favour of the agreement; the Official Opposition is in favour of the agreement; the Conseil du patronat is in favour of the agreement; the Cooperative federee du Quebec is in favour of the agreement; Agropur and Agrinove are in favour of the agreement. I will point out to the Liberal Members who do not know Quebec that the Cooperative federee represents all farmers in Quebec and Agrinove and Agropur represent all Quebec dairy farmers.
Madam Speaker, to put in their place the Liberal Members who have not read the agreement, I will mention that Article 710 of the free trade agreement says that we keep our rights
July 4, 1988

and privileges under Section 11 of GATT. This means that we keep our marketing and management systems and that Canadian agriculture will be able to develop as it wishes. This is in the agreement. And you may notice that it is no longer Jacques Proulx, president of the UPA, who is talking about joint plans; he is talking about cultural sovereignty and GATT discussions. Madam Speaker, we have given to the farmers what they wanted, we have protected them, and that is why 66 per cent or a third of their products not subjected to a quota system, for example beef or pork products, are exported to the United States. We have opened up to our producers a flourishing market, where they are more and more successful, Madam Speaker, because they have access to that market. That is nothing new, Madam Speaker, but a fact both Opposition Parties have absolutely refused to understand!
Madam Speaker, unlike members of both Parties in front of me, I view life more positively. All they know is to be negative and reactionary. Because they think that we are not able to compete with the Americans, they call Canadians a bunch of nobodies, of small-timers, and incompetent business people. Well, Madam Speaker, I am proud when I see a firm in the Champlain riding which exports to the United States, because it means my constituents can have jobs, they can buy a house, have a family, and continue to develop. That is what the future will be like for Canada and for Quebec, an optimist future centered on foreign markets and prosperity. That is what we have been aiming for with the free trade agreement.
Madam Speaker, we hear the two Opposition parties saying that Canada is being sold out to the Americans because they are ten times bigger than we are. But let's look at what is happening in other countries. Let's take, for example, Australia and New Zealand. Australia, which is seven times bigger than New Zealand, much the same, relatively speaking, as the United States compared to Canada, and New Zealand, which has increased its exports, think that the Agreement they have reached is good for both countries as a whole. The same thing applies to Sweden, which has signed a free trade agreement with other Scandinavian countries, Sweden which the New Democrats like to quote as an example of a country which has developed its social programs. They were the first to sign and to understand that an assured access to foreign markets would allow them to establish adequate social programs for their citizens and to ensure their economic development in their own environment; the European Economic Community also came to the same conclusion, Madam Speaker, and their trade has increased by 340 percent while Canada has stagnated at some 150 percent.
Such is the avenue, Madam Speaker, this Government decided to follow when the Prime Minister agreed with President Reagan to create an economic unit that would be strong for all Canadians, strong for North America, and thriving as far as economic development is concerned in the area of research, productivity and efficiency. This is how we want to open the debate, not on a negative note by telling stories about the past because it would be shameful to tell
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
stories about the Leader of the Opposition when he contradicted himself so often over his last 15 years of political life. On this side of the Elouse we look to the future.
We look to the future because we trust our young people, we want to give them opportunities for growth-we want to give young Canadians, the men and women living in this country an opportunity to become entrepreneurs, to grow, to provide themselves with efficient social programs, programs that meet the needs of Canadians, and it is to that extent that I am proud as Member for Champlain to support the free trade agreement and to suggest to the people in my constituency and to all Canadians-this is the best of investments in the future, rather than the investment in the past the Liberals would like to leave us with, and which the New Democratic Party never understood.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I bring some advice to the Conservatives tonight. Is there anyone in this Elouse who has the welfare of Conservatives more in his heart than I? No, absolutely not. I give them some advice tonight. They are perfectly welcome to ignore my advice, but it is free. I hope they will listen and will listen well.
One of the first things Conservatives should pay attention to is the last Angus Reid poll. I am not referring to the raw figures which show which Party is popular. I want to deal with that particular part of the poll that dealt with honesty and integrity. When the Canadian people were focused on the question of honesty and integrity, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) scored off the scale, way up there.


James Ross Fulton: Elonest Ed.


John R. Rodriguez: The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was second.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Elonest John.


John R. Rodriguez: And way down at the bottom, in the incredible depths of 10 per cent, was the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney).


James Ross Fulton: Oh, what's his nickname?


John R. Rodriguez: Jaws III. There it was. In terms of honesty and integrity, the Canadian people were saying that they do not believe the Leader of the Government.
Why do Canadians not believe him? Has he given them any basis for having confidence in what he says? Has he given them any basis for believing any of the things he has said in the past?
We all remember 1983 when he was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party.

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement Mr. Fulton: What did he say?


John R. Rodriguez: He said-


An Hon. Member:: You just happen to have it with you?


John R. Rodriguez: I just happen to have it here handy. When he was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, he said:
Free trade affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it, not during leadership campaigns or at any other time.
He also said:
Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would do so again in 1983.


James Ross Fulton: When was it that he said that, in 1950?


John R. Rodriguez: That was in June of 1983. He was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party. God only knows what kind of thinking goes on. The Prime Minister went on to say that free trade is like a man who gets into bed with an elephant. When the elephant twitches and rolls over, he is a dead man.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Who said that?


John R. Rodriguez: The Prime Minister.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Never.


John R. Rodriguez: The Prime Minister said that and he was right then. He told Canadians that there would be no free trade with the United States.
He went through an entire election campaign in 1984. Was free trade raised? No, not on your life. Suddenly the guy is in Quebec City singing for Mr. Reagan, just like he sang for Colonel McCormick for five bucks When Irish Eyes are Smiling. Now we have free trade and it is being rammed through the House with only two and a half days of debate. It is an agreement which Simon says is the greatest in the history of the world. That is what Simon Reisman said.
What else did we hear in the 1984 election campaign that Canadians took at face value? We heard that our social programs were a sacred trust. Lo and behold, bang, at the first opportunity for a financial statement in 1984, we had the attempt to deindex old age pensions.


James Ross Fulton: Who did that?


John R. Rodriguez: The Prime Minister did it, and Canadians made a judgment: this man cannot be trusted.
The Leader of the Government in the 1984 election campaign embraced the cause of open Government. He said:
The present (Liberal) government believes you have only limited rights to know. Conservatives believe you have every right to know ... If the Canadian people see fit to give us their trust, we will always give them ours.
Inger Hansen, the federal Information Commissioner, in her annual report to Parliament which was brought down last
week, said about the Government's performance on freedom of information the following:
"The act isn't working, and I felt I had to speak out... I meant to tell the Canadian public, 'You can lose these things if you don't watch out.' " The government "has, by inadvertence or by design, undermined both the letter and spirit of the Access to Information Act."
Is there any doubt now why the Canadian people do not trust the Prime Minister? Is it any wonder that he is down in the polls in honesty and integrity? On July 17, 1984, the Prime Minister said:
Let's face it, there's no whore like an old whore. If I'd been in Bryce's position, I'd have been right in there with my nose in the public trough like the rest of them.
Then he went on to say about patronage:
I was mistaken to treat so important a matter in a way which might be misunderstood and very much regret having done so. As I have said since the outset of this campaign, I am committed to the attainment of new standards of quality in making public appointments and that remains my commitment to the people of Canada.
Here we have the failed vacuum cleaner salesman, the failed encyclopaedia salesman, giving his buddy John Laschinger thousands of dollars to sell the free trade deal. This Government has not learned anything from the bad habits of the previous Liberal Government. It continues in the same vein. The Government promised no more patronage, but by golly, we have patronage.
What were we promised in September of 1986? In September of 1986, just two years ago, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that they would have their say on the free trade deal in an election or by some other mechanism. Have we seen that mechanism? Is two and a half days of debate in the House of Commons at second reading that mechanism? Will the legislative committee be able to travel around the country to get the opinions of Canadians about free trade? Not on your bottom dollar.
My advice to this Government is that when Canadians go into the booth to vote, it will not be on the mechanics of the free trade deal. They do not understand much of what is in that deal anyway. They are going to be voting on whether that Prime Minister can be believed, and the verdict is already in. What is the verdict, yes or no? No, he cannot be believed.
The only other thing that I learned around here goes back to 1974, and I want to make this crystal clear. There is another Party in this House, and I recall when Robert Stanfield proposed that wage and price controls was the way to get inflation down.


James Ross Fulton: Stanfield did, a Tory?


John R. Rodriguez: Bob Stanfield did, a Tory. He was the leader of the Tories. We went through the entire 1974 election campaign and the Liberals opposed wage and price controls. Pierre Trudeau made a speech in Timmins to crowds of people and he said: "The only thing that's going to be controlled are your wages". Everybody cheered. We New Democrats, to our
July 4, 1988

everlasting credit, were honest. We opposed wage and price controls. We did a beautiful job for the Liberals. We destroyed Robert Stanfield. The Liberals got elected, when the dust settled, with a majority. What do you think was the first thing we got?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Zapped!


John R. Rodriguez: You got it. Zapped!


James Ross Fulton: Only wages were controlled.


John R. Rodriguez: You got it. They set up the Beryl Plumtre agency. She was supposed to be monitoring food prices. They did not get any monitoring at all.
I recall the 1980 campaign. I was around for that one. I remember the failed vacuum cleaner salesman, the failed Encyclopaedia Britannica salesman, brought in his Budget which incorporated an 18-cent a gallon excise tax. He is also a failed Minister of Finance. He cannot even read. He brought in that Budget, and what happened? We waged a campaign in 1980 against an 18-cent a gallon excise tax. The Liberals were against it. You should have heard their speeches! To our credit again we were sincere and we opposed it. What happened after the election when the dust settled? The Liberals got elected, and what do you think we got now? Not 18 cents a gallon. We have something like $1.50 a gallon. We got it in spades.
We have to be careful. There really is no difference between what we are hearing from our right and what we are hearing from across the way. Let's go to election, I say to the Tories, before you fall any lower. Let's go.


James Ross Fulton: Unanimous consent, we want more.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Having spent 30 years of my life in the beautiful world of show business I find it very difficult to interrupt the Hon. Member when his time is up.


Some Hon. Members:: More.


John Horton McDermid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were not in the House when we had evening sittings. I think the last two speeches we heard from the NDP tonight probably say much more eloquently than anyone could why we do not have evening sittings any more.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hartley).


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Madam Speaker, before I begin-


Steven W. Langdon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have to appeal to the Chair to inform the Parliamentary Secretary that, contrary to what he said, we heard two magnificent
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
speeches from my colleagues which put the free trade deal precisely in its proper context.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Your Acting Speaker has made all the comments she has to make on that subject. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Kent.


Elliott William Hardey: Madam Speaker, I cannot help but notice the lack of speakers from the Liberal side of the House. They have missed the last several rounds, and as I stop to reflect upon the howling we heard from them in this Chamber about time allocation I am just amazed that they cannot find speakers to put up in this important debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know it is not proper to interrupt someone making his maiden speech but I would like to point out to him, if he has been around here all day, that we have had more speakers on this side today.


John Horton McDermid: Be careful.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes.


John Horton McDermid: No.


Elliott William Hardey: Madam Speaker-


Lloyd Axworthy: Nice to see you here. What is your name again?


Elliott William Hardey: -anyone who has been around the House as long as the Hon. Member will realize that when they miss their round they are obviously running out of speakers. That is the only point I wanted to make.
In the time allotted to me for debate on this Bill I want to emphasize some of the facts surrounding the free trade initiative. A few weeks ago I put out a flyer in my riding reciting several facts about free trade as well as a list of nonpolitical opinions about the deal. This information was well received in my riding. I find that people are searching for unbiased facts, and as they find them they start to realize that those who oppose free trade between Canada and the U.S. do so solely for political reasons. The reasons have nothing to do with trade or economics.
As I listened to the statements made on the other side of the House, and the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is a good example, as is the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I heard ranting and raving about the agreement. They did not recite any facts whatsoever. They called the Government names. I guess they think it is humorous, but this is not productive. Yet it has been that way since October, 1987, when the initial agreement was signed. Even when the negotiations were going on, the Liberal and the NDP Parties attempted to mislead and confuse Canadians in the most cruel way imaginable. There seemed to be no limit to how low they would stoop to try to twist the facts to suit their tactics which are designed to win political points.

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canadians are beginning to see through those tactics. Eventually each one of the accusations made to upset and confuse the people was found to be unfounded and false.


Steven W. Langdon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Hon. Member just suggested that the accusations we made have been misleading. I quote from the Government's text which indicates that the day it was issued, performance required, such as increased exports or domestic content levels-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: It appears that this is not a point of order. The Hon. Member is indulging in debate.


Elliott William Hardey: Mr. Speaker, eventually each one of the accusations put forth to upset and confuse people has been proven to be unfounded and false. Yet without apology they simply continue. Of course, some continue to shout silly phrases. Some continue to display dirty cartoons on T-shirts. However, that will not be effective. People see through it right away because there are no facts, just ignorance of the agreement and how it makes Canada a stronger and prouder nation, not only for today but for tomorrow.
Time and time again we have heard about the combined efforts of Bob White, Shirley Carr and David Peterson, Premier of Ontario, to invent new ideas to oppose the deal. No one pays any attention to the so-called Leader of the Official Opposition because he has never had an original idea on how to oppose the deal. He simply leaps on someone else's ideas. Bob White, Vice-President of the NDP, and David Peterson, who wants to be drafted for the leadership of the Liberal Party, are the ones who are conjuring up untruths about the free trade agreement.
In 1987 David Peterson set his six famous conditions for approving the free trade agreement. He beat his chest and said that Ontario would use any power it had to block the free trade agreement if the agreement allowed unfettered U.S. investment in Canada, if the free trade agreement gutted the Auto Pact, if it eliminated agricultural marketing boards, if it infringed on cultural sovereignty, if it dismantled regional development powers, or if it did not provide adequate dispute settling mechanisms.
Those were his six points. We all know very well, of course, that those concerns were unfounded because every last one of those concerns was met. Marketing boards were protected under the agreement. Cultural institutions were protected under the agreement. Regional development was not inhibited. A binding dispute settling mechanism has been agreed upon, and the Auto Pact is not only intact but was complemented with a new rule of origin creating 50 per cent North American content in non-Auto Pact manufactured automobiles. That is a 40 per cent increase over the present North American content rules.
Premier Peterson was not asked to apologize for misleading Canadians, nor was Bob White or the federal leaders of the opposition Parties. A simple acknowledgement that the concerns of Canadians were met with the agreement would have been sufficient, but they did not do that. Instead, they get their heads together and dream up new untruths to confuse and upset Canadians.
This past week they came up with a real whopper. As we are all aware, a drought has come about in a great portion of Canada and the midwestern United States. We are all worried as crops wither before our eyes. As a matter of fact, that is about all we talk about in southwestern Ontario in the County of Kent. We are very concerned. Suddenly we find the Opposition accusing the Government of giving away our water to the United States. That is no coincidence at all, Mr. Speaker. This is one of the crudest attempts to misinform and confuse people that I have ever seen. If ever an apology was in order, it certainly is now.
Can you believe that the opponents to free trade, true to their reputation of no common sense at all, picked up on Article 2201 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule which indicates that tariffs will be eliminated on bottled water which, of course, includes carbonated water or Perrier water? They twist it further by complaining that Article 409, which does not allow either party completely to turn off resources to be exported, did not exclude water in the free trade agreement. The fact is that it did not exclude water because we do not export water. Nothing in the agreement forces Canada to export a resource which it has good reason not to export. The federal water policy is very clear on this issue.
The Opposition even brings up the 29 year old proposed Grand Canal Project. I will not go into a great deal of detail, but this 29 year old project proposal envisions a diversion of James Bay water to the U.S. via the Great Lakes. This 29 year old proposal has been formally rejected, as well it should be, and the proposal will not be considered by the federal Government. In any event, what has that to do with the free trade agreement? It is simply brought forth to frighten people, and that is what I want to talk about. That is what is upsetting me. It is not as though the facts make any difference to the Opposition, but the Opposition has always been in possession of these facts. Yet it moves forward with the twisting of them.
That is not all. In spite of being in possession of the true facts about water and the free trade agreement, Premier Peterson of Ontario decided to prey upon the emotions of the people concerned about the drought in our country and introduced legislation to control water exports from Ontario. I suppose he wants to justify the mistakes he made previously about the free trade agreement. He should apologize for being mistaken when he accused the federal Government of making a bad deal. He should be waving the flag for the free trade agreement, for keeping 92 per cent of Ontario exports moving into the United States market. Instead, he introduced legislation last week to control water exports from the Province of Ontario, clearly another political move to upset the people of
July 4, 1988

Ontario concerned about the drought, and he tried to tie it to the free trade agreement. That was just another cheap political move to rationalize and try to justify this useless legislation.
The Premier quoted a U.S. governor who asked for 9,000 cubic feet of water per second to be diverted to the Chicago sewer project from Lake Michigan. He knows full well that that request has been forthcoming during dry periods since the 1930s when the project was created.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I am sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has elapsed.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks on the free trade issue as well this evening, but I want to approach it from a slightly different point of view than that to which I have been listening through most of the evening.
One may say that Tom Wolfe said it best when he said: "You can't go home again". That is exactly what opposition Members want to do; they want to go home again. They want things to stay the way they are. That is impossible. They do not seem to understand that there are over 200 different trade Bills in the United States Congress, any one of which or any number of which could seriously affect Canada's economy and its trade. They want stagnation, not growth, not forward progress. These Bills can sideswipe Canada in any number of ways. There will be no exemption for us unless this free trade agreement can be ratified with the United States.
In my opinion if one says "no" to free trade, one wants a narrow, a less prosperous, and a socialist society in Canada. We talk about how important our social programs are to us. Free trade does not threaten them. It ensures them. If this country becomes less prosperous, the cost of our social programs will be something which must be looked at by any Government. We will have to consider whether we can afford them. The way to afford the social programs we have and to enhance them with such things as a major child care initiative is for us to have a booming economy, greater trade, and a more prosperous country. That will not be the result of turning down the free trade agreement.
For those of us in the West in particular, free trade not only enables us to trade with the United States but enhances our opportunities to trade throughout the Pacific Rim. I will give an oversimplified example.
A widget manufacturer in Vancouver producing widgets for the Vancouver market is not operating on an economy of scale. This free trade agreement will mean that we can open up the entire market of the United States, the five million people in the Seattle area alone and the California market which has more people than all of Canada. If the manufacturer can finally compete in the United States with security for his product, he can plan an expansion of his plant on the basis of maximum economy of scale. That exists in western Canada now. The minute he does that, it means that he can compete throughout the Pacific Rim with the producers of any product
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
because his plant can be as efficient in terms of scale as any in the world. Frankly, that is what we need in British Columbia, that is what we want for British Columbia.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) has commented that he would tear up the free trade deal. I do not know what wag said it, but it has been said that to tear up the agreement shows a great more strength of hand than of brain.
I must agree with that.
If free trade is as bad as Members opposite suggest, the clause allowing the deal to be cancelled in six months would be invoked. They do not need to tear up the deal because it can be cancelled by either party. We are not bound to it forever in any respect. However, if the deal works and increases Canadian trade, obviously we will want to keep it.
The New Democratic Party has been the most honest about their view of this deal. They realize that this agreement means greater trade and less government for Canada. It means prosperity, with less possibility of socialism coming to the country. We know that the New Democratic Party wants socialism and that this agreement will not help them in their objective to bring socialism to Canada.
Let me explain what free trade means to my constituents in North Vancouver. It will mean expanded traffic, with less hassle for the literally hundreds of consultants who must travel back and forth across the border to conduct the business that will be open to them. It will mean cheaper consumer prices. It will mean for the typical family in North Vancouver on a trip to Bellingham less of a smuggling operation because that will not be necessary with free trade. I hope I have not offended anybody, but we certainly see thousands of Canadian cars in Bellingham.
Free trade also means security for the forest industry, which is important, because British Columbia has been clobbered by lobbyists from the United States. Our shakes and shingle industry was particularly affected with the loss of many jobs. The free trade deal is worth it for the protection of our forest industry in British Columbia alone.
The NDP should talk to Jack Munro and International Woodworkers. I have yet to hear them make any statements condemning this deal as bad for British Columbia. They will not do so because they know it is good for them, their jobs, and the expansion of the market.
Do Canadians want a country that is facing stagnation? It has been said that one cannot go home again. The U.S. Congress is considering very defensive and narrow Bills that will not exempt Canada unless we can achieve this major agreement. I ask Canadians: "Do you want socialism, or do you want growth in our society? Do you want the economy to grow? Do you want jobs for your children and expanded opportunities? If so, closely examine the free trade agreement".

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Rather than listen to the rhetoric from all sides, consider the studies done by independent groups such as the Canada West Foundation, the report by Liberal Senator Van Roggen's report from the Senate a few years which came out strongly in support of free trade, and the report by the Economic Council of Canada. Those who are not involved in the politics are saying that this is a great deal for Canada.
Those who want a socialist state and a bleak future for Canada should not support the free trade initiative. However, those who want a future that means something will support the free trade deal.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak so soon. I sat through much of the debate in the House this afternoon when opposition Members were raising a proper furore about the fact that they were not getting enough time to debate. I believe three Conservative Members in a row have spoken, and I am now rising to speak because opposition Members are refusing to speak, which I suggest makes a mockery of all the argument we heard this afternoon. However, I did not get up to talk about the Opposition. I want to speak about the issue of free trade from the perspective of a western Canadian.
There are three categories into which I want to divide this subject. The first concerns the historical problems associated with free trade. The second deals with why the West supports free trade-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could not help but hear the comments of my dear friend, the Hon. Member for Peace River. I want to tell him that if he feels obliged to speak and defend the Government's position on free trade, it is not necessary. If he wants to sit down, we will proceed to the vote right now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: That is hardly a point of order. The Hon. Member for Peace River.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to have an opportunity not only to put the position of my Government on record but my own position as well. I am still shocked that no opposition Members have risen to speak. We are very much surprised that they are not continuing to speak in the debate this evening.
The third category I want to discuss is the politics of the deal.
Let us examine why tariffs were originally implemented. Their purpose was to protect certain Canadian industries, which were largely in the manufacturing sector. Management would be one of the main beneficiaries of a business that was protected by these tariffs. They had a margin of error built directly into their prices with that tariff protection. Another margin of error could be applied to technological advances because they were looking at reduced investments. Those businesses did not have to be on the leading edge of competition.
However, they were not the only beneficiaries. The unions also benefited from tariff protection. They experienced job security along with reduced pressure on their need to be productive.
Of course, there were those who had to pay the price for that tariff protection. Several groups fall into that category. The first group would be the consumers who had to pay higher prices for their goods. They ended up with a limited or more restricted supply. As a result, those consumers began to pay the price of any tariff protection that existed within our economy.
There is another group that I think suffered just as much. It is a group which I think specifically relates to western Canada, that group of people who are involved in the development of our resources in the West. The reason they suffered is that the costs of goods and materials which they needed to develop, export, and market their products were higher to them simply because of the tariff protections which existed.
If one is in the oil and gas business, that means that pipe costs more because of tariff protection. Work clothes cost more because of tariff protection. The same is true with respect to tools which cost more.
All of this came to a violent head when the previous Liberal administration brought forward the National Energy Program. When that was done it became apparent to western Canadians that we were not able to buy the goods that we needed at world price. We had to pay the world price plus a tariff. We may have paid anywhere from 115 per cent to 130 per cent more for particular goods or services that we bought which were protected by tariffs. Yet, when it came to our own commodities, the commodities that we wished to sell-and under the National Energy Program that particular commodity was our oil and gas-we were told that we could not sell them at the world price. We had to go below the world price, down to 85 per cent of world price. What we had then was an obvious imbalance. Those who were protected by tariffs were receiving a premium price for their commodities. Those of us who were not protected by tariffs actually paid a penalty. In the case of the National Energy Program that penalty was 15 per cent.
It was no wonder that western Canadians were so angry about the National Energy Program. It is no wonder that their attention was focused immediately on the whole business of tariff protection. It is no wonder that today western Canadians in such a large majority support the free trade agreement.
I wish to consider why westerners support this deal. The first reason is that consumers of manufactured goods for the most part live in the West. They see prices being reduced as a result of the free trade agreement. They see more variety of goods and services being made available to them. As consumers they are in favour of the agreement.
July 4, 1988

Second, as producers of resources, whether that be in the area of oil and gas, forestry, or agriculture, they see full access to the American market. They see an opportunity to sell their goods at world price.
Third, they see the costs of their materials being reduced as a result of the reduction in those tariffs and as a result of increased competition in particular areas of supply.
The fourth reason that western Canadians support the deal is that we in the West are putting a great deal of energy into diversifying our economy. That is why the Government put into place the Western Diversification Program and why it has established the Western Diversification Office. That was done because we want to build a manufacturing and processing industry in western Canada. In order to accomplish that we need materials at lower prices, those materials that we need in order to finish or process our products.
Something else which is important in terms of the diversification of our economy is that we need access to the California market. That market consists of 25 million people who live in the State of California. That figure is roughly equivalent to the whole population of the entire country of Canada. The reality is that the California market is closer to the City of Edmonton than is Toronto or Montreal. Thus we have a larger market available to us through the free trade agreement. It is much closer to us than is the existing market in Canada. That is why we see so much opportunity and potential for diversifying our economy.
I now wish to talk about the politics of the deal. What we are really being offered is two choices. The Government is offering a positive position on free trade, what I call a balanced deal. We have negotiated a fair deal, a deal which says to the West: "Here is your chance to develop, to diversify, and to revitalize your economy. Here is a chance for those who are in the tariff protected industries to experience a phase out of those tariffs". In other words they are not hit right now, today; there is a phase down time. They have a 10-year period in some cases to make the transition from a tariff protected environment to an environment that is not protected.
What have the Liberals said about free trade? They have said that they will tear up the deal. Why do they want to do that? For one thing they favour the status quo. They like the balance of the economy that exists within Canada at the moment. They favour government intervention. That was radically demonstrated by their previous policy, the national energy policy. It is no surprise that they will rip up the deal.
What about the NDP? Members of that Party have said that they, too, will cancel the deal. Why are they going to do that? As my colleague stated, the NDP want a controlled economy, a socialist economy. They do not see that as being possible under the free trade agreement.
Members of the New Democratic Party are also big supporters of the unions. The big unions are not supporting this agreement. It is obvious that when the NDP is given the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
choice of supporting the western Canadian farmers and small business people or the big unions, they are going to pick the big unions each and every time. That certainly has been our experience.
I think that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government have demonstrated a vision for Canada. They have given us as western Canadians an opportunity. It is an opportunity that I am proud to support. It is an opportunity that I think is good for western Canada. The time is right for the deal right now.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I know that with your vast experience in this House you have seen hypocrisy before. However, as a new Member I have seen hypocrisy today like I have never seen it before. I sat here all morning and all afternoon and listened to the debate on time allocation. According to members of the Opposition, they did not have enough time to debate it. They did not have enough time to talk about free trade. A year and a half has not been enough for them. Yet everyone in Canada is talking about free trade.


John R. Rodriguez: Keep talking, Bob.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: I will keep talking.
I am the fourth government Member in a row to stand up to speak. I see Members sitting opposite but they are not standing up. They do not want to stand up to tell us that we are wrong. We are not wrong.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To this point, excluding the Hon. Member for Mississauga North who has the floor now, there have been 15 New Democrats who have spoken on the Bill, 22 Conservatives,-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: -14 Liberals, members of the Opposition being in a far higher proportion than members of the Government in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Once again the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor has entered into debate on a point of order.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: That was a very interesting point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that you got a lot out of it. We are debating a subamendment to an amendment to the main motion. I do not want to talk about subamendments and amendments. I want to talk about free trade, and what is happening in this country.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sit down and wait until we get to that. You are out of order.

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


James Ross Fulton: Self-confessed out of order.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: No, I am not.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: From the horse's mouth himself we just heard that he does not want to speak about the subamendment. That is what is before the House. The Hon. Member has to speak to what is before the House, not what will come up tomorrow. I would invite the Hon. Member to pay attention and to be relevant to the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I understand that it is very difficult for the Hon. Member for Mississauga North, but I trust that we can give him an extra moment or so at the end to make up for this.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Since opposition Members wish me to debate the subamendment, I will tell them that I will never support the subamendment. If opposition Members wish me to debate the amendment, I will tell them that I will never support the amendment, but I will support free trade, Bill C-130, because it is the only saviour of Canada.
Let me tell all Hon. Members about the great riding of Mississauga North. This little booklet contains 7,000 businesses in Mississauga just waiting to ship their goods across into the United States. We cannot wait to increase the size of the terminal at Lester B. Pearson Airport because we want to get our goods across into the United States.
The Mississauga Board of Trade conducted a survey. It was a simple survey sent out to 2,700 corporate members. The Board of Trade asked: "Are you in favour of free trade? Will your company benefit?" Fifty-eight per cent said yes, 15 per cent said no, and the rest were not sure. Perhaps some of the workers have been brainwashed by the unions and may not be supporting free trade. The entrepreneurs and the businesses are because they want to sell their goods in another country. They will, and they will create jobs.
Since the war we have become more and more dependent on trade with the United States. In 1945, 30 per cent of our exports were shipped to the United States. Today it is almost 80 per cent.
In the United Kingdom our exports have fallen from 5 per cent to 2.4 per cent. Our exports to Japan have fallen from 6.1 per cent to 5.4 per cent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Blame it on the Tories.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: No, not under the Tories. This was from 1976. In the other EEC countries our exports have fallen from 6.7 per cent to 5.1 per cent, and in all others from 14.6 per cent to 10.8 per cent.
We need trade with the United States and we want to secure our markets with the United States. The only way to do so is a
comprehensive free trade agreement with a good dispute settlement mechanism so that we can sell-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Which you did not get.


James Ross Fulton: Read it.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: I have read the free trade agreement. I would recommend to Members opposite that they read pages 56 to 76. They make really interesting reading-A minus B over C equals D where A is the amount of grain sold. As the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has stated, we do not need to know every tittle that is in there. All we need to know is that businesses in Mississauga will benefit.
Members of the NDP sit over there and laugh. There is not one among them who has ever created a job. Are they going to stand up and speak? No, they are not, because they have not a word to say. The Liberals are also sitting there. They are great while they are sitting down.


John R. Rodriguez: What do you need to know? Up is down.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: I do not need to know one thing. This agreement recognizes not only the independence of Canada and the United States but also the differences. For the first time Canada's legitimate concerns over cultural policy, social programs, and regional development have been recognized, putting to rest the unfounded claims that freer trade leads inevitably to assimilation.
I have some other surveys here, Madam Speaker. In Alberta, 53 per cent are in favour of free trade and 32 against; 44 per cent in British Columbia are in favour of the free trade agreement.
If they want to call an election, I will fight it on free trade any time at all.


John R. Rodriguez: You are the Government.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: I would like to quote from a release put out by the Ontario Small Business Corporation. It states: "A new survey reveals the small business sector in Ontario and throughout Canada has become more positive about free trade with the United States since the signing of the agreement in January. Federation President, John Bulloch, said opposition to free trade within the small business sector of Ontario has dropped by half since CFIB conducted a similar survey among its membership in 1986". It has dropped from 15.9 per cent to 7.8 per cent.
We hear a lot from the Opposition about whether Canadians can compete. Does Canadian industry have the plants, equipment, skilled labour force, and managerial skills to take on American competition? I say that we have. Free trade to the world's largest and richest market will allow Canadian industry to specialize in producing those things we do best. The result will be more investment, more exports, and more jobs. In 1984 we promised jobs, jobs, jobs. We could have sat here and done nothing like the Liberals did from 1980 to 1984. We
July 4, 1988

promised change, not only change for the sake of change but, change for the better. We are not afraid to go out and bring forward an agreement like this one.
Much has been said about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) changing his mind. Any politician who has not changed his mind at some time does not have a mind to change. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) is the former Mayor of Ottawa. I am quite sure in her term as Mayor of Ottawa she changed her mind numerous times.


John R. Rodriguez: Have you got one to change?


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Yes.


John R. Rodriguez: Have you changed your mind on Bill C-72?


Robert Nesbitt Horner: The Auto Pact has been a boon to Ontario. In 1965 the NDP laughed and said that the Auto Pact would not work. They opposed it. The Auto Pact is working very well. There are no problems with it that require attention in the negotiations. The Auto Pact could be stopped with one year's notice.
The Liberals talk about tearing up the agreement. If any of the Liberals had read the agreement they would know that it can be stopped in six months, six months' notice is all that it takes. What type of credibility would any Government have that would say that it would tear up the agreement before it even saw it? I really cannot believe it.
I challenge any members of the Opposition to rise and speak; otherwise be a little quiet.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I am quite willing to speak. Considering the previous Member was making our case for us so well, we are willing to give him extended time, if he wishes.


John R. Rodriguez: He has nothing more to say.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Unfortunately he had nothing to say when he was speaking last time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Tell us about Bill C-72.


Rodney Edward Murphy: There have been four Conservatives in a row, however that still brings the percentage of Conservative Members who have spoken on the free trade issue to approximately 10 per cent. In our case, over 50 per cent of our caucus has spoken on this issue-


Mrs. Mailly:: That is because there are so many of us and so few of you.


Rodney Edward Murphy: -and the Liberals are approaching that percentage.
We recognize the importance of this debate, and we will be putting up speakers in the one day that we have left to debate. It is interesting that today, on July 4, the American holiday,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the Government moved to restrict debate on this very important issue. The Government wanted to spend more time debating capital punishment. It wanted to spend more time debating abortion. It wants to debate a number of issues. However, when it comes to an issue which is very important to all Canadians, an issue which will affect Canadians for generations to come, it wants a very limited debate.


Claudy Mailly: Balderdash.


Rodney Edward Murphy: We hear from their seats one or two Tories who say: "You can tear up the agreement with six months' notice". That is the excuse to say that we are not affecting future generations, because some future Government can actually rip up the agreement. They say that and they mean it. It is true that with six months' notice any Party can give notice, but let us look at what will happen. The way the Government is selling us out, it would be very difficult to unscramble those eggs and it knows that.
I was very interested when the former Conservatives Whip, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), one of the valued dinosaurs of the Conservative Party, rose and said that he was for this agreement, that the New Democratic Party was against the agreement because we wanted a socialist Canada, and that this agreement would prevent it. What that Member was in fact stating was that future Canadian Governments were obviously limited in making decisions for this country. It is not a matter of socialism; it is not a matter of what social programs we want and what other Parties may not want. That Member was speaking the truth in his own way. He was recognizing that the ability of future Canadian Governments to make decisions that are important to Canada will be restricted by this agreement.
One thing that is interesting in terms of the Government and its desire to restrict this debate is, as we see from the Environ-ics poll, is that opposition to free trade is growing across the country. In Saskatchewan, Premier Grant Devine has been out there campaigning. Let us remember what he said-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: They do not want to hear from the Conservatives. They get upset. They get upset when the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) quotes the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). They get upset when one of our Members quotes the Conservative leadership. Now they are upset when I try to mention what a Conservative Premier says. The Conservative Premier from Saskatchewan went around the province, preaching the value of free trade, explaining how important it was to the West and actually picking on the people of Ontario. What happened? Let us take a look. Which province is most against the Mulroney trade deal? It is the Province of Saskatchewan. I recognize that I should not have said "the Mulroney trade

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
deal". I should have said the Prime Minister's trade deal, and I apologize, Madam Speaker. The point is that, as the Premier went out and tried to sell the deal, the people of that province turned against the trade agreement.
Let us take a look at what is happening today in the Government's latest issue. Let us look at what the Government says, in its own glossy publication. With regard to investment it asks: "What happens with the deal? What happens to future foreign investment in this country?" The Government says, in its own publication that performance requirements such as increased exports, import substitution, sourcing requirements, and/or domestic content levels as a condition of investment will not be permitted under the agreement. This means that if some foreign-owned company comes and takes over a Canadian firm, we have absolutely no right to regulate what the firm will do. It is the right of any nation to determine what will happen with its own resources, its own companies, its own regional development. We have a right, as Canadians, to make those decisions and those requirements. The Conservatives want to sell out that right. This group of Conservatives says "That is what we want. We do not want to have any controls. We do not want the Canadian Government to be able to say that it thinks, if there is a foreign takeover, that perhaps that firm should be investing in Canada, perhaps that firm should be buying goods in Canada, perhaps that firm should be hiring and training Canadians".
The Government does not want that power, and it wants to ensure that future Governments do not have that power. What I find amazing is that these Conservatives are rejecting what every other Conservative Government in the country has ever stood for. One interesting thing is that they ask: "What about the automobile industry?" Do these Conservatives remember that when the President of Ford Canada made his speech to the annual meeting-the board of directors were all there; they spoke to all their shareholders, 94 per cent being Ford of the U.S-he said that he was all for this trade agreement, that he liked this trade agreement? He congratulated the Government on it, and then he said that he did not like provincial laws on occupational health and safety. Because there was provincial laws on occupational health and safety-


An Hon. Member:: Who said that?


Rodney Edward Murphy: The President of Ford Canada said that he did not like these laws because they restricted the company's right. Because of that, he thought that it might be just as advantageous for the company not to build a new plant in Oakville but to do it in the States.
The situation is that they are saying: "Okay, with the new trade agreement which we love, we are in a situation where we can make a decision that if we do not like provincial laws on occupational health and safety we can actually relocate in the States." That is going to be allowed under this agreement. That is going to happen as a result of this agreement.
The Government says: "We are not affecting provincial programs. We are not affecting occupational health and safety. We are not affecting the various social programs that have been put in place in the various provinces." However it is allowing Ford, GM, Chrysler, General Electric, and all such other firms to say: "Well, we don't like the social programs you have in Canada. We don't want to pay for those social programs that you have in Canada, so we are going to take our corporations, we are going to take our plants, and we are going to develop them in the southern states".
We have some controls in this country, we have the right to make decisions in this country, and they are selling out that right and they know it.
July 4 will be a Conservative holiday, and I will tell you, Madam Speaker, that my sons, my grandsons, and my granddaughters will remember the Conservatives as the traitors that they are.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ted William Schellenberg: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to wrap up the debate on Bill C-130 this evening. Like many of my colleagues I have been sitting here throughout the day listening to the debate and watching it collapse for the Liberal Party, with the New Democratic Party not far behind. I have been asking myself what if this Parliament had a great debate and nobody came from the opposition Parties? That appears to be what has happened this evening. Indeed, we are left now with government speakers to support one of the best Bills our Government has brought forward in the past three or four years, and it is my privilege to speak on it this evening.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for the record and so that the Hon. Member for Nanaimo- Alberni is aware, there are 190 Conservatives missing this evening.


John Horton McDermid: We are all debating though.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I know the Hon. Member did not mention anyone by name, but it is not the custom of this House to mention the absence of Members, especially at ten o'clock at night. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni.


Ted William Schellenberg: Madam Speaker, after the next election there will be a lot of NDP votes missing, especially in British Columbia where the free trade deal is supported so highly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ted William Schellenberg: I think it is quite appropriate that I speak on July 4, having just been in my riding for Canada Day and today is Independence Day in the United States. The two days in between, July 2 and July 3, have been declared Canada-U.S. Friendship Days, so it is quite appropriate that we speak
July 4, 1988

this evening on this very important trade agreement between our two sovereign nations.
I feel a bit like Alice in Wonderland. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser as this debate goes on. Opposition Members demand time to debate. They say five days are not enough, but they are having trouble putting up speakers. We have just heard the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) talk about the horrible Americans, as the New Democrats tend to classify them. Let us remember that it was an NDP Government in Manitoba-and the NDP Member for Churchill will be well aware of this-that sold its hydro power to the Americans.


Some Hon. Members:: What?


Ted William Schellenberg: Why did the NDP Government do that, Madam Speaker? It was to create jobs in Manitoba. That is what happens in western Canada in particular where we fund our lifestyle on the resources that we export to other nations. The NDP Government in Manitoba has done that and other Governments across this nation have done that in order to create employment. This agreement will secure that kind of an arrangement with the Americans who are one of our biggest trading partners.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are selling now without free trade.


Ted William Schellenberg: Then we had the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) a little earlier this evening talking like Rambo Jim about American tanks at the border coming to take our water, our trees, and our fish. The Hon. Member knows full well that that is not accurate. I wonder how dumb he thinks the average Canadian voter is to accept that kind of drivel.
Our own Government in British Columbia has released a report on the free trade agreement. I know the Hon. Member from Skeena and other NDP Members are big fans of the B.C. Government. Let us listen to what is in this report. The B.C. Government predicts, through its own research, a 2.5 per cent increase in provincial Gross Domestic Product by 1999 in British Columbia and 27,600 net new jobs in B.C. through the free trade deal. The question was asked about where B.C.'s exports were destined for. Through this document it shows that 46 per cent of British Columbia's exports go to the United States, 26 per cent to Japan, and 28 per cent elsewhere. "What will free trade's impact be on B.C.'s employment? No effect: 83 per cent; positive effect; 15 per cent; negative effective"- about which our socialist friends and Liberal friends seem to be so wrapped up-"2 per cent; barely minimum".
Let us look at Vancouver Island, my particular part of the world. What will the free trade's impact be on B.C. regions, Victoria and Vancouver Island which have a labour force of
201,000	workers? There will positive effect of 14 per cent on that labour force. I wish I came from my hon. friend's riding of Skeena. Up in Prince Rupert and area-I have 14 per cent on Vancouver Island-according to this document the positive
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
effect in Skeena will be 28 per cent through the free trade deal. The Hon. Member stands in this Chamber and debunks one of the greatest agreements between sovereign nations. He should listen to his fellow socialists in New Zealand and Australia who have their own free trade agreement. It is working so well that they are speeding things up. They want the mechanism brought forward earlier than the 1990s.
Let us look at what has happened between Ireland and the United Kingdom. In 1963 before they signed their free trade agreement, 70 per cent of Ireland's trade was with Great Britain and 30 per cent with the rest of the world. What has happened 25 years later? That is a good example, a small country and a big country. We are all afraid of the great Americans. Twenty-five years later the situation is the reverse. Seventy per cent of Ireland's exports are to the world, the rest to Great Britain. Ireland became better at what it did. It had a larger market-place in which to trade and could export products much better. That is what will happen to Canada with this deal. Then we have our friends in the Liberal Party.


Claudy Mailly: Where are they?


Ted William Schellenberg: They do not have too many friends in British Columbia, but they do have some friends. The Liberals say that they want to tear up the agreement. The New Democrats say that they are going to tear it down. The Liberals want more debate and want the legislative committee on Bill C-130 to travel across the country. Of course they do not really want too much input because they will tear it up anyway. Canadians will never support a potential Government that would tear up any kind of sovereign agreement. The Liberals say that they do not want a bilateral agreement with the U.S. What they want is world trade. That has been their argument for the last little while-not the U.S. but the world.
What happened when we had a world leader in this Chamber? The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher, came here. What was the Liberal reaction? Did they want to discuss trade with Margaret Thatcher? Of course not. They wanted to shout her down. They did not want to hear what she had to say about the benefits of world trade.
We have heard many quotes in this Chamber over the last few days. What have people in the B.C. forest industry said? Peter Bentley, Chairman of the Canfor Corp., has refuted claims that Canada would be better off as things are than with free trade. He said:
That assumption is a myth, and the forest industry is living proof that
protectionism in the U.S. is alive and well.
He went on to say:
Bear in mind that as Canadians tariffs have declined, our exports to the U.S.
have increased. Opponents of the agreement argue that free trade will cause
Canada to lose jobs and trade to the U.S., yet history proves just the opposite.
When tariffs come down, trade will go up.
That is all around the world, including Canada. The fishermen in British Columbia whom I know are listening to me tonight if they are not out on their boats catching fish, it is

July 4, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the season. Let us see what the American fishermen are saying and here is a good indication of what free trade means. This is from an American magazine, the February issue of National Fisherman:
American east and west coast fishermen, processors, and their representatives have voiced virtually unanimous opposition to the proposed free trade agreement.
These are the Americans. Here is another quote:
-fishing industry leaders say the U.S. industry has more to lose than gain if the trade pact is ratified. They charge that the accord is unbalanced in favour of Canadian fishing interests.
As U.S. seafood industry representatives view it, the elimination of tariffs would be of substantially greater benefit to their Canadian counterparts since they would gain tariff-free access to one of the world's major seafood markets.
There you have it, Madam Speaker, from the forest industry to the fishing industry, to almost every other industry in this nation, the benefits from free trade are quite obvious. I wish I had more time. I have much more evidence and more brilliant eloquence to go through about the free trade deal. Let me summarize my comments this way as we wrap up the evening.
Many western Canadians to whom I have spoken are excited about the possibility which the free trade agreement presents. We know that Canada-U.S. trade has increased by 40 per cent over the past eight years. We do not feel any less Canadian because of that. We know that 85 per cent of our cross-border trade with the U.S. is now tariff-free and that including the remaining 15 per cent is quite logical. We know what western Canadians can do given half a chance.
Our Government is prepared to provide that opportunity in this nation through the free trade agreement with the United States of America.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 10 p.m., pursuant to the Order passed on Thursday, June 23, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


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

Tuesday, July 5, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers

C-72, the official languages Bill. In this Bill of 500 pages, which is enough to raise oneself up by an inch and a half, at least, to give one some extra height, there is nothing in here that allows-
John Horton McDermid: Tear it up.