1988-12-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill C-205, an Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, cautionary label on alcoholic beverage containers.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to introduce this Bill. This is the season when there tends, unfortunately, to be an excessive amount of drinking and associated driving. This Bill would simply require that any alcoholic beverage in Canada or imported into Canada would be required to have a cautionary label that would say: "Excessive drinking impairs one's driving ability".
There might be further amendments to indicate perhaps the contents, whether wine, beer or spirits, because of growing interest and also a warning that excessive drinking is injurious to one's health.


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

Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-206, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Markham to Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my Private Members' Bill, which is an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Markham to Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. The new federal riding of Markham came into being in the summer of 1987 when redistribution created 13 new ridings in Canada.
The Markham riding is comprised of the entire areas of two towns, the Town of Markham and the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville. Their new boundaries came into effect on January 1, 1971, following the passage of the Region of York Act which was enacted in May, 1970.
I believe the name change will be welcome news to the residents of both Whitchurch-Stouffville and to Markham as it will not only create a unique new riding distinct from the provincial riding named Markham but it more appropriately recognizes the residents of Whitchurch-Stouffville.


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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise not in any way trying to delay proceedings, but I would like some

December 19, 1988
Questions on the Order Paper
information from the Government. Standing Order 104(1)(a) reads:
At the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a
Striking Committee of seven Members, the membership of which
shall continue from session to session, shall be appointed-
I want from the Government some assurance that, indeed, within the next few days this committee will be struck. We have had a series of Estimates that were referred to standing committees, but the committees cannot sit if they are not struck. I ask the Government if it could see fit this week to have this striking committee meet and proceed.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) and Acting President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the operative words are "within the first 10 sitting days after its appointment".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is to report.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is to report. I would assure my hon. friend that there is no intention to delay this particular matter and we will get on with it as soon as possible.
That the debate on the motion for second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-2 and on any amendment or sub-amendment thereto shall not be further adjourned.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I move:
++YEAS
Members
Anderson
Andre
Atkinson
Attewell
Beatty
Belsher
Bertrand
Bird
Bjornson
Blackburn
(Jonquiere)
Blais
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bouchard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Bourgault
Boyer
Brightwell
Browes
Cadieux
Campbell
(Vancouver Centre) Cardiff Casey Chadwick Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Chartrand
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cole Collins Cook Cooper Corbeil Corbett Cote Couture Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Darling DeBlois de Cotret Della Noce Desjardins Dick Dobbie Domm Dorin Duplessis Edwards Epp Fee
Feltham
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Friesen
Gibeau
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Greene
Guilbault
Gustafson
Halliday
Harvey
(Chicoutimi)
Hawkes
Hockin
Hogue
Holtmann
Horner
Horning
Hudon
Hughes
Jacques
James
Jelinek
Johnson
Joncas
Kempling
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast) Kindy Koury Landry Langlois Larrivee

December 19, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation]


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from December 15, 1988, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie (Saint John's West) that Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, be read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House; and of the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 127).
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I said on the evening of November 21, "How sweet it is!". On November 21 of this year, the Progressive Conservative Party once again won the confidence of the Canadian people, and was re-elected with another majority. The choice of government that we offered the electorate was a clear one: The best team of men and women to run the country as the 1990s dawn, and the cornerstone of the program we offered them was of course the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise once more and say to all Canadians, and especially to the voters in my riding of Vaudreuil, how proud I feel to be able once again to serve my country.

-proud but also privileged to take part in this historic debate, for a second time I might say, and to witness the implementation of what I would describe as the most comprehensive Bill ever presented to this House in terms of the future well-being of this country, namely the Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement.

I have often said, Mr. Speaker, that the Free Trade Agreement crowns the many efforts made by Canadians and Americans for over a century to improve the framework within which their trade and economic relations are administered, to administer in a special way the trading partnership that our two countries have for a long time had with each other, without hampering the process of liberalizing international trade that we are pursuing under the GATT. This is what we call a "two-track" trade policy.
A short time ago, Montreal hosted a ministerial conference as part of the eight round of GATT negotiations, known as the Uruguay Round, which was

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
launched in 1986 and is scheduled to conclude in 1990. Canada is taking part in these negotiations in a spirit of openness and a real desire to improve the flow of international trade.
As we could see during that week, these negotiations have been slow and wearisome. They have been going on in the broad context of 96 member countries defending interests that are too often divergent, with the result that reaching a consensus has sometimes been difficult. We only need to think of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, to realize that.
The point I particularly want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the forum for negotiations that the GATT provides does not entirely reflect the dynamic of our trade with the United States. It would have been hard for Canada to derive the same benefits that this bilateral Free Trade Agreement is giving us, from the multilateral GATT.
Our first commitment as a responsible Government entering difficult negotiations was to protect and enhance Canada's access to its largest export market, keeping in mind the growing trend toward world trade. We have done so and achieved major economic benefits for Canada without jeopardizing our distinctiveness and our sovereignty.

It was not by chance, Mr. Speaker, that we initiated this Agreement with the United States. Nor did our government invent this mechanism for establishing better trade relations between our two countries. No, Mr. Speaker, history showed us the way and we have chosen to follow it. We wanted to provide a more logical framework for the biggest trading partnership in the world.
For Canada and for the United States, the Free Trade Agreement is a giant step into the spirit of freer trade that is gaining ground in the international economic community. Trade is not something you carry out on a small scale, Mr. Speaker. Just think of the European Economic Community, of COMECON, of the free-trade zones between New Zealand and Australia and between Israel and the United States. Canada was the only large industrialized country not to have access to a market of more than 100 million people. With the Free Trade Agreement we have remedied that. What is more, we are not only giving our firms and businesses an
opportunity to excel at the international level, we are also ensuring that we have the financial means to maintain all our social programs and regional assistance programs, just as we are protecting the range of policies that make us distinctive and envied, both as a people and as a country.
But we are aware that during the recent election campaign there were people who expressed fears about the effect the Free Trade Agreement would have on certain of our programs. I am sure you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to discuss some of these areas, so that the facts, which were all too often twisted by campaign oratory, can be re-established, and so that people with concerns about the future of our programs can be reassured. First of all, a reality that is too often silently glossed over is that, on the one hand, the negotiations that led to this Agreement were carried on in accordance with the rules provided under the GATT for bilateral agreements of this kind, and, on the other, this Agreement will operate within the framework of the GATT's rules and regulations.
But I have to go into this matter in some detail, because it was unfortunately presented in a manner that I would describe as warped. Let's start with social programs. As the "father of medicare" in Quebec, Mr. Claude Castonguay, stated during an interview, only a strong country can bear the costs arising from its social policies. Not coincidentally, we have developed a range of social care programs, Mr. Speaker, while at the same time increasing our trade with the U.S. And the reason for this is that our prosperity is closely tied to our ability to export to the U.S. We have staunchly maintained that there is nothing in the Agreement that threatens the viability of these measures and we have consistently refused to discuss them at the negotiating table. That's the truth, Mr. Speaker.
Furthermore, the laws of all trading countries recognize, as do the GATT regulations, that universally accessible social programs such as medicare and old age pensions are legitimate government activities that do not impede international trade. That's one of the reasons why the U.S. government rejected its own fishing industry's demand to consider the unemployment insurance benefits paid to Canadian fishermen as a program subject to trade reprisals.
Mr. Speaker, such eminent people as Justice Emmett Hall, one of the pioneers of medicare in Canada, Claude Castonguay, whom I mentioned earlier, Pierre-Marc Johnson, Quebec's former Minister of Health and Social Services, Therese Lavoie-Roux, Bernard Landry and
December 19, 1988

even Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa, along with scores of others, Mr. Speaker, have categorically stated that there is nothing in this Agreement that poses a threat to our social programs.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Claude Castonguay:
I disagree completely with those who say that free trade threatens
our social programs. On the contrary, with the Canada-U.S.
Agreement, our social programs have a better chance of being
maintained, and possibly even improved.

Mr. Castonguay was not the only distinguished Canadian once involved in the establishment of our medicare system to echo those remarks. I mentioned Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, the one man who can claim to be the father of medicare in Canada. Mr. Hall was straighforward when he stated:
I got the document, and 1 can tell you this, that if I had found .. . provisions which would damage medicare, or certainly destroy it... I would have opposed the agreement.

These people, Mr. Speaker, have all worked to build this country. They have devoted their time, energy and intelligence to the service of this nation. They are great Canadians who value the integrity of that which they helped to build and no one can question their judgment and good faith; the residents of this country have faith in them, in us and in the future of Canada. Last November 21, they endorsed what they believed to be fair and right for them.
Some people have expressed concern about the quality of health care in Canada once the Agreement is implemented. Let me say again to them, Mr. Speaker, that as with social programs, the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement do not extend to health care services. This means that provincial governments remain completely free to operate their health care systems as they wish, regardless of the Agreement's implementation.
However, for the benefit of detractors, I have to say that mention is made in the Free Trade Agreement of management services dispensed in the normal course of hospital administrators' duties. However, there are no specific provisions pertaining to bookkeeping, computer systems, pay systems or hospital services.
These management services, Mr. Speaker, are administrative services and they in no way reflect the quality of the health care provided by an institution.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
However, if certain provincial governments were to decide to privatize some of these services, again, there is nothing in the Agreement that would force them to deal with U.S. companies. Therefore, there is no need to be afraid that the American style of management will be forced upon us with the implementation of the Agreement, or that the quality of our health care services is threatened.
Another issue that was raised, Mr. Speaker, was the environment. However, once again, we did not often hear throughout the course of the campaign that environmental programs are clearly exempted from the Agreement's provisions. This exemption is made possible by the inclusion in Article 1201 of a GATT provision stipulating that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent the adoption or enforcement of measures, and I quote:
. . . necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.
Moreover, the Agreement specifically provides for the establishment of environmental standards, even if these standards result in a trade slowdown.
Let us now move on to regional development, Mr. Speaker. Alleviating regional disparities has always been a government priority, regardless of that government's political affiliation. I would even remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the fundamental goals recognized in our Canadian Constitution. Despite this de facto recognition and despite the very positive record of this Government during its last mandate, some people have intimated that the Agreement threatens everything we have done for Canadians living outside central Canada.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, they contend that our desire to seek out clearer and fairer trade regulations by discussing business subsidies with our U.S. partner is tantamount to abandoning our regional development policies.
Such a conclusion is totally baseless. It's true, Mr. Speaker, that we were unable to agree on the definition of subsidies that impede smooth trade between our two countries. However, negociations on this matter are planned under the terms of the Free Trade Agreement and within the framework of the GATT talks.
And as our Prime Minister emphatically stated on several occasions, the Canadian Government would never sign an agreement which could jeopardize our ability to promote regional development policies, and that, Mr. Speaker, is a very firm commitment.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Without such an agreement with the United States, however, we would still preserve the possibility of referring our trade disagreements to the settlement mechanism provided for in the agreement, in order to protect us from decisions motivated as a response to political pressure.
We all know indeed that we have not necessarily chosen the easy way to prosperity, as there is no way such way, Mr. Speaker. We have to work hard and perhaps harder. This country was built on the relentless efforts of our ancestors who always had the full knowledge of their responsibility toward their peers.

And as builders, Mr. Speaker, we did not shy away from our responsibilities through a lack of knowledge and information, as some have claimed. We are prepared to help the people who will have to face changes of a vocational nature or who will need help to adapt to a changing labour force, as we have always done.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues will provide you with an opportunity later on during this debate to conclude with me that we have already implemented programs to meet the needs of the workers who will be affected by these changes.
It is important to realize that our Government is already equipped with a sound structure in the area of manpower and industry adaptation, and that this structure is very effective indeed because it already meets the needs of some 5 million workers who are transferred each year by offering training programs and real adaptation possibilities.
But to be really sure, Mr. Speaker, we have created the advisory council on adaptation, chaired by Mr. Jean De Grandpre, whose purpose is to help the Government ensure that Canadian men and women will benefit fully from the new opportunities resulting from the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. Job losses or manpower transfers are not the only indicators of a society's mobility. There is another factor that is just as real but too often neglected, Mr. Speaker, and that is job creation. And in the area, of job creation this Government has a proud record.
This is another highly significant factor that determines a government's ability to adapt to economic change in the country it is governing, and to date this Government, has been able, Mr. Speaker, to adapt in a
quite conclusive manner. That is the hallmark of a responsible government.
And on the matter of responsibility, Mr. Speaker, what about the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition who liked to suggest before the elections were called he was ready to accept the people's verdict, he was ready for "speedy passage", to use his own terms, of the Free Trade Bill. He even repeated the same comments the day after the election, when he recognized the electorate had decided and the Government had received a clear mandate to proceed with its proposal.

Wasn't he the same one who was saying before the election to let the people decide?
Let me remind him as he is probably suffering from amnesia about his own words of November 22 when he said:
You know, we let the people decide. The people have decided, so
that having stated our case, well then, let matters proceed.

What about the responsibility of the Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) who appears to have suffered from a sudden stroke of amnesia, Mr. Speaker, because he is suggesting the Government received the right to re-introduce the Bill, but not to expect speedy passage through this House. For what reasons, Mr. Speaker, did the Opposition Leader change his mind?
I would not try and find an answer to that puzzling question because something more important really is this Government's responsibility to meet its treaty commitments. We must honour our commitments if we want our partners to be able to reciprocate.
And we also have a responsibility to those Canadians who already are planning their operations in anticipation of the benefits of free trade. They must be in a position to do so in full knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and I see you are signaling that my time is almost up.
I would have liked to remind Hon. Members of the comments of the NDP Leader, but for want of time this will have to wait for another occasion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy).


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Hon. Minister.
December 19, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my mistake. There are no questions or comments. On debate, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me either by way of comment, question or debate. As the Minister has just said, this is an historic debate, but it is too bad the Government itself has not recognized that fact. It has introduced closure and is restricting debate to a 24 hour period of second reading.
It was only a short while ago in this House when we were debating a motion brought forward by, I think it was, the junior Minister of Finance to raise the tax revenue on dog food that we had seven or eight debates on second reading on that important issue. Yet the Government cannot quite find the same amount of time to debate this issue dealing with the most important document facing Canada in a century.
I agree, we are not going to fight the election again but what we do have to debate in this House in the short time remaining to us is what is happening in Canada today. What is happening as a consequence of the election? What are the results, not just in terms of the raw power of a parliamentary majority which the Government happened to achieve, at least in two provinces, but what about the millions of Canadians, literally millions, who are seized with a sense of anxiety or who are distraught and feel alienated by this Government and who feel they have been abandoned in terms of a trust or a sense of a trusteeship?
I should say that I have more mail on this issue since the election than I had before from Canadians who feel that this agreement will be a disaster for Canada.
Let me just read a letter from a young woman in Edmonton. Edmonton is not known as a hotbed against free trade, but let me read what she wrote:
Dear Mr. Axworthy:
There are only a few days until Christmas. I should be out shopping for presents for my children; I should be cleaning the house and decorating; I should be baking and preparing for friends and relatives to visit; 1 should be singing carols with others at hospitals and nursing homes; I should be writing cards to friends and relatives; I should be but I can't.
I can't stop writing letters to parliamentarians because 1 cannot stop thinking about the disastrous free trade agreement; I cannot stop thinking about 600 workers laid off by the Gillette company;
I cannot stop thinking about the 800,000 workers which the Canadian Labour Congress predicts will lose their jobs when the Free Trade Agreement comes into effect; I cannot stop thinking about the one to six children in Canada who live below the poverty line and whose numbers are soon to increase; I cannot stop thinking
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
about Mr. Wilson's regressive federal sales tax; I cannot stop thinking about how Mulroney and Co. won the last election by lying and cheating and propaganda and a host of other dishonest tactics.
We should be charitable towards everyone at this time of year, but the kindest thing I can say about Mr. Mulroney is that he is an unrepentant Scrooge who has ruined Christmas.
I believe that the only exception I take is that I have always thought that Mr. Mulroney was more of a Grinch than a Scrooge.
That letter represents the deep set feelings of people right across this country. It is up to the Government to respond to it.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on election night took what I thought was the proper stand when he said it was time to heal the nation. I think he was right. He has the responsibility to undertake the procedure. Is this Bill before the House the way to do it when the Government totally ignores all those concerns, when the Government is totally indifferent to the kinds of commitments which were made during the election to protect social programs, regional development and to provide guarantees against the kinds of encouragement and transgression of these rights, when it has been totally and completely blind to the interest of thousands of workers already affected by this agreement? Is that the manner in which to heal an issue?
Is there anything in this Bill which would give any sense of support, any sense of comfort, or any sense that at least the Government is reaching out to the 54 per cent of Canadians who voted against it to say that it wants to attempt to understand their concerns, bridge the gap, and bring those Canadians in as part of the country? Is there anything at all in this legislation that makes the slightest gesture toward those millions of Canadians?


An Hon. Member:: Absolutely nothing.


Lloyd Axworthy: My colleague just answered. I went through the Bill with a fine tooth comb. I had the distinct displeasure of having to read Bill C-130 last summer. I said: "Surely, now that we have been through an election, some lessons have been learned". Surely the Government would have understood how deeply felt this issue is, and that there would have been things contained in Bill C-2 that were not in Bill C-130. There was only one change, and that was to cancel the date of January 1 as an implementation date. That was the only change that could be found between the previous Bill and this Bill. Is that what one

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
would consider to be a form of attempting to broaden, heal, and bring together?
In his remarks, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) showed that same indifference. He demonstrated the fact that he has not learned a lesson, nor did his colleagues, the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), and the Prime Minister. They have learned no lessons at all from that very difficult period.
Is there a Member of Parliament in the House who, when going door to door or standing on a street corner, did not hear from the citizens of this country about their concerns? Is there one Tory Member of Parliament who can honestly state that when he or she went to knock on a door someone did not say to them: "What about unemployment insurance? What about adjustment programs? What about regional development programs?" Did they not learn a lesson from that experience? Did they not learn anything from dealing directly with their own constituents who raised those types of questions?
They obviously have not, Mr. Speaker. It would have been easy to respond to those questions in this legislation. It would have been very simple to bring in an amendment to Bill C-2 that stated: "For greater certainty there will be nothing in this agreement that will endanger present or future social programs". Why would that have been important? It would have been important because the Americans, in passing their legislation, have already written into the agreement that they intend to tackle those programs. They have already given instructions to the President of the United States to challenge regional development, investment programs, and a whole range of subsidies. It would have made good sense, and it would have been an honest effort to have at least written into our own law a statement of principle and a statement of commitment on behalf of our own Government to say that nothing in this agreement shall touch future social programs. I looked carefully, and it was not included.
Yet a number of distinguished Canadians have raised those questions. The Minister of Labour cited Mr. Justice Emmett Hall and Claude Castonguay. I cite the Canadian Council on Social Development, which represents every major social and health organization in the country. What did it state in its latest bulletin? "Canadians should be concerned about the issue, if for no other reason than because the statements of the Government have been contradictory, even misleading".
It discusses the inclusion of the health management services as part of the national treatment programs of its services, which raises a whole series of questions about the delivery of our health and social programs. It raises the major problem that will be caused by harmonization, and problems caused by the requirement that there be a standardization of technical standards and in programming. Those are legitimate concerns raised by a council that speaks for many Canadians. What does the Government do? Ils ne font rien. Nothing at all.
In a valuable piece of work examining the trade agreement, Derek Hum, an economist at the University of Manitoba, wrote compellingly. He stated that the major problem being faced is in programs that are directed to individuals. Mr. Hum stated:
The most troublesome policy area is likely to be that of individual income maintenance programs, especially those designed with the working poor in mind.
He points out that, under their own trade law, the Americans have established the right to challenge any trade program or any domestic program in Canada that delivers a program specifically to individuals. He enunciated how that would have a major effect on those special programs under unemployment insurance that are directed especially to fishermen in the Atlantic area, and to pregnant women. He points out that those could be interpreted under countervail U.S. law as being a direct subsidy to workers.
Let us say that at some point a more liberal and progressive-minded government than the present one decided to bring in a guaranteed annual income whose primary purpose would be to deal with a problem of the working poor, but would be interpreted under U.S. trade law as a subsidy to workers and could therefore be challengeable.
One way to offset that question would have been to write into our legislation a statement, commitment, or guarantee from the Canadian Government in law that the trade agreement does not affect such opportunities or initiatives for Canadians. At least when it came up for dispute settlement arbitration, or for examination, a future Canadian Government could state that that was written into the law that was passed back in 1988 showing the will of the Canadian parliamentarians at the time. However, without that type of statement in the legislation all we have to go on is the rhetoric used by the Prime Minister during the election when he stated that no social programs will be touched, and the Americans who are pretty smart will say: "Show us that in writing". It is not in writing in the Bill.
December 19, 1988

The Government has the opportunity to change that. We will bring in amendments to respond to that particular concern. All the Government has to do is to agree to them. It will not change the basic content of the agreement. It will not do damage to the agreement. But it will give an insurance policy to Canadians.
One can say the same thing about the adjustment programs. Elere is an interesting observation, what I call watching the pinball theory of the Tories trying to pass the buck. When we talked about adjustment for workers the Prime Minister said: "Talk to the Minister of Trade and the Minister of Employment". The Minister of Trade and the Minister of Employment have said: "Well, you are going to be hearing from the Minister of Labour". We just heard from the Minister of Labour, who spent the sum total of 78 seconds dealing with the question of adjustment. That shows how deep set their concerns are for Canadian workers that the Minister managed 78 seconds of his total treatment of the subject on the record. The sum total of the Minister's remarks were: "Wait for my colleagues to talk about it somewhere further in the debate". They are just bouncing the ball around.
One reason that they have not yet 'fessed up to why the Government is not bringing in any new adjustment programs, and one of the reasons that the de Grandpre commission is in deep freeze is that they know that under this agreement adjustment programs will be challengeable by the United States Government. They are not prepared to admit to that.
Some Lion. Members: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Fortunately, we have on the record the statement of a more honest interpreter of the agreement, Mr. Gordon Ritchie, the former deputy trade negotiator. In committee hearings last summer he admitted that adjustment programs are vulnerable and challengeable under the new U.S. trade law. That is the reason that the Government is dancing on its Gucci shoes all of a sudden. It knows that it does not have the power.
I say to the Minister of the homeless, who is responsible for keeping people freezing on the streets in downtown areas of Canada, if he has such a big mouth then let him put his money where his mouth is and put something in the legislation. Is he afraid? I challenge those two Ministers today, if they have any sense of honour or dignity then they have a way to live up to their word. Let them put something in the Bill.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We know what the answer will be on that one. We know that once again they are providing a smoke screen. It is a subterfuge. They will be passing the buck around from the de Grandpre commission, to the Ministers, to the private sector, all because they are once again showing their fear and trepidation of doing anything in this agreement that will raise the ire of our new American partners.
The same thing holds true for questions of the environment. The Minister cited Section 603 of the agreement which states that nothing will touch it. That section only talks about technical standards. It does not mention the environment at all. During the campaign, 93 environmental groups stated that this agreement represents the greatest threat to Canadian environmental standards. And is the Government responding in any fashion in terms of this legislation? Once again, for greater certainty, the reasonable approach to take would be to introduce an amendment stating that nothing in the agreement would affect the ability of the Canadian Government to provide for new laws in relation to the protection of the environment.
Is there any such clause in the legislation? No.
And, of course, we all know why none of the important guarantees of which I have spoken were included in the legislation. The fact is that this Government had the election bought for it by its friends in the business community, who realize that this trade agenda is only one small part of a much, much broader agenda, that being to put a strait-jacket on the Parliament of Canada, to put handcuffs on the Government of Canada to operate and effectively govern with the interests of ordinary Canadians in mind. This agreement results in a transfer of power out of the hands of the Parliament of Canada. That is the real agenda!
The real agenda of the Free Trade Agreement is part and parcel of a much larger movement aimed at restricting and eviscerating the ability of the federal Government to provide for responses to the concerns of ordinary Canadians, those who do not sit in the boardrooms of the country and who do not have available to them millions of dollars for high-priced, high-powered advertising programs. Ordinary Canadians can only rely upon the Parliament of Canada, rely upon their elected representatives, to reflect their concerns.
But, Mr. Speaker, we know that this Government is one that is not very much interested in the concerns or interests of ordinary Canadians. The Free Trade

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Agreement is a major part of the right-wing agenda of this Government, this North American continental market-place agenda, an agenda which states that the Government of Canada has no obligation or responsibility to all of its citizens; that it is responsible only to the wealthy and the powerful, to those who have status and rank. "Oh, we will respond to those; but we are certainly not going to respond to the concerns of ordinary Canadians." And it is the ordinary Canadians who rely upon the political system to provide them with the answers that they need.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we as Liberals consider this debate to be not merely a debate about Bill C-2 and the Free Trade Agreement but a debate about the much broader agenda of this Government. Flowing out of the Free Trade Agreement, we will see not just the direct consequences for trade but the largest generational tidal wave of takeovers, of mergers, of business acquisitions- and this in a country that is already too much concentrated in terms of economic power. We are going to see it multiply multi-fold times over the next several years. The rules are no longer in place. The investment rules have been taken off. The competition legislation put into place by the last Parliament is now a weak and ineffectual instrument. As a result of the changes brought about by the FTA, we are going to see a major concentration of economic power in this country, far more than we see today. We are going to see a tremendous change in the whole ability of Government to be able to reallocate resources from one region to another. It will be the market-place that dictates and determines the flow of goods and services in Canada.
We will not be able to provide the kind of counterbalance that Canadian Governments have historically been able to provide. That ability, under the new trade regime, will be limited. That, again, is a part of the larger agenda.
In terms of our foreign policy, our representation abroad, we will no longer have the kind of independence we have had to date. One needs only to look at what happened at the GATT meetings held in Montreal two weeks ago for the proof of that. It was absolutely crucial for this country to try to work out a deal on agricultural subsidies. And what did we see? We saw the Minister for International Trade and the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board simply aping and echoing the statements of the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, whose standard was that of clobbering the Europeans. As a result, Canada's ability to play the broker's role, the
honest middleman role in bringing about agreements, was lost.
We lost our ability to build bridges into the Third World, into South America, into Asia. We lost the ability to play the kind of conciliator role that Canada has played in international trade fora since 1948, a role offering to all of the parties an alternative, a different way of doing things.
Within a week of the November 21 election, this Government had abandoned that historic role.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Lloyd Axworthy: As a result, Canadian farmers, to say nothing of people generally around the world, lost an important voice in international trade fora. We have lost the ability to engage in that kind of exercise at international trade fora; we have lost that "middleman" role, a role we played so effectively for over 40 years.
The consequences of this Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Speaker, are long range and long-term, and certainly they are much broader than simply the commercial trade pronouncements.
Let us look for a moment at our service industries. One of the great disappointments for me during the campaign is the fact that the Government was never able to describe to Canadians precisely what the FTA meant for our service industries. If one looks at the agreement, one will see that it now provides open opportunity for private American educational firms to challenge the educational role of our community colleges and universities, and our other educational institutions. We are going to undermine the whole capacity, through the Canadian educational system, to provide our own distinctive way of supplying educational services-and this at a time when it is absolutely essential that we have control over the whole worker retraining process.
One of the things that we can all agree on is that we have lost, or are going to lose, in terms of world-wide competition because of a lack of skills, and one of the primary vacuums that exist in Canada today is the lack of an effective strategy to deal with the upgrading and the improvement of the skills of Canadians.
The Minister of Employment (Mrs. McDougall) stands in her place and speaks of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. What she does not tell Canadians is that every year expenditures under that agreement have been
December 19, 1988

reduced by $200 million. We are spending close to $500 million less today than was spent in 1984.


An Hon. Member:: There are more people working today.


Lloyd Axworthy: Community colleges are being closed down; classrooms are being shut down as a result. And there has been no initiative to try to provide a new formulation.
And in the future, our ability to provide direction and initiative in that area will again be hamstrung and limited. Why? Because we have signed an agreement which, as it relates to the service sector, gives away the power of the provincial government to set those kinds of standards.


Ms. Copps:: A "Made-in-Washington" policy.


An Hon. Member:: That line didn't work during the campaign.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, every time one turns around, one bumps into the hard reality that the ability of Canadians to make decisions relating to their own interests, their own priorities, their own judgments is completely hamstrung. We find ourselves handcuffed. We find that we no longer have the same range of opportunities.
And that, Mr. Speaker, is why we as a caucus believe that this debate today is important. Future generations will be looking at this agreement and this debate. They will be trying to understand the kind of lunacy that took hold of the Government of the day to sign the agreement. But they will also be looking for an alternative, for another judgment-which is one of the reasons why we think that an appropriate amendment, an amendment which we hope this Government would have the sense to accept, is that which would require a three-year review, a sunset clause.
If Hon. Members opposite think the agreement is so good, I invite them to put it to the test. Accept an amendment calling for a three-year parliamentary review of the agreement. And if it does work to the benefit of Canada and Canadians, they get the applause; and if it does not, then the people, in the subsequent election, will have the opportunity to reject it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a fair deal.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Do the Hon. Members opposite have the courage to put their agreement to the test of open parliamentary scrutiny?
In that way, during the next election campaign, the people of Canada will be able to decide based upon the full information.
I ask the Hon. Members opposite to accept the challenge, to put the agreement to that type of test. Accept the amendment.
We on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, believe that our trusteeship is on behalf of the millions of Canadians who voted against the agreement-and not just to those who voted against it today but to their children and subsequent generations. We want those people to know that there is an alternative, that there is a different way of governing this country, that there is a way of using government in a constructive and positive way to bring about a civil society, a compassionate and caring society. We recognize that the public sector must be heavily involved and deeply involved in caring for its citizens.
That is the choice that Canadians will have to make four years from now.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, as our Leader said during the course of his remarks on the motion for the second reading of Bill C-2, this debate is not the end of the matter; it is just the beginning. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we Liberals have just begun to fight.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I feel compelled to take a few moments in my maiden speech to make a number of very personal comments which I think are appropriate considering my own history.
I want to put on the record my deep appreciation to the voters of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca who were so willing to put their trust and confidence in my hands. I hope 1 will be able to serve them well in this Chamber, although I think I would have been able to serve them a lot better if I was closer to the Chair or, preferably, on that side of the House.


Mr. McDermid:: We do not want you.


David Barrett: Nonetheless, as always in politics, looking to the next time, we will leave that to the next election.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
On a personal note, I want to express on the record the fact that my achievements are essentially those of my parents and my wife's parents. They went through the Depression and struggled to provide their children with a better life. In that sense, my father, who served in the Manitoba 44th and was wounded at Vimy, dreamed that some day his family would be a more equal and more obvious participant in Canadian society. It took a long time but many of the restrictions on the basis of race, creed and culture were finally somewhat diminished and I am happy to take my place, in that regard, in this House.
I now want to turn to the free trade debate. I must say I was impressed with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy).


John Horton McDermid: You are easily impressed.


David Barrett: My father was born in Winnipeg but it was Winnipeg North, as you will understand.
I was impressed by the logic of his arguments and the persuasiveness of the examples he gave. I was also impressed by the position taken by the Leader of the federal Liberal Party who apparently may not be long for this Chamber. I want to say in all sincerity that he and I have been personal friends for some time. Although we disagree politically, he is one of the finest people I have met in the years I have been involved in public life.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Barrett: The Leader of the Liberal Party was the Minister of Linance during that brief period of time we had power in British Columbia. He was a man of his word. He was a man of principle and conviction, and I am sorry we may be losing him from public life.
I want to comment on the way he was treated during the election campaign. It is important to understand the forces at work in this country supporting the Tree Trade Agreement.
The Leader of the Liberal Party took a position, against his own philosophical background, as a vociferous opponent of the Lree Trade Agreement. He did it on the basis of logic, reason and principle, and the immediate response was abuse from the establishment media on the editorial pages.


Mr. Tobin:: And from Ed Broadbent.


David Barrett: We will come to that in a moment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Please do. I thought it was Ed who was dead.


David Barrett: Even though his own Party was divided and a group were meeting behind his back to cut him to pieces, he still stood his ground and as a matter of principle fought through to the point in the campaign where his own Party recognized his position.
He was vilified in the editorial pages of newspapers in every part of this country. He was vilified in the backrooms by his own Liberal colleagues in every part of this country.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Including Sheila.


David Barrett: I want to deal with that because it is important to understand exactly where the Official Opposition stands. They stand right on the fence. We have seen the Liberal Party play both sides against the middle for their own purposes time after time after time. They are now going to lose the best spokesperson they have against the free trade deal as he goes down into history.
Why is that happening? Because the Liberals understand, as stated by Michel Robert, President of the Liberal Party of Canada, who said, "Unless we change our position on free trade we will never win another seat in Quebec". It will be interesting to watch as the debate goes on-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Ed is dead.


David Barrett: -and those with a philosophy, attachment and commitment to opposing the free trade agreement will stand up-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Ed is dead. Ed is dead.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, is there a screeching crow in here?


John R. Rodriguez: No, it is just Sheila.


David Barrett: Oh, well, we will watch how the Liberal Party divides on this issue and find out who really calls the tune as the Party is split right down the middle on supporting or opposing the Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Nystrom:: Shrieking Sheila.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The news of my Leader's demise is greatly exaggerated. I am very disappointed that the NDP, instead of dealing with the trade issue, is doing the same thing it did in the election, cutting up the Liberal Party. No class at all.
December 19, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, even that Member knows that that is not a point of order. However, I had to get' that on the record because as events unfold we will watch the Liberal Party abandon the position taken by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre, abandon the position taken by its current Leader, and shift to the big business orientation it temporarily left during this campaign.
Who will lead that shift? Other Liberals. Mr. Bou-rassa, Premier of the Province of Quebec and a Liberal, is a strong supporter of free trade. Other Liberal Premiers are supporters of free trade.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why don't you stick to the free trade deal if you really care about it?


David Barrett: Have we heard one word of condemnation of those Liberal leaders from the Liberal Party? Not a peep. Not a sound. Not a whimper. Nothing except constant chatter from a bird in the background who is obviously distraught by this analysis.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Fight the real fight.


David Barrett: In spite of that chatter, the Liberal Party is playing politics on this issue at the provincial level on one stage, and at the federal level on another stage. I find that more hypocritical than what the Government is doing.
Having said that, I want to go on to a continuing story of hypocrisy. Let us deal with the hard, tough words of the Government when it comes to the Free Trade Agreement and let us focus on the history of the shakes and shingles countervailing duty issue.
Earlier this spring, when the countervailing duty was imposed on shakes and shingles, we were going to have a demonstration of how tough and how aggressive the Government would be when that great big American colossus would stamp its foot down on poor little Canada. Do not worry, folks, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet would fight back. I refer you to page 13559 of Hansard, May 23, 1986:
EDWARD BROADBENT (OSHAWA): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed
to the Prime Minister. It goes back to the incredible decision made by President Reagan himself to sacrifice some 4000 jobs in British Columbia as a result
of an unfair duty imposed by the President himself. Considering that the du-
Canada-US. Free Trade Agreement
ty had nothing to do with unfair trade practices and that it was imposed by the President himself, and having nothing to do with Congress, is the President not sending a clear message to the Prime Minister, namely, where Americans cannot compete with Canadians, then Canadians will not be allowed by the Americans to have access to their market?
This is the reply of the Prime Minister.
RIGHT HON. BRIAN MULRONEY (PRIME MINISTER): Mr. Speaker,
I would not disagree with that construction.
That was an admission by the Prime Minister that in the case of shakes and shingles, where Canadians could compete and beat the Americans, the Americans moved in with a countervailing duty and said, "If you beat us that way, we are going to hammer you with a countervailing duty".
The questioning went on. There was a question as to whether or not the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) phoned the President or Mr. Shultz, the Secretary of State. There appeared to be some ambiguity about whether or not anyone had been phoned, but nonetheless, as reported on page 13560, the Prime Minister said:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke directly with Secretary Shultz. We have conveyed our views, and we will be doing so again. We hope that we will be able to take some actions ourselves.
What action? Was it a sneeze? Was it a whimper? Was it a letter saying: "Naughty, naughty"?
I will quote further from the same page, Mr. Speaker, to make the point. The Prime Minister went on to say:
We believe that freer trade will bring about greater economic opportunities, which is why we will resist this type of protectionism. We will try to prepare an appropriate response for the American administration which will convince them of the folly of this kind of action directed either against a great friend such as Canada or anyone else. This kind of thing is bad news.
That was said in May of 1988.
Within the last month the United States, through its President, continued its countervail on shakes and shingles. But it was after the election. There has been no comment from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There has been no comment from the Prime Minister. They did not phone Mr. Shultz. They did not phone the President. They did not phone the water boy. They just rolled over and played dead.
Once the election was over and the Prime Minister was confronted with the very thing he said his campaign

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
on free trade would eliminate, it was rammed down Canada's throat. No one in the Government stood up for Canada and told the Americans, as the Prime Minister said, that this is totally unacceptable.
We have an illustration, Mr. Speaker, of exactly the point made by the Elon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre. A political agenda is being met here. That political agenda cynically started to lock in publicly as soon as the election was over. If this Government had one whit of commitment to the people of my Province of British Columbia, if this Government had one whit of commitment to the word of the Prime Minister, why was there not a telephone call to Reagan saying: "This deal is off unless you lift the countervail on shakes and shingles"? Instead, the signal was: "It is okay, U.S. President, you can do anything you want. The election is over and we will not put up a squawk."
I challenge any of the Tory Ministers to come out to British Columbia and explain to the public of British Columbia why the Prime Minister said in May that he would phone the President, but after the election there was not a peep, not a murmur , not a whimper. I know that it is just British Columbia and one can write off British Columbia because the Tories did not win a majority of seats, if that is the level of the cynicism. But when will they move when it hits Ontario? When will they move when it hits Quebec?
I warn the people of Quebec that this is the first step in the balkanization of Canada to fit into a political and economic agenda of international forces as described by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre. I also make this observation. The greatest danger to the culture and national identity of the people of Quebec is not in language; it is in this Free Trade Agreement that will ultimately homogenize the culture of Quebec into one greater Cajun rememberance of some history in North American continentalism. The people of Quebec will be subject to the same forces of continentalism that will sweep right across the country. A greater danger to their culture and to their identity than the language issue is the economic integration that will be the consequence of this Bill.
It is no mistake that the Government and its members were financed by big business throughout the whole campaign and had massive support in overwhelming third person intervention in the campaign. I found it interesting that they used that in their campaign editorial comments from newspapers which are essentially in non-competitive ownership in this country. There is no longer a free competitive press on the
editorial pages. The press on the editorial pages responds to a centralized ownership that was first identified by the Kent Royal Commission set up by a former Liberal administration.
We are moving toward a gradual absorption by the United States. It is a titillating thing to some American politicians, so much so that they say and suggest: "Just leave them alone and they will fall like ripe fruit off a tree into our hands". The deal on energy alone is a submissive deal to another sovereign nation of our own sovereign resources here in this country. If the Government thinks that this debate will be over with the passage of this Bill, it is wrong. As the consequences of how this deal has affected their lives sinks into the regions, the municipalities and the people's minds they will not stand still and allow this country to be destroyed as they know it and as they want it to be.
I will make another prediction. In the past I have been wrong with my predictions, but sometimes I am right. I predict that within four years this will be the most hated Government in the history of Canada. In four years this Government will be thoroughly disliked as the consequences of the Free Trade Agreement sink in those regions. It will be the most distasteful and unacceptable part of our political history. I may be wrong, but every indicator tells me that this Government will be distrusted and hated before its four-year term is up, in a way that no other previous Government was.
As we move toward this Orwellian picture of an integrated social and economic order in North American continentalism we will indeed lose the option we have of being an honest broker that was erstwhile and fostered by previous administrations of this country with the tacit, if not the obvious, support of other political Parties under previous administrations. We are going to be laughed at now when we start talking about Third World needs and options concerning their economies. We are going to be ridiculed if we suggest that there is a role for Canada in allowing those sovereign nations to develop. Our friends and our hope in Central America and South America will be abandoned by this agreement because we will be viewed as the same people who agree with the day labour coming in from Mexico, working for starvation wages and then returning home.
Canada will be the supplier of the Braceros of the north. We will be reduced to emulating the same competition that Mexico is reduced to on the border levels. It was Mr. Campeau, a former Liberal supporter, who rubbed his hands in glee and said: "With the Free Trade Agreement we can have the best of all possible
December 19, 1988

worlds. With Canada's resources, the United States' money and Mexico's labour we can create a whole new economic scene in North America." Do you know the chaos that that will bring, Mr. Speaker, as workers are displaced right across the country? Now the Government says: "We are going to fight back".
I repeat, there was no phone call made to the President about shakes and shingles. There was no protest made by the Minister other than a "tut-tut, I am sorry they did it." If this Government had any guts at all it would stop the debate right now, get on the phone to the United States and say clearly as an example: "If you continue this countervail on shakes and shingles we will cancel all negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement". By not doing it the Government is saying clearly that the U.S. can do anything it wants as it goes along in this agreement.
I know my time is up, but just temporarily. I intend, I hope, to participate in future debates in this House. But I will say this. Probably this debate is one of the more important debates that this House has heard in 50 years. It will not be over today because my Leader and the Party that I belong to intend, as a united force not split by anything else, to fight this deal right down the line to defend the interests of Canadians in every walk of life.
I want to say clearly in my wind-up remarks that those Liberals who find that they will be abandoned by the power brokers in their Party as this debate takes place, as they move toward new leadership, can, with some washing, join the New Democrats and continue the fight in principle.
As for the right-wing Liberals, let them join the Tories with whom they belong. But let us not have the Liberals playing both ends against the middle.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I say this seriously and soberly, I want to point out, I am sure on behalf of all Members, that it was a huge disappointment coming from a former Premier.


David Barrett: I was not disappointed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.02 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, Meech Lake is an historic achievement. It brings Quebec into the Constitution and allows us to reform the Senate.
I urge the Premier of Alberta, the Hon. Don Getty, a great Canadian, to hold an election to fill Alberta's vacant Senate seat. I also urge him to require that the nominee submit a letter of resignation effective six years from the date of appointment.
A Senate election would focus attention on the Senate and add impetus to the movement toward Senate reform. An elected Senator would give the Senate a degree of legitimacy. From there, we could move toward making the Senate equal in representation and effective in power.
After Albertans elect a nominee, I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), a great nation builder, to accept the people's recommendation in the spirit of Meech Lake.



TRANSPORT


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Hillsborough, Prince Edward Island, a province that voted overwhelmingly in support of the Liberal Party in the recent federal election.
On January 17, 1988, Prince Edward Islanders voted in support of a fixed link crossing between our province and the Province of New Brunswick. Now Prince Edward Islanders are waiting with bated breath for information from the federal Government on the status of the environmental review and federal government initiatives in the area of compensation programs for

December 19, 1988
Marine Atlantic employees should the fixed link become a reality.
Given that the fixed link would have a major impact on the Island economy, Prince Edward Island would like an update from the federal Government.
With the unanimous support of Prince Edward Islanders, my Liberal colleagues and I are determined to "fix" the missing "link" of federal representation in Ottawa, representation that is active, forceful and effective, to reflect the concerns of our constituents, of which the fixed link is one.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament for the constituency of Richmond-Wolfe, I would like to apprise Hon. Members of a new development that is both a concern and a matter of indignation to my constituents.
This is the open, free and therefore legal import of solid wastes, mainly in the form of building materials. Because those wastes are presumed to be non-toxic, no federal Act unfortunately can regulate or forbid their trade between American and Canadian business people.
Under its previous mandate to try and improve the quality of the environment, the Canadian Government should regulate that so-called "commercial" activity, which is now creating an unacceptable situation to the residents of Richmond-Wolfe and the whole Eastern Townships area.
I therefore propose to call upon Members in this House to enact specific regulations governing the import of such wastes.
I would like in conclusion to thank the Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mr. Charest), the Secretary of State of Canada and Acting Minister of Environment (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of State (Agriculture) (Mr. Blais) who already are giving the matter favourable consideration.



FORESTRY


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault-Ste-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the House a situation which bears immediate attention by the Minister responsible for forestry. Six provincial federal agreements will expire in March of 1989. These costsharing agreements are essential to all aspects of our forestry industry including research, reforestration, and site preparation. I am most familiar with the Ontario-Canada Agreement which was for SI50 million over a five-year period.
Informal negotiations have gone on for nine months but, to the despair of provincial negotiators, the federal negotiators have no mandate to consummate any deal. This lack of mandate has been verified in discussions with staff of the Minister. This has already detracted from research initiatives. It also seems to reinforce some of the critical attention given forestry by the Auditor General.
I would ask that the Minister endorse immediately, at the very least, an extension of these agreements and send out a positive signal to the six provinces presently in limbo with regard to these agreements.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano-Howe Sound):: Mr. Speaker, it is well known that women start up small businesses at five times the rate of men and are more successful. Thus, it was very disturbing to read in a recent report made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that banks may be providing less favourable financing to women business owners than to men. Particularly highlighted in this report was that the requirements for collateral for lines of credit were much higher for women, security of up to 300 per cent often being demanded from women business owners.
I would urge my cabinet colleagues, the members of the Finance Committee, and the banking community to undertake further investigations into the reasons these differences exist and to implement measures to ensure
December 19, 1988
that such discrimination does not continue. Otherwise, significant business opportunities may be missed and the rapid growth of female-owned businesses slowed. Neither would be in the interests of the pursuit of equality or economic prosperity.



LEEDS-GRENVILLE CONCERNS OF CONSTITUENTS

Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to use this brief occasion to thank the constituents of Leeds-Grenville for the confidence that they expressed in me on November 21. It is normal to have a Member of Parliament from Leeds-Grenville but what is not normal is to have one sitting in my caucus.
The last Liberal MP from Leeds-Grenville was John Matheson. Senior members here may remember Mr. Matheson who was largely responsible for the Canadian flag which flies so proudly wherever there is a Canadian presence in the world.
During the election campaign I got a good deal of support from the dairy farmers of my riding who have very strong reservations about the free trade deal and how it will impact on their livelihoods. I hope to address that concern in this Parliament.
Of equally important concern to the citizens of my riding, which is contained largely by the Rideau and St. Lawrence system, is the matter of the environment. I hope to address these concerns and others during the life of this Parliament.



VOTING STATISTICS

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, during Votes Nos. 8 and 9 at 1 a.m. Saturday, December 17, 1988, 144 Conservative Members were here with their Leader, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney). On the Opposition side, there were only 20 Liberal Members present out of 82 and 16 Socialist Members out of 43.
_______________________293
Mr. Speaker, where were those 89 Opposition Members and their Leaders who were conspicuous by their absence?



HOUSING


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's present housing Minister is the Marie Antoinette of Canadian politics. During the election campaign when he was asked about Toronto's homeless, he denied that they existed. The Housing Minister (Mr. McDermid) is now going further. He is setting out to gut federal help in the city.
The former Housing Minister promised 7,000 nonprofit unit for Toronto. Now federal spending ceilings mean that we will lose 1,300 of those units. I call on the Minister to meet his predecessor's commitment to 7,000 units to be completed this year. Anything less will be a heartless betrayal of Canada's most desperate people.
The Government should be adopting a housing first policy for surplus Crown lands and it should be stating clearly what its intentions are for the development of affordable housing at the Downsview Airport site. The Minister says he has to do more studies. Canada's homeless do not need more studies. They want housing they can afford, and the Government should get on with the job of providing that housing.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Tom. McMillan, is no longer with us in the House of Commons but he-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: The new Member has big shoes that I doubt he will be able to fill.



December 19, 1988
The former Minister left a living legacy in British Columbia in the form of Moresby Island Park and the Pacific Rim National Park. Elis legacy will continue to grow when the Government keeps his commitment to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia to preserve the tallest trees in Canada, the tallest Sitka spruce in the world, to the benefit of both this and future generations.
These trees stand in a silent, pristine wilderness, cathedral-like giant pillars holding up the sky. The Government must respond to national and international calls to preserve this magnificent forest.
There is a void in our current law that makes wilderness preservation difficult, and I am therefore announcing to the House today that it is my intention to introduce in the near future a Private Member's Bill entitled the Canadian Wilderness Act. The Act, now in draft form, will assist the provinces in protecting and preserving Canada's wilderness heritage. I look forward to winning the support of all Members in all Parties in this House for the Wilderness Preservation Act during the Thirty-fourth Parliament.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, one of the major issues in Nova Scotia during the recent federal election campaign was the discriminatory wage rates paid by the Government of Canada to federal dockyard workers in the Halifax-Darmouth area. Under this practice, these workers in Nova Scotia are receiving lower wages that their counterparts in British Columbia for doing exactly the same work. The only difference is the location of their place of residence. This is outright discrimination. It is no less abhorrent than wage discrimination based on race, the creed or the sex or a worker.
While the federal Government has made a commitment to the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, it is still paying wages based solely on the region in which a worker lives. The Government cannot have it both way, Mr. Speaker.
I call upon the federal Government to alter this policy immediately which is deeply offensive and unfair to federal dockyard workers and other federal employees in my riding. The time for action is now,



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, all of us have strong memories of our first election to this place and of our first few days here, so the extensive article this weekend in The Toronto Star about the new Member, the Hon. Member for Scarborough-Agin-court (Mr. Karygiannis), I am sure, had special meaning for all of us.
In addition, Sir, as I represent the riding wherein is located the Greek cultural centre I am aware of the special significance of that particular Hon. Member's election. The only flaw in the article of consequence, and I mean this with no disrespect to the Hon. Member, is that he is not the first Canadian born in Greece to be elected to this House.
I hope it is only oversight that The Toronto Star would fail to remind Canadians that the first Canadian elected to this House of Commons born in Greece was elected to this House in 1972 and still sits here, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Mitges).



TIME FOR NATIONAL RECONCILIATION

Mr. Ken G. Hughes (MacLeod):: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the season I would like to extend to my colleagues my warmest sincere best wishes for the weeks ahead.
We should all reflect on the gifts which Canadians share, peace, health, goodwill, democratic and open government, and a wealth to be envied by many peoples around the world. Let us set aside our differences and be thankful for those aspects of the nation we have already built together. Let us also look forward.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), in the wake of the recent election, has suggested that this should be a
December 19, 1988

time of national reconciliation and a time for healing. It is also in that spirit that I call on all Members, on behalf of the people of MacLeod, to set aside differences and focus on working together.



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Ms. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight Article 25 of the United Nations Declaration to which Canada is a signatory. It states:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate to the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing.
Today and throughout this week in Canada there are thousands of Canadians, the majority being children, who are experiencing hunger. Across Canada, food bank volunteers and concerned supporters are struggling to meet the needs of hungry Canadians.
In my own riding of Northumberland, I am grateful to the many volunteers who, for over two years, have given devoted service to providing support to our hungry through such organizations as Fare Share, the Northumberland food banks project.
However, we know the food bank recipients need and want decent job opportunities and adequate affordable housing. They need and want dignity, the opportunity to shop like you and I, for their own basic food needs. Food banks should only be an emergency service.
Policies and programs targeted specifically to providing decent jobs and affordable housing are required. On behalf of the hungry in my riding of Northumberland and throughout Canada, I implore the Government to make a concerted effort to provide all families and individuals their basic right to food, clothing, and housing in 1989.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Government announced the purchase of
Oral Questions
two auxiliary minesweepers to be put into service during the spring of 1989 by the Canadian Naval Reserve. By 1993 there ought to be 12 such coastal defence vessels, eight assigned to the East Coast. A permanent base must be established for this fleet, and crowded conditions would suggest that the dockyard in Halifax is not an appropriate site.
The Port of Shelburne offers a large harbour, convenient to all East Coast areas. There is a large ship repair facility, space for expansion, and existing military infrastructure.
The town of Shelburne, on Nova Scotia's climatically moderate South Shore, offers pleasant living year-round and a variety of necessary living services. The whole of Shelburne County would benefit significantly from the jobs and economic impact of the reserve and minesweeper bases.
The determination of Shelburne as the site of this unit would serve well both the interests and needs of Canada's naval forces and a region of Nova Scotia in need of a more diversified economy.
Accordingly, I strongly urge the Government to consider this proposal seriously and to locate Canada's new East Coast mine countermeasure fleet in the Port and County of Shelburne, Nova Scotia.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister or, if he is not here, the Acting Prime Minister, whomever that may be.
Considering that Premier Bourassa intends to move quickly to override the Supreme Court decision on signs in Quebec, and since in the past the Prime Minister said he dislikes the use of the notwithstanding clause, I would like to know if the Prime Minister, or whoever is acting in his place, will call Mr. Bourassa today and ask him to reconsider his position and to respect the federal Charter, the Quebec Charter, and the Supreme Court decision.
As the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister knows, the Supreme Court said it would accept the

December 19, 1988
Oral Questions
priority of French in Quebec but not the prohibition of another language. Will the Government do that today?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs and Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, and the House knows that this is a matter of very real importance to all Members of the House. The House would expect the Government of Canada to consider very carefully any response that we would want to make.
As I think the Hon. Member may know, while it was planned this morning to table the legislation in the Quebec National Assembly that had not occurred as of a couple of minutes ago. I think the Government of Canada would want to reserve any action or comment on the question until we have the opportunity to see the legislation actually tabled in the Quebec National Assembly.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Minister knows, the Premier of Quebec made his intentions known yesterday although he had not tabled the legislation.


PROTECTION OF LINGUISTIC MINORITIES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we must remember that Section 2 of the Meech Lake Agreement stipulates that linguistic minorities must be protected. And Section 42 of Bill C-72 stipulates that the federal Government, with the provinces, must support the protection of linguistic minorities in Canada. Under these circumstances, is it not true that the federal Government has the responsibility to communicate with the Government of Quebec concerning the measures proposed by Mr. Bourassa yesterday?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Indeed, Mr. Speaker-and I apologize for being away for the first question-I already communicated with Mr. Bourassa yesterday and I told him the position of my Government and of this House on such a matter. I expressed the desire, the wish, that the Government of Quebec could find a formula, as the Supreme Court suggested, whereby the preponderance of French at all times in Quebec would be assured together with the respect of minorities and their freedom of expression, as the Supreme Court wanted and the Quebec Charter states. That was the wish and the desire that I expressed
to Mr. Bourassa yesterday, no doubt on behalf of all Hon. Members. I have not yet seen the Bill that will be brought forward, but we will no doubt see one in the coming days.


UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the Prime Minister has done what I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to do. I want to make sure that I understand correctly. He seems to have said that he did ask the Prime Minister of Quebec to consider implementing legislation that would respect the judgment of the Supreme Court.
I want to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister that nine days ago we celebrated the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which, in Article 19, declares "freedom of expression" as a basic fundamental freedom. As I just said in my previous question, the Canadian Charter, the Meech Accord, and Bill C-72 all provide for the protection of language minorities.
If these documents mean anything to the federal Government, then surely it should approach the Quebec Government to have them respected.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the long and noble tradition of the fairness of Quebec to its English-speaking minority is well known. I think that the situation of anglophones in Quebec could in many respects serve as a model for the other provinces in the treatment of their French-speaking minority-
That being said, we showed leadership with Bill C-72 and the Meech Lake Accord, which protect the rights of minorities wherever they are, and I conveyed this feeling to Mr. Bourassa. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace knows very well that Mr. Bourassa has been deeply troubled by the conflicts which he went through. I told him that I hoped his Government would find a way to respect the two elements or parts of the Supreme Court decision. That was our position and I think it remains the position of this Parliament. We shall see what comes out of the Bill that will be presented. But it is important to stress that Quebec has no lessons to learn from anyone about how it treats its linguistic minorities.
We always hope for even more generous treatment for all minorities throughout Canada, but I think that
December 19, 1988

Quebec is still the leader in this field. We shall see what the Government of Quebec does with the Supreme Court decision.


PRIME MINISTER'S RECOMMENDATION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague the Prime Minister said that last night he conveyed the position of his Government to Premier Bourassa. I want to be clear. The Prime Minister said that he expects the Quebec Government to abide by the provisions of the Supreme Court ruling. In his conclusions, did the Prime Minister recommend resorting to the notwithstanding clause, or did he ask that only public signs and primacy of the French language be considered?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Personally, Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that the notwithstanding clause is inconsistent with a charter of rights. This is why I was adamantly opposed when the previous Government included that clause in the 198182 Canadian Constitution. It matters little at whose request this was done. The fact is that the clause was made part of the Canadian Constitution. Personally, as a citizen, I think the two are incompatible and I did not urge Mr. Bourassa or any other Premier to use it. 1 was expressing the hope that, despite his difficulties, Mr. Bourassa might come up with a formula which would respect the two basic options of the Supreme Court ruling.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: I should like to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to say more about these two options. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Supreme Court position concerning the primacy of French inside and outside, or does he favour the other position, French outside and bilingualism with French primacy inside? What is the position of the Government of Canada ... I want to know . . .


An Hon. Member:: Ask Bourassa!


Jean-C. Lapierre: The Minister might refrain from commenting on such a basic issue.
I am asking his leader the Prime Minister who conveyed the position of the Government of Canada: Does the Government of Canada agree with full implementation of French primacy inside and outside, or does
Oral Questions
it agree with the position of the Quebec Government? Just what is the position of the Government of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, I should think we ought to wait to know the position of the Quebec Government. I have been told that the Bill has not yet been introduced. We will see, it looks as though they are arguing over procedure. We will see. The Hon. Member would want us to act prudently. Still we will have to wait until the Bill is tabled. Now, as far as I know the Supreme Court did refer to promoting the use of French and Quebec's French character. Of course we approve! And we are asking Quebec lawmakers to respect this French character while taking into account the reality of Quebec's Charter of Rights. Such is the challenge facing Quebec lawmakers as a result of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. The Bill will indicate how the Quebec Government responds. I expressed the wish-on behalf of all parliamentarians, I think-that both would be reconciled in a Bill whose effect would be to respect fully the French dimension of this Quebec reality, while at the same time respecting the basic values in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health and Welfare, and it concerns the very important question of child care in Canada.
Today the National Council of Welfare, which the Minister knows is a government appointed non-partisan body, issued a report on child care in which it urged the Government to make major improvements in the federal child care strategy, including a phase-out of tax breaks which would allow at least another $2 billion to be invested in child care services.
In view of this study and many other studies that have been done with adequate research, will the Minister assure the House today that he will redraft the child care legislation, and that this will be better legislation that will meet the needs of Canada's children today and in the future?

December 19, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, I have looked at the report that was made available to me by the National Council of Welfare. There are a number of issues that I am examining.
In direct answer to the question of the Hon. Member, the Government's child care plan was quite clear. We presented it in the last Parliament. It was only blocked by the Liberal-dominated Senate in the last moments of that Parliament, and we intend to reintroduce it.


COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATIONS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister, who I know has some feeling for children and families in Canada, will not be so pigheaded as not to reconsider that legislation.
The past is the past and the Minister now has a golden opportunity to bring in more progressive legislation that will go beyond seven years, and which will help to meet the real needs of children.
Since the National Council of Welfare advocates the creation of 750,000 new spaces over the next seven years with no fixed ceiling on funds, and also a system of affordable fees which will make child care available and accessible to families regardless of income, does the Minister agree with these principles? If he does, will he take a look at the legislation, consult with the council and other groups, and with provincial people, if necessary, and come in with a program of which we can be proud in Canada?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to re-emphasize the underpinning of the Government's child care strategy, and that was choice. There was going to be choice for those parents who wanted their children in child care, choice for those parents who wanted their children in child care spaces related to the industry where those parents worked, and choice for those parents who decided that they wanted to stay at home with their children. That is the manner in which we approached the child care issue.
I say to the Hon. Member that, just as I am analyzing the report a little more fully, possibly the Hon. Member would also want to do that. The Hon. Member will discover that the recommendations assume a number of things, not least of which is that some of the greatest
benefits go to families in the higher income brackets. Possibly the Hon. Member has not looked at that quite as carefully as she might want to do now.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PARENTAL LEAVE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister would look at it carefully he would see that that is exactly why we want those very regressive tax measures removed.
I would like to ask the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Employment, in view of the importance of parents having choice to remain at home with young infants, will they now convince the Cabinet that it is extremely important to introduce parental leave of 15 weeks, and also that the Government not contravene the Charter of Rights by refusing to change the law, as was required by the courts of this land? That extension is needed and it is a right under the Charter that there be 15 more weeks of parental leave under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, the Government will make a decision in respect of parental leave. As the Hon. Member points out, there has been a court decision. The Minister of Employment and Immigration has chief responsibility in that regard, and she is working on that aspect of it.
A point that I would make to the Hon. Member is that, in all of the discussion on child care, she and her Party have taken a very singular role, that being that it should be a system dominated and run by government-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Not true.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In the Canadian context, that would mean a system operated by the provincial Governments.
That is not a system that this Government has adopted, nor is it a system that Canadian parents accept. In fact, it is not a system which has favourable support among the Canadian public generally.
If anyone should be rethinking their policy on child care, it is those who sit on the opposite side of this House.
December 19, 1988


DISASTERS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question, which I shall come to in a moment, is for the Minister of Energy.
I know that all Members of the House breathed a sigh of relief and offered a prayer of thanks when the 27 crew members of the oil rig Rowan Gorilla were brought home, after spending 24 hours in a survival capsule at sea. I know, as well, that my colleagues in this place will join me in wishing those crew members and their families a very special Christmas this year.


Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I should like to ask the Minister of Energy whether he can confirm today that, notwithstanding the fact that over 90 per cent of the crew aboard that U.S.-flagged rig were Canadians, no Canadian seaworthiness inspection or permission was required before the Rowan Gorilla left Halifax Harbour in an attempt to make a 30-day crossing of the Atlantic, under tow, in severe winter conditions.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has expressed the feelings of all of us in the House toward the people who went through great hardship a few days ago. But I want to tell the Hon. Member that as far as the Energy Department is concerned and particularly COGLA, the regulatory body that is responsible for those matters, according to the information I was given, the Government's responsibilities end the moment the platform leaves the drilling area where it was operating.
Inspections were made, as was reported in the newspapers, especially by the Coast Guard. Since they were not made in a regulatory context, the Government could not legally intervene because it has no authority in that matter.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO OIL RIGS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in February of 1982, 84 people lost their lives when the Ocean Ranger went down while operating under winter drilling conditions. The Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger disaster recommended that all aspects of the operation and movement of drilling rigs be
Oral Questions
covered under the Canada Shipping Act. The Government rejected that advice. The fact remains that this rig required no seaworthiness inspection by Canadian authorities, nor any permission whatsoever to leave Canadians waters in its attempt to make a 30-day crossing of the Atlantic.
The only consultation was that as between the rig owners and its insurers.
That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, given the experience of February of 1982 and the loss of 84 lives.
I should like to ask the Minister of Energy whether he is, today, prepared to undertake a review of the current regulations covering both the operation and movement of oil rigs, and whether he will see that all vessels, including foreign-flagged vessels, are covered by the strict safety standards of the Canada Shipping Act, and whether he will initiate, in light of this near disaster, that review immediately.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, it should be very clear. The platform belongs to an American corporation. The incident occurred outside Canadian territorial waters and safety control is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Transport, who would like to give additional information.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT EFFECT OF COMPANY SHUT-DOWNS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
The closing of Gillette Canada has already resulted in a ripple effect on Hamida Textiles Inc., a company located in my riding of Parkdale-High Park.
With the possible passage of the Free Trade Agreement, better known as the Sale of Canada Act, small and medium-sized companies will be the first casualties in so far as production and employment levels are concerned.

December 19, 1988
Oral Questions
What studies has the Government undertaken or completed to monitor the chain reaction, or the ripple effect-and I stress, Mr. Speaker, the ripple effect-of large company shut-downs on small manufacturing companies as a result of the passage of Bill C-2, the Free Trade Agreement?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, there is no valid suggestion of which 1 am aware that any reduction in employment on the part of Gillette Canada is due to the Free Trade Agreement.
I can pick out of the air, as the Hon. Member opposite seems to what to do in respect of job losses, companies that are expanding their operations as a result of the Free Trade Agreement.
I have in my hand a statement by the President of Novacor Chemicals Ftd., a statement to the effect that the company stands to save $30 million a year in tariffs on its exports of polyethylene and methanol. That will ensure that the company will invest in a third ethanol plant near the central Alberta community of Joffre.
Another plant means more jobs. Mr. Feick, the President, estimates that it will create 200 permanent positions.
So, for every alleged example the Hon. Member wishes to bring forward of some company closure or layoff flowing out of the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S., an agreement which is not yet in effect, I can produce two, three, four, five, ten examples of expansions and job creation throughout this country as a result of the possibilities presented by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, that was the attitude of my predecessor, and I ask the Minister to note where he is now.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is where you were four years ago.


TEXTILE COMPANY WORKERS
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, Hamida Textiles Inc., which employs 36 people, mostly immigrant women, has already lost a contract because of the Gillette Canada plant closing.
The owner told me just this weekend that there is no way that his company, a company which pays its workers $6.50 to $8 per hour, can compete with a South
Carolina textile company which pays its workers $3.50 per hour.
My question, Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Minister is this. What kind of assistance or adjustment programs does the Government have for the Hamida Textile workers who will be unemployed if this Free Trade Agreement goes through?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is a pointless exercise. Just let me give the Hon. Member opposite this statistic. In 1986, 381 plants of over 100 employees each closed down, putting some 49,000 people out of work.
Within that same year, many more jobs were created, both by the opening of 326 new plants and through the expansion and modernization of existing plants.
We anticipate, Mr. Speaker, over $150 billion of new investment by firms in Canada over the next year. Now, while we do not claim that all of this good news in terms of investment in Canada is caused by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, much of it is.
It is just sterile to have these silly suggestions made across the House in Question Period every day, in the light of the economic facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: You've got a fertile imagination, John.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister persists in seeing nothing but rosy skies ahead. He fails to see, for example, the reality of almost 900 people who have lost their jobs at Northern Telecom because of this shift for which he is responsible.
In view of the fact there are only two parts of the Northern Telecom empire producing DMSU-IU equipment, one in Aylmer and one in Georgia, and the one in Aylmer is being shut down, how can he possibly justify any suggestion this is not a transfer of jobs to Georgia which is taking place?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says I see
December 19, 1988

things as rosy in the future. Yes, we see things much rosier in the future with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. All the hon. gentleman can see is the rosy crucifixion. We see the rosy future.
Northern Telecom is one of the foremost companies in the technological future of Canada and it has had to make some adjustments. That has no connection whatsoever with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. The facts are that American Telephone and Telegraph, the largest company in the world in that business, is making the same kinds of adjustments. It is laying off more people in the U.S., double the number, than they are laying off here in Canada. It has no connection with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement whatsoever.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the very plant which the Minister suggested last week, as an answer to this problem, was expanding, has in fact given pre-notice of lay-offs to 757 of its 4,500 person workforce.
Given that, does the Minister not finally realize it is important, necessary, even crucial that he get up and give a signal to Canadian workers that they are going to be protected and defended by his otherwise weak-kneed Government?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member can get on with his fictitious cries of gloom and doom every day but the facts are here. I will give this estimate of the Economic Council of Canada again. It says over ten years the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is likely to create 439,000 jobs and there may be 187,000 jobs lost over the ten-year period, for a net gain of 251,000 jobs.
The hon. gentleman, getting up in the House and pretending that every close-down and lay-off in this country over the following months is due to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, is making an attempt to fool and cod the Canadian people, and they will not be fooled and codded, as they showed on November 21.
Oral Questions TOURISM


EXTENT OF CANADA'S ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism. My constituency of Sarnia-Lambton is diligently working to promote our area as an attractive tourist destination. As well, the Minister knows I have a great interest in tourism nationally.
As the Minister also knows, concern has been voiced by the industry that our Government's commitment and the direction provided to Tourism Canada's advertising campaign may be insufficient to allow effective competition with other countries such as Australia.
Could the Minister offer his assurance that this situation will be closely examined by his Department and every effort will be made to examine the many fine suggestions put forward by TIAC just this last month?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first Government to have undertaken a strategic marketing campaign of Canadian tourism products in the U.S. and abroad. Since 1985 we have increased and enhanced our budget for maiketing Canada overseas and in the U.S., with impressive results. We intend to continue that thrust.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORT TAX-CANADA-UNITED STATES MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This House was advised last week of the disastrous effect the 15 per cent export tax is having on sawmills and sawmill workers, not only in northern Ontario but in other lumber producing provinces. Article 9 of the Memorandum of Understanding which imposes the 15 per cent tax states that either Government may terminate the Understanding at any time upon 30 days written notice.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to take the necessary steps to save the jobs of the Canadian lumber industry, and make a commitment to meet with representatives of

December 19, 1988
Oral Questions
the industry to develop a strategy to terminate this Memorandum of Agreement pursuant to Article 9?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have had no requests, at least none I am familiar with, from the provinces for a change in or termination of the agreement on softwood lumber. The Memorandum of Understanding is grandfathered in the FTA. If the FTA had been in effect in 1986 we would not have been in the position we found ourselves in. We were left in that position by the negligence of the Government that preceded us.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY MEETING
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is correct. This item is grandfathered under the Free Trade Agreement. It is imperative, however, that the tax be phased out before the deal becomes law.
I repeat my question. Is the Prime Minister prepared to meet with members of the softwood lumber industry to eliminate the tax and give this vital industry a chance to operate on a level field?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are always prepared to meet with the leadership of any industry in Canada that requests a meeting. If the softwood lumber industry requests a meeting, of course either the Minister responsible for Forestry or the Minister for International Trade, or whoever, will meet with them. We will do whatever we can to assist them, just as we did in working out this Memorandum of Understanding which was far better for the industry and the Government than the situation would have been had it been left alone.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT DEFINITION OF SUBSIDY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know there are millions of Canadians who have deep and genuine concern about those negotiations yet to come on resolving the subsidy issue under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Will the Minister avail himself of this opportunity to indicate to the House and those millions of Canadians the position of the Government of Canada on this
particular issue, when it instructed its trade negotiating team on that position, and whether it will now table that particular memorandum on the floor of the House of Commons for Canadians to examine and consider?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm once again, as we have done repeatedly, that there is absolutely nothing in the agreement that places any new constraints on the ability of the Government to promote regional economic development.
When the negotiations commence in the subsidies committee on the question of what are trade distorting subsidies to see whether we can get a commonly agreed definition, Canada will not agree to any definition that would place in jeopardy our ability to continue what is already in the Constitution. One of the prime objectives of the Government of Canada, the overcoming of regional inequalities, will remain our objective and nothing in any definition we ever agree to will interfere with that ability. That is our position.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
David Charles Dingwall: My supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister. Canadians know that the Government gave away the store on pharmaceuticals, disregarded the limitations on foreign investment, and gutted the National Energy Program, all in the name of assisting their dear corporate friends south of the border.
Canadians wish to know from the Government what programs of the Government of Canada are on the table with regard to the definition of subsidy? What is in? What is out? Tell the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, for seven weeks the hon. gentleman opposite and another several hundred candidates with him attempted to put this crass suggestion across to the Canadian people, who did not believe it. They did not believe it then. They do not believe it now. It is not going to happen. It did not happen. It is not going to happen. That is the position.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, ever since 1947-


David Charles Dingwall: What about water?
December 19, 1988


John Carnell Crosbie: Does the hon. gentleman want to listen?
I know that he will learn nothing, but ever since 1947 there has been a subsidies code and a subsidies negotiation in the GATT. Why did he not spend the last 40 years going around trying to frighten the Canadian people while those negotiations were going on?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POLLUTANTS IN ARCTIC FOOD SUPPLY
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In yet another example of the consequences of the lack of consultation and involvement of northerners in scientific research that goes on in the North, the Inuit learned last week that their staple food supply is in jeopardy owing not to a one-time environmental event but to the accumulation of deadly toxins over a long period of time, an accumulation that could have benefited from the ongoing monitoring that we know needs to be done in the Arctic.
What is the Minister intending to communicate with the Inuit about the research that has been done and is now showing up pollutants in their food supply? What will he do to establish a comprehensive testing of food supplies in the Arctic?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, first, the Hon. Member is not correct when she alleges that the Government has not done anything. In fact, I point out to her that it was three years ago that the Government began to assess the extent of organic pollutant contamination in Arctic food sources. In fact, it is that interim response that forms part of the body of information that has now been made public.
In my discussions with the Secretary of State for External Affairs there has also been a suggestion for consideration of a circumpolar conference on Arctic pollution. Obviously, if that request comes forward we would consider it very positively.


PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO INUIT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. The Minister of Health, I believe, misunderstands what I said. I did not say
Oral Questions
"none" has been done. I said that there has been no consultation with the Inuit who are obviously anticipating a lot of anxiety and confusion over reports they get to read in the paper-not from the Department but in the paper-because they have not been involved in the research.
What specifically is the Minister prepared to do to let the Inuit people know about their health? It is their food supply that is in jeopardy here.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I point out again that the survey was specifically pin-pointed to Broughton Island. The survey has been co-ordinated not only by a number of federal Departments, including the Departments of Indian Affairs, Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and my own Department, but with the Government of the Northwest Territories.
I point out to the Hon. Member as well that the Government of the Northwest Territories has certain responsibilities in particular since the April last transfer of health care to its jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that, we will use whatever consultation methods we have, along with other Departments, principally the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to make this information available.
I think that what all of us in this House should be careful of is this. While we want the best information and want to see how we can correct that which now exists, we should also not over-emphasize some possibilities because at this moment they are not yet confirmed.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Two days after the election the Conservative Member for Mississagua South was quoted as saying: "Ottawa voters will be punished for not having elected Conservatives to Parliament on November 21." He later said that other regions would also suffer for having voted Liberal. Canadians of all Parties are appalled at this horribly cynical attitude and approach to government.
Will the Prime Minister do the honourable thing and stand in this House, denounce the Member's remarks,

December 19, 1988
Oral Questions
and dissociate the Government from them? Will he suggest to the Members of his Party that this Member should not be elected Chairman of the House Finance Committee in this Parliament?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to confirm to my hon. friend that all regions of Canada, irrespective of how the citizens may have voted, will be treated with the same degree of justice and equality as any other.
The fact that the citizens of the general region of Ottawa returned more opposition Members than government Members matters not at all in terms of the fairness and consideration that we will continue to bring to the matters that affect the well-being of the citizens of Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENTS BY MEMBER FOR MISSISSAUGA SOUTH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. When he threatened Ottawa, the Member for Mississauga South also said that jobs would be cut in the Public Service. He added:
Who will care about civil servants in Ottawa who lose their jobs?
Can the Prime Minister tell us what the intentions of his Government for the Public Service are? How many other public servants will lose their jobs, and in what departments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer, obviously, is the same in English as in French. We will treat all citizens of Ottawa, including of course members of the Public Service, justly and fairly. That was the situation in the past. Whether public servants live in Ottawa, Vancouver or St. John's, Newfoundland, they are entitled to first-class treatment and that is what they will receive from the Government that I have the honour to lead.


AIRPORTS
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns safety at Pearson International Airport. To date, the Government has not adequately addressed the lack of comprehensive funding for this facility which has led to such serious problems as a shortage of air traffic controllers, inadequate fire-fighting equipment at the airport, and the continued use of a dated back-up generator system for the radar control tower. Instead, it has introduced temporary stop-gap measures which sadly do not inspire a great deal of confidence.
When is the Government going to address the longtime concerns about safety and underfunding at Pearson International Airport?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, the concerns about Pearson International Airport are being looked at, as was stated in this House earlier last week. The long-term planning and medium-term planning are taking place early in the new year. The temporary measures have been working at Pearson International, and the planes are flying with limited delay.


Albina Guarnieri: The air transportation policy of this Government could best be described as flying on a wing and a prayer.


BACK-UP POWER SYSTEM
Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the back-up generator at Pearson failed. Last Thursday the Mississauga-Bramp-ton area, which includes the airport region, suffered an eight and one-half hour power black-out. If that broken down, old back-up generator at Pearson had failed at the same time, radar and computer systems could have crashed without warning, leaving the airport without guidance. Will the Government give a commitment right here and now to the much needed funding to ensure the safety and security of air travellers?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the security and safety of air travellers in Canada have long been the No. 1 issue as far as the
December 19, 1988

Department of Transport is concerned. The needs of the airport are being looked at closely. The generator problem that was brought forward by the Hon. Member is certainly part of that program.


Mr. Speaker:: A single question, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Employment and Immigration. This past summer, in anticipation of the massive lay-offs in Thunder Bay in the grain industry, the Minister indicated in the House that adjustment programs would be put in place. The lay-offs have now occurred. A thousand people are out of work. More are to be laid off within weeks. Will the Minister indicate what adjustment programs she has been able to provide?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question and his interest in this ongoing difficulty. It is something that my Department will be working on. We will be looking at the industrial adjustment service and some other services that may be provided. I will be happy to keep the Hon. Member informed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier in the Question Period the Hon. Member for Ottawa South (Mr. Manley) alleged that I made certain remarks that must have caused him great embarrassment, suggesting that I somehow was going to punish all of the citizens of Ottawa.
I do not know whether he had in mind that I was going to use whips or truncheons or something of that nature.
If he is the kind of Member that believes in the press then he is totally wrong. I have not got a copy of the
________________________________305
Privilege-Ms. Copps
"blues" yet to go over exactly what he said, but I want to say to the House that at no time did I ever suggest that Ottawa would be punished. But I did suggest that Ottawa was awfully well served by Messrs. Tupper, Daubney and Turner. They did a fine job in representing the interests of Ottawa and the citizens of Ottawa, better than the citizens of Ottawa have ever been represented before. I suggest to him that unless he works awfully hard and gives the citizens of Ottawa the same kind of representation they had before, he may not be back after the next election.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to afford the Hon. Member the opportunity of reviewing the press clippings of his comments which I have in my office. He will note in the wording of my question that I did say he was quoted as saying what he said.
He has had much opportunity in the time that has passed between November 23 and now to seek a withdrawal of the quotations by the newspapers. I also suggest that he was heard on radio in the Ottawa area making similar statements.


Mr. Speaker:: It may well be that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), having seen the "blues", will want to return on this matter. For the moment, I think we will leave it in abeyance.


ALLEGED OBJECTIONABLE REMARK
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the course of Question Period the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie)-I use the word "honourable" advisedly-caused a slur on the crucifix by making a statement about the "rosy crucifixion". I think the Minister may seek to review and withdraw his comments because they certainly do not enhance the flavour of this House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one gets used to this kind of intervention by the Hon. Member. The Rosy Crucifixion happens to be the name of a book by Henry Miller, sold around the world. The Rosy Crucifixion. Nobody has brought Henry Miller before the bar of any parliament to ask him to apologize for calling his book The Rosy Crucifixion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is not the name of the book.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Send her a copy.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


An Hon. Member:: Let's hear it, Sheila.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if Hon. Members would stop to consider for just a moment. A complaint was raised. It may or may not have been a matter about which the Hon. Member is complaining. The reference may have been to something else. But the Hon. Member felt that it was a reference to something which is sacred to many of us, and I think that I dealt with it as it should be. I would ask other Hon. Members, especially in this week, to let the matter go.
Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be now read the second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole; and the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) (p. 127).
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this very important debate. At the outset I want to extend to you, Sir, my personal congratulations and the congratulations of the electorate of the constituency of Vegreville for your re-elevation to the high office of Speaker of the House. You have distinguished yourself in a very exemplary way and I know that you will do equally well in the Thirty-fourth Parliament.
I also want to add my congratulations and best wishes to the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees who joins you in the affairs of the House.
I want to deal with four issues in the course of my speech today. First, I want to deal with the mandate and whether in fact the Government has a clear mandate to proceed with this legislation. I want to refer briefly to the opposition tactics. Then I want to talk about the impact and the benefits that this deal will have for western Canada, particularly agriculture.
First let us deal with the issue of the mandate. I find it strange that the Opposition is putting a peculiar interpretation on the outcome of this election. It seems to me that when a Party gets a majority of seats it indeed has the right to govern the country and put in place its legislative program.
I was drawn to the December 5 editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press which I think puts this into a very clear context. It said:
The purpose of an election is to provide the winning party with a mandate to govern the country for a limited period of time.
The Mulroney government won that mandate on November 21. So long as it continues to enjoy the support of a majority of members of the House of Commons, it has a legal and moral right to exercise that mandate-to legislate, to raise and lower taxes, to administer the country and to enter into treaties.
I believe that this pretty well summarizes and puts the issue into context. What the Opposition is injecting into this debate is the 50 per cent rule. If we applied the 50 per cent rule we would have some 80 Conservative Members elected to the House, 30 or 32 Liberals and 10 or 12 New Democrats. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) pointed out the other night, we probably would not have the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the New Democratic Party in the House.
What kind of convoluted interpretation is that? We should get off it. If we go back to 1965, the Liberal Party which was the governing Party of the day garnered 40 per cent of the vote. In 1968, it had 45.5 per cent and that was considered to be a landslide. In 1972, it garnered 38.5 per cent of the vote. I do not know if the Liberal Government had a mandate to proceed with the establishment of Petro-Canada. Liberal Members certainly did not talk about that during the election campaign. Notwithstanding that fact, they brought in Petro-Canada and a great deal of legislation that was repugnant to western Canada and to other regions of Canada.
In 1974 the Liberals got 43.2 per cent of the vote, and then in 1979 they lost the election. In 1980 they got 43.9 per cent of the vote, at which time we changed the face of Canada. There was no talk about constitutional reform during that election campaign. The issue was 18 cents a gallon. The Liberals said they would not bring in an 18 cent a gallon tax. I suppose they were quite right. It was closer to 70 cents or 80 cents a gallon. However, they did not talk about a national energy program that would devastate the West, they did not talk about a
December 19, 1988
Charter of Rights and they did not talk about constitutional reform.
In 1974, the Liberals clearly did not have a mandate to bring in wage and price controls. They had campaigned against it. Remember that vicious election campaign in which they engaged? This is absolute nonsense, and I am sure that all they are trying to do is to mislead the Canadian people. It is quite consistent with the tactics that they used during the course of the election campaign.
The Opposition has an obligation to live up to its word. These quotes have been put on the record before, but I think they bear repeating. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) had indicated the following, back in June and then in July, as reported in Hansard at page 17792 and 17793:
The issue is a simple one for the Prime Minister. Let the people decide. Why does he not call an election on this trade matter and let the people decide?
He went on to say on July 21:
I am ready to stand by the judgment of the people.
In the July 21 issue of La Presse, he was reported as saying:
"If a majority of the elected Members of the new Parliament want the trade deal to be implemented, the Senate should pass the Bill quickly", the Liberal leader said.
On August 20, this was reported:
"Indeed, unless Mr. Mulroney wins a majority, the (trade) deal will not go through".
He said on August 30:
I am asking for an opportunity to decide. If the Prime Minister wins he can still meet the deadline imposed upon him by the United States of January 1, 1989.
That is exactly what we are trying to do. He said:
I think that this is a pretty straightforward proposition. Call an election now. If Canadians vote for the Prime Minister, then he has his trade deal. If Canadians vote for me, then there is no trade deal. All I am saying again is: Let the people decide.
He said that on August 30, 1988.
What did we find out after it was all over? He challenged the Opposition to use all the procedural weapons at its disposal. As reported in The Globe and Mail of December 8, he said that the Government has all the weapons it can call upon, and we are doing that. The Liberal Leader told a news conference that although they may have lost the first battle, the war is far from over. He then went on to say that just as the Tories won a mandate in an election to introduce the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
free trade legislation, the Liberal Party won a mandate to oppose it. It was then reported that the Leader of the Opposition, tanned and looking fit after a week's vacation, hinted that the Government might have to use closure. Members of the Opposition are inviting us to use closure. They are talking about jackboot democracy and about parliamentary assassination. They have simply said, "You have the procedural tools to do the job, get on with it", and that is precisely what we are doing.
Members of the New Democratic Party are much the same. As a matter of fact, they use the same line. They say one thing before the election, another thing during the course of the election campaign and then still another thing after the election. They asked the people to decide but then they did not like the decision. That is what is troubling them now.
Members of the Opposition are putting a convoluted interpretation on the election. They want to abandon the traditions, precedents and practices of this House and engage in nothing but procedural delay and nonsense. They are bleating and complaining about the tactics that are being used.
What I find so contemptuous is the fact that members of the Opposition are treating the decision of the people with such contempt. I think that is really sad. Quite frankly, I think the people who are watching these proceedings are wondering what is going on.
We have tried to work with the opposition Parties to find a way to extend hours, to put limits on speeches so more Members may speak. We offered to sit on weekends and we offered to do a whole host of things. However, they will not sit down and negotiate. We had no choice. One really wonders whether they are sincere.
I know it is somewhat inappropriate to comment on votes, but opposition Members are in the fight of their lives. Yet on Friday night, they could only muster 20 Liberals and 16 NDPers. They bleated all over the airwaves and said to their constituents "Oh, isn't it awful, legislation by exhaustion," and they put up speaker after speaker. It is also interesting that the two Leaders who are engaged in the fight of their lives, fighting to save Canada, were not here for the vote on Friday. Where were they? They were probably doing their Christmas shopping. Some of us will have to forgo Christmas shopping this year because we are here working, trying to get this Bill through.
We all know that there is internal Party strife. The NDP is having its problems and the Liberal Party is



December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
having its problems. The Canadian people are being dished up a plate of hypocrisy and duplicity.
We debated this issue fully in the Thirdy-third Parliament. I picked up a copy of an article from Vancouver's The Province which said:
The people want and need substantive debate. Instead they got senseless procedural wrangling from the opposition, with two recorded votes needed before leave to introduce the bill was approved.
Do you know what date that was published, Mr. Speaker? That was published on May 25, 1988. What is new? What happened this time? Members of the Opposition called for a vote on leave to introduce the Bill and they called for a vote on first reading, things which are normally done in a perfunctory way. That is what we are up against.
This issue has been debated for 64 days, 331.5 hours. Let me go through the chronology of it dating back to March 24, 1982, when the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs issued the third volume of its report entitled Canada's Trade Relations with the United States. Then in November of 1982, the Hon. Donald Macdonald was appointed to head a royal commission, and a lot of people overlooked that. It was a $24 million, three-year study about economic prospects for Canada, and the commission came up with a clear conclusion. This royal commission travelled back and forth across Canada. It was made up of participants from every walk of life and every political affiliation. The participants looked at this matter in a very objective and analytical way and came up with a recommendation.
On August 13, 1983, the then International Trade Minister, Gerald Regan, responded with a document entitled Canadian Trade Policy for the 80s. In March of 1985 in Quebec City, a meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan resulted in a declaration on trade to seek to resolve irritants and explore possibilities for enhanced trade. In August, 1985, a special joint committee on international trade released an interim report. In August of 1985, the report of the royal commission was introduced. Since then, there has been committee study, various debates in the House, Senate debates and Senate study. Throughout it all, all we have seen from the Opposition is inconsistency, from both Liberals and New Democrats.
Even last week on December 7, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) said they thought it was unlikely that the Party would attempt to delay the Christmas recess. The people have spoken, they said,
and whether they like it or not, to debate it between Christmas and New Year's would be folly.
I am glad to see my good friend from LaSalle- Emard in the House. He is a free trader. He is quoted as saying that he is a free trader. He said:
Well, Liberals are conceptually in favour of free trade. I certainly am.
I am glad he is here and I hope he might talk some sense into some people who are opposed to it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Shirley Martin: This is in free trade. This is a garbage deal and badly negotiated.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will quote another Liberal, Mr. McKenna who said:
We took the position in a calmer atmosphere with a great deal of reflection. It is not easy bucking everyone else, but we did it for the right reasons.
That is supporting the free trade deal.


Shirley Martin: If he were here he too would tell you it was a garbage deal.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Senator George Van Roggen is a very distinguished Senator. He has put his money where his mouth is and called a spade a spade. He resigned and he said:
I wish to resign because I want to speak in favour of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
There is a person who has studied this thing and made it his life. In the last 10 years he has probably devoted more attention to this issue than any other single issue.
Then we have Mr. Don Johnston. If he had anything to do with the deal he would negotiate a broad free trade agreement with the United States.
What about Mr. Gerry Regan, former Minister of Trade who said:
It is economic weakness rather than strength which would undermine our future sovereignty.
My experience as Minister of Trade convinced me of two facts. The first is that given all fair conditions, able Canadian exporters can compete against anyone, anywhere.
He talked about the need for a comprehensive free trade agreement rather than the sectoral approach that was taken by the previous Government.
December 19, 1988

Then we have another Liberal, a prominent Manitoba Liberal who supports the free trade group. His name is Mr. Rose, the MLA for St. Vital. He is reported:
I am for free trade. I guess we Liberals are free traders, Rose said, adding that he didn't campaign for any federal candidates because of his support for the deal.
Let me go to the New Democratic Party now, Mr. Speaker. I have a very interesting book here called Free Trade-It's a Good Deal for Canada written by William Gearing who, I understand, is a founding member of the New Democratic Party. He had some interesting things to say. The first chapter of his book is entitled "We All Love Canada. Why am I writing this book? Because I care about Canada." Let me quote a couple of passages, Mr. Speaker. He is a life-long NDPer: He writes:
Opponents of the Agreement are predicting a lot of disastrous consequences without any solid, supporting evidence and some of them have been playing fast and loose with the truth.
He is certainly right there. He goes on to say:
1 believe many Canadians are being misled by these unscrupulous propagandists.
And so 1 decided to speak out. I am one those "ordinary Canadians'' that Broadbent talks about. Except that I don't think Ed has been representing us ordinary Canadians as well as he and some friends in the media like to pretend. Especially on the free trade issue.
It's about time someone challenged the absurdities, the insults, and the untruths spread by the anti-free trade camp, and if exposing them means making some cutting remarks in return so be it.
I say Amen. Thank goodness for some honest reflection. Quite frankly I think this little document did not get the kind of attention that some of the other ones did, which is rather strange. I guess in this particular campaign there were certain types of books that got some recognition and others did not. Mr. Gearing goes on to say:
Our cultural and political strength is not at stake. We will continue to be masters in our own house, forever Canadian. The dynamic efficiency of free enterprise can be reconciled with the Canadian social philosophy. Indeed our social goals will be better served by the prosperity generated by free trade with the United States.
He goes on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. It really is refreshing. We have another renegade NDP Member backing the Mulroney free trade deal, Mr. John Richards, now a professor at Simon Fraser University. He is a member of the British Columbia NDP. He said:
-He hopes the trade agreement is put in place so that the "left" in Canadian politics turns its attention to more critical matters than the NDP needs to address.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
In terms of union workers, for example, Denis Abernot, President of Local 2251, one of the United Steelworkers of America, said that he:
-is disappointed that the annual conference of the Canadian Steel and Trade Employment Congress has failed to address the single most important issue facing its members.
Local 2251 welcomed the federal Government's initiative on free trade-
Mr. Jim McCambly has come out solidly in support of the agreement because it is good for industry. It is good for all regions of Canada. It is good for workers and it is good for creating a much stronger and vibrant economy in our country. I say to the Opposition, "Stop the shenanigans. Get your act together and let's get on with the job. Stop hijacking Parliament. Let us get working. Let us stop fooling around." As far as western Canada is concerned this is the most important initiative brought forth and considered by this Parliament in my lifetime. There is no question in my mind.
I want to go back to 1973 to the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. This conference was held as a result of the recognition of western Canada which needed some initiatives and policies to allow it to expand, prosper and develop like all other regions of the country. A submission was presented at that time which reads as follows:
The most obvious and most important market for Western Canada is the United States. The lowering of the United States tariff walls could provide the breakthrough for western Canadian industries to become important both nationally and internationally. While general tariff reductions such as those associated with the GATT negotiations are important, their impact on Western Canada would likely not be sufficient to provide our industries with an easy entry to United States markets.
It goes on to say:
Western Canada could support a world scale petrochemical industry if we had better access to the United States. If the tariffs between the U.S. and Canada were equal then western Canadian plants would enjoy a large export market in the United States.
It goes on to outline the discrimination that occurs because of the high tariff walls that have been put there affecting our manufacturing and our value-added industry.
That quotation was read from a document which was presented to the WEO conference by the following people: The Hon. Peter Lougheed, Premier of Alberta; the Hon. Allan Blakeney, Premier of Saskatchewan; the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier of British Columbia, and the Hon. Edward Schreyer, Premier of Manitoba. What is significant about that, Mr. Speaker? Three of those Premiers were NDPers. We have one of them sitting in

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the House now taking a completely different position from the one he took in 1973, only because it is politically advantageous for him to do so. That is all. Let him start being a little consistent. He was challenging the Prime Minister for being inconsistent the other day. I ask him to be consistent. That is the most he can do in this House of Commons and thereby be an honourable Member.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to speak on second reading of Bill C-2. Clearly, 57 per cent of Canadians are opposed to this Bill and they said so in the general election of November 21. This is why we hear the ho, ho, ho's on the other side. They are like little Santa Clauses who want to sweep under the carpet that which the vast majority of Canadians opposed in this general election. Even the Gallup polls which took place during the election showed that people opposed the deal.
In fact, most Canadians want liberalization of trade. A lot of Canadians did not know what the deal had in it. If they had known, even fewer people would have supported it. It is very interesting to listen to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). He certainly does have a vast, extensive clipping service. I did not hear many new ideas, just a lot of quotes from newspapers. He certainly was pleased to gloss over the fact that the vast majority of Canadians were opposed to the Government in the general election. The Government has a legal right to implement the legislation. We have never said otherwise. However, I do not think it has a right to limit discussion at second reading of the Bill to less than one day. That is what is happening in the 24-hour period that we are in right now.
The Deputy Prime Minister talked about opposition tactics. If there ever was a Government that deliberately tried not to tell Canadians what was in the most important economic document to come before this Parliament in many years, that was the strategy in this case. It was set out very plainly and clearly in the communications outline that the Government would spend millions of dollars trying to sell the document, but not attempt to explain it to Canadians. If we heard once, we heard hundreds of times during the course of the election campaign: "I do not know what is in it. I do not know what it is about". In spite of the Government spending some $30 million attempting to sell the deal, it did not attempt to explain it.
This morning when I listened to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett), about whom the Deputy Prime Minister said a few moments ago that he was one of the former Premiers of British Columbia, I could hardly believe the words, because he was talking about what a great Party of principle they were, and how determined they were to oppose to the free trade deal. Yet, during the election campaign, one would think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was the one who was promoting the free trade deal because during the last three weeks the Government was being supported by some $5 or $6 million from the private sector, none of it going through the Election Expenses Act, while the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) was hammering away at the Leader of the Opposition as if he were selling the free trade deal. It was very interesting to listen to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca talking about that this morning. I was very confused as to what he was talking about. I do not think he really knew, because clearly during the election campaign his Leader was fighting those in the Liberal Party, and its Leader, who were opposing this legislation.
This afternoon the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was going to talk about the benefits of the free trade deal to western Canada. For his benefit I would like to put on the record some of the problems of the free trade deal, since as well as being the Deputy Prime Minister, he is also the Minister of Agriculture. Agriculture was singled out as an area that was going to be exempt from the free trade deal, at least that is what we heard from the former Minister of Agriculture. Clearly they are implicated up to their ears in this deal. Even the Macdonald Commission recommended that agriculture not be included in the deal.
This afternoon I would like to talk about the impacts of the free trade deal, Bill C-2, on agriculture. I believe that, in the long haul, agriculture will be hurt very badly by the deal. The grape and wine industry has been almost decimated before the deal was anywhere near implemented by legislation in the House. Grape growers in British Columbia and in Ontario were not able to get lines of credit last April, which is at least nine months before the deal was implemented.
During the past week we have seen announcements that some 2,000 industrial workers have been laid off. The wine and grape industry was affected far sooner than that. Now it is supposedly being assisted through a very inadequate program. I believe that in the Niagara
December 19, 1988

area the program's net benefit to the industry is something around $80 million, while actual costs and losses are estimated, if only half of the industry is lost, at $154 million. It is clear that that program will be inadequate.
The same types of problems are heard in B.C. regarding an industry being sold out by a Prime Minister who is totally committed to making a deal at any cost. That seems to be the hallmark of the Prime Minister. He sets out to make a deal, he makes a deal at any cost, and then gets busy spending taxpayers' money to try to sell the deal after he has made a bad deal. That industry is left with loss of markets, reduced income, and in serious difficulty. The alternatives are very few. For example, the fruit and vegetable industry, which is almost in as rough a shape as the grape industry as a result of the free trade deal, is not a viable alternative.
The key move in the fruit and vegetable industry is the removal of the tariff over a ten-year period. More important than that is the removal of the seasonal tariff of approximately 12 per cent that comes on during the peak season for fresh fruits and vegetables. That tariff has been changed to something called the snap-back provision. If the industry can show a loss of price of 90 per cent over a five-day period, giving a couple of days more for implementation, the seasonal tariff which runs down over a ten-year period can be snapped back to position.
It does not take much imagination for a person who shops at the grocery store to know that, if the price breaks on fresh fruits and vegetables over even a 48-hour period, it cannot be snapped back with a seasonal tariff or anything else. If the price breaks, the price is gone. Certainly, it is gone after seven days.
Last March I had the opportunity to attend a horticultural meeting in Ottawa. I heard nothing but doom and gloom. The industry is constantly hit by the difficulties of the competition with American imports which come in earlier in the season and have a devastating impact on price because they hit the market three or four weeks sooner. In this legislation we would like to see action taken at the committee stage to put in place amendments which would overcome those difficulties, if we find that the snap-back provision does not work. We do not believe that it will. I do not know of anyone in the industry who believes that it will work effectively.
I was hoping that the Deputy Prime Minister would get to the section in his speech where he is going to tell us about the benefits of free trade for western Canada.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
All he was able to quote from was the Western Economic Opportunities Conference of a few years ago. I would like to quote from a statement made by the Advisory Board to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Advisory Board to the Canadian Wheat Board is very concerned about the free trade deal. It is concerned that, in the long haul, the Americans are bound, bent, and determined, as soon as this Bill is passed by Parliament, to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. If they do that, they will do it to the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board and to all the wheat marketing boards in eastern Canada.
The industry has lost some $280 million right off the top on the two-price wheat system. In statements made by the American administration it is obvious that it is determined to reveal the selling price by the Canadian Wheat Board. It is setting in place an investigation of the Canadian Wheat Board with the idea of destroying it. It is interesting to reflect upon what the Advisory Board to the Canadian Wheat Board had to say. This board is made up of a group of farmers who are not Tories, Liberals, or New Democrats. They are people elected from the various Wheat Board areas throughout Canada to advise the Canadian Wheat Board. The following is a resolution that they passed at a meeting on July 28, 1988. The resolution states, in part:
After careful review of the proposed Bilateral Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement including Chapter 7 of the United States Statement of Administration Action, The Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee considers the proposed Free Trade Agreement will:
1.	undermine the ability of The Canadian Wheat Board to be an effective marketing agent on behalf of Canadian grain producers.
2.	create an environment in which it will be increasingly difficult to maintain the quality and uniformity of Canadian grains.
3.	not provide enhanced and secure access to the U.S. market.
I did not hear the Deputy Prime Minister talk about that resolution, Mr. Speaker, a resolution passed by the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. But clearly that body is not happy with this agreement.
Mr. Simon Reisman, that great negotiator, said that we Canadians showed the Americans how to negotiate. He said that the Americans negotiated like a Third World country. Yet, just look at the deal that he struck in respect of Canadian oil-seeds and canola going to the Pacific northwest markets. Under that deal, a tariff of 7 per cent is removed over a 10-year period, with the western grains transportation assistance removed immediately. As a result, canola and canola meal are cut out of the Pacific northwest market.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The removal of the tariff over a 10-year period provides the industry with a $22 million benefit in terms of market access but takes from it $44 million in transportation assistance for that same Pacific northwest market.
Under the agreement, we essentially lose the Pacific northwest market. We give it away. And that is so because the tariff is phased out over a 10-year period, whereas the transportation assistance is lost immediately as of January 1, 1989.
That is the kind of great negotiation we got from Mr. Reisman and his team!
The whole strategy of this Prime Minister is to make a deal at any cost. One has to recall that, when he entered into this deal with the President of the United States, his Party was at 23 per cent in the Gallup poll. He had to have a deal, regardless of the fact that he was giving away our energy, our financial markets, our water. He was willing to give away anything to make a deal, and then he turned around and spent the taxpayers' money to prove what a great deal he made.
That is essentially what happened in respect of canola and oil-seeds. That is exactly what happened in terms of the weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board and other agricultural boards. The concern in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board is very great throughout the West, and in fact is reflected in the election results coming out of western Canada.
There is no area that is going to be more hurt, in the long haul, Mr. Speaker, than the Canadian farm products marketing system.
I was a Member of Parliament in 1969 when we put into place the National Farm Products Marketing Board legislation, legislation which allowed Canadian farmers to put in place a marketing system which ensured that they received an adequate return on their investment, on their labour, on their input costs, on their management skill, on their entrepreneurship, and so forth. And I believe that it has been a remarkable success. It enjoys broad support within the industry.
While it is not without its difficulties, it is a model, compared to what they have in the U.S.
By way of example, if there is overproduction in the U.S. dairy sector, the U.S. Government spends a couple of million dollars over a couple of years to kill off a portion of the dairy herds so as to reduce production. And, of course, it is a system that is unsuccessful, to say the least.
In any event, our National Farm Products Marketing Board has been most beneficial to our agricultural industries, and we on this side of the House believe- and those on the opposite side of the House who are knowledgeable in this area know it is true as well-that, in the long haul, our farm products marking system will be destroyed by the free trade deal.
One need only look to the election results in southern Ontario, eastern Ontario, southwestern Ontario, and other parts of the country, to appreciate how the electorate feels about this. Many ridings, for the first time in their history, voted other than Tory, and the reason is that the farmers in those areas believe that their marketing boards, their supply-managed system of marketing, will be destroyed should the Free Trade Agreement be implemented.


Mr. Blais:: That is false; that is untrue.


Maurice Brydon Foster: There are two methods by which the marketing system is being undermined-it has been very skillfully done. The Tories do not want to take political responsibility for destroying the farm products marketing system, although many of the Tory candidates in the last election were held responsible for it and paid the price of electoral defeat.
What the Tories are doing is they are taking the tariffs off processed foods; and as those tariffs, which range from 7 to 16 per cent, come off it will not be possible to compete with the processed foods coming in from the United States which have supply-managed products as an ingredient-eggs, butter and poultry meat.
One does not have to be a genius to understand that. If one can buy U.S. poultry meat at one-half or two-thirds of the price that one has to pay for Canadian poultry meat, it becomes apparent that Canadian food processors cannot compete with their U.S. counterparts.
The Special Advisory Group on International Trade said to the Government "Look, if you are going to do this, the way to save this industry is to put all of the processed foods involving supply-managed products on the import control list."
The Government didn't do that and the Government, I predict, won't do it.
The recommendation in respect of processed foods was that anything that had 10 per cent or more by dry weight of a supply-managed product in it be put on the import control list. That was not done. When it was
December 19, 1988

attempted in respect of yoghurt and ice-cream, about which there was such a hullabaloo in the UPA and by Mr. Page in Quebec, the Americans immediately objected and instituted an action against Canada before the GATT.
The Government has now agreed to join in an application before the GATT to remove all farm subsidies.
To the Americans, supply management and marketing boards constitute subsidies. As a result, even in respect of those products which pass between the two countries freely now, beef and pork, problems abound.
The Americans, under their omnibus Trade Bill, moved to provide a countervail mechanism that will apply to pork as well as to live hogs, in total contravention of any understanding, any interpretation that one could put on the free trade arrangement.
I believe that we are facing a terrible situation in the agricultural sector as a result of the Free Trade Agreement. I believe that any Government that gives up its ability to be self-sufficient in terms of the country's food supply, to the extent that that is possible-admittedly, northern countries such as Canada cannot be totally independent-follows a foolish course of action. To embark upon a course that would lead to the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board and the farm products marketing system is foolish indeed. To sacrifice these bodies for the sake of a free trade deal with the U.S. is total folly.
I believe that the Canadian Government, in the long haul, will have to withdraw from the arrangements now in place in Canada in respect of food production, leading to a devastating impact on our agriculture industries.
I thank Hon. Members for their attention.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have come through an election, a unique democratic exercise, which saw a stimulating, free-flowing exchange about free trade and its impact on Canadians in the future. What has been communicated, in my opinion, is a national expression of our commitment to preserve the essential elements of our life in Canada, with a determination to embrace new challenges to enhance that standard, which I believe is second to none.
It is encouraging to contrast today's spirit of cooperation and growth with the insular pessimism of the 1930s when international trade barriers closed markets,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
reduced production and slashed employment. That is a terrible memory for many Canadians, and in the intervening years we have gone back to our roots as traders, the reason for the founding of our country, to look outward rather than inward, and to seek markets beyond our border for the benefit of all Canada.
[ Translation]
The closer we get to the turn of the century, the more our prosperity will depend on international trade. Right now in Canada one job out of three and close to 30 per cent of our gross domestic product are tied in with our foreign trade, and these figures can only go up. As trade exchanges have grown more dynamic, adjustment in one form or another has become ever more a way of life for Canadians. Both small and large companies constantly renew their products and their production systems to remain competitive. Workers as well understand that they will be trailing behind if they fail to recycle themselves.

Change is intimidating to many Canadians. Most people like to see the status quo and they like to know that at the end of the day the world is the same as it was at the beginning. However, the world is not like that. It changes imperceptibly every single day. While change can be intimidating, it is clearly an opportunity. I do not know that I would be in this House today if I buried myself away from the unmistakable realities of the world we live in, and the change and turmoil that creates opportunities.
A lot has been said and written about "adjustment" over the past few months, as though it were something new. It is not. "Adjustment" is not a mystery, neither is it something to fear. Trade adjustments cannot be exclusively isolated from other adjustments in our labour market or any other. Technological change, the growing importance of women in the workforce, labour-management relations, new environmental standards, these factors and many others affect the workplace and they all involve and require some adjustment.
Our labour market is clearly in a state of constant change. Individual Canadians understand this. They understand that work patterns, skill demands and training needs are radically different from those a few years ago. There are some 5.2 million job changes every year in Canada. Given that environment, it is essential that the federal Government respond to and anticipate changing demands, including but not confined to those generated by free trade.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Contrary to much what has been said by opponents of free trade, we do have in place already a number of mechanisms which can meet the new challenges presented by this agreement or other changes in the future, and the good news is that they work. Our Canadian Jobs Strategy is proving to be an effective instrument for meeting the challenges presented by labour market adjustment.
I think it is important, particularly for new Members, that I outline the principles and objectives and how the Canadian Jobs Strategy works. First, there are two important underlying objectives. One is to provide assistance where it is most needed at the local or industry level. The second is to provide assistance to individuals so their skills meet real and current labour market needs.
In 1985, when we introduced the Canadian Jobs Strategy, we knew we needed a flexible approach that could address change in the labour market, change in the future. This strategy is the very antithesis of the short-term, piecemeal, so-called "make-work" philosophy which for so long dominated the federal response to human resource management and adjustment.
An important aspect of our approach is flexibility, which allows us to meet the emerging labour market requirements of women, aboriginal peoples, visible minorities, the disabled, and social assistance recipients because our society is full of groups which are unique, have particular problems, and are therefore not the same as other groups.
In the Canadian Jobs Strategy we established fair and realistic target levels for participation of those groups within the strategy's component parts, as opposed to creating separate, isolated programs which do not work together to help our labour force and individuals within it to deal with changing conditions.
The component programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy are well designed to plan for the future and provide flexibility. The six component parts are, first, the skill shortages program which helps train Canadians in skills that are in short supply and provides mobility assistance. Second, skill investment allows employers to train workers in new technologies. Third, the Community Futures Program helps create business and training opportunities in communities across Canada suffering from chronic unemployment or economic dislocation. Fourth, job entry provides integrated training and work experience to help young people and women make the transition to the labour market. For some that is a very
difficult transition. Fifth, job development is designed to enhance the employability of the long-term unemployed of any age, young or old, if they have been unemployed for a considerable period of time. They, too, have particular needs. Sixth, and finally, the innovations program encourages the testing of new projects and ideas that will improve the functioning of Canada's labour market.

Last year more than 400,000 Canadians benefitted from these six programs and nearly 90 per cent of them feel that their participation in Jobs Strategy programs did enhance their long-term employment prospects.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, flexibility is what makes Jobs Strategy different from any other program. Special programs for the young unemployed, language courses for immigrants, and other assistance measures for older workers are just a few of the adjustment assistance measures featured under Jobs Strategy programs.
If courses in a community college enable us to meet the needs of certain workers, we can make them available thanks to employment planning. If on-the-job training is what is needed, we can offer it with the cooperation of private sector employers.

Co-operation is truly another key to the Canadian Jobs Strategy since it involves in varying degrees the provinces, the private sector, community groups, labour organizations and educational institutions. However, let me cite some specific Canadian Jobs Strategy projects to demonstrate that not only is our approach working, it is working well. Manitoba Rolling Mills in Selkirk, Manitoba is one of North America's foremost mini steel mills. Quality control and technological adjustment are fundamental to its success. To maintain its competitive edge, it built a training centre, purchased $18 million in new equipment, and developed a training regime for 650 employees. The company did that itself. With the help of the steel investment program a training trust fund has been established which allows workers and employers to select and monitor training packages designed to address changing industry conditions.
The skill investment program allows management and labour to set their own agenda for training. In this project, the company contributed $1.1 million over three years, while Employment and Immigration added another $400,000 in funding.
December 19, 1988



Free trade will offer new opportunities to the industry. In some cases the only factor preventing a company from expanding is a shortage of skilled workers. Thanks to the employment planning skilled labour shortage program, Quebec's Becancour aluminum plant has so far trained 97 employees in computer assisted design.
The skilled labour shortage program provides financial assistance for employers seeking to train workers in trades where skilled labour is not readily available and for which demand is stronger. It was under this program that the aluminum plant could apply for a full repayment of all training expenditures and 50 per cent of the wages of workers.
Another traditional area of concern in labour market adjustment is single industry or resource-based communities experiencing hard times. In Revelstoke, B.C. the unemployment rate currently stands at 10.3 per cent, which is still too high, but it is down from 15 per cent a year ago, and from 20 per cent two years ago when that area was selected under the Community Futures Program. Since then this labour market has mobilized itself for a come-back.
Community Futures Options build on the existing strengths of the community by emphasizing entrepreneurship and worker adjustment. The Business Development Centre Option, for example, has offered potential small businesses, technical and marketing advice, as well as start-up capital. Although the Business Development Centre has been operating for less than one year, some 46 new full-time jobs in this city have been created, and 55 more jobs are anticipated in the coming year. Now, that is success.
Increasingly, we are finding in areas of high unemployment that it makes sense to help people to come up with their own job opportunities. Helping people on unemployment insurance or social assistance move into self-employment is another element of Community Futures' support. As well, Community Futures offers relocation assistance and training through community colleges.
Across Canada we have approved $300 million under this program for some 200 community areas. In total, we are committing $1.7 billion this year to facilitate adjustment from coast to coast under all Canadian Jobs Strategy programs. It is no surprise to us-and we are
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
very proud of the fact-that the OECD in 1988 singled out our Canadian Jobs Strategy, the Canadian Jobs Strategy of our country, of this Government, as a good example of an initiative that seeks local solutions to local problems by tailoring measures to local and individual needs.
Just as the Canadian Jobs Strategy helps individuals and communities cope with change in the labour market, the Industrial Adjustment Service assists Canadian companies in need of support. As a co-operative model for helping workers and management deal with technological and market change, the Industrial Adjustments Service's reputation is second to none.
Under IAS, labour and management set up joint committees to work with an outside labour market consultant. Together, they establish an action plan to resolve particular human resource problems, problems that may be unique to their company but where other experience can help them. To cite an example of its effectiveness, IAS recently helped focus the energies of 1,300 employees at the Firestone Tire Company in Hamilton after permanent closure had been announced. You remember how we were harangued in this House, Mr. Speaker, about this closure? The joint committees set a goal finding comparable jobs for every worker. Firestone paid the salaries of 10 full-time people on the adjustment committees. These committees surveyed thousands of employers, placed resumes on cable TV and worked closely with the local Canada Employment Centre. The result was a placement rate of 85 per cent with continuing efforts to find jobs and training for the remainder. Just in this week's paper there was an interview with some of the employees saying how well that system had worked.
The IAS solution, it must also be emphasized, applies as well to companies that are experiencing rapid expansion, not just those that are experiencing lay-offs. Mohawk Oil in Burnaby, British Columbia, used an adjustment committee to help it establish a human resource plan to complement its aggressive expansion plan.

Mr. Speaker, it must be pointed out that for some time now the Industrial Adjustment Service and its advantages have been known in international circles. A number of American states and spokesmen for the European Community have sent senior officials to Canada where they will attempt to determine how IAS principles could apply in their respective countries.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Such services attest to the spirit of co-operation we have been able to create in trade union circles, industry, education as well as at other Government levels.

Members of the Elouse are well aware that structural problems exist in our labour market that have to be addressed. Our level of unemployment is still too high in the regions. We are still producing skills that do not match demand. The relationship between the productivity of workers and their education is a question that continually preoccupies policy makers, and particularly this Government.
We must continue to take advantage of our resources and apply Canadian know-how and expertise so that our educated workforce will be tuned in to the realities of today's labour market. It will call on the involvement and co-operation of Canadians from every sector to participate and accept some responsibility in that. This Government is totally committed to ensuring that Canadians have the best possible labour market programs. We have programs already in place that are working. We anticipate whatever advice Mr. de Grand-pre and his committee will present. We are prepared to act on their recommendations.
Adjustment means change, but it also means opportunity. What Canadian workers must know is that we will draw on the resources not just of the Government but of all the communities of Canada to help Canadian workers take advantage of opportunity, to help them when they are in need of change after a lay-off and in need of assistance. All of us must be there for our workers to ensure that they can take advantage of opportunities, to ensure that, in troubled times, we are there to help them. Adjustment does mean change, but the Government must help with the opportunities that are. We intend to ensure that we will be there for Canadian workers, rather than waste time trying to decide whether an opportunity or a problem comes from free trade, comes from technological change, or comes from labour-management relations. What is important for Canadian workers to know is that whatever the circumstances, whatever their region, whatever the product their company makes, whatever future they want for themselves, this Government is there hand-inhand with the company, with management, with the unions, with the provinces, for Canadian workers. We will continue to be there for them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, on June 18, 1936, the new Member for Essex East spoke in this House for the first time. His name was Paul Martin.
I can do no better than to begin here with his words, and I quote, "I feel conscious of my responsibility and trust that my remarks will meet with the approval of my constituents."

My father had been in the House a year before he spoke that I have been here less than two weeks. Times have certainly changed. But as that young Member did 52 years ago, I would like first and foremost to thank the voters of my riding for their trust without which I would not be here.

The riding of LaSalle-Emard has two waterways of historic importance for our country. They are the Lachine Rapids, a unique ecological entity, from which the exploration of the North American continent began, and the Lachine Canal, which has contributed so much to the economic development of Quebec.
Together, my constituents are a microcosm of the Canadian mosaic, an enthusiastic and dynamic community. I would like to say here that I am proud to be their representative.

I cannot count the number of times as a young boy I sat in the galleries above and watched the debates below. In recent years I have had the occasion to visit the legislative chambers of a great number of the world's democracies. Some are older than ours; some are more famous; and many are larger. But I remain convinced that none is more representative and more true to the character of its people than this House.
I have worked in the corporate world where members often believe the real power over the country's destiny resides with them. I have visited the offices of the Ministers and great bureaucrats who dwell in this city. There, too, I have been told that it is there and not here that the real power lies. In both cases I have never believed it.
For me, elected office is one of the highest callings a citizen can have. As such, I deeply believe in the traditions and dignity of this House of Commons, although I sometimes wonder whether that view is as
December 19, 1988

deeply held today as it was once. I hope so, for it is here over the next four years that the future of Canada for generations to come will be determined.

Mr. Speaker, we have just been through an election campaign during which, thanks to the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, Canadians at last began the necessary process of thinking together about their economic future and therefore about the kind of country in which they wanted to live. This process is far from over.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of the new wave of Quebec entrepreneurs. This Government has nothing to teach me about the benefits of freer trade, but I tell you-

You want a job? Is the Minister of homelessness still talking? The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) referred to me as a free trader. I am a free trader. But we are not debating free trade here; we are debating trade disarmament.

What was the purpose of the negotiations, if not secure access to the American market? Did we get it? No. The Government's strategy failed and the results of this failure will be felt by generations to come. The resulting agreement is neither fish nor fowl, a sectorial agreement with all the advantages of a comprehensive agreement, one in which the Government has almost set aside its role in the economy for years to come. Our problem was and is that the Americans refuse to accept our subsidizing our industries, while they refuse to admit that they subsidize theirs.

The Government sought greater access to the American market, but in fact by failing to come to an agreement on the definition of subsidies before signing, it lost ground. By putting off that decision, the Tories have jeopardized whatever possibilities of success might have existed. Second, they have effectively negated the ability of the Canadian private sector to work with its Government as does the private sector of virtually every other modern state in the world.


John Horton McDermid: Why is the private sector supporting us?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Why do you not try
to listen, you might learn something.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: Why is the private sector supporting us? What a silly statement.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Are you telling me? I have been in the business world for four years while you have been-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would like Members to address their remarks through the Chair.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It is hard when faced with ignorance.

The problem is that the Conservatives do not understand the mechanisms of the world economy as we near the end of the century and that is why the next four years will be decisive. That is why the Liberal Party will play a key role. That is why we will be there to see how subsidies are defined.

We will be watching to see if the Government fights for a definition of subsidy that simply does not protect existing programs but provides for new ones so that new opportunities can be created in Atlantic Canada and so that the western base can be diversified.

Yes, we will be there to minimize the harmful effects of this Agreement on our social programs, our agricultural sector, our cultural industries and our environment. We will watch the American takeover of our small and medium-sized businesses, because without these companies, we would lose any possibility of creating our own multinationals. We will be there to see whether the Government allows the Americans to say that our subsidies are unfair, while their billions for Star Wars, as part of their industrial policy, are not.

We will be watching to see if the Government allows the Americans to continue to restructure their economy by using the unique Chapter Eleven bankruptcy provisions and claim that that is not a subsidy while claiming that our modernization grants are a subsidy.
We will be watching to see if the Government allows our export subsidies to be restricted while the Americans use massive domestic subsidies to prevent our exporters from gaining a foothold in their market.
We will be watching to see if the Government adopts the American model of industrial development which works for them but which cannot work for us if we are

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
to have any ambition beyond being enveloped in the American cocoon.
We will be watching to see if the Government has a trade agenda for Canadian entrepreneurs who want to go not just to Pittsburgh but to Panang, who want to go not just to San Diego, but to Sao Paolo.
We will be watching to see what new steps the Government is prepared to take in terms of R and D and procurement policy to ensure that Canada's manufacturing base is not hollowed out and given away.
We will be watching the dispute settlement mechanism to see if it evolves beyond the Congress' rubber stamp into a truly bi-national body that serves the interests of both countries.
We will ask that the Government not allow the Americans to simply apply American law and American practice to our exports. When Congress refuses, we will ask of the Government why it signed the deal in the first place.
Finally, we will ask about plant closings. Every day the Government denies any linkage with the Free Trade Agreement. Does it not understand that due to the rationalization of industry in the United States the burden of change will be and is being felt primarily by the Canadian subsidiaries of American companies and that this agreement has eliminated much of the protection we previously had?
During the debate the Government kept pointing to the agreement and saying nothing in it touched our social programs when the problem was that there was nothing in it to protect them. The fact is that there is nothing in this agreement that allows us to prevent closings such as Gillette's. There is nothing in this agreement that would allow us to do as the French Government did when Gillette sought to close their plant in Ance. That is the problem. Canadians have been misled in this agreement and anyone who has been in the business world more than five minutes understands it. That is why-


John Horton McDermid: Oh, come on.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Within two days of the signing of this agreement, chief executive officer after chief executive officer admitted that our social programs are in jeopardy-


Some Hon. Members:: False.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: -because of the need to harmonize with the United States. If Members opposite deny it then they are simply demonstrating that they may well have been clerks in the business world but never had to make a decision in their lives.


John Horton McDermid: Be careful. You are not the only businessman in the House.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I ask Members opposite: Why do they deny facts that the whole business world knows are true?


An Hon. Member:: Get serious.


John Horton McDermid: There are a lot of business people in this House. You are not the only one.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I have not seen very many. I spent a long time in the business world. Let me say that I have not seen any of the Members opposite anywhere.
You do not have to be a businessman and have a lack of compassion. The business community has it and understands it. It may well be that the businessmen who do not have compassion become Tory Members of Parliament.
Where are the worker adjustment programs? Where are the policies and strategies to deal with the thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs? The answer is that there are no such programs. If Members opposite think there are, they ought to go to the streets where the Minister of homelessness has put the people who have lost their homes to find out.

The problem will not disappear simply because the Minister or the Conservatives refuse to admit it exists. If the Conservatives think that existing programs are adequate with or without free trade, they should go to my constituency and tell it to the 2,000 people who have lost their jobs since 1984.


An Hon. Member:: The employees of Voyageur!
Would you like a bus pass?


Pierre Blais: No, no.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Well, we wouldn't allow certain people on. We really do have standards.
December 19, 1988

Canada is not a delicate and fragile plant needing to be kept in a hothouse, but no country can survive in a globally competitive world without business and government co-operating to invest in people and in their futures.
We are entering into a new era in the international economy. Our country will not prosper in the global market-place simply because it has a captive market. It will prosper because its workers are prepared to accept change, and they will not if the rewards of change are to be enjoyed elsewhere and they are compelled to shoulder alone the burden of sacrifice.

Where does the road to our future lie, Mr. Speaker? We must, of course, continue to sell to the United States, but we must also be able to sell our environment protection technology to Japan, penetrate the European market by 1992 and sell our management techniques to the Third World.
In order to achieve these future goals, the public and private sectors will have to co-ordinate their actions. But that co-ordination requires that the Government determine the definition of the term "subsidy", thereby setting the boundaries for co-operation between the state and industry.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is about more than free trade. Indeed, in this House, there are deep philosophical differences that run deeper than the wording of any bill, even deeper than partisanship.
To my left are the NDP, who think that Canada should keep to itself, disregard major world trends and shy away from international involvement.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, still firmly believe in an obsolete free market theory and a timid hands-off approach to the future.
The Liberal Party sees the future in another light. [English]
I simply ask you in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, what would Canada have looked like if, over the last 50 years, we had had a federal Government as crippled by its own lack of will, vision and purpose, and I must say common decency, as this one? I simply ask you, Mr. Speaker, what sort of a country will we have in the future if the industrial governance of Canada is left to 10 aggressive provinces confronting a do-nothing centre with our economic policy being cabled to us from Washington?
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We are at an important crossroads. We can either become an economic force with which to be reckoned, with our private sector working in concert with a strong national government, or we will die a slow death as a branch-plant economy with a central government to match. That is what this election was all about. That is why the next election will be fought on the ashes of this agreement. However, the next time, the Canadian people will not buy an illusion and a snare.
Some Hon. Mlembers: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to briefly describe the benefits of the proposed Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and the Canadian business reality.
1 think all Hon. Members will realize as well as I do the exceptional growth of the Canadian economy over these last few years, a kind of growth that brought employment to a record level, with job creation that surpassed that of any of the various countries of the European Economic Community, and which in percentage terms has been higher than in any industrialized nation, the 1.3 million new jobs created having led to a rapid decline in the unemployment rate which had become unacceptable. Also over the period Canada experienced a reasonable and above all a stable inflation rate, and in real terms growth surpassed not only that in European countries and the United States but also in Japan, which gave this country the highest real economic growth rate in the world. That is the Canadian economic reality! A reality created by the excellence, expertise and productivity of our human resources and by the abundance of and demand for our natural resources on the international markets.
Mr. Speaker, despite our achievements over these last few years, the Canadian Government cannot afford to become complacent. More and more we are dealing with a strong international market, an international market where there is daily evidence of the impact of rapid technological change on the flow of goods and even services between businesses and individuals of various countries. An international market that is constantly changing, a market that is becoming increasingly global, a market that results in the creation of larger and larger, stronger and stronger trading blocks.
And therein lies one of the basic reasons for the Canadian Government and for Canadians as they did on

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
November 21st to enter into a Free Trade Agreement with our most important trading partner, the United States of America.
This is in order to gain access to a market that compares to the European market or the Asian market. It is in order to gain secure access to that market that is so important, and also to gain the ability to solve our differences on a bilateral basis, on a final basis, so as to minimize the negative impact of disputes that can arise in day-to-day trade.
Mr. Speaker, naturally the free trade deal applies to the big companies. But the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States also apply to the small businesses, and, I should add, to the very small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, growth for all these businesses is what the Canadian Government, along with the people of Canada, wants to ensure by signing this historical free trade deal with the United States. We also want, Mr. Speaker, to ensure our future, and the future of our children, within a constantly changing global economic environment.
Today, I would particularly like to address four major issues. I shall speak first about industrial development, second about regional development, third about the impact of the free trade deal on the development of the science and technology industries, and finally about the ajustment process, an issue the Opposition has raised several times.
Let me start by responding to some of the comments heard from the Opposition. They have claimed that the Free Trade Agreement meant the sellout of the Canadian economy, that the Americans could, at any given time, buy any company they wanted and americanize it. Mr. Speaker, people realize that during the past century Canada has been blessed with economic growth precisely because a lot of men and women from abroad came to invest in a country with a promising and challenging future, a country with opportunities to create jobs and wealth, in short a country which had a lot more to offer than they could ever hope to find in their countries of origin.
The free trade deal does not change anything to that fact. It will certainly make it easier to attract the capital investment we need to create jobs in the immediate future, as we have been doing over the past four years.
But more particularly we realize that these investments from abroad contribute to our own expansion.
They come not only from the United States but also from many other countries which will follow in our footsteps towards freer trade.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, some people say that is all very nice, but by doing that we are selling off our sovereignty, we are selling off our economy, we are selling off our very identity. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that history indicates that this kind of investment does not threaten anything we have in Canada. Canada's trade practices, Canada's standards and Canada's criteria will be fully respected as our country continues to face up to the economic challenge of the coming century. The quality of life and the working conditions of the Canadian industrial labour force is not threatened, and the very survival of Canada's industrial sector is no longer in doubt.
In terms of investment, Mr. Speaker, that is what the free trade deal means. The deal tells our American colleagues that they are welcome to share in Canada's economic development and economic future as long as they are prepared to abide by our laws and respect our standards.
Now a few words about industrial development.
The Free Trade Agreement with the United States will benefit small businesses as well as big businesses in this country. As for the 1986 census, over 4 million Canadians were employed in businesses employing fewer than 100 persons. This represented approximately 41 per cent of total private sector employment in Canada. As we all know, it has been the small business sector which has shown the greatest rate of job creation over the past few years.
In a recent Canadian Federation of Independent Business survey released in September, 1988, which sought to elicit the opinions of small businesses on the impact of the FTA, a full 40 per cent of the survey respondents expect the impact to be beneficial to their businesses. Only 7 per cent of member firms indicated they might be adversely affected by the FTA. I believe that speaks eloquently for the projection that the small business community in this country and, as I mentioned earlier on, the small, small business community in this country, will benefit from the Free Trade Agreement.
We now turn to regional development. We have heard a lot of stories about regional development over the last few months on the campaign trail and even before.
December 19, 1988

In regard to regional development in the FTA, arguments have been put forward in the House, and on the campaign trail to the effect that through the Free Trade Agreement we have somehow given up our right to utilize regional development programs. Now, no responsible government, especially not this one of which I am proud to be a part, is going to give up or jeopardize its ability to promote and sustain regional development in any way, shape or form.
Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker, this Government has put in place regionally based economic development and diversification agencies, backed them with a budgetary clout and resources to deliver effective programs and services. They are working, and they are working very well, so well that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said during the campaign that he would retain them, albeit in a somewhat altered state. He recognized the potential of the Western Diversification Agency of FEDNOR, of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and of the Canada-Quebec Economic Regional Entente. Perhaps he also recognized that given the problematic history of regional development in Canada such program initiatives must be sustained over a prolonged period in order to be effective. Short-term fixes do not work in this game. We believe the answer lies in sustained regionally based and delivered programming within the regions.
There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement, nothing, that limits our abilities in this regard. The FTA does not limit Canada's rights to use subsidies in the promotion of regional development.
As we have explained so many times in this place and elsewhere, regional development programs are not mentioned in the agreement and do not come under the rules of the GATT. It is in accordance with GATT that both we and the U.S. retain the ability to take action against unfair subsidies of another nation if such subsidies arm competing industries in the other nation. That is how it was before the FTA. That is how it will be during the FTA and that is how it would have been had the deal not proceeded. So nothing has changed. We will continue to be able to put forth responsible regional economic development programs. None of this prevents us from making available to our businesses both big and small regional development programs, regional tax breaks, and industry-specific initiatives so long as they are generally available and consistently applied.
I would now like to say a few words about another topic that has come up time and time again, that of adjustment. I wish to start off on the question of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
adjustment by making a very fundamental point, a point that is often overlooked in this House and certainly more often than not overlooked by our colleagues opposite when they are out of this House.
There are two sides to the adjustment coin. Obviously there may be some downside adjustments, and there are downside adjustments in this economy every year and have been for decades. There are programs to deal with those. Those programs have generally proven to be quite efficient. But as we look beyond the end of this decade, as we look to the next decade and into the next century, as we look to the Free Trade Agreement, what we must look at without forgetting the potential for downward adjustment, is the potential for upward adjustment. We have opened a very wide door. We have opened for ourselves a door to a market of 250 million people. We have opened for our people, our young people, for our business people, small and big, opportunities that have never existed before. We have given them the chance to become more productive, more competitive, more globally oriented, and to participate fully in a rapidly expanding world economy.
What are we going to do to help them cross that door? I would like to quote very briefly from the terms of reference of the Advisory Council on Adjustment, the de Grandpre Commission. Its terms of reference were to point out the extent to which we believe Government can play a role in upward adjustment as well as in all other adjustments that may be required. The first item in the terms of reference reads as follows: "The Council's terms of reference include the following: one, examining the possibilities for Canadian businesses and workers to position themselves to benefit from the agreement".
That is a very positive statement which clearly indicates the will of the Government to assist Canadians from coast to coast to seize this opportunity to cross that door and become the type of world citizens they really are, and to benefit fully from the opportunities that lie in a market-place of 250 million to 275 million people.

On the topic of adjustments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about another adjustment mechanism that the current Government has set up to prepare employers and employees and enable them to benefit fully from the many opportunities that will be provided by the new Free Trade Agreement with the United States. I refer here to the new Department of Industry, Science and

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Technology, whose mandate is to ensure the international competitiveness of Canadian industry and promote a high standard of business excellence.
Why such a mandate? Because we need to feel secure in Canada and because we must be assured of our role as a leading industrialized nation on the international market. More and more, we must turn to research and development and new technological applications, as well as maintain our traditional strengths in the areas of investment, management, human resources and marketing.
The Government, industry and the academic and research sectors will have to work more closely together, Mr. Speaker. The new Department of Industry, Science and Technology has begun work in three key areas which will form the very basis of all its activities and enable Canadian businesses to become more competitive on world markets.
They include the provision of aid to strategic technologies and to initiatives to improve the competitiveness of industry, and the provision of information and development services to businesses.
Strategic technologies are particularly important to the new Department because they affect a wide range of industries and businesses. In addition, the Department has set aside significant funds for the creation of alliances between businesses, business groups, research institutions and Canadian business groups and their foreign partners. Such alliances, Mr. Speaker, can help to plan and carry out precompetitive research and development work or develop state-of-the-art technological applications.

These initiatives already under way seek to put our industries on a competitive footing with our major trading partners. We in this country have the brains and resources to enable us to compete with anyone and everyone in the world. This Government is committed to putting into action the best of what we have in terms of technology to meet the challenges ahead. I can only tell you, Mr. Speaker, with the commitment of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), with the commitment of this Government, with the brains, the know-how, the willingness, the productivity of Canadians, and particularly with their hope for the future, we shall succeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to have the opportunity to rise
in the House today and participate in my own small way in one of the most, if not the most, significant debates the country has faced this century. Bill C-2, the free trade Bill, will set the country on a different path which in the long run, I am afraid, will be detrimental to this great country.
I wish to make one point clear at the start. It is a point which has been made many times before, but because of the Conservatives, it must be made again. During the campaign and since, certain members of the Conservative Party have misled Canadians by stating that it is the only Party in favour of free trade. That is simply false. We in the New Democratic Party are not opposed to free trade. We believe in free trade as much as anyone else. Free trade is a motherhood issue, and we take no dispute with the concept of free trade. It was a conscious effort on the part of the Conservative Party to mislead Canadians to believe that if Canadians did not vote Conservative, trade with the United States would collapse.
In the Province of Saskatchewan, the Conservatives collaborated with Premier Devine, who indicated that if Canadians did not elect a Progressive Conservative majority government, the doors to trade with the United States would be slammed shut. They were very strong words. The Conservatives, including Premier Devine, were quick to accuse New Democrats of scare tactics. The rhetoric carried on by Mr. Devine, especially in his capacity as Premier of Saskatchewan, was not only unfortunate but outrageous, and a disgrace to the office he holds.
We heard more of the unfortunate rhetoric that has been taking place from the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). A few moments ago the Deputy Prime Minister indicated in the House that the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett), the former Premier of British Columbia and now a member of the New Democratic caucus, had changed his views on free trade. The Deputy Prime Minister pointed to an agreement in 1973 whereby the four western Premiers had supported free trade.
The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has not changed his position on free trade. He is for free trade, as is every other member in the New Democratic caucus. We are not opposed to free trade. We are opposed to this Bill, the Prime Minister's trade Bill. In fact, if anyone has changed his or her opinion, it has been the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). In the past he indicated that he was opposed to free trade. Every major cabinet Minister in the Government was opposed to free
December 19, 1988

trade except the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie).
Members of the Government entered into personal attacks during the campaign. They brought politics to the base and disgustingly low levels that American politics have reached in the recent past. They have attempted to Americanize Canadian politics, and they are attempting to Americanize Canadian society. They have done a disservice to Canada on both counts.
Since the end of World War II we have been moving progressively toward free trade. In fact, 80 per cent of Canada-U.S. trade is tariff-free. Since its formation in the late 1940s, GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, has succeeded in moving closer and closer to free trade. We in the New Democratic Party are not opposed to GATT. GATT, with its membership of over 90 nations, is supported by the New Democratic Party as a means of moving toward freer trade.
Why are we opposed to Mr. Mulroney's trade deal? We are opposed to it because it is not in the best interests of Canada, and particularly of western Canada, which is where my concern lies. And it is not in the best interests of western Canada as it will severely restrict regional development programs.
We are opposed to the deal because of the possible detrimental effects it will have on the Canadian Wheat Board. We are opposed to it because it fails to achieve guaranteed access for Canadians to the American market, something which the Progressive Conservative Party said was essential if we were to sign a free trade deal. We are opposed to this deal because it establishes a disputes settlement mechanism which is nothing more than a toothless tiger.
Western Canadians, Mr. Speaker, have always been concerned with the lack of influence that we have had in this country, given the power and dominance of central Canada. Under the Free Trade Agreement, we will have even less influence, given that the decisions will be made less and less in Toronto and Ottawa and more and more in New York and Washington. It is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that the free trade deal is not good for western Canada, and that is why we in the New Democratic Party stand opposed to it.
I should like to focus on a couple of areas that are of particular concern to the riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Agriculture is a primary industry for the riding, and one of the key elements in the agricultural sector in
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
western Canada is the Canadian Wheat Board, as it has been since its establishment in the 1930s. Contrary to what many believe, the Canadian Wheat Board was originally established by the Progressive Conservative Party-and today we have a Progressive Conservative Government that is putting the future of that board in jeopardy.
It is well known that, for a long time, the Americans have been desirous of seeing the Canadian Wheat Board eliminated. Regardless of whether Bill C-2 is passed, the Americans are out to dismantle or at least shackle the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to effectively operate.
Bill C-2, the Free Trade Bill, simply gives the Americans one more opportunity to attack the Canadian Wheat Board. The actions of the United States very much place in doubt that country's commitment to the spirit of the agreement, as is evidenced by the U.S. Omnibus Trade Bill and the recent decision by the U.S. to retain the tariff on shakes and shingles.
One issue of concern in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board has to do with whether or not that board will be seen as a subsidy. The Americans do not like the fact that a farmer is given an initial price and then later, depending upon what the grain is ultimately sold for, a final payment. The Americans consider that to be unfair. They do not like it. They will be pressing to have the Canadian Wheat Board operated in the same way that any private grain marketing company would be operated.
If the Americans have their way, the Canadian Wheat Board will be forced to offer a single price to the farmer, and it will be the farmer's choice to take it or leave it. Such a policy will restrict the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to market grains abroad.
A second concern in respect of the Canadian Wheat Board relates to loss over quality control. Once subsidy levels in both countries are harmonized, Canadian import restrictions on wheat, oats and barley must be removed.
Canadians have a world-wide reputation for high quality grains, a reputation much better than that of the U.S., and it is inevitable that some inferior American grains entering Canada will end up in Canadian export markets. Once the Canadian Wheat Board restrictions are removed, it will be difficult to have them re-imposed.
The provisions dealing with end use certificates in respect of grains imported into Canada are designed to

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
protect Canada in that respect. However, the Free Trade Agreement does not make end use certificates mandatory; it simply states that end use certificates may be employed. If it is not a requirement that end use certificates be employed, American grains coming into Canada will end up in Canadian export markets.
I want to make it clear to the Prime Minister and to the Progressive Conservative Party that I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party are not about to sit idly by while this Government allows Americans to remove the Canadian Wheat Board as an effective marketing tool for western Canadian grain producers. We shall continue to speak out on this subject, both in this House and elsewhere in the country.
I should like to now focus on a specific industry in Moose Jaw, Mr. Speaker, an industry for whose future 1 greatly fear. The company I have in mind is CanaDay's, which is one of only two dress slack manufacturers in western Canada.
Located in Moose Jaw, CanaDay's was originally owned by an American conglomerate which, a few years ago, decided to close its Moose Jaw operations. Some local residents invested their own capital and took a risk when the American company left Moose Jaw high and dry. The CanaDay's plant, Mr. Speaker, employs approximately 150 workers, many of whom are single parent women. A plant of that size is significant in terms of a city of less than 36,000 people. I am afraid that, with the passage of Bill C-2, the Progressive Conservative Government, like the American conglomerate before it, will be leaving Moose Jaw high and dry.
CanaDay's now has two advantages: A Canadian tariff that is imposed upon similar American-made products coming into Canada and the lower Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar. Under Bill C-2, that tariff will be eliminated; and it is a very good bet that, as the so-called level playing field takes shape, the value of the Canadian dollar will rise to parity with the American dollar.
When that happens, CanaDay's very likely will be unable to compete with American products. And this is not because Canadian workers are inefficient vis-a-vis U.S. workers or that the CanaDay's plant is inefficient; rather, it is because American plants located in close proximity to cotton fields will have a distinct economic advantage. As well, working conditions and wages are far superior in Moose Jaw to what they are in the southern United States, where many of the states have no minimum wage whatsoever.
The potential loss of 150 jobs in a city the size of Moose Jaw is very serious indeed. As for the investors, they will simply be out of luck. This is what the Conservatives call free enterprise.
What about the workers? For months now the Prime Minister has been bragging about what he calls his blue ribbon committee, a committee with a mandate to provide assistance for workers adversely affected by the Free Trade Agreement. The Prime Minister has stated that his Government will provide some of the finest programs anywhere. He further stated that this blue ribbon committee would table an interim report on December 16, 1988.
As it turned out, that report was not forthcoming. In fact, it has now become clear that this blue ribbon committee has done little since it was first appointed over 11 months ago.
When Gordon Cummings, the Chief Executive of National Sea Products Ltd. and one of the members of this blue ribbon panel, was asked how that panel was going to help workers get off their feet, he said that Canadians "should get off their butts". That, Mr. Speaker, will be of little comfort to the workers of CanaDay's, many of whom are single parent women, women who are doing what they can to hold on to their families, to hold them together, while at the same time bringing home a pay cheque.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cummings' remarks constitute an insult to hard working Canadians right across this nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Laporte: These women and other workers at CanaDay's are not sitting on their butts. They are working hard and hoping that their jobs do not disappear.
The attitude of this blue ribbon panel, and that of the Prime Minister, is indicative of the lack of concern that this Government has shown, not only toward the workers in CanaDay's, but for people throughout the Province of Saskatchewan and the entire country.
It is not the workers at CanaDay's who should get off their butts. It is the Government that should get off its butt. It is the so-called blue ribbon committee that should get off its butt. They should be providing proper assistance for these and other workers. If the Conservatives, both federally and provincially, got off their butts,
December 19, 1988

the economies of Moose Jaw and other communities in Saskatchewan would not be in the sorry state they are in today. The lack of concern the Government has shown toward Saskatchewan has been noticed by Saskatchewan residents. They made that very clear on November 21 when 10 of the 14 Members of Parliament elected from Saskatchewan to this House were New Democrats.
I think that speaks volumes about the record of the Government.
I would like to conclude by saying that, as with the Canadian Wheat Board, my colleagues and I in the NDP will be doing whatever we can to ensure that neither the workers nor the investors in CanaDay's are unjustly or unfairly dealt with. The Government may refuse to listen to the Opposition. It may refuse to entertain amendments to provide greater security for western Canada. However, we in the NDP will be monitoring this Bill and doing whatever we can to limit as much as possible the unfortunate effects we know it will have on many Canadians. We will suggest and promote measures where appropriate. In that light I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding immediately after
the words "industries and communities" the following:
"and because events since November 21st, including unilateral U.S. decision on shakes and shingles, and the many announced plant shutdowns, have demonstrated these serious political and economic losses,"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will take the amendment under advisement for now and we will proceed with debate with the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to return to the House of Commons, having been re-elected by one's fellow citizens in one's riding. I want to commend you and your associates in the chair for the high honour bestowed upon you, and I wish you well.
I want to continue the dialogue on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, a dialogue which has been going on in Canada for some period of time. This dialogue was taken up by Canadians from coast to coast in the last federal election. The vigour and passion of this national debate gave Canadians the opportunity to explore some of the important issues we as parliamentarians must deal with as we approach the next century.
Front and centre in the debate has been Canada's social programs and our ability to introduce new ones while maintaining the integrity of those we already have
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
in place. I feel it is important to address these issues even though Canadians have clearly indicated what vision of the country they prefer. Through the tradition of parliamentary democracy, Canadians have considered the options and given a historic second mandate to this Government. Nevertheless, as a responsible Government, it is incumbent upon us to respond to the concerns which motivate the Canadian public.
The immediate answer for those concerned about our social programs is that the Free Trade Agreement leaves Canadians free to follow the same independent path they have always chosen on this key policy matter. However, such an answer, while factually correct, does not recognize the legitimate motivation behind the concerns expressed. This is a legitimacy not necessarily arising out of an intimate familiarity with the provisions of the FTA, but a legitimacy founded on concern for the fundamental values which have helped distinguish the character of our country.
Canadians are proud of their unique heritage and the sovereign choices Canada has made over the past century. This heritage is built upon certain basic principles. If one of these principles is exclusively pursued at the expense of other equally important issues, then we start to unravel the fabric of our society rather than strengthening it. So our reputation as world class traders and, equally, as a compassionate and caring society, are basic components of our national character. To pursue one of these at the expense of the other is to weaken our national identity. We trade and become wealthy for it. However, if we pursue this goal while sacrificing our social policy, then we forfeit an essential aspect of our identity.
Therefore, I would like to set the record straight today and fully air those concerns expressed over our sovereign ability to follow any social policy deemed best for Canada by Canadians.
Canadians have built one of the most compassionate societies anywhere. Our system of social programs is something we are rightly proud of and naturally anxious to protect. Certainly no Canadian politician could advocate the weakening of these programs for the sake of a trade deal and still entertain the reasonable hope of attaining the right to govern in this country.
The reason we must pursue a fair trade policy is because Canada is a trading nation. The purpose behind trade negotiations is to create a stable environment for investment decisions. That is the express purpose of GATT and the central purpose of the Free Trade

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Agreement. GATT rules, which form the basic premise of the FTA, are not only concerned with the role trade barriers play in determining the level of imports and exports, but how the rules of trade allow the business community to plan for the future.
The effect of subsidies on trade and the application of countervailing duties by national Governments often hinder these plans and are among the most controversial trade issues of the 1980s. That fact has been marked in this House in the past year as I am sure it will be in this Parliament as well.
During the course of the FTA negotiations, Canada and the U.S. attempted to establish a subsidies code but an agreement has not yet been reached. However, under Article 1907 of the agreement we will seek to develop more effective rules and disciplines concerning the use of government subsidies over the next five to seven years. Such rules would go a long way in settling the shifting sands of what can or cannot be countervailed as an unfair subsidy. Nevertheless, the ground upon which these negotiations will be built already has an undeniable degree of stability.
Many Canadians have expressed concern that in the negotiating of this list Canada will be forced to do away with some social programs because they would be earmarked as unfair subsidies. A review of the facts surrounding the nature of the subsidy then goes a long way in reassuring Canadians that social programs are safe from receiving the label of unfair subsidy.
Under the subsidies code in the GATT, Canada, the United States, and other members of the international trading community have agreed that domestic subsidies are permissible if they are not specific to a given industry or company. That is, if those programs, in the words of the GATT, are generally available to the citizens of the country. Therefore, programs generally available to individuals are not countervailable because they are not targeted to a specific industry or enterprise. That means the U.S. Department of Commerce and Revenue Canada equally can legitimately countervail only those subsidies specific to an industry or group of industries. That has been the case under GATT since 1947. Canada's social programs are generally available to individuals in Canada. They are, therefore, both historically and presently, not countervailable.
In the bilateral context this issue was examined in 1985. A countervail action was brought against Canadian groundfish because unemployment insurance payments to Canadian fishermen were considered an unfair
subsidy by some Americans. The U.S. Department of Commerce ruled against the American complaint and held that because unemployment insurance was generally available to fisherman, it could not be considered an unfair subsidy. Judy Bello, chief legal adviser to U.S. trade representative Clayton Yeutter has recently confirmed the very basis for this decision and it is important that we take note of it.
Obviously, medicare, like all social programs, such as unemployment insurance, education, child care, old age pensions, workmen's compensation, and family allowances, just to name a few, are not industry specific but are generally available. Therefore it follows that under the GATT, or under the FTA, these services cannot be considered unfair subsidies.
Given the fact that social programs are not prohibited subsidies, Canada refused to discuss them during the negotiation of the Free Trade Agreement. Canada does not expect the U.S. to raise social programs during the next five to seven years when we sit down to attempt to define better trading rules. If, however, the Americans should attempt to argue that social programs should be the subject of negotiations, Canada will take the same position we have in the past-we will say no. That no is based very clearly both on the GATT and on historical and legal precedents.
Canadians can rest assured that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) signed this historic agreement he was fully satisfied, as were his Ministers, in particular the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that nothing in the agreement could be a threat to our sovereignty in the area of social policy.
Beside the future negotiations on subsidies, some Canadians have expressed concern about the actual agreement. They have seen certain individuals point to passages of the text of the Free Trade Agreement as "proof' that the agreement threatens Canada's social programs. Of course, on reflection, these individuals were simply seeking justification for their own opposition to the agreement and not relying on careful analysis or credible policy advice.
One person who has the ability to give both credible policy advice on health care and understand the text of the agreement is the former Supreme Court Justice who headed the task force that recommended medicare, Justice Emmett Hall. When Justice Hall called a press conference to explain why nothing in the agreement endangers medicare he stated: "I can tell you this, if I
December 19, 1988

found that there was in the Free Trade Agreement provisions which would damage medicare or destroy it as is being argued 1 would have opposed the agreement".
This conclusion is also supported by the members of the Canadian College of Health Service executives who sponsored a working session on the impact of free trade on Canada's health care system. In a national survey, those executives revealed that the only effects that could be anticipated from the Free Trade Agreement were indirect at best, and favourable.
I remind my hon. friends opposite that in 1983 their Government and my immediate predecessor in this portfolio put forward exactly such a plan in the Hawkes-bury model. I find it passing strange that in 1983 it was no threat to social programs or our health care delivery system but suddenly in 1988 it is.
Most of the detractors of the agreement have stopped waving copies of it around and now concede that there is nothing in the text of the agreement that endangers social programs. It was interesting to watch that shift during the election. The part of the text that originally caused so much excitement is the reference in Chapter 14 to "health care facilities and management services". These include services such as laundry, cleaning, food service, payroll and inventory to name a few.
Those who are still concerned over the provisions of Chapter 14 should take the time to look at Chapter 13. This chapter excludes provincial procurement from the trade agreement so that the national treatment requirements do not apply to the provincial procurement of health care management services. These services are mentioned in the agreement because Canadian negotiators wanted them included because our high level of expertise in this area gives us an advantage in the open American market. American hospitals tend to be privately run and tender for private sector management. Canadian hospitals are generally not private and will not tender for private management services unless-and this is the key phrase-provincial authorities first approve such a move. That is on the basis of any reading of our Constitution.
Moreover, in the event that a Canadian hospital was authorized to grant service contracts to private management, medicare as a policy and medical care as a service would not be affected in any way. Furthermore, there is nothing in the agreement that could force any provincial Government to privatize any part of its health care system, again, unless it chose to do so. Even then it
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
would have to conform to the Canada Health Act in relation to public administration.
Even if a provincial Government decides to permit the private sector to perform a health care management service, that province has the right to allow only Canadian firms to bid on the contract. Clearly, if one reads the document one is forced to conclude that there is simply no basis for the allegations that medicare will be eroded by the Free Trade Agreement. The Canada Health Act, which reaffirms the principles of medicare, such as universality and accessibility, is in no way compromised by the Free Trade Agreement.
Finally, when all else fails detractors of free trade attempt to stir up concern among Canadians by pointing to some vague, unseen force, a political poltergeist which will force Canadians to abandon the foundations and institutions of our compassionate society in favour of a nebulous common denominator rising across the 49th parallel. However, any examination of Canadian history leads us to a different conclusion.
During the last 50 years Canada has been lowering its trade barriers with the United States. Today, 80 per cent of our trade with the United States is already duty free. Yet Canada has not been forced to cut back on its social programs. In fact, quite the opposite has happened. During the last half century while we have been moving toward free trade with the U.S. our economy has flourished. A strong economy has enabled Canada to establish a caring society with social programs such as medicare and old age pensions.
What is the bottom line? The bottom line is that the Free Trade Agreement does not oblige us in any way to harmonize existing policies with the United States. Any such attempts would be unacceptable to the Canadian people and unacceptable to this Government. Nor does free trade threaten those institutions which have served the Canadian health care system so well.
During the heated debate concerning the agreement, many allegations were made. A characteristic allegation concerns how free trade will affect Canada's system of blood supply. It is quite remarkable that some individuals believe that the Government would sacrifice an institution like the Canadian Red Cross for a concession in international commerce. As I said at the outset, it is my responsibility to lay to rest those concerns which Canadians have expressed.
Fet me state quite unequivocally that Canada's nonprofit system of blood collection and supply is not at any risk under free trade. In Canada in fact the current

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
system of blood collection and supply administered through the Red Cross is not for profit. This system can be maintained and enhanced. There is nothing in the agreement that places any obligations on the Government with respect to not for profit activities. But what I must remind Hon. Members of is that we buy approximately 70 per cent of our blood product supply right now. In order to be able to do that, obviously, there has to be the protection between the two countries from where most of the supply comes.
Perhaps some confusion has arisen because the commercial operation of private blood banks is covered by the services chapter of the FTA. This is not particularly surprising as private blood banks are currently allowed to operate in Canada. One has been operating in Montreal since last January, and an Australian blood bank firm has incorporated in Canada. But the role of these commercial enterprises is distinct from the role of a not for profit institution such as the Red Cross. Private banks are used by individuals who wish to store their own blood over longer periods of time than the Red Cross can accommodate. So the Government is free to regulate privately run for profit blood banks in any manner Canadians desire, as long as it does not discriminate against American service providers.
This means that if for some reasons Canadians decided that for profit blood banks were undesirable, the Government could prohibit them as long as the prohibition affects both Canadian and U.S. enterprises equally. This is not only fair, but it does not in any way threaten Canada's not-for-profit system of blood banks. The agreement imposes no obligations on provincial governments in terms of the purchase of blood products. Therefore the Red Cross may continue as the sole supplier to provincial governments in Canada's health care system.
As Minister of National Health and Welfare, it has been a privilege to see how strongly Canadians feel about our system of social programs. Concern over the system's integrity is natural when considering their importance to our society. The Free Trade Agreement was negotiated with this importance clearly in mind. Nothing was allowed on to the negotiating table that might diminish the role social programs play in Canada.
The agreement is about commerce. It was negotiated out of a belief that Canada can compete. I know that in my province Manitobans are looking forward to the opportunities this agreement will bring. Free trade will not come as a surprise to Manitobans. As a province of entrepreneurs, manufacturers, farmers who know the
benefits of international trade and what it can bring, we are experiencing and adjusting to new situations and evolving international economy. We have to keep in mind that we are only approximately one million people.
Obviously it goes without saying that our domestic market is too small to in any way absorb the kind of production we are capable of in Manitoba. I think that would apply in most provinces across our country.
This agreement will be phased in gradually over a 10-year period, allowing sufficient time for Manitobans and Canadians to adapt to changing market conditions. Canada already has adjustment programs in place with a proven capacity to meet the adjustment requirements free trade may bring. These programs demonstrate the Government's commitment to assist in economic adjustment as Canada continues along the path of trade liberalization.
We are keen to continue down this path in Manitoba. Our trading heritage is evident in the fact that 56 per cent of all that Manitoba exports goes to the United States. The Canada West Foundation has concluded that over 48,000 jobs in Manitoba are in industries which will directly benefit from secure enhanced access to the U.S. market.
During Question Period Members said that only 250,000 net jobs would result according to the Economic Council of Canada, and that this is not significant. It is approximately the same number of jobs as exist in the entire City of Winnipeg. When we put it in those kinds of practical terms, I do not think anyone would suggest the elimination of those jobs or say that they are not significant.
Under free trade, not only will jobs be secured and enhanced, they will be created. This means more jobs in the key sectors of Manitoba's economy.
For example, I opened a curling rink just the other day. That may not be very important to some people in the House but in rural Manitoba curling is important. The gentleman told me that his business was building strand steel types of buildings. He said that during the election campaign he had a cancellation of one of his buildings. After the election campaign and the result, the commitment was renewed. The gentleman clearly said that the Free Trade Agreement is essential to his expansion.
I know what is needed in Manitoba to enhance free trade. It is, for example, the completion of a highway to
December 19, 1988

combine us with the United States highway system in order to have a transportation system that will take advantage of the opportunities that exist. Those are the practical matters we must address in a free trade agreement.
I am talking about sectors such as mining in northern Manitoba and communities such as Thompson, Flin Flon and Lynn Lake, forestry in The Pas or Swan River, or hydroelectric power throughout the North. In the City of Winnipeg the FTA will benefit workers employed in the transportation, equipment, machinery, communications and computer equipment industries.
I had a study done by our counsel in Minneapolis in order to have a practical demonstration of what it might mean to be living right next to the U.S.-Canadian border. What will free trade mean for us? The advantage was a 15 to one ratio. Do Members opposite think that any of us would be responsible as Members from Manitoba if we do not pursue that kind of free trade agreement with such advantages?
The Free Trade Agreement is good. It is good from a commercial point of view. Equally important, it is good for us from a social policy point of view. As I meet with my counterparts throughout the world, especially in the Commonwealth, I see that countries which do not have the social programs are the countries not generating enough economic growth and enough economic wealth. There is no secret to it: The greatest threat to social programs is the inability of a society to develop the economic growth and wealth in order to have the kind of social programs we have in place now.
The real issue is whether the Free Trade Agreement affects social programs. The answer is yes, in a positive way. It gives us economic growth and the stability not only to maintain present programs but to expand them. That is why, as Minister of National Health and Welfare, I am proud to support this agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Earlier this afternoon, the Chair received an amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Laporte). The Chair finds the amendment to be in order. Resuming debate on the amendment.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, first I want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-appointment to the chair. Indeed, I want to extend my congratulations to the Speaker who was re-elected a few days ago in the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
House. I want to offer my congratulations to all Members of the House, particularly those who are coming to Parliament for the first time.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). The Minister gave his usual speech to this Chamber. He addressed himself, as he always does, directly to the people of Manitoba. He assured the people of Manitoba, this House and through it all Canadians that now that the election is over they ought to relax and breathe easy. They ought to be content as we move into Christmas, knowing that no grinch will steal their Christmas and, indeed, their country, and that free trade is all the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised it to be and more.
I thought the Minister delivered those remarks with a great deal of passion and sincerity. I sat in my chair and found myself almost wanting to applaud. Then I had a great sense of deja vu. I remembered when he assured us this was free and fair trade. I remember the day he stood in the House and said: "You can count on a free and fair bidding system".
I am sure many in the Province of Manitoba hear the Minister, as chief spokesman for the Tory Government tell them during the election that they should trust the Tories, they had a sense of deja vu as well. They remember the Government saying: "Trust us on the CF-18". The people of Manitoba know what happened to the Province of Manitoba and the CF-18. They were shafted by the Government. They heard the same pious remarks by the Minister. That is why the people in the Province of Manitoba spoke. They spoke by sending the new Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Harvard). They spoke by sending a Liberal Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy), the Liberal Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Walker), the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Pagtakhan) and the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Duhamel). Five Liberals in the House of Commons. The people of Manitoba have heard the syrupy, soothing words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare before. They have spit them back and delivered unto the House of Commons five righteous Liberals, here to serve the cause of Canada and reject this free trade deal.
I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to thank my constituents in the riding of Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte for the confidence they showed in me. It was a tough campaign.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Just as in Manitoba where the Minister of National Health and Welfare was providing the people of Manitoba with the virtues of free trade, we had in Newfoundland the Government's chief salesman on free trade. The Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) led the charge for the Government in the Province of Newfoundland. He told Newfoundlanders they could burn their boats and go home, for the new industrial factories would be built in the morn and never again would Newfoundlanders have to struggle, clinging on with their fingers to the rocks on the edge of the salt water to earn a living from the fishery. New industrial factories were being built everywhere because, God bless us, we have free trade.
As usual, Newfoundlanders demonstrated common sense. In Newfoundland they elected five Liberals out of seven.
It is time to set the record straight. Minister after Minister and Member after Member on the Conservative side of the House stood in their place, straightened their backbone, puffed out their chest and said "We want". It is as simple as that, and on we go with free trade.
The reality is that in the election just fought in this country the Government won a mandate under the British parliamentary system. They won the most seats in the House and under the British parliamentary system it no doubt gives the Government not only the right, but the power by virtue of its majority. When they pull off the silk glove, when they close their eyes to the silky carpet and the posh surroundings and do away with the notion of tradition, it is power that the Government won, parliamentary power, to proceed with free trade. However, it did not win the hearts, minds and souls of Canadians. Fifty-seven per cent of Canadians said no to the trade deal.
My arithmetic is very good. We on this side of the House are here to speak for a majority of Canadians who have rejected the sell-out of this country and want to go on sailing our own ship in the international sea, masters of our own fate, captain of our own vessel, fastening our sail, and not becoming a tugboat tied on to the American vessel being chartered around the world.
Canadians have said no to the trade deal. In eight of ten provinces, including the province of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, a majority of Canadians said no to the trade deal. This country has not given the Government a mandate to sell out the nation.
Had we had a referendum, we would be saying today that the Government's vision for the future of this nation had been decisively defeated. The last time we saw a great referendum in this nation was in 1980, and in that referendum, 60 per cent of Quebecers decided. That was considered to be a decisive vote about the future of Quebec.
Fifty-seven per cent of Canadians have voted against the trade deal. Yet the Government is using closure, announcing in advance that it will not consider any amendments, announcing in advance it will not hear at all the views of those 57 per cent of Canadians who have properly participated in a democracy, who have sent their representatives and who have asked that their voices be heard and their amendments be considered. The Government has said, even in advance of seeing the amendments, that it will not listen. It will shut down debate. How much longer is it before we hear the sound of jackboots in the distance, coming to close down any semblance of democracy in this place? The Minister of National Health and Welfare laughs.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: At you.


M. Tobin:: He chuckles, he thinks this is funny. Yes, indeed, this is the same Minister who, though he found today the courage to stand after the election to defend this deal, could find neither the breath, the backbone nor the spine to stand in his place when his province was subjected to the most blatant act of political opportunism, when the people of Manitoba were denied the air contract, a contract they had won fair and square.
I was amused today by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) a former Leader of the NDP in the Province of British Columbia, a former premier, making his maiden speech. I expected that a former premier might want to share with us his views about the trade deal, and in particular, how the trade deal supersedes any Act not only of the Parliament of Canada but any Act of any provincial legislature. In other words, once this deal is passed and is law, this Chamber will be nothing but a pale echo of the real view of Canadians while those views are held subservient to the terms and conditions of the trade deal. The same applies to any provincial legislature, but we heard not a word from the new Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, not a word about the substance of the trade deal, not a word about how sovereignty, both in provincial legislatures and in the House of Commons will be lost. Instead, we heard what I thought was a ridiculous speech. We heard from a Member of the NDP who
December 19, 1988

lamented the Liberal Party's position on the trade deal during the election campaign.
It was not the Liberal Party that opened up the general election with a press conference and said not a word about the trade deal. That was the Leader of the NDP. It was not the Liberal Party that tried to pretend that the election was not about the trade deal. That was the Prime Minister in the first few weeks of the campaign and the Leader of the NDP. It was not the Liberal Party that had a meeting last weekend to try to figure out why our Party was more interested in personal power than in the future of this country. That was the NDP. If Hon. Members do not believe me, they should read Mr. White's letter.
While the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada was standing up for Canada, was standing up to be counted, saying where he stood on the trade deal, the Leader of the NDP was having night-time fantasies about being Leader of the Opposition. Members of the NDP do not need two special task forces to find out why they failed. They failed because Canadians recognized that this was a Party more seized with the lust for power than with the love of country. Shame on you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: There is another cynical player in this whole piece. It is not just Members of the NDP who forgot their raison d'etre. There is a third party that needs to be addressed here and that is the Canadian business community.
I belong to a free-enterprise Party. We support the free-enterprise system. We believe in rewarding individual success. We believe that the free enterprise system generates the most wealthy society and we also believe that government ought to be prepared to move in to redistribute some of that wealth so that we all get a fair share. However, the Canadian business community took advantage of a court decision affecting the Canada Elections Act to move in this election in an incredibly cynical manner. This is a loophole that this Parliament, if it has courage, integrity and guts, will close before there is another election.
The Conservative Party did not win this election in the normal sense of the word. No, the Canada Elections Act was brought in for one reason. It was brought in to ensure that any Member who wanted to come into this House would come because of the power of his or her ideas and the conviction and courage with which he or she were prepared to apply those ideas. It was meant to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
ensure that Parliament would not be the preserve of the powerful few but would be the voice representative of the many in society, that whether you came from Newfoundland and were a fisherman's son or whether you came from a privileged background, Canada's north or an ethnic minority group, you would have at least an equal opportunity to sit in this place and make your voice on behalf of constituents heard. That is what the Canada Elections Act is all about. Its purpose was to prevent this from being a posh private club belonging to a trendy and wealthy few.
What happened during this election campaign? The Act was perverted because the business community entered this campaign with a $3 million advertising campaign in the last 10 days of the election campaign. With $3 million, it bought this election for the Conservative Party. We had better have the courage to say it and we had better make up our minds now that we will close that loophole so that that kind of abuse, that kind of chicanery, that kind of hijacking of democracy, can never, ever happen again in this country.


Mr. Andre:: No confidence in the people.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I have every confidence in the people when the people are left to make their decisions.


John Horton McDermid: You just accused them of being bought. You don't have confidence in them at all.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we have across the way a gentleman who has so much empathy, understanding and compassion for the ordinary person that he actually claimed during the course of the election campaign that those who live on our cities' sidewalks, those who live under bridges, those who have neither roofs over their heads nor food for their bellies are there because it is a lifestyle and they like it. What the hell do you know about ordinary Canadians, the Minister of homelessness?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member would probably want to retract those statements because they are totally untrue. If the Hon. Member is using as his source the Toronto Star, then I would suggest he get a better research department.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think we should close that part of the debate and let the Hon. Member continue.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am sorry to get so excited and use such strong language. But those people who are sitting out there trying to find heating vents to stay warm on December 19 when we sit here in this splendorous House are not here to speak for themselves. If the Canada Elections Act is not fixed, they will never be here or have a representative to speak for them. I want to advise the Minister for homelessness that they are out there, and not by choice.
In Newfoundland 40 years ago we had an opportunity to fight this kind of an election campaign or at least participate in this kind of a democratic process.


An Hon. Member:: You were not born then.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is right, I was not born. But it is important, it is relevant, it is history. The whole world is not made up of just what is in today's newspaper, I advise the Minister of homelessness. History is a very important teacher. We should pay attention to it.
Newfoundlanders made a fundamental choice 40 years ago. The Hon. Member for St. John's West cast his first vote 40 years ago as a young Newfoundlander. He cast a vote for economic union between Newfoundland and the United States. There were two forces, one led by the father of the Hon. Member for St. John's West.


Mr. Cooper:: And Don Jamieson.


Brian Vincent Tobin: And Don Jamieson, that is correct. And one led by Joey Smallwood.
One group said that Newfoundland's future interests will be served by having economic union between Newfoundland and the United States. That group was funded and supported by a clique of Water and Duckworth Street merchants who wanted to keep things the way they always were. Fishermen brought in their fish. They were given a bit of molasses and flour, which fed them for the winter. They drove up their bills and, by God, they had to sell us their fish again next year because we had them in something we called "in collar" in Newfoundland. It was wrapped right around their necks. As long as we kept feeding their families, they would have to keep selling us their fish. That was the system and it was a cosy system.
The Water Street merchants looked at Confederation and said: "Well, that is a different system up there. I do not think our feudal system can survive the niceties of Confederation. So we will opt, finance and support a campaign for economic union with the United States".
The Member from St. John's West is proud to say that he cast his first vote for economic union with the United States.
It was an incredible campaign. It is referred to now as the battle for Canada, as we look back. Joey Smallwood, with the seat out of his pants, with nothing but the raggedly you-know-what artillery behind him went out and he took on those forces and he won the battle for Confederation. A referendum turned in a result that said Newfoundlanders would choose Canada. So we fought that battle 40 years ago and those who believed in Canada and the values of a tolerant, caring, and sharing nation won that battle.
Near 40 years later, last month, the battle was refought in Newfoundland and I am pleased to say refought with the same result. Newfoundlanders again said no to economic union between their country, Canada, and the United States.
Some Hon. Members. Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: They said yes to a strong independent nation. Why did they do that, Mr. Speaker? Because they know that when we talk about nationhood and when we talk about country, we cannot look at just the boundary lines and say that defines us as being different from them. We cannot just look at our flag and say we have a different flag than theirs and so that makes us different. We cannot just sing our national anthem and say we have a different song so that makes us different.
Newfoundlanders instinctively know that what defines us are not symbols of nationhood but the way we govern ourselves, the ability to be independent and not have to seek permission from anybody else when we make decisions for ourselves. Newfoundlanders opted again for a compassionate society, a free enterprise system- yes, we subscribe to that-but a government that is prepared to intervene to equalize opportunity across this land. That is the kind of Canada we believe in, a Canada that can reward success by one individual and celebrate it but yet would never hesitate to stoop down to help those who fall between the cracks and without whom this nation would not realize its full potential because they too should have their opportunity in this society.
Newfoundlanders believe that nationhood is defined when you have the ability to chart your own course, when you are truly masters in your own house, if I can equate the nation to the ship of state, and when you can
December 19, 1988

fasten your own sail and move in whatever direction is appropriate for your land.
This Bill may pass this House in the days ahead but it does not represent the end of the debate. It represents the beginning of the debate about what kind of Canada we are going to have. As long as 57 per cent of Canadians say no to the Prime Minister's subsidiary vision of Canada-he was president of IOCC an American subsidiary now he wants to be Prime Minister of an American subsidiary-as long as Canadians say no to that, I tell the Government the battle is not over. The battle has only begun. When the battle roars we in this party, the Liberal Party, will be on the front lines fighting for a strong, independent, proud Canada and we will continue that fight until we win.
[Translation\


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Secretary of State and Acting Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves again in this Chamber after Canadians have unequivocally renewed their support for this Government. Of course, this support was first and foremost given to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the policies put forward by his Government and to the vision we proposed to Canadians.
The election campaign that we have just been through was based mainly on one issue that gave rise to heated exchanges. This debate also gave Canadians the opportunity to consider two options for the future, to look at themselves in terms of their true identity and to choose the one that they considered most promising for the development of the country. The electorate showed that developing the national identity was not incompatible with openness to the world-far from it. Now that the people's verdict has democratically decided the question of free trade with the United States, it is up to us legislators to carry out the will of the people. On this side of the House, we want to do so calmly and respectfully, by once again explaining our choices, the underlying principles and the reasons why we believe that this treaty is an act of maturity, far-sightedness and deep faith in the future of Canada.
Our country's economy, whether in metropolitan areas, towns or outlying regions, is heavily dependent on exports. We are 25 million people on a vast territory, and most of us live on a narrow strip along the American border. Throughout our history, this geographic and demographic reality has forced us to be competitive, to be better than the rest if we hoped to succeed. We still
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
want to meet this challenge that we face every day, which we have always faced until now, so much so that our people do not just sell raw materials in the United States, Mr. Speaker. They invest, they create jobs and make profits there; they go after their share of this huge consumer market.
Furthermore, we live in an era when the economies of the whole world are tending to band together in increasingly close-knit and powerful blocs. This is true of the twelve European countries that in 1992 will constitute a unified body of 350 million people. It is true of the Asian countries that are beginning the same kind of process, while respecting the national independence of individual countries. Confronted with the rise of these major economic powers and the liberalization of international trade, Canadians have to choose between a week-kneed and so illusory recourse to protectionism, on one hand, and the challenge of openness and confidence in our abilities and talents, on the other.
We never claimed, Mr. Speaker, that free trade with the United States would be a rose garden. But we said, and we continue to believe firmly, that Canada's best development opportunities are in that direction. This message that we have been conveying to Canadians for many months was understood, as the results of November 21 attest. When the benefits of free trade will begin to be felt, more and more Canadians will realize that the Agreement is the road to our future. Not only will we provide guaranteed and stable access to U.S. markets, and, in the process, maintain and create hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next few years, but we will have done so at no cost to Canada's identity.
Canada is a country of great resources, a trading nation whose people enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. It is also a country which has, over the years, developed one of the best social systems. We are a caring society and we believe that government will and must have a role to play in reducing the disparities between the rich and the poor, men and women, regions rich in natural resources and regions with few natural resources.
In the last few months, and especially in the weeks before the election, defeatists cropped up everywhere and predicted nothing less than a national catastrophe if Canadians said yes to the Free Trade Agreement. Some people believed these prophets of doom and gloom. As we review this Agreement which is again before us, our role is to provide reassurance and information to stay any fears that may still remain about free trade.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We said it before the election and again after the election: Canada's social programs are here to stay. If we had had the least doubt in that regard, we would not have signed the Free Trade Agreement.
Besides, why would our social programs be threatened? Starting in 1935, trade tariffs were gradually removed and now 80 per cent of our trade with the United States is tariff-free. During that period, Canadian trade with the United States continued to grow. Nevertheless, it is in the last 53 years that the bulk of our social programs has been established. That never affected in any way our capacity to compete. Why should things be any different today? Why should continuity in our trade relationships bring about a break in our social and cultural traditions?
The villifiers of free trade are especially worried about those five to seven years during which we will define with our American partners what is a subsidy and which subsidies will come under the new rules developed by the task force.
According to them, that period of negotiation will result in the abolition of almost all our social programs, from old age security to unemployment insurance benefits through regional development assistance. They either ignore or forget to mention that we already have sure indications of the way those negotiations will go. Already, under the auspices of GATT, Canada and the United States recognize that internal subsidies are legitimate means to promote, for instance, economic and regional development. GATT does not limit the right of its members to use internal subsidies to reach such goals. What that clearly confirms is the capacity of Canada, within the free trade framework, to keep on fighting against regional disparities and allocating as many billions of dollars as we are putting into it now.
On the other hand, in 1985, the American Trade Department had rejected the claim of East Coast American fishermen that unemployment insurance benefits paid to Canadian fishermen were subsidies liable to countervailing duties.
Invoking more or less the same arguments, and taking advantage, it ought to be pointed out, of the Canadian people's interest in the issue, the opponents of free trade have tried to make us believe that the agreement would be a disaster for our environment. As the Prime Minister has entrusted me temporarily with the environment portfolio, it behooves me today to respond to the assertions made by certain groups opposed to the Free Trade Agreement. By signing the agreement, we have not
given up an iota of our sovereignty either in the field of social programs or with respect to our ability to maintain strict environmental protection programs.
During our first mandate, we passed environmental protection legislation which ranks among the most exacting in the world. We took vigorous measures to reduce chemical pollution. We invested millions of dollars for cleaning up our waterways, whether it be the Great Lakes, the Saint-Lawrence or the port of Flalifax, to name only a few initiatives.
Canada has adhered to the concept of "sustainable development", which entails that economic development must be subordinated to environmental considerations. We set up a task force on environment and the economy, further to the suggestion made by the United Nations Commission on Environment, whose Chairperson Mrs. Brundtland, Premier of Norway, underlined Canada's contribution as a world leader in the fight for the protection of the environment.
All those actions were actions by a sovereign nation aware of the gigantic steps that remain to be taken for its citizens to have purer air and cleaner water.
To suggest that the Free Trade Agreement with the United States will affect our ability to do that is sheer speculation and, as much as I regret to say, demagogy.
Some groups also stated the Agreement would force Canada to harmonize its environmental standards with those of the United States. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Quite the opposite, the Agreement recognizes our right to maintain and create environmental conservation policies. As a matter of fact, the Agreement includes no requirement of any kind for the harmonization of standards.
Others further submitted that under the Free Trade Agreement, Canada could no longer provide financial assistance to industries wishing to reduce their emissions of pollutants. That is false! Because the GATT, Mr. Speaker, recognizes environmental protection as a legitimate goal governments may promote through subsidies. Therefore governments, both federal and provincial, will continue to financially support industries undertaking clean-up measures.
One of the most evident signs of ignorance and bad faith exhibited by some critics of Free Trade, Mr. Speaker, deals with that alleged treaty obligation for Canada to export our water to the United States.
Those absolute lies are still being propagated even after the Minister of International Trade had an
December 19, 1988

amendment passed to Bill C-130 to specify the Free Trade Agreement did not apply to water.
In that area also, the Agreement is in line with provisions under the GATT that allow a country to take necessary steps to protect the environment. Section 1201 of the Agreement is clear on that.
In fact, the only provision in the Agreement that deals with the matter of water concerns the elimination of tariff on water which we import from the United States.
Our lakes and rivers are not for sale, and Canadians know it. That type of export on the other hand is specifically excluded both by the federal water policy and the Canadian Water Preservation Act.
Canadian sovereignty in that crucial sector-as in all others-is altogether unassailable.
Mr. Speaker, the environmental question underlies the notion of sovereignty. Had the Free Trade Agreement in any way restricted our freedom to act in this field we would not have signed for any consideration whatever.
Over the next few years there will be an unprecedented number of new measures to protect our environment. This happens to be one of the basic commitments we made to Canadian men and women during the election campaign. You may rest assured that this Government will live up to them.
Whether we are talking about cleaning up our rivers or fighting against the depletion of the ozone layer and against every type of toxic emissions, free trade or no free trade, the Canadian Government can take action in all fields related to environmental protection.
During the election campaign the Prime Minister also promised that before the expiry of his second mandate he would sit down with the United States and negotiate a comprehensive agreement for a common effort in fighting acid rain. The new American administration has already indicated it is prepared to undertake such negotiations. Canadians can be assured that, as in the case of the free trade deal, this agreement will be negotiated in the best interests of this country and its citizens.
In our societies, never has so much concern been expressed over our environmental heritage. The United States has responsabilities in that respect, we have ours. And we share common responsibilities. And Canadians can rest assured that we will live up to them competently and energetically, while asserting our full sovereignty.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in this House for my first address. It is with a great sense of pride that I stand in this place as the representative of the people of Winnipeg-St. James.
At the outset, I wish to thank the people of Winnipeg-St. James for the trust they have placed in me in choosing to have me represent them in this the Thirty-fourth Parliament. I shall endeavour to be worthy of that trust, and I promise to serve them to the best of my ability.
Might I also take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate you on your re-election to the chair of this House. I am certain that Members may rely upon you to continue to preserve and safeguard the great traditions of this House.
The constituency of Winnipeg-St. James comprises the western-most portion of the City of Winnipeg, north of the Assiniboine River, and is predominantly urban.
If one travels to Winnipeg by air, one lands at the Winnipeg Airport, which is located within the boundaries of the riding. The Winnipeg Blue Bombers, the Grey Cup champions, play their games in the Winnipeg Stadium, which is located within the boundaries of the riding of Winnipeg-St. James. As well, the Winnipeg Jets-who I am confident will one day, in the near future, win the Stanley Cup-play their home games at the Winnipeg Arena, which again, is located within the boundaries of Winnipeg-St. James.
Like the Prairie people in general, the people of Winnipeg-St. James have a strong belief in fairness, a strong belief in what is right. They are willing to place their trust in others. However, when that trust is betrayed, when that trust is violated, when that trust is left in tatters, they do not forget. While they may not show anger, they will get even. This Government learned that lesson on November 21 last when its shafting of the people of Winnipeg-St. James in respect of the CF-18 maintenance contract came back to haunt them.
The theft of the CF-18 contract was a gross injustice. It was an attack on the voters of Winnipeg-St. James; an attack on their integrity. In fact, it was an attack on the integrity of the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba.
I note that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) spoke a few moments ago, a man

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
from my home Province of Manitoba, he did not say one word about that act of grand larceny, the theft of the CF-18 contract-and that is exactly what it was. And it was done for cynical political purposes.
The people of Winnipeg-St. James can rest assured that I shall never betray their trust, as this Government did in respect of the CF-18 maintenance contract. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this Flouse to oppose the Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Harvard: The people of Winnipeg-St. James have entrusted me with the task of fighting this deal, and to fight it every inch of the way. I cannot betray that trust, and I will not. I know that Hon. Members opposite would like us to come into this Chamber and simply roll over and play dead.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we know too much of what has happened in the past. Where I come from, they say: "I did not come down the river on a bale of hay." In other words, one is not naive.
We do not trust this Government, Mr. Speaker; we do not trust this Government any farther than we could spit upwind. That will not change. There is simply too much at stake. The future of this country is at stake. We are going to watch this Government. We are going to watch every move it makes; we are going to listen to every word it speaks. That is our responsibility, and it is a responsibility that we will live up to.
My quarrel with the Free Trade Agreement, as it was throughout the entire election campaign, is based on the fact the vast majority of trade between Canada and the United States is free of tariffs, free of duty, without this agreement. We on this side of the House believe in freer trade among all nations. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that successive Liberal Governments consistently worked toward the reduction of tariffs.
I know that during the last election campaign Members opposite endeavoured to spread falsehoods about the position of the Liberal Party with respect to trade. We are not against freer trade; we are not against lower tariffs. We have worked toward that goal for many years. What we are against, and remain against, is this rotten, abominable deal.
While we desire freer trade with the U.S., we also desire freer trade with other countries. We are concerned that in getting the tariffs and duties removed on the remaining 20 per cent of trade with the U.S., we
have given up the ability to run our own country in the way that we want to run it. In other words, this trade agreement jeopardizes our sovereignty, undercuts our sovereignty.
We know all about the supposed special relationship between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Mr. Reagan, the outgoing President of the United States. That special relationship got us nothing in a period of four years but photo ops and a silly sing-song in Quebec City.
The Prime Minister was desperate for something to show for this special relationship, and perhaps that is the reason for his conversion to free trade. After all, it was in 1983 that the Prime Minister said: "Don't talk to me about free trade during the leadership campaign, or at any time in the future." Why did he change his mind? Why at this point does Canada wish to become tied more closely to the economy of the U.S.?
We should stand back for a moment and consider whether it is not more prudent, while seeking freer trade with the U.S., to continue to pursue the policy of tariff reduction through multilateral means such as the GATT. Instead, this Government has chosen to put all of its eggs into the American basket. It has abandoned the policy of a multilateral focus to trade policy. We are now faced with the uphill struggle of further negotiation and dispute settlement on a bilateral basis with an opposing party that is 10 times our size, with 10 times the economic strength. Hardly an even match.
Let me turn now to the question of subsidies.
Under the terms of the Free Trade Agreement, what constitutes an allowable subsidy will be negotiated over the next five to seven years. This phase of the negotiation is of greatest concern to me. Canada enters the negotiation without any parameters in place in respect of the definition of a subsidy. In the past, the Americans have claimed that our regional development programs and social programs constitute unfair subsidies. I repeat: unfair subsidies. We have no indication that they have changed their minds on that score.
When these programs are raised in the negotiations, will this Government defend them? Or will they buckle under to U.S. pressure, as they have done so frequently in the past? Do not hold your breath, Mr. Speaker.
Here is the danger, as I see it: The Americans will claim that goods and services being imported from Canada enjoy the benefit of unfair subsidies such as unemployment insurance and pensions. As a result,
December 19, 1988

under the threat of countervailing duties, Canada's social and regional development programs will come under pressure.
We on this side of the House believe that this will lead to a gradual erosion of these programs. That is the greatest threat of all under this agreement. If the Tories had any brains at all, they would have sought a specific exemption to make it absolutely clear that social and regional development programs were exempt under the agreement, especially when we look at historical claims by the Americans that these programs amount to subsidies.
Looking at this agreement from a Winipegger's perspective, perhaps one should not be surprised that the Tories would sleep while regional development programs are eroded. After all, regional development in the Government's eyes is just another cynical means to buy votes. We in Winnipeg know about the Government's lack of commitment to regional development. Again I refer to the CF-18 maintenance contract. We in the Province of Manitoba, particularly in the City of Winnipeg, had the opportunity to strengthen the aviation industry on the Prairies, to develop a diversified industrial base in a part of the country which suffers the effects of the boom and bust cycle inherent in a resource and agricultural based economy. The Government turned a blind eye to that opportunity. That was the case even though the Winnipeg contractor concerned won the contract on an equal footing with its competitors. With the lack of commitment to regional development shown in the CF-18 contract, little wonder regional development was not specifically exempted under the trade agreement.
On the question of social programs, we know all too well the Government's lack of commitment to pensions, unemployment insurance and medicare. As you know, we watched the Government try to deindex pensions during its first term. That reflects its commitment to social programs. Those who fear the erosion of these programs may rest assured that we will defend them at every turn. We will watch over the negotiations on the subsidy definition very, very closely.
We should also ask ourselves why the Government did not get specific exemptions for social and regional development programs. Maybe we should not be surprised that the Tories would place the fortunes of the brewing industry above those of seniors struggling to make ends meet. Not that I was unhappy to see the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
brewing industry exempted, but I think seniors deserve a better break from the Government.
We on this side of the House insist on a specific exemption for social and regional development programs. It is our duty to do so, placed upon us by the millions of people who supported us and oppose this deal. We cannot stand by while the Government endangers the social safety net which we on this side of the House have worked so hard to construct. We do not wish to see the erosion of social programs as we have witnessed in the fiefdom of the Prime Minister's ideological mentor, Mrs. Thatcher, who so eagerly rushed to his assistance during the last election campaign. In fact, it was interference in Canadian affairs.
Is this agreement another step by Canada away from the caring society that we on this side of the House built toward a Thatcher Britain where two countries now exist? On the one hand you have the wealthy region surrounding its largest city in the prosperous south, and on the other the impoverished north. Is this our model of the future, regional disparity and a growing gap between rich and poor? We on this side see the warning signs. We do not like them and we are going to fight on.
Again on subsidies, what will be the fate of such programs as PFRA, ERDA and the Agricultural Assistance Act as well as the Western Grain Stabilization Act? Those programs are of specific concern to westerners whose economy is still to a large extent reliant on agriculture. All those programs are in the annex to the agreement. All will be negotiated over the next five to seven years. Our support systems will be brought into line with theirs. Our supply management system will be endangered.
From a westerner's perspective, we are concerned about the question of resources in general, including the question of energy. Producing provinces have always held dearly control over their resources as a means to enhance development of their economies. Indeed, the transfer of control over resources to the western provinces was one of this country's first regional development programs. We in the West are certainly not keen on guaranteeing the supply of our resources to the Americans. Indeed, it is surprising that the Americans were given secure supply over energy without anything in return. The United States of America will merely take all the oil and gas Canada can supply, provided it cannot get it cheaper elsewhere. Furthermore, we have virtually abandoned the goal of energy self-sufficiency by committing ourselves to share our oil and natural gas even as our supplies become depleted, this with no

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
obligation to buy from Canada should cheaper supplies be available elsewhere. The bottom line on energy under this agreement is that we have become an energy reservoir of the United States.
Time does not allow me to touch upon all the concerns flowing from this trade agreement. However, I would like to briefly repeat my concerns. We have not gained secure access to the U.S. market, as my colleagues have outlined in some detail. Our social and regional development programs are indeed threatened. People who do not believe that, particularly Members opposite, might as well believe in the tooth fairy. In fact, I have several bridges that I could sell them right now if they do not believe that. Have they not heard of harmonization? Have they not heard of the integration of the two economies?
I said it during the election campaign and I will say it now. What is the point in consummating this agreement if things are just going to be the same afterwards? The fact of the matter is that things are not going to be the same. We are going to have a continental economy. We are going to have a continental energy regime. There will be harmonization, and I can assure you that they will not be harmonizing with us. We will be harmonizing with them because it comes down to a matter of power and size.
The Americans are aggressive. I can assure you that in the tough days that lie ahead it will be Winnipeg bending toward Minneapolis. It will be Toronto bending toward Washington. It will be Vancouver bending toward New York. That is the lesson we have to learn from the trade agreement. It is a lesson that has been learned on this side of the House, but it has yet to be learned on that side of the House. Will they never wake up?
I also would like to point out, as I have already said in some detail, that our agriculture sector is threatened as well. We have given up the ability to conduct an independent energy policy. It is for those reasons and many, many more that when the time comes I will stand up and vote against this trade agreement.


Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to first congratulate you and your colleagues on your election to this House. It is indeed a great honour and I think you and your colleagues, as you have shown in the past, will show in the future that you justly deserve it.
I rise today to speak on the great and historic free trade agreement before us. With your permission,
however, I would like first to speak of my constituents in St. John's East. I would like to thank them for the confidence they have placed in me by electing me to this place and assure them that I will serve them with dignity and distinction.
In this election campaign my constituents were asked to consider many things. I believe in the end they made the decision based on those that were important to them, things that mattered to them, to their children. It ultimately was a decision that involved the future, a decision based on opportunities, employment and leadership, a better tomorrow for all Newfoundlanders and, indeed, all Canadians.
I am well aware of the honour bestowed upon me to stand in my place in this House. With your leave, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to mention four others who have gone before me representing my province, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in this place. First I mention the Hon. W. J. Browne who was a Member of Parliament here many years ago, known variously as Judge Browne or Billy Browne. Today, at 92, as the dean of my Party in Newfoundland and Labrador, he remains active and involved. I would like to mention the Hon. James A. McGrath, a man known to many Hon. Members, a distinguished parliamentarian, a great reformer in this House, a great representative of his constituents, and today the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador. I mention the Hon. Don Jamieson, a renowned broadcaster, parliamentarian, and diplomat who to many of my age is remembered particularly at this time of year. Also, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) with whom I came to this place some 12 years ago and with whom I served for five years. I would like to say it is indeed an honour to serve in this House with him today.
My constituency stretches from the Town of Cupids on one end around Cape St. Francis to St. John's. Cupids is the oldest English speaking community in North America. Georgetown and Brigus, the home of one of the world's greatest explorers, Bob Bartlett, are new to the constituency in the riding of St. John's East. I would like to welcome them and pay tribute to them.
Mine is a district of fishermen and of fish plant workers, a district of ironworkers, boiler makers, and other skilled tradesmen who have worked on every major project in North America and built most of the major buildings in Canada and the United States. Mine
December 19, 1988

is a constituency of entrepreneurs, owners, and operators of small business, people who create jobs and who lead others to create jobs with them. Mine is a constituency of people who serve through the Government, through the utilities, and through the service sector in a vibrant capital city. These are the people to whom free trade matters. These are the people who said to me: "Go to Ottawa and speak on our behalf for free trade".
Many in the district of St. John's East continue to struggle with unemployment, continue to struggle to create the opportunities that they need for work, to be able to live in Newfoundland with their families. I mention particularly the people of Bell Island where, 25 years ago, the iron ore mines were closed. Since then they have struggled with minor success to find the real opportunity which will provide them with the employment that is so important to them.
Mine is a district of communities faced by the tremendous burden of debt but also challenged by the increasing cost to provide the very basic services that the residents demand.
Despite hardship and adversity, the constituents of St. John's East are focused on the future. The constituents of St. John's East are most concerned about the opportunities that will give the jobs that they need. They are most concerned about the opportunities that are provided under the Free Trade Agreement.
We have a growing but small high-tech industry, a high-tech industry that knows the opportunities provided by free trade.
In the district of St. John's East and in the City of St. John's we have three post-secondary education institutions. Memorial University and the Marine Institute are world-class centres for research, centres that focus on the opportunities provided by the sea, the sea that we have lived by and from for so many years. We also continue to await the benefits of the offshore oil and gas resources below our shores.
Those are the opportunities that face us in the future, but we have had a history of ups and downs in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador-minor successes and major failures. What we as Newfoundlanders have always asked, the only thing that we have demanded, is for the opportunity to create for ourselves, our families, and our communities the opportunities that will allow us to build a better tomorrow so that we can live and work in our homes, the opportunity that we have not been provided in the past.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
My hon. friend talked earlier about what we as Newfoundlanders want as the ability to control our own destiny, but without the opportunities to do that we have not the chance. He talked of ships of state and charting our own course. What we have with the Free Trade Agreement, what we have with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, what we have with the Hibernia understanding is the ship that he wants to get into and chart his own course. Without those opportunities there is no ship. The Free Trade Agreement is a part of an attempt for the first time to develop an economic program that allows Atlantic Canadians generally, and Newfoundlanders in particular, to make decisions for themselves, to create the opportunities for themselves, to say that we can and will have the tools that we need in our hands to do exactly that.
Too long we have been forced to take what we can get. We have been forced to have our resources exported from our shores with the minimum of production, with the minimum of value added to them. Too long we have been exporting cod blocks and frozen fillets. But why? Because of tariffs. We have been unable to get to our natural market in the United States, except with the barest of resources, because of the burden of tariffs. If we want to take a piece of fish and for some unknown reason we want to add a few corn flakes to it, or we want to put a little cheese on it-I cannot imagine why we would but people in this part of the world like to do that-we could not do that because there is a tariff on it. Our exports are of raw product, fine, there is no tariff on it. But on anything else there is a tariff. We are in an immediate disadvantage.
With the Free Trade Agreement that burden is removed. The same applies to our forest industries. The same applies to our minerals. Instead of exporting the bare bones, now, with the tariffs gone under this agreement, we have the ability to create the jobs in Newfoundland and in the Atlantic Provinces so that it is our people who are putting bread crumbs on fish and not people in Massachusetts who are putting bread crumbs on fish. It is our people who are taking wood products from wood and turning them into windows and doors, not people in the United States.
Those are the opportunities of free trade. Those are the things that will be our future. Those are the things that we have wanted for so long, that chance to create the jobs and the opportunities for ourselves.
I would like to talk briefly about social programs. Medicare will not be threatened by this deal. Pensions will not be threatened by this deal. Unemployment

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
insurance will not be threatened by this deal. Despite what others have said in the last couple of months, it will not cost women between $5,000 and $15,000 to have a baby under the Free Trade Agreement. Despite what has been said in the past about whom to vote for and whom not to vote for, not voting for the Government will not cost you your old age pension. The unemployment insurance for Atlantic fishermen has been challenged before. It was rejected by the United States Department of Commerce. We have been through that.
Unfortunately, what many people in Newfoundland voted against-and I regret that my hon. friend from Humber is not here, he did his own analysis of the election results-was a Cronenberg horror fiction that had been created by the Liberal opposition during this election campaign.
They did not vote against free trade because, unfortunately, they were not given the full opportunity to vote against free trade because the whole issue was clouded by doom and gloom, horror fiction, and negative views of a situation that will not exist in this country.
The ultimate difference between the Government and the Opposition is a difference of attitude. The federal Government will not roll over and die when the Free Trade Agreement is in place. The provinces will not roll over and die when the Free Trade Agreement is in place. GATT does not cease to exist when the Free Trade Agreement is in place. If we continue to focus absolutely on the negatives we will not see the positives.
Our Government and our Party chose to maximize the benefits of this agreement and to ensure that the negative effects are minimalized. We are told that we cannot compete. We are told that under the Free Trade Agreement we will be swamped because of lower wage rates and economies of scale. My constituents do not believe that we cannot compete. All my constituents want is the opportunity to compete.
I suggest to the House that if we cannot compete with the barriers down we will never be able to compete with the barriers up. I know that Canadians, with the imagination, entrepreneurship and ability to be productive and compete, can take on any American company and any American product and do well, can increase their ability to do more and the opportunities that go with that.
We can do better. We will do better. We are faced with a world that is changing very quickly. We are faced
with a world that is not strictly focused on the United States, but a world that is becoming more technically adept, that is trading 24 hours a day, and that tells Canada to keep up or be left behind.
What I resent most about those who are against the Free Trade Agreement is that they speak of the status quo. As a Newfoundlander, and I am sure all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will agree, the status quo is not something that has served us particularly well. I fear in this world that status quo is in a sense a fallacy. If we do not move ahead we will fall behind.
Canadians have a certain standard of living and quality of life. We expect the level of services provided by our Government to be of such high quality that we must keep up, we must continue to move ahead. It is with the Free Trade Agreement, with progressive and imaginative economic policies of this Government which we have seen in the last four years that we will be able to keep up.
The status quo was something that has hurt many of us. The status quo is something that we cannot accept. The Free Trade Agreement is an opportunity for us to enter a market under conditions that are predictable and secure, to enter a market ten times our size, knowing that if we run into difficulty we have a mechanism we can participate in for the first time to solve our problems and deal with our conflicts, under a code that is predictable.
I certainly speak for my constituents. I suspect that at the end of the day I speak for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The Free Trade Agreement is something we must have. When we consider the nature of our resource based economy and the nature of the opportunities before us, if we are denied the opportunities under the Free Trade Agreement, we may never see them again. Canada will fall behind and I suggest the country will have missed an opportunity that we can never replace. I think we can all stand in shame if opportunity is not taken now. We should move ahead to ensure the benefit for all Canadians.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I make my first speech to this honourable Chamber as the Member for Timmins-Chapleau. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his re-election as Speaker of the House of Commons. I also want to thank the people from my riding who supported me. I express to them my total commitment to work on their behalf for this term and many terms to follow.
December 19, 1988

It is very fitting that the subject of this speech be the Mulroney trade deal, as it is the voters in Timmins- Chapleau who sent me here to oppose this deal, which was the primary reason for my victory and the Conservative loss on November 21.
Timmins-Chapleau is the third largest riding in Ontario by area. It stretches from Iroquois Falls in the east to White River in the west, from Timmins in the north to Gogama in the south. It is a riding of miners, trappers, loggers, railway workers, and many others. It is also a riding of hard-working, honest families who love their country.
The communities which make up our riding are resource-based communities. When the mine closes or when the mill lays off workers, when the railway becomes automated, or there is a slump in demand for our forest products, the economic heart of our communities die. Resource-based economies are the ones which suffer first during an economic downturn. They are the ones which are the last to recover, if they recover at all.
That kind of area needs the support of the federal Government through regional development programs. However, over the long run we need to diversify the economies of these communities to offset the boom or bust cycles which have devastated all northern areas of our country during bad economic times.
In order for this to happen, the federal Government must have the ability to direct public support to these areas. It must have both the political will and the required legislative tools to give support to the North. This deal takes those powers away.
With the FTA in effect, over the next decade the Government will have to find levers of economic power but will not be able to use them. Under the Free Trade Agreement, if the mill in Iroquois Falls were to close, the Government would not be able to bail it out, keep the workers working and the families prospering. The Government would be bound by this deal under which regional development is likely to be considered an unfair subsidy. Those workers in Iroquois Falls would be sacrificed to the Conservative ideology of keeping the Americans happy at all costs.
This deal will not produce a high-tech manufacturing boom in my part of this great country. The deal does not have a lot of winners in Timmins.
The Free Trade Agreement is already causing victims. Late last week Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie announced lay-offs. I believe these lay-offs, like the lay-
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
offs at Gillette, Northern Telecom, and Pittsburgh Paints, are a direct result of the corporate plans to streamline operations in preparation for the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement.
The iron ore for the specialty steel produced for Algoma is mined in Wawa, Ontario and railed or shipped down to Sault Ste. Marie. As Algoma lays off workers, lay-offs can follow in Wawa. This deal will mean further lay-offs in Timmins-Chapleau when the current subsidy for the Algoma Central Railway is also terminated as an unfair subsidy. Rail lay-offs will inevitably follow in Wawa and Hawk Junction.
All that this deal does for the North is make victims. The Government likes to use fancy words like "streamlining" or "downsizing" or "winners and losers", as the Liberals first said under Pierre Trudeau. These are all statistics for the economists in the Department of Finance or the bureaucrats in External Affairs. However, they are all people who are losing their jobs, and their families cannot be fed on fancy words of reassurance from the Conservatives about adjustment programs or the unemployment insurance program.
The victims have received a very cruel present from Prime Minister Scrooge. They have lost their jobs, only to be given vague promises about how they will benefit under free trade. I would never put vague promises under a Christmas tree for my kids.
Another aspect of this deal which I find unbelievable is this notion of an unfair subsidy. I do not need to have some American bureaucrat tell me what he or she thinks is fair and unfair. I know what is fair and what is not. Creating jobs in my riding is fair, and this deal, costing the good people in my riding their jobs is unfair. One does not have to be a lawyer or a high-priced consultant to figure that out.
The Americans want to keep their jobs and capture our markets. With this deal, we walked into a trap, and I fear that it will be working people in Timmins- Chapleau who will suffer from the Government's misguided policy.
Our Government has been manipulated by the Americans into walking into an ill-advised negotiation with a list of concessions, not a list of bottom line protections. I cannot imagine going to buy a car with a list of options that I am prepared to give up drawn up before I go into the showroom to see if the car is safe and comfortable. This deal is like a car with no engine

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
or brakes. The strangest thing of all is that this Government has bought that car.
During the election campaign, I knocked on thousands of doors in my riding. The overwhelming message that I kept receiving from the people to whom I talked was that this deal has got to go, we do not trust this Government with our future, we love our country, and we do not want to see Canada Americanized.
The people in northern Ontario are a tough bunch. The climate is not the most hospitable. As a matter of fact, White River has had the coldest temperature in Canada, and that was -72F. We have come there to work and we are good workers. We have stayed and we have built ourselves strong communities of which we are proud. We are proud to raise our children in the North. We are proud to raise them as Canadians. We have fine traditions and community spirit and are tolerant of others.
These values are valuable, but for our communities to survive and flourish, we have to keep our economic base strong. We cannot survive government policies which throw us into the deep end just to see if we will sink or swim. In this deal, we as a country have given up far too much and have received far too little in return.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I too would like to take the opportunity to thank my constituents who voted for me on November 21, 1988 and also to thank all my colleagues who were elected. Now we Conservatives are the only party in Canada to represent all parts of this great country. The other parties have become much more regional. So congratulations to all our colleagues who were elected. Thanks to those who put their trust in us and who appreciated our management over the last four years.
I now want to stick to today's subject, namely the new debate on free trade that has been made necessary because the Liberal and socialist politicians have not kept their word. We are forced to start over what we spent months on. We discussed free trade here for 350 hours, but we have to start again, Mr. Speaker, because they do not keep their word.
So, once and for all, what does free trade mean, so that Canadians can understand it exactly? Where does free trade fit in? What does it mean for the 27 million Canadians who live here? What does it mean for the 12 million Canadians between 30 and 65 who are in the labour force, who work, compared to younger Canadians, to older Canadians on pension, to Canadians who
cannot work because of certain circumstances like illness or injury?
Twelve million Canadians work and what they produce every year is called the Gross National Product. In 1987, it was S500 billion. That is the sum total of Canadian products. It includes a pencil, a piece of paper, an automobile and an airplane. It includes medical services which are provided each time a health insurance card is used. All that amounts to $500 billion. And Canadians export one-quarter of that-that is $125 billion of Canadian goods and services. That means that 3 million jobs out of 12 million, one out of four, are linked to exports. But it goes further than that-84 per cent of Canadian exports go to the United States, in other words $95 billion of our exports go to the United States. This means that in Canada one Canadian out of five has a job because we are able to sell in the United States. This is what the Free Trade Agreement is all about. It means work for one out of five Canadians who are now employed, because we sell to the United States.
What parts of Canada do those goods originate from? There are $60 billion out of $95 billion-a significant proportion-$60 billion that come from Ontario, a province that fought free trade, especially the Liberals- Ontario Liberals opposed free trade. Well, their share of our total $95 billion worth of exports to the United States is $60 billion.
The second largest exporting province is Quebec, with $16 billion. You see the difference-$60 billion's worth of exports to the United States come from Ontario, as against $16 billion's worth coming from Quebec, and another $19 billion from all the other provinces together.
What province fought free trade? Ontario. Ontario Liberals, who paid for part of the Liberal Party of Canada's election campaign.
And why was that Agreement needed? It was needed because since 1985 the Americans, faced with an enormous trade deficit, were becoming very protectionist-they were blocking, restricting their purchases from other countries. And as suppliers to the United States, we were affected. Then there were some disputes. For instance, all Canadians heard of the difficulties encountered by a number of producers-hog, hog carcasses, fish, shingles and shakes producers. In each and every case the Americans said: Now, let us restrict those Canadian exports. Let us put up barriers, temporary tariffs, temporary taxes, red tape hassles.
December 19, 1988

The Americans could tell us, for example, that the pork and the hog carcasses we sell them must no longer contain growth hormones.
That was a way of stopping our pork exports to the United States. The Americans were then taking all kinds of measures to reduce our exports, thus jeopardizing our industry.
It must therefore be stressed that the Free Trade Agreement aims at stopping the Americans from taking protectionist measures which were reducing or would have reduced Canadian exports to the United States.
The other advantage of the Free Trade Agreement is of lesser consequence because 80 per cent of the 95 billion dollars worth of Canadian exports to the United States is presently free of tariffs. There are tariffs on 20 per cent of our exports.
The Agreement therefore provides for the phasing-out of all these tariffs over a 10-year period. For about a third of these products, the tariff will drop to zero starting on January 1 1988. For another third of these products, those of industries which need a little more time to adapt to the competitive situation created by free trade, the tariffs will be phased out over a five-year period and, in all other cases, they will be phased out over a 10-year period. The second advantage of free trade is therefore elimination of tariffs.
The first advantage of the Free Trade Agreement, I repeat, is the protection it affords us against American protectionist measures. The second advantage is the phasing-out of tariffs on approximately 20 billion dollars of our exports to the United States.
Another major benefit will be the dispute settlement panel. That is one of the most important elements of the Agreement. What will this dispute settlement panel mean? Let us take the situation which existed for our lumber exports to the United States in 1986, where the Americans claimed that we, as Canadians, were unfairly subsidizing lumber producers through stumpage fees which were insufficiently high, where the Americans claimed that we were subsidizing them. So they said: "You are subsidizing them; that is why we are going to impose a tax on your imports". They called them compensatory duties against our lumber exports or other items. "From now on, we are going to charge a 35 per cent duty on your exports. We are doing that because we feel that you are involved in unfair competition. You are subsidizing these corporations". In the case of softwood lumber, it was a 35 per cent duty.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
What could Canadians do when Americans decided to impose such a duty? The remedy which was available to Canadians was to appeal to the United States Trade Tribunal. It meant that a Canadian firm with its head office in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec City or Levis, had to call in its lawyers and tell them to go to the American Trade Tribunal to defend its position and demonstrate to the judges that the American Government was wrong to impose an "x" per cent duty on its products. So its lawyers had to go to the United States to appear before an American tribunal and defend its position on the basis of American legislation. The burden of proof was enormous, the more so because the judges on this American trade tribunal were themselves American.
Whenever the courts are called upon to rule, it is because something is questionable and unclear. There is a gray area. So whenever they appeared before the tribunal, each party had to make representations, but the ruling belonged to the American judges who, even when they wanted to be absolutely fair and objective, used to rule more often than not against our Canadian firms.
What is the nature of the change? Now, Canadians no longer have to deal with the American Trade Tribunal when a dispute occurs. There is a new dispute settlement panel which is now made up of five individuals, including two Canadians, two Americans, and a fifth individual accepted by both parties. That is the main difference. Essentially, the other procedures remain the same, but those who disagree with an American decision aimed at blocking our exports would no longer be required to appeal to an American tribunal, but to a binational panel made up of two Canadians, two Americans and a fifth individual acceptable to both. Which means that the ruling would not be at the mercy of five American judges. Under these conditions, the fact you are American or Canadian will be less significant, and that really is the big difference in the dispute settlement body: This binational panel will be there to ensure a better interpretation of the applicable legislation, both in the case of Canadian exports to the United States and American exports to Canada.
In short, the Free Trade Agreement will reduce American protectionism, eliminates the remaining duties and taxes, and ensure a much more secure access to the American market. During the election campaign, representatives of the Opposition parties did not provide this information to the Canadian public. They went from door to door, visited Golden Agers' clubs, one after the other, wherever they could find people who might be

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
receptive to a message of fear.The Liberals and Socialists were there to tell pensioners in all the homes for the Aged: "If free trade passes, you are going to lose your pension."
We saw former Ministers from the Trudeau era say the same thing and meddle in that scare campaign. Fortunately, we got the best of them because we told people the truth and proved to them that we were right. We told them: "It is your children or your parents between 30 and 65, the people who work and pay taxes in Canada, the industry, trade or business people who are aware of the need for access to the American market. It is those people who want free trade and you, who are older, younger or weaker, do not trust them. It is those people who pay taxes and give the country the money it needs to pay for your pensions." How do you think we can keep telling the needy that the country can pay for their pensions? A nation can pay for pensions in two ways. Together with the Socialists, the Liberals have found an original way to do it.
Their original solution was to borrow money and today our country owes $335 billion because of the Liberals' mismanagement and their co-operation with the Socialists. So in order to pay out benefits, they took out loans. It is not politically dangerous to borrow money because those who are going to pay won't be voting on election day. Those who are going to pay are our children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren. Because the Liberals have always understood that principle, they were able to get elected. They understood that if you can make others, but not voters, pay for your mistakes, you can get re-elected and continue to spend.
But our message appealed to reason. We proved to Canadians that, together with members of the workforce, we could and should continue paying for our pension systems because sooner or later we must set a limit on collective debt. It was necessary that our businesses made money. And we told people: Those who are employed must make money. It is not a sin to make money. It is important. When you make money, you pay taxes, with money earned not money borrowed. People understood, they got our message. They understood also the message of the men and women who supported us during the campaign, because free trade is a collective issue that concerns Canadians and not the issue of the Conservative Party only. It is the issue of Canadians. It is, for instance, the issue of the Prime Minister of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, and his team who say that
free trade is crucial for Quebec. The Quebec Government took position in an official manifesto in favour of free trade in all its aspects.
We also could count on the support of the Desjardins co-operative movement. And I am proud to talk about those things specifically, because the Desjardins movement was born in my riding 88 years ago. It is not a capitalist movement. It is a co-operative movement that today manages $35 billion in assets. Two Quebecers out of every three, for million out of six million Quebecers are members of that movement. In a March 1988 manifesto, it formally took position for free trade and declared the signed agreement in particular a good one for jobs, for Quebec, for businesses, for social programs.
We also received, on the free-trade issue, the support of the Chambers of commerce of Canada and their
170.000	members, business people who sign pay cheques.
We also got for free trade the support and endorsement of a reliable body par excellence, the Economic Council of Canada. Closer to home, in the province of Quebec, we have received the support of the Dutil family and CanamManac in Beauce County, of Laurent Beaudoin and Bombardier and of former ministers from another political party. There are two political parties in Quebec. We have received the support of Bernard Landry and Rodrigue Tremblay, former ministers in the Quebec Government. We have received the support of Herve Pomerleau, an extraordinary entrepreneur in Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, and Bernard Lamarre, who manages businesses worldwide and who is glad to be exporting to the United States. There are those who talk about small and medium-sized businesses. There are
80.000	small and medium-sized businesses that belong to the Canadian Federal of Independent Business.
In June 1988, the CFIB surveyed a number of small and medium-sized businesses-the corner confectionery, local gas station and small manufacturer-to identify their position on free trade. Because the Liberals and the socialists will say that small businesses are penalized.
In June, 80,000 questionnaires were sent out and
18.000	replies received. This is an extraordinarily large sample, considering that Gallup polls in Canada are based on a sample of 1,200 Canadians out of 27 million. We obtained 18,000 replies out of 80,000, and of these 18,000, 4.7 per cent were against free trade.
So I will tell those who say to us that small business is against free trade that they are wrong!
December 19, 1988

Mr. Speaker, I conclude, because time is flying. I would like to appeal to the intelligence-


An Hon. Member:: That's impossible!


Gabriel Fontaine: Right you are. That's impossible. Thank you. I would like to appeal to the Liberals' and the socialists' intelligence to tell them that this Bill must pass because our businesses need to make money. I appeal to their intelligence, but also perhaps to their credibility, in a way, because the two leaders said before the campaign, "Call an election and we'll see!" We held the election and we won. The next day, they said, "All right. You won your free trade, we'll vote for it."
But there's a little guy, namely the president of the Ontario auto workers' union, Bob White, who sent a little letter to the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) saying that the NDP leader had not fought hard enough against free trade and that they were mad at him for it. They forced the NDP leader and his team, who are the unions' lackeys, who grovel before organized labour . .. and they came back on the attack against free trade. This is costing Canadians dearly and you will have to answer to them. Besides, you are still in the Opposition, that is how you answer for it, and I hope you stay there forever.
Mr. Speaker, free trade is important and we will pass it despite the positions of the two Opposition parties. We will take the time we have to. We will spend night after night here. You can leave at 11 o'clock, but we will go on and pass free trade.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, before I begin to address this urgent matter of the so-called free trade agreement, a deal that will cause hardship, loss of livelihood, and a way of life to thousands of Canadians in different sectors of our economy, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Northumberland for having put their faith in me to be their representative. I am honoured and proud to serve as the Member of Parliament for the riding of Northumberland. I will do all that is within my power to fulfil the mandate with which I have been charged. It brings me here today to participate in the debate on the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States.
I am very concerned about the effect that the Mul-roney trade deal will have on the rural life across
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada, and especially on the riding of Northumberland on the shores of Lake Ontario, which I have the honour to represent. If this trade deal is approved in its present form, the effects will prove devastating for many of my constituents and thousands of others across Canada.
One of the hardest hit areas will be the agricultural sector. This Mulroney trade deal has not given sufficient consideration to the dangers posed to the Canadian farmer. I propose to discuss some of those dangers, in the hopes that Hon. Members of the House will realize the great harm that will be done to family farms and food processors in Canada if this agreement is implemented without the necessary amendments.
We in the Liberal Party are not, nor have we ever been, opposed to freer trade with the United States and other countries. However, we are opposed to the Mulroney trade deal because of the adverse effects it will have on our Canadian way of life, not only in the agricultural industry, but in energy, resources, health and social programs, and the environment. As my time is limited I will be addressing the profound ill effects this deal will have on agriculture, and I must leave those other issues to be debated by my able colleagues. However, whenever the occasion arises, I will want to speak to the other issues as well.
We all know that trade in agricultural products between Canada and the United States is quite substantial. The United States is a major market for Canadian producers of live animals, beef and pork, while Canada is an important market for American producers of fruits, vegetables, and oilseeds.
Both Canada and the United States have a long tradition of protection and support for agriculture but have done so by completely different means. Canada has relied heavily on the marketing board system, while the United States depends more on direct financial aid to producers. It should be noted that American farm income supports are among the highest in the world. The differences among government programs in both countries, the intractable problems farmers must face, and the fact that, to a large degree, agricultural problems are international, point against putting agriculture on the table. Yet, the Mulroney Government did so, buffet style.
I would like to emphasize that Canada, in my opinion, should never be dependent upon other nations to provide its essential food needs. European nations know this only too well. Here in Canada, despite some national and geographic disadvantages, we are able to feed ourselves.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We must not forfeit our agricultural independence in the false pursuit of illusory lower American prices.
Food prices will sky-rocket out of control once the American vertically integrated megacorporations put our family farmers out of business. With our farmers will go many of our rural communities and a respected way of life with its particular values and social and economic structures.
The United States has a major balance of payments deficit which the Reagan administration has been under tremendous pressure to reduce. The decline of American exports in the agricultural sector has been a serious domestic problem. Between 1980 and 1985, U.S. exports fell from $47 billion to $31 billion. By expanding opportunities for increasing food and agricultural exports to Canada, the American Government hopes to help solve both its balance of payments deficit and redress the problems of its agricultural sector.
The goals of the American Government in the bilateral trade talks are well known. First, it wishes to remove all tariffs in the food and agricultural area. The Americans are anxious to see a removal of duties on potatoes and onions, and seasonal tariffs on fresh fruits and vegetables.
A second major goal is to remove non-tariff barriers to trade, both federal and provincial. This includes protections for the wine and brewing industries, provincial procurement policies, and provincial marketing boards for agricultural products. The Americans placed a high priority on the removal of import quotas from the Canadian supply management boards, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Dairy Commission, and the Poultry and Egg Marketing Boards.
The American Government demanded an end to various federal and provincial subsidies for agriculture and processed foods. These include provincial farm subsidy programs, assistance to food processing plants, and freight subsidies under the Western Grain Transportation Act and the Feed Freight Assistance Act.
The over-all aim of the negotiations in the agricultural area was to create a level playing field, eliminating or harmonizing government programs and income support systems. However, agriculture and the food industry in Canada cannot compete on an equal footing with American counterparts because of a shorter growing season, lower levels of population density, greater distances for transportation, and higher construction and energy costs.
Unfortunately, it seems that the Americans are having their way with our agricultural sector. Under this agreement, the Mulroney Government did not secure the supply management or quota system under which milk, egg, poultry, and other agricultural commodity productions are regulated in Canada. The supply management system guarantees fairer incomes through price stabilization. Removal of these and other protective tariffs applied to grain, fruit, and vegetable crops, will threaten the survival of many family farms, not only in the riding of Northumberland but in every riding across Canada.
If the Mulroney trade deal is passed without amendment, the agricultural sector in Canada will have to compete on a very uneven playing field, given the importation of lower priced U.S. farm products.
Further, in a recent Bush-Dukakis debate, Mr. Bush adamantly declared his opposition to any form of supply management programs in agriculture.
In Canada, the stable areas in farming remain those which have orderly marketing programs, with fair prices established on a cost of production basis, and that includes such sectors as poultry, broiler chickens, eggs, and turkeys.
Fair priced regulators are seriously threatened by this trade deal and may very well be wiped out.
In Canada, there are 2,000 egg producers. In the U.S., just two companies can out-produce the combined efforts of all their Canadian counterparts.
Dairy farmers want assurances that the milk industry will be protected from U.S. competition under the Free Trade Agreement. They want to see, in black and white, an agreement that allows them to have a supply management system in place controlled by marketing boards.
Quotas constitute a significant benefit for family farmers and they cannot be allowed to disappear.
I have met with dairy farmers from my riding of Northumberland, who have expressed their fears to me about the devastating impact that the Mulroney trade deal will have on their family farms.
Mr. Mulroney, on behalf of farmers like Glen Cole and his family, and Jim Tunney-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would ask the Hon. Member to refer to Hon. Members by their riding


December 19, 1988

and not by name. If you are referring to the Prime Minister, he may be referred to as "the Right Hon. the Prime Minister"; or, in the case of the Hon. Member for Kamloops, as the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, and so forth.


Christine Susan Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Prime Minister, on behalf of farmers like Glen Cole and his family, and Jim Tunney, who are representative of the countless other dairy farmers in Canada, 1 implore you to put in place the necessary safeguards in this deal so that these farmers may continue contributing to our marvellous country by maintaining their way of life.
As well, fruit growers associations have expressed their concerns about the fact that, without a doubt, a part of the soft food industry is definitely going to be hurt. Fresh B.C. peaches and cherries will become a rarity. They will be supplanted by imports. Soft fruit such as cherries, peaches, apricots, and pears are covered by a 10 per cent seasonal tariff that protects production from less expensive U.S. imports. Seasonal import tariffs have protected producers from being swamped by cheaper U.S. products during the short Canadian growing season.
Canada's shorter growing season limits our ability to grow fruit and vegetables relative to the United States. Consequently, fruit and vegetables are generally in larger supply and can be obtained at lower prices in the United States than in Canada.
In horticulture, the southern farmers have a major competitive advantage. Because of the warmer climate and longer growing season, they can often get two crops per year, and up to a 40 per cent heavier yield per crop than can farmers in Ontario, thus cutting their cost of production below that of the Canadian grower.
An acre in southwestern Ontario can grow 19 tonnes of tomatoes in one year; in Quebec, it grows only 10 tonnes.
In California, the same amount of land will produce 31 tonnes. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island yield 11 to 13 tonnes of potatoes per year per acre; Quebec, 9 tonnes; and Manitoba, 6 to 7 tonnes.
In the State of Washington, the average yield is 26 tonnes per acre.
One does not have to be a mathematical genius to figure out that American tomatoes and potatoes are a lot cheap in the market than are ours.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The fact of the matter is that Canadians farm in the top half of the continent, the cold half. The Free Trade Agreement, left in its present form, will penalize the Canadian farmer.
A big loser in the trade deal is the horticultural industry. According to Article 702, the removal of all tariffs in agriculture and food products includes the 10 per cent seasonal tariff on fruit and vegetables.
It has been stressed that under this agreement, Article 702.1, for the next 20 years the Government may reinstate the 10 per cent seasonal tariff should prices fall below 90 per cent of the average monthly import price as calculated over the preceding three years, provided that there had been no increase in total acreage planted to the specific crop in question.
Surplus fruit and vegetables that are grown in the southern United States can be shipped to Canadian markets at far less cost than Canadian farmers can even produce them. Yet, experience has demonstrated that the lower cost of production for these products is not always passed on to the consumer. Moreover, because Canadian food processors pay higher prices for Canadian than for U.S. fruit and vegetables, by eliminating the tariffs on fruit and vegetables the free trade deal will put pressure on processors to relocate their operations in the United States, closer to the source of cheaper supplies.
The Canadian food processor associations have also voiced their concerns about the free trade deal. They have said that the "current free trade contract will negatively affect three-quarters of a million Canadians who earn their living in farm production and the food processing industry". They anticipate that over 150,000 jobs will be lost.
After surveying the member companies on the impact of the Free Trade Agreement, the vast majority fear that they cannot compete because of higher labour costs and the higher cost of Canadian farm products. They predict that under the Free Trade Agreement there will be a net loss of jobs in Canada, with many American branch plants pulling back across the border. Moreover, they indicate that future expansion by Canadian based food corporations would most likely be in the U.S.
Hence, the plants that are most vulnerable to the threat of increased American competition will be the smaller Canadian-owned plants. The larger conglomerate food companies have the best chance of survival, and the majority of these are American.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The President of Quaker Oats of Canada, Jon Grant, has also pointed out that "there will be tremendous pressure on the Canadian agricultural community to reduce prices to compete against American products".
The free trade deal pits farmers against food processors. As tariffs come down, farmers will lose control over sales to the food industry, with marketing boards inevitably losing their ability to set prices as cheaper American imports move into Canada.
At this point, with the income supports from the boards in danger, the viability of the Canadian farming community will be compromised.
Indeed, this explains why the American Farming Bureau, the largest American farm organization, strongly supports this Free Trade Agreement. When Canadian tariffs are eliminated on processed goods, then baked goods, chicken, turkey, eggs and milk-based products can enter Canada more freely from the U.S., and Canadian supply management will be effectively undermined, leaving the Canadian farmer to rely upon the mercy of market forces.
It is interesting to note that while the U.S. can limit the imports of further processed products containing sugar from Canada, we cannot limit the import of most further processed products containing grain, poultry, eggs, horticultural and dairy products from the U.S. This is particularly difficult to understand when the export of U.S. sugar and sugar-bearing products to Canada has increased 500 per cent since 1983.
The Progressive Conservatives maintain that the Canadian supply management policy is left intact in the agreement with the U.S. They fail to admit to the realities of our supply management policy, which results in moderately higher prices for basic dairy and poultry commodities in Canada than in the U.S. As a result, Canadian food processors have stated that they will move to the U.S. in order to take advantage of lower basic commodity prices should this agreement be implemented.
It is extremely important to address the fact that not only do Americans produce chickens more cheaply but they have no government imposed cleanliness standards. Consequently, U.S. chickens are more prone to disease so antibiotics are routinely administered. They also use dangerous growth hormones which can have very harmful side effects, especially affecting our children. Under this deal product standards in both countries will be made the same, and I doubt very much that U.S. standards will be brought up to the Canadian level.
This trade deal will pit Canadian and American farmers against each other. They will be forced to undercut each other's prices and thereby lower farm incomes. The level playing field, as I earlier stated, is simply not possible in agriculture because of the unequal primary conditions between the two countries.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) admits that his trade deal will cause some disruption and says new programs will have to be found to retrain displaced workers. The family farm is in great danger of being part of that disruption if the trade deal is approved in its present form. I say to the Prime Minister: Canadians do not want mere reassurances. They want guarantees in writing.
Finally, I would like to address the fact that the Government's attitude has been that we do not need a plan; let the market solve all the problems. However, we need an over-all vision with strong policies if the farming community is to survive. It is obvious that the Prime Minister has been mesmerized by the U.S. free enterprise economic development theory. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, if you have not noticed, Canada has never been exclusively a nation of private enterprise. The Canadian experience has balanced public policies and private enterprise, keeping to the tradition of serving the interests of the national community and the individual. Public policies and enterprise are in part a product of Canadian nationalism. In order for Canada to survive as a nation there was a need for large public investment, hence economic activity in Canada has taken place in a comprehensive social context rather than as a pursuit for gaining individual profit.
This country was not built on the motto of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but on peace, order and good government. I put it to you that the Conservative Government is not living up to these responsibilities, not demonstrating good government, and is turning its back on the fundamental values which built this nation.


Mr. J. W. Bird (Fredericton):: Mr. Speaker, as all Hon. Members will understand, I feel a tremendous sense of honour, privilege and responsibility in standing to address this House of Commons for the first time. While I have had the good fortune on previous occasions to speak in other legislative forums, such as the city council of Fredericton as councillor and mayor, and the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick as a Member and Minister of Natural Resources, both experiences which I cherish with pride and satisfaction, at no other
December 19, 1988

time in my life have I been seized with such profound and mixed feelings of humility, potential, and fulfilment in being a Canadian citizen as I do today.
For the reality of being here I must again express my appreciation to the citizens in Fredericton and the surrounding area of York-Sunbury for their confidence and support in the recent election. 1 want them to know, each one, that I come to this House on their behalf with keen awareness of the responsibilities and opportunities which exist to be of service to them and to all Canadians. To the best of my ability I shall seek so to serve, to discharge those responsibilities, and to seize those opportunities as fully as possible at all times.
It is a special pleasure for me to have participated in the re-election of Mr. Speaker to the chair. He is not here this evening and I hope the Chair will convey these sentiments to him. I want to express my congratulations to him upon the well deserved honour and respect which he has been accorded by all Hon. Members. Hopefully he may recall another occasion, in New Brunswick, when I was privileged to participate in an event which honoured him. In that case it was for his contribution to management and conservation of Atlantic salmon. I want him and this House to know that he remains held in high esteem by New Brunswickers, as by all Canadians, for his long history of service to our country in so many ways.
Had he been here I was going to say directly to him that he would know from his own visits to the rivers of New Brunswick that our province is a land of beauty and serenity, containing a special quality of life which is becoming increasingly rare throughout the world and not easily found even in many parts of Canada any more. In my view it is that quality of life in New Brunswick, in fact throughout Atlantic Canada and abundant in my own riding of Fredericton, which is our most undervalued and underrated asset. I believe it constitutes a key resource for development and realization of our unique future potential.
Let me be clear. New Brunswick's quality of life is not just comprised of such features as its beautiful landscape and superb salmon fishing. It is much more than that. Indeed, first of all, the quality of life in New Brunswick springs from its human resources, its people.

Mr. Speaker, as all Hon. Members will recognize, New Brunswick is the best concrete example in Canada of an officially bilingual society living and working in harmony. Men and women of this province clearly
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
demonstrated that tolerance of and respect for one another can contribute towards the enrichment of the Canadian mosaic. The same qualities are reflected in our appreciation of the ethnic and cultural diversity enjoyed in New Brunswick.
With the new legislation on Canadian multicultural-ism, there now exists in New Brunswick a dynamic trend recognizing the richness of the various cultures found in our province. Furthermore, numerous discussions have taken place regarding the implementation of multicultural programs as proposed in the new legislation.

Those rich human resources of New Brunswick, coupled with its abundance of natural features, are the essence of our attractive way of life which is so well exemplified within the boundaries of my own riding of Fredericton, the capital city area of our province.
I want to emphasize that in New Brunswick, indeed the entire Atlantic region, there is an important correlation between our quality of life and our economic potential; between the attraction of living in our region and the prospects for prospering offered by free trade; between the desire of so many of our young citizens to make their lives in the Maritimes; and the increased opportunities which the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will bring to them to find productive carriers in their home area of Canada.
There is no region in Canada which has more potential to benefit from free trade than Atlantic Canada. While we have always possessed the human and natural resources to prosper, and in fact prior to Confederation the Maritimes was arguably the most prosperous area of Canada, during the subsequent economic evolution of our country, however, markets became centralized in Quebec and Ontario to the unfortunate disadvantage of Canada's extremities, particularly the Maritimes. In fact, Confederation itself helped to extinguish the flow and pattern of north-south trade on which the Maritimes had built its early prosperity.
Therefore, the Free Trade Agreement is an opportunity to rectify, or at least moderate, a major adverse side effect of Confederation, a side effect which has become an unfortunate and lasting phrase of frustration in Canada's economic language, "regional economic disparity".
At long last we have before us on the economic horizon virtually a new frontier, one which holds real promise for an eventual and lasting solution to regional

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
economic disparity in Canada. That new frontier is to be found in the Free Trade Agreement, as will gradually be expressed in the removal of tariffs, elimination of quotas, phasing out of countervailing duties, antidumping laws and discriminatory regulations, and the improved process for settlement of disputes. In Atlantic Canada these will encourage and should lead to restoration of original north-south trading patterns and dramatically increased trade with the vast markets of the United States eastern seaboard.
Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the opportunities to be contemplated in a market which is more than 20 times as large as the immediate domestic markets of the Maritimes themselves and which is less than 24 hours trucking distance away from any point in the Maritimes. For example, the population of Atlantic Canada is approximately 2.3 million people while the combined population of the northeastern United States, including the New York and Pennsylvania markets, amounts to 50 million people. These market population statistics are important to emphasize for the regions away from the centre of Canada, perhaps particularly for the Atlantic region.
While the U.S. market in total is 10 times larger than the Canadian domestic market, that differential is greatly magnified. In fact, it is doubled when applied to the U.S. markets which are reasonably accessible to the Atlantic region. Similar differentials exist with regard to the percentages of trade which are presently duty-free, and potentially duty-free.
While the amount of 80 per cent is frequently quoted as the proportion of all present trade between Canada and the U.S. now duty-free, and some people insist that that figure is really less than 75 per cent, it must be recognized that the percentage of duty-free trade in the Atlantic region is substantially less, perhaps no more than 60 per cent. Therefore the potential for growth by removing tariffs is proportionately much greater for the Atlantic region than is expressed by the Canadian average. In fact, these statistics of existing duty-free trade can be very misleading even on the national average. They tend to understate and underestimate the potential for increased trade which should result from the removal of existing duties over the next 10 years.
A recent special report from The Financial Post states that the amount of trade that is already tariff-free as a proportion of the trade we could have once all tariffs are gone is probably closer to 50 per cent or 60
per cent. That report suggests that the free trade deal gives us the potential for double the amount of tariff free trade than we have now-not merely 20 per cent more.
If that is the case for Canada on average then, again, just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the size of the potential for Atlantic Canada in terms of increased trade opportunities from our present base levels. Surely, I am not overstating the case to call free trade a new frontier on the economic horizon of Atlantic Canada.
Surely, also, it is not an overstatement to suggest that free trade truly offers a chance at long last to address creatively the chronic case of regional economic disparity in our country. For too long I believe we have reluctantly yet habitually accepted regional disparity in parts of Canada as a characteristic illness about which precious little could be done. To be sure, we have tried our best with special development programs to create economic growth in the Maritimes, for example, and we have met with both success and failure. However, we have not been able to do much more than moderate disparity, and up until now we have not been able to find a direction which might eventually eliminate disparity.
There are many reasons for this, but mainly we have never had adequate access to markets readily available for the products that we do manufacture, nor, more important, for the products we could manufacture from locations within Atlantic Canada. We have generally never been able really to contemplate a prospectus for economic equality because we have never been able to contemplate the reality of a market potential.
One of our most prominent and most successful New Brunswick industrialists has expressed the frustration for many Maritimers when he said recently, and I quote:
For as long as 1 have lived and for as long as any of us can remember, free trade with the United States has been a dream unfulfilled, an opportunity lost. It has cost Canadians dearly. It has cost us countless billions of dollars, it has cost us untold numbers of jobs, and it has cost us the chance to grow as a country-all because we have been denied access to that huge consumer market to the south. We have been cut off by unnatural trade barriers that have prevented us from even approaching our potential as a trading nation. We have been sent into a viciously competitive ring of international trade with one hand tied behind our back. And because of all this we have taken a beating.
For the first time in my own life there truly will be light at the end of the economic tunnel for Atlantic Canada. Now, for the first time since Confederation, a location for manufacture in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia could well be a market advantage and not a disadvantage as historically has been the case. The free
December 19, 1988

trade deal opens the opportunities for dramatically improved access to 50 million people living in the northeast area of the United States, the largest single regional market in the world, and located only one full day of trucking from the Maritimes, a market that is larger, richer and closer. Now, with free trade, it is more readily accessible than any other domestic or foreign market ever has been to the Maritimes.
To quote again the words of that New Brunswick industrialist:
Now, the Government of Canada is about to knock down those trade barriers with a bold move that will change the economic face of Canada forever. In the process, some Canadians and some Canadian companies will be hurt in the short term. Some of our firms will face new and difficult challenges. But at least we will be unshackled-and for the first time in modern history we will have a run at markets where millions upon millions of consumers will be ready to buy our goods.
He concluded by saying that these are indeed exciting times, and we have unprecedented opportunities to make them even better. "Soon," he said, "we will see the borders opening up to trade that we have been denied for generations". While it may not be an apt analogy in a technical sense, 1 do instinctively believe that free trade for Atlantic Canada will eventually equate to the beneficial impact which the Auto Pact has had for Ontario.
That may sound like a great leap of faith, but free trade truly does represent finally a prospectus for success in our region of Canada. I am genuinely confident that over the next decade and beyond we shall see economic self-sufficiency emerge within the Atlantic region, and free trade will be the vehicle for such dramatic development.

Mr. Speaker, do not think that 1 am not taking any interest in my region. On the contrary, I take Atlantic Canada as an example because I want to show you that free trade could provide vast opportunities for all of Canada. If my wishes come true for New Brunswick and neighbouring provinces, just imagine what benefits the rest of the country could rake from free trade. For instance, if we succeed in stabilizing the Western economy by stimulating exchanges with the huge markets of the American Sun Belt and the Pacific States, just imagine the renewed balance the Canadian economy would gain.

It would be a sweet irony, I realize, if regional economic subsidies might eventually become reduced in
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada, not as expressed by the fears of free trade in a negative context but because the fruits of free trade have helped to eliminate regional disparity in Canada and consequently the need for such subsidies. That may sound like a dream, but Canada has been built on great dreams by people who had the courage and conviction to believe they could be attained. I want to say that I believe that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has expressed such a dream and is such a man.
To balance Canada's prosperity across this country eventually, and to bring an end to regional economic disparity ultimately, is really more than a dream. It is a vision, one which was placed before the Canadian people in the recent election. It is a vision which the Canadian people have strongly endorsed by returning the Prime Minister and this Government with a solid majority. Now, Mr. Speaker, our challenge and that of succeeding Governments in Parliament is: It will take time over more than one or two terms to fulfil that vision working together for and with Canadians.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as you know this is not my first intervention into this discussion in the House. I had the opportunity to make several speeches on the subject before the House was dissolved for the election.
This afternoon, when the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) rose to answer a question, he once again reminded us and other Canadians that because the Conservatives won the election they could do just about whatever they pleased with respect to this Free Trade Agreement. His attitude was one that they won the election, never mind our positive proposals and suggestions, because they will do what they want.
Others have reminded the Government and the Minister, but I will remind them again that although his Party won the largest number of seats in this election they did not win the popular vote of Canadians. Some 52 per cent of Canadians rejected this Free Trade Agreement, while only 43 per cent supported it. I wanted to remind government Members of that because they have a tendency to forget it.
We know that the Government will ram this Bill through by using closure every day, but it would be worthwhile for it to be a little more sensitive to the concerns of the majority of Canadians. Not only did the Government not win the popular vote throughout the country, the Conservatives lost the popular vote in eight out of ten provinces. They got more than 50 per cent of

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the vote only in the Provinces of Quebec and Alberta. They got less than 50 per cent of the vote in Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and all the Atlantic Provinces, while there was a tie in Manitoba.
The Government has become an expert at using closure, as it will do to ram this Bill through. While it has used closure more than any other Government since the Second World War, and will do so again to ram this Bill through much to our displeasure, I ask it to be more sensitive to the concerns of Canadians as expressed in this recent election. During the election campaign there was almost unanimous support, even among those who supported this Free Trade Agreement, to have special adjustment programs for workers and firms that will be hurt by this agreement. Yet, the Government is refusing to give us any special adjustment programs.
Not only was the electorate, including those who voted for the Government and the agreement in favour of that proposal, all 10 provinces during a federal-provincial conference last spring in the West requested special adjustment programs. There was somewhat of a dispute within the Conservative family between the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), a western premier and the Prime Minister, and the Premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister because he simply rejected any special adjustment programs for those to be hurt by this agreement.
Not only did all 10 provinces request special adjustment programs, the Macdonald Commission which started this whole thing, unfortunately, and asked us to make a leap of faith-


Mr. Winegard:: A good Liberal.


William Warren Allmand: It was a royal commission made up of Liberals, Tories, and maybe even a New Democrat. I know the former Member of Parliament from my riding, who was a Conservative Minister under Diefenbaker, was also on that royal commission chaired by Mr. Macdonald. They recommended not to proceed with free trade negotiations unless special adjustment programs were provided. They had an entire chapter setting out special adjustment programs. They referred to the common market and other free trade zones which had these programs and suggested they should be in effect here.
Elowever, the Government ignored that advice. It plowed ahead, negotiated this agreement, and did not provide for any special adjustment programs.
The Economic Council suggested special adjustment programs, as did the C.D. Howe Institute. Nearly everyone who examined this subject with some sincerity and objectivity recommended special adjustment programs. Yet, the Government continues to reject any suggestion put to it for special adjustment programs.
Liberal Members of the House have been recommending these programs since we started these sittings. We have seen the example of Gillette and Northern Telecom. I believe those companies have closed their doors principally because of the agreement.
Members on this side have been asking the Minister for International Trade, the Minister for Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), the Prime Minister, and others for special adjustment programs. They continue to refuse. They continue to be insensitive to the great majority of Canadians who voted against the agreement; even though those who voted for it but who wanted special adjustment programs.
Initially the Government said that special adjustment programs were unnecessary because of the Canadian Jobs Strategy which will be able to handle all the dislocation caused by the Free Trade Agreement. Already there are many examples where the Canadian Jobs Strategy cannot even retrain those who want to be retrained now. It cannot even provide training for those who now want to get into training programs.
During the election campaign there was television footage at an institution in Hamilton, where there was a long line of people attempting to get into retraining and upgrading, but could not do so because of a lack of resources. That was what was happening before the Free Trade Agreement.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy will not be effective. The Government cut employment and training programs by 32 per cent since it came to power in 1984. Before we left office in 1984 we had a budget of $2.2 billion for training and employment programs. This year the budget is $1.5 billion, a cut of 32 per cent since 1984. Yet, the Government is asking us to rely on such a program for the readjustment of workers hurt by this Free Trade Agreement.
The other answer given to us is that a blue ribbon committee has been set up under Mr. de Grandpre of Montreal. The Government tells us that this blue ribbon committee is studying the adjustment needs that will be required under the Free Trade Agreement. It will report to the Government and the House some time next summer, and then we will have some action.
December 19, 1988

That is too late. It will not help the people who have been put out of work at Gillette or Northern Telecom or other firms that are closing their doors. It is a bit sickening to listen to members of the Government telling us that new jobs are being created here and there in the country. That does not help those who are losing their jobs. Jobs will always be created, whether or not we have free trade. We need adjustment programs to help those being put out of work specifically because of this agreement. There will be many of these workers and the Canadian Jobs Strategy will not be effective.
The de Grandpre Commission is too late. We need something now, and I ask the Government, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and the Minister for International Trade to begin to have some sensitivity for those people who voted against this agreement and those who want special adjustment programs.
We in the Liberal Party also propose that there be an ongoing committee of the House to survey the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, to watch on a day-to-day basis what is happening in the implementation of the agreement. It could check alleged failures and alleged benefits.
For example, such a committee could call the union and workers from Gillette, as well as the management, to find out what really took place. The same thing would apply to Northern Telecom. We could also call some firms which say they are gearing up because of free trade.
We want a special committee that will survey the implementation of this agreement, in order to make sure it lives up to the promises made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers during the election campaign. They certainly made many promises with respect to this agreement. According to them, this agreement will give us heaven on earth. We have already seen the results, and they are not too pleasing.
When we predicted that the agreement would hurt regional development, the Government denied it. We said this agreement would hurt our environmental programs because there are subsidies involved in environmental programs. The Government said that the agreement would not hurt environmental programs. When we said that it would hurt our labour standards and unemployment insurance, the Government said that it would not. When we said that it would hurt our social programs, the Government said that it would not. We want them to put in writing what they said on the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
hustings during the last election campaign. We know that the words of the Prime Minister are not enough.
During the election campaign of 1984, the Prime Minister said that social programs and pensions were a sacred trust, but within one year his Government was deindexing the old age pensions of senior citizens. I thought it was rather farcical during the election campaign when the Prime Minister had his mother with him at one of the meetings in Quebec and he said: "Would I ever do anything that would hurt my poor old mother and her pension?" He said the same thing during the election campaign of 1984. He said, with his hand on his chest, that social programs were a special trust and he would never touch social programs.
This election campaign was a replay. It was like a replay of a football game, something with which you are familiar, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member Notre-Dame-de-Grace has the floor.


William Warren Allmand: The Prime Minister was doing a replay of 1984, saying that he would never do anything to hurt his poor old mother. He said the same thing in 1984 and then went about deindexing old age pensions. It was only because a mass of senior citizens came to Parliament Hill and accused him of breaking his word that he finally backed down and did not deindex pensions. Of course, we in the Opposition led an attack day after day, but when the senior citizens reminded him of his promises, he backed down.
We want the promises that the Prime Minister made during this election campaign, promises that the agreement would not hurt regional development, environmental programs, labour standards, unemployment insurance, social programs, and hospitalization, written in the agreement. We want the exact words of the Prime Minister in the agreement. He said them, let him live up to those words and agree to having them put in the agreement. If he really believed in them, he should not object to that.
I remember when we debated the earlier Bill on this matter last summer. For two weeks, we said that water was touched by the agreement and we asked the Government please to put a clause in the Bill and in the agreement which would exclude water. Day after day, the Prime Minister and the Minister for International

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Trade said that water was not touched by the agreement and that they did not have to put anything about it in the agreement. When the hearings started, more and more expert evidence was heard to back up our point of view. Finally they did put a clause in the agreement. However, it took weeks of debate.
It was bad enough last summer when the Government put on time allocation and rammed the Bill through. However, it did not do it as quickly then as it is doing it now. The point is that to make this impact in the House of Commons, it often requires days and weeks of debate to get through to these people and to impact on the public opinion which develops outside the House.
Just as we were successful to a certain extent in getting the Government to agree to exclude water from the Bill and, through the Bill from the agreement, though we would like to see it excluded in the agreement itself, we want the Government to live up to the statements it made during the election campaign and exclude regional development, the environment, labour standards, unemployment insurance, social programs, and hospitalization. Government Members say that these things will not be hurt by the agreement. Fine, let them put that in the agreement.
As I said, the Government will ram this Bill through in any event. We will vote on second reading tonight at 1 a.m. I suppose tomorrow we will go into Committee of the Whole, another closure motion will be put on that stage and government Members will ram it through in a day or two. Then we will get to third reading, and they will ram that through. This is from the gang that gave us parliamentary reform. They are the ones who said that one of their great achievements was parliamentary reform. As a matter of fact, it was hard to keep from being sick while watching the Prime Minister on television during that great debate claim parliamentary reform as one of his great accomplishments, while they had suspended all the rules of the House last summer to ram through all the Bills they wanted to ram through. They have done so again in this particular debate.
Whenever the Government cannot put through something it wants to put through, when it cannot play the game under the ordinary rules, it simply suspends those rules. It is too bad that the Toronto Maple Leafs could not do the same thing. They might win the Stanley Cup. They could change the rules to suit their own team and their own purposes. They should follow the example of the Government.
This is going to be rammed through in any event, but if we are to have it, let us at least have some wording in the legislation that will exclude the matters to which I have referred. Let the Government announce, before we have a final vote on this Bill, that it will set up special adjustment programs.
On the night of the election, the Prime Minister said that he had won the election, he had won a majority Government, and he was now going to work on reconciliation because the election had been a very divisive one. We have been waiting for the programs that would bring about this reconciliation. The Prime Minister can start by showing us a special adjustment program for the workers and the firms that will be hurt by this agreement.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate on the historical Free Trade Agreement with the United States. I am almost tempted to tell my colleague, the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) that the most obvious benefits we got from the parliamentary reform is the election of two Progressive conservative governments in a row, an event unheard of in the last hundred years, and which has been most beneficial to Canada. This is probably why the people of Canada has given us a second mandate. By giving us a vote of confidence on November 21, the population in general, and the farming community in particular, have undeniably shown their support for the decisions we have taken in recent years, all in the interests of Canadian farmers.
Our commitment to these people is very clear, and I am glad that it was recognized.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, how happy I was on November 21, the night of the election, to realize that the farming population of Quebec, with whom I have worked more closely in the last 15 months, understood and accepted our message. We won in all the rural constituencies of Quebec, except one, but I haven't lost hope there, Mr. Speaker! In some next election, we will get all 45 seats, and that would make me very happy.
In the last few days, the Opposition has often men-tionned that the Government has not received the mandate to go ahead with the free trade deal. I thought that was a bit cranky, so I looked at some of the figures,
December 19, 1988

mainly those for Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I simply examined my riding where the president-everyone knows that the leaders of Quebec's farm community were not in favour-and I did say the leaders-the leaders of Quebec's farm unions were not in favour of this free trade deal and they urged their members to follow them and not vote in favour of free trade. However, we could rely on a real army of candidates and Members who for weeks and months met with farm producers to tell them all about the economic benefits that would flow from the trade agreement. It was not easy!
I would like to pay tribute to my colleagues who toured the various provinces, particularly Quebec where I saw them meet farm producers at home and explain to them what it was all about. It stands to reason that farm producers were somewhat concerned because fears had been raised for over a year. Well, Mr. Speaker, I represent Bellechasse and was given a mandate by my constituents. My majority was 10,000 in 1984, but this time around it is in excess of 17,000 votes, which represent 65 per cent of the people. I am talking about 2,300 farms, the second riding in Quebec in terms of number of farms. The first is the riding of Beauce where the 5,000 majority in 1984 swelled to 22,000. Does the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) have a clear mandate? Does the Hon. Member for Bellechasse have a clear mandate? I can mention others. The region of Saint-Hyacinthe with its 1,900 farms had a 1,200 majority in 1984 and it is now up to 9,000. Does the Hon. Member for Saint-Hyacinthe have a mandate? They will have to stop distorting the facts. 1 could list them all, Mr. Speaker. Those were just a few examples to show that Quebec and Canadian farm producers have just given a clear and strong mandate to our Government.
As my colleague the Minister of Agriculture said, Mr. Speaker, agriculture is a major aspect of the free trade deal, which goes to show that the federal Government is quite aware of the importance of agriculture in terms of the Canadian economy, not to mention our external trade. Canada's agriculture produces in excess of $20 billion in annual income and, this bears repeating often, it accounts for one out of seven jobs in Quebec. I do not have the statistics for all of Canada, but in Quebec, one out of every seven workers is employed in the agri-food industry. This key industry is absolutely vital to all constituencies, both urban and rural.
Quebec farmers and farmers across Canada will reap profits from the Free Trade Agreement through wider markets. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass on a few comments that were made to me. Some people might accuse me and other members of my party of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
talking at length about our respective constituencies, so I will only pass on a few comments made to me by people working in the agri-food industry. At the outset, we made firm commitments to maintain marketing boards. And we have honoured those commitments. Marketing boards will be maintained to enable milk, egg and poultry producers to remain competitive and to protect their domestic markets.
1 have a few examples of this, Mr. Speaker. First, there is the Quebec Federated Co-operative. As you know, Quebec farmers have banded together in producers' associations and co-operatives. On February 26, 1988, the director of the Quebec Federated Co-operative said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." The Federal Government has already taken major steps to make sure that the Free Trade Agreement enures to the benefit of the agri-food industry in Quebec. The final wording of the Agreement contains an explicit reference to Section 11 of the GATT. As requested, yogurt, ice cream and certain other dairy products have been put on the list of controlled imports. We made a commitment, Mr. Speaker, and we honoured that commitment. We kept our word.
Also Agrinove, an important dairy co-op in Quebec, just as Agropur is, and its General Manager said: "Although UPA suggests the agreement threatens our farming industry, Mr. Forcier, General Manager, stated during a press conference that free trade is good for our dairy industry. There is nothing in the agreement that threatens the major Canadian and Quebec policies and programs, including milk supply management."
These are dairy people speaking, Mr. Speaker, not politicians! These are people who are engaged in the day to day sale, production and marketing of agri-food products. I think we can trust them.
Also, Quebec's Minister of Agriculture and Quebec's Premier went on record as totally supporting the Free Trade Agreement. As often happens at the provincial level, sometimes there are dichotomies or opposition between major partners . . . and also opposition parties in Quebec, including Mr. Jacques Parizeau who is still President of the Parti quebecois. I am quoting him on agriculture matters. Former Minister Jacques Parizeau "felt that the farming sector exaggerates the impact of the agreement doing away with farm tarrifs. Stating he agrees with Mr. Bourassa on that matter, he pointed out that all support programs dealing with that sector remain unchanged."

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Therefore, provincial support is of real significance when both parties within one legislature are in agreement, Mr. Speaker and this indeed should make the farming industry feel secure.
I have here a whole list of people from various sectors. I felt it would be useful to quote them, so as to avoid the accusation that we politicians are reveling in our own rhetoric.
Yves Saint-Vincent, Chairman of the Quebec Joint Committee on Slaughter Breeds, expressed support, Mr. Speaker. And I am quoting a Holstein producer, Mr. Louis Desaulniers from Saint-Boniface, who said something I remembered; I will quote his words because they come quite directly from the bottom of his heart: free trade is something that motivates me! Competition makes our product better, and when we have a superior product it becomes easy to compete with our American neighbors. When you play hockey in your own backyard, you feel you are good. If you compete with the big leagues, then you learn something. It is motivating. That is what free trade is all about, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Fortin, an economics professor at the Universite du Quebec in Montreal, on another aspect also said: "It's crazy to say that social programs are threatened. Just look at Sweden. That country is the most pro-free trade of all industrialized nations and it is also the most advanced in terms of social programs. The two are not contradictory; they go together." Mr. Speaker, that is yet another example from the academic community.
Another sector, Mr. Speaker, is very important. In many ways, it is considered a leader of Quebec's economy, namely the Caisses populaires Desjardins. The president of the Mouvement des Caisses populaires Desjardins, which has billions in assets, said this fall that the future of Quebec's agriculture was fundamental to the economic health of the province and that the Agreement in its present form would allow it to continue to grow.
The president said that after requesting a full report on the whole agri-food sector.
Mr. Speaker, I could give some more quotes, but what I want to stress above all is attitude. Yes, the attitude that our Government wanted to instill in Quebecers and Canadians, Mr. Speaker!
I listened to the new Member for LaSalle-Emard (Mr. Martin), who probably had to read a speech prepared some thirty years ago instead of another one- perhaps he searched through some old records. I was
horrified by what he said. He dared to say that our Party had no vision. That is the most awful thing! I jumped in my seat! We know that for the past year and a half Members opposite have been taking a negative approach. Not satisfied with fighting among themselves, their most original recommendation to Canadians was to tear up the trade deal. But in our case, Mr. Speaker, we threw a challenge to young people, to women, and to agricultural producers who are not people who feel sorry for themselves and mope all day long, unable to face competition. No, Sir, over the years these people have turned their industry into a prosperous growth-oriented undertaking which is not afraid to tackle any market in the world. That is what we needed, Mr. Speaker, a Party with a leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who did not fail to instill in the nation a vision of the future and pave the way towards the 20th century. He did not look in the rear-view mirror, scared of his own shadow like Members opposite who would drag us back 50 years into the past.
I think we were able to. . . and Canadians did understand that last November 21. They gave us a fresh mandate. They gave a fresh mandate to Canadians who know where they are going. That is what we needed, that is what Canadians needed so badly. Mr. Speaker, 1 am convinced that we will reach our objective and do so with the Canadian people. They are with us, Mr. Speaker. That is what we need and I am sure that we will be able to get where we are going and that Canada's farm community, like Canada generally, can look forward to the prosperous future it deserves.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by thanking the people of Saanich-Gulf Islands for the trust that they have placed in me by electing me as their Member of Parliament. I am proud to be the representative of Saanich- Gulf Islands, a riding blessed with breath-taking beauty and a gentle climate. The riding is bracketed by the campus of the University of Victoria at one end and by the Gulf Islands at the other. In between, the riding is comprised of wonderfully distinctive neighbourhoods and rolling farmland reaching down to the ocean.
All of the people of Saanich-Gulf Islands care deeply about the character of their communities, whether they are families who have lived there for generations, or those who have moved there because of the area's beauty and gentle climate.
December 19, 1988

The trade deal that we are debating tonight threatens the character of Saanich-Gulf Islands. This deal tells the farmers of my riding that they are expendable. How can the family farms of Saanich-Gulf Islands compete against the U.S. agri-business of Washington, Oregon, and California, agri-business which is backed by multinationals such as Exxon? The farmers of my riding are up against all that capital clout that such multinationals can wield against their competition, as well as by the year round growing season of California.
The Government states that there will be some dislocation by the Free Trade Agreement. That is Tory talk which means that those farms will be out of business, that the people of Saanich-Gulf Islands will be buying their fruits, vegetables, and dairy products from California and not from farms in their own communities.
In my work in international development I have seen what happens when a country becomes dependent upon a foreign power for its food supply. It leads to increased vulnerability. That is what the Government is inviting with this trade deal.
When the farmers of Saanich-Gulf Islands go out of business, the semi-rural character of our communities will be lost. It will not be cabbages and cauliflowers which will be growing on the Saanich peninsula, it will be condominiums.
This deal is more than a trade deal. It is more than about jobs, although I have already seen the detrimental effect that this deal will have on Canadian jobs.
In Saanich we are faced with American competition for computer contracts at the University of Victoria library. With this deal we are buying into a system that many of us find abhorrent.
In the recent election the issue of the environment was second only to the trade deal in importance. The two issues are intimately connected.
This trade deal is far more than a trade deal. It is an enormous step to the right to a more market-driven economy, away from the mixed economy that Canada has historically enjoyed. We have seen what the market has done to the environment in the United States, the market where the bottom line determines how the nation proceeds, where cost effectiveness is the primary criteria for a course of action.
We have seen the same mind-set in operation in British Columbia where clear cut logging the cost effective way is the way of doing things. We can no
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
longer afford this type of cost effectiveness. This Bill demonstrates the Government's naivety over confidence in market forces to cure all our ills.
Government Members assure us that this Bill is only a commercial arrangement. Do they consider that we are as naive as they? Do they not understand that a closer economic relationship leads to a closer political relationship; that adopting a market view of the world will lead to a fundamental shift in our values; that it will see the withering away of the independence of our foreign policy and the increased militarization of our country? I do not see this agreement in isolation from other policies introduced by the Government. It is dangerous to see this Bill in isolation. It is part of an agenda.
I want to assure the House and the people of Saanich-Gulf Islands that I will work strenuously to ameliorate the worst effects of this trade deal, to protect the farms, the environment, and the jobs in Saanich- Gulf Islands, and elsewhere in Canada, and to bring the Government the type of amendments that will make sense for all the people of Canada.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to participate in what I think is a very historic debate on the free trade agreement. I view this agreement as both a culmination and a new beginning.
It is a culmination by the fact that we have been working in this country for the last 40 or 50 years on the elimination of trade barriers between Canada and the United States, our major trading partner. Starting from the original bilateral agreement in the 1930s and the formation of the GATT, through the GATT, and in other ways such as the Auto Pact, we have been developing ways in which we can trade more securely and in a more open way with the United States over the course of the past 40 years.
It is also a new beginning because it will give us an opportunity to take advantage of being a part of the largest, most prosperous, and most advanced market in the world today. I have talked to a number of people in different parts of the world at meetings of finance Ministers, and at other international meetings. The one thing that comes through clearly and positively is that people are saying that this is an opportunity of a lifetime for Canada. People see this as an opportunity for which they and other countries in the world would give their eye teeth.
I listened to the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter), demonstrating

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the lack of confidence in our country, and the fear that she and others have been spreading during the course of the past election campaign.
This runs counter to the history of many countries that have been involved and are now involved in free trade agreements. I wish to remind the House that today 71 countries are part of a free trade arrangement of one sort or another. It also runs counter to our experience over the past 40 years, during which time we have seen a progressive breaking down of the trade barriers between the U.S. and Canada.
Had Canadians, in 1946, 1947 and 1948, the time we started moving toward multilateral reductions in tariffs, been told what in fact was going to happen in terms of the reduction of trade barriers, they would have been frightened. But we can look back now and appreciate what that policy of working toward the reduction of trade barriers has meant to the Canadian economy. We can see today what it has meant in terms of the prosperity of Canadians, a prosperity that we can, in many ways, link directly to the trade liberalization policies that have been in place since World War II.
Gerald Regan, the Minister for International Trade in the Trudeau Government, a former Liberal Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia, made the following statement in respect of free trade: "In the trading history of the world, it is hard to find any case where free trade has led to disaster or where either of the parties repudiated an arrangement because of adverse economic results flowing from such an agreement."


John Carnell Crosbie: Right on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It is that type of experience that we should reflect upon as we stand before our constituents, as we stand here in the House of Commons today addressing the Free Trade Agreement.
We need to be able to look ahead to appreciate the benefits that will flow to Canada from the Free Trade Agreement. If we do that, Canadians from coast to coast will accept the Free Trade Agreement with enthusiasm.
That is precisely what we saw during the latter part of the election campaign. As people got over the fears, over the myths, over the distortions and the half truths about the Free Trade Agreement and came to understand the benefits that would flow to their communities, to their businesses, they voted in favour of it.
I listened very carefully to what the small business community has to say. Listening to what Bell Canada or the Steel Company of Canada have to say is all well and good, but I can tell you that I listen with particular care to the small business community, to those individuals who employ anywhere from 10 to 100 people. These are the people who risk their own money, their own livelihood on how the economy performs, and as such they are going to reflect very carefully on what the Free Trade Agreement will do for them or to them. If they make a mistake and support an agreement that is going to hurt their businesses, it is not only their jobs that are at stake but their bank accounts and their homes.
It is for that reason that I listen carefully to John Bulloch, the representative of the small business sector in Canada. Mr. Bulloch tells me that the small business sector supports the Free Trade Agreement by a margin of six to one. Given that Mr. Bulloch's group represents people at the grass roots level right across Canada, I consider that to be a significant statistic indeed.
A number of points have been raised during the course of this debate in relation to the Free Trade Agreement. I should like to reflect for a moment on some of the broad economic results that we expect. And when I say "we", I refer not just to the Government of Canada but to the major think tanks in this country, all of which have come to the conclusion that the Free Trade Agreement will improve our competitive position, it will increase our standard of living. We are told that the Free Trade Agreement will result in an increase in the income of the average family of four in this country in the amount of $1,800. We are also going to see an increase in manufacturing output in this country of 11 per cent.
These are not temporary blips. We are talking now about a permanent increase in the over-all standard of living of Canadians.
As we increase our standard of living, as we increase our economic strength, as we increase our competitive position, we are going to be able to support more effectively such social programs as unemployment insurance, medicare, old age pensions, and so forth. Not only will those programs not be destroyed by this Free Trade Agreement, our capability to support them will be enhanced.
I cite by way of example the increased support we already see for Canadian culture. Over the past 20, 30, 40 years we have seen a real surge in the strength of culture in Canada, a surge that has been brought about
December 19, 1988

as a result of private sector as well as public sector support. In addition to taxpayer support, such organizations as the National Ballet of Canada, the National Gallery of Canada, the opera companies find great support from the private sector, from individuals and corporations, all because there is more money in the pockets of Canadians. With the increase in disposable income, Canadians, both individually and corporately, gladly lend their support to the cultural sector, and we will see more of that type of thing as a result of the benefits that will flow from the Free Trade Agreement.
Looking forward, we can see a very exciting future for Canada. It is a future that is going to bring Canada further along in terms of its strength and influence in the world, just as we have seen over the last 40 years the increased influence that Canada has experienced in such fora as the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Francophonie, the G-7. In all of these fora we have been able to improve our position, and we have been able to do so because of our increased economic strength.
I remind Hon. Members again that this is the view of all of the major think tanks; this is the view of all of the major business organizations. That is precisely what the small business, medium sized and large businesses are saying. All can see opportunities as a result of the Free Trade Agreement that are not available today.
It is that type of thinking, that type of opportunity that will increase the economic strength of Canada, making us into a more outward-looking, more exciting, more prosperous nation.
I have no problem in standing before my constituents, as I did during the course of the election campaign, and saying to them that, based upon the studies conducted by this Government, based upon the studies done by non-governmental organizations, and looking at the real life experience of other countries, the Free Trade Agreement will be good for Canada.
Let me discuss for a moment the situation of Australia and New Zealand. In 1983, those two countries entered into a Free Trade Agreement, and the results have been very exciting. But what is of real interest to us as Canadians is the fact that this past summer the Trade Ministers of New Zealand and Australia agreed to accelerate the transition toward a free trade environment by five years. And which country was pushing the hardest? Not great big Australia, but little old New Zealand. And why? Because they have seen the opportunities that have been opened up to them. New Zealanders saw their economy being transformed in a very
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
exciting way, such that they could compete with Australia, and they were anxious to expedite the whole process.
In May of this past year I had occasion to meet with the Minister of Finance for New Zealand. I asked him what was being discussed in 1983 in New Zealand in relation to the proposed New Zealand-Australia agreement. His reply was: "Exactly the same sorts of things as you are hearing in the debate that is going on in Canada."
The citizens of New Zealand were scared. They saw great big Australia over there just waiting to come in and roll over their economy and change things in New Zealand in a way that they would not like. What has happened in real life is that New Zealand has risen to the challenge. Its citizens have taken advantage of the opportunities offered by the Free Trade Agreement, and they now feel confident enough in their own capability to move into the Australian market in a more aggressive way and they have accelerated the transition to full liberalized trade by five years. Five years is not an insignificant time in terms of such agreements.
We can take a good deal of comfort from the New Zealand-Australia experience, as we can from other free trade arrangements around the world. Almost invariably, the smaller country of the two benefits the most from liberalized trade. That is the message we are getting when we see such countries as Portugal, Spain and Greece agreeing to join the European Economic Community.
Why should the smaller countries not feel somewhat overpowered by the Germanys, the Frances, the Eng-lands, and the Italys? It is because they have seen countries like Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg also benefit greatly from being part of a broader marketplace.
This is the wave of the future. This is the reason why so many people came around to our way of thinking during the election campaign. They said if there are 71 countries out there which are part of a free trade arrangement, why should Canada not be? Canada is the seventh largest country in the industrialized world. We have a strong economy. We are not one of these smaller countries which are part of a free trade arrangement. We are one of the strongest economies in the world today.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
That is why I have a hard time understanding why Members opposite cannot grasp this and understand its significance. Why can they not see the benefits that can come to our country by taking advantage of what has happened in many, many other countries of the world today? We are not pioneers here. We are not doing something other people have not done. That is why I think it is important that Canadians understand that the benefits are there if we have confidence in ourselves. I believe this is a challenge we are facing and if we prove to ourselves that we can take advantage of it and succeed, when we look back in five or ten years and understand the benefits it has brought to our country, what it will do is give us greater confidence to take on more challenges.
Canadians have risen to challenges. We have seen this over the past four years when we changed the direction of our country. Yes, we did make it a more market oriented economy. The results are there, they speak for themselves. During this period of time when we became a more market oriented country, we led the major industrialized countries in economic growth and job-creation. We should not shrink from these challenges because we know we can win when we take advantage of the opportunities that are there. This is what we will see when we look back in 5, 10 or 15 years time. We rose to the challenge and we showed ourselves that we can win.
We are going to take on greater challenges after that and the only thing that will happen to us is that we are going to become better people for it. We are going to become a stronger country. We are going to be able to do more of the things we want to do as individual Canadians. That is the excitement I gain from being a part of this tremendous surge into the future as our country takes advantage of the Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will begin my remarks this evening with the traditional congratulations to you, Sir, on your reelection to the Parliament of Canada, as well as to the Speaker of the House of Commons on his re-election to Parliament and his re-election as Speaker of this great chamber.
I want to take this opportunity in this my first speech of the Thirty-fourth Parliament to convey my sincerest wishes and best regards to the electors of Cape Breton- East Richmond for returning me to Parliament as their representative for the third consecutive time. I thank them most sincerely.


John Carnell Crosbie: You fooled them again, did you, Dingwall?


Mr. Boudria:: Wise voters.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who really made it possible for me to achieve one of the largest majorities any Liberal received in this election. I thank him personally for that.
I begin my remarks in this historic debate on free trade by recalling for those Members of Parliament on all sides of the House a view of this concept of free trade which has been shared by many Nova Scotians, indeed many other Canadians across this great country. I am not opposed in any way to the concept of free trade. In fact, I recall the words of the great former Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia, one of the longest reigning premiers in Canadian history, the late Angus L. Macdonald. In 1932-33 he commissioned a study on the tariff policies of Sir John A. Macdonald. He appointed an individual who served Canada well not only in that particular capacity but indeed when he later went on to become the Deputy Minister of National Defence, Mr. Rogers.
That commission clearly spelled out that the tariff policies of Macdonald were a hindrance to the economy of Nova Scotia, indeed the other Maritime economies. He talked about our natural resources and the difficulties we have had as a region, not only in exploring and developing our resources, but with respect to the difficulty in finding domestic as well as international markets for those resources.
A long time has passed since 1932-33. A great deal of good things have happened to Canadians because of successive Governments of different political persuasions. Today we as Canadians enjoy perhaps the best social safety net in the world. I speak about unemployment insurance, old age security and medicare. These programs affect the lives of real Canadians, whether they live on Bay Street, Main Street or in the great riding from which Mr. Speaker comes. Those programs are needed and they are appreciated by Canadians in those areas of the country.
However, when one looks at the concept of free trade, we have to be able to distinguish between the intellectual arguments and what we have in front of us. We are not dealing with a thesis prepared by some student in a graduate program. We are dealing with a legally binding contract which will affect the lives of average
December 19, 1988

Canadians in every corner of this country. It is not an abstract intellectual idea being discussed by academics in post-secondary institutions. We are dealing with a specific contract which I suggest imposes certain obligations upon Canada and certain obligations upon the U.S.
In examining that contract we have to be mindful of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) alluded to not only in this chamber but across the country. It was he, not I, who said on national television that when anyone enters an agreement with a sovereign nation such as the U.S., yes, it is very obvious that you must give something in order to get something back. The question Canadians have asked is: How much have we given and what have we received? Those are the issues.
In my region of the country we have overwhelmingly, 20 out of 32 ridings, rejected the government line that this is the panacea that will enhance economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Oh!


David Charles Dingwall: I know there are some Members opposite who do not share that particular view.


John Horton McDermid: You were going around saying they would lose their unemployment insurance.


David Charles Dingwall: Even the Minister of the homeless has to recognize the real facts in Atlantic Canada. In community after community, city after city, town after town, in all four provinces, we as a region said no to the Mulroney trade deal, and with justification. It was the Prime Minister who said repeatedly in this Chamber, but more importantly he stated it outside as well, that the major thrust of this particular agreement was to have secure access to the United States market of 225 million to 235 million people.
On April 1, 1987, he told The Wall Street Journal, and I quote: "Unless we get secure access there will be no deal". That was the raison d'etre of the Prime Minister. That was the raison d'etre of the Government. By anyone's calculations they have failed, and failed miserably.
Prior to entering the negotiations for the purposes of this comprehensive trade deal, the United States enjoyed the right of countervail and the provisions of antidumping as it affected the Canadian economy. One would have thought in view of the objective of the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Government of Canada as enunciated by the First Minister that that objective of having access to the U.S. market would be achieved. But the provisions of countervail and of anti-dumping which prevailed prior to the consummation of the process of this particular agreement are still now in effect.
So much for the major economic objective of the Government of Canada as it tells corporate Canada, small business and the regions of the country. It has failed to achieve that major objective.
What is happening? We have in our midst the Bethlehem Steel Company, as an example, which has initiated some 15 claims against Algoma Steel and the Sydney Steel Corporation in Nova Scotia. But this was the law, the deal that would stop that kind of action.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nobody said that.


David Charles Dingwall: Now we hear a voice from the past, a voice of a Minister, I might add, who assisted every Member of Parliament in Atlantic Canada in adding anywhere between 5,000 and 7,000 votes to their particular majorities. Again I thank him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Charles Dingwall: In Atlantic Canada they do not believe this Minister or the Prime Minister when they talk about this comprehensive Free Trade Agreement. This is an agreement which even a former Deputy Minister of Finance and a former Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said would force us to cut regional development programs, and that we have to say to Atlantic Canada that they are on their own and to northern Ontario that they are on their own.
It is obvious that on the major objective of this agreement the Government has failed. We cite the example more recently in November of Bethlehem Steel which under the provisions of countervail issued 15 claims against two Canadian companies to wipe out income tax credits, regional development incentive programs and industrial regional development programs, programs for export market development, federal expansion and development for northern Ontario. All those programs are to be given away if the Americans have their way. With regard to secure access, we have failed.
What about social programs? This is a Government which in the dying days of the campaign said to Canadians: "Social programs are not affected by this particular deal". I guess we were supposed to ignore the provisions

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of Chapter 5 when it talks about national treatment in terms of the level playing field. I suppose we are supposed to ignore that there are provisions within the agreement today as it now exists to exempt certain other items. But it could not exempt the social programs.
There is one part of this particular deal, Article 1204, which exempts what the Government believes to be the most important aspect of this comprehensive trade deal.
Do you know what it exempts, Mr. Speaker? It exempts beer. Why did the Government not have the intestinal fortitude to say to our counterparts in the United States or have the foresight to write into this agreement that social programs are exempt? Why did it not do that? It exempted, of all things, beer.
A businessman has certain additional costs that are not enjoyed in the United States.


John Carnell Crosbie: Nonsense.


David Charles Dingwall: They do, Mr. Speaker. Canada has a better minimum wage than does the United States. Every Canadian province has a minimum wage while nine states of the United States have no minimum wage. Even the Hon. Minister could comprehend that. Twelve other states have minimum wages of less than $2 an hour. How does one compete in Restigouche, New Brunswick, by paying $4 minimum wage when, in the United States, in some instances they pay less than $3 per hour?
Canada has a better health care system than does the United States. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians have their hospital bills paid by public funds while only 55 per cent of Americans do. Such costs are less expensive under our system. For an open-heart surgery bypass in the United States one would pay $4,000 while in Canada one would pay $1,200.
Our unemployment insurance system is better. The average unemployment benefit as a percentage of the average wage is 8 per cent in the United States and 40 per cent in Canada.
Our pension system is superior to that of the United States. A Canadian earning $20,000 receives 30 per cent more pension than an American making $20,000. Supporting these programs means high costs for business operating in Canada.
The minimum wage is $1.40 in Texas. I guess that is what the Conservatives believe when they talk about the new era, the new frontier, the new economic Canada, that we here somehow want to revert to what is being
done in the United States by lowering our minimum wage to $1.40. Is that what the Hon. Member has talked about? That is precisely what Members opposite want. I suggest that is not the objective of this Party, nor is it an objective which the Canadian people would want to endorse at all.
Social programs under the provisions of Chapter 5 over a period of time will receive undue pressure from the United States from Canadian business.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you put on your Frankenstein mask, Dingwall, or is that a mask you have on now? You could really frighten the public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know what has happened but in the last five minutes it has become a little noisy. I would like to hear the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, you can understand the difficulties of the Hon. Minister. He is the only one who preaches the benefits of the Free Trade Agreement without having read the document. When he hears an Hon. Member opposite giving him the true picture, he cannot take the heat. That is the problem with the Hon. Minister.
In essence, this document lacks many items. The Government has referred to the Macdonald Royal Commission as the so-called authority for entering into this particular comprehensive agreement. The Macdonald Royal Commission recommended to the Government that a major adjustment program be put in place before entering into that comprehensive agreement.
Commissioners are certain that an extensive adjustment assistance program will be needed as an integral part of any free trade arrangement both to assist factors of production leaving declining industries and to promote their rapid absorption into expanding sectors. Since investors, workers and managers will begin to plan their strategies for adjustment even before a final agreement is reached, it is essential that both nations accept an over-all adjustment-assistance framework well in advance of concluding a formal treaty.
This agreement is void of any major adjustment programs for Canadian workers, Canadian business and Canadian communities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Let me quote from the Macdonald Royal Commission:

December 19, 1988

How in good conscience can Canadians and Members of Parliament stand in their place to vote in support of this particular agreement without that major provision?
Even the negotiator, Simon Reisman-


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us hear it for Simon Reisman.


David Charles Dingwall: -said in 1984 to the Brookings Institution that a trade disruption insurance program would go a long way to removing fears about commercial policy instability that inhibit investment and trade.
Where is the adjustment program? There is none. This agreement has a major flaw and individuals to whom Members opposite point as authorities on a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement say there is a major omission, yet Members opposite refuse to take action. It is irresponsible behaviour on the part of the Government.


An Hon. Member:: You are full of wind.


David Charles Dingwall: We are supposed to allow the Government to take our concerns to Washington and debate with the United States the limitations and definition of subsidy. When I asked the Minister today for the position paper of the Government of Canada with regard to the parameters of its position on the definition of subsidy, all we heard was a huff and blow scenario from the Minister. There was no substance or detail. There was absolutely nothing.
However, Canadians somehow are to trust the Prime Minister and the Government opposite. They are the same ones who told Canadians to pass Bill C-22 and drug prices would not rise one cent. There is conclusive evidence throughout the country that drug prices have gone up substantially. It is the same Government we are supposed to trust which said it would privatize Canada Post. Yet, it is privatizing Canada Post. It is the same Government and Prime Minister who said in 1987 that we need secure access to the American market. Yet we do not have secure access in 1988. They talk about adjustment programs one day but the agreement is devoid of any adjustment programs. It is no wonder-


An Hon. Member:: What are you going to do?


David Charles Dingwall: It is no wonder that Canadians, including people from Atlantic Canada, rejected the major economic thrust of the Canadian Government with regard to free trade. I call upon the House to reject this agreement outright. It is bad for Canada and bad for the Atlantic region.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Dionne:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought it has always been a principle of the House that one had to be in the House in order to speak. I suggest that those who are making a racket from behind the corner cease and desist or go out in the lobby.


John Horton McDermid: That is the first speech he has made in 10 years.


John Carnell Crosbie: That Hon. Member was outside the lobby for four years. He better watch it or he will be out another four.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not know what has happened. The debate has proceeded quite well in the last 20 minutes. There is still four hours to go. I can see that some have caught a second wind. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Capilano-Howe Sound.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate. First I want to compliment you and the others as our Speakers of the House. You have an onerous job as we get into these late night debates. We know you will be successful.
It is also my first opportunity to thank the voters of Capilano-Howe Sound for their confidence in me and for their reaffirmation.
Tonight feels somewhat like deja vu. It is the same old voices singing the same old songs of doom and gloom rather than the songs of joy and prosperity and the songs of Christmas we should be singing tonight. Hopefully we will sing those Christmas carols before too long.
It was only a few months ago that 1 rose in this Chamber to speak on second reading debate of the Bill. 1 recall going through that second reading debate and sitting with my colleagues during the summer listening to all the witnesses on the free trade Bill before coming back here for third reading debate.
The House will recall that there has been something in the order of 331 hours of debate on free trade, which is 64 days during which we have heard the arguments over and over again. I hope we can now get on with the job of assuring that free trade is brought to fruition so Canadians will know they have these new rules in place to ensure our future prosperity.
In addition to those weeks spent debating the free trade legislation, my colleagues and I have spent seven weeks on the campaign trail knocking on doors, speaking on the telephone and debating the issue. It was different

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
from the 1984 campaign because people really wanted to know. Canadians wanted to know about free trade and how it would affect their futures and their lives. I found the campaign exhilarating and a tremendous opportunity to explain both the rationale and the opportunities the Government's initiatives would provide our young people as they head into the 21st century.
Let me return to why we brought forward this proposal for a free trade agreement with the United States. Being from British Columbia, 1 look at it from a West Coast perspective. I look back to the history of my province and my forefathers who came from the Mari-times as traders. They came to the West Coast to enter into trade. My father was a trader with the Pacific Rim. That has been our history in Canada and British Columbia. We have developed tremendous capabilities in the field of trade with our resources, and central Canada has been able to turn many of its resources into manufactured goods.
One of the problems on the West Coast has been that we got left out somewhere along the way. We have tremendous resources including oil and gas, forests, fish and coal, but because of the rules that had been in place, we never got much of an opportunity to change those resources from their raw form into a processed form by adding value, thereby adding jobs, to those resources. Just about the time when British Columbia as a society had matured and would have thought about getting into the manufacturing and processing industries, we were faced with horrendous trade barriers through tariffs.
My colleague from Vancouver Centre who so eloquently spoke on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne last week talked about the fact that Cominco in Trail, British Columbia exports raw zinc which is subject to a 1 per cent tariff rather than processing it by turning it into an alloy because alloys are subject to 19 per cent tariffs. It has not made economic sense to bring that kind of processing into B.C.
Tariffs that were developed to protect the industries of central Canada work to the disadvantage of the growth of processing and manufacturing industries in B.C. I think that is why many people in B.C. view the Free Trade Agreement as being an opportunity finally to grow up.
Let me use an analogy which I find really rather appropriate as a woman and a mother. We protect our children when they are young and vulnerable and need
that protection. In our history as a country, perhaps we needed that kind of protection 100 or even 50 years ago, but as our children mature and reach adolescence, we let go of those barriers. Finally, when they come to maturity, we expect them to be able to stand on their own and make their own decisions, to be able to compete in the world at large. I would like to think that as Canadian business people, we have reached that stage of maturity. We do not need artificial protection. We can compete with the best of them.
We in British Columbia have shown that we can compete. We have shown that in the lumber industry. In 1981, we were faced with a very serious economic downturn in the lumber industry. We made changes and we become a highly competitive industry. We can compete anywhere in the world.
Let me bring this even closer to home, to my own riding. 1 would like to share a story with Hon. Members. When I was in my riding two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to participate in the dedication of the new Whistler Express. My colleagues will have to get used to me talking about Whistler a lot in the House because it has come into my riding. It is the best place in Canada to go downhill skiing. We now have the Blackcomb Wizard and now the Whistler Express, the fastest and longest gondola in North America.
The Whistler Express has been built over the past season in half the time it has taken to build a similar gondola anywhere in the world. The company that builds the gondola cars, which hold ten people and are very comfortable, contracted out to a company in Squamish which is also in my constituency. This company built the cars there. What took people in France 150 hours to do, to make one car, took 50 hours for those in Squamish to do one-third of the time.


John Horton McDermid: But we can't compete, Mary.


Mary Collins: No, we can compete. We showed that our workers can compete. In fact, representatives of the parent company was so astonished by this that they thought something was wrong, that perhaps there was no quality control. They came here and investigated and found that it took so little time because of the productivity of the workers in Squamish and their commitment to getting the job done. I think that is a commitment which exists not only in Squamish but right across the country. We have the best workers in the world, workers who can compete with anyone in the world, and we do not need artificial trade barriers.
December 19, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: Why do we need free trade? Again, I think we have to look at the global perspective. Where is the world going? We can no longer afford trade barriers.
I had the opportunity, thanks to our very kind Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), to be an observer at the GATT meetings in Montreal recently. Those were very, very difficult meetings. Perhaps we were not able to get everything we wanted, but as I talked to my colleagues from the American Senate and Congress, from the Japanese Diet, and from the European Economic Community, I found that there was a recognition that things had to change, slowly in some areas, perhaps, but with the increasing globalization of the economy we cannot have artificial trade barriers.
Obviously GATT is one mechanism through which we can reduce artificial trade barriers, but as we all know, it is a very slow and ponderous mechanism involving 100 countries. To try to get consensus among 100 countries is extremely difficult.
The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is an example of how two countries together can do away with artificial trade barriers and each country can win. I see this agreement as being a win-win situation for both countries. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) spoke a little while ago about the Australia-New Zealand trade agreement. We know what has happened with that agreement. My colleague, the former chairman of the finance committee, was in New Zealand earlier this year. New Zealand is growing and prospering and in fact is accelerating the reduction in tariffs and trade barriers between the two countries. We know that this will be an example for the future. If we are not a part of that change, we might as well go back and be like the Opposition, the Luddites who tore up the looms at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and were afraid of change.
We are now at the brink of a transformation in our own society, a more global society, and we have to be leaders in that new kind of society. Of course this means adjustments, of course it means some will fail and some will prosper. However, those are adjustments that we have to make as a society if we are to grow ahead rather than creep behind the curtains of protectionism.
In my own riding my people are getting ready for this. That is what we should all be doing. We should be helping the industries and the entrepreneurs to get ready for the FTA. I saw an advertisement on television
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
recently about the new common market of 1992, preparing the business people of France and Germany for that. We need to do that. There are some changes in thinking which business people will have to make to be prepared for this.
When I have spoken to some of the business people in Vancouver, I have found that they are very excited about the prospects of free trade. Not too long ago, during the election campaign, I had dinner with a gentleman who is the president of a cheese company. I thought that he might have a problem, that cheese might be a little difficult. This man makes the finest quality Italian cheeses and sells them under a variety of labels. He is so excited about the prospects of selling in the United States. As those import quotas come down, he knows that he will have a market for his cheeses. He has written to me and sent me all this information and he is gung ho about it.
Hon. Members may notice that the women in this House are extremely fashionably dressed these days. We all like to wear Canadian designer clothes. One of the best Canadian designers, Mr. Jax, is in Vancouver. We are all familiar with Mr. Jax clothing. It is high quality women's clothing. Mr. Jax has not had access to the California market because of high tariffs. He too is excited because as those tariffs come down, he knows that he has a quality product that he can sell in the United States.
The list goes on. The people in the electronic industries and the computer industries and the business people in my community will not have all those hassles at the border, pretending they are carrying golf-bags instead of business documents when they go to do business in the States. We are excited about those prospects. We just want January 1 to come so we can see the reductions in those tariffs on both sides or the border. Skis and skates being one of the first items on which tariffs come off.
It was really frustrating. Actually it was much more than that. It was dishonest when my colleagues scared the elderly people in my riding and in ridings across the country. They told the elderly that free trade was going in some way to hurt them, hurt their social security and their medicare. I have never seen such a shameful thing in my life.
We all know when you instil fear in people it is very hard to change, particularly in older people. As you get older you become more concerned. You are not perhaps

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
as independent. You do not have as many opportunities, and you are more reliant upon security and the social security which this country provides. To perpetrate those kinds of falsehoods to the people of this country was shameful.
We know members of the Opposition have paid for it. They lost the election. Canadians finally realized the Opposition was wrong, and they were being sold a bill of goods which was a bill of dishonesties. I want to say once again to the elderly people in my constituency and in constituencies across the nation that the Free Trade Agreement does not affect pensions. It does not affect medicare or future security. Instead, it creates a new prosperity which will ensure that this Government and future Governments can afford those programs, that we can afford to improve them and have our security assured in the future.
Then we heard about water. I was always hearing about how the United States was going to drain us dry. During the election campaign in British Columbia it rained non-stop. There were days when I felt like saying "Come and take the water, we don't want it any more". But as I was out at the bus stops in the mornings with my umbrella, I told my people that the Americans were not going to take our water. I have a few companies that are selling drinking water and that is fine. But to perpetrate falsehoods and myths that the Free Trade Agreement would result in the raping of our resources, our water and energy, was totally improper, incorrect, and we all know that the opposition Parties will pay for that for years to come.
What does the Free Trade Agreement finally come down to for all of us?


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is a sell-out.


Mary Collins: No, it is not a sell-out. It is about opportunities and confidence. That is what is so exciting, after so many years of rejection. During the campaign, I had an elderly gentleman who had been through the 1911 election come into my office and say "It is like dej'a vu again". But this time Canadians did say: "Yes, we are confident. We know we can compete. We know there are opportunities out there that we will take advantage of as a result of the Free Trade Agreement". Canadians said yes to tomorrow, yes to our own capabilities, and yes to free trade.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commence by congratulating Mr. Speaker on
his re-election to this House and to thank my electorate for their support.
I will be addressing the House partly in my aboriginal language, Slavey, which is one of the Dene languages of the Northwest Territories. This is with the assistance of an interpreter, Mrs. Eleanor Bran, from the Language Bureau, Government of the Northwest Territories in Yellowknife. Before addressing the House, Mr. Speaker, I have some background information in order to put my remarks into perspective.
The Northwest Territories has a population of approximately 52,000 people. The Northwest Territories constitutes 36 per cent of the Canadian land mass, a resource rich land mass at that. Now I will go into my aboriginal language.
Native people, Dene, Metis, and Inuit total slightly over half of the population, most of whom live in small communities. Fifty per cent of the population is located in major regional centres. A small dispersed population and a relatively underdeveloped transportation system result in high shipping costs and limited access to market. It also means that we have the highest cost of living in Canada. Yellowknife, our capital city, is linked to southern Canada by roads, but the cost of living is still 50 per cent higher than in Edmonton.
At first glace we can say the Northwest Territories economy is doing well. The average growth of the territorial economy over the past five years has exceeded 20 per cent, but this figure is misleading. Seventy-five per cent of territorial income in 1986 was received by people in the seven largest communities. There are, in fact, over 50 communities in the Northwest Territories. Income and employment problems persist in small communities. Unemployment in Yellowknife has remained around 5 per cent, and the per capita income is $18,100. In Rae-Edzo, which is only 70 miles from Yellowknife, unemployment is 30 per cent and the per capita income is $4,600. Proximity to larger centres does not guarantee prosperity. In the smaller communities there is a greater need for and dependence on government transfer payments. The distribution of wealth is a problem. The Government of the Northwest Territories is to be commended for its efforts in this area.
I now go back into Slavey.
Our population is the fastest growing in Canada. There is also an increasing preference for wage employment in the communities. Job opportunities are very limited and the population is not as mobile as that in the larger centres or in southern Canada.
December 19, 1988

We are not in an area that is highly industrialized, booming with branch plants, factories, and so on. Therefore, we do not experience a massive influx of people nor do we attract foreign investment which might greatly boost the service industry of the North. Like all developing areas we export raw materials such as minerals and fur. We also import finished goods.
On the question of what the Free Trade Agreement will do for northern Canada, as I walk through the stores at home I notice that most products come from Canada or the Far East so I do not anticipate a great reduction in the cost of living as a result of lower tariffs.
Free trade may reduce the cost of imported mining machinery and oil field equipment which will reduce exploration and production costs. However, when the U.S. is getting our oil and gas at Canadian domestic prices where, may I ask, is the advantage for Canada? After all, we all know this has been the primary goal of the U.S. for a long time. The Americans have clearly achieved both goals in terms of price and guaranteed access.
My second point on this matter is that our principal export is production from mining. Having a so-called secure market for our minerals does not guarantee any benefits. Commodity prices not accessed to markets is what determines how well our mining industry does. Over all it appears that there will be little direct benefit to northerners from this deal. From my perspective this deal jumps the gun. It is a presumptuous, insensitive and uncaring deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: I say this because this deal was signed before negotiations were finalized. Canada and the U.S. will still have to determine what constitutes a trade distorting subsidy. Even as a political neophyte I can see that this represents a leap into the dark. Is it not foolhardy in the extreme to leap into the dark? This cavalier attitude has many Canadians, including northerners, concerned.
In the North we are truly at a critical political and economic crossroads. Understanding, co-operation, and a firm commitment will assist us in going the whole distance, not the domination of our economy by third party interests especially by the highly market-driven forces of the United States.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Evidence in the North clearly shows that the private sector alone cannot develop our economy. An active government role by way of federal investment in the North is needed.
In the Northwest Territories the private sector creation of 3,000 jobs over the last five years has been impressive. Most of the growth has been in the larger centres.
We are fearful in the North that much needed regional development programs are at risk. We do not have the numerical strength to influence government or to affect an election in regard to the direction in which this country is headed. We know that we are vulnerable and susceptible to the will of government.
During the campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated that regional development programs were not at risk. His attitude was one of "trust me". Many people in the North believe that they were forced to trust the Prime Minister, our federal political representative, when he met in secret in the middle of the night with ten Premiers to finalize the Meech Lake Accord. Many of my constituents believe that the Accord makes northerners second-class citizens in this country. They also state that the provincial Premiers protected their constituents, but that the Prime Minister, our sole representative, did not do the same for us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: The people whom I represent ask: "How can we consciously subscribe to this 'trust me' attitude when our fundamental rights as Canadians have been ignored on more than one occasion?" People in my riding do not understand why the Prime Minister voted against perfectly reasonable amendments to Meech Lake put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), amendments which would protect the rights of northern Canadians.
I hope that the Prime Minister will not let us down a second time by voting against any Liberal amendments to the free trade deal which would protect Canada's regional development program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: During the election the Prime Minister promised that regional development would not be affected by free trade. All I am asking him to do is to put that in writing as part of the free trade legislation.
In the North we are not equipped to compete with the American business sector and are clearly no match for

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
its keen, sophisticated, predatory, and economic sense in business tactics. The Government of the Northwest Territories gives northern suppliers and contractors a preference to encourage the development of business and to create a level playing field for northerners.
Will this be able to continue, I ask? Will northerners still be given an edge until they are truly in a position to be competitive? With the push for provincial jurisdictions to conform to the Free Trade Agreement, will this preference policy be viewed as a non-tariff barrier?
I would like to given an example of where new regional development initiatives are required in the North. Last year 2,000 trappers, most of whom were not full-time trappers, shipped $5.6 million worth of raw furs outside the Northwest Territories. When the fur is sent out nothing more is added to the local economy.
We need to build a secondary industry around this traditional economy of hunting and trapping that will allow for the extensive training of personnel to process hides and to design, manufacture, market, and distribute products derived from local resources. This will create employment and boost the service industry. Given the time, resources, and opportunity, northern Canadians can achieve that goal and not let it fall into the hands of shrewd entrepreneurs to the south.
Northerners are also concerned about the indirect effects of the Free Trade Agreement on the environment. Environmental standards are higher in this country. Consequently, regulations are more stringent. Our clean environment is a result of an exacting environmental management regime. In the North we understand the fragility of our ecosystem. We know that we cannot build walls or shields against global pollution. However, we depend upon the strength of our Government and legislation for protection.
Our concerns come from the need to harmonize policy on both sides of the border to create the so-called level playing field. The Canadian Government will be pressured by Canadian industry to lower standards in order that it will be more competitive with American firms conducting the same business.
I ask, with jobs at stake, will Governments be able to resist lowering standards? Our environment is at risk. Need I appeal to and overstate the case for a clean environment to this slate of expert legislatures, this powerful force of Canadian protectors?
I think that the same can be said about our social programs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that she has another 10 minutes for her speech.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Since the mid-1940s this country has built a social net that ensures that those who need help can get it. This is a service that is shrouded in controversy from time to time.
However, our Canadian democracy is one that stands by its mandate to care for and serve all people equally. Subjecting the existence of our social net to indirect pressures from outside forces is viewed very dimly by Canadians. A similar proposed move to deindex pensions also met with much public outcry and resistance.
At the very least, the social programs will be stretched and strained because of massive lay-offs, job losses, and dislocations. I do not for a moment believe that all those people will be retrained, relocated, or rehired. What exactly does the Government mean when it states that social programs will not be affected?
I look across the floor and I see the winners, the majority, the confident. I say to myself every day, as I look into their eyes and at their faces, surely they know what is best for the country. Do they believe, in their hearts and minds, that this is really what is best for Canada? Will this huge step taken now come back to haunt us in years to come? Will it be when we have no other recourse but to comply?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, do I see the world so differently that I cannot be convinced that this is good for all Canadians, not only for a few-the privileged, and established. Am I so beholden to my political philosophy of Liberalism that I am blinded, and that my mind is shut to another view or opinion? I say no.
I am a fair person. I am not a single focused visionary, nor am I backward. I, too, want a slice of the pie for myself and for my northern peoples. We do not want to sabotage success. Those are false accusations. Nor do we want to be unappreciative. That is also a false accusation. However, my innermost and strongest political intuition draws me back. I am not convinced.
Government Members have not been able to change my mind with a promise of great wealth and a secure future at the expense of our political independence as a nation. Nor do government Members have the jurisdiction over my mandate or integrity as an individual chosen to represent the northern peoples, many of whom fear this deal. It was the Government's duty to inform the public, to win the confidence of the public, and to
December 19, 1988

leave the public as secure and confident as they appear to be.
There are many here who, like me, stem from common roots, who will never know or feel the realities of that promised wealth meant for a select few.
But there are those who wish to work and live out their days as true and proud Canadians, under the protection of a Government in control of their political and economic destinies.
Without being facetious or sarcastic, I say to the Hon. Members on the other side of this House that I hope they are right. Certainly I would not object to being wrong in this instance. I do hope, for the sake of Canada and its people, that they are right.
Mr. Speaker, I have given you my thoughts, from my heart, on behalf of the northern peoples.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology) and Acting Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this historic debate-and I refer to it as "historic" for a number of reasons.
Most Canadians are of the belief that this debate was held some time ago. This House of Commons, after all, dealt with the implementing legislation in respect of the Free Trade Agreement some time ago and referred it to the Senate for consideration, and here we are holding that debate all over again.
It is historic because there was an election fought on the issue of free trade, and most Canadians watching the debate now are of the belief that they decided the issue on November 21 last. But again here we are spending all of this time rethrashing the whole debate.
The 1988 general election will no doubt be recorded as being historically significant. At no time in my political experience, nor indeed in the history of Canada, have Canadians expressed such emotion about their love for their country, about their love of their way of life. Never before did Canadians express such sentiment of protectionism in respect of those things we hold most dear, those things that are most distinctly Canadian. Never before did Canadians express such fear of change-and while fear of change is a natural trait, it is not one that fits the Canadian psyche. Canadians have
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
never been afraid of change. We came from other shores to seek change, to build new lives in this great land.
The election campaign forced us to focus on our institutions, to see that they continued to function in the way that they were intended to function.
The Senate was being looked at, with Canadians asking themselves whether it played its rightful role in holding up the free trade deal.
The Canadian people had decided they wanted the deal. The House of Commons had decided that it was necessary.
We had talk about a two-party system. In fact, most Canadians would have thought-and certainly I did when I came to this place-that some arrangement would have been made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party to be absorbed by the Liberal Party. After all, half way through the election campaign we heard that he was going to absorb the Liberal Party; that there was going to be a two-party system.
What is this business all about? What is all this rethinking about? Is a two-party system no longer something that the socialists espouse?
The election was historic inasmuch as it forced us to look at ourselves in a fundamental way.
As Hon. Members know, I come from British Columbia, a region which will be more affected than any other region by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, an arrangement which will come into effect on January 1, 1989. There is also no region of this country where the free trade issue became more polarized. There is no region more in need of diversified economy, no region more in need of a lessening of our dependence on our traditional industries-mining, fishing, and agriculture-that is British Columbia. The Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta need to lessen their dependence upon central Canada markets.
There is no province or region in this country more experienced in the results of socialist and centralist planning, the type of regime that the Opposition seems to offer, than is British Columbia.
Yet, some in B.C. sought comfort in protection; some were swayed by the fear tactics that the Opposition engaged in throughout the country. Some reached back to the good old David Barrett days. In fact, Mr. Barrett was even elected to the House of Commons.
Those were the good old days of high tariffs and discriminatory freight rates. The socialists, led by Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Barrett, the former Premier of British Columbia, inflicted more damage in the 18 months that they were in power than the Liberals did in 18 years federally- and we all know what that meant: 18 years of Liberal-socialist coalitions.
It was just awful. Investment overflew the province. No one had any confidence in the ability of British Columbia to play its rightful role in the larger scheme of things in Canada.
Those were the days when all we had was the opportunity to slash our forests and sell our resources in raw form, the only form in which the buyers would take them from us. Those were the days when there were a lot of ordinary people in British Columbia. Well, we are sick and tired of that ordinariness. We have different plans for Canada. We have different plans for the West, and different plans for British Columbia. We want to be a part of what has been experienced in Ontario in terms of the auto industry; we want to be part of the great things that are going on throughout the world. And we fully intend to play our rightful role.
There are no "good old days". We in B.C. know that best. The lumber industry in British Columbia knows that best.
Trade with the United States is the life-blood of the forest industry, and the forest industry continues to be the largest industrial employer in Canada-not just in British Columbia, where it accounts for 45 per cent of all manufacturing output.
Canada's forest industry is the biggest contributor to Canada's balance of trade. In 1986, we exported over 50 per cent of our forest products, adding some $16 billion to Canada's trade balance. Last year, $18 billion was earned by the forest industry in foreign exchange.
The U.S. bought 75 per cent of our forest products exports. As a result of the overwhelming importance of trade in this key industry, some of the strongest support for the Free Trade Agreement comes from that particular sector and its employers. The forest sector knows first hand the devastating impact of American protectionism, or protectionism wherever it is found. It knows what protectionism costs in terms of jobs, in terms of cash flow, in terms of investment, and in terms of productivity.
As we all know, in recent years two countervail investigations were launched against Canadian softwood lumber and the shakes and shingles industry. As a result of those actions, our trade with the U.S. was adversely
affected. The U.S. forestry industry brought pressures to bear, and the politicians reacted and imposed tariffs on our products.
Given the value of the trade in goods and services between Canada and the U.S., amounting to some $200 billion a year, there is a need to normalize that trade and solidify our relationships.
We in Canada have built a world-class industry around our trees, around our forests. We have built 350 cities and towns around this particular industry, with 8,000 businesses, large and small, now dependent upon our forests for their viability. Close to one million Canadians, directly and indirectly, derive their livelihoods from this important industry.
We did this believing, perhaps innocently, that we can always rely on this great market in the U.S. to buy our products in whatever form we wanted to ship them. Of course, there were cycles, with housing construction being up and down in both the U.S. and Canada. Of course, there were currency fluctuations which from time to time adversely affected us as we were moving along. We learned to cope with these kinds of things. However, all of a sudden a tariff was applied and our most important industry is threatened, not just in its present configuration, but in all of its future prospects.
We know our forest industry is very limited, given its present configuration, in its prospects for expansion. The fibre is all committed. Even in British Columbia there are very few areas where there is room for expansion and additional fibre available. We know we have to work hard and diligently to restock our forests and replenish those areas which have been overcut. Therefore, our best prospects for growth lie in value adding, not just to our minerals and forest products but to all of the things we have shipped in the most primitive form in the past.
That has been threatened as well. Every time we add value to our products, the higher the tariff goes. That is why it is so important for us in the regions, East and West, that we enter into this trade deal. As we all know, those of us who have been in business, if there is no room for expansion or growth, your industry becomes stagnant and dies.
All of us know, of course, this tariff had nothing to do with the stumpage fees or economic rent that was assessed by the provinces on our trees.
December 19, 1988

In 1983, when the first round of countervailing action was launched against us, it was found clearly that our way of assessing economic rent was not in any way a subsidy to the industry. Nothing changed between 1983 and 1986, except that political pressure in the U.S. intensified. The heat was put on and the way the American system works, politicians react much more swiftly and energetically to the kinds of pressure they get from their people. That is why we have the countervailing duty and a 15 per cent tax on our softwood lumber and a 35% tax on our shakes and shingles.
We see in this free trade deal not only a reduction of tariffs, but also the establishment of new rules. There will be a mechanism to administer these rules. That is why the dispute mechanism is perhaps the most important element of this deal. The analogy has been made by many about the elephant and mouse. It is said that when the elephant takes a deep breath, we feel the pinch, sleeping so close to the elephant. When he rolls over we could be squashed. For the first time this great elephant sat down with one of its trading partners to agree to a set of rules so that every time he breathes we will have to be notified. If we do not like it, we can tell him to move over a bit just in case we are going to be pinched by his expansion.
All these analogies are interesting and worth reconsidering. There is now a judicial process under which our trade will be regulated and within which it has to be conducted. A free trade deal is the best prospect we have for bringing stability to our most important industry, to revitalize it, to add greater value to it, and to expand and diversify it.
The industry sees it this way as well. Let me just quote from a letter from the Fraser Valley Independent Shake and Shingle Producers Association sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). You will remember the NDP over there, these great defenders of all that is good and beautiful, speaking out on behalf of the industry. This association said to us: "We urge you to pass the Free Trade Agreement as soon as practical so that others, when faced with similar actions by the U.S., will have a definite course of action available to them that will lead to a more timely and more objective solution. We strongly agree with your opinion that had the Free Trade Agreement been in place in 1986, this specific Section 201 action by the U.S. against us would not have been implemented."
That is what the shake and shingle people are telling us: please pass this free trade deal, please do not listen to the NDP, they are not telling you what we think is
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
important to our industry. They are telling us not to be swayed by the doomsayers, those who live in the last century. They tell us to get on with implementing the deal which they see as being a crucial and necessary imperative for them to plan their future. Do not worry, we have no intention of being swayed by the doomsayers.
I have followed this debate closely in the House and watched it on my monitor. To listen to some of these speakers from the Opposition you would almost think that they only heard about this free trade deal for the first time yesterday, that it is something we just dumped on them and are bulldozing through the House just a few days before Christmas.
Yet this House held over 300 hours of discussions. Sixty-one days were spent in this House over the last year and a half discussing the free trade deal with the U.S. That came after a royal commission had spent $24 million of the taxpayer's money travelling throughout the country examining the economic prospects for Canada. Its principal recommendation was that we should enter into a free trade arrangement with the U.S.
Then we had the Liberal Senate. Its committee held over 100 hours of hearings, chaired by a great Senator from British Columbia, and a Liberal, too. It came to the conclusion that the best prospect for Canada was to enter into a deal with the U.S. that would have a dispute mechanism, open the border, reduce tariffs, and create new opportunities for the regions to open North-South trade links. That is what the Senate said in its most prestigious committee about this deal.
I sense that even some people in the Opposition know what needs to be done. They know there is no status quo. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) kept saying: "We are for free trade as well. We are very anxious to see free trade, but we do not like this deal". In fact, he said he would go down to the United States and ask them to negotiate another deal with him. The Americans were holding their breath waiting for him to come down to negotiate another deal. Can you just imagine the reception he would have got down there? Yet he just does not like this particular deal. Is that not strange? What deal does he like?
We have everything we asked for. We have a dispute settlement mechanism. We have lowering and elimination of tariffs. We have time during which this deal will be implemented.
He said that the Americans would receive him with open arms. They are the best friends we have. They are

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
nice people. They will understand that Canadians would not want this particular deal but they would want his. Then he turns around and says: "If you sign this deal, tomorrow morning the Americans will turn into monsters. They will come up and take the false teeth out of our senior citizens and run around in their wheelchairs. They will deprive us of all the things we have worked for." Obviously Canadians saw through that kind of charade. Canadians decided what was good for them and what was good for Canada.
It has been said this deal is a leap of faith. We like to think, instead, that this deal is an act of faith, an act of faith in our country, in Canadians, in the woodworkers in British Columbia and Alberta, as well in the fishermen on the East Coast, and even in the auto workers in the riding of the Leader of the NDP.
This deal is good for all of Canada. It is the best prospect we have for new growth and vitality. We have no intention of depriving future generations of Canadians of their opportunities to make this the greatest country in the universe and to position themselves with the leaders of the world, competitively, with enthusiasm and with pride as we move on toward a new age and a new century.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a privilege to stand here in this House as the representative of the people of Prince Albert-Churchill River. As I stand here I am very much conscious of the fact that the electors of Prince Albert-Churchill River have sent some very distinguished Canadians to this House. Sir Wilfrid Laurier was elected by the electors of my constituency, as was the Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, and the Hon. John Diefenbaker-


John Horton McDermid: Now you're talking.


Raymond John Funk: -and most recently the current Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Hovdebo). I would just like to say in tribute to him that his honesty, his common sense approach, and his record of service to his constituents are examples to all of us. That made it much easier for me as an NDP candidate in that seat.
I would also like to extol the virtues of my constituency and the good people in it. However, since the constituency covers over half the geographic area of Saskatchewan, and since it is so diverse with 48 per cent of the
electors in the City of Prince Albert, 22 per cent of the voters in the rural communities around Prince Albert, and 30 per cent in the North, you would call me out of order a long time before I would be done talking about all those groups and all those areas, Mr. Speaker.
It is politically dangerous not to mention everybody. However, I would like to say to the Members of this House that for those who see only the stereotype of Saskatchewan, the broad prairie which I love very much, there is another half to Saskatchewan which has some of the nicest lakes, trees, forests, and historic communities that can be found anywhere in the country. I would like to invite all Hon. Members and their families to come to visit.
We have heard a lot about mandates in this House during this debate. I would like to say that the voters of Prince Albert-Churchill River sent me with a mandate, too. I have a mandate from 56 per cent of the voters in my constituency to "fight free trade with Funk". That is what I intend to do. In so doing I feel that I am inheriting the legacy of one of my predecessors who I mentioned already, the late Hon. John George Diefenbaker.
It became a bit of a game in our campaign to see who could invoke John's name the most often. I think that we conclusively won that debate. I would like to show Hon. Members why. The most effective piece of literature that we had was a Xerox copy of five pages of Diefen-baker's book The Years of Achievement in which he discussed Canada-U.S. trade relations. I quote:
The policies of foreign-controlled industries are determined by the interests of their parent companies; so far as they reflected a national interest, it was not Canada's. Frequently, Canadians were excluded from participating in such enterprises either through the purchase of equity stocks or, as employees, through management positions. Occasionally a United States parent company would take over export orders which had first been explored by Canadian trade officials. Sometimes American-owned industries failed to play their appropriate part in Canadian life through contributions to cultural and charitable organizations. Furthermore, these companies, given the resources of their parent companies, frequently had advantages in exploration and development over those enjoyed by their Canadian-owned competitors. More important, excessive foreign control reduced the control a Canadian Government could exercise in attempting to stabilize our economy and further the process of balanced economic growth. Had the Conservative Party been content to remain hewers of wood and drawers of water as a supplier of raw materials to the United States, these problems might not have loomed so large.
I want to tell the Hon. Members opposite that they have turned their backs on the legacy of John Diefenbaker.
December 19, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Funk: The first people to realize that were the voters in my constituency where the Conservative candidate only got 26 per cent of the vote running on this Government's policies.
Let me now turn to the reasons why a majority in every sector of that constituency rejected the trade deal, rejected this Republican version of Canada's future.
First, there are agricultural producers in my riding. I think it is quite clear by now that the Canadian Wheat Board is under threat. The farmers are not reassured by the wimpy response to Clayton Yeutter which they got from the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) who I think is also doubling as the trade commissioner for the State of Georgia. Then, there are supply management programs and all the stabilization programs, crop insurance, and so on. Certainly, they are not attacked directly.
Farmers in my constituency see this as a gradual erosion of all the things that are there to protect the family farms, a takeover of our Canadian agricultural industry by interests that are promoting corporate farming and an agri-business approach to farming. Our family farmers recognize that. They rejected it.
In the City of Prince Albert it was very clear to the people who work there that the reason the big business lobby was so interested, so excited about seeing this trade deal come through was that it meant two things: lower wages and less benefits. The people in Prince Albert had seen, too, what happened when our assets fell into the hands of foreign owners. The pulp mill in Prince Albert had been taken over just prior to the election, had in fact been given away by the Saskatchewan Government to Weyerhauser Corporation from the United States.
What happened in the year that followed that takeover? The small producers, the people who had made their living in the bush, and the native communities lost their place in the forest industry of Saskatchewan. People had seen that happen and they rejected it.
Then there were our social programs. Earlier this evening we heard from the Minister of deindexation of pensions, a gentleman for whom I do have some respect in that I share a common heritage with him. People were not reassured by that because look what happened.
First, we saw this Free Trade Agreement. As I was reading through it-I did read it; I read it four times-I got to page 204 under Services and there are some very
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
innocuous looking numbers about what is affected by this deal. In order to find out what that was, one had to find standard industrial classification numbers set out in Statistics Canada's Standard Industrial Classification, Fourth Edition, put out by the Department of Supply and Services in 1980. That is not an easy job to do in Prince Albert because our library does not have those documents, so I wrote to the Government for its information. I got a nice glossy brochure on services.
Was there a word about what was in these indexes? No. What is in those indexes? Those numbers refer to hospitals, general hospitals, rehabilitation hospitals, extended care hospitals, mental hospitals, and so on. That is why the people of this constituency have no confidence in the Government's ability to protect our social programs.
Then we turn to the effect of the free trade deal on the people of the North. I want to pay tribute and compliment the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin) on her eloquent remarks.
In this regard I would like to point out that I almost jumped out of my chair and asked to be heard on a question of privilege when I heard the Deputy House Leader the other day refer to the fact that they held committee hearings and essentially nobody came.
I would like to tell the Hon. Members here that on July 7 I wrote to that committee as a private businessman, as the owner of Spruce River Research which had done a lot of work in northern Saskatchewan, wishing to appear before that committee to ask questions about things such as secondary benefits from non-renewable resources, development of integrated economy through regional development programs, development of a functional infrastructure, protection of northern ecology, the evolution of self-government and the importance of the safety net.
Did I hear back? Did I get to appear? They said that there was all kinds of time when nobody was there to speak. I did hear back. I heard back 10 days after the committee hearings ended in a letter which stated that there were so many people who wanted to appear and that they did not have a chance to hear these concerns about northern Saskatchewan.
I want to raise now a few of the points that I had planned to raise before that committee. One was with respect to the whole question of the processing of resources. We have heard a lot about how we are going to have secondary benefits and how our resources are going to be processed. In northern Saskatchewan we

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
have attempted to do that. We have something called surface lease agreements that require local content, local hiring, and the use of local businessmen.
What do we see in this deal? We see very specifically in Article 1603 that those things would not be allowed any more. Thus people are very worried about how in fact we are going to enjoy secondary benefits if we do not have the tools to ensure that that happens.
Then there is the threat to our regional development programs. We have been told that they are not threatened. However, just last August the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion announced the closing of the DRIE offices in La Ronge and in Prince Albert in my constituency. When I checked out why that was happening, Western Diversification Fund officials in Saskatoon suggested that they were bringing their programs into line with the free trade environment. This meant that the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion was abandoning northern Saskatchewan entirely.
Another issue is the protection of the northern ecology. We were told that water would not be affected. This summer people in the North were surprised to read that the Hon. Graham Taylor, Minister of Privatization in the Saskatchewan Government said:
I don't think it is unthinkable that we could bring water from north of La Ronge to the top end of Last Mountain Lake, then use that more than hundred mile gash to bring water southward, and then connect the flow to the Souris River system.
Some may not know the geography of Saskatchewan. Such a scheme would bring the water 16 miles from the American border to fill a reservoir about which the Minister of the Environment of the federal Government would not hold hearings because it is common knowledge there is not enough water in the river system to fill the reservoir. The people of northern Saskatchewan saw that the water would be diverted to the south, 16 miles from the American border and decisively rejected the free trade deal.
It was not only the resource producers in Prince Albert-Churchill River alone who rejected this deal. The free trade deal was rejected by a majority of Canadians living in resource based regions of the country. The Hinterland-Metropolitan dynamic is one of the bases of historic debates in this country. It concerns the interaction of those who control the finances in the cities of this country and those who produce the resources. In an attempt to analyse this dynamic in the context of the election, I measured the resource base as the land
devoted to such things as mining, lumber and agriculture and compared that with the financial resources in the big cities and communities. The comparison is quite shocking.
In the last election, the area represented by Tories who were elected equals 919,509 square miles. The area represented by Liberal and New Democratic Party Members who were elected is 5,188,588 square miles, which works out to 15 per cent for the Conservatives and 85 per cent for the Liberal and New Democratic Parties who oppose the deal. I do not believe there is any better indication that the people in the industrial areas of the country have ganged up against the resource producers.
The stewards of our resources representing 85 per cent of this land said no to this sell-out. They said yes to developing our resources the Canadian way.
The phrase that will dominate the debate in the months and years to come will be "the six-month clause", which is no relation to Santa Claus, for the benefit of Members opposite. That is how we will get out of this deal.
While the Government may not have enough confidence to monitor this deal, it will know that Canadians will be watching. When Canadians see us lose control of our resources, watch our jobs disappear, see our family farms disappear and our distinct way of life vanish, they will band together in a movement like this country has never seen to see this deal disappear and this arrogant Government vanish. This Party and this Member will be front and centre, leading the movement to save the soul of this country.
[Translation\


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the privilege of addressing the House tonight. This is my first speech since the November 21st election, in which people in the great constituency of Abitibi sent me here for a second term.
My first words are to thank people in Abitibi for that support they gave me on November 21st. Abitibi said yes to free trade, and I would like to take this opportunity to speak directly to them of the Agreement as it concerns Abitibi, Quebec and Canada.
The Canada-US Free Trade Agreement, signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan on January 2, 1988, is an epoch-making achievement, the culmination of the efforts made during this century by Canadians and Americans to establish a
December 19, 1988

better framework for managing their economic and trade relations.
The agreement provides us with a historic opportunity to open up a new and more prosperous avenue to the most important and prosperous trade relationship in the world, involving as it does $200 billion a year. The positive aspects of the history of freer trade and the enormous volume of economic analyses have convinced Canada of the benefits of free trade, namely increased economic growth, a higher level of income and higher employment levels.
On November 21st, Canadians gave a second mandate to the Progressive Conservative Party, thereby supporting the Canada-US Trade Agreement.
The agreement provides for the elimination over ten years of all tariffs and other trade restrictions, along with a strengthening of the rules governing trade management.
What does free trade entail for the constituency of Abitibi? Percentage wise, we know that Government, education, social services, and health services workforce is 22.79 per cent; retail sales for Abitibi are 12.33 per cent; manufacturing industries are 11.55 per cent; mining is 10.66 per cent; transportation is 5.30 per cent; construction is 4.73 per cent; forestry, 3.96 per cent, and finally wholesale sales are 3.29 per cent.
Concerning Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, for trade in nonmetallic minerals such as cement, sheetglass, claybrick and fiberglass, tarifs never were a significant barrier. That industry competes with American manufacturers and should benefit from the Free Trade Agreement.
In terms of our agri-food products, a more secure access to a wider market, no tariffs on wrapping materials, food ingredients and machinery will help the industry, and access to the American market will inevitably make us benefit from economies of scale and opportunities to enhance specialization.
With respect to first grade meat, we can certainly look forward to higher exports. In other words, the dairy and poultry industries will still be protected through controls over imports and will not be directly affected.
As regards my own riding where pulp and paper is a leading sector, our companies will gain easier and more secure access to the American market and this will open up new development opportunities for economies of scale in manufacturing and more specialized products.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canadian firms will be in a better position to produce enhanced-value pulp before exporting it and more promising growth prospects. The transition period will give producers time to adjust to new competitors, and the dispute settlement mechanism will make it easier to solve any trade arguments that might arise.
As far as Abitibi is concerned, we will be able to talk about primary pulp and paper products. Now duty free, the pulp industry will have a more secure access to the American market under a more stable investment climate and with lower investment and production costs.
The newsprint sector is now duty free and will also enjoy lower production and investment costs, which is another way of saying it will find it easier to deal on the American market, another plus factor.
Producers of specialty papers made from mechanical wood pulp (uncoated) are already internationally competitive and will find new opportunities on the American market. Competition on Canadian and U.S. markets for paper products such as facial tissues and bleached kraft pulp will increase.
The same goes for wood products like structural lumber. Access to U.S. markets is guaranteed by a dispute settlement mechanism and strict standards for the implementation of safeguard measures under the Free Trade Agreement. The elimination of tariffs will enable Canadian producers to become more competitive by lowering investment and production costs.
Exports of wood products such as particleboard, waferboard and veneer panel will increase when tariffs are eliminated. Competition will be stiff in regard to plywood.
Processed wood products; Increased competition in Canada has resulted in the elimination of high Canadian tariff barriers. Products affected include kitchen cupboards, prefabricated houses, windows, doors and wood crates. Some streamlining will be required. The elimination of equally high U.S. tariffs will provide new opportunities for the more efficient producers.
Mr. Speaker, I would have more to say on this subject and on education, health and social services. Government services are not covered by the Free Trade Agreement. All governments are free to set up services in sectors of their choice. The economic growth generated by the Free Trade Agreement will provide a solid financial base and will enable the government to maintain and improve its services.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
In the mining sector, for example, which is important to the Abitibi region, the investment climate and the mining industry's ability to compete will improve thanks to the more secure and predictable access to the American market which the Free Trade Agreement provides.
The metals sector will benefit from a more secure access to the American market and from lower investment and production costs thanks to the elimination of tariffs on certain manufactured products.
The minerals sector will get a wider and more secure access to the American market. Investment and production costs will decrease thanks to the elimination of tariffs on certain manufactured products.
Reduced formalities at the border for temporary visits will help Canadian companies specializing in geological and engineering services. This means that new opportunities will be created for Canadian mineral exploration and production companies. In this connection, one often thinks of a big region like ours, the Abitibi, which is one of the largest ridings in Canada and the largest in the ten provinces.
Transportation is mentioned. The Free Trade Agreement does not explicitly cover transport services. Demand for these services is expected to increase as a result of increased economic activity in Canada and greater circulation of goods between Canada and the United States.
Employment is expected to increase in the manufacture and maintenance of vehicles, locomotives and railway cars and in loading operations. Carriers are expected to incur lower equipment costs, thanks to the elimination of tariffs on transportation equipment.
Increased business travel means more demand for bus services, air services and passenger trains.
Construction: We know that many manufacturing companies export a great deal of lumber. Increased economic activity will generate new opportunities for home building and renovation. Eliminating tariffs in itself v/ill result in lower production costs and the clauses of the Agreement affecting services will yield new openings for construction and for building trades in the American market.
In conclusion, we shall speak in the same vein about forestry. The elimination of tariffs and the dispute-settlement sections of the Agreement will give forest products more secure and wider access to the American market. This new access will increase American demand. As a result, there will be more job creation,
more new investments and more profits in the forest industry. Increased forestry activity will also encourage technological progress and thereby improved productivity. Forestation and forest management will continue under the Agreement.
So, Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Socialist candidate in Abitibi stated that under this Agreement there was no manpower adjustment assistance. We have a surprise for this Socialist candidate! We had developed such a program a long time before the election, which means that under the Free Trade Agreement, the Canadian Government is responsible for ensuring that Canadian workers can fully avail themselves of the new employment opportunities, which is what it does at present.
It is estimated that 5.2 million Canadian men and women change jobs every year. The Canadian Jobs Strategy, with $1.7 billion in the 1988-89 Estimates, exists to help these workers change jobs. Last year, of the more than 400,000 Canadian men and women who took part in Canadian Jobs Strategy programs, 80 per cent were able to secure employment or join in the labour force.
Under the Free Trade Agreement, the five Canadian Jobs Strategy programs which are relevant deal with employment development, job entry, skills investment, manpower shortage, and community futures programs. As far as the Community Futures programs are concerned, we had provided for the cost a long time before the Free Trade Agreement.
I was able to obtain six Communities Futures programs for the Abitibi region which will benefit Sen-neterre, Barraute, Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Joutel, Mataga-mi, Malartic, Val d'Or, Amos and surrounding areas, Chapais, Chibougameau and Villebois, Beaucanton and Val-Paradis. In Abitibi, we are ready for the Free Trade Agreement.
In March 1988, a long time before the election campaign, Mr. Landry came to discuss free trade. That former PQ Minister praised the virtues of free trade. His remarks were very well received by the business people in Rouyn-Noranda and Senneterre. Mr. Bernard Landry had come to deal with an issue he knows very well and which is close to his heart. He felt that Canada has at least two good reasons to seek free trade, including the free circulation of goods between Canada and the United States. For that matter, with a domestic market of 25 million people, it is in a weak position when faced with international competition.
December 19, 1988

Canada is about the only country of the world which does not enjoy a secure access to a market of over 100 million consumers.
Also, Mr. Landry mentioned in his speeches in Senneterre and Rouyn-Noranda the rise of American protectionism which threatens the economy of Canada and Abitibi. It is jeopardizing trade as a whole between Canada and its greatest economic partner.
In March, long before the election campaign, Bernard Landry also rejected offhandedly the apprehensions of those who feared for the survival of social programs.
We heard Bernard Landry speak with commentator Pierre Pascau in a program that was rebroadcast during the election campaign, that so many listened to back home, all over Quebec and that gave us such tremendous help.
Let us not forget also the contribution and support of the Prime Minister of the province of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, who gave us a hand in such a masterly way.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by noting that free trade will not put our small and medium businesses at risk. There is no reason to believe that the small and medium businesses of Quebec will all of a sudden be eaten up by big American corporations once free trade will be in place with the United States, claimed Mr. Tom Peters, one of the most famous management gurus. He said in an article, and I quote:
But for every business, no matter where on the planet, the basic question is not whether it is changing but whether it is changing fast enough, in an environment that has become totally unpredictable.
Mr. Speaker, during the last federal election campaign in Abitibi, the Liberal candidate told the people that Quebecers were going to be squashed by the American elephant. Today, Mr. Speaker, the future belongs not to the elephants but to the gazelles!
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to express my support for the Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address my new colleagues in the House tonight. I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to the people of Ottawa Centre for the support and encouragement that I received throughout the recent election campaign. I want to thank them for believing in the Canada that I believe in, a Canada that is strong and free, a Canada that respects the individual and provides opportunity.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
On November 21, the voters in Ottawa Centre put their faith and trust in me. I am committed to honouring that trust by representing all the people of my riding. It is because of this commitment that I am standing before you tonight.
When I made the decision to seek election as the Member for Ottawa Centre, 1 did so fully aware that as a federal representative I would be dealing daily with matters of a national and international nature. But, I must admit, I never dreamed that my first speech in the House of Commons would be in defence of our economic, cultural and social identity. I am, of course, referring to the issue before us tonight, the Government's proposed free trade legislation, legislation which, in my opinion and in the opinion of more than 50 per cent of the Canadian people, threatens our very nationhood. Never has there been an issue which has so dominated an election campaign or the lunch hour or dinner table discussions of a nation. Never has there been an issue which has so divided Canadians.
We are well aware that no nation will ever be completely self-sufficient. Therefore, it follows that no nation can survive without some degree of international trade. The basic needs and wants of our society are better served through the exchange of goods and services across the borders. For as long as people have been exchanging goods there have been others discussing the best ways and means to achieve it. The 19th century economist David Ricardo advanced the theory of comparative advantage to explain the economic basis for world trade. His theory hinges on the relative advantage any one country has over another in the production of specific commodities.
For example, the United States can produce automobiles more cheaply than Brazil. Brazil, on the other hand, can produce coffee more cheaply than the United States. In this instance, it will benefit the United States and Brazil to trade with each other.
Why does Canada trade with the United States? Why does the United States trade with Canada? Obviously, it is because each country has something the other country wants. Unfortunately for Canada the United States wants our raw materials. When our final trade barriers go down, American branch plants located within our borders will be tempted to pack up and go home.


John Horton McDermid: Why?

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mac Harb: Canadians firms will also migrate to the other side of our southern border. They will have to. The advantage that the United States has over Canada compels companies to do just that.


John Horton McDermid: Why?


Mac Harb: Lower labour costs, longer growing seasons and a market 10 times the size of ours are advantages that any firm anxious about its bottom line cannot ignore.


John Horton McDermid: Why haven't they done it before?


Mac Harb: These obvious results of the legislation concern me as they concern millions of Canadians. Issues such as this trade deal force us to take long hard looks at what it means to be Canadian. We are proud of our country, and we should be. We are proud of the compassionate quality of our social and regional programs. We are proud of having a political system which allows our government to be a catalyst, stepping in to encourage and support those individuals who need help most. We are a nation with a heart.
Liberal governments have played a major role creating and maintaining a system which protects the rights and interests of all Canadians. I am worried about the fact that we are giving the Americans national treatment in our goods, our services and our investments. No other Government has ever negotiated free trade in services. We know why, Mr. Speaker. Because it will have a devastating effect on those Canadians in the service industry. This is a vulnerable group which includes a high proportion of women and new Canadians. Yes, we are worried.
We must recognize that the Government's majority means that this deal will be approved despite our opposition. But that does not mean the work is over. The Government faces an incredible challenge, a challenge that it must meet if it is truly representative and responsible to the people of this country. It is the challenge of this Government and future Governments to ensure full and secure access to the American market, a goal that our friends on the other side of the House went into negotiations to obtain and emerged without. This Government must ensure the protection of our social and regional development programs.
It is the challenge of this Government to provide our industries with the tools necessary to adjust to the new economic realities created by the Free Trade Agreement. This Government and future Governments must ensure that our birthright, and the birthright of our
children and our children's children, the energy and natural resources which make our country great, are not given away at the cost of our future.
Our day-to-day lives once this deal is implemented will be changed. I am concerned that we will not be prepared for this change. Our farmers, our fishing industry, the millions of Canadians employed in the service sector and the textile industry-the hit list goes on and on. To compete in a free trade environment is a difficult task for a country one-tenth the population and the economic base of its partner. It is especially difficult for Canada because of the fundamental flaws contained within this particular deal. To be competitive, it is vital that we begin with a well trained and productive workforce. Production is a function of efficiency. Efficiency is a function of knowledge and knowledge, logically, is a function of education.

As Canadians, we are intelligent, creative and dynamic. The list of Canadian contributors to research and development is very long.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about the exodus to the South of our best experts in technology. We have to stop that brain drain which threatens the excellence we have maintained as our objective at the university level as well as in our research and technology institutes. We also have to create an environment that encourages innovation and creativity. That's what we want for our country.

To this end the Government must set up a national strategy on educational retraining. As a Canadian, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is a tragedy that in an advanced and industrial society as ours there are over five million people who are functionally illiterate. That has to change, and it is going to change. Our future as a nation depends on it.
Canadians have worked hard to achieve the economic and political standing we now enjoy in the international arena. The Government owes it to Canadians to ensure that this standing is not weakened as a result of the trade deal. The Government must not contribute to the polarization of the western world economy.
There is a great deal of work ahead. I want the Government to face up to its responsibilities now and deal with the problems that this trade deal will create. There is too much at stake to do otherwise. This is a
December 19, 1988

challenge facing the Government. Because of those concerns, and many others, I cannot support this deal.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, since we may be spending Christmas Eve in this Chamber, in the spirit of the season I would like to extend best wishes to all of our colleagues here today, old and new. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment, and also the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) upon his re-election to be the Speaker. All of the compliments which he has received he has richly deserved. I am sure all Members will agree that he will do his usual exemplary job in this Thirty-fourth Session of Parliament.
I would like to congratulate all new members, including my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Harb) who has just spoken so eloquently. It is a great thing to have facility in both our official languages. J'aimerais pouvoir parler frangais. Mal-heureusement, c'est impossible.
Unfortunately, I cannot speak in French. However, 1 am struck by the beauty of the French language, particularly with respect to certain phrases, such as deja vu, plus ga change, and plus c'est la meme chose.
By coincidence, the other day, when I was pondering this important measure I thought it would be interesting to put it in perspective. Therefore, I looked up some of the speeches from bygone Parliaments, including the speech of a great Canadian Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Would you believe, colleagues, on March 7, 1911, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was talking about a form of free trade in the Parliament of Canada. Would you believe that he was talking about shingles and saying, as the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said today in this Chamber, if we had duty-free status on shingles we would have no problems. Talk about deja vu, Mr. Speaker.
Those of us who sat in this Chamber during the Thirty-third Parliament would agree that this measure has been debated. For the newer members, I can understand their alacrity and eagerness to get on with this and debate it. To quote the late Ogden Nash, one thing that Canadian politics might be very much the better for would be a more restricted use of simile and metaphor. We have heard a tremendous of debate on this measure. With the indulgence of the House, perhaps it would be useful to put this in perspective.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I have spoken about a great Canadian Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. On Page 4751 of Hansard for March 7, 1911, he stated:
Our object today is to open the door... of a nation of 90,000,000 which has been closed to us for the last 50 years ...
Think of that, Mr. Speaker. This was a Canadian Prime Minister who, in those days, was saying that the 20th century would belong to Canada, and he was seeking new ways to broaden our economic prowess and open new vistas for us. In those days he talked about a nation of 90 million. Today, as we know, our neighbours to the south are almost three times that in population, and I dare say that the opportunities are three times as great.
We know that in 1854 there was a form of reciprocity between our two countries which did not survive the hostilities of the conflict between Britain and the United States, and later on the Civil War complicated things even further.
Various efforts were made in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s to proceed to return to the free trade ideal. However, these floundered because neither side was really ready until, as I mentioned, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the attempt in 1911.
In the following two decades Canada and the United States learned to their regret what could happen without free trade. Passion and protectionism ruled supreme and the two nations built ever higher tariff barriers between them.
The spiral of ever-increasing protectionism was finally broken in 1935 when the two countries negotiated a modest but historic Most Favoured Nation Agreement. This accord marked the beginning of a bipartisan effort in Canada to expand trading opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs. It was started by the Conservative Government of the late R. B. Bennett. It was concluded by the Liberals under Mackenzie King. Three years later the agreement was enlarged and improved, and it confirmed the commitment of both Governments to more Liberal trading conditions, a commitment that was pursued for the next 50 years.
As early as 1947, as some of us who are a bit long in the tooth will recall, a comprehensive free trade agreement was being negotiated between our two countries, but before the pact could be ratified, Prime Minister Mackenzie King concluded that the country was not ready for such an agreement and satisfied himself that GATT would serve for the time being.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
About that time, if I am not mistaken, when these GATT negotiations were in their embryonic stage, there was a young gentleman present by the name of Simon Reisman. He was in a junior position at that time, although it is difficult to imagine Simon Reisman being in a junior position.
In 1965 the two Governments concluded the Auto Pact, which is an important form of sectoral free trade. Again, we had Mr. Reisman, this time in a more prominent role.
Early in this decade the increasingly protectionist atmosphere in the United States threatened Canadian markets again. We know that the Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau sought ways to attempt to improve this condition. That Government concluded that something more than reliance on GATT was required. We have seen why, because recently in Montreal the GATT process which was espoused by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) proved to be less than adequate. Nonetheless, it was an initiative that was tried at that time.
To return to the evolution of economic progress and the manner in which most economic progress has been marked by the dismantlement or rearrangement of tariff barriers, those of us who remember the 1950s, including the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition no doubt remembers Paul Henry Spoak and his espousal of Benelux when he talked about a United States of Europe. This evolved into the Common Market which is perhaps one of the greatest economic engines of growth that the world has yet seen.


Mr. Turner (Vancouver-Quadra):: You were making a good speech until you got diverted.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Nevertheless, diverted or not, I say to my right hon. friend that he has made some commitments that were very much on the record. Perhaps since he is in the Chamber I should remind him of them. On August 30, 1988, as reported in Hansard, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition stated:
I am asking them (for) ... an opportunity to decide. If the Prime Minister wins he can still meet the deadline imposed upon him by the United States of January 1, 1989. I think that is a pretty straightforward proposition. Call an election now. If Canadians vote for the Prime Minister, then he has his trade deal. If Canadians vote for me, there is no trade deal. All I am saying is: Let the people decide.
Well, the people decided. It is not two out of three, three out of five, or four out of seven. The people did decide.
The Leader of the New Democrats said, after the election-


John Napier Turner: Why don't you make your own speech? Have you any material of your own? How about a little material of your own?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Some things never change with the Liberals. Before the right hon. gentleman came in, I was talking about a Prime Minister whom I think the Leader of the Opposition would like to emulate, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In the 1911 Farmers Almanac, which is another great record, there is a poem that I love to quote. Talk about dej'a vu, Mr. Speaker. It is as appropriate today as it was then. It goes like this:
"Look upon, the Grits the grimy, grizzled Grits.
What a woebegone expression across their faces flits.
For they are thinking, thinking deeply, how to run the country neatly,
And they wonder how in thunder that it's going to be done.
But the voters, those who matter, paid no heed to their idle chatter, Those grimy, grungy, grizzly, grumpy, old Grits."
I look upon them tonight, Mr. Speaker, and they are friends of mine and friends of ours, but I believe that really they should take cognizance of the fact that the debate is over. As the Leader of the Opposition would say, and I know he is a great fan of Rudyard Kipling:
"The tumult and the shouting dies, the captains and the kings depart, but still thy legacy remains, a humble and a contrite heart."
I do not see any humbleness or contriteness on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker. I suppose that is too much to ask of politicians-even those on this side of the House. But I should think that the Leader of the Opposition would be willing to concede that the debate has been a good one; that it has been extensive-


John Napier Turner: Until now.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -and it is now time to get on with the job.
A lot of Canadians over the years thought about free trade, people as diverse as Gordon Milling, who was a research economist with the United Steelworkers of America. In the historic town of New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, some 20 years ago, Mr. Milling espoused the idea of free trade, saying that it might be a very good thing; that a reduction in tariff barriers-and he was talking about DOSCO, a company then operating in
December 19, 1988

Nova Scotia-might lend to greater access to U.S. markets for Canadian steel products.


John Napier Turner: Did he vote for you, Elmer?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: He probably did, and certainly others did. However, I did not have a candidate of the Rhinoceros Party running against me. Given the way the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has been skating around since the election, I think it is safe to say that he learned something from that skate-boarding champion.
Coming back to those who have earnestly espoused free trade, I think of the great American President John Kennedy, who in addressing this Chamber-and I believe the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition may have been here when President Kennedy addressed the Canadian Parliament-


John Napier Turner: I was here.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: President Kennedy had some very interesting things to say, some of which bear repeating.


John Napier Turner: He said that good fences make good neighbours. That is what he said.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: He also said that we share common values from the past. He spoke of our common defence line for the present and our common aspirations for the future; and then he said-and I am sure the Hon. Leader of the Opposition will remember this: "Geography made us neighbours; history made us friends; economics made us partners; and necessity has made us allies."
I think those words bear repeating today.


John Napier Turner: Can you give us your own stuff tonight, Elmer; tell us what you think.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Since the Leader of the Opposition has been good enough to ask, let me respond. I think that the Free Trade Agreement that we have concluded with the U.S. is an excellent one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I think that it is an agreement that is good for the country. I think it will make Canada a more self-reliant, a more prosperous, a more outward-reaching nation.
If we might make comparisons again-and I apologize for going back into history this evening. However, I
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
do think that there are lessons to be learned from making comparisons.
Let's look for a moment at Argentina, a country that in many ways resembles Canada. It is a country that, in the 1930s, had about the same GNP as Canada then had. It is a country that, sadly, has been betrayed in many ways by its politicians.
Argentina, like Canada, is a country that does not have access to a large trading bloc. It is a country that has the same kinds of resources that we do: Wheat, oil, cattle. Argentina is a country that is looking for a future. Canada, because of its proximity to Europe, our relationship with the U.S., our history, has far outstripped Argentina. But, we still need access to global markets.
I ask the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-


John Napier Turner: This is your own stuff, Elmer, so I am prepared to listen.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I know that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition does not like to depend upon the "stuff' of other people, but perhaps, in the light of the results of the last election, he should. It may be that had he had more than one issue during the last election campaign, his Party would have won more seats. But then again, perhaps not.


John Napier Turner: We didn't do too badly in Nova Scotia.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The people of Nova Scotia are, of course, very tolerant. It is a province that reacts-


An Hon. Member:: Slowly.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -that reacts more positively, and perhaps more slowly. Had the polling day been one week later, there may be even more Members sitting on this side of the House.


An Hon. Member:: Or a lot more Liberal seats.


An Hon. Member:: Don't you bet on it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The people of Nova Scotia, partly because of economic policies espoused by centralist Governments, have become dependent upon payments of various types, on subsidies, with the result that they were more receptive than they perhaps should have been to some of the allegations that were made during the election campaign.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Generally, that type of allegation is made behind closed doors. But in this last election, some of the candidates actually had the temerity to say to people that if they voted in the Progressive Conservatives, they would lose their pensions; that they would not be able to stay in their nursing homes. All we had was the gloom and doom.
Fortunately, that did not work over-all, and I am sure that the Liberal Party, in the years ahead, will come to regret those intemperate statements, particularly when the manifest falsehoods become apparent. I am sure that those Liberal candidates who were elected by Nova Scotians in this last election will have a rather heavy burden to discharge when the electorate calls them to account for some of the statements made.
It seems to me that the more one looks at the trade deal, the more one realizes that it is an idea whose time has come-


John Napier Turner: Where did you get
that phrase?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I can say that I did not get it from the Leader of the Opposition. It is far too good and too resounding to have as its source the Leader of the Opposition.


John Napier Turner: It is a real grabber.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The Free Trade Agreement will be in place for many, many years. The question I have for my friends opposite is: Why are you looking at this agreement as though it were some sort of a doomsday arrangement?
The Leader of the Opposition knows very well, as does the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that implementation of the Free Trade Agreement will extend over the next decade. It will be a gradual implementation. And if there is anything that is unsatisfactory about it, assuming it cannot be modified, assuming we are looking at a doomsday scenario in fact, the arrangement can be terminated. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that-


John Napier Turner: "Just another commercial contract."


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Well, the Leader of the Opposition says that it is "just another commercial contract"-


John Napier Turner: That is what your Leader said.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is a sovereign treaty, but treaties can be changed.


John Napier Turner: Isn't that beautiful.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The Auto Pact has operated to the benefit of Canada, but that notwithstanding, the Liberal Government that implemented the Auto Pact took a lot of abuse from the Opposition, and particularly from the New Democrats-


An Hon. Member:: And the Tories.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It was said by the Opposition that the Auto Pact would mean the end of the auto industry in Canada, that part suppliers were going to be ruined. The Government of the Day even set aside support payments.
Those support payments were never needed. The Auto Pact has worked very well. But, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, the Auto Pact is not sacrosanct; it can be cancelled-


John Napier Turner: And it is not a free trade agreement either.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Well, if it is not a free trade agreement, it is a sectoral agreement-


John Napier Turner: You've got it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -and we all know that sectoral agreements were tried and did not work.
We all know how a former Liberal Minister of Finance, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, feels about free trade. We know how many of the leading lights in the Liberal Party feel about it-and that is the puzzlement.
Laurence Decore, one of the leading Liberals in the West, supports free trade; eight of the ten provincial Premiers support free trade; Senator Van Roggen supports free trade.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition does not support it. He feels it is wrong. Perhaps he is right. But I tell you, most Canadians do not think he is right-and this is why I cannot understand why we are here, with Christmas approaching, debating the issue.


John Napier Turner: Let's not forget that 57 per cent of the Canadian electorate voted against you.
December 19, 1988


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: What is this nonsense about a mandate? What is needed for a mandate is 50 per cent plus 1.
Did the former great Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, have a mandate on that basis for the NEP? Did he have a mandate for the patriation of the Constitution? Of course he didn't. He brought those measures forward and we debated them. But, no one ever claimed that he did not have a mandate.
How many Governments in this century have had 50 per cent plus 1 of the popular vote? Very few. Certainly, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, for all of his legendary political prowess, was never able to put together back to back majority Governments. He never got the votes that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) got, and no one ever suggested that he didn't have a mandate.
To say that we do not have a mandate is ridiculous. I suppose they want a referendum, which is essentially an American device.
Let me say this: I hope that the Canadian people in watching this debate this evening-


John Napier Turner: Let him say
anything that is original, Mr. Speaker.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I only wish that the Canadian people had fuller coverage of this debate. We should ask ourselves why it is that we do not have television coverage of the type we would see when it is a convention or a sporting event that is being covered. The television perspective that goes out over the air waves from this House of Commons is not representative of what goes on here. Probably if it were, if we had reaction shots, if we could pan the House, if we could have split screens, we would see how much real determination there was in the Opposition to oppose this.
This is kicking the entrails around after the event. Both opposition Parties are trying to do now what they failed to do in the election. I hope we will all have a little sanity, go home and get on with the new agenda, in a new year, in a new Parliament. It is only 4,000 more days to the 21st century and it is not going to do us much good to be rehashing the past when there is so much to do in the future.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate you on your appointment. I feel you are doing a tremendous job with the discussions I
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
have heard going on across the floor for the last two weeks.
It is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity today to join my colleagues in the first session of the Thirty-fourth Parliament of Canada to participate in this debate on the legislation aimed at implementing the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States.
I represent the federal constituency of Hillsborough, Prince Edward Island, a constituency steeped in rich Canadian tradition. I decided to re-enter public life because it has always been my desire to serve the community in which I live and work. I want to at this time thank the people of the riding of Hillsborough for electing me and putting their confidence in me.
We, as Canadians, pride ourselves in protecting our sovereignty; our right to choose how we want to live and under whose control, be it political or economical. Prince Edward Islanders generally, and my constituents of Hillsborough specifically, voted overwhelmingly against this trade deal. With over 85 per cent voter turn-out, the Liberal Party swept the four federal seats on Prince Edward Island. This was a resounding "no" to the trade deal.
As a Member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, I am fully aware of the importance of liberalized trade. The Liberal Party has long supported international trade. This is a reality in Canadian economic life and has been for years. Historically Canadian Governments, including Liberal Governments, have been successful in lowering our tariffs. As a result 80 per cent of our exports to the United States are presently duty free. The remaining 20 per cent of tariffs, under this agreement, are to be phased out over the next 10 years, but to achieve this I believe we have given up too much to our neighbours to the south.
As I travelled throughout the constituency of Hillsborough, I was overwhelmed by the voices of concern; concern about our regional development programs, social programs, fisheries, farming, food processing and energy. These concerns have not changed since the federal election. My constituents still want their concerns heard. That is the mandate I received.
Proof of this is that since the election I have received numerous letters from Canadians across this country who have voiced their objections about the trade agreement. From British Columbia to Newfoundland, the concerns, although sometimes regional in nature, have a national thread. It is important to note that the

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Government was only able to attract 43 per cent of the over-all final vote. Of the Territories and the 10 provinces, only Quebec with 53 per cent and Alberta with 63 per cent secured a marginal majority of the popular vote. All others were against this trade deal. Atlantic Canada, 57 per cent; Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, 58 per cent; and the Territories, 67 per cent.
Although the Government has secured a parliamentary majority, it is clear that Canadians supporting this trade agreement are in the minority. Legally the Government has a right to proceed with this agreement, but those of us elected have the moral right to not ignore constituents who opposed it and elected us on that basis.
Since the election on November 21 we have seen what is potentially the immediate effects of this agreement. Major businesses closing, such as Gillette, Pittsburgh Paint, Northern Telecom and Catelli Spaghetti, could indeed be the beginning of Canada's economic future. What about protection or retraining programs for these hundreds of Canadian employees affected by these plant closures? The Economic Council of Canada's recent research indicates that up to 250,000 jobs could be created in Canada by 1998, but this number represents the over-all net increase of employment opportunities. Even so, approximately 44 per cent of these jobs are earmarked to be in the lower paying service sector field, specifically in the manufacturing sector.
We have been told that the Government will be considering measures to offset the downside of this trade agreement. However, no plans to establish programs or assistance to workers such as the aforementioned are being considered. What about workers in their forties and fifties? Can they be retrained or just given the golden handshake? Or, do we just let these and future unemployed Canadians sign up for existing worker retraining programs and job-creation programs already in existence?
With reference to job-creation programs, it is important to note that funding for the Canadian Jobs Strategy for fiscal year 1988 is $1.8 million, down from $2.1 million in 1985. They can even wait for the recommendations of the federal Government's advisory committee on adjustment which are not due until June, 1989. However, this is a hard pill to swallow for people who have given the better part of their working lives to their chosen field.
Social programs are another major concern for Prince Edward Islanders. We have repeatedly been told that
our social programs are not affected by this agreement, yet Canadians are concerned about our safety net. American businessmen will increasingly want to play in the same ball park as Canadians. Bill C-22 is a prime example. To cite a background study commissioned by the Macdonald Commission: "Canadians would be required to make wage and tax rates and welfare policies conform to American practice and to follow all important changes in the United States with virtually identical changes in Canada".
Social programs and tax requirements on Canadian corporate interests could be perceived as an unfair handicap if Americans believe that Canadians are getting the better of the deal. Given that the Government has been less than firmly committed to strengthening our social programs, an example being the deindexing of old age pensions, our social programs could be in jeopardy.
Given that the Government is proposing a continental approach to trade it would be difficult not to do the same in other activities such as social programs. The net result is that Canadian workers' income expectations would have to be substantially lowered to offset the maintenance of our level of social programs. Americans will be demanding that we cut these programs because they will judge them as unfair subsidies, thus giving us an unfair edge in this hypothetical free trade market.
Unemployment insurance benefits have drawn chronic complaints from the Americans. It is important to note that under combined state and federal programs, plus extended and supplemental benefit plans, only 25 per cent of unemployed Americans receive insurance benefits compared to 85 per cent in Canada. There is a strong concern in my province that fishermen's benefits could be considered as an unfair subsidy by our American counterparts and thus subject to a countervail suit.
What assurances do the Prince Edward Island fishermen have that, for example, what happened to the softwood lumber industry in 1986 will not happen to them in the next five to seven years? What will constitute an unfair subsidy? Can the Government assure the House and the Canadian people that unemployment insurance will be exempt under this trade agreement? If so, let us put it in the legislation. Over the next five to seven years Canadians will be entering negotiations on what is an allowable subsidy, yet the Government has not set any guidelines on this very important issue.
With respect to regional economic development programs, what protection do Canadians have if United
December 19, 1988

States industries initiate countervail actions? More than 50 federal and provincial programs presently provide subsidies which under American trade law could be penalized. For Prince Edward Islanders their potatoes, fish, hogs, and manufactured goods are still subject to U.S. trade remedy laws. What assurances do Canadians have that every time federal assistance is allocated to a region the United States will not claim foul under its trade remedy laws?
I have presented the concerns of my constituents, Canadians who take great pride in our Canadian way of life. We are not against freer trade, just this trade agreement. We do not have secure access and our subsidies will be continually harassed by the United States until we have harmonized with the American way of life.
I was elected to represent the concerns of my constituents. I will fight to ensure that their voices are heard. Canadians need responsible representation in Parliament. I pledge to uphold that right.
Prince Edward Islanders know that 43 per cent of the over-all popular vote does not constitute agreeing to this agreement.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, we are sitting here once more long into the night in the name of partisan politics. The debate we are involved in now, one which we have been involved in for some period of time, is really going to contribute nothing to understanding free trade, really knowing what it is or what it will accomplish. The debate has been extremely exhaustive thus far.
The House has talked about it for 15 months. We have been through a seven-week election campaign. Frankly, I think Canadians are more or less fed up with the free trade debate and would like us to move on. The whole point of why we are here and engaging in the partisan politics of the moment is so some opposition Members can get on record. I think it amounts to little more than that.
The Liberals are free traders. The Liberals have always been free traders. They have had a history of trade liberalization with the United States for decades.
The Liberals can take a great deal of the credit for having brought us to the point where 80 per cent of our trade with the Americans is free of tariffs, something for
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
which the Liberals can be proud. However, it is astonishing to me now that they are going against the record of trade liberalization which they have accomplished in the past. I think that the Liberals should embrace free trade. I think there is no question about it. If they do not embrace free trade, I think that the Liberal Party is being extremely hypocritical.
After all, there are many prominent Liberals who are solidly behind the free trade deal. For example, there is Premier Frank McKenna, Lawrence Decore, and a lot of the business community behind free trade, which is evident in the financial situation of the Liberal Party.
I think all the Opposition Leader does not really like about the Free Trade Agreement is that his name is not on it-and it will not be on it, either. We have the obligation to ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) some questions. We have gone through an election campaign in which the Opposition Leader is saying that this was the cause of his life, that he had to crusade for Canada against free trade. In the last Parliament I believe that the Opposition Leader missed two of three votes that were held on free trade. Where was John? Last Saturday at 1 a.m. we sat here in this Chamber after debating a motion on free trade all day. There was a vote. I believe the results were 144 to 36. Where was John?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member is a new Member. I must advise him that we do not use the first name or the second name of an individual but his title, such as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Arseneault:: Mr. Speaker, I believe we do not comment on the presence or absence of Members in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is right.


Garth Turner: There have been accusations with respect to Conservatives ramming through the legislation for free trade now that the election is over and the House has resumed sitting. I feel that there is a strong suspicion of hypocrisy here. We should look back to the Auto Pact to see how the Liberals dealt with the last major free trade initiative which was brought into the House.
It is beneficial to us to remember that in May, 1966 the legislation for the Auto Pact was introduced into the House. There were no public hearings when that legislation was brought into the House by the Liberal Government. Some 15 months after the legislation had

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
been signed was the first time it was brought into Parliament. There were no committees involved in looking at that legislation.
In fact, the legislation was enacted by Order in Council, just to show Hon. Members how arrogant the Party of the day felt about Parliament.
In fact, I would like to read the motion that introduced the Auto Pact legislation. It stated:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement concerning automotive products between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America, signed on January 16th, 1965, and that this house do approve the same.
That was introduced into Parliament in May of 1966, 15 months after the Government had signed the Auto Pact agreement.
We heard a little earlier today the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) speaking in impassioned and eloquent terms concerning his opposition to the Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Garth Turner: It would be beneficial to listen to a few of the comments that the same Hon. Member made when the Auto Pact legislation was first brought in, that is, the free trade legislation regarding automotive products. About increased opportunity, the Hon. Member for Windsor West had this to say:
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that rather than lessening the benefits to Canada, the aim of this treaty is to increase benefits through increasing production and employment for Canada.
That is what the Free Trade Agreement seeks to do now. The following is what the Hon. Member had to say concerning gaining access to a larger market: "We should note, too, that one of our most important aims is to give the Canadian automobile industry access to the vast United States market which, because of its larger population, obviously affords much greater opportunity than is available in Canada". That is precisely what the Free Trade Agreement now seeks to do.
This is what the Hon. member for Windsor West had to say concerning the mandate the Government had to introduce such legislation:
I suggest that this order in council was put into effect under powers which had already been given to the executive by parliament when it passed the Customs Act giving the administration power to vary tariffs and schedules without reference to parliament. In other words, the government was using a power which parliament had already given to it to make changes of this type.
This is what the Hon. Member for Windsor West had to say regarding closure:
At this time I believe we have had reasonable opportunity for discussion. Certainly so far as I am concerned the industry, either from the point of view of individual firms or trade organizations, has had full access to the minister and individual members to put forward their positions. As far as 1 am aware they will continue to do so, and 1 am certainly willing to assist them in this regard insofar as I am able to as a private member.
Finally, the Trade Minister of the day had this to say about not seeing the importance of bringing the Auto Pact legislation to a committee of Parliament: "If a parliamentary committee is going to endeavour to ascertain from the manufacturers whether they endorse the agreement which they have already done in the form of letters tabled in the House, I do not believe that anything will be gained to be quite frank".
That is the legacy of the Liberal Government when it introduced a major trade initiative. It is a pale shadow of what this Government has done in order to engender public debate.
There is no evidence in the history of a free trade document being brought into this House that the Government has in any way, shape or form tried to ramrod the legislation through. That is just not the case.
The critics of free trade are afraid of change. Ironically, it is the only inevitable thing that will happen to this country. If we do not have free trade, what will we do to cope with the changes that will occur?
There has been a real lack of specific information in the debate so far about what the critics would do. How will they deal with the future? What will they do when the world forms coalesces in trading blocs? What will they do in the world without a Free Trade Agreement to protect us against American protectionism? What will they do about dwindling markets for Canadian products? What will they do about the inevitability of a recession if we do not have the stimulus of increased trade? What will they do to fund our social programs in the future?
What new impetus can Canada get? What new source of cash flow can we get into this country if we do not trade more with our largest trading partner? Are our social programs not inherently threatened by a willingness to stick our heads in the sands of the status quo as our critics would have us do? I believe that is the greatest threat we face.
December 19, 1988

If we do not do more business with our greatest and, more important, most loyal trading partner, we run the distinct risk of increasing our national deficit even more. That is a mortgage on our future that all of us on all sides of the House have a real stake in bringing under control.
If free trade did nothing else but give us a dispute settlement mechanism, it would be worth it. It would be worth it for Canada to embrace free trade simply to get the creation of a Canada-U.S. Trade Commission. It is a very important step in our relationship with the Americans. It is tremendously important for us to have a mechanism in place so that when a trade dispute erupts we can strike a panel of five members, Canadians and Americans, under a mechanism that has distinct, separate, and spelled out time limits and that within eight and a half months of any dispute coming to light there will be a settlement. That is very important.
I do not believe that Canadians put any credence in the free trade critics or their arguments. We can see that all around us. We can see it in the results of the November 21 election and the fact that we have a clear mandate. We can see it in the public gallery. There are four people up there tonight for the historic debate. While I cannot see the Press Gallery from here, I doubt if there is a person up there. Canadians are tired of the free trade debate. They want to move on.
We must ask whether we will be any wiser after this week is over and after we have sat here until one o'clock Saturday morning, until the inevitability of the free trade legislation being passed. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is inevitable that the Bill will be passed. I do not think we will be any more illuminated on what is in the trade deal. We will still have the same arguments we made during the campaign.
I believe Canadians are sick of this so-called historic debate. I think we are doing it for ourselves and it is probably time to stop.
As was stated on Friday, it is costing $1 million a day to keep this Chamber open. I do not believe any Member should feel good about $1 million a day of our constituents' money being used this way.
A Canadian author, Bruce Hutchinson, said: "For we are young, my brothers, and full of doubt, and we have listened for too long to timid men". I believe there are a lot of timid men and timid women in this Chamber. It is time to stop being timid and afraid of the future. It is time to rise to the challenges of a changing world. We must realize that we are involved in a situation in which
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
we must have evolution. Evolution means changing or perishing in a changing economic world.
The status quo is not an option. The past is not an option. Building walls is not an option. Free trade is the only option and the sooner we get on with it, the better.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in this Chamber last Friday, about an hour earlier than now, I did not take advantage of the opportunity to congratulate Mr. Speaker on his re-election to that position. Although we did not hear the result of the vote, I suspect he had a majority that we would all envy. It is a reflection of the feeling of Members, including new Members, of the record of the Speaker in that office. I congratulate those who are working with him as well.
While I spoke a bit about the voters in my riding, I did not express my appreciation to them for putting their trust and confidence in me. They sent me here to talk about one issue more than anything else, the free trade issue. After approximately a week of procedural motions and debate we are finally getting into the meat of the issue. The concern felt by the voters in my riding, and I suspect many others, was over the scarcity of solid information about the free trade deal. There was much talk about the deal by both those supporting and opposing it. However, the supporters of free trade did not have much information to offer, other than to say that it was a deal that would be great for Canada once put into effect. However, there were no definitive arguments in favour of the deal itself.
When the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) opened the debate at second reading, I thought we would discover what is good about the deal and what is good for Canadians. The Minister spoke for some 45 minutes, and whatever he said about the trade deal itself could have been said in about two minutes. The remainder of his speech was political rhetoric, having very little to do with the substance of the free trade deal.
The Minister made a few comments which did not give me the reassurance I was seeking and hoping to take back to my constituents. My constituents, even those strictly opposed to the deal, wanted some reassurance about what would happen. They asked what could be done in view of the fact they believed a majority Government would be returned to office. It was my opinion that similar arguments were being raised by people throughout the country, whether they were going to vote NDP, Liberal or Conservative and were sufficient to warn the Government that there was real

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
concern among Canadians. I fully expected the Government to react by making some changes to the legislation to show that it recognized people had concerns about it. I believed that it would try to convince them that the Government was looking after their interests. That did not happen.
In the previous Parliament an amendment to the Bill covered water export. We know that unless that is included in the agreement signed between the two nations it does not mean anything. At least it attempted to show that the agreement recognized the concerns some had about the export of water in a tangible way by putting it in the legislation. I expected, hoped, and told my constituents that I thought the legislation that would come before us when we met would also reflect the concerns of people all over the country. We know it does not. There is nothing in it to reflect those concerns at all.
During the speech of the Minister for International Trade I made notes. I do not have Hansard with me, but I made notes of his speech. Near the beginning of it he said that the U.S. had not asked for social programs to be on the bargaining table. That makes me worry more than ever about social programs. The Americans have not asked for social programs to be on the bargaining table yet. The Minister did not say "yet", but that does not change the meaning. He then went on to say, "if they do", so he is leaving the door open for the Americans to ask for social programs to be on the bargaining table. It is wide open. They can be put on the bargaining table any time the Americans want, but the Minister then said: "We will say no".
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of one of Tommy Douglas' stories about the elephant dancing with the fleas and saying: "Every man for himself'. When it comes to saying no at the bargaining table, is it the elephant or the flea that will carry the weight? Which one will win the day?
By saying that the Americans have not asked for social programs to be on the bargaining table and then going on to say that if they do, the Minister for International Trade means when they do. He anticipates that they will, and he will argue it at the time. By that time he hopes that people will have forgotten that he promised to say no.
The Minister said that health care was not at issue and that we would be able to do whatever federal or provincial governments wanted to do. There has already been talk indicating that parts of our health services
may well be privatized. When the Minister says that it will be up to federal and provincial Governments, it does not reassure anyone from British Columbia, and I am not sure about those from other provinces.


An Hon. Member:: Saskatchewan.


David Stupich: Saskatchewan has been mentioned and that is one that I had in mind as well. I know that in the Province of British Columbia, the Premier suggested that one way of getting rid of line-ups in hospitals was to set up a separate hospital system so that those who could afford to pay for it themselves would not have to stand in line. That would be a great system. Are we content to leave our health services to Premiers like that? Now we have the protection of the federal Government. I do not know what the Minister for International Trade had in mind when he said we would be able to do whatever federal and provincial Governments wanted to do. Did he mean the Governments separately or together? I do not know the answer to that, but I hope he will answer it.
I do not know if things work the same way here as they do in the British Columbia Legislature. During second reading, the Minister is either present or has notes taken so that he can deal with questions when he winds up the debate. That may or may not be the case here. If it is not, I am sure that there will be other opportunities to ask questions, but those are two questions I would like to ask.
The Minister then went on to say that Article 1201 of the agreement specifically exempted measures necessary to protect the environment. That is good news. We are increasingly concerned about what is happening to our environment. There can be no doubt about that. However, I wanted to read the article just to see how good it was and how strong I felt it would be in the way of protection.
You may have had the experience that I had as a youngster, Mr. Speaker, when I was attending school. At times, I tried to find definitions of words. I looked up a word and then saw words used to explain that word, then I looked those words up in the dictionary, and I kept going around like a ring in a rosy until I was back where I started and still did not know what the word meant.
Let us see what Article 1201 means. The Minister for International Trade was talking about the environment when he mentioned that article. The chapter is headed "Exceptions for Trade in Goods", and Article 1201 is
December 19, 1988

headed "GATT Exceptions". I do not know what that has to do with the environment, so I kept looking. It says that subject to the provisions of Articles 409 and 904, provisions of Article 20 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or GATT are incorporated into and made a part of this part of the agreement.
As one who is worried about the environment, I was not yet reassured, so I continued my search. Article 1201 refers to Article 409, so I looked up Article 409. The Chapter is headed "Border Measures". Again, I do not know what that has to do with the environment, but I looked at it in any event. I will not read Article 409 because it goes on for a whole page, but it is headed "Other Export Measures". It says that either party may refer to GATT if there are any questions, and the second paragraph says that with respect to the implementation of provisions of this article the parties shall co-operate in the maintenance and the development of effective controls on the export of each other's good to third countries. We have had some pretty bad examples of exports to third countries when it comes to the environment. That in itself is not reassuring.
There was one more place to look. I was also referred to Article 904, so I looked at Article 904 which is headed "Other Support Measures". What that has to do with the environment, I do not know, but I read it thoroughly and I saw no reference to the environment.
If everything the Minister tells us about the Free Trade Agreement is as reliable as his statement that Article 1201 specifically exempts measures necessary to protect the environment, I do not take much reassurance from anything the Minister says.


Some Hon. Members:: He hasn't even read it.


David Stupich: He admitted that at one point, yes. Whether that has changed since, I do not know.
Trade distorting subsidies are not defined, but then the Minister reassures us by saying they will be defined over the next five to seven years. The flea will be bargaining with the elephant. That is not reassuring to me.
We now have a binding dispute settlement mechanism. It would be great if that were so, and if I could be reassured that it were so, then I would feel a little more at ease about what is going on. However, the Minister did not give us any references to prove that in any way.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I know the machinery involved in binding disputes settlement mechanisms. How can either country impose a binding settlement on the other? How can any committee do this? What force or power will it have? What will the penalties be if the parties do not react properly? In the case of Canada, the penalty could be that we would give the United States six months notice that we were getting out of the deal. Right now, 75 per cent of our exports go to the United States. If the free trade deal improves that, the figure might rise to 85 per cent. We could say to them that the only real market we have in the world will be cut off voluntarily because we do not like what they have done to us. That is not realistic. We could never enforce a decision of the binding dispute settlement mechanism committee in any way at all.
On the other hand, the Americans could say that they would not import any single good that we want to export to them, and we would be on our knees begging them to import our goods. The binding dispute settlement mechanism works very well one way. It works well for the Americans but it does not work at all for Canadians. It is a one-sided agreement. The Minister said that it was not a one-sided agreement but he should have left out the word "not".
Today, in answer to a question I believe the Minister said that there would have been no countervail if the free trade Bill had been in effect. He is a bit of a humourist. He likes to make jokes. I looked around to see if there were people laughing when he said that. I thought it was one of his jokes.
The countervail was imposed on British Columbia because the Americans said we were giving unfair subsidies to the logging industry. They made that decision. They said that it would be fair and proper that there should be a 15 per cent duty on the import of Canadian lumber to the United States, and particularly on lumber from British Columbia. They made that decision and told us that is what it was going to be. The forestry industry was not prepared to accept that. While not admitting the possibility of a subsidy, they suggested, just in case there might be a subsidy in some way, sometime, that perhaps 3 per cent or 4 per cent might be more appropriate. That was the figure they wanted to fight for. But the politicians, federally and provincially, took it out of their hands and said: "We agree to 15 per cent". The industry was shaken by this, but it had little option when governments made the decision for it.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
For the Minister to say that with the Free Trade Agreement in effect the Americans or the Canadians, depending on which way it was going, would not have the right to examine subsidies and to reach a decision that a subsidy was being given to something being exported and imported, depending on which side of the game you are, is total rubbish. Everyone here knows better than that. They know that is what the whole agreement is for. It depends so much on the subsidies that are yet to be defined over five to seven years. The Minister was not giving us any solid information about the free trade Bill when he talked about the safety that would be given to our exports of lumber in the Province of British Columbia.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) spoke; here I was looking for something better. I was reasonably sure I would get it, but there was no information, no assurances. He did not even come as close as the Minister of Trade. He did not try. During the campaign my constituents were desperate to get through to the Tory Government so I tried to reassure them. The Tories reacted positively, as I said before, in response to the concern about the export of water but they have not acted positively with respect to any of the other concerns.
We wanted a free trade deal. The Americans needed it. Currently we are running a surplus in our trade with the Americans at some $17 million a year. The Americans are running a trade deficit of almost 10 times that amount world-wide. They have to change that. Ten years ago the U.S.A. was the world's greatest creditor nation. Today, the U.S.A. is the greatest debtor nation. The Americans had to change that and the easy mark, they thought, was Canada. They wanted this deal to reduce the trade deficit with Canada.
Article 2002 comes as close as anything in the agreement to explaining to my mind. For those who do not happen to have a copy of this agreement with them, I will read part of Article 2002. In effect, the two Governments agree that should either find it necessary to apply exchange controls or take trade actions such as a surcharge or quota to counteract a serious deterioration in its balance of payments position, it will do so. What is serious? That is up to the nation that is experiencing the situation to determine, I suppose. There is no definition. It will do so in a manner consistent with these multinational agreements. These multilateral agreements refer to the obligations under
GATT, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD Code of Liberalization of Capital Movements.
In other words, international capital will make the decision. If they want to impose quotas, surcharges, anything at all to stop imports from Canada, the international bankers will make the decisions, the very people who expect benefits from the free trade deal. The big companies will benefit. They have no loyalty to any country anywhere. They will shut down plants in Canada, Mexico, the Philippines, or anywhere else. They will do anything in the interests of accumulating capital internationally. There is no loyalty to any country and the people who are getting such fancy salaries out of them no doubt will pay taxes in Bermuda or somewhere like that, where there are no income taxes.
We have placed ourselves almost totally in the hands of such people by going ahead with this agreement. We have given control of our country in almost every aspect over the long run to people who have no loyalty to Canada and, frankly, not even any loyalty to the Americans. No loyalty to anyone save for themselves. I do not fault them.
After all, we are handing Canada to them, saying: "Here, help yourselves". Of all the things that I have seen there is one cartoon that I thought carried the message best. It depicted a little beaver walking with Uncle Sam, saying: "We will give you everything you want, Uncle Sam, but that is our final offer". We gave them everything, but we are going a little further and saying that if there is anything at all that you can think of in the future, you can have that too; our country is yours to control, as you will, for your benefit. If we get something out of it, that is fine, but it is for their benefit and for the benefit of the international corporations.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate you on your re-election. This trade agreement became a dominant force in the past election. It was the object of discussions, of course. A vote has been taken. We know the result. On this side of the House we are glad to report to you that the people who elected us did not have confidence in the substance nor in the process by which this agreement was reached. I will try, in the limited time available, to explain why this conclusion was arrived at by Canadians who voted for the Liberal Party.
First, Canadians saw in free trade a misnomer. It did not take them very long in the campaign to arrive at that conclusion. We had the debate in which the Leader of the Liberal Party did so well. As a result of public
December 19, 1988

meetings and hearings in the ridings, and as a result of the input provided by a number of experts in the field, people realized that this was actually an economic union that the Government of Canada was proposing.
It was more than just a question of trade because what was being proposed and what the Bill before us contains is a measure that deals not only with tariffs and therefore not only with commerce and goods on which a tariff is subjected or not to a certain tax. It also deals with energy, with the environment, with investments, even with equivalency of standards, and with a number of ramifications from those measures.
In the end Canadians concluded that what was being proposed was a measure that dealt with economic union between the economies of the two countries. It therefore dealt with the question of Canadian identity, with political and economic independence. Those who expressed a vote in the negative with respect to this measure felt that we should not go down that road.
The debate this week is a legitimate one and is one that is perfectly understandable if one looks at the percentage of the vote cast for the two parties in the Opposition.
From the examination of the events over the past two years it becomes clear that this Government did not understand the impact of trade on the environment. As a result it failed to do its homework in advance of the negotiations. I will explain, Mr. Speaker.
The Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, which reports to the Minister of the Environment of the day, raised a number of concerns in January, 1986. It stated to the Government that what was needed in anticipation of the negotiations was a series of public consultations whereby we could receive public input on the environmental implications of trade. Unfortunately, this proposal went by unnoticed.
In January, 1986, the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council proposed to the then Minister of the Environment that in Canada we needed comparative data that would compare environmental programs being carried out in Canada and in the United States, for reasons that would become clearer as time went by because we would know how to compare programs in the two countries. Unfortunately, that suggestion went by unheeded.
The Canadian Environmental Advisory Council also stated that we should study the experience of other
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
nations on trade arrangements and environmental protection. Evidently, it was referring to the experience in the European Common Market. It was, perhaps, one of the most sound recommendations that was ever made in relation to the impact on the environment by trade. Unfortunately, once again that recommendation was received with silence.
The Canadian Environmental Advisory Council also proposed a measure that would give the negotiating team for Canada some environmental principles that would serve as a guide during the course of the negotiations. That recommendation went by unheeded.
Finally, the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council proposed that the negotiating team for Canada be given a list of non-negotiable items where the environment was concerned. Unfortunately, again that proposal was disregarded.
Those are the reasons why, on this side of the House, we have to say that the Government of Canada did not do its work, although it was advised to do so by the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council in January, 1986. It failed to do its homework, and it ignored sound advice from people who had been appointed to give the Government advice. So much for listening to an advisory body on the environment. So much for the claims on the part of the Government that it believes in the principles of the environment and that it practises what it preaches.
During the negotiations it was interesting to note that the Canadian negotiating team did not have one environmental expert. It had experts from any discipline one could think of, however not one person on that team who could advise it on environmental matters, and on matters that would relate the matter of trade as it impacts on the environment.
At the same time, in April, 1987, the Government found it possible to endorse the Brundtland Commission report which clearly established the link between trade and the environment. That report called for energy efficiency. It even went so far as recommending a reduction of 40 per cent of North America's energy consumption by the year 2000. While it was negotiating the Government applauded the outcome, the report of the Task Force on the Environment and the Economy. Yet, having done so, it failed and continues to fail to recognize the link between trade and the environment. We had to conclude, and we still do, that one hand of the Government did not know what the other was doing. It did not make sense to see the Government embrace the

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Brundtland Commission report, make high-sounding declarations on the content of the Task Force on the Environment and the Economy, and at the same time proceed in these negotiations on trade with the United States without any experts on the environment, and without taking into account the content of the Brundtland report.
After the negotiations the Department of the Environment continued to remain silent. Almost every major Department of the federal Government produced a study and made public its findings in glowing terms proclaiming the advantages of the trade deal. That was done in cultural terms, in commodity terms, you name it, Mr. Speaker. Almost every Department that had anything to say did so, and did so by way of a massive public relations effort. However, one Department remained silent, and that was Environment Canada. Although it is a well-known fact in that Department that there is a link between the environment and trade, as established in the Brundtland report which was embraced and continues to be supported by the Government, they were treated as separate entities: the environment over here, and trade over there, as if one would not have an impact on the other.
Therefore, for the reasons that I have given you, Mr. Speaker, Canadians are entitled to conclude that the Government has avoided recognizing, and deliberately so, the relationship between trade and the environment. At the same time during the election we had the scurrilous picture of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) making a ringing declaration on the commitment of the Government to the cause of the environment. That we did hear. When one looks behind the facade, the performance and the actions of the Government did not support its claims.
The Government practises environmental exploitation. It relies on market forces. It relies on deregulation, and on mining our resources such as forest, fisheries, and top soil. It concludes signing an agreement which exempts beer instead of water from the trade deal. It found it politically possible to identify a commodity, beer, to be exempt. However, it did not find the courage, the foresight, or the sensitivity to value something about which Canadians felt so deeply, that of identifying water as a commodity and as a resource that should be exempted from this trade deal, if perhaps not for this generation, for generations to come. Why not, Mr. Speaker, I ask you?
This Government found it possible to sign an agreement which accepts equivalency in pesticides-and that, on first blush, seems a very innocent, matter of fact commercial undertaking. Why not accept equivalency for pesticides? We know what they are, and "equivalency" strikes one as a harmless enough word. But then one discovers that accepting equivalency in pesticides means that more chemicals will eventually enter the Canadian environment, given that there are seven times more such products in use in the U.S. when compared to Canada. As a consequence, Schedule 7 of the agreement, dealing with pesticides, constitutes a very important measure and one with long-term implications.
And what does this Government agree to in respect of the energy sector-and this despite the protestations of Ministers of the Crown in previous debates. It signs an agreement pursuant to which the National Energy Board is no longer free to deny an export licence. And I challenge any Member opposite to refute that fact. And if that were not enough, the National Energy Board can no longer apply a surplus test, as has been its practice.
Anyone knowledgeable in environmental matters knows only too well the impact the various types of energy can have on the environment. The energy section of the Free Trade Agreement is, therefore, of utmost importance, and the reduced role of the National Energy Board should be of extreme concern to all of us.
During the course of the negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement, this Government agreed to the inclusion of a clause exempting and subsidies incentives in respect of oil and gas exploration. Those incentives go untouched by the Free TTrade Agreement, and that means that our dependence on fossil fuels will become greater in the decades to come.
Such increased dependence on fossil fuels makes no sense at all. Last June, as Hon. Members will recall, an international conference on the changing atmosphere was held in Toronto. The conclusion of that conference, a conference attended by scientists from all over the world, was to recommend that, by the year 2005, there be a reduction of 20 per cent of C02 emissions, carbon dioxide emissions, which are produced when fossil fuels are burned.
If we want to reduce the warming climate trend globally, we have to burn less oil, burn less gas, burn less coal. In other words, we have to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels.
December 19, 1988

What credibility can this Government have in the international community when, on the one hand, the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment endorse the findings and conclusions of the conference of which I have spoken, including the recommendation that carbon dioxide emissions be reduced by 20 per cent by 2005, and at the same time an agreement is signed with the United States pursuant to which incentives for oil and gas exploration are exempted. Where is the consistency in those two policy statements? They are in conflict, one with the other. It simply makes no sense. They run counter to each other.
The consequences of the Free Trade Agreement in relation to the environment, and particularly the clause that exempts the incentives in respect of oil and gas exploration, is that Canada will become an even greater part of the problem instead of becoming a part of the solution.
We know that trading patterns do have environmental impacts. There is no doubt about that. It is difficult to accept the fact that this Government ignores that basic fundamental point.
At this stage the least that the Government of Canada can do would be to establish the resource capital that we have on this side of the border, identify the environmental pollutants that exist in our system, and provide the data whereby, 10 years from now, we will be able to determine whether the situation has improved or deteriorated, or remained static; in other words, whether our resource capital has diminished or has increased.
Many of us fear that with the Free Trade Agreement and our consequent heavy reliance on the export of natural resources, Canada will use its natural resource capital, rather than exporting the interest from that capital-and this at the expense of the long term and, therefore, at the expense of future generations.
We do not wish to wait until the Government of Canada invokes the six-month clause as a result of its concluding that the Free Trade Agreement is no good from the point of view of our environment and from the point of view of its effect on our natural resource capital. Rather, we would prefer to see Canada move in a manner which would protect the environment, not just by uncorroborated words but by concrete policies and definite programs.
What we are debating at this time is not just a trade deal, and it is not just a free trade deal-we all know that nothing is free. In this particular instance, we are not debating trade, but our national independence and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
sovereignty; we are debating how we want our environment to be, an environment that we wish to protect for future generations of Canadians. Bearing in mind those goals, we feel that this Government is failing Canadians badly.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed honoured to be participating in this most important debate. I am pleased, once again, bearing in mind the best interests of northern Ontario, to participate in the passage of the free trade legislation.
Having participated in this same debate in the Thirty-third Parliament, having been a member of the legislative committee which heard witnesses on the predecessor legislation throughout the summer months, and having campaigned in favour of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, I am happy to be a part of this process, a process which will lead to the Free Trade Agreement going into force and effect on January 1, 1989.
I must say that although I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate tonight, we should not again be debating the principles of the Free Trade Agreement, particularly in this week before Christmas. We have already done it a number of times. Yet here we are in the House again tonight rehashing what we have said before.
We in this House discussed and debated a free trade agreement after the 1982 Senate report. We did the same after the 1985 Macdonald Royal Commission report and during the two-year negotiating period. Of course, we spent days debating the principles of Bill C-130 in the last Parliament. This House has debated the principles of this agreement for 64 days in total, or over 300 hours. The legislative committee sat for 16 days or nearly 100 hours, last summer, hearing witnesses and conducting clause by clause study. Debate over Bill C-130 dominated the last Parliament. That does not even take into account the time spent on this idea outside the House in the campaign.
I would like to get away from the subject of Bill C-130 for a few minutes. If I am not mistaken, and perhaps my colleagues will back me up on this, last year, whether it was May, June, July or August, we heard one little signal. That signal was: Let the people decide. Liberals were wearing big buttons which said: Let the people decide. An election was called in October and the people decided in November.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I know a lot has been said about free trade in the seven weeks of that election. I would ask my colleagues if there was anything in the agreement about blood. Does it say anywhere in this agreement that Canadians are going to lose their blood under free trade?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Horton McDermid: It drew a little Liberal blood.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: You are right about that, but nowhere in this agreement is there anything that says we are going to lose our blood. Guess what, though? Get ready now. The first debate I had with my Liberal opponent, we were all lined up together and he got up and said: "Oh, oh, we have problems here". This was to a bunch of high school students. We were talking about the future of Canada to the young people who are going to build that Canada in the future. He said if we go through with free trade we will not be able to have blood in Canada. I said to myself: "I did not read that". Well, we let that go because we figured it was early in the campaign and he will have time to read the agreement.
Second debate. We are going right along and the first thing you know my Liberal opponent gets up and says-


John Horton McDermid: What are we going to lose this time?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: You will not believe this one. I did not.


Some Hon. Members:: We will believe it.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: He said to the audience that if the Free Trade Agreement goes through we are going to have more murderers here in Canada than they have in Detroit. Was that in the agreement? I do not think so. Yet that was the Liberal version of the Free Trade Agreement. That is two debates down.


Mr. Belsher:: Tell us about the third one.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Now we are going to talk about water. I turned to this individual who wanted to take my job away and said: "Show me where in this agreement we sold our water. Let me know where our water is gone". He could not show me. Do you know why? Because water is protected. Yet do you know what he wanted to do in our fifth debate? All of a sudden he said: "I am willing to sell water to the United States". That is what he said. I never said that. This Government never said that. Yet he was prepared to sell water to the U.S.
Strike three, but we were not finished. We had a few more debates. Then we get into agriculture. It went on for three hours. We brought our book in, we sat there and listened. The first thing you know, all our marketing boards are finished. There will never be another marketing board in Canada. That is what he said. Was there anything in here about that? No.
Then supply management was going. I looked in the book again and, no, I am sorry, supply management is covered. Then he said dairy products were going out the window, but we protected dairy products. What can you say? Strike four, but it continued along that line.
I am pleased to see that the Liberals are listening to me. I know if they had the opportunity they would want to be over on this side, but unfortunately they cannot be.
We finished all those debates, but do you know what part of this election hurt me more than anything else? If I ever thought the day would come that I would have to win an election by terrorizing senior citizens, let me tell you that is the day I would not run. Unfortunately, that was the mood and that was the way some candidates tried to defeat sitting Members of the Conservative Government. It is unfortunate, it was uncalled for, and it should not have happened but it did. It is a shame to think that would happen.
So much for the Liberal candidate. I would like to say a few words about what I think is very important. I reviewed the number of days and hours we discussed this issue. We have had a lot of arguments about it, time and time again, whether it was in the campaign, immediately previous to the campaign, or in the last two years. We won the election. Yes. We have been through the debates. We were able to show Canadians that this Government listened to Canadians.
There is no doubt that future Canadians will be looking back on November 21 as the day the electorate once again supported a PC Government with a clear vision for the future of our great country. I believe November 21 will be viewed as a milestone in our country's history. We were not dealing with an election to pick a government Party for the next four years. What we were dealing with was an election for the future of this country to give Canadians a chance. Canadians had a vision. They chose a Party that had a vision for the future of this country.
Last summer, as the legislative committee on the Free Trade Agreement was winding up I had a chance to jot
December 19, 1988

down some of my thoughts, my own personal reflections on what the free trade deal in which we were dealing with our neighbors meant to me. I sensed that the Free Trade Agreement was taking a bold step which was taking our nation into the 21st century. Most important, we were taking this step as a mature country confident of ourselves and with our sights on a stronger, more prosperous country for the future.
The benefits of freer trade will make Canada stronger. We can be more Canadian, more independent and more sovereign. The more our nation produces, the more we earn. The more we earn the more we can afford for Canadian arts and culture, education and research, social and medical services, programs to resolve our regional economic disparities. All Canadians will benefit from a freer trade agreement because Canada will be made stronger through this agreement.
I would like to say something about the opponents of this deal who spent a great deal of time over the last six months running around the country presenting their senseless arguments and saying that the Government had sold the country to the Americans. As a word of caution I say to you, Mr. Speaker, because you have made your statements loudly and often, that it does not make them any more valid going around in the manner they did.
Senator George Van Roggen, Emmett Hall, the Canadian Federation of Labour, and Mr. Hamel from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have all told you, Sir, that these statements and arguments against this Free Trade Agreement are pure falsehoods. These statements we have heard against the deal are nothing more than the Opposition's idea of political power play, to blur out the facts and confuse the public.
One such falsehood that presented itself during this last election, one that everyone in northern Ontario is concerned about, is the effect that this agreement will have on regional development policies in northern Ontario. The Opposition stated that our regional development programs, like Community Futures and FEDNOR, have been destroyed or disbanded. This is pure nonsense.
Let me present the facts. The Free Trade Agreement will not affect government subsidies to business or regional development programs. Canada's right to provide assistance for job creation and economic expansion in less developed regions of the country remains unaffected. Articles 8 and 11 of the Subsidies
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Code of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade read:
Subsidies are used by governments to promote important objectives of social and economic policy ... among such objectives are the elimination of industrial, economic and social disadvantages of specific regions.
Those who have been saying that regional economic expansion or development are not there are wrong. As we all know, the Free Trade Agreement was negotiated under the terms of the GATT. It incorporates certain provisions of the GATT, and includes the GATT subsidies code. This means that Governments in Canada continue to provide for economic growth and development. What was discussed in terms of regional development during the free trade negotiations was a refinement of these existing rules under GATT. There is a clear agreement that assistance can be provided for regional development, as long as it does not distort the trade agreement.
The fact is that federal and state Governments of the United States make liberal use of regional economic development programs. Canada's Government can continue to do so as well. Government agencies such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Western Diversification Office and FEDNOR in northern Ontario will continue to be free to offer creative economic development and industrial assistance packages.
They will be able to pin-point areas in which Canadians have the competitive edge, and assist in developing export markets. This spells good news for the growth of regions, our region in northern Ontario-goods news for northern Ontario.
Since 1935 Canada has pursued a course of eliminating tariffs between our two countries. This current agreement deals effectively with the remaining 20 per cent of the trade that still suffers from these trade barriers. Although this agreement may not be perfect, it is a step in the right direction for it provides Canadians the opportunity to build on, extend and improve in our trade with our largest trading partner.
As someone who comes from northern Ontario, I see this agreement as a good one. In our region where more than seven out of ten jobs depend directly on trade, the Free Trade Agreement secures access to our largest and wealthiest market. More important, it ensures our region's future growth and stability. No longer will we have to transport raw resources from our area. We will now be able to process right here in northern Ontario and not worry about the tariffs and the trading barriers which have for so long limited our growth.

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We will be able to diversify, build up our secondary industry and make our region's economy stronger and more stable. The Free Trade Agreement is a good agreement for northern Ontario. As I pointed out, it is a good agreement for stability and continued development in northern Ontario.
As a Canadian I see this agreement as a good one. For a country which has three-quarters of its exports going south, this agreement has taken steps to deal with the threats of American protectionism. We have sought and got better and more secure access to the United States. No longer will we have the threat of protectionist trade measures hanging over our heads. The door to the American market will never again be shut to us.
This Free Trade Agreement offers our nation a more secure relationship with our neighbors. We can plan into the future, strengthening and diversifying our economy, and in turn strengthening and securing our social programs and the very fabric of our country.
Mr. Speaker, may I finish my remarks by saying that from Sir John A. Macdonald's determination of stretching our horizons west by rail, to John George Diefen-baker's Roads to Resources policy to develop the northern regions of our land, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Progressive Conservative Government has always presented the people of Canada with a vision of the future of our country. It has always been a Party to build upon the strengths of our land and our people. I am very proud to be part of the Progressive Conservative Government which later this week will once again provide a better, stronger country for all Canadians, one that can grow and prosper for centuries to come.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to enter this debate following another person from northern Ontario. I grew up there. I was trying to recall where he must have grown up as compared to where I grew up.


Lloyd Axworthy: Under a rock.


David Walker: The problem is there are no rocks any more.
If there is one part of the country whose politicians should be opposing the free trade deal, it is in northern Ontario where one multinational company after another has ravaged the area. That is where acid rain began. There is no protection left at all for northern Ontario.
Yet that Member stands up to talk about it. Shame on him. The best thing he can do is put it in his householder so his constituents can read it. There will be no need for an election next time because you are history.
The Tories have been talking about majorities during this debate. Let us talk about majorities in Winnipeg. When we talk about a majority in Winnipeg, we are talking about Liberals. To use Tory logic, I am now speaking for Winnipeg and I want to explain why people from Winnipeg are opposed to free trade. They oppose it because it is destroying the economy of the city.
During the entire campaign the Winnipeg Free Press stated that concern about free trade was only negative thinking. One business leader after another encouraged support for free trade because it would be great for Winnipeg. The headline in the Free Press this weekend stated: "No New Jobs in Winnipeg for 1989". Once you remove all the rhetoric from the campaign you are left with nothing for the workers in Winnipeg, no new funds or investment.
The Opposition also likes to talk about how we are negative thinkers. Where is their game plan for the future of Winnipeg? They do not have one.
Winnipeg built its reputation throughout the world as a world trader. Whether one talks about grain, the garment industry or finance, Winnipeg is a fantastic city of traders. The Government is saying we do not need the protection of the Wheat Board and is removing it. They are telling us not to worry about jobs in the garment manufacturing industry. Who is going to speak for those 7,000 workers? Those are real jobs. It is not a question of negative thinking. It is a question of people's lives that are at stake. Someone has to stand up and try to protect them.
We have been told that we are going back to the principles of the debate which have already been settled. During the campaign the Conservatives kept saying they would protect workers. Where is that protection? If there has been one thing totally fraudulent on that side of the Flouse it is the protection of workers.
While the Conservatives keep asking Canadians to trust them, they take 32 per cent of the funding for job creation in Winnipeg. There has been no money in the city.
We are told to stop going over old debates, but that is what we must do to protect workers. While we may ask
December 19, 1988

for committees to investigate, we are told that committees are not necessary. We have to watch those Conservatives in the next four years because they are derelict in their duty.
The people of Manitoba spoke against free trade because they have worked for generations to build a city of world renown. They have worked closely with the federal Government on one program after another. In the last four years the chair was kicked from underneath them and the people are very sensitive that the Government is not paying attention.
Liberals were elected in the city because they have shown themselves to have a plan of action to protect workers and to further the interests of the city. The reason why Tories cannot get elected in the city is that they have nothing to say about our future. They keep making vague promises which have no meaning in people's lives.


An Hon. Member:: Jobs, jobs, jobs.


An Hon. Member:: When, when, when?


David Walker: Just like in 1984, we are still waiting for one job in the City of Winnipeg that can be attributed to one act by the federal Government. When we see it we will applaud it.
The Free Trade Agreement has failed to convince anyone in Winnipeg that there will be any benefits for our city. We will continue to oppose this agreement until the Government assures us that the workers in the textile industries, processing industries, agriculture and transportation will have jobs as this agreement takes place.
The Government should show good faith by forming a committee that will present ideas about how jobs will be protected and the interests of Winnipegers furthered under this agreement. In the absence of any such proposal we will continue to oppose this agreement.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at second reading of this trade legislation. I want to use the opportunity to make a few comments about my riding. Prince George-Bulkley Valley is an exciting and diverse riding, stretching from the border in the west with the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and in the east against the Alberta border where the present Member is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark).
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
It is a riding dominated by the forestry, mining and resource industries. Unfortunately, it is a riding that was ignored so long by the Tories.
Now it is a riding threatened by the trade deal. My concern over this trade legislation is primarily over what we may end up with during the period when the definition of a subsidy is determined. The Government has already sold out the forest industry in this country, especially in my Province of British Columbia. It caved in to American interests by signing the Memorandum of Understanding that was met with joy by the Premier of British Columbia, Mr. Vander Zalm, but condemned by the forest industry.
Adam Zimmerman, not a member of the New Democratic Party, was quoted as saying on December 31, in the Vancouver Sun: "It is bizarre. It is sickening. It is every nasty adjective for an industry person". Zimmerman, also chairman of the Forest Industries Council, said in an interview: "In one step it creates an industrial paraplegic out of a lumber industry".
We have heard reports that some forest companies are operating at a loss due to the provincial and federal Governments caving in to U.S. interests. It is important to note that nothing has changed due to the Free Trade Agreement we are being asked to approve here today. A similar action can be taken again. In fact, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) visited Prince George during the election campaign, he made no commitment to our area let alone any promise that he would deal with the Memorandum of Understanding.
I am concerned about this Government and its attitude toward the forest industry. The Auditor General has criticized the Government for its sloppy administration of the various forestry agreements between the federal Government and the provinces. British Columbia was singled out in this area and it is no doubt considering the inadequacy of the Vander Zalm Government.
I am concerned that if we do not have written assurances from the Government and the Minister, we will not have a federal-provincial forestry agreement. My part of British Columbia has the highest NSR in the province. Will federal and provincial spending in forestry be allowed under the trade deal, depending on what is defined?
This afternoon there might be a ray of light. The Government is like a chocolate bar, it is thick. We must get our point across a couple of times before it understands. In today's Question Period I was pleased to note that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie)

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
has invited representatives from the forest industry to meet with him to discuss the Memorandum of Understanding. This afternoon I was in touch with some representatives of the forest industry in our province and I urged them to take the Minister up on his offer for a meeting, a meeting that we hope will happen as soon as possible. Perhaps, with some luck, we will get some sense out of the Government.
What we need is nothing less than an opportunity as parliamentarians to review how these negotiations are undertaken. We need a full and complete committee reporting independently to the Elouse. We need a trade monitor similar to the Auditor General who can report independently the activities of the negotiations that are taking place. The committee should have the power to travel, to hear witnesses and to take evidence under oath. In the true sense of democracy, give us the opportunity to review the negotiations openly, not behind the closed doors of government.
I do not see why Hon. Members opposite cannot give us a chance to see what is going on. They will have a chance to have their witnesses appear as well. If we do not have this committee, I am afraid that we will see another backroom deal. The Tories will cut out the programs that will cut the guts out of Canada. That is what I and other Hon. Members of my Party fear will happen if we leave the negotiations to Hon. Members opposite and to them alone.
There are many other areas of concern about the trade deal, the environment, social programs and water policy to mention a few. I call on the Government to support the motion put on the Order Paper by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). If the Government has the courage of its convictions, I know it will support our efforts to represent the interests of our constituents.
In closing, I would like to thank the voters of Prince George-Bulkley Valley for the trust they have put in me as their Member of Parliament. I will continue to work, and I started to do so some time ago. I look forward to the next few years as being an exciting and productive time for my riding and for my constituents.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is as follows-


Some Hon. Members:: Debate.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, this being my first speech in the House, I would like to thank my constituents for the faith they have shown in me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members that there should be a little civility when the Hon. Member is making his maiden speech. Maybe we can get it over with in a hurry. I recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Pickard).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jerry Pickard: cites the Macdonald Commission when discussing impacts on other sectors. The GATT talks in Montreal seemed to fall apart over agriculture. Yet agriculture is touted as being a frontliner in this agreement. I suggest that agriculture should have been exempt. Since this is not so, many facets of the agriculture industry will be in jeopardy.
The family farm in southwestern Ontario has been under a great deal of stress lately. In the past few years, hundreds of farms have gone bankrupt and hundreds of families have been facing a great deal of difficulty. Certainly we can see the 14 per cent interest rate through the Farm Credit Corporation as being one of the things that has created that difficulty. The unpredictable climate and our weather conditions that cause drought, frost and storms have certainly been a problem for farmers. This is an additional burden faced by producers in Canada.
Many family farmers have had to leave the farm to seek second incomes just to make certain their farms can survive. Wives are working in stores and men are working in the auto factories or other plants in order to receive second incomes to keep the farms alive. Now we are adding the Free Trade Agreement to all this, an agreement that will devastate our agriculture community.
This deal creates an unfair advantage for our neighbours to the south. I will try to explain this advantage. My colleagues across the way have suggested that certain factors have not been specifically mentioned by the agreement. Let us consider the climate factor. Long days, warm weather and a long growing season are a real advantage to the farm community. It takes away the concerns that our farmers have over frost and adds stability to production. It creates a higher acre production. For example, in southwestern Ontario, farmers produce approximately 20 tonnes of tomatoes per acre. In some areas of the United States, production is in the area of 40 tonnes per acre with the same capital investment. This agreement does not take that into account. Certainly it leaves our farmers with an unfair deal. I believe we have the best farmers in the world, but I am also realistic. If the cards are stacked against us, we cannot win.
Labour adds another dimension to this stacked deck. Only 25 per cent of American families receive the social and medical benefits and hospital services that 75 per cent of Canadians enjoy. Someone has to pay the bills for those families with social benefits. The Canadian farmer will be one who will have to carry that bill and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
make the payments. This appears to me to be a bit unfair if we are talking about a level playing field.
The minimum wage in Canada is much higher than it is in many states in the United States. This puts the Canadian farmer in another stacked deck situation. Will we in Canada lower the minimum wage to be competitive and on an equal footing with the United States farmer? Since the trade deal will be driven by the holy dollar sign and since certainly control of that dollar sign will be the market, the Americans will be able to sell their products if they can compete on any basis less economically than we can.
I believe that too much has been given up for our farmers to survive. The Canadian Government has shown wisdom and foresight in developing policies that protect our environment. Many insecticides and herbicides that are used legally in the United States are not legal to use in Canada. They pose a great deal of danger to the environment and to the people. These pesticides and herbicides which are banned in Canada are not allowed to be used by Canadian farmers. However, they put the American farmer in a much better dollar and cent situation.
The Americans can produce much easier with the kinds of sprays they are allowed to use. Are we going to lower our standards to be competitive or are United States farmers going to raise theirs by not using such pesticides and insecticides? I doubt very much that we will see them change their products.
We have struggled long over acid rain and pollution of air and water with them. The environment will not change. The Americans will continue to use their products, so our farmers will be faced with another obstacle, another stacked deck, that of unfair environmental laws.
Marketing boards have been placed on the block and their powers will be chopped just like the turkey's neck at Christmas. I realize it is being suggested that the powers will remain in place, but think about a marketing board controlling Canadian prices and supplies while American products not controlled are shipped to our markets to compete. I find that scenario ridiculous.
A spokesman for Heinz, a large food processor in our riding, in discussing the reduction of tariffs on tomatoes made it very clear that if tariffs are removed, the company must take counteraction to balance the loss if it wishes to remain competitive. If the 10 per cent tariff

December 19, 1988
Canada-US. Free Trade Agreement
is removed, either the farmer will have to take a reduction in his price of the product, or the worker will have to take less money for his labour, or the social plans will have to be cut so they can survive.
Negotiations in these situations will go very quickly in trying to deal with the farmers, suggesting that they receive much less per tonne for tomatoes. The workers will be caught in a bind with negotiations as well suggesting that their wages should be held or lowered. The company may well leave the country. That is a possibility as well. If the difference is too great for the producer, he will leave Canada. I feel because of the trade deal agriculture will be the big loser.
Why agriculture was ever considered in this agreement is beyond me. Since it has been, the agreement has the potential to devastate the industry. Without question I feel that the agricultural industry has been sold out. If you look at southwestern Ontario you will find not one person on the Government side from that area.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, may I begin tonight by congratulating you and your colleagues in the chair on your re-election-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, no.


John Horton McDermid: I welcome your support. It is wonderful. I also want to thank the electors of Brampton for returning me for the fourth time to the House of Commons. It is a real pleasure to represent such a great community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: As I said previously, this is not a Minister's maiden speech but I would like to have a little civility. We are getting very close to putting the question. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


John Horton McDermid: I can understand the Opposition's concern when I get up to speak because I tell the truth about the Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: The Opposition Members can natter and heckle all they want for the next 15 minutes, but I am going to speak on free trade and tell the truth about it. Before I get into it, I want to thank the electors in Brampton. My good friend the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) kept yelling across the
House at me to get back to Brampton and work on the campaign because I was in deep trouble. I want him to know, just for his own edification because I know he has not yet had time to check the figures, that I did win by over 52 per cent of the vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: I understand his reaction for those people who could not see it on television, Mr. Speaker. He is not easily impressed and I understand why. I will get to him a little later in my remarks.
1 am sharing the great City of Brampton with my colleague from Brampton-Malton. Because our community is growing at such a rapid rate, it has been divided into two ridings. I share the responsibility with the Hon. Member for Brampton-Malton (Mr. Chadwick). He is a very old friend of mine and I am very honoured to be here in the House of Commons with him to represent our great city.
The last two years have probably been the most interesting, rewarding and exciting two years in my life because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) appointed me Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). In that period of time I followed the negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement very carefully. I have seen an agreement come to fruition. I have followed the debates and participated in them over that period of time. I have seen the legislation develop and come before this House twice now, and we are debating it for the second time here.
I listened with great interest over the last couple of days to the new Members of Parliament speaking freely and saying that they were not given an opportunity to speak. I do not know how you can have it both ways- standing up in the House of Commons and complaining you cannot speak. What are they doing? They are here speaking and they are speaking on the Free Trade Agreement. They have the freedom to speak. As a matter of fact, the Government has given them an extra 24 hours of debate to speak on this agreement. The Government offered them last weekend to speak on the debate. Not only did they not take up the opportunity to speak on the Free Trade Agreement, but only 36 Members showed up to vote on Friday.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Horton McDermid: I want the House to look. The Leader of the Liberal Party is left alone. The Members have abandoned him again.
December 19, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: In those two years of negotiations there has probably not been a broader cross-section of representation from the Canadian public giving advice on these negotiations. The International Trade Advisory Committee had representation from all walks of life in Canada, including the Consumers Association of Canada, the Labour movement and so on. In conjunction with the International Trade Advisory Committee were the 15 sectoral advisory committees involving some 500 Canadians, again from all walks of life and all sectors of our economy giving advice to this Government on the trade negotiations. They actively participated. I have listened to chapter and verse from the Opposition saying this was done in secret, that nobody knew what was going on. What total nonsense that is. There was never as much consultation with the Canadian public as there was with this Free Trade Agreement and the Government is to be congratulated on that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: There were never any public hearings.


John Horton McDermid: Here is my friend who says there were never any public meetings. He did not appear before the Macdonald Commission to give his opinion. He did not appear before the Standing Committee. He did not appear before the Senate Committee and he is telling us there were no hearings. There were all kinds of hearings in this country and the Hon. Member knows that. Such nonsense. What total, total nonsense. Then we got the agreement. The agreement was in the public domain

S0)


Maurice Brydon Foster: There were no public hearings on the final text across the country and you know it, McDermid. Tell the truth.


John Horton McDermid: -for a period of time and then the legislation was brought forward in May. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that we spent a tremendous amount of time on procedure, whether we should bring it in, and was it in the right form. This went on for a long period of time. Then we got into the debate of it which went on through June, July, and August. It was finally passed in this House at the end of August and went on to that great august body in the other place where they said: "We are not going to pass it. We are not going to have anything to do with it".
We all remember that the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition called the election. He called the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
election: "Let the people decide". I can remember the T-shirts and the balloons. I think it was on a Wednesday, if I am not mistaken, and everybody was saying: "That's my boy. He's calling the election". They were all in the gallery, and it was an exciting day for everybody. The Leader of the Opposition called the election and said: "Let the people decide".


Mrs. Finestone:: A little respect wouldn't hurt you, you know.


John Horton McDermid: Then what happened? Well, the Opposition Leader now refuses to accept the verdict of the Canadian people given on November 21.
I wish to quote some of the things that the Leader has said recently. By the way, he did say that he would give "speedy" passage if the Government was re-elected and given its mandate. I wish to refresh the House's memory. He stated: "I believe that we won the hearts and minds of Canadians on the issue. We discussed the details of the deal and how it would affect Canadians. We were winning the election and then two things happened. There was the unprecedented intervention of big business ..." I might add small business, medium-size business, and people from all walks of life. As my friend from Oshawa would say, "ordinary Canadians".
Then the Leader of the Opposition said: "They mounted an unprecedented attack on my character, on my sincerity, and on my competence". I would say that two out of three they did not. I do not think that they attacked his character or his sincerity. I would not question his character, and I would not question his sincerity, but on his competence, we have to question that one, and so did the Canadian people. The hon. gentleman is correct there, they did question his competence.
Then he said: "It was a cynical manipulation of public opinion, a power-hungry reach for the lower side of human nature". Therefore, everybody who voted Conservative are the lower side of human nature. Isn't that nice? Aren't those wonderful words from the right hon. gentleman? He finishes off his comments by saying: "The Government was playing to fear".
He talked about the negative commercials. I know that the right hon. gentleman was extremely busy on the campaign, and he did not have a chance to see his own commercials. I remember when the first commercials came out from the Liberal Party. They were the negative ones. They were the ones that attacked. They were

December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the ones who were wiping out borders, and they were the ones with the Prime Minister kicking a soccer ball.
The hon. gentleman stands in the House and states that we had negative commercials. Boy, I want to tell you that that is the pot calling the kettle black. I cannot believe that the Hon. Member would stand up here and try to make those types of excuses.
I think of Morley Callaghan, that great old man of letters. Morley Callaghan described the right hon. gentleman beautifully, and I quote: "For the sake of their own souls most men live by pretending to believe in something they secretly know isn't true. It seems to be a dreadful necessity". That is what Morley Callaghan said, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition is such a man. I honestly believe that.
The facts are the opposite of those my hon. friend says, and he knows that. First, the Liberals did not win the hearts of Canadians by discussing free trade. They struck fear into the hearts of Canadians through baseless allegations. There is no question about that.
I remember the televised debate. The right hon. gentleman did pretty well in that debate, and I have to give him full marks, until he said: "This trade deal will wipe out our social programs". Those are the exact words that he used. He knows full well that that is not true. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. In the heat of debate that just slipped out, because he really does not mean that.
Secondly, business, large and small from all walks of life-and the right hon. gentleman knows this as well- spoke out in favour of free trade. During the campaign they came to the point that they were upset with the misrepresentations that were being made by both opposition Parties, and they felt that it was time to stand up and be counted. There is no question about that.


Mr. Nunziata:: Sober up, McDermid. Let's go home.


John Horton McDermid: Well, they say that they didn't spread fear. They compared the business community to the Ku-Klux-Klan. Senator Kirby, that great Liberal who was somewhere involved in the campaign, although we have not seen him since the campaign, compared the business community to the Ku-Klux-Klan. Magnificent. Who said they did not spread fear?
I mentioned that the ad campaign from the outset was an attack upon the character.


Mr. Rompkey:: Tell us about John Crosbie attacking students.


John Horton McDermid: What would the Opposition Leader call the conduct of his candidates going into old folks homes and telling senior citizens that they will lose their pensions? That is what they were doing. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman did not know his candidates were doing that. They were going into old folks homes and telling them that they were going to lose their pensions, until the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) caught by camera from CHCH-TV, admitted that they were not going to. It was part way through the campaign that she finally admitted that pensions were not going to be affected by the free trade deal.
I was very upset with what the right hon. gentleman did during the campaign on free trade. It was probably one of the most crass, mean-spirited type of campaigns in which I have ever been involved. Quite honestly, I do not want to go through it again, ever. I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not either. I think that he looked very uncomfortable, doing what he was doing. The Canadian people saw that too.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Marchi:: A point of order on humanitarian grounds.


John V. Nunziata: I hate to interrupt the Member in midarrogance, but I would ask the Speaker to recognize the clock which indicates one o'clock. I understand at this point in time the Speaker is required to put us out of our misery and call the vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are still approximately 15 seconds remaining, if the Hon. Member would like to continue.


John Horton McDermid: Honesty and truth won out in this campaign. The facts won in this campaign. The Free Trade Agreement is a good deal for Canada. It will lead us into the 21st century as a prominent trading nation throughout the world. I am proud to be part of that agreement. I look forward to seeing its passage expeditiously by the end of this week in order that it can go to the other place and receive Royal Assent by next weekend.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
December 19, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski)	: The question is	Mitchell Murphy	Rodriguez Rompkey	Vanclief Volpeon the subamendment.	Nault	Samson	WalkerNunziata	Simmons	WappelIs it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamend-	Nystrom Ouellet	Skelly (North Island-Powell	Whittaker Woodment'	Pagtakhan	River)	YoungParent	Skelly	(Gloucester)


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.	Parker Phinney	(Comox-Alberni) Speller	Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-Pickard	Stewart	115


Some Hon. Members:: No.			Proud	Stupich	
			Prud'homme	Taylor


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in	Riis Robichaud	Tobin Turner	favour of the subamendment will please say yea.	Robinson	(Vancouver Quadra)


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.				NAYS


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.	Anderson	Domm	MayerAndre	Dorin	Mazankowski


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion	Atkinson Attewell	Duplessis Edwards	McCreath McDermidthe nays have it.	Beatty	Epp	McDougallBelsher	Fee	(St. Paul's)And more than five Members having	risen:	Bernier Bertrand	Feltham Ferland	McKnight McLeanBird	Fontaine	MerrithewThe Acting !	Speaker (Mr. Paproski): Call in the	Bjornson	Fretz	MitgesMembers.	Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Friesen Gerin	Monteith MooreThe House	divided on the subamendment (Mr.	Blais Blenkarn	Gibeau Gray	Nicholson NowlanLaporte), which	was negatived on the following division:	Bosley Bouchard	(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)	Oberle O'Brien(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Greene	O'Kurley(Division No. 11)	Bourgault Boyer	Guilbault Gustafson	Plamondon PlourdeBrightwell	Halliday	PorterYEAS	Browes	Harvey	PronovostCadieux	(Chicoutimi)	RedwayMembers	Campbell	Hawkes	Reid(Vancouver Centre)	Hicks	ReimerCardiff	Hockin	RicardCasey	Hogue	RichardsonAllmand	Comuzzi	Karpoff	Chadwick	Holtmann	RobitailleAlthouse	Copps	Karygiannis	Champagne	Horner	Roy-ArcelinAnawak	Crawford	Keyes	(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Horning	SchneiderAngus	de Jong	Kilger	Bagot)	Hudon	ScottArseneault	Dionne	(Stormont-Dundas)	Champagne	Hughes	(Victoria-Haliburton)Assad	Duhamel	Kristiansen	(Champlain)	Jacques	ScottAxworthy	Ferguson	Langan	Chartrand	James	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Saskatoon-Clark's	Finestone	Langdon	Clark	Johnson	ShieldsCrossing)	Fisher	Laporte	(Yellowhead)	Kempling	SiddonAxworthy	Flis	LeBlanc	Clark	Kindy	Sobeski(Winnipeg South	Fontana	(Cape Breton High-	(Brandon-Souris)	Koury	SoetensCentre)	Foster	lands-	Clifford	Landry	SparrowBaker	Fulton	Canso)	Cole	Langlois	St-JulienBarrett	Funk	Lee	Collins	Larrivee	StevensonBellemare	Gaffney	MacAulay	Cook	Layton	TardifBenjamin	Gagliano	MacDonald	Cooper	Leblanc	TetreaultBlack	Gardiner	(Dartmouth)	Corbeil	(Longueuil)	ThackerBlackburn	Gauthier	MacLaren	Corbett	Lewis	Thompson(Brant)	Gray	MacWilliam	Cote	Littlechild	ThorkelsonBlaikie	(Windsor West)	Maheu	Couture	Loiselie	TremblayBlondin	Guarnieri	Manley	Crosbie	Lopez	(Rosemont)Boudria	Harb	Marchi	(St. John's West)	MacDonald	TremblayBrewin	Harvard	Marleau	Crosby	(Rosedale)	(Quebec-Est)Broadbent	Harvey	Martin	(Halifax West)	MacDougall	TurnerButland	(Edmonton East)	(Lasalle-Emard)	Darling	(Timiskaming)	(Halton-Peel)Caccia	Heap	McCurdy	DeBlois	MacKay	ValcourtCallbeck	Hopkins	McGuire	de Cotret	Malone	Van de WalleCampbell	Hovdebo	McLaughlin	Della Noce	Marin	Vankoughnet(South West Nova)	Hunter	Mifflin	Desjardins	Martin	VenneCatterall	Jordan	Milliken	Dick	(Lincoln)	VienClancy	Kaplan	Mills	Dobbie	Masse	Vincent
December 19, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Weiner Wenman White Wilbee


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the subamendment lost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the House	Anderson Andre	Fee Feltham	Monteith Moore	agree to apply the vote just taken to the amendment of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and in reverse	Atkinson Attewell Beatty	Ferland Fontaine Fretz	Nicholson Nowlan Oberle	to the motion for second reading of the Bill?	Belsher Bernier	Friesen	O'Brien	Bertrand


Some Hon. Members:: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 1.30 a.m., the House stands adjourned until later this day at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.30 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 20, 1988