1988-06-21

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to table in both official languages report No. 32 of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, entitled Our Criminal Procedure. In addition, Mr. Speaker ...
* *
*


JUSTICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am pleased to table copies of a Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and Czechoslovakia, in both official languages, as well as in Czechoslovakian.
This agreement will enable Canadian officials to gather evidence in Czechoslovakia, and includes the conditions recommended by Mr. Justice Deschenes to assure the obtaining of such evidence in accordance with Canadian procedures and safeguards.
* *
*


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-273, an Act respecting political rights of public employees, in both official languages.
I believe it would benefit all Members if I presented a short explanation of the action taken by the legislative committee with respect to Bill C-273 which will enact a new public employees' political rights Act.
Bill C-273 was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) and received substantial attention and support. There were two important developments prompting this interest. First, those active in political life now believe public employees should have a code of political rights along the lines recommended by the D'Avig-non report in 1979. Second, existing statutory restrictions may violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enacted in 1982.
The task of the legislative committee was to balance the demand for enhanced political rights with the tradition of independence and neutrality in public employment. I believe the revision of Bill C-273 by the legislative committee has achieved this delicate balance.
The amendments respond to the advice and the recommendations brought to the committee and resulted in all-Party agreement. The revised provisions are supported by a committee membership whose mutual belief is that public employees merit all the rights of Canadian citizenship with narrow exceptions to protect the public interest. In the result, we believe the Bill commands the support of all Members of the House of Commons.


HUMAN RIGHTS-REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages the First Report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights concerning human rights behind the Iron Curtain. The report notes that the people of countries behind the Iron Curtain do not have many fundamental rights, and your Committee requests that the Government of Canada make a comprehensive response to the report.

This report is released at an important time in the East-West relationship. The Vienna follow-up meeting of the Helsinki Final Act process is still ongoing. In the Soviet Union there are signs of change reflected in the phenomena of perestroika and glasnost.

June 21, 1988
Tabling of Documents
The committee has examined the human rights situation behind the Iron Curtain and has concluded that there is still much headway to be made. The real litmus test of the genuineness of glasnost and perestroika will be seen in the degree of real change in relation to freedom of religion, the rights of national minorities, and immigration for family reunification.


BILL C-30-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-30, An Act to amend the National Parks Act and to amend An Act to amend the National Parks Act.

The committee agreed to 23 amendments during the study of this Bill, and I am sure that as a former Mayor of Banff and Jasper and former Minister of the Environment you will be very pleased with most of these amendments, Sir. We look forward to having more when we get to report stage in the House.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have not had an opportunity to ask my hon. colleagues for permission, but I wonder if there might be consent to revert to Tabling of Documents in order to allow the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy to table the annual report of the Lower Churchill Development Corporation for the year ending December 31, 1987. If there would be such consent, I would ask to revert to that.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a reasonable request. You would certainly have our consent to revert to Tabling of Documents to allow that to be tabled.


LOWER CHURCHILL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Lower Churchill Development Corporation for the year ending December 31, 1987.


NATIONAL SPORT ACT
Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce Bill C-303, an Act to recognize hockey as a national sport.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, point of order.
June 21, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.
Introduction of Bills


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I wish to tell the House that I was present in the House, but I abstained in the vote because we will not take part in this charade, this silliness that the Government...


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would simply like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is a complete waste of time to do what we have just done today. As whip, I must be present for the vote-it is my duty-but I will not take part in this kind of charade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: that the Bill be read the first time and printed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?
Members
nil/none


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not in my seat when you began to read the motion. However, if I had been, I would have voted with my Party.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I was in my seat. I abstained from voting. I refuse to participate in the kind of silly charade that the NDP is up to today.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, just so that there is no misunderstanding, the intention of this is to introduce Private Members' Bills that we feel strongly about, as well as to do what we can to frustrate the Government's effort to introduce and to debate the trade legislation, so that a national general election can intervene to allow the people of Canada an opportunity-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my hon. friend has explained that. We thought that the delay on these Bills was to heighten public awareness of the breakthrough of the NDP in the Lac-Saint-Jean by-election.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I guess I should explain, Mr. Speaker, that unless the Whips walk in, the bells do not stop. But it is normally 30 minutes. The reason that we have been taking 30 minutes is that the Government would not give me its assurance that it will call in all Members, including those in committees.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, it was only today that the Whip of the Opposition agreed that he would only have the bells ring for five minutes, if we would get everybody out of the committee. However, I stated that for dilatory motions such as we have had over the last few days from the NDP there was no point breaking up the committees. In particular, there was one

June 21, 1988
committee where the Minister attended, who had been ill before, and it was his only chance.
Now that we have a deal that at any time the bells ring we can come back within five minutes, I accept that and I will get all Members from our committees.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope my hon. colleague who proposed a five-minute bell realizes that we have a south block in which Members of Parliament have their offices and from which, if one is a brisk walker, it takes six minutes to get here.


An Hon. Member:: Take the bus.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will continue with the Introduction of Private Members' Bills.


AN ACT TO AMEND THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act (corporate and political office prohibited).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to prohibit Senators from holding directorships in any companies that have dealings with the Government of Canada and to prevent them from functioning as professional organizers and fundraisers for any political Party while being paid to serve in the Senate.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.58 p.m the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lend support to the request made by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. It has made a request to the Government of Canada to cost share with the provincial Governments and municipalities to provide needed expenditures for the basic infrastructure that is required throughout this country, namely, sewer and water.
June 21, 1988

There are a number of municipalities, both large and small, which are in need of cost sharing with the provinces and the Government of Canada to provide these necessary services. In my own province, communities such as Halifax, Dartmouth, smaller communities such as Sydney, New Waterford, and the municipality of the County of Cape Breton, are all in need of government funding to provide these necessities which have become very, very important over the last number of years.
Members should recognize, particularly government Members, that this request, if fortified by the Government of Canada, would not only provide necessary services to those small and large communities, but would provide needed employment in many of those communities. It would also add to the environmental impact throughout the country.
I believe this to be a positive request and I would hope the Government through its Members would see the light of day and pass sufficient programs to provide the necessary water and sewer services across the country.



BY-ELECTIONS ELECTION OF LUCIEN BOUCHARD

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the voters of Lac-Saint-Jean yesterday decided massively in favour of Conservative Lucien Bouchard. He obtained 16,986 votes, or 55 per cent, compared to 10,726 votes for the Liberal candidate of Leader John Turner.
The big loser in this election is the NDP candidate of Leader Ed Broadbent, who did not manage to get 3,000 votes.
The Prime Minister ctf Canada (Mr. Mulroney) said last night, "It is an impressive victory. Lucien Bouchard is an outstanding Quebecer and Canadian, who will do great service for Canadian unity."
Mr. Speaker, we Conservatives of Quebec are all proud of this great victory in Lac-Saint-Jean.
Mr. Speaker, Lucien Bouchard has already started his work as Member of Parliament for Lac-Saint-Jean. He is a man of action. Congratulations, Lucien Bouchard!



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic
Affairs tabled its report on bank service charges, my office has been inundated with complaints about bank service charges. What I have decided to do, starting today, is to read into the record letters from Canadians complaining about bank service charges.
Dear Sir;
I noticed on TV news this morning an item on excessive bank charges. Yours was the only name I picked up, other than that of Robert McIntosh, who is paid to support excessive bank charges.
I too am a low income person and have little money in my account with the Royal Bank. To my astonishment they deducted $20. When I asked why, the manager informed me it was for computer services. I hadn't used any computer services at all, except my account number is likely on it. I had no way to fight it. It was just done out of the blue and without any notice to me about it. I felt I was robbed. I was robbed. If one is of low economic resources then it seems we are ripe for picking.
Am enclosing a zerox of deduction.
It is signed Mrs. Georgenna Ferguson, Calgary, Alberta.



WELFARE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of would be employers are frustrated and angry when a Canadian refuses a part-time job offer because acceptance would mean their welfare or UIC would be cut off and they would be left high and dry. Why are government policies not flexible enough to permit such people to work part-time without cutting off their entire income? If such Canadians could benefit by a reduction of less than the amount they would earn, a recipient would be ahead and the Government's expenditures would be reduced.
Present policies force Canadians to stay on welfare and UIC as long as their payments permit. No wonder the jobs offered by 42 per cent of the firms belonging to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business remain unfilled.



THE LATE FERNAND SEGUIN

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of a great Quebecer and Canadian, a scientist, humanitarian and great communicator, Fernand Seguin. Mr. Seguin gave us years of enthusiastic service. Who does not remember his program Le sel de la semainel For some of us, the world of science was mysterious and inaccessible, but Mr. Seguin opened the doors for us; he let us into the world of scientists, to understand their ideas and their discussions, even what they were doing. He helped us to

June 21, 1988
explore our own ideas as well and to ponder our origins and our future in a changing world.
In these times when science occupies an important place, both for our comfort and for our security, he gave us a thirst for knowledge.
To his wife and family, I offer my sincerest condolences. It is with great regret that, on behalf of all Quebecers and Canadians, I say to him, "Farewell and thanks."



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Marcel Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity to mention a very useful program initiated by this Government to help welfare recipients re-enter the labour market. This job development program enables selected employers to receive federal assistance in hiring workers, which is an essential adjunct to the development of their enterprise and at the same time provides welfare recipients with a substantial salary, increased training and an excellent opportunity for social reintegration.
Mr. Speaker, I may point out here in the House that under this innovative program, seven businesses and organizations in my riding will be offering twenty-five new jobs to welfare recipients, thanks to a contribution of $201,478. It is because Canadians want us to maintain these initiatives that they continue to trust and support us.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the layoff of more than one-third of Thunder Bay's grain handlers earlier this month has renewed concern about wheat exports through the St. Lawrence Seaway.
As many as 600 of Thunder Bay's 1,800 elevator workers lost seniority rights during the slow years 1984-85 and 198586. Employment recovered during the record 1986-87 year, and reached 1,300 this spring.
Earlier than usual layoffs this month have combined with very dry prairie weather to arouse fear of crop failure and a slow fall in the elevators. The real problem, however, is a glut of wheat in our traditional markets resulting from subsidies.
Little more than a decade ago the European Economic Community had a grain shortfall of 24 million tonnes. By 1986
high farm support prices had transformed this into a surplus of 14 million tonnes.
The Economic Summit is considering the problem of agricultural subsidies. The European Economic Community spends 80 per cent of its budget on such subsidies.
It is time Governments find other means of maintaining farm incomes in Europe and the U.S. too, than those that lead to hardship for western farmers and Thunder Bay grain handlers.



BY-ELECTIONS   LAC-SAINT-JEAN-PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE'S VICTORY

Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, politicos across Canada are wiping at least some egg off their respective faces today as the tight race in yesterday's byelection in the constituency of Lac-Saint-Jean never did materialize. The Secretary of State easily outdistanced his rivals and sent the Hon. Leaders of the Opposition back to the old drawing-board.
The Secretary of State's reputation, ability, and resources should not have been taken lightly. He is an able campaigner who employed a unique system of political contributions- 1,500 contributors, no union contributions, no corporate contributions, just the support of the people of Lac-Saint-Jean at the grass roots level.

Bravo, Mr. Minister! A great performance! Welcome to the House!



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, news that Mr. Francisco Nota Moises, Information Chief of the Mozambican rebel organization Renamo, has been granted asylum in Canada should be of concern to all Canadians. Mr. Moises' presence in Canada once again demonstrates the glaring deficiencies in Canada's immigration and security system.
To allow such an individual into this country, particularly when Mr. Moises' activities for Renamo were widely know, is completely unacceptable. It is obviously high time that the Government got its act together.
June 21, 1988

In addition, Renamo is a particularly reprehensible group that has been accused of killing 100,000 Mozambican civilians in the last two years, and is responsible for a systematic campaign of rape, torture, and terror in Mozambique.
Renamo is also a proxy army for South Africa in its efforts to destabilize the front line States, particularly Mozambique and its critical alternate railway to the Indian Ocean.
Canada has a policy of support for the front line States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) would do well to clear this issue up at once lest his position of support for the front line States be made into a laughing-stock.



CULTURAL INDUSTRIES


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Communications understood that to develop strong Canadian cultural industries strong legislative measures were needed. He understood that money was not a substitute for policy. It was in that spirit that he introduced the Baie Comeau book publishing policy. He recognized that it was essential that there be Canadian control of publishing.
His film industry task force recommended that there be 100 per cent Canadian control of film distribution and that an end be put to vertical integration between film distributors and film exhibitors.
It is regrettable that the Mulroney-Reagan deal trade has changed those well-founded Canadian objectives. It is time the close encounters this Government has with the Americans become close encounters of another kind. It is too bad that the former Communications Minister isn't still writing the film policy script, for he saw the big picture. His successor is being directed frame by frame by Jack Valenti. As a result, Canada's film industry is being left on the cutting room floor. It's a sham and a shame.



BY-ELECTIONS ELECTION OF LUCIEN BOUCHARD

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, voters in Lac-Saint-Jean elected the Secretary of State, Lucien Bouchard, with a strong majority. This warm, intelligent and sincere gentleman will, together with his colleagues, continue to defend the interests of Quebec. This election is a great victory for the great team of Brian Mulroney who is putting
down strong roots in Quebec and is showing great leadership on issues that are extremely important to this country. We are delighted with the support we received from all sides yesterday, both politically and financially.
Yesterday, Broadbent's NDP candidate lost his deposit, Mr. Speaker. The NDP is seeing its hopes fade away in Quebec, and after being the great loser in the federal election, yesterday it was completely swept off the map in two provincial byelections in Quebec.
As for the federal Liberals, I say to their leader, whose leadership is still being questioned by twenty-two of his Members in the House: Keep dragging your feet on issues that are of great importance to this country: Meech Lake and free trade. I would invite Mr. Turner to come to the boundary of my riding, at Sainte-Marie de Beauce, to tell the people he intends to tear up the free trade agreement!



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, in Winnipeg there is a program called the Core Area Initiative which is funded by all three levels of government, civic, provincial, and federal. This program has been very effective in funding local community groups and community development activities.
Now with a Conservative Government in office it is dragging its heels with regard to the funding of those local groups. The very existence of some of those groups is threatened. They have been waiting for a decision on their funding since last January, and they need the Government to get off its backside and approve the applications for funding. Some of the groups, for example, the Chilean Information Centre and the Native Youth Centre, do good work in the community and they need the Government to make some decisions and allocate the money.
Do we have to call a by-election in Winnipeg in order to get these groups funded?



BY-ELECTIONS ELECTION OF LUCIEN BOUCHARD

Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984, our party, the present Government, had a great plan: to create jobs and reduce unemployment. This plan was based on some key ideas and principles: national reconciliation-i.e., good

June 21, 1988
Oral Questions
relations with the provinces-, strengthening international relations, making our country safer through a stronger national defence. So it is no accident that 1,300,000 new jobs were created. Nor is it any accident that the people of Lac-Saint-Jean yesterday voted for the Conservative Government-it is no accident that they elected Lucien Bouchard. He is a very major asset, another plus for our Party, the great team now in power. He will help further improve our relations with the provinces and thereby the status of all Canadian families. I welcome him to our Party.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, for a long time the Township of Russell in my constituency has been wanting to establish a business incubator. Unfortunately, it was told recently that there was no program by which it could have a business incubator.
The Rotary Club asked me to intervene on its behalf under the same program that was used in Lac-Saint-Jean so that the community could get the business incubator.
Although no formal application has been forthcoming from my riding yet, I would expect that the funds will be rolling in anyway because, after all, no formal application was ever filled out in Lac-Saint-Jean either. If it is good for one area, then surely it is good for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.



BANKS AND BANKING


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers are up in arms over the unjustified service charges being imposed by banks and have now begun to voice publicly their long-standing frustration over this unacceptable situation. One case in particular brought to my attention concerns a 15-year-old boy with a small account containing $10. Without notification, the bank proceeded to levy service charges against the account and then closed it because it considered it an inactive account.
What kind of message is being sent to young people by such actions? Why should they bother to save at all when what little they can put aside is suddenly seized without notice or warning? No one should have to pay a maintenance fee on seldom used accounts. Why should consumers be charged for closing accounts or for the errors banks make?
The Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs has proposed both fair and necessary recommendations to curb bank charges. I urge the Government to take immediate action on these recommendations and to put an end to this institutionalized rip-off of consumers.



THE LATE FERNAND SEGUIN

Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec and Canada have just lost an eminent journalist, Fernand Seguin. During his 30-year career, Mr. Seguin dominated the field of popular science.
Since television began in Canada, he was the first to initiate us to the world of science, unpretentiously and with warmth.
He was a man of vision who knew that the future would involve both communication and science and he paved the way for the excellent journalists of whom our country is so proud today.
I want us to pay him tribute today in this House.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to find out yesterday that decision 1988-R-47 of the National Transport Agency gave the City of Brossard, in my riding, permission to continue construction of Matte Boulevard in its industrial park up to the intersection of the Canadian National Railway right of way. The roads system in the industrial park will thus be greatly improved.
This NTA decision reflects the dynamism of one of the fair cities in my constituency.
Congratulations to the City Council and Mayor Georgette Lepage for their continuing tireless efforts on behalf of my beautiful riding of La Prairie.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the last spike was driven into the Newfoundland Railway yesterday. The final spike was driven into the coffin of the
June 21, 1988

Newfoundland Railway by this Government yesterday, June 20, 1988.
June 20 was an interesting day. There was a federal byelection with the Prime Minister throwing around taxpayers' money as if there were no tomorrow. As well, the International Economic Summit was taking place in Toronto. Perhaps the Government thought that Newfoundlanders would not pay too much attention to the announced closure of the railway with these other items monopolizing the news. Well, the Government was wrong. Newfoundlanders are outraged with the details of this agreement.
I ask the Minister who made that announcement, the Minister for International Trade, former Minister of Transport, and the real father of this infamous deal, why did the Government of Canada decide to close the Newfoundland Railway before the necessary highway improvements could be made in anticipation of the increased tractor-trailer business?
The Minister knows that, according to the Department of Transport, one eighteen-wheeler tractor-trailor on the Newfoundland highway inflicts as much damage on the highway as do 4,000 automobiles.
Given that this is the worst highway in Canada for 1,000 kilometres, why did the Government decide to close the railway before the highway could be improved?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, how short some persons' memories are. Why, I remember in 1968 when the Liberal Government of the day closed the Newfoundland rail passenger service and there was no compensation for Newfoundland or Newfoundlanders, only a bus service provided.
I am glad to admit to fathership of this concept. It is not the last spike, it is the golden spike that Newfoundland received yesterday-$800 million. I am proud to have achieved that for the province.
The hon. gentleman opposite and his Party voted against $1 billion for Atlantic Canada when they voted against the ACOA legislation at third reading in this House.
The people of Newfoundland are delighted with the $700 million for roads over the next 15 years, an average of $50 million a year. What roads does the hon. gentleman not want proceeded with? Is it the road from Branch to St. Bride's? Is it the twinning of the highway from Deer Lake to Corner Brook that he objects to? Is it the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway from Donovans to the Argentia overpass? Is it the access road from the Trans-Canada Highway to Argentia?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: More? There is $800 million more; that is why the people of Newfoundland are supporting this 100 per cent.
Oral Questions


ASSISTANCE PACKAGE FOR EMPLOYEES
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, according to the Minister's own announcement, the majority of that money to be spent on roads is to be spent as follows: "$35 million each fiscal year from 1995 to the year 2003". The Minister has created a new space odyssey, Space Odyssey 2003. There won't be any roads left in 1990 let alone the year 2003.
Getting back to the agreement, in announcing the assistance package for employees the employees were told that their expenses and severance package will be negotiated between Canadian National and the unions from now until September, 90 days.
Why were the workers not consulted and an agreement reached before the announced closure of the railway?
While the Minister is at it, can he verify that the money for this settlement will not come from the federal Treasury but from the budget of Canadian National? Canadian National is not going to go out of its way to be generous to these employees. What do they do now if they are not happy with the offer? The railway will be closed. Is the Minister saying they can go on strike?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in 1979 there were 1,350 employees of the Newfoundland Railway. When we became the Government of Canada in 1984, 708 of them were gone and there were 642 left under the hon. gentleman.
There are now 642 employees. One hundred and forty will remain working with CN on the road cruiser service and intermodal freight service, 155 are eligible for early retirement, and the other 347 will get a variety of benefits under present collective agreements and special agreements that will be entered into. Forty other employees laid off between 1986 and 1988 will be covered under the same generous arrangements. One hundred and nine employees who are seasonal will get generous assistance as well.
We are going to ensure that this occurs. CN is putting up a $70 million fund to accomplish this. If that is not sufficient it will put forward more.
When the rail passenger service went, honourable donkeys opposite didn't even bray as they are braying today, much less get compensation for anyone.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Government may unrail the Newfoundland Railway but Newfoundlanders are going to derail the Government in the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, let me ask this Minister the key question. Why is it that Newfoundland is the only province in Canada which has to give up

June 21, 1988
Oral Questions
its railway in order to get some money for road improvements? Why is that, Mr. Speaker?
I am sure that the Hon. Minister knows that when the Prime Minister announced $900 million two weeks ago in Quebec for the by-election he did not say that the road improvements would be done in the year 2000, as this Minister has, or that Quebec would have to give up its railway. If he did, it would be back to Paris for le nouveau MP.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of record, the Government of Canada entered into a Trans-Canada Highway and roads agreement under ERDA with the Province of Newfoundland in 1985, to the tune of $186 million. That has been increased by $100 million yesterday together with $235 million, 100 per cent federal dollars, for regional roads and $405 million, 100 per cent federal dollars, for the Trans-Canada Highway. Nothing like it has ever occurred in the history of Canada.
Yesterday the hon. gentlemen opposite were "Bouchard-ed" in Quebec and "Crosbie-oed" in Newfoundland. They are certainly stung by that because this is the best and most popular move that has been made in the transportation field in this country for any one province since Confederation.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. All Canadians have been shocked to learn about the tragic deaths of six bright young officer cadets and the injuries sustained by three other cadets while they were being taught how to deal safely with explosives at CFB Chilliwack.
I am sure all of us in the House at this time want to extend to the parents, to all other members of the families and their friends, our deepest sympathy and condolences on their great loss.
In view of the fact that this is the third explosion at Canadian Forces Bases in the last six months alone, and that it goes without saying these have to be given absolute serious attention, will the Minister give the House and all Canadians a brief interim report at this time with regard to the recent catastrophe at CFB Chilliwack? What action will take place in the wake of this tragedy?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all Members of the House will join the Hon. Member and me in expressing our deepest sympathy to all the families and friends of the victims of this tragic accident. I expect that at three o'clock Members of the House will have a chance to express these sentiments more formally.
However, I can indicate to the Hon. Member that we have asked that a board of inquiry be set up immediately. Training of this nature has been suspended at CFB Chilliwack pending results of that board of inquiry. On the basis of what we have seen to date, there is no evident connection between the other two incidents referred to by the Hon. Member and the tragic incident at CFB Chilliwack.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF BOARDS OF INQUIRY
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House will fully appreciate that the two major issues here are safety and accountability. Not only should thorough inquiries take place, and not only should the results of any investigation be made public through the Minister of National Defence who is responsible for reporting for the Department to this Parliament, surely specific recommendations should also be made at that time.
Canadians want to be assured that effective preventive measures are being followed and that lives are not been endangered unnecessarily. Will the Minister give the House a commitment that any recommendations that come out of the three boards of inquiries into the accidents at CFB Val Cartier, CFB Gagetown, and CFB Chilliwack will be implemented and effectively administered? I am sure he will also be looking for the co-operation and work of the Defence Committee in the House in this regard.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the boards of inquiry in all three cases have the scope and authority to make whatever recommendations they feel are appropriate. Indeed, the whole point in setting up a board of inquiry is to get the appropriate information as to what the cause of an incident of this nature was and what can be done to ensure that it does not take place in the future.
The safety record of the Canadian Forces is exceptionally good, notwithstanding these three tragic incidents. If there is any information or recommendation that comes out of any of these boards of inquiry which could allow us to prevent a repetition of this sort of incident in the future, it will certainly be acted upon.
I can give the House the assurance as well that the results of these boards of inquiry will be made public and that the Canadian Forces will be taking whatever actions are appropriate to ensure that such accidents do not take place in the future to the best of our ability.
June 21, 1988


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Last week I brought a situation to the attention of the Minister with respect to a branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia which charged a constituent of mine 90 cents for a 50-cent roll of pennies. The Minister offered to investigate. I have another case today for him which was brought to my attention yesterday in my constituency.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: This time it is the Toronto Dominion Bank.


Some Hon. Members:: Sh-h-h!


John Edward Broadbent: At least Members on this side of the House are interested in getting fairness out of the banks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It appears that a Mrs. Meicheldeck-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa has been recognized to put questions and I know Hon. Members would want to give him the appropriate courtesy of listening to his question. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Meicheldeck lives in Ajax. She gave a cheque to her babysitter on her personal account at a branch that happens to be in Pickering. It was a cheque for $45. When the bank cashed the cheque for the babysitter, it gave the babysitter only $40 saying there would be a $5 service charge on the $45 cheque.
Does the Minister think that a $5 charge on a personal account in which there was money is acceptable to the people of Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks an important question on behalf of, I gather, his constituent. I am very happy to respond to him. I would like to remind him that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West, and the Hon. Member for Don Valley East, have all worked very hard on this whole subject.


Mr. Orlikow:: What are you doing?


Thomas Hockin: As a result of their fine work, I am very happy to tell the Hon. Member that my report on this matter, and recommendations, will be coming forward the first of next week.
Oral Questions
With regard to the specific complaint the Hon. Member has raised, I think the example he has brought forward is absolutely outrageous and I would be very happy to look into it.


POLICY OF FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister, but unfortunately, he said the same thing last week about the Bank of Nova Scotia, and in that situation, the Bank of Nova Scotia announced it did not intend to change its policy.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the Government intends to table legislation in the House of Commons reflecting the policy proposed by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, a policy that had unanimous support and was suggested by the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough, because if the answer is yes, we intend to give our immediate support to this legislation which is badly needed in Canada.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, as I said last week, we will have someone who can defend the interests of the consumer, and next week we intend to put in place the appropriate mechanisms.


COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging that the Government is going to act on this matter. The Minister knows that a unanimous report has come in from the committee chaired by a Member on the government side, with support on this side. Is he telling the House that what is included in that Bill, everything that is in that Bill, will be government policy? We hope the answer to that will be yes.
Second, will the Minister be announcing, in any case, a 1800 number immediately which the people of Canada could call if they have complaints about excessive charges by the banks so they can at last get some justice from our banking system?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to tell the Hon. Member that there are many, many ideas in that report which I will be happy to accept, plus I have some more good ones of my own.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for International Trade said that CN and Marine Atlantic had assured him that the closure

June 21, 1988
Oral Questions
of the Newfoundland Railway would not result in any lay-offs in North Sydney. Yet lay-offs in the area have already begun and CN has said that it is going to be providing a direct route from Halifax to St. John's, and that the markets and frequency and volume of traffic are going to be redefined.
Why is the Government misleading the people in the North Sydney area into believing that the closure of the Newfoundland Railway will not result in any lay-offs in the North Sydney area?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone misleading the people in the North Sydney area, it is one of the honourable colleagues of the hon. gentleman, who said 300 people were going to be laid off in the North Sydney area as a result of the closure of the Newfoundland Railway. That is completely unfounded and harmful speculation.
I am advised by CN, for example, that it is still going to operate a rail service to North Sydney, and on the line between Truro and Sydney trains have an average of 80 to 90 cars per day. It estimates that, at the most, this multimodal option might divert 15 to 20 container movements per day to Halifax for St. John's and Avalon Peninsula destinations. That will have to be seen.
In the meantime it is expecting other traffic on that particular line which will more than compensate for any lost traffic there might be to Newfoundland. It is going to operate through Halifax. It is going to operate through North Sydney. It is going to operate to St. John's. It is going to operate eventually to Corner Brook as well as to Port aux Basques. This is what CN has to do to provide an adequate, economic, and efficient multimodal freight service. CN does not expect any lay-offs at Port aux Basques or North Sydney.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSURANCE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said previously that the former Government did not offer any compensation. Well, the previous Government did offer compensation for pre-retirement through the Industrial Labour Adjustment Program to workers of Marine Atlantic, both in North Sydney and in Port aux Basques, and this Government refuses to implement such a program, even now, with the facts there, to the people of North Sydney.
Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance, to give a promise, that the railroad will not be closed in Nova Scotia between Truro and Sydney at any time in the indefinite future? Is he also prepared to say there will not be any lay-offs at Canadian National or Marine Atlantic in the indefinite future? If he is not, will he not rethink the policy and provide adequate compensation for the North Sydney area and those who are going to be laid off? At least have the courage to do something for the people.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am going to do exactly what I have done, give the House the information that I am given by CN. Now, there could be lay-offs. It will depend on traffic in the future, traffic patterns in the future. There could be, if there is any lessening in the amount of traffic going across the gulf from North Sydney to Port aux Basques, some lay-offs of Marine Atlantic personnel. That is not planned at the moment and that is certainly not known at the moment.
I repeat, the hon. gentleman should be very careful about what he says. In 1979 and 1980 when his Party came back into office, there were 1,350 persons working for the Newfoundland Railway. When it left office, there were 642. I am not going to make any statements about what might happen in the future. This is the best information we have at the moment.
In the meantime, 600 to 800 jobs a year in the highway construction industry in Newfoundland will be created, with another 300 or 400 jobs for people in associated intermodal services, and the 347 people laid off, who are not entitled to early retirement, are going to get special assistance, special training assistance, and they are going to be entitled to all the benefits of CN's collective agreement, plus a special arrangement in addition to that.


BANKS AND BANKING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. All last week the banks of Canada ran large ads in all the major newspapers across the country. In these ads there was a graph showing that the median annual cost of a basket of services for clients having a minimum balance of $600 was $28.54 at the banks and $97.78 at trust companies.
The research team that studied this matter for the Finance Committee came up with the figure that a typical consumer spends, which was $100 a year, on routine financial services. It also found that there was little difference between that cost and the cost at trust companies.
In light of the fact that the banks must be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these advertisements- obviously the money is being taken from the Mrs. de Gruchy's, the Go-Go Pizzas, and all the average Canadians across Canada-can the Minister undertake to get in touch with his friends over at the Bankers' Association and ask them to cease and desist from this misleading advertising and return the money to the clients of the banks?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 21, 1988


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a bit late in catching on to this whole issue. Members on this side of the House have been working very hard on this matter for a number of months.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Have you talked to the banks?


Thomas Hockin: With regard to this particular advertisement, the basket of charges that the banks used for their ads is a special basket. I do not know whether it is representative of services that the Hon. Member would use or not. However, it is a basket they chose. It may be accurate for that basket. Whether it is accurate for making their point or not, consumers can find out on their own.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS-REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATE ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has a responsibility for misleading advertising under the appropriate legislation.
In light of the fact that this advertisement which the banks have been putting in the papers across the country is very misleading, is the Minister prepared to instruct his investigation team within the Department to look at this advertising with a view to having it withdrawn?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that kind of advocacy advertising does not invite the consumer to purchase a particular product so it does not fall under the ambit of misleading advertising legislation.
However, I am disturbed about the quality of advocacy advertising that I see, particularly that put out by the Hon. Member's friends in CUPW and the CLC.


John Edward Broadbent: But not the banks?


AUDIT OF HALFWAY HOUSES IN METRO TORONTO
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. The Minister will know that this past weekend an 11-year old Brampton boy, Christopher Stephenson, was murdered. An ex-convict on mandatory supervision has been charged with this brutal murder.
As the Minister will know, the same individual had been previously convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year old Ottawa boy. In light of this most recent tragedy, and concerns for public safety, will the Minister release the results of his audit of halfway houses in the Metro Toronto region and will
Oral Questions
he take immediate action to put into force the parole reforms which he announced last week?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the House that the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown spoke to me about this matter yesterday. On behalf of all Members of the House I wish to express the sympathy of all here to the family on this tragic incident.
I can tell the Hon. Member that I received the preliminary audit report of the Pepino Commission. That particular report recommended a follow-up audit, which is presently being done.
I hope to have it in my hands within the next few weeks.
I can also tell the Hon. Member that I have instructed the new Commissioner of Corrections, on an urgent basis, to address the parole system problem within the Toronto area to prevent tragedies such as this in the future.


EXPORT CONTROL POLICY-SALE OF HELICOPTER ENGINES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade in the absence of his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In recent years we have repeatedly raised in this House questions concerning the loopholes in the export control policy that allow Canadian manufacturers to send military weapons to countries such as Chile, Iran, Iraq, and other places which are engaged either in major war or in repression of their civilian populations. We have received commitments from the Government and from the Secretary of State that the loopholes would be closed and that changes would be made.
We now have a report which is soon to be released by Project Ploughshares which shows that the loopholes continue to exist and that Pratt & Whitney is continuing to send engines for its helicopters to a wide variety of countries engaged in human rights violations or in major wars or civil wars around the globe.
Why is it that the Government has reneged on its commitment to close these loopholes? Why has it not proceeded with a very major change in its export control policy so that Canada will not be an accomplice in major human rights violations and military oppression in these types of conflicts?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member implied, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has often, both inside the House and on other occasions, explained the Canadian Government's policy on exports. Exports of military engines and engines with strategic technology are governed by the Export Act. As far as

June 21, 1988
Oral Questions
we are concerned, the claim that Pratt & Whitney circumvented Canadian law is absolutely false. However, should the Hon. Member have new allegations by Project Plowshares to submit, we should be happy to examine them.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a publication of the Government of Canada entitled "The Canadian Defence Products Guide". It clearly outlines that Pratt & Whitney engage in the manufacture of engines which have dual military purposes. The engine is used in the Cobra airship, which is an airship being used by many air forces in countries which are repressing human rights.
On the one hand we have a Canadian Government which in its own publication advertises the sale of these weapons which are being used in these countries, while on the other hand we have the Minister saying that we are doing all that we can about it.
Why the two-faced policy? Why does the Government not get its act together and either stop advertising these products or do something about closing the loopholes so that we will not be an accomplice in these major crimes against humanity?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, it is a recognized fact that Pratt & Whitney is one of the major suppliers of engines for civilian and military aircraft, and that Canadian legislation on military exports is very strict and on no condition permits the voluntary export of military goods. Of course, it is very difficult to control items imported by a third country. Consequently, as I said before, if the Hon. Member has any new allegations of wrongdoing by Pratt & Whitney, we would be glad to consider them.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West.


John Carnell Crosbie: All an engine does is move something around. Mr. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to-


John Carnell Crosbie: It does not have a knife in its hands.


Mr. de Jong:: Are you finished?


John Carnell Crosbie: Are you?


Simon Leendert de Jong: I just started.


John Carnell Crosbie: Get going, then.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday the Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan announced that the Minister has issued the licence for the Rafferty and Alameda dam project. In exchange for this licence the Saskatchewan Government gave in on the French language rights and the Grasslands National Park agreement that was signed in 1981.
We have seen this Minister succumb to the blackmail of Vander Zalm when it came to South Morseby. Now he is succumbing to the blackmail of Devine.
When is the Minister going to stand up to environmental thugs like Vander Zalm and Devine, or is he going to resign?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is totally and utterly false and wrong.
I do not know, Sir, whether you would wish me to dignify the question by answering. I suspect, Sir, if you had the freedom to do so, you would rule the question out of order.


ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW PROCESS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Minister is not going to stand up to thugs like Vander Zalm and Devine-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in an earlier answer to a question I posed on April 19 the Minister assured me, and I quote:
I can tell the Hon. Member, in response to his question, that the Federal
Environmental Assessment and Review Process is now being followed.
Was the Minister telling the truth at that time, or did he just not know what he was talking about?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Process applies to projects within federal jurisdiction, on federal Crown land, subject to federal regulation, or in which the federal Government has money.
In this particular case the relevant Hansard quotes me as saying the "Federal Environmental Assessment Review Process". At the time I gave the answer I meant the Saskatchewan Assessment and Review Process. So I stand corrected.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Get off it. What a sell-out. Why don't you resign? What a Minister of the Environment! Shame on you!
June 21, 1988


CITIZENSHIP
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, the Hon. Member for Lac Saint-Jean, but he is obviously not with us yet. We look forward to welcoming him within the next few days.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mary Collins: Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister would be able to respond-


Mr. Rossi:: Go back to show business where you belong.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Capilano.


Mary Collins: I am sure that other Members of the House will also be concerned about this issue.
We have learned that under the old British Naturalization Act Canadian women who married men who were not British subjects prior to 1947 automatically lost their Canadian citizenship. That is a horrendous situation which obviously needs to be changed.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what can women do who find themselves in this situation? I am sure there are hundreds of Canadian women who do not even know that they have lost their Canadian citizenship as a result of this. What can they do to retain their citizenship? What can the Government do to remedy this situation?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that since the Canada Citizenship Act came into effect on January 1, 1947, married women have had complete authority over their nationality status.
In addition, under the current statute, Part III, the Act of 1977, women who lost their Canadian status, such as the people to whom the Hon. Member referred, can have their citizenship restored simply by advising of their intention to do so.


DISASTERS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. While the Prime Minister is talking tough about terrorism at the Economic Summit in Toronto, his Government is doing
Oral Questions
precious little to bring to justice those responsible for the downing of Air-India Flight 182 when 329 lives were lost.
Thursday, June 23rd, will be the third anniversary of the worst mass murder ever in Canadian history. During the last three years the Government has botched and bungled the criminal investigation. There have been false affidavits, erased tapes, mass confusion, but no charges.
Will the Government finally admit that the criminal investigation has come to a standstill? Will it order an immediate public inquiry to look into all aspects of this horrendous and heinous terrorism act, and also to look into the conduct of the Government itself?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the Hon. Member that indeed this has been a very tragic incident. But I do not accept or agree with the premise in his question that this matter has been botched or bungled.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been carrying out an intensive investigation since the incident occurred. At no time have there been less than 50 officers working on the case, and at times up to 250.
The Chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee stated in recent testimony that it would be an error now to become involved or to stop the investigation. We are continuing. We will try to bring these people to justice. I would ask the Hon. Member to have patience.


PUBLIC INQUIRY RALLY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions over the last three years the Solicitor General assured the House that the criminal investigation was progressing. Here we are three years later and the Citizens' Coalition for Public Inquiry into the Air-India disaster will be meeting on Parliament Hill on Thursday afternoon.
Why do the families of the victims have to go to such lengths in order to achieve justice in this particular case?
Will the Solicitor General be attending that rally on Thursday afternoon? Will he explain to the families of the victims why his Government has given such low priority to this act of terrorism?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, to say the least, I resent the suggestion of the Hon. Member that I or the Government have given this particular horrendous incident a low priority.
I have repeated on many occasions that we have given it an extremely high priority, and we are continuing to do so. This tragedy is not the type of matter with which the Hon. Member should be playing politics.

June 21, 1988
Canadian Armed Forces HIGHWAYS


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY-UPGRADING NEEDED IN NORTHERN ONTARIO
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I expect the Minister is aware of the fact that the federal Government has agreements with every province except Ontario to provide federal funding to make improvements in their highway systems. Only Ontario, which is responsible for 30 per cent of the Trans-Canada Highway coast-to-coast, has no such agreement.
Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider the request of the Ontario Minister of Transportation to negotiate a federal-provincial agreement for Trans-Canada Highway upgrading in the Province of Ontario through northern Ontario?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the agreements that we have-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Benoît Bouchard: I am very delighted to hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. You had a lesson yesterday, 6,200 votes!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Welcome back.


Benoît Bouchard: I am very pleased to be back in the House, Mr. Speaker.
The agreements that we have for the highways with different provinces have been discussed and signed by different Ministers and different Governments. Some agreements were signed before 1984.
With respect to Ontario, I have not personally had any discussions with the Minister of Transportation for Ontario. When I am requested to meet a provincial Minister about any issue, I always agree to do that. Of course, if the Minister of Transport from Ontario asks for any meeting, I will be very pleased to meet the Minister.


REQUEST THAT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL NEGOTIATIONS BE STARTED
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage the Minister in that. He is well aware of the importance of avoiding any kind of a sense of unfairness among the people of Canada.
May I have the Minister's explicit commitment to take up the request which is on file? I have a number of letters from the Minister. Will he respond actively and get in touch with
the Hon. Ed Fulton, the Ontario Minister of Transportation, to begin the negotiating process toward a federal-provincial agreement for funding assistance to the Province of Ontario for the upgrading of the Trans-Canada Highway, that one-quarter of the national system which crosses northern Ontario?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I am not at all closed to any discussions with Ontario, but at the federal level we have different agreements with the provinces. These agreements could be about health or about transport, not just roads.
Once again, I am not saying that we will sign an agreement, but I have never said that I would refuse to have discussions. In the meantime, I believe that yesterday there was a very wonderful announcement in Newfoundland about the transportation system in that province. We have an agreement with New Brunswick and one with P.E.I. Once again this Government has the best record in terms of agreements with provinces, and we are not opposed to any other agreements. We deal with the provinces, and we have a lot of proof of that.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to ask the Hon. Minister of National Defence to rise to speak briefly to speak on a tragic event which recently occurred, and I think there may be other Hon. Members who will want to respond.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues in the House of Commons for this time. I regret to have to inform the House of the tragic death of six officers in an accidental explosion at Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack, British Columbia. Three other officers were injured in this same accident.
I am sure I speak for all Members of this House as I extend sympathy to the parents, families, and friends of these Canadian Forces members. I share their sense of profound loss in the wake of this terrible tragedy.
At this point there would appear to be nothing which would suggest a relationship to two other recent accidents, the accidental detonation of an old artillery round at CFB Valcartier, Quebec, and misdirected mortar rounds at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick. These two accidents are being addressed in separate boards of inquiry. However, a new board of inquiry is being convened to investigate thoroughly this most recent tragic loss of life. Results of all three inquiries will be made public on completion.
General Paul Manson, Chief of the Defence Staff, has asked Major General Frederick Sutherland, Chief of Personnel Development, to be his personal envoy. General Sutherland
June 21, 1988

will immediately proceed to Chilliwack to represent General Manson as the families and colleagues of these service people recover from this tragic loss.
This latest tragedy is a vivid reminder of the dangers that are present for the men and women who volunteer and train to defend Canada and Canadians. I still hold the conviction that our safety procedures are the best in the world. However, I am directing the Department of National Defence to review these procedures to ensure their continuing refinement in meeting the challenges which increasing technology places on our training system.
I know that all Members of the House and all members of the Canadian Forces join with me in extending sincere condolences to the families of those service people who were killed or injured in this tragic incident.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) for sending me a copy of his remarks well in advance of his statement. That was appreciated. We join him in extending our sincere condolences and deepest sympathies to the members of the families and to the friends of the bright young people who lost their lives.
I think this brings back to all of us thoughts of youth, their ideals, their goals, their ambitions in life. There are many young people today who have a great desire to have a career in the Canadian Armed Forces, and we join with the Minister in his remarks about having a review of the procedures relating to safety measures within the Department. We know that within the Armed Forces, there are many, many dedicated people, and I am sure that today they are as distraught as we in this House are at the accident that occurred at Chilliwack, B.C.
As a follow-up, I think we have a good opportunity to work together to do some very constructive work. Three inquiries are ongoing now into the three accidents that have been mentioned today, the ones at Gagetown, Valcartier, and Chilliwack, and when these reports come in we will want to take a good look at them together to see what can be done to improve the safety measures dealing with Armed Forces materiel.
The Minister mentioned in his remarks that today's high technology presents greater challenges, and we are aware of that. We must always be prepared for that, and I would hope that as the cadets and the reserves go out for summer training this summer we will bear in mind the need for extra precautions, and that there will be a safe summer of training for the Canadian Armed Forces from here on in.
Once again, we extend our deepest thoughts to the members of the families and pay tribute to the young people who had such high aims and ambitions in life. We wish those other three young people who sustained injuries all the best in their recovery.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I and members of my Party join in expressing
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
sympathy to the families, friends, and comrades of the six young men and women killed in yesterday's tragic accident at CFB Chilliwack. We share the concern for the three injured survivors and offer best wishes for their early recovery.
In times of peace we often forget the dangers that members of our Armed Forces face in the course of their duties. Yesterday's tragedy reminds us of those dangers. It underlines the concern I expressed last Friday when I asked about recent accidents at CFB Gagetown.
Canadians want to know and be assured that their Government is doing everything possible to ensure the safety of our servicemen and women. While military boards of inquiry have been called to investigate these and other accidents, I repeat the call for an additional full and open investigation by an outside investigator. This tragic loss of life demands more than an in-house inquiry.
As all Members of the House join together to extend their sympathy to the families and friends of those who were killed or wounded, I urge the Government to establish this impartial investigation. It may help prevent future tragedies.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my remarks to those of Members who have already spoken about the dreadful accident that occurred at CFB Chilliwack yesterday. I know this base personally. I know the staff and the officers who work at this base, and I know of the pride they take in what happens in training exercises. It is indeed a tragedy that six young people have met an untimely death.
I join with the others who have extended their sympathies to the families of these young people, and we want to pass on our condolences to them. More important, we also want to think in terms of the remainder of the class that is still in training and of the trainers who must train that class and continue on in their exercises. We wish them the very, very best in future.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a distinct pleasure and privilege, as well as a duty, to rise to introduce this Bill on second reading. It is just as it says, "an Act to implement the Free

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America". It has 153 clauses and 123 pages. The Bill is devoted to doing just that, to implementing the free trade agreement.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in reaching this stage the negotiations commenced between Canada and the United States to reach this agreement on June 17, 1986, just over two years ago. On October 4, 1987 the elements of this agreement were agreed to by the two contracting parties, the United States and ourselves, and the agreement was signed by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the President of the United States of America on January 3, 1988.
We are not dealing with a piece of legislation or an agreement that contains any unknowns or any major changes to what we have all understood since the agreement was signed, the elements agreed to, and the legal text made available. It has been a two-year process.
I want also just to point out that in the Senate, in the Upper House, in June of 1978 there was a report-of course, the majority was Liberal then, just as it is Liberal now-that urged the Government to consider seriously the option of bilateral free trade. We are not introducing something new or strange or startling to the Senate when our legislation reaches the Senate.
I want to point out that in March, 1982 a Senate committee, chaired by the same chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee as is now chairing that committee, recommended bilateral trade with the United States and dismissed fears about any possible reduction in sovereignty that might be suffered in Canada as a result of such a free trade agreement. I think the same Senator, Senator George Van Roggen, is still the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. These were his recommendations and those of the committee in March of 1982.
I might even point out that on November 5, 1987 a Senate Committee began to study the free trade situation with an order of reference from November to March of 1989. They have met to date 34 times and have heard 71 witnesses. This agreement is not a strange document or an obscure document to our Upper House. There were four days' debate on the elements of the agreement as a result of a motion of Senator Gigantes on October 29, 1987.
As a matter of fact, on May 4, 1988 the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate reported on constitutional jurisdiction pertaining to the free trade agreement and concluded that the Government of Canada had the legislative and constitutional jurisdiction to carry out, to implement, and to pass into law that agreement here in Canada, under our trade and commerce powers, interprovincial and international, as well as other powers given to the Government of Canada by the BNA Act. It was in the House of Commons, that this agreement and this subject has had great consideration.
June 21, 1988
On October 26, 1987 the House committee started hearings on the elements of the agreement. They heard 158 witnesses in 24 days of testimony. They reported on December 15, 1987. There have been six Opposition Days devoted to this subject in this House, including September 23, 1987 when the Leader of the New Democratic Party proposed that Canada walk away-a very peculiar proposal-from the trade deal.
On October 26, 1987 the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) proposed that the agreement be torn up. It was the most feeble, the silliest, the most supercilious, the most damaging suggestion ever made by the Leader of a national Party in our history, that a major international agreement be torn up, and that he, if he got the chance himself, would tear it up, it is shows such an abysmal lack of information about this agreement. The hon. gentleman wants to engage in a feat of strength, attempting to tear up this Bill and all additions to it, which have a height of about this; Charles Atlas himself could not tear it up.
The facts are that if this agreement is implemented by this Parliament and by the U.S. Congress, under the terms of the agreement only a six-month notice needs to be given by either one of the contracting parties to result in the cancellation and the ending of the agreement anyway.
If the hon. gentleman, God forbid, is ever in a position to carry out his threats, he won't have to tear it up; he will just give a six-month notice, and of course the American President will give him a one-year notice under the terms of the U.S. Auto Pact that he is terminating the U.S. Auto Pact.
It will be a pretty close race to see who tears up what the quickest if either one of these "tear them up kids" gets into power in the next election, which is highly unlikely.
That is just some background, Mr. Speaker, to show you we are not dealing here with something new, something of first impression, something that has to be looked at in great detail for a great length of time. As a matter of fact, in getting to this position we have had day after day of negative obstructionism on behalf of the New Democratic Party, in a display of antidemocratic action carried to ludicrous extremes.
With the start of second reading today our country and our citizens move one step closer to the economic benefits that we will realize through this more secure and enhanced access to the largest market in the world, which is the U.S. market.
We are acting in the national interest, as is shown by the broad degree of provincial-government support-we have eight of the ten provinces-and public support for this free trade agreement across the country. The results of carrying this agreement into effect will be, over time, lower consumer prices, additional new jobs, real income gains realized in each region of the country.
This is one of the few pieces of legislation where we can say that every region of the country is going to benefit, Mr. Speaker, as a direct result of this agreement. There have been studies by the Department of Finance. There have been studies
June 21, 1988

by the Howe Institute. There have been studies by a western group by the name of the Canada West Foundation. Independent institute after institute have studied the agreement, and all have come to the same kind of conclusions.
I won't go into the details, Mr. Speaker, of all of that. There has been great detail in all of these studies.
Business investment will go up. Canadian exports will increase. Our total Canadian manufacturing output will increase. There will be a net gain of jobs by Canadians.
I am not going to engage in the debate on how great a net gain-is it 120,000, is it 180,000, or whatever? Everyone is agreed that there is going to be a net gain in new Canadian jobs in the next two years as a result of this action that we are starting to take today. This is confirmed, of course, by studies made by the Economic Council of Canada.
What we are doing in this Bill is approving the agreement and amending such Canadian laws as are necessary to meet our obligations under the agreement.
As an example, Mr. Speaker, the Special Import Measures Act is amended to provide for binding dispute settlement in countervail and anti-dumping cases. In all, 27 federal statutes are amended.
To implement the free trade agreement only one change is needed that normally comes under provincial jurisdiction, namely, the listings and mark-ups for American wine and liquor. The Government of Canada continues to hope that those provinces whose wine and liquor practices do not conform to the agreement will make this needed change themselves.
Of course the Province of Quebec has made it plain that they, for their part, will do this, that they intend to do this, and that they are going to do it.
We will only need to use any powers which we ask the House to give us in Clause 6 or Clause 9 of the agreement if a province absolutely refuses to make any change in listings, mark-up practices, and the like. This would not only be contrary to The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement but has already been found contrary, to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which the opposition Parties say they support as they believe in the multilateral trading system. If that is the case, I hope they will urge the Province of Ontario to observe the finding of the GATT panel that their practices with respect to mark-ups, listings, and the like for wines and liquors are contrary to the GATT and have to be changed.
We will only act in that area if the province itself refuses to act. We have been told, of course, by the Province of Ontario that it will refuse. I hope that it is ready to reconsider that.
The Bill provides for the making of federal regulations to bring listings and mark-ups for wine and liquor into conformity with the free trade agreement if this is necessary in order to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
implement fully the agreement by December 31, 1988. We are confident that this is within the power of the federal Parliament. We are prepared to put it to the test if anyone wishes to. The judiciary will settle these disagreements if they cannot be settled by the parties to them.
Negotiation of the agreement involved the most extensive consultations for any international trade agreement in Canadian history. In addition to the listing I have already given you, Mr. Speaker, there were quarterly meetings of First Ministers and over 150 meetings between federal and provincial representatives over this two-year period.
Let us compare that with the negotiations of the Auto Pact about which we hear so much. None of that took place in those negotiations, and the NDP adherents to the union movement opposed it for the most part, of course, although they now support the status quo. They want no change in anything.
Let us consider the situation in 1946 when MacKenzie King, then Prime Minister, had free trade negotiated with the United States in dead secrecy for months. No one in the Cabinet was privy to these negotiations, only MacKenzie King and the officials he appointed. Finally he consulted about the free trade deal which he had by then just about concluded with the U.S. Who did he consult with? I am told he consulted with his mother and she had been dead for something like 20 years. That was the only consultation which took place before MacKenzie King decided against free trade with the United States. Having initiated the negotiations and having had them conducted for six or eight months in total secrecy, he decided he was not going to go ahead with it.
We have consulted closely with the provinces in negotiating this agreement. My colleague, the President of Treasury Board (Miss Carney), with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) coming in at the end, and Simon Reisman did a great job for Canada. They along with Mr. Gordon Ritchie, the Deputy Ambassador, negotiated the agreement on which we are going to work co-operatively with the provinces to implement and administer. I have written to the premiers outlining how we propose to do that.
Parliament now has this Bill before it. Parliament has the right to debate this legislation and also has the right, after due deliberation, to decide on it. The minority in Parliament cannot deny that right to the majority.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have described the process and said that we have now had the full legal text since last December. The Bill contains no surprises. It sets out in legal language the obligations set out in the agreement.
The Bill before us now has one central issue. We have to decide one main point: do we approve the free trade agreement and therefore want to implement all of the obligations of the free trade agreement, or do we reject the agreement? This is not a case in which Parliament can pick and choose among

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
pieces of the Bill. You're either for it or against it. We're for it, and we're going to put that to the Canadian people this year or next year. Those who are against it can creep out of their corners into the open and we will see who has the popular side of this argument. You can vote yes to the free trade agreement or no to the free trade agreement, but you cannot continue weaseling. You cannot say you are for free trade but against this agreement. You're for it or against it. You have a backbone or you haven't. You have to stand up and be counted.
Why is free trade with the U.S. so important to Canada? Why should we be concerned about the rules of the game for our exports to the U.S.? Our trade figures tell the story. We are one of the most export oriented countries in the industrialized world. About 25 per cent of our wealth, our GNP, and more than three million jobs arise from exports.
In 1987, 76 per cent of those exports, over $90 billion worth, went to the United States. That is why we are introducing this legislation today. That is why we want to save the Canadian people and give them an assured future by assuring that market in the United States. If anything goes wrong with our trade relationship with the United States, we stand to lose 25 per cent of our wealth.
I want hon. gentlemen opposite to explain that to the Canadian public when they tell them why they are against this agreement. They want to endanger one-quarter of all the wealth generated in Canada every year with their weaseling ways and silly questions in the House every day. They ask about what this Congressman and that Senator have been introducing when the only protection Canadians have against that is before them now. They want to sabotage that even though every day they pretend to be concerned about the protectionism in the U.S., yet they vote against the only protection we have against the very menaces they bring up every day.
All provinces depend heavily on exports to the U.S. In Atlantic Canada over two-thirds of exports went to the U.S. in 1986; 65 per cent in Newfoundland, to a high of 71 per cent in Nova Scotia. In Quebec 76 per cent of all exports went to the U.S., $2,280 per capita or over 13 per cent of its GDP. In British Columbia 46 per cent of exports went to the U.S., $7.2 billion worth or $2,471 per capita. In the prairie provinces 63 per cent of exports went to the U.S.; 44 per cent of Saskatchewan's, 56 per cent of Manitoba's, and 73 per cent of Alberta's, with an average per capita value of $2,782.
Note well, Mr. Speaker, that in Ontario 89 per cent of exports went to the U.S., $5,646 for each person in Ontario, accounting for over 27 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product of Ontario. Of all the wealth generated in Ontario every year, over a quarter of it, 27 per cent, comes from exports to the U.S. It is the Government of this province which is against the free trade agreement, which wanted to sabotage it by not agreeing to the wine and liquor listing changes and by other
patterns of conduct we have seen. That is completely inexplicable from the province which has the most to gain from this agreement.
Continued access to the U.S. market for what we produce in all parts of Canada is critical. Newfoundland plus P.E.I. plus Nova Scotia plus New Brunswick plus Quebec plus Ontario and Manitoba plus Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, plus free trade with the United States will make for a more prosperous Canada. I invite Hon. Members sitting opposite to realize that today, to join us in supporting this Bill, and to whistle it through without any more hesitation or attempts at sabotage.
What threatens this prosperity? It is threatened by U.S. protectionism. The people who work in our resource industries know about U.S. protectionism from the safeguard actions against cedar shakes and shingles and the countervail case against softwood lumber. American trade lawyers believe that both the safeguards actions on shakes and shingles and the softwood lumber countervail cases would have been decided differently had the free trade agreement been in place. Better still, the U.S. sponsors of those trade actions might well have been discouraged from bringing those trade actions in the first place had we had The Canada-U.S. FT A.
Therefore, one form which U.S. protectionism can take is politically inspired distortion of trade remedy law. Another form is direct limitation of trade as proposed in earlier versions of the U.S. omnibus trade bill which I do not have time to go into now. That, of course, is on the boards again with some changes and will have to be dealt with if it becomes law. If it becomes law, the free trade agreement will be more crucial than ever to shielding Canada from recurrent American protectionism.
As our ambassador to Washington, Allan Gotlieb, who has done a splendid job, has said:
(The FTA) is intended to address deep and persistent protectionist forces at work in the United States.
To counter the influence of declining industries in the U.S. system, it encourages long-term solutions rather than short- term fixes.
We are after long term solutions here. I congratulate Ambassador Gotlieb. He has done a splendid five year's work for his country, in the highest traditions of the Canadian diplomatic service. A grateful House of Commons and a grateful public should make sure that is realized.
This agreement is about long term solutions based on reciprocal principles, not raw political power, to give Canadian businesses secure access to the U.S. market. We cannot base it on raw political power because we do not have it. It must be based on reciprocal principles. The threat of American protectionism is one reason for free trade.
Another reason, just as important, is to reduce existing trade barriers so that we create new opportunities for Canadian
June 21, 1988

industry. That is why we are having a conference in Saskatoon today. That is why there will be 17 more between now and the middle of July, so that Canadians will learn what the new opportunities are for Canadian business in the United States under The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. What is why our trade commissioners and our personnel will be there.
We are doing studies to develop where the opportunities will be under this new regime. We must tell Canadian businesses, including small, large and medium, and any other Canadian who is interested, how to take advantage of those opportunities. What is the good of creating new opportunities for Canadian business if we do not then tell Canadian business where the opportunities lie? That is why we are spending what is in my opinion a puny sum of $10 million, to make sure they understand where those opportunities are. All Members of the House are invited to St. John's on July 6. We will show you how to put on a free trade seminar.
This is important for our resource industries because tariffs have been quite prejudicial to our ability to process raw materials here. This was testified to by Mr. William MacNess who is now Dean of the Faculty of Management of the University of Manitoba. He points out that we are allowed to ship raw resources duty free but the more value one adds the higher the tariffs.
In energy, forest products and metals, the American tariff system encourages Canadians to sell their raw resources for refining there, then buy them back in the finished form. While about 80 per cent of our exports enter the U.S. duty-free, scores of products face a mark-up high enough to make them uncompetitive. We are now making the other 20 per cent of Canada's exports competitive in the United States.
The fishery is another industry which will adapt to the new structure like a duck to water. The duty on processed seafood like fish sticks, prepared meals and other value added products, ranges from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. That is why Vic Young, President of Fisheries Products International, said:
At the moment Canadian seafood companies have been forced through a series of trade barriers to build secondary processing plants in the United States to add value to Canadian fish products. With the reduction of tariffs on such products over the next several years, there is little doubt that we will see a growth in the market for Canadian fish products and an increase in the production of these products in Atlantic Canada.
In other words, free trade will mean an increase in employment opportunities in the Atlantic Canada fishery. That is why the Atlantic Provinces support this, with the exception of Premier Ghiz of Prince Edward Island who apparently is fixated with the energy thesis he did some years ago, and supports the old national energy policy.
The third major reason for the free trade agreement is the positive effect of our having secure access to a combined North American market of almost 275 million people. We are the only major industrialized country in the world that does not have secure access to a market of at least 100 million people. We cannot depend on our own small Canadian domestic
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
market of 25 million or 26 million people if we are going to have growth and diversification of manufacturing services and technology.
Greater specialization with longer, lower cost production runs will strengthen our position in our own market, the U.S. market and in global markets. That is why I expect the hon. gentleman to have a conversion today when he finishes listening to me.
Those who say Canada should choose the Pacific Rim or Europe instead of the U.S. as our target market are wrong. We do not have to choose one over the other. That is why the Liberal policy is so silly, stupid, supine and ignorant of all the lessons of the past. We do not have to choose. There was the pitiful Liberal alternative last week. Now they are not going to have a free trade agreement with the U.S. at all. As the Economic Council of Canada has stated:
Many believe that freer trade and expanded trade with the United States
precludes expanded trade with other countries. There is no logical basis for this
view. In fact, expansion of our export sector to serve U.S. customers could well
facilitate the economies of scale needed to reach more distant markets.
In other words, free trade with the United States will help Canadian business reach the Pacific Rim and European markets. It will help attract more investment in Canadian facilities to serve the North American market, because with our agreement, clear access to the American market does not mean having to locate in the United States. One can locate here in Canada and investment will give similar access. This is critical in investment decisions where the target is the North American market, not not just the Canadian market.
We are not putting all our eggs in one basket. In 1985 we started two sets of trade negotiations, bilaterally with the United States, a success, and multilaterally under the GATT. We are still in that process. The mid term conference will be held in Montreal in December. We want to achieve new trade opportunities for Canadians both bilaterally and multilaterally-
The Liberal Opposition said that we should have confined the trade initiatives to the multilateral trade negotiations. That is a senseless statement. Even if everything goes wonderfully in the multilateral trade negotiations, and it is not, can we afford to wait the years needed to complete those negotiations to find out? What if the multilateral trade negotiations founder on the issue of agricultural subsidies or access for manufactured goods to the Japanese market? How then will we be helping our trade relations with the United States?
I remind the House that every concession granted by the U.S. to Canada in the multilateral negotiations would have to be paid for by Canada but would then be extended by the U.S. to all other countries. There is no realistic prospect that the multilateral trade negotiations could have given rise to the comprehensive scope of our bilateral agreement with the United States.
Furthermore, the free trade agreement strengthens our position vis-a-vis other countries within the multilateral trade

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
negotiations. With access secure to our major market in the United States, we can turn our full attention to bringing down barriers erected by other important trading partners like Europe, Japan and newly developed countries on the Pacific Rim.
We do not know what will be the results of the multilateral trade negotiations for several more years. We have the results of the Canada-U.S. negotiations before us today for the approval of Parliament. The best thing Hon. Members could do for this country is to pass this today and not wait for any further obstruction or delay.
The question Canadians should be asking is: Are we better off with or without the free trade agreement? The answer from Canadian business, the people who will have to compete, is clear. Small business representatives support the free trade agreement. Big business supports the free trade agreement. Resource producers support the free trade agreement. Manufacturers support the free trade agreement. Almost everyone in Canada who produces and exports supports the free trade agreement. Is there any need for any other character witnesses to the free trade agreement? Of course not.
There are those industries and individuals who will have to adjust to the increased competition from the United States. In addition to the phasing in of tariff reductions, in many cases over 10 years, there will be a complete array of programs to assist them in this adjustment. Many of those programs exist within the Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion and the Department of Employment and Immigration. For particular groups like grape growers and wine producers, a special adjustment program will be announced soon. To ensure that adjustment needs are met, an advisory council on adjustment was appointed, headed by Mr. de Grandpre, with business, labour and academic representatives to ensure that no gaps or inequities remain in that adjustment picture.
Over all, here is what Donald Macdonald, former Liberal Minister of Finance and Chairman of the Royal Commission on Canada's Economy, had to say:
The free trade pact... is the beginning of a golden era for Canadian
businesses and workers... Canadian businesses and workers now have an
opportunity to crack the huge U.S. market, free from the protectionism other
world traders will confront.
Donald Macdonald is a patriotic Canadian citizen. He said he is not going to run for the Liberal Party in the next election, he is not going to support it, because of its twisted policy of being against this vital, central economic policy we are asking the House to approve today.
Another patriotic Liberal, of course, is Mr. Gerald Regan, former Premier of Nova Scotia, former Minister for International Trade. He said in an interview on April 10, 1988, with CTV-CJOH, and I refer to page 12 of that interview: "There is a large amount of support for free trade at all levels of the Liberal Party". He referred specifically to Ed Lumley, Don
Macdonald, Don Johnston, those people who held economic portfolios and responsibility, and people like Dr. Evans, who was a Parliamentary Secretary. They are all supportive of the free trade. In other words, the people in the Liberal Party who knew anything are for free trade. The no-nothings left, the remnants left in the House, are against it. What a testimony to the situation.
Mr. Regan was asked: "If you were a Maritime Premier again, you would be for it?" Gerry Regan, Premier of Nova Scotia for seven or eight years, answered: "Whole heartedly. I think it is the best way of combating regional economic disparity that I can think of because Nova Scotia can do very, very well in that sort of regime". That is the kind of testimonial we have for the free trade agreement. Not just from the scared or the ideological, or from those who have a bitter desire to get back into power or edge somebody else out, but from the people who are now in the position to be impartial and objective.
What about free trade with respect to the New Democratic Party? The Liberals say they want to tear it up. The New Democratic Party wants to tear it down. Why? For ideological reasons. The NDP is against changes in the status quo. The New Democrats are now the fat cats of the status quo and we Progressive Conservatives are the revolutionaries of Canada.
The New Democrats oppose free trade. They want Canadian industries to displace imports in our domestic market, a form of protectionism that would make Canada into an economic backwater producing over priced and out-of-date goods. The New Democrats do not recognize the creation dynamism of entrepreneurship in open markets. Their thinking is the thinking of Clement Attlee of 1945. That is where they are, back 43 years ago, struggling to come out of World War II. That is where their minds are.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party represents the district of Oshawa. He is fat cat No. 1. No unemployment, $8 billion in U.S. money invested in Oshawa by General Motors over the last 10 years. He is satisfied, but he does not want to let those benefits go to other Canadians. It is all right in Ontario, but forget it in Alberta, forget it in Quebec and forget it in Newfoundland. What is good for the Oshawa goose is no good for the Canadian gander. That is the slogan of the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party from Oshawa.
The Liberals said they favour free trade, but they oppose this agreement. They now say they are against any agreement. What is the reason? One of the things they say is that we did not achieve a complete exemption from U.S. trade remedy law. That is like saying that you married someone and you are going to tear her up because she did not turn out to be completely perfect. I am one of the few lucky enough to have married a woman who is completely perfect, but from what I have seen, that is not the experience of most. Are we to boot them out, kick them out, have nothing to do with them, because they are not perfection? The argument that the Liberals will be against the FT A because it is not perfect really

June 21, 1988
does not ring too well. Nothing in life is perfect, Mr. Speaker, believe me. Nothing is perfect. Not even being Minister for International Trade is perfection. Frankly, I am getting a bit fed up with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: You just joined the majority of Canadians. They share your view.


John Carnell Crosbie: It's a majority view. The Liberals say that Canada did not achieve a complete exemption from U.S. trade remedy law. We would love to have done that but we could not achieve it. We still have the chance to achieve it in countervail and subsidies over the next five to seven years. But we have achieved two dispute settlement mechanisms of very great value to Canada. The first dispute settlement mechanism is the compulsory review by the Joint Trade Commission, whenever there are amendments proposed to the U.S. Trade Law. If Congress proceeds with a new Trade Law against the recommendation of that commission, it applies to Canada only if we are specifically named in the legislation. Otherwise it applies to the rest of the world and not Canada. That is a great step forward.
The second dispute settlement mechanism relates to the application of the rules for trade in specific cases. A Canada-U.S. panel will give fully binding rulings on the application of trade law for countervail, anti-dumping and safeguard cases. What is giving us the trouble is the unfair application of countervail law, not just the content of the law itself. That, for example, led to the difficulties we had with the softwood lumber decision. We now have something uniquely beneficial for Canadians, a means to reduce greatly, even if we cannot eliminate, the threat of U.S. protectionism.
I mention those who want to tear up the deal and how they go on every day complaining in Question Period, and the inconsistencies of all these complaints. When a solution comes along, perhaps not a perfect one, they are against the solution. All they want to do is knock the Government. Apparently, they do not want to help Canadians.
The NDP just want to complain here every day about U.S. protectionist impulses and then when along comes someone with a helpful solution, they are going to knock the solution. The New Democrats are going to stop the House from functioning. They are not going to let us have a vote. They are going to align themselves with the Senate. The NDP aligning itself with the Senate. What a disgraceful exhibition, the NDP and the Senate together.


Some Hon. Members:: Shameful.


John Carnell Crosbie: When you vote against this legislation, you vote to abolish the Canada-U.S. Trade Commission, you vote to abolish the binational trade courts, you vote to abolish the Canada-U.S. group working to replace our trade laws with shared rules for bilateral commerce, you are voting to trigger the reimposition of U.S. tariffs and you are voting to drive
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
away Canadian and foreign investment intended to serve the U.S. market from production facilities in Canada. That is what you are doing if you vote against this.
Doing all this would place Canadian businesses and employees at the mercy of U.S. protectionist sentiment. How this can be said to help Canadians, I fail to understand. I have never heard a member of the Opposition explain yet how that could be the case.
As for Canadian businesses that have borne the brunt of trade law harassment in the U.S., they strongly support the dispute settlement provisions of the agreement. For example, Gordon Cummings, President of National Sea Products Limited, said:
The most important aspect to us was the dispute settlement mechanism and we got that. It is a hell of a gain for Canada ... As it stands now, we cannot get fair treatment in the United States. The binational trade panel will bring a more sane approach from the United States ... This is a straight win situation for us.
Gordon Cummings from Halifax leads the Great National Sea Products Company and National Sea and Fishery Products. Those two great Canadian fishery companies both strongly support this.
What about the Auto Pact? Some people in Ontario have been weeping and wailing that the auto industry in Canada has been done a dirty deal. That is not so. The Auto Pact safeguards remain in place and the Canadian auto parts industry has been given new opportunities for expansion. Albert Matthews, a Vice-President of Ford Motor Company of Canada said in January in London, Ontario:
Free trade will act as an incentive to foreign owned car plants in Canada to buy more Canadian parts and materials to qualify for duty free shipments into the U.S ...
It's the Canadian parts makers who will see the most dramatic benefits of free trade. Without a free trade agreement, the foreign companies can continue to assemble, in Canada, parts and sub-assemblies that are designed and largely manufactured overseas-the alternative is that they continue to get a free ride at the expense of those Canadian companies.
That is the proper analysis of the effect on the auto parts industry. The Government is confident that the Canadian auto parts industry will prosper by the changes requiring higher North American content. In 1982, Canadian parts manufacturers had 8.9 per cent of the North American market. In 1986, that had grown to 13 per cent. The free trade agreement gives new opportunities for continued growth in the Canadian auto parts industry.
Another point opposition Members consistently overlook is that the Auto Pact, now incorporated in the free trade agreement, is better protected from attack by interests in the northern U.S. Those interests want to have not free trade in automobiles and parts, but managed trade, so as to transfer benefits to the northern U.S. and deprive Canadians of the jobs they have now by virtue of their productivity and their high standard of workmanship. The Liberals and the New Democrats say that they do not like more liberalized U.S. investment in Canada, but all existing Canadian ownership

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
requirements remain in place, the exception of the threshold for takeovers having been raised.
Controls on investment will still cover Canada's 500 largest firms controlling 87 per cent of assets in Canada. If they want to go back to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, then let them clearly say so. They will join the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) who will not be back after the next election. More's the pity, he was scuppered, but that is what happens in the Liberal Party. One gets scuppered and nobody puts out a hand to succour one in the Liberal Party.
I am nearing the end of my time, thus I have to skip some of my speech. I was going to mention that the Liberals and the New Democrats say that they do not like Canada getting secure energy markets in the U.S. in return for giving some security of energy supply for Americans, including a proportionately reduced share of production in the case of shortage. But the Liberals had agreed through the International Energy Agency to export more petroleum to the U.S. in the case of shortage. What the energy component of the free trade agreement really does is to piece together longer term reliance on market forces. If the Hon. gentlemen opposite want to go back to the National Energy Program, then let them tell the world. Let us all in on the secret.
This national free trade debate is not a contest between those who count and tally, plain men of business, in favour of the agreement against those of larger vision, of more profound appreciation of what it means to be Canadian, which is what the opponents like to pretend. The larger vision, the more profound appreciation among those who support free trade is of a coming of age in Canada, a maturing of confidence in our ability to make our way in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that you are poised. Do Hon. gentlemen mind if I take another few minutes to conclude?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will try to end my remarks in two minutes.
This confidence has two parts. One relates to culture and sovereignty. The other relates to commercial competitiveness. First, let me speak about culture and sovereignty.
Cultural industries are essentially exempted from the deal. Our ability and our commitment to support them remains unchanged by the FTA.
With respect to sovereignty, to mention it shows how silly it is.


Mr. McCurdy:: Sovereignty is silly?


John Carnell Crosbie: We have a dozen free trade blocs around the world. No one has lost their sovereignty. We have the European community, no one in the European community has lost
their sovereignty. It is far more than a free trade association. France has not lost its sovereignty. The United Kingdom has not lost it. Even Luxembourg has not lost it. Belgium has not lost it. There is nobody who will lose their sovereignty. As Gerry Regan said in Halifax in December:
I regard arguments to the effect that Canada will lose its culture, its sovereignty or its social welfare system as a result of this kind of pact as downright silly.
That great Canadian artist, Christopher Pratt, said that the "nationalistic, chauvinistic posturing" of free trade critics is "unproductive and hypocritical". He is not afraid that Canadians will lose their cultural identity. Nor should any confident Canadian be. In Newfoundland we are confident. Our artists are confident. Our musicians are confident. Our publishers are confident. Our writers are confident. Newfoundland culture has never been stronger and more vibrant.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We did not just enter into a free trade agreement with you buckos in 1949; we joined lock, stock and barrel. We have never been stronger culturally than we are now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: One minute.


John Carnell Crosbie: The arguments about cultural identity and political sovereignty are appeals to emotion born in confusion and fostered by lack of confidence in the maturity and stability of Canadian society. That is what is demonstrated by the antes.
The other emotional argument offered up against free trade also discloses a lack of confidence in Canadians, something which says that Canadians cannot hack it. As the Leader of the Opposition said in Moncton in December:
If the FTA is going to open up market forces completely without an attempt to build a nation and maintain a nation, the stronger market centres, like Ontario, like Quebec, will profit at the expense of Atlantic Canada.
That is what happened in 1867. The FTA now gives Atlantic Canada a chance to break its bonds and to start exporting to the United States without tariff impediments. Again, this is a great chance for Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Langdon:: That is far more than two minutes.


John Carnell Crosbie: We will continue to build on our social values such as medicare, our cultural values, and our uniquely Canadian goals such as official bilingualism. We preserved our agricultural marketing boards and supply management, which will not be compromised in the free trade agreement.
In ending, let me say this. For those in the NDP or the Liberal Party who share some kind of dark fantasy of political and cultural domination by the United States, no rational argument will succeed, no statement of the facts will persuade them. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said of those who claimed in 1907 that free trade would make us into Americans that they were
June 21, 1988

"freaks of unreasoning panic". This is true today in 1988. The opponents of the free trade agreement are freaks of unreasoning panic. Look at them panicking over across the House.


Mr. Harris:: He was talking about the Conservatives then, was he not?


John Carnell Crosbie: I agree in one respect with the Opposition about this issue. This issue is not about business, nor is it about patriotism. It is about the future of our country. The choices are clearly drawn. While there may be three federal Parties, there are only two choices open to Canadians. On one side there is an alliance between the Turner Liberals who believe that somehow they can stand still in time, and the NDP who seek economic isolationism in a regulated society-the NDP, the Neanderthal Dinosaur Party of the status quo. On the other side are those who believe that when the tariffs come off Canada can compete and win, those who know that Canada must compete.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We must move ahead or we will fall behind. We cannot stand still. We Progressive Conservatives face the world with pride and confidence in Canada. On one side it is tear it up or tear it down with no alternative. On our side it is creativity, conciliation, caring and constructive Conservatism preparing Canada for a brighter tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, listening to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) reminds me of the old saying that when one is in a fight with a skunk, remember that it only has one weapon. In that regard we should take five minutes to clear the air in the House.
The fact of the matter is that we have to ask ourselves what is the purpose of this debate. We did not find out from the Minister. He was too busy tripping over his tongue to really tell us what the Conservative Party is attempting to achieve in what we all admit is a very historic, very important, very crucial debate in the House of Commons.
The Minister for International Trade ended off his remarks with a quote from Mr. Laurier. I would like to begin my remarks with another from a more thoughtful Leader of our Party, Mr. Edward Blake, who wrote to his constituents-I see that the Minister does not want to listen to the other side of the case, unfortunately.
In 1891 Mr. Blake wrote to his constituents irt West Durham the following words:
Whatever you or I may think on-whether we like or dislike, believe or
disbelieve in political union, must we not agree that the subject is one of great
moment, towards the practical settlement of which we should take no serious
step without reflection, or in ignorance of what we are doing?
He said:
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Assuming that-free trade with the States, best describes commercial union, may and ought to come, I believe that it can and should come only as an incident, or at any rate as well-understood precursor of political, union for which, indeed, we should be able to make better terms before than after the surrender of our commercial independence.
Then so believing-believing that the decision of the trade question involves that of the Constitution issue, for which we are unprepared and with which you do not even conceive yourselves to be deciding-how can I properly recommend you how to decide of commercial union?
In 1891 Mr. Blake had it correct. There was one very simple, clear, basic issue dealing with this debate, and that was the question of ultimate political union with the United States. That is what the issue and the real debate is all about. That is why the country is torn and divided, and so many Canadians feel anguished and anxious. They recognize that the step that has been initiated by the Government is the precursor to political union with the United States.
It has to do with the fundamentally different view of what Canada is and the vision we have, and whether we want to continue in the historical mission of Canadians, which is to carve out of the North American continent a northern region which has its own values, institutions, market-place, commerce, and its own way of doing things, or whether we want to allow, step-by-step, the integration of Canadians within their southern neighbour.
By the way, Mr. Blake's letter was instrumental in defeating the proposal in 1911. When the Minister for International Trade calls those who opposed the matter of 1911 "freaks of unreasoning panic", he was referring to members of the Conservative Party who opposed it at that time, as well as a large number of Liberals who also opposed it at that time. He forgets history very quickly.
In 1911 Canadian voters understood what the issue was all about. They understood that we were debating the independence of Canada. In 1946 the Liberal Government understood what the issue was about when it rejected that initiative. In 1972 when the same initiative was presented, the Trudeau Government understood what the issue of independence was about, because it also rejected it. In fact, a number of prominent Conservatives once understood what the issue was about.
In 1979 the then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), stated on the question of free trade with the United States: "Free trade with the United States is like sleeping with an elephant". He could have used another euphemism: "When the lamb and the lion sleep together, the lamb does not get much sleep". That is the type of problem we face. He also stated: "Canadian plants would not be able to compete. Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911, and they will do it again in 1983".
When presented with proposals on free trade put forward by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) stated: "Presented as they are I find his proposals dangerous". The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated:

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Talk of bilateral free trade strikes me as simplistic and naive". I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and read the testimony of a whole range of prominent Conservatives who, at that point in time, were dead set against the whole notion.
There was one who was consistent, the Minister for International Trade. There is no doubt that the Member for St. John's West has been consistent right back to 1949 when he and his family fought against Newfoundland joining the Canadian union and fought instead for Newfoundland joining the United States. For 40 years he and his family have been consistent in attempting to have an integration, a union, with the country south of us. The Minister for International Trade is consistent to this very day. He understands the consequences. He knows what he is doing. When he rises, forget the blarney, knows what he is after. He is after the same thing that he was after in 1949, economic and political union with the United States. That is what the Minister for International Trade stood for then, and that is what he stands for now. I give him credit. At least he has been consistent, if stupid and wrong.
It is interesting, and one has to ask: "Why is it that all those prominent Conservatives, all the front bench of the present Government were so dead set in their opposition in 1979?" The conversion took place there. Somehow or other they changed their minds. Somehow or other they made that magic transformation to discovering that this trade arrangement was going to be the great bonanza of all times. One has to ask why. What is it that prompted that radical departure, that turn around, that denial of Canadian history, that denial of the objectives set by their own Leader, Sir John A. Macdonald, back in 1867 which have been supported by successive Canadian Governments of all stripes ever since? This is the first Government, the first Party, that has ever rejected that historical mission of Canada. What are the reasons?
A lot of mythology has grown up around this issue, fuelled by the propaganda machine; the $30 million that has been spent to create both fear and trembling in the Canadian public, and at the same time offering all kinds of candies on the tray. What is it that they are really saying? If one buys the mythology, which I do not, and I do not think anybody else will after this debate is over, the first thing is a promise of economic bonanza time. The Prime Minister and his Ministers are out there saying that there will be more jobs, more growth, more consumer spending. They create an image of people rushing down to Buffalo and buying cheap VCRs. All of a sudden there will be an incredible expansion and explosion of jobs in every region of the country.
The problem is that their own studies and reports completely deny those facts. When one looks at the economic growth figures, the economic benefits put forward by the Economic Council, by the Department of Finance, what do they say are the best optimistic assumptions? Let us look for a moment at the Department of Finance which is on the same side as the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister. After all, they are in the same Government. What do they promise? What does the Economic Council say will be the
maximum economic growth? They say 1/4 of 1 per cent per year. That is not even within the margin of error of the best computer forecaster. That type of margin could be wiped out by a change in the interest rate from week to week, or a change in the exchange rate from day to day. Yet, it is on that they are basing their great promise of cornucopia. Heaven will open for a 1/4 of 1 per cent. Not many Canadians will go out on to the streets and sing "Hallelujah" for a 1/4 of 1 per cent growth per year. Those are the Economic Council's figures.
I have read the Government's pamphlets on the consumer benefits. Those pamphlets are very skillful and sly. They never talk figures. I refer to the statements of Dr. Kerton, an economist for the Consumers' Association of Canada, who stated that the maximum saving, in other words, the best possible scenario that might accrue to consumers, is less than 1/5 of 1 per cent a year. That is a change that can take place in 24 hours in this country.
Pierre Racicot of the National Federation of Consumers' Association pointed out in front of the House of Commons standing committee that a household earning $20,000 might save $32 on this trade agreement over a 10-year period. Hallelujah! We have been saved. The great trade agreement, the great bonanza might save us $32 over a 10-year period, if we are lucky, and if it really works in the manner that they say it will.
At the same time what the Minister for International Trade did not talk about in all those economic promises is what the Conference Board talks about, and that is that it could increase the deficit by $2.5 billion. We saw the example in the last Budget. There was $500 million of additional taxation, one cent a litre on gasoline, to pay for the lost revenue in the first three-quarters of a year of the trade agreement. We either increase the deficit or raise taxes. There goes 1/5 of 1 per cent in consumer savings wiped out in a flash by the action of the Minister of Finance last February.
What the Government does not talk about are the job losses. Never is it mentioned that there will be industries affected. I was somewhat amused by the quotation used by the Minister for International Trade from Mr. Young, President of National Seafood, a good Maritimer. I have a letter here that was sent to me by Mr. Archie McLean, the Executive VicePresident of McCain's Foods, the largest Canadian food processor. He is a good Maritimer from New Brunswick. This letter was at the time when the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney) was the Minister for International Trade. He wrote:
Dear Ms. Carney:
I am writing to you as a member of the Agricultural Sagit and as a hardcore Tory.
He is not a Grit, not a socialist but a hard-core Tory. He
says:
A comprehensive trade liberalization agreement between Canada and the U.S. which would remove tariff barriers and phase out non-tariff barriers
June 21, 1988

would devastate the dairy, poultry or feather, horticulture and beer and wine industries.
That is a hard-core Tory, head of the largest food processing firm in Canada, speaking. He says 70,000 jobs are at stake. Why? He says it is because the trade agreement neglects to take into account a couple of key points called weather and geography.
Mr. McLean points out in his letter that growing potatoes in New Brunswick or Manitoba costs $120 a tonne. They can be bought down south for $90 a tonne because there is a longer growing season there and less expense. He says he has a choice. He is either going to shut down or move south.
What does the Economic Council of Canada point out about jobs? It says that 186,000 jobs will be lost. Where will they be lost? They will be lost in key industries, electrical, machinery, manufacturing, printing and auto parts.
The Hon. Minister said that this would be a great salvation for the auto parts industry. Why is it then that Mr. Vic Lonmo, the President of the Auto Parts Manufacturers Association, appearing before our task force, said that 20,000 jobs are at risk as a result of this agreement? Who do we believe, the gentleman who heads this association or the Minister for International Trade a well-known extrovert?
The fact is that this Government has not been honest or straightforward in outlining these so-called economic benefits. It has hidden the real damage and the real costs and its own figures, studies and institutions totally deny the promises made. Time after time, the Prime Minister promises all these things. No wonder he can get away with it. The latest survey showed that 60 per cent of businessmen in Canada have not read the agreement yet. They are simply going on a wing and a prayer. They have not bothered to take the time to read the details of the agreement.
Canadian businessmen would not do that if they were signing a contract with a competitor or a client. They would hire the best lawyers. They would sit down and read the agreement fine point by fine point and decide if it was a good deal or not. In this case, they are going on theology, religion. They are going to take the word of honour, that sacred trust, of the Prime Minister for which he has become so well known. How can we disbelieve the Prime Minister who promised that he would not deindex senior citizens' pensions or that he would not enter into a free trade agreement?
When the Government begins to look at its own figures and those of the Economic Council, it will realize that that promise is not sufficient to even begin to warrant the kind of fundamental change that will be brought about in Canada. Those benefits are so meaningless as to be almost immeasurable.
What are we doing this for? We go to the second great ambition put forward by the Prime Minister. We remember that he said that we must gain secure access, a guarantee to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the U.S. market. In the House of Commons, the Right Hon. Prime Minister said that our highest priority is to have an agreement that ends the threat to Canadian industry and that a new regime on trade remedy laws must be part of the agreement. Is that what we got? Have we got a secure, guaranteed, fool-proof access for Canadian goods? It is an interesting case. Let us examine it.
First, let us examine the fear tactics the Government has used. It has tried to put forward the argument that, somehow, we have this evil presence to the south of us. It is kind of comical that government Members accuse Members of the Opposition of being anti-American, but they are the ones who have been going around the country saying: "Beware, the wolf is at the door. If we don't do something, those American Congressmen will violate us in our beds and therefore we need this deal in order to protect ourselves".
I went back and looked at the figures because I was kind of curious as to what in fact was going on. In the last 10 years, there have been some 40 trade remedy actions out of 600 taken by the Americans against Canada. Only eight of them came to a final decision and they included clothes-pins, nuts and bolts and optic sensing equipment. That has been the sum total of the American attack upon our economy, clothes-pins and nuts and bolts.
What the Government does not talk about is that in the same period of time, remedy measures have been available to us and we have taken six of those cases to GATT. We have won three of them. Two of them the Government plea-bargained outside the GATT process, and we know what happened on softwood lumber. That smart trick will cost the softwood lumber industry $800 million to $1 billion.
Over all, there has been a modest number of cases against us and we have succeeded in fighting off many of those cases. In the groundfish case of 1972, we were able to get a total withdrawal of the American legislation through a GATT ruling. The Americans have respected those rules and obligations.
Where is the fear coming from? It was primarily in the mind of the government spokesperson. In fact, there have been more initiatives by the United States Congress and the United States administration against Canada since 1984 than in the 10 years previous. Since the Tories came to power, there have been far more trade remedy actions against Canada than in double or triple the life of previous Governments.
After saying that, let us look at the insurance policy that we bought. The so-called dispute settlement mechanism applies U.S. law. We are still subject in every way, shape and form to the harassment techniques of U.S. industry when, if and how it wants to use it. Nothing has been gained. An American industry can still take an action before the International Trade Commission. It still has to go to the Commerce Department for a ruling. It still has to come back. It will still take one year to two years to get a decision. In the meantime, all those Canadian industries will still have to pay all their expenses and

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
deal with the harassment. Nothing has changed one iota except that what has changed is that if we go ahead with this agreement, we forgo our right to go to GATT which can provide a much quicker solution than the one put forward in the trade deal.
Under the present international rules, we can apply for an international panel after the first decision taken by the International Trade Commission. We will not have to wait for a year or two years. We can go right away and get a ruling.


Mr. Layton:: Wait 10 years.


Lloyd Axworthy: Oh, here is a voice of wisdom. It takes five and a half months on average to get a panel decision. That is how much Hon. Members know. The stupidity and ignorance surrounding this deal bothers me. They simply do not know what they are talking about. They have not bothered to examine the alternatives. They have not bothered to examine the real facts. They simply buy the hocus-pocus. They are engaged in voodoo economics and therefore they believe in all the magic that goes with it.
The fact is that it takes an average of five and a half to six months to get an agreement. Therefore, I make the case that we will be worse off under the provisions of this agreement. It will take longer and cost more for Canadian business under this agreement than under the present arrangement.
What is the debate about? We did not get security of access. The Americans will still apply their laws and will slam-dunk us at every opportunity. In fact, they will be more encouraged to do so because they will have seen what a bunch of patsies we are. They know how much we have backed down, retreated and withdrawn every time the Americans get tough.
Naturally the Americans will use these instruments. In fact, the most important consequence of these negotiations is that in the implementing legislation the U.S. Congress is now considering, it has brought in a new trade measure directed against Canada, a measure which will give it the right to monitor all Canadian imports that may have a subsidy. If it does not like what it sees, the U.S. administration can take unilateral action and will not have to wait for an industry to do it.
The birth of the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement has resulted in a new monster to attack us. That is the end result of this great negotiation by the Prime Minister and his Cohorts. We have an added problem that we did not have before.
Adding up the two levels of supposed benefits, the economic and the secure access, I think we have to admit that it is pretty questionable. If these "freaks of unreasoning panic" the Minister for International Trade spoke about had applied their rationality, they would have seen that it is a minor-league deal.
It just does not have much in it.
Remember when the Prime Minister was on television one night? He got his make-up on, his flags around him and a picture of the kids. He said: "Look, folks, you buy this deal,
we're going to have access to a $750-billion procurement market." What did we get? We got the difference between $170,000 and $25,000, about 1 per cent of that of which he promised. Not even close. That was a Class C effort, Mr. Speaker. He could not even make the majors on that. That is what is being sold across the country, as the great economic salvation for Canada.
They say, those are not the reasons why we have this trade deal or the Bill before us. That is not the reason why this Government has gone pall-mall into negotiations. The only way that we can fully determine the real reason is to look at the other side of the ledger, the cost side.
They do not talk about that. I have read their publications carefully. They do not tell you about the cost side. They do not tell you about the fundamental change that will take place in the policies dealing with foreign investment in this country. They try to pretend that somehow that is simply a small, trifling matter, that Mr. St. Laurent doesn't change anything, really.
I want to remind you of something, Mr. Speaker. Since the Tories came to power in 1984, there has not been one rejection of an application for foreign investment, not one. Not one has in any way troubled the minds of the monitoring process. Far more important, of the $22 billion of foreign investment that has come into this country since 1984, 94 per cent has been in takeovers and acquisitions, not new business, not creating new enterprise in Canada, but in takeovers and acquisitions of existing Canadian businesses.
This deal will entrench that kind of policy in an international agreement so that future governments cannot get at it. The whole agreement is based upon perpetuity. Doesn't that begin to tell you something? Doesn't that tell you that the real reason for the agreement has nothing to do with trade, but has an awful lot to do with trying to entrench, in perpetuity, a new kind of Conservative economic framework in this country, the market-driven framework, so nobody that else can get at it? That begins to tell you a little bit about what the real cost will be.
Let's look at other angles, energy and resources. That, as far as the Americans are concerned, is the centrepoint of the agreement. They will take everything else. What they have got is what they wanted for 40 years, total, free, complete, open access to Canadian resources untrammelled, unheeded, unrestrained, and unlimited. They got what they want.
This deal goes back to a proposition put forward by something called the Paley Commission in 1952 under President Eisenhower, when they said the number one priority strategically for the United States is to get full control over North American resources. Well, they got it. The Mulroney Government has given it to them right here. What does it mean? What it really means is this. In the crucial area of energy, it is perhaps the most valuable resource that we have
June 21, 1988

as a country in terms of our future economic development. What do we do? We freeze the price for ourselves. We can't use it to our advantage. We can't say that we will use the power of the public sector to create an advantage for Canadian industry in the use of our energy resources. That is prevented and prohibited in this agreement. We cannot have an export price for our mineral resources.
If we want to establish further programs to enhance value added of our natural resources, this agreement prohibits us from doing it. The whole idea of getting more jobs out of our natural resources is limited by this because the big resource corporations do not want it. They just want to ship that stuff as quickly and as fast as they can across the border.
What we are dealing with is the dismantling of a mixed economy. We are dealing with the evisceration of a political economy. We are dealing with an abandonment of the historic tradition of this country which is that we use a mixture of public and private initiative to build Canada.
The whole emphasis of this and why it gets support by the powerful forces and the economic corporations and the big players, is because they see this as a way of putting a strait-jacket around the federal and provincial governments of Canada. That is what they really want. That is the purpose behind the trade agreement. That's the sell-out of our independence. If we don't have that, we don't have our independence.
Once we deny and reject and withdraw the ability of Canadians through their democratically elected institutions to set public policy on economic and social questions, we no longer have a country worth a name.


An Hon. Member:: The Tories sold it out.


Lloyd Axworthy: If you don't believe me, go back to the agreement and read some of the other Articles. According to Clause 6, which gives the federal Government the override on any provincial jurisdiction, if any action, regulation, policy, piece of legislation, in a provincial legislature, does not accord with the terms of the agreement, the Government has an override. It can bring them to account bring them to heel. This brings a third partner to the whole federal-provincial relationship, the United States of America.
We now have the federal Government, the provinces and the Government of the United States negotiating our Constitution and negotiating our federal-provincial relations. When it comes to the issue of the division of powers or who has jurisdiction, it will not be a question of the balance between federal-provincial rights. The Americans will say: "We have a right here too. It is called the international trade agreement". We have a brand new Constitution being debated in this House at the very moment, bringing a brand new outside partner to the table.
As the upholder of the traditions of this House, Mr. Speaker, let me ask you this. Why, if you look at Clause 8 in the Bill, does Clause 8 say that the trade agreement supersedes
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
any Act of Parliament, any decision that we make? Now, the American Congress isn't quite so dumb. Their implementing legislation says the opposite. Their implementing legislation says that all Acts of Congress supersede the trade agreement. We are just now debating the giveaway of the sovereignty of this institution. Whether it is freedom of information or equity rights or any of the Bills we have passed, if they don't accord with this agreement, then forget it, they don't count.
When the Minister for International Trade tries to disparage the concerns raised by millions of Canadians about what this Bill will do, tries to laugh it off, tries to make a joke out of it, he is simply demonstrating a lamentable lack of understanding of his own legislation and what it means. He simply is trying to smokescreen, to cover up, the real purpose and intent of the Bill before us.
We have had debates in this House about the question of water. I want to deal with that for a moment. The Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister, in all of their righteous indignation, have said there is absolutely no impact upon water in this agreement. Well, let me just go to the Bill. Let me go to the schedule of the Bill. Tariff item 22.01 states that it includes "waters, including natural waters". What does the interpretive note that is going out to all the custom officers across the Canadian borders say? This is the publication of the Government of Canada. The interpretive note on the new customs system says tariff item 22.01 covers ordinary natural water of all kinds.
The Hon. Minister has not dealt honestly with this House. That is the reading of his own document that he himself is responsible for. So, when he says it does not include water, there it is tariff 22.01 and the interpretive note that goes with it. It is quite telling that the question was asked of the Government: "Well, if you are so sure that water is not included, then you have a very easy recourse. Simply include an exemption in the Bill."
The American Congress has the right to include all kinds of new amendments but the Minister says we cannot do the same, we are not as good as they are. We asked the Minister to try one teeny one, an exemption for water. In response we got blank stares and silence. It was the only time in his life that the Minister for International Trade did not explode with a mounting pressure of fuminous gas.
He had no answer to that because they know full well that this agreement will give the Americans the right to demand the use of our water resources and that Canadians will no longer have the right to decide or choose otherwise because the agreement will be part of our Constitution, it will supersede every Act of Parliament. It will tell us what we can and cannot do in this country. That is the reality of it.
The Government says that social programs are not touched whatsoever. Well, the Bill clearly enunciates the principle of national treatment in the health management area. Taking

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
away the trade jargon terms it means that we cannot in any way provide a different set of rules or standards for Canadians than we provide for Americans. We have to treat them exactly the same. If an American management firm in health sciences, laboratories, or blood clinics want to set up a private operation, we cannot say no.
I predict that this area will become one of the major sources of combat in this country. As province after province begins to discover how their powers have been usurped to set credentials for their professionals and standards for their health care systems, they will rise up in revolt. I suspect that, like a lot of the business people, they have not yet read the agreement. They have not begun to understand the implications of it.
Aside from the specific question there is the much larger issue of harmonization. When the agreement comes into effect, if it does, and Canadian businesses find themselves dealing with competitors from the southern states where there are no right-to-work laws, no minimum wages, no taxes, and no social programs, they are going to ask how we expect them to compete with manufacturers who do not have to carry the same costs of health care.
The President of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, Mr. Thibeault said: "It's simply a fact that as we ask our industries to compete toe to toe with American industries, we in Canada are obviously forced to create the same conditions in Canada that exist in the United States, whether it's an unemployment insurance scheme, workmen's compensation, the cost of government, the level of taxation, or whatever".
I have page after page of similar quotes from Canadian businesses saying that when the deal is in place they will naturally have to ask the federal and provincial governments to change the rules on environment, workmen's compensation, and unemployment insurance.
For the Prime Minister and the Minister to say that there is no impact on social programs, that we will not see a change in the very carefully constructed, very important and creative network which we have built up in this country, is pure and simple conniving. That is the only word which can be prescribed. They are simply not telling it as it is. Their own business allies contradict them. The Americans contradict them. The whole thesis is that if they can only get this Bill by without telling the truth, if they can only keep the smoke machine running, maybe Canadians will not realize the implications of what they are doing.
In this debate my colleagues, in each of their roles, will be debating sector after sector, culture, energy, resources, social programs, and the environment, and pointing out how the deal encrusted in this legislation is a basic and fundamental restriction on the freedom and rights of Canadians to choose their own programs and policies.
It is not a matter of being for or against free trade. The fact is that there are other alternatives. We have put forward what we believe is a real and practical set of proposals on how to
bring down trade barriers without doing it at the price of our sovereignty and independence. We can do it in a way which will allow us to maintain an active, positive, and creative role in world affairs. We can build bridges to the Third World, design our own industrial strategies at home, and ensure that our relations with the United States and other trading partners are proper, creative, and expansive, all according to our own demand.
We are not arguing isolationism or continentalism, but for a form of internationalism. That is the real exciting, ambitious opportunity for Canadians who do not want to lock ourselves in fortress America. We do not want to start down the slippery road to further and further integration and further and further reduction of our powers, our rights, and our abilities to choose. Rather, we want to expand those opportunities. Canada has a rare opportunity in this day and age. We are seen by so many other countries as a potential leader of a coalition of other countries which will not engage in the game of power politics where "might makes right".
I reject the thesis which is coming out of the Summit that there is going to be an international triad of North America, Europe, and Japan which will run the world and the rest of the people can take the crumbs from the table. It is a thesis expressed by so many of the neo-Conservative leaders. That has not been the Canadian tradition. Dating back to World War II we have fought for internationalism, for small and large to be treated the same, for no discriminatory rules but a rule of law which treats everyone equally.
By this action we contribute to that North American fortress, to the idea of a triad, the idea that the big guys with muscles are going to determine and choose and all the rest of the countries can be dependent upon us. It is a new form of 19th century colonialism which is being talked about at the Summit, a kind of noblesse oblige, that we'll take care of the poor and disadvantaged.
I reject that, Mr. Speaker, and my Party rejects it. If we agree to this kind of deal we will be giving away the weapons we have. The fact of the matter is that there is another real option. We have said that we can get better security of access and better guarantees for our markets by strengthening and developing the international trade system, by using it in an effective way and being seen as strong supporters of that system rather than trying to scurry into the sanctuary of the continental market-place.
We have put forward proposals in that regard. We have put forward proposals on how to diversify our trade. The Minister for International Trade has said that this deal will lead to greater global opportunities. If that is the case, why is it that since 1984 when the Tories came to power our trade deficits with the Pacific Rim have gone from $700 million to $4.6 billion? Why has our trade with Latin America dropped close to 30 per cent and with Europe 20 per cent? Why is our trade surplus, which in 1984 was $17 billion, now down to $8 billion?
June 21, 1988

The reason is that our trade in every part of the world except the United States is going kaput. We are closing trade missions, stopping the funding for small businesses, and rejecting opportunities in the global market-place because we are so occupied and obsessed with the American market. That will be our future if this deal goes ahead. Canadian businesses will not expand, they will shrink and retreat. They will see the market in Akron, Ohio, and forget that there is one in Accra, Africa. That will be the problem.
We think we have to diversify our international marketplace. We can only achieve that if we begin, as a national entity, to invest in the very means to create a competitive international player. We must put money into training, research, and universities in order to build up human resources. That is the key to our international competitiveness.
Instead, in the last four years the Government has been cutting back on training programs, cutting back on aid to universities, and cutting back on research and development. The Government has been pulling back on the very investments which would make this country strong, able, and competitive.
There is a very clear alternative, Mr. Speaker. There is an option and a choice. It is not a matter, as the Government is trying to say, of being for or against opening trade markets. It is, rather, a question of how we are going to do it. Do we do it by burrowing ourselves into the continental fortress, or do we do it by expanding and opening our opportunities in a worldwide way?
As I pointed out, the reason why the Government rejects the much broader and more noble ambition is because that is not its agenda. Its agenda is to constrain the sovereign rights of future Canadian Governments. That is what is on the line with this legislation and that is what we will fight.
I say to my colleagues opposite that they are in for the fight of their lives, not in terms of procedural wrangling, but through a hard fought debate on the floor of this House and in the committee. Canadians will ultimately know the consequences of the Government's action and they will begin to understand what the debate is about. It is about the independence of this country. Whether we win or lose, we owe it to the future generations to make sure they understand what is happening here today. We are really fighting for the kind of Canada which we have known and believed in rather than for a pale, branch-plant imitation that has come forward under the leadership of the Prime Minister. That is the real debate before us. It is the most important debate to take place in this Chamber for generations to come.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: It is my understanding the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) wishes to present a reasoned amendment at this time.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in view of my statement about our preparedness to fight, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
This House opposes in principle and therefore declines to proceed with Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, because that agreement, which was negotiated in a secretive and irresponsible manner in the absence of a mandate from the Canadian people, will undermine the economic, social and political institutions of Canada, because it will fail to provide guaranteed and secure access to U.S. and other world trade markets, because it will create severe adverse effects on many industries and communities and because it will endanger the economic and social fabric and political independence of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Continuing debate.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I was going to begin by making some harsh comment about the long-winded speech of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). I may have to extend that to include my good friend, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Mr. Thacker:: And you?


Steven W. Langdon: I will try to emulate both. Will that satisfy my friend?
Today's performance by the Minister for International Trade illustrates that he has completely lost sight of the importance of this legislation to the country. One can only say in the strongest possible terms that the Minister has not lived up to his responsibility to put before the House in a sensible manner the legislation we are debating today. Instead, we have seen an example of fear mongering, of blustering, of inaccuracy, irrelevancy and long-winded pomposity which has given us absolutely no insight whatsoever into this Bill.
It is a disgraceful performance. The Minister owes the House an apology for making that kind of speech at the beginning of such an importance debate.
This debate is one about choices. Canadians will have to decide which of three choices they want to make. First, do we follow this Accord with the United States and make ourselves essentially their resource periphery, dependent far more than we are now on their economy? If so, we accept the blustering pomposity of the Minister for International Trade as the prophet for the future of this country.
Second, do we follow essentially the same old path of the past with the Liberal ad hoc interventionism which consists of no strategy, no direction, no sense of leadership toward a new way to deal with our economy? It is an approach that hopes for the best and relies on GATT.
Third, do we accept that we finally try to build in this country an independent, fair economy and society using our rich resources? Do we try to develop an industrial game plan, a sense of direction which gives us a high tech future in the world? Do we look at full employment as a dominant objective over everything? Do we want to take the path that will make

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
us proud of ourselves in the world as a country that is independent and can stand on its own feet to operate successfully on an equal basis with every other country in the world?
I think that is the course we want to take. I believe that is the course that will be chosen when we finally get the election that is deserved on this issue. That is the course that this Party offers and that this Party has presented and will continue to stress to Canadians as this debate continues.
The Conservatives have lost faith in Canada. The great Liberal guru, Donald Macdonald, said: "Let's have a leap of faith". The Tories have gone one better and have had a leap of lost faith. Consequently, what we have is a branch plant manager, a branch plant Prime Minister, a branch-plant Party, and a branch plant policy that gives no sense of direction or future for this country and our children.
This Bill lets Canadians down, just as the past government let Canadians down with its gross patronage appointments. It is not just New Democrats with perhaps a partisan perspective, who see this deal this way. There was a statement from a group of completely non-partisan Canadians this week. They are people like Geogik Notsiof, one of our most senior former Ambassadors to the Soviet Union, a former Chancellor of the University of Toronto, Edgar Gallant, who is the former Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Eve Dubey, the former Dean of Social Sciences at Laval University, Louis Philip Blanchard, Director of the University of Moncton, G.W.F. McCain the head of McCain Foods, J.M. Kerion, the former Dean of Social Sciences at the University of Ottawa. They said very clearly, having looked at non-partisan observers who know something about politics and economics, who have no axe to grind, this statement of our concern is in no way motivated by anti-American considerations but rests only on our strong belief that the continuance of a distinct and prosperous Canada is important for Canadians and for the world as a whole.
They then went on to say that in their view, this accord with the United States, results in the following conclusion that our ability to survive as a distinct society in the world of tomorrow fades away and we could be caught in an irreversible process of complete absorption by our giant partner to the south.
That is not a statement that comes from partisans. It is a statement that comes from concerned Canadians who have looked at this deal and have seen not the great statistics about trade presented to us by the Minister for International Trade. They have seen the tremendous giveaways, the absurd sellouts, the disgusting surrender of our independence as a country which is shown at virtually every page in this accord with the United States.
The Minister did not talk about those things, but they are here and they will kill us as a country in the future as surely as our children follow us and their children will follow them.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that this does not come from a political party; it is a statement by individuals who have studied this Agreement, people like Yves Dube, former dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Laval University, Louis-Philippe Blanchard, rector of the University of Moncton, J.-M. Quirion, former dean of Social Sciences at the University of Ottawa, who concluded after much study that the price of this Agreement for Canada is high and the risks for our future as a distinct society very great. So our ability to survive as a distinct society is in danger of declining rapidly and we would be caught in an irreversible process of integration with our giant partner.

That is the reality which exists and that is the reality which has to be seen by Canadians in the election that will come. They have to see that reality, but they also have to see the tremendous anti-democratic process by which the Conservatives have tried to jam this Bill through the Parliament of Canada. This is the same Government which, as a Party before the election, were against free trade with the United States. Yet at the Shamrock Summit, less than eight months after their election the Conservatives in concert with President Reagan, yes, we want free trade with the United States.
We had to fight to get a full committee that summer to even look at Star Wars and free trade so there could be a chance for Canadians to speak out before the Government locked us in at that stage. Finally, we were able to win that fight. We got a committee which came up with conclusions, but his Government decided to ignore the conclusions. This Government was told that the Auto Pact should not be included in any negotiations with the United States. Yet the committee's recommendations were rejected by the Government and anyone who reads the agreement sees not only the Auto Pact included, but a full chapter on it, which weakens the ability of Canadian producers to guarantee jobs for themselves in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I think this might be a good time to point out that it is five o'clock. When the debate resumes on this particular motion, the Hon. Member will have 30 minutes remaining.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since it was possible for both previous speakers to take some extra time to present their speeches as an entirety, might it be possible, since we have extended hours anyway, for me to complete my speech at this stage?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The reason the Hon. Member was given 30 minutes was so that it would bring his time to a total of 46 minutes which is comparable to the time taken by the two preceding speakers. However, if the Hon. Member wishes to carry on a bit further with unanimous consent of the House, then he will be able to do so.
June 21, 1988


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I hear the Hon. Member, he is asking if we would be prepared to use his 30 minutes until 5.30 p.m. and to defer Private Members' Hour until that time, with unanimous consent. We would certainly be in agreement with that.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Private Member's Motion is in my name. 1 would be more than happy to give my colleague the time now to complete his remarks, provided that Private Member's Hour has a full hour commencing immediately upon the termination of his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House and you. In particular, I thank my colleague. I also thank my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry. I shall not accuse him of being long-winded in the future.
It is important to see the extent of the anti-democratic approach which the Conservative Party has taken with respect to this trade deal. We have not just the promises before the election. We have not just the rapid reversal at the Shamrock Summit. We have not just the very tough fight which we had in 1985 to get a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to look at these questions. We have not just the fact that the recommendations of that committee were not followed by the Government.
We have an incredible record of secrecy with respect to this issue which I doubt has been equalled in past regimes. We had a situation in which it was necessary for us again and again and again to go to the Information Commissioner and to get her to take cases before the Federal Court before the federal Government would finally release studies which were paid for by the taxpayers of Canada dealing with a crucial issue of importance to them. When those studies came out we often found that there were vast numbers of pages which had been crossed out, made blank, because of the Government's paranoia that the Opposition might find out some of the nasty tricks in which it was engaged in this negotiation.
Then, when the whole charade was finished, the charade of Simon Reisman pulling out of the talks and the last minute rush to Washington by our supplicant Ministers, we had in front of us a 30-page brief which was supposed to somehow set out for us in summary reform what would be in the final agreement. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade had but 10 days to go across the country to allow the people of Canada to comment, not on the agreement itself but on this mere summary which had been released. It happened that the actual text came out shortly before the committee was supposed to report.
Would the committee with its massive Tory majority even look at the actual agreement? Would it look at the differences between it and the summary? Not a chance. It would keep to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
its shameful summary and to the Canadian testimony which it has heard on that.
The shameful reality is that there has not been a chance for a single Canadian to testify before a House of Commons committee of any type with respect to this trade agreement, despite the fact that many of the people who came before us and who talked about the summary said that it was not possible to talk about a summary agreement. They said: "We have to see the final document. We have to get our lawyers to look at it. We have to see if it makes sense. We have to see the real product. Where's the beef?"
Once the brief appeared, what we found was that there was not a single committee of the House that was prepared to hold hearings on this crucial issue and to see to it that the Canadian people had a chance to react to some of the vicious surrenders of our independence as a country that forms part of this agreement. That is in tremendous contrast with what has happened in the United States.
I have in my hand a list of some 40 committees in the United States which held public hearings on this Bill-40 different chances for the American people and American interest groups to be able to speak. There were 40 chances for American experts to be able to speak. There was not a single chance given to Canadians to testify in this whole seven-month period since the agreement came out.
I just could not have believed before I came to the House of Commons that any Government could be so high-handed, that any Government could be so absolutely crass in its willingness to avoid the capacity of the Canadian people to speak on an issue as has been the case in this Parliament. It is absolutely shameful. It is just the last shameful act of this whole process of secrecy, of cover-up, of attempting to control the message going out so that people in Canada do not get a chance to see and to hear clearly the tremendous surrenders which have occurred as a result of this trade deal. That is at the heart of this trade deal. It is at the heart of the worries which exist across the country among average families concerning this deal. It is at the heart of the worries that I heard from grape growers in the Okanagan Valley, and from students in Montreal concerned about their jobs for the future. They saw the surrenders within this deal and for their potential future nothing but a trek south to some lower paid job in the southern United States.
I saw it among the worries of workers in my own home constituency in the Town of Amherstburg, a town of approximately 8,000 people where the largest employer has said that he will almost certainly have to shut down as a consequence of this trade deal and devastate the economy of that town.
I saw those worries among small oil producers in Alberta who told us that this was an unbalanced and unfair deal which left the National Energy Board completely stripped of power, and left the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
United States still able to fully control what happened to oil exports into that country.
I heard it from wood workers in New Brunswick who faced tremendous inequities in the softwood lumber situation, so much so that they had to sue the Government because of the manner in which they suffered unfairly under this trade deal, and the fact that the trade deal kept the softwood lumber Memorandum of Understanding continuing as part of the reality of our trade relations with the United States.
I heard it from women clothing workers in Quebec who asked us if there was some chance, at least, to receive some support for adjustment, and who were told no, no chance.
I heard it from nurses who told us that they were deeply concerned about the profit-oriented U.S. medical care system sweeping north into Canada as a consequence of the details of this deal.
If Members on the opposite side wish to debate, I hope they do, because there are parts within this report which make it absolutely clear that virtually every part of the health system is open to U.S. management companies taking over and running those health systems as they have done in the United States in a manner that has hurt nurses, doctors, and patients very badly in that country.


Howard Edward Crosby: How many Americans come to Canada for medical treatment?


Steven W. Langdon: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to rise and speak on that. I am talking about people who have spoken to me and to New Democrat trade groups across the country, and who have told us their concerns and fears. If the Government is worried about those concerns and fears, then I suggest that it start talking honestly and openly in response, instead of attempting to cover things up, as the Minister for International Trade attempted to this afternoon.
Let us also look at the incredible list of sell-outs which exist within this deal. It has to be a record in terms of sell-outs and surrenders for any one treaty, any one agreement made with another country. For instance, we have given up tremendous potential power to shape our regional development and social policies because we have not come to any agreement with respect to subsidies. That agreement will come into force in seven years, and in seven years our economy will have been restructured if this deal goes forward. At that stage, the United States, frankly, will have us over a barrel as far as its subsidy approach is concerned. Therefore, we can expect to see ourselves clobbered in those negotiations. We can already see indications which have come out in the Senate and in the House in the United States where it has indicated the things that it wants to negotiate. They want to get rid of all the subsidies we presently provide.
Perhaps those Members who represent areas that presently benefit from regional development help will all be defeated in the next election anyway and they do not have to worry about
it, but if they think that in seven years it will be possible to defend those regional development subsidies, frankly I think that they have spent far too much time under the hot sun.
Let us talk about the rules within this document against performance requirements on U.S. subsidiaries. At the present time U.S. subsidiaries under conservative law can be required to make performance commitments before they are permitted to take over a company. That goes. It is chopped away. The consequence is that the extra jobs, the extra exports, the extra investments, the extra benefits to Canada which would have come from those performance requirements also disappear.
We can also talk about agriculture. Remember, agriculture was not supposed to be touched. What do we see? Where has our two-priced wheat gone? It has disappeared. It is surrendered because of this deal. The same thing applies to seasonal tariffs on vegetables and fruit. Agriculture has been hit just as every other sector has been hit. We did not hear the Minister talk about that, but that is part of the deal.
The United States has the right to retaliate against any cultural moves which we take to safeguard our distinct society in the future, but, no, we write it right into our agreement. We signed it. How could our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) ever sign such a document permitting the United States to take action against this country if we take distinct steps to safeguard what is Canadian about our culture? But he did. He took those steps and signed it. If this Parliament accepts what is in this Accord, the consequences will be a tremendous axe hanging over our cultural industries.
One could continue with respect to the monopolies clauses, for instance, which make it impossible for any provincial Government in the future to set up an auto insurance scheme without paying compensation to the United States. These are the surrenders the Minister has refused to recognize or to admit.
[ Translation]
And those are not the only things that this Government has done. For example, we must also say that this Government has decided to include in this Bill clauses to allow the federal Government to change any provincial law that differs from the contents of this document. For me, this is not equal federalism. It is unfair. It is unequal. It is very dangerous for all provinces in the future.

Those are the surrenders.
What did we get in return for those surrenders? We made no gains whatsoever. We had said that there were two key objectives. We had said first that we had to get exemptions from U.S. trade law and we had said second that we had to get agreement on what was an acceptable subsidy. Well, a funny thing happened to Simon on his way to the fair. Simple Simon met a pie man, perhaps, but we found that neither of those
June 21, 1988

objectives were achieved. Instead, we saw a save-face solution which sets up a panel system which will do absolutely nothing more than the court system presently does. The consequence is that in return for all our surrenders of liberty, we have not achieved any safeguards or secure access to the U.S. market.
We heard the Minister suggest this afternoon that we have secured tremendous safeguards. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and those who are watching us on television today, to simply read the document, if you can get a hold of it. It is very hard to do so. The Government keeps it very close to its chest.


Blaine Allen Thacker: You were criticizing us for too much information two days ago.


Steven W. Langdon: But not this information. What the Government sends out is summaries which do not deal with the points which are in the actual deal itself.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Do you agree with us printing more copies of the actual agreement?


Steven W. Langdon: Absolutely. Print them, send them out. See to it that the Canadian people can actually see that there is no gain whatsoever with respect to secure access to the U.S. market.
What we have is a failure. It is a failure which will hurt the Canadian people very, very badly. It will put us in direct competition with southern U.S. states and the Mexican free trade zones where there are very low wages and poor or nonexistent social benefits.
We will lose any chance of having local control of our future, either by communities or by country. Instead, Canadian corporations will use the U.S. competition which they will have to face to push hard to get our laws changed, to reduce our social benefits, to weaken our labour laws, to cut off our health and safety standards. We will see in the future a much, much tougher world which our people will have to face.
There is a different approach, an approach which could have been taken and yet was not taken. There is an approach which could, and I hope will, be taken after the next election. This approach first will make full employment the central goal of economic policy. It will use our resource wealth as a base to develop a more diversified economy. It will upgrade our industrial potential at the national level by taking seriously commitments to research and development. It will give some sense of strategy to our industrial plans for the future.
It is an approach which can encourage increased investment in Canada by cutting interest rates instead of raising them as this Government has been doing. It can encourage increased investments by using energy resources as an advantage to producers in our market and by assisting key industries, building block industries, to serve the domestic market and on the basis of that, to export of course to the United States but to export throughout the world.
Export of Water
We feel confident enough in Canada that we do not want to tie ourselves to this American market alone. We want to see instead an expansion throughout the world of Canadian business, of the exports of Canadian products and of the benefits of Canadian technology which we can develop here in Canada, not just through large business but through small firms as well. In fact, it is often small firms which are more successful in penetrating these new markets than large, rather hide-bound companies.
We want to see to it as well that foreign investment comes to Canada, of course, but that it provides the most possible benefit to Canadians, to Canadian jobs and to Canadian communities. That requires bargaining with those foreign investors, not just permitting them to come into Canada, take over a Canadian plant and shut it down because it is a competitor. This has happened far too often already.
We want to see the Auto Pact not as something about which we are worried, because Ontario has benefited from it. Instead, we want to extend the principle of the Auto Pact across the country to different sectors, to different regions, to see to it that there is a regional fairness which does not exist at the moment.
We want to work with other countries to restore health to our trading system so that fundamental reforms take place which assist the entire world. With these words in mind, I would like to move:
That the motion be amended by adding in line 9, immediately after the
comma the following:
"including our valued system of social and regional development programs,"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I will reserve on this subamendment and come back at 6.30 p.m. with a decision. The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   TRADE EXPORT OF WATER
Iain Francis Angus: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should enact legislation to prohibit the large-scale export of water from Canada to another country.
He said: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to be able to rise and present this motion today, calling upon the Government to bring forth legislation that would prevent the large scale exports of water from our country to another.
The reason for the motion, Mr. Speaker, is that today there is no legislative mechanism available to the people of Canada to prevent a Government, whether it is this Government or the
COMMONS DEBATES___________________June 21, 1988
Export of Water
one that replaces this Government, or another Government years from now, from arbitrarily allowing the large scale export of water. I liken it to a municipal and a provincial law, which is a zoning by-law, which establshes the rules but provides for the ability to change that in a public forum.
If this Government would live up to its policy statements- and I will come back to those in a moment-and enact legislation, it would be like a zoning by-law that would force the Government of the day, if it decided that for whatever reason the export of water was appropriate, to come back to this House to receive the approval of the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada.
There is no doubt that water is increasingly being recognized by Canadians as not just another resource, but as a common property of immeasurable value. It is increasingly becoming the focus of our attention, in terms of Government policy, and I suggest it will and should continue to do so.
Front and centre in this debate is the issue of water exports and inter-basin transfers. While this is only one aspect of the immensely complex problems facing us, in terms of water policy, it is an aspect which synthesizes the approach and the commitment to protecting our water resources.
I want to begin my comments today, Mr. Speaker, by commending both the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), and the Liberal environment critic. The recently released federal water policy states, definitively: "The Government of Canada emphatically opposes large-scale exports of our water". For this, the Minister should be commended.
As Well, the Liberal critic, the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), introduced a private Members' Bill a couple of years ago which called for a ban on water exports. While we had some problems with some of the aspects of the Bill, the sentiment was very appropriate, and I commend him for that.
I want, to read into the record some comments made by people who have examined this issue, have researched it, and have offered their thoughts for public consumption. The first is from the American Review of Canadian Studies, 1986. It is a paper called: Canadian Water Exports, A Controversy in the Making written by Geoffrey R. Weller, the Vice-President of academics at Lakehead University, in the community of Thunder Bay. He writes:
The Canadian economy has long been heavily dependent upon the export of natural resources ranging from fur, lumber and grain to minerals of all kinds. Up until now water has been regarded differently and not exported in any large amounts. However, Canada is entering an era in which there is mounting pressure to change the generally held view of water as being beyond market forces and not available for export.
Canada is regarded by some as having abundant supplies while other nations have increasing shortages and Canada is seen as being, therefore, in a position to gain significantly from the export of a valuable commodity, much as if it were what might be called "blue gold".
Perhaps the most notable exponent of the benefits of exporting Canada's water resources both directly and indirectly in the form of hydro-electric power is the current premier of Quebec, Mr. Robert Bourassa. Not only is he
identified with the massive James Bay project but recently, with the publication of his book Power from the North and his becoming premier, he has been associated with a desire for further large-scale hydro developments in northern Quebec and the Kierans Grand Canal scheme.
The latter involves making James Bay into a freshwater lake, diverting the water from there to the Great Lakes and from there to arid regions in the United States and Canada.
There has been concern in Canada about the issue of water exports before but it has never been as great as it is at the present. Some large-scale schemes were proposed in the mid nineteen-sixties that caused public concern.
I remember well the committee called Damn the Dams, which formed in northwestern Ontario, to prevent the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from proceeding to survey our watersheds, with a mind to developing a system to divert water through Lake Superior into the United States. Mr. Weller continues:
In addition, books have occasionally appeared on the subject in the past two decades, most notably D. Booking's Canada's Water for Sale?, in 1972, and Foster and Sewell's The Emerging Water Crisis in Canada in 1981, and these have kept some awareness of the issue alive. Water export never, however, really reached the forefront of the agenda of industry, environmental and other pressure groups, or government. This was partly because the schemes devised seemed so grandiose and fanciful, even in the era of mega-projects; partly because the need for water in dry areas was not seen as an urgent or immediate one (especially in Canada); and partly because water was regarded as a public good that was and should be free of market forces.
Many Canadians, hearing more and more of the degradation and usage patterns of water in both Canada and the United States, are becoming increasingly aware that water is not a limitless resource. It does possess considerable value, and may therefore be eyed covetously by those who are short of it and by those who can make money by exporting it.
A further reason water exports are being taken seriously is that the new orthodoxy in economics is no longer sympathetic to an object such as water being a public good, and free of market forces. Consequently, it is entirely possible that if it were to be viewed as a consumption good, like any other, it could well be available for export, under the right terms and conditions.
One of the elected representatives in the United States thinks that way. Jim Wright, who is now the Speaker of the United States Congress, wrote in 1966:
There is to the north of us a stupendous supply of water, enough to satisfy our predictable wants for years to come, which is simply going to waste. We need the water. We need to develop the means of getting that water.
There are politicians south of the border who are looking northward. I would suspect, because of the increasing drought situations in the United States, as well as in Canada, that there, too, will be people who will be eyeing us, with envy, wanting to get our water.
An acquaintance of mine, a Professor at the University of Minnesota, in Duluth, UMD, is working in co-operation with Lakehead University, developing Nordic studies and developing Great Lakes basin studies. Douglas Nord, who is one of the professors there, heading the Political Study Section, wrote a paper entitled Managing a Regional Resource, the Case of the Great Lakes. In the section entitled "Marketing a Regional
June 21, 1988

Resource-Exporting Water From the Great Lakes", he writes:
In speaking before a 1982 Great Lakes Water Conference former Wisconsin Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus, observed:
Over two hundred years ago Ben Franklin said, 'We know not what the well is worth until it runs dry'. We in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ontario, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Quebec, New York must now look to our well.
God and the glacier created the Great Lakes but Ottawa and Washington, D.C., will try to claim it. If we don't stand together now and protect and preserve that which by historical chance belongs to the people within whose state and provincial borders these lakes exist, then I say we will be letting loose the greatest resource ever given to any people on this continent.
He further quotes a Canadian, Ralph Pentland of the Inland Water Directorate of Environment Canada who feared that:
"Once the tap is turned on, you can't turn it off. If you start a diversion of water, you build up a whole economic infrastructure dependent upon that source of water... At that point, you can't stop. You've sold your sovereignty, your heritage and your future.
That is why I bring forth this motion today. I want the Government of Canada to come forth with legislation which will very clearly indicate in law-not in policy but in law- that our water is not for sale, that our water is not going to be massively shifted from Canada to another country. The country which would most logically come to mind would be the United States, although there is the potential for large scale shipments by seagoing vessels to move water elsewhere. I am concerned that while the Government may make all the right sounds in its heart it is not prepared to go the next step.
I would like to refer to comments made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was interviewed by Fortune magazine a couple of years ago. He indicated that Canada would consider water exports to the U.S. if such an idea were mutually beneficial and economically feasible. "Why not?", he was quoted as saying. That is the kind of response which makes me worried.
It is not only the Prime Minister. It is well known, also, that Canada's negotiator for the trade deal, Mr. Simon Reisman, is an avid supporter of the Grand Canal scheme. He told an Ontario Economic Council seminar a couple of years ago that linking water exports to trade would be a brilliant way of getting the U.S. enthusiastic about the trade deal. Did he carry out this brilliant idea? Well, the Government has steadfastly denied that there is any connection. It has repeated often that there is nothing in the trade deal which forces us to sell water to the United States.
You may have noticed that that is an interesting way of putting the case for the protection of our water. In fact, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) took the wind out of his own argument when he went on to say that there is nothing in the trade deal which forces us to sell anything to anyone.
Export of Water
The Government had the option of insisting that there be an exemption in the trade deal which would specifically exempt water exports. It has been suggested by senior government officials that the Government had, in fact, wanted a water exemption but that it caved in at the eleventh hour. Why? We can only assume that it was in order to get the U.S. to agree to a deal.
The Minister for International Trade can bluster all he wants, but as long as the trade deal simply looks at water as another resource, the same as all the others, it remains open to exploitation as a marketable commodity.
That is why I have put forward this motion. I am not asking for a lot. I am simply asking the government Members and the Official Opposition to give their support to this legislation so that we can protect our water and entrench that will in legislation.
There is a sense of urgency about this motion. Even if we were to begin today, with the best of efforts, to enact policy to protect our water, we would still be facing many years of continued pollution and overuse of a dwindling supply of accessible fresh water. Despite many years of warnings by environmentalists and scientists, as a nation we have been very slow to come to terms with the deplorable state of our water supplies. We have not grasped the urgency that this problem demands.
Perhaps this is due, in large part, to an understandable misconception about our water supplies. When you stand on the shore of Lake Superior outside my home in Thunder Bay and look out toward the horizon it is very difficult to believe that Canada is not a water rich country. However, that is exactly the case.
The Government's federal water policy sets out a compelling case in this regard. It points out that Canada, which occupies about 7 per cent of the world's land mass, has 9 per cent of renewable water, just about a fair share. However, about 60 per cent of that fresh water drains northward, away from our population, and is inaccessible. That which is accessible is mostly polluted.
There has always been a feeling that the need to get serious about protecting our water supplies was a problem for the future. Well, Mr. Speaker, the future is here. We cannot afford to put off any longer addressing this issue which quite literally is a matter of life and death.
I submit that the place to start is with a ban on exports. I say this for a variety of reasons. To begin with, water comes predominantly under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Any legislation, any progressive moves toward cleaning up and protecting our water supplies, must be subject to negotiations with provincial governments. However, water exports come under the purview of the federal Government. While I believe it is still beneficial to consult with the provinces on this matter, it is an area in which the federal Government can move

June 21, 1988
Export of Water
quickly, demonstrating leadership and setting the groundwork for the approach that must be taken.
Let me add to the argument the words of Robert Fournier, the Chairman of the Water Resources Committee. He says:
Water is a vital element in Canada's past; it is equally vital for its future. Where once water determined the pattern of exploration and settlement, it now enhances the beauty and character of the landscape and plays a powerful role in Canadian identity. For all these reasons, and in the sheer abundance of our waters, Canadians can and do take pride.
Thus it is cause for particular concern that the impact of current trends and future events on Canada's waters is uncertain. Climatic change, rise in sea levels, increasing abuse, and a potential export demand all place the future availability of water in doubt. This highlights the fact that Canadians are not owners of water, but hold only limited stewardship rights. Water returns to us both the benefits and disasters of our civilization. Technology can and does impact on our waters in more than one direction. Given the importance of water, the development and application of science and technology to assure wise management is vital to meet national needs.
The Minister, in his response to the federal water policy said:
That is why the Government of Canada emphatically opposes large-scale exports of our water. We have another reason for our opposition; The interbasin diversions necessary for such exports would inflict enormous harm on both the environment and society, especially in the North, where the ecology is delicate and where the effects on Native culture would be devastating.
I think it makes an awful lot of sense for us to support this motion in order to send a message to the Government that this House desires legislation which will control, prevent or restrict-whatever terms we want to use-the export of water from Canada to another country. I urge all Members of this House to give it their support and allow it to come to a vote.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, you have been around this House a long time and you know how the water issue stirs the emotions of all people including parliamentarians, and there is no exception today. The Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) has certainly done us a service by bringing forward his motion which is very simple and straightforward. It asks the Government to enact legislation to prohibit the large scale export of water from Canada. It could not be clearer than that. The message has been elaborated upon by the Member. I wish to thank him for his kind words and to express my support.
The timing of this motion, I hope you will agree, Mr. Speaker, is particularly appropriate because we are debating today the trade deal between Canada and the U.S.A. For that reason alone the issue of water becomes charged with emotion because there are in that trade deal certain commodities spelled out for exclusion from it but we do not see water among them.
I refer to the fact that there is in the trade deal a specific reference for exclusion from the application of what the trade deal would be all about to beer, lumber, and unprocessed fish.
Evidently one wonders if it was desirable for the Government of Canada to identify these three items. The chief
negotiator for Canada has a record of making public statements in favour of major water diversions. Two years ago, the National Research Council made a grant of some $30,000 available to the Grand Canal Company, which now and then raises its head to propose a diversion scheme of monstrous dimensions and implications. Considering all of these precedents, it is no wonder that the question of water export becomes increasingly acute in parliamentary and political terms. Therefore, there is a convergence of legislative proposals that we are required to address here today.
Why should there be legislation? It is very simple: One does not want governments of the future to perhaps approve a measure of water diversion or export on a large scale without parliamentary approval. Presently, this is possible because there is no legislation to give Parliament these powers. We must deal with that vacuum. That is why the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan is moving his motion and it is for the very same reason that two years ago in February, 1986, we debated my Bill C-257 which had the same intention.
This matter is still unresolved, despite the fact that the Government has had an opportunity to examine and reply to the Pearse water report that was published in 1986. It has not taken the necessary legislative initiative to give a future Parliament the opportunity to intervene with the help of legislation and discuss any proposal of this nature emanating from the executive, as we are doing today with the trade deal. That opportunity is denied parliamentarians unless they have the required legislation.
The importance of keeping waters within the boundaries of Canada has already been stressed. Let me repeat for the record what was said in 1947 by then Minister St. Laurent about water export policy: "Can we in fairness to Canadian generations of the future allow such natural wealth to be diverted from our own territory and put to uses from which it would be extremely difficult afterwards to withdraw it?" That well expressed thought today finds a modern meaning in terms of dependence. Once we create a dependence for water in other national jurisdictions it becomes virtually impossible to turn the tap off.
The Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan has already referred to General McNaughton's statement to this effect. Not only does the importance of water have an impact on the Canadian psyche, it is significant to the national identity of this country, particularly with respect to its economic uses.
Obviously, at the point we would become involved in large scale diversion and export of that water, we would also be exporting a considerable amount of jobs and economic interests. That is not in the short-term or long-term interests of Canada.
Evidently, the water that would be exported in a large-scale export would come from areas on which native people depend for their lifestyle. It would have a disruptive effect and would create an even greater dependence on non-aboriginal society. It would cause significant cultural dislocation. Therefore, it is no
June 21, 1988

wonder that native people have frequently expressed their natural and understandable opposition to water diversion. To them, water is part of their lifestyle and not just another commodity.
In conclusion, let me summarize the points that have been made in advancing this motion and other Bills during the life of this Parliament. It signals to the Government that it must come to grips with the necessity of putting forward enacting legislation on this very important subject.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments to the motion which has been proposed that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should enact legislation to prohibit the large scale export of water from Canada to another country.
Let me explain the evolution of the federal policy on water since we formed the Government in 1984. In 1985, a year after we became the Government, the priorities and planning committee of Cabinet empowered the Minister of the Environment to act for the Government in formulating a federal water policy. He gave that matter a very high priority. Cabinet further decided that until this policy was in place there would be no major interbasin diversions or large scale exports of water.
The first step in developing the water policy was an inquiry on federal water policy headed by Dr. Peter Pearse of the University of British Columbia, which reported to the Minister of the Environment in September, 1985. Its mandate was to consider the nature of emerging issues, the state of the resource, future requirements for water, interjurisdictional dimensions and scientific and research expertise, with a view to ensuring enhancement of the health, well-being and prosperity of the people of Canada.
In conducting its work, the inquiry actively sought the views of provincial, territorial and federal Government Departments and their agencies, of private citizens and public groups, of industry and of the academic community. Between late September and early December of 1984, 201 presentations were heard in 33 days of hearings in 17 locations across Canada. Over 300 written submissions were received. In addition, the inquiry commissioned 22 research papers on special problems related to this topic. The inquiry made 55 recommendations in its final report entitled Currents of Change. Three of those dealt with water export. The inquiry concluded: "It would be imprudent for the federal Government to reject all exports out of hand". It went on to say that the Government " ... should clearly set out the conditions that must be met for any proposal to be acceptable", and that there should be "clear procedures for assessing export proposals".
Those are three specific points made with respect to the export of water should Canada consider it. The inquiry simply said it would be imprudent for the federal Government to reject all exports out of hand, that we must clearly look at all
Export of Water
of the factors that would be involved and all the procedures necessary.
In November, 1987, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) released Canada's first comprehensive federal water policy statement. I would like to quote some of the comments made by the Minister at that time. He stated:
The truth is that Canada, which occupies 7 per cent of the world's land mass, has 9 per cent of its renewable water. Further, about 60 per cent of Canada's fresh water drains north, while 90 per cent of our population lives within 300 kilometres of our southern border. In other words, to the extent that we Canadians have lots of water, most of it is not where it is needed, in the populated areas of the country. In those populated areas where it is plentiful, water is fast becoming polluted and unusable. The over-all problem in the country is compounded by drought in certain regions. Put simply, Canada is not necessarily a water rich country.
The Minister went on to say:
That is why the Government of Canada emphatically opposes large scale exports of our water. We have another reason for our opposition; the interbasin diversions necessary for such exports could inflict enormous harm on both the environment and society, especially in the North, where the ecology is delicate and where the effects on native cultures could be very harmful.
The Minister further stated:
The Government of Canada has the constitutional authority to block large scale export proposals. We can exercise this authority through various pieces of existing legislation. These include the Fisheries Act, The Navigable Waters Protection Act, the International River Improvements Act, and the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
And, as the policy makes clear, the federal Government is reviewing existing laws, administered by various federal agencies, with a view to strengthening federal legislation, to the extent necessary, to fully implement the water policy. When this review is complete and if further legislation is needed to give effect to the federal policy against large scale exports of water, then that legislation will be placed before Parliament.
From these excerpts from the Minister's speech I think we can see that he has expressed some very serious concerns. Although we appear to have lots of water, it is in our far North and it drains towards the North, but it is in the South that we need it. Further, he is saying there is a very serious concern about the diversion of our water with respect to environmental factors, ecological effects and the impact that large scale diversion of water would have on our native population, particularly in the North.
The Minister went on to say that we have within our jurisdiction the ability to deal with this question and that when that review is complete, any further legislation that is necessary would be brought before the House. So I think the position of the Government is very clear. We are concerned with protecting our water and the impact diversion could have if we were to enter into any large scale export.
I would also like to make a few comments to the Member who introduced the motion. He talked about the timeliness of his motion, in his mind. I think he was relating the sense of his motion to the debate we are having on the free trade agreement. Much has been said in the House of late about the impact of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement on the export of Canada's supply of fresh water, and misleading statements have been made. I think it is important to say that

June 21, 1988
Export of Water
the free trade agreement explicitly recognizes that the Governments of both countries have the right to protect their environment and conserve their natural resources. Nothing in the free trade agreement affects the federal water policy announced by the Minister last November. That policy clearly states that the Government will not permit the large scale export of water or the diversion of Canada's rivers to the United States.
I find it interesting that just because something is not explicitly excluded in the free trade agreement, somehow it is implicitly included. With that kind of logic, the sun, the moon and the stars are included. With that logic, the Liberal Opposition is included. With that logic the NDP is included. I cannot understand why these people constantly get up in the House and tell us that we have to exclude it. It is not in there. They are trying to make people believe, through their fear and propaganda and so on, that somehow it is mysteriously there. My goodness, the air is not excluded so I guess we had better add that too. Some of the hot air those Members produce over there should definitely be included.
We have to come to grips with what is fact and what is not fact. We have to start to recognize what is clearly there. Water is not in the free trade agreement other than bottled water, and the tariffs on that will come off. We have every right and every power under the free trade agreement to preserve our natural resources, and we shall do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: We will now hear from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mrs. Duplessis).


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Hon. Member's interest...


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, one always assumes there is a rotation, and I would presume one of my colleagues should go next. I do not mean to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I say that just to keep the normal process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I thought the Member might have noticed that there were two members of the Opposition who spoke, and I am now recognizing two members from the government side.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this is Private Members' Business, not government business, therefore, with respect to the rotation of government opposition there is not necessarily any hard and fixed rule. You are able to move about the Chamber in a way that is different from having to hear from the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: It is not a hard and fixed rule, I agree. The Parliamentary Secretary.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to see the interest in Canada's water resources shown by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). The Government and indeed the vast majority of Canadians share his concern over large water export projects. Let me deal with these concerns for a few moments.
Canada is without doubt one of the most favored nations in the world for its abundant fresh water resources. However, despite what most observers think, these resources are far from inexhaustible or indestructible. The situation of our underground waters is not as well understood as that of some other countries, mainly because we have relied a great deal on our surface waters. Canada probably has more lake area than any other country in the world. Our lakes play a major role in regulating the flow of our waterways seaward, and they provide a rich habitat for our fauna and flora and for our own enjoyment. However, most Canadian lakes are a one-time gift we were left after the last ice age. They are not renewable, except at the expense of the streams and rivers that feed and drain them.
Hence, the best way to measure a country's water reserve is to measure the renewable water supply from spring water and ground water. If we consider the average annual flow, Canadian streams and rivers represent nearly 9 per cent of the world's renewable water supply, or roughly 100,000 cubic metres per second. Considering the population of Canada which is only 1 per cent of the world's population, this supply is indeed a generous gift of nature, but these figures are not so out of proportion if we compare them with Canada's surface area which corresponds to approximately 7 per cent of the world's territory. In any case, these figures are well below the 25 to 40 per cent of the world's water supply often attributed to Canada in new reports that neglect to make a distinction between renewable and non-renewable sources.
For the sake of comparison, the total run-off from American streams and rivers, including Alaska, is estimated at approximately 94,000 cubic metres per second, or nearly 8 per cent of the world's supply, while the renewable supply of the USSR is 139,000 cubic metres per second, or nearly 13 per cent.
Despite the apparent abundance of water in Canada, there are other factors that shape our perception of these water resources. For instance, about 36 per cent of annual precipitation in Canada falls in the form of snow, most of which stays as such for several months until spring thaw. There are times when the run-off is many times greater than average, sometimes causing flooding, while there are also times when it only amounts to a fraction of the average figure. The geographic distribution of water is another problem, in that nearly two-thirds of the total run-off flows North, far from the more populated regions in the South.
June 21, 1988

The variations in precipitation from month to month and from year to year also affect the availability of water, and this summer is a case in point. These variations force us to consider not only the average flow but also the less reliable flow on which we can count only nine years out of ten.
The message we get from all this is that the total flow of Canadian rivers and streams does not constitute a realistic estimate of the water supply available to Canadians. Today, however, we do, on the whole, have annual reserves that are greater than our draw-off at the national level.
Thermal generating stations and the manufacturing industry are responsible for the greatest draw-off. As for irrigation, not the quantity of water drawn off but the quantity consumed is important, and the fact that irrigation is concentrated in the arid Prairies. In this region, Mr. Speaker, irrigation represents 87 per cent of all water consumption. The use by the manufacturing and mining industries and by towns and cities is another major source of draw-off. This, however, is not the sum total of water use.
It is difficult and sometimes impossible to calculate accurately local water use so as to ensure the survival of fish and fauna, protect our heritage, and provide for recreation, navigation, and the dilution of effluents.
Like the rest of the world, we Canadians are barely beginning to realize just how much water we will need to maintain the natural habitat, especially in light of efforts made by environment defence organizations, reports such as Global 2000 and the World Environment Commission.
Mr. Speaker, we do not usually consider water in a continental context but I believe it would be appropriate to compare our situation with that of the Americans. However I am making this comparison after seriously reflecting upon the situation of water quality which might further reduce the supply of water that is acceptable and can serve for various uses. As I said earlier, we must also keep in mind the fact that we did not figure out local water needs.
An examination of the balance between reserves and consumption reveals that some Canadian regions already experience water shortages despite the fact that the world's renewable reserves exceed current consumption. The main region facing such problems is the southern part of the Prairies, particularly the north and south basins of the Saskatchewan River, the Red River, the Assiniboine River and the Milk River where they are considering proposed water supply storage facilities and small projects to transfer water between basins.
With respect to demand, water consumption trends closely parallel our two countries' demographgic densities and different needs. To meet the water consumption requirements of people, municipalities or thermal energy producing companies as well as those of the industrial and agricultural sectors, the United States now take from surface and underground
Export of Water
reserves quantities of water which are about 12 times larger than those we use in Canada, yet they outnumber us 9 to 1.
Right now, thermal energy production and manufacturing activities in Canada account for most of the consumption. Irrigation projects rank first in the United States and if that trend should continue for a number of years it might lead to disputes between those who favour energy production and others who are more supportive of local consumption in the southwestern United States where most of the irrigation facilities are located.
Without Alaska, water reserves in the continental United States are 60 per cent of Canada's. If we consider reserves that are reliable nine years out of ten, the flow in the United States is declining even more and represents slightly more than twice the draw-off. At the regional level, the ratio is in many cases even less promising.
According to a national assessment carried out in 1978, the Americans predicted there would be serious water supply problems between now and the year 2000 in seventeen subregions, which means in most of the Great Plains and the Southwest. This explains the sustained interest shown by certain "unofficial" circles in Canadian water "surpluses" that would enhance the demography and economy of these regions.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I may add that major water exports, including diversions from one basin to another, were discussed in the Federal Water Policy published by the Minister of the Environment last November. I would like to quote briefly from what the Minister said in his introduction to this policy, and I quote: "To put it bluntly, Canada is not a country with an adequate water supply. That is why the Canadian Government is firmly opposed to large-scale exports of water. There is another reason, however. The diversions between basins that such exports would require would be extremely harmful, both to the environment and to society, especially in the North, where the natural environment is fragile and such projects would have disastrous consequences for our native cultures".
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's motion is generally in line with the present Government's policy on water exports. However, we already have substantial legislative power that we could use in this respect, and I am about to finish Mr. Speaker. We are now looking at the situation to determine whether we should reinforce those powers, and if that is the case, I can assure you that the present Government will take any action necessary to preserve our invaluable water resources.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the timely motion of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus). We heard spokespeople from the Government, that is, the Parliamentary Secretary, and before him we heard from the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer). Both government

June 21, 1988
Export of Water
Members made a great deal of the policy statement on water that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) released in November. In fact, both Members quoted extensively from the remarks made by the Minister at that time.
Certainly, if one accepts what the Minister stated, and if one accepts those statements at face value, one could be assured that the Government indeed had the best interests of Canada in mind, that it was not going to be in favour of diverting water or selling water to the United States, and that they were dead set against any inter-basin diversion of water.
At the same time that those Hon. Members were speaking, at the same time that the government policy supposedly exists, the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Saskatchewan were involved and continue to be involved in a $1.7 million study on the South Saskatchewan River. Part of that study is diverting water from the South Saskatchewan River Basin to the Souris Basin. In that study there has also been some discussion of diverting water from the Qu'Appelle Basin to the Souris Basin.
The Government is now under the political gun of the Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan. Earlier in the day I called him an "environmental thug", and I stand by that statement. For entirely political purposes the Premier of Saskatchewan wants to build a power plant in his riding called the Shand Plant, which will be a coal-fired plant, and for that he needs water to cool that plant. He is proposing to dam the Souris River, and two dams and reservoirs are proposed: The Alameda being one, and the Rafferty being another.
The Souris River depends entirely upon run-off. If that dam had been built in 1912, the first year they started to measure the flow of the Souris River, those reservoirs would not have been full until 1948. That is how much water is in the Souris River. Various studies have shown that, if Mr. Devine's reservoirs are to fill up, he will need water from some other sources. Of course, the nearest source is thousands of acres of wetlands. He is going to drain that, with tremendous impact on the environment in that area, but that will not be enough, especially in dry years. The Government of Saskatchewan's own study shows that there is a 20 per cent chance of not having a sufficient amount of water in the reservoir.
One cannot go ahead with a project of over $1 billion with that high a percentage of chance that there will not be enough water. Of course, they are now actively studying taking water from the Qu'Appelle River and the Qu'Appelle Basin in the heart of my riding. There is not enough water in the Qu'Appelle River and the Qu'Appelle Basin. I could take you there, Mr. Speaker, and show you that the level of the water in the river and in those lakes has dropped.
If the plumbing is in and the Qu'Appelle Basin is going to be connected to the Souris, when it comes time to determine if water is going to be taken out of the Qu'Appelle Basin, and there is over $1 billion invested in a power project, one knows darn well they will be taking water out of the Qu'Appelle rivers and lakes.
There are studies undertaken by the federal Government and the provincial Government that will also divert water from the South Saskatchewan River Basin via Diefenbaker Lake into the Qu'Appelle chain down into the Souris River.
While the Government talks about being opposed to the inter-basin transfer of water, it is actually involved in studying that in order to allow Mr. Devine his political rewards by building a power project and the accompanying dams that have no economic justification, that are environmentally damaging, and the only reason is pure and simple pork-barrel politics. The Government and the Minister of the Environment have knuckled under to the political blackmail committed by the thugs in the provincial Government in Saskatchewan, and it is disgraceful. For government Members to rise in the House and assure us how virtuous the Government is in terms of water policy 1 call hypocritical.
The other aspect that is most disturbing is that when water is diverted and the connections are done between the Souris River, the Qu'Appelle River, and the South Saskatchewan River, the plumbing will be in place to divert water to the United States. By treaty we are committed to sending 50 per cent of the historic level of what flows through the Souris down into North Dakota. That means that in a dry year like this year North Dakota will be assured of a steady supply of water. No wonder the Americans are going to give $40 million to the Saskatchewan Government to help with that dam project.


Mr. Gustafson:: For flood control.


Simon Leendert de Jong: North Dakota first wanted to build this dam for flood control purposes, but they were not allowed to do so because of the environmental damage that the dam would have created. Canada, like any good Third World country will now have to suffer the environmental damage that the Americans would not allow on American soil. That is how subservient we are to the Americans under the present Government and the likes of the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Grant Devine.
The motion of my colleague is indeed a very timely one. I urge the House to accept it. If such a motion had been passed, and if the Government had the political will to ensure that water from the South Saskatchewan River and from the Qu'Appelle River would not flow into North Dakota, we would not need this. But the Government does not have the political will.
On one occasion I rose in the House and asked the Minister to give his assurance that water from the South Saskatchewan and the Qu'Appelle Rivers would not flow into North Dakota under the proposals that are being considered by the Government of Saskatchewan. He could not give us that assurance. In fact, he refused to give us that assurance. The only interpretation one can take from this is that the Government is actively considering diverting water from these basins, moving it into the Souris Basin which eventually will flow into North Dakota.
June 21, 1988

Water is the most precious resource of southern Saskatchewan. Government studies have shown that as the greenhouse effect becomes more of a reality, southern Saskatchewan faces the danger of becoming a desert. We must conserve and husband our water resources as best we can. The proposed reservoirs will mean that in an ordinary year there will be a 30 per cent evaporation rate of water. In a dry year like this year 60 to 70 per cent of the water in those reservoirs will evaporate over the summer period. That we maintain, is a wasteful use of a very scarce resource. Therefore, we call upon the Government to use its powers under the International Water Boundaries Agreement and to prevent this project from occurring.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: There are two minutes left. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has the floor.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have no longer than two minutes, but in those two minutes I would like to make a few points. First, I would like to support strongly the recommendation of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) that the Government enact legislation to prohibit the large scale export of water from Canada. I would suggest that the Government return to the legislation that was brought to the House by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), Bill C-257, which would have given Parliament power over water exports and the diversion policy.
The problem is that the issue is totally unclear. The Minister has said that water is not in the trade agreement. Others have said that it is in the trade agreement. I believe that the Minister is wrong and that it is well hidden in the tariff schedules, like hundreds of other commercial goods.
I would ask the Government to take into consideration very seriously Section 22.01 which indicates that waters include natural or artificial mineral waters, aerated waters not containing added sugar or other sweeteners, not flavoured, and then ice and snow are added. If ice and snow are not water, I would like to know what is. I would recommend that the Government take another look at Section 22.01 or else acknowledge that it did put water in the free trade agreement.
All the talk about water policy of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) is not in the form of legislation. I will conclude by drawing your attention to one last point, Mr. Speaker. Ontario wants and is proposing legislation that would protect its water supply. Under Section 8 of the free trade agreement, we have a problem.
I hope we will give serious consideration to these particular matters. They are very important to the well-being of Canada, not only in terms of decertification but in terms of cultural policy and the general well-being of Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 16661).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: When we debated the trade Bill previously, we had received an amendment from the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon). Mr. Langdon moved:
That the motion be amended by adding in line 9, immediately after the
comma the following:
"including our valued system of social and regional development programs,"
This amendment has been found to be acceptable from a legal standpoint. Are there any differing opinions? Then debate continues.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to take part in this historic debate. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) have made clear, this is much more than a debate about establishing a stronger, more secure trading relationship with the United States. This debate in fact is about building a stronger and more secure Canada, a Canada that is better able to meet the needs and fulfil the hopes of people in every part of the country in the 1990s and in the new century beyond.
I take particular pride in speaking in support of this legislation. It was three and a half years ago that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought forward on behalf of the Government a comprehensive agenda for renewal of the Canadian economy. At the heart of that agenda was the belief that Canadians must and would rise to the challenge of the increasingly competitive international environment in which we make our living.
This challenge was met by the Government, and we embarked on a wide-ranging series of actions to create a better economic framework for risk taking, for innovation and for hard work. Of course, this is what has always made the difference between economic success and failure, but we need a framework for that to happen, a framework in which Canadians have both the scope and the incentive to seize economic opportunities, to give their best to the creation of new growth, jobs and a higher standard of living.

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation]
That is why we acted to restore fiscal responsibility to the federal government; to reduce, through deregulation and privatization, the burden of government intervention; to foster a healthy and receptive climate for private sector investment; to make regional development more sensitive to local needs; and to establish a more effective policy for the promotion of science, technology and innovation.
To further improve the framework for growth and job creation, Mr. Speaker, we embarked on comprehensive tax reform to make the tax sustem fairer for individual Canadians and more effective in supporting productive economic activity.
The Bill we are debating today is another crucial plank in our program for economic renewal that will ensure Canadians the greatest possible scope for their economic efforts. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will open up Major new opportunities for Canadians to benefit from expanded and more secure access to the richest market in the world.
The key word, Mr. Speaker, is benefit.
I want to outline the economic benefits that this bill opens up for Canadians in every part of the country.

The extent of these benefits is large. One of the most important benefits of the free trade agreement is lower prices and more choice for Canadian consumers. Our Department of Finance study estimated that the effect of the agreement will be to reduce over-all consumer prices in Canada by about 1 per cent by 1993, and these lower prices will in turn boost real personal disposal income and increase consumer spending.
As a result of lower prices and increasing wages, we are projecting a 2 per cent increase in consumer spending by 1993 over and above what would otherwise occur. Once all bilateral tariffs have been fully eliminated, the cost of consumer goods imported from the United States will be reduced by about 5 per cent on average. Business will gain from these lower prices and intermediate goods imported from the U.S that go into their production will also gain. Consumers in turn will benefit from lower prices on these goods. We hear a great deal about the other parts of the free trade agreement. Let us not forget that it means lower prices for consumers right across Canada.
As Canadian firms restructure and retool their factories to take advantage of new opportunities which will be brought to them through free trade, because we will secure strong access to the American market, business investment in plant and equipment is projected to rise by more than 4 per cent in real terms by 1993. Of course, that means economic activity, greater wealth and increased opportunities for employment.
The favourable impact of free trade on real personal incomes as well as on profits and consumer spending will translate into faster growth and job creation. As the Minister of State for Finance, that is a part of my responsibility, and free trade is part of promoting that. We estimate that 120,000
net new jobs will be created by 1993, the fifth year of the implementation of the agreement.
Just as important as the creation of new jobs is the fact that the thousands of existing jobs will be protected as a result of this agreement. These are jobs that would otherwise be jeopardized by increases in U.S. protectionism. This is too often forgotten. Not only will more jobs be created, but one of the greatest reasons for locking in a trading arrangement like this with the United States is to lock in access to the American market, and that will protect Canadian jobs.
In fact, the figures on job creation understate the over-all gains to be made. They are conservative in comparison to other reported estimates. There are many unquantifiable benefits as well that will further enhance the job gains to be made as Canadians take advantage of new economic opportunities that will be created.
Thinking of my own city, General Motors Diesel, for example, will be closing its locomotive plant in Illinois and expanding production in London. It could not do this if it were not able to move those locomotives back across the border into the United States with no tariffs and with less secure access. Another example is 3M which is also located in London. It has some facilities in Iowa that it is thinking of closing down and moving to Perth and London because they are closer to the over-all heart of the North American market.
Southwestern Ontario is one-day's truck drive from 62 per cent of U.S. payroll. We are beautifully situated in Canada to take advantage of new opportunities in the American market. We cannot quantify all of these opportunities, but they are there over and above the basic projections of the Department of Finance, and they also will, I think, increase further because of reduced production costs due to the rationalization that will occur. As a matter of fact, the third volume of the Macdonald Royal Commission points out that rationalization has already taken place in our economy just waiting to take advantage of free trade.
Some of this was put together before free trade in order to deal with the European and Japanese competition. It is in place. It wants free trade in order to be fully effective.
Lower prices for intermediate goods will make Canadian industries much more competitive as well, and let us not forget that. That, too, will create jobs not only in Canada and in the U.S. but in overseas markets as well. With a greatly enlarged market for Canadian goods, production in Canada could expand by almost 3.5 per cent by the time the agreement is fully implemented.
Among our industrial sectors, the favourable impact will naturally be largest for manufacturing. It used to be that that sector that was the weakest in Canada. It is here under free trade that there will be the best opportunities to take advantage of the economies of scale, and by the time the agreement
June 21, 1988

is fully implemented, Canada's manufacturing output should grow by about 11 per cent, according to the Department of Finance study's conservative projection. Even Canada's more highly protected industries can gain from the progressive elimination of tariffs.
It is quite right to stop and look at our industries that are sheltered behind high tariffs. What is going to happen to them? Well, these industries will gain because these are the same industries that tend to be highly protected on the other side of the border.
Petrochemicals are a very, very good example. Six of the 10 most protected industries in each country are common to both, and the remainder are in similar industrial categories. For many industries, tariff reductions will leave their relative competitive positions largely unaffected, but I would predict that huge American tariffs against our petrochemical exports are going to be removed in five years. In 10 years, this is going to be a bonanza for the petrochemical valley of the Sarnia area.
Our study shows that real income would rise by about 2.5 per cent once the economy is fully adapted to the free trade agreement, and this represents a permanent increase in real income of $12 billion in today's dollars. This is equivalent to a permanent real income gain of about $1,800 for a Canadian household of four, and this is not a one-time gain. This will be there year after year after year. That is what it means to the average Canadian household.
The free trade agreement is good in these macro economic senses, but it is also good for the different regions and provinces of Canada. The Atlantic region with its smaller manufacturing sectors will gain substantially because of the lower prices of manufactured goods purchased from other regions of Canada as well as the U.S. The FTA will also give greater scope for the further processing of resources. The fishery, food processing and resource-based industries, in particular, stand to benefit considerably. Now the Americans are quite happy to take the raw fish. Removing their tariffs on processed fish will allow us to do that processing. Trade liberalization will not only protect these industries and protect these jobs, but it will open the door to new opportunities and further expansion. That is the basic message.

Ontario and Quebec will gain through the increased and more secure access to the large U.S. market which will create more opportunities for investment and will allow their industries to reap the benefits of specialization and large scale production.

The energy agreement creates exciting new opportunities for western development. We know how keen westerners are on oil, natural gas, uranium and hydro electricity. Enhanced and more secure access to U.S. markets will allow the prairie
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
provinces finally to really secure their export opportunities in the U.S. and to enhance them.
Further benefits will be gained as well through diversified growth of agricultural exports on the prairie provinces, and in a similar fashion the economy of British Columbia will benefit from increased opportunities. Tariff reductions will make mineral exports more competitive in the U.S. market. These reductions will increase the scope for further processing of minerals and other resource-based products.
Free trade will lead to more processing. That is also something that all Canadians have been hoping for. There is a great deal of appreciation, therefore, in all parts of the country of the benefits of the agreement, but there have also been misconceptions that the agreement is somehow not good for Ontario. I want to take just a moment to deal with this issue.
Ontario enjoys the advantages offered by quite a diverse economy. It has a strong manufacturing sector and a strong industrial sector in addition to well developed farming and natural resource sectors. It has a very balanced economy as a whole. "Booming" is the adjective that is used most often to describe Ontario's economy. A good part of the reason for this boom is the fact that Ontario has highly developed trade relations with the United States. We cannot deny that Ontario has deep relationships with the United States in terms of trade, and that has helped to produce this boom.
In recent years, all of this has had a cloud over it because of the threat of protectionism. Ontario has already experienced first-hand the pinch of U.S. protectionism, for example, in steel products. Protectionism results in lost jobs, weakened competitive abilities, higher prices and restricted growth. No Ontarian, no Canadian, no political leader regardless of political Party can remain indifferent to the threat of U.S. protectionism, least of all Ontario. Securing access to the U.S. markets and removing all tariffs between the two countries by 1998 augurs very well for many sectors of Ontario economy and particularly for the development of an even stronger, more competitive manufacturing sector.
I want to underline in this regard that the Auto Pact will be made stronger by the free trade agreement. If there is a spine that runs through the Ontario economy, it is the Auto Pact. With the conclusion of this agreement, auto workers, auto parts suppliers, automobile companies and consumers in both countries will benefit greatly from the liberalization of trade in this sector.
Since its inception 22 years ago, the Auto Pact has been subject to review and cancellation upon one year's notice. We cannot forget this. The Auto Pact will not be there forever. It can be cancelled in one year. By wrapping the free trade agreement around the Auto Pact, it has been preserved. It cannot be cancelled now without cancelling the FTA itself. Indeed, the agreement will expand free trade to include new sectors in the industry, replacement parts and tires.

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Resource-Dependent Northern Ontario in particular has not always been able to share fully in the overall health of the Ontario economy. The reduction of tariffs, particularly of finished products, will help reverse that situation. It will expand export opportunities and provide increased scope for further processing in Canada of resource-based products.

Ontario farmers, whose output is the largest of all the provinces, will benefit by more secure access to U.S. markets. At the same time, the interests of the dairy, poultry, fresh fruit and vegetable producers have been safeguarded in this agreement and many more sectors stand to benefit as new opportunities arise to do business in the largest and richest market in the world, and that means new growth and new jobs.
We have also worked out something very interesting for all provinces, but especially for Ontario, a new code to cover trade in services, the first international agreement to accomplish this. At present, Canada's service industries employ 70 per cent of our labour force and are concentrated in Ontario. We know that the province is particularly strong in telecommunications, engineering, computer services, management consulting, insurance, and banking.
This is very important. When we think of trade we think of trucks filled with goods being taken across the border, but trade is also people with briefcases and training who can give advice, repair a product, or set it up. That will also be part of a new code for freer trade under this agreement. Much of Canada's future employment opportunities will spring from this service sector. Ensuring free trade in services will be crucial in providing further opportunities for people in all parts of the country.
Finally, I want to underline the fundamental importance of investment for the future of the Canadian economy. With or without the free trade agreement, Canadian business and industry can be competitive with the best in the world only by upgrading its capacity to produce high quality goods and services at an attractive price.
The key to improving that capacity is investment. The free trade agreement provides a powerful incentive for that. Many of the benefits which will flow from this free trade Bill are implicit in its provision. However, let us be clear that it is the response of Canadians to new opportunities that will determine just how successful this agreement will be. It is equally clear from the overwhelmingly positive response of Canadian business people that they are more than ready to meet the challenge.
Some opposition Members have made clear that they do not share the Government's confidence in this. They have not listened to the millions of confident Canadians who believe in their own ability to make the most of their opportunities. To
those Members I say, look more closely at what Canadians have accomplished in the past three and a half years.


Ms. McDonald:: You're selling out the country.


Thomas Hockin: Don't say we're selling out the country, look at what we have accomplished in response to the new approach that the Government has brought to economic policy. Look more closely at the competitive reality of the world we live in. Stop pretending that Canada can hide from that reality and still maintain the high standard of living and of public services which Canadians have come to expect.
Members opposite should stop dwelling on our weaknesses and insecurity of the past. They should start building on the strength and the confidence which will ensure Canada's economic future. They can begin that process by supporting this Bill.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, not the weakness and our insecurity about which we are concerned but the immense weakness and insecurity within this trade deal as far as the future of a country is concerned.
I would like to ask a set of questions of the Minister which tie together. The first is a fairly crucial question. The finance study suggested that there will be 120,000 new jobs after five years. That finance study was carried out at a time when the Canadian currency was significantly lower than it is now. I would be interested to know what the change in the job impact would be at the present value of our currency which, I believe, is up by about 7 cents.
I would also be interested in the Minister's comments on the latest business lobby which descended on Washington led by one Robert Beeby, the President of Pepsi Cola International who, among other things, said the agreement is almost ideal. He dismissed critics who say that Canada and the United States are creating a regional trading block. He said, "That's what it is, let's not hide behind it". He went on to say:
I think ultimately we're probably going to have a linkage of the currencies.
If we sign this treaty, you know this just has to be, doesn't it.
That linkage of currencies would very rapidly wipe out, in the very model which the Minister is using from the Finance Department, any of the benefits about which he was talking.
The last point I want to raise with the Minister is his incredible statement that the Auto Pact has been made stronger. He says that the Auto Pact, which was subject to a one-year cancellation, is now stronger because it is part of an agreement which is subject to a six-month cancellation. That is an interesting leap in logic, especially since there have been changes in the way in which the Auto Pact can be put into effect from our side which prevent us from putting the Asian and European car producers, who get a significant market share in this country, into the Auto Pact itself.
If they were part of the Auto Pact they would have to meet 60 per cent Canadian content. That would be 60 per cent Canadian jobs, parts producers, contracts, and so forth here in
June 21, 1988

Canada. That is not something that is permitted any longer. It is a significant weakening of the Auto Pact along with the reduction of the tariff penalties which formerly supported the Pact.
I am especially surprised to hear the Minister say that, because he was chairperson of a committee which said in 1985 that the Auto Pact should not be touched. Yet the Auto Pact was very significantly changed. I would ask the Minister to explain that contradiction as well.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to my hon. friend's question. He asks probing and serious questions which deserve a serious and extensive set of answers.
First, with regard to the currency, the study done by the Department of Finance pivoted, I believe-although I will have to get this verified-around an 80 or 85 cent dollar. He is asking what would happen to our competitiveness with the United States if the Canadian dollar went up higher. If he is suggesting that we should have a 50, 60, or 70 cent dollar secured forever, he will find very little support in Windsor or elsewhere for such a proposal.
In the first quarter of this fiscal year investment in Canada has been at record breaking heights. It was up by 17 per cent on an annualized basis in the first quarter. That is because of the great confidence people have in the Canadian economy. That means as well that we are importing more. As a matter of fact, our imports were up by 1.3 per cent over the first quarter of the previous year as compared with exports in which there was more than a 3 per cent increase over the first quarter of the previous year.
That has happened because there is so much confidence in our economy and our export performance is so strong that our dollar is strengthening. If free trade is a great success for Canada, the dollar will continue, little by little, to strengthen. This will, of course, be in relationship to the rest of the world. As we strengthen in relation to the rest of the world we can do what the Hon. Member has often told me we should do, that is, export outside of North America and be competitive against the rest of the world. Therefore, the strengthened Canadian currency is a result of confidence in the Canadian economy and nothing else.
The Member tied regional trading blocks to the issue of currency. He tried to create a scare by saying that we are trying to create a regional trading block which will eventually lead to a fixed currency vis-a-vis the United States. That is a hypothesis so remote that it really does not deserve an answer. First, we are not a market. We are not even negotiating a common market. The Hon. Member knows that the Common Market allows the free flow of labour and other elements of production besides goods and services. We are not negotiating that, and they do not even have fixed currencies among them. We are three or four steps from that.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Hon. Member refers to the Americans. One moment they will believe the Canadian dollar is too low and the next they will say that it is too high. The Hon. Member may quote the President of Coca-Cola but he could quote someone else with a different view another month. They change, depending on the predicament they are facing. They do not want a Canadian dollar pegged to the American dollar. The Hon. Member could find just as many Americans, if not more, giving the opposite advice from what the Hon. Member just quoted.
The Hon. Member asked about Auto Pact cancellation. I listened carefully to him because he is from Windsor and has an interest in the Auto Pact. I noticed that he did not criticize too much what we have negotiated. He was somewhat worried about the rules of origin, but he did not mention that the rules of origin regulation will be on a stricter basis which, in fact, increases the amount of North American content.
It is also very interesting to note that he said the free trade agreement can be cancelled with six months' notice and therefore the Auto Pact is less safe than it was. He is admitting that the Auto Pact could be cancelled with one year's notice. The free trade agreement, which the Hon. Member has said will develop long-term structural relationships in this economy, will be very hard to change. That is what gives it much more permanence than six months. The Auto Pact is as secure as one could want, with its being included in the free trade agreement.
The Hon. Member asks about the Auto Pact in general. There is no doubt that this agreement improves upon the Auto Pact. We stated in the special joint committee report that we do not want the Auto Pact weakened. It is strengthened. I do not believe the Hon. Member is against strengthening the Auto Pact, which is what we have done.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what we heard in both official languages was a sophomoric, mellifluous 20-minute adoration of what the dollar stands for and how values relate to the dollar. During his speech the Minister carefully avoided saying how this trade deal will affect Canadian wine producers, how it will affect shoe and textile workers, and how it will affect the computer industry. More important, the Minister failed to address the basic issues that have been put on the table in discussing the trade deal itself.
It seems to me that the trade deal is a test of credibility of politicians in the first place. The House will recall the statements made in 1983 by two important political figures then and, even more important, now. They were the Leader of the Official Opposition and the finance critic at that time, both of whom took a position that has been widely quoted here and in other places in opposition to any trade deal with the United States. Therefore, this very debate includes a test of the credibility of politicians who take a stand in the opposition and

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
reverse it 180 degrees when in power. What does that do to public opinion about our action? It certainly has an impact.
Second, the debate on the trade deal is one on values we hold dear as a society and as Canadians. On the one hand there is the mind set that only understands the dollar sign, as demonstrated this afternoon by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) in his speech. Nothing else counts except economic performance. That is the philosophical position that he and members of his Cabinet adhere to and which they have embraced in advancing this Bill.
The other side of the debate in dealing with Bill C-130 is not a question of the economy but a question of sovereignty. It is whether Canadians would hold more dear the notion of the dollar value or the value of sovereignty. That will be the test when we judge the very essence of this measure in the next election. The sooner there is an opportunity to do so by way of an election, the better. It is absolutely essential that this matter be debated and voted upon by Canadians during the next election, in light of the lack of credibility in statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), when they were in opposition.
Third, this debate on free trade puts before Canada a fundamental choice: The choice between going the route of continentalism as a nation, which has been rejected on a number of occasions in the last decades, or taking the multilateral trade path that allows us the advantages of trade through the GATT system with all nations of the globe.
Fourth, the debate on this Bill reveals the ineptness and incompetence on the environmental front of both the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Government as a whole. This was demonstrated first by the complete silence of Environment Canada on the trade deal. It is one of the few Departments that has not produced any literature or document in support of the trade deal, and that should say quite a lot. Second, while the Minister of the Environment endorses the world commission report on environment and development, which is an environmental and economic report, while he endorses the National Task Force on the Environment and the Economy, he says that trade and the environment are not related and therefore has no comment to make about the trade deal with the United States.
Fifth, the debate on trade is one that exposes a massive energy sell-out on the part of the Government of Canada.


Thomas Hockin: Nonsense!


Mr. Caccia:: The Minister says nonsense. I will put questions on the record and I will be very interested to hear his answers.
Sixth, and particularly important, it is a deal generating resistance by an increasing number of Canadians. That is mainly caused by the fact there are going to be losses in jobs because there will be, in the long term, a dismantling of our political powers and the uncertainty this trade deal is bringing about on the security of our social policies and programs. If we
put together the basic elements that have to do with this trade deal, we can understand why the speeches of the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) are so disappointing and why 20 minutes is not enough to deal with this subject.
In the limited time available I will have to concentrate on the environment. It was in January, 1986 that the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council raised some questions with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). The trade deal was just in its infancy at that time. It made some seven points, and I will briefly put them on record because they are interesting. These issues were raised, but they were never dealt with by the Government.
First, the council said there is an obligation for public consultation, input and education on the environmental implications of freer trade and the negotiations on which actions should be taken. What was done with that recommendation? Nothing. The council went on to say that there are no readily available comparative data on environmental standards and regulations in Canada and the United States and on the levels of implementation. It said that there is a need for comparative data on other environmental management programs, and urged that these be developed and established. This recommendation went by unnoticed.
Third, the council said that Canada should benefit from the experience of other nations in relation to the environmental implications of freer trade by reviewing the experience in other relevant areas such as the European Economic Community. Nothing happened on that.
Fourth, an expanded set of environmental principles was suggested by the council, which could be accepted and used as a guide by the negotiating teams during bilateral and multilateral negotiations. That recommendation went unheeded.
Fifth, the council said that to ensure that Canada's essential environmental concerns are protected, the Canadian negotiating team should be provided with a list of environmental non-negotiables. That was an eminently good suggestion which was not dealt with. It would have removed a number of anxieties and uncertainties that still exist here in this Chamber today. While the Government found it necessary to exempt beer, unprocessed fish and lumber, it did not include water in the exemptions. That is why we have this enormous question mark with respect to water. Why was water not included in the exemptions? I see the Minister walking out of the Chamber. Evidently, he has had enough.
This recommendation was made in January, 1986, not just a few months ago. Yet nothing happened. Nothing was acted upon. Finally, in view of the major role played by provincial Governments in renewable resources, which is a recognition of the constitutional reality of our country, environmental management and the commitment to provincial consultation, the council suggested that consideration should be given to


June 21, 1988

discussions on the environmental implications of freer trade by the Canadian Council of Resource and Environmental Ministers. Unfortunately, and it is highly regrettable, all the suggestions contained in the report by the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, which is now two and a half years old, went by unnoticed. No attention was paid to it.
What happens then? We examine the document which is now the object of our debate and we find, for instance, a chapter on pesticides. In that reference to pesticides in the trade deal, the word "harmonization" pops up several times. It is given an important position because there has to be eventually a coming together of regulations and standards. But the word "harmonization" is loose and floating in the air because no one knows how to interpret it. What does "harmonization of pesticides" mean? Will it mean the adoption of your rules and regulations, Mr. Speaker, or will it mean mine?
I am inclined to agree with the view expressed by the Canadian Environmental Law Association in Toronto. In its issue of November-December it states, on the question of harmonization of standards, that, given the greater size and power of the United States Government and industry lobbyists, the standards to be set are more likely to serve American interests than Canadian. The negotiation of the deal, with no consideration of the environmental impacts, can give us no confidence in our Canadian negotiators' ability to hang tough in the face of any future American pressures to reduce our standards where they are higher. Nor should we rely on them to institute new standards to protect our particular environment. Further, who will decide and on what criteria which U.S. goods meet the objectives of Canadian environmental standards?
These questions could have been dealt with and answered in a satisfactory manner, I submit, if the report of the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council had been heeded and implemented at the time it was put to the Minister over two years ago.
Also with respect to the environment, we asked at the time of Estimates a number of questions of the officials from the Department. Unfortunately, it turned out that they were given no leadership by the Minister. They were left alone to decide whether or not and to what extent there will be environmental impacts as a result of the trade deal. Therefore, the net consequence of that lack of leadership has been the fact that Environment Canada has not carried out one study, not even an internal study, to determine what will be the net effect of the trade deal on our natural resources, on our environmental standards, on our assessment procedures and on the pollution control measures that at the present time exist in Canada and which could come under pressure once the agreement becomes law.
The situation is so bad that in the January-February issue of the Network News by the Ontario Environmental Network publication, I find the following subtitle: "We are to become the suppliers of the raw materials which Americans need,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
having depleted many of their own resources". This is a commentary, of course, on the implications of the sharing of natural resources, which may be criticized, perhaps, but nevertheless is the result of the darkness in which Canadians have been left over time on questions of such importance, particularly those who are keen and active in the field of the environment.
Time forces me to move on and deal specifically with the question of energy. I was really hoping the Minister of State for Finance would still be here. He denied that under this trade deal we would be entering North American energy markets in which we will be giving away our natural resources in such an unheard of manner. I am quoting from a publication that came out of Edmonton published by the Council of Canadians on February 11, 1988. I am glad that there is a Member from the West on the government side listening to this. It put forward some of the basic questions which deserve to be put on the record, such as the following.
"What a foolish strategy to abandon our ability to attract new jobs and new investment through new petrochemical plants, fertilizer plants, chemical plants, and the attracting of new energy-intensive industry. All other countries in the world use their energy for a comparative advantage to attract new business and create new jobs and to diversify their economies".
"How ridiculous to say that we are now going to continue to sell energy below replacement cost. How absurd to agree to supply non-Canadians even if Canadians run short. How nonsensical to weaken our tests for Canadian long-range energy needs. How preposterous to abandon the aspirations for establishing a self-reliant trade policy. How utterly irresponsible to say that our elected Government can no longer charge fees to produce higher revenue for export of energy. How ridiculous to sign an agreement to guarantee the pro rata export of hundreds of thousands of barrels of fine quality, accessible, low-cost Alberta crude, and accept a firm limit of 50,000 barrels a day of unusable Alaska sludge in return".
"How foolish to abandon energy pricing as a means of aiding regional development in Canada, or to abandon the ability to have a two-price energy policy, one for domestic consumers and another for export. How nonsensical to bargain away the control of our natural resources in return to access to a market that will soon be pleading for more Canadian energy".
That is quite a list of relevant questions that the Government has not even started to address in this debate. I am looking forward to hearing from the western Conservative Members in tackling that position.
It is therefore no wonder that at this stage there are Canadians who are developing a resistance to this trade deal, a group of concerned Canadians which consists of people such as retired public servant Ed Gallant; George Ignatieff, the former Ambassador to the UN and Chancellor of the University of

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Toronto; John Halstead, a career diplomat who served as our Ambassador to West Germany and NATO; Roger Guindon, a former director of Ottawa University; Yves Dube, former Dean of Social Science at Laval; Louis Blanchard, Director of the University of Moncton; Wallace McCain of McCain Foods, Farley Mowatt; and Mel Clark. These people are now developing opposition to the proposed trade deal because they see the destructive effect it will have on Canada's future as an independent nation.
What we are debating here is not a trade deal. We are here debating whether or not Canada should become integrated in North America and become part of a North American continental policy at the expense of the alternative that we have advanced in our Party, namely, a global approach, an approach that would enhance our capacity to reach out globally and not just within one continent.
Of course, to do that we need a national economic strategy, something which I am sure my colleagues in the course of debate will advance, flesh out and thus demonstrate that there is an alternative for Canada. The one that is being proposed by the present Government is not the road to go, namely, to withdraw behind the walls of fortress North America and abandon the rest of the globe, creating the impression that in North America alone lies our future. We are already sufficiently dependent on trade with the United States. If anything, we should find ways of expanding our interests and putting our eggs in many more baskets. We should ensure first and foremost that we do not abandon our capacity to define and determine our economic and political destiny.
This Bill is infringing upon the future of our capacity to make decisions that affect our independence and our ability to determine our future as a nation. In that sense, we would be committing a very serious mistake by adopting it.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot let my friend get away with some of those comments, which were really quite outrageous. He knows better in his own mind. He surely remembers that the Depression of the 1930s was not really brought on by the climatic disaster we faced in the West. It was brought on when the United States Congress put tariffs up by over 40 per cent. Every other country in the world had to respond. Everyone was impoverished. In this country there were tens of thousands of young men and women who travelled back and forth across the country because they could not get a job. Why could they not get a job? Because no one could afford to purchase products. In 1935, Canada and the United States signed the agreement that started to reduce those tariffs. Jobs started to be created. The war came along. After the war we got into GATT.
The tariffs have moved from over 40 per cent down to something in the order of 9 per cent, which is now the average Canadian tariff. Every time we reduced those tariffs, more Canadians went to work.
The magic of trade between nations is that the wealth of everyone rises. It is during that reduction of those tariffs that we have generated enough wealth in the country that this Parliament could make independent sovereign decisions to bring in medicare, family allowances, social welfare programs and all sorts of regional development programs. The wealth of every Canadian has increased as a result of that.
The reality is that the U.S. Congress is becoming more and more protectionist. Everyone acknowledges that. If it drives those tariffs up again, we will lose jobs. It is one thing to say that we might go into a global situation, and I would like my friend to comment on that, but the fact of the matter is that the world is coming increasingly under trading blocs, pursuant to GATT. It is legal under GATT for two or more nations to get into a free trade agreement. Seventy-one nations in the world have got into free trade agreements. Not one has ever backed out of a free trade agreement. In every instance the smaller nation has benefited more than the greater one.


Lynn McDonald: They were not energy giveaways.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Indeed with respect to Europe, and my friend is intimately aware of this, not only is there a free trade agreement, there is a customs union and a common market, which by 1992 will have 320 million people locked into a trading arrangement. Yet would anyone say that an Italian is any less Italian? That is just ludicrous. We are Canadian because we have a unique history in terms of our Constitution, our politics and our religion. We have a school system that is different. We have bilingualism and multiculturalism.


Lynn McDonald: And they are all threatened.


Blaine Allen Thacker: All of these things will keep us Canadian.
There is nothing in the free trade agreement that stops Parliament from imposing taxes on our own people to do what we want to do that is uniquely Canadian. There is nothing in the free trade agreement that stops us from increasing taxes on ourselves. If we want to pay more to be able to tax money into the centre in order to fund a health care system, then we are entitled to do that, in the same way the Americans are free to leave the taxes in the hands of their people and to pay it directly. We happen to think that we are better.
I have one comment to make. In the environment field I want to assure my friend that Canada's ability to introduce environmental standards has not been affected by the FT A. There is no requirement in the FTA to harmonize environmental standards. The introduction of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which strengthens provisions for safeguarding the environment against toxic substances, is concrete proof that the federal Government is committed to taking whatever measures are required to protect the environment. Canadian standards are equal or higher than those of the Americans, and there is nothing in the FTA that will drive that down.
I will not go on because I do not want to abuse my privilege to comment. However, I could get into the energy sector and
June 21, 1988

show my friend how it was that his Party, which destroyed tens of thousands of jobs in western Canada as a result of an ill-conceived national energy policy, was not prepared to put on its own people in Ontario and Quebec in terms of electricity. Nor was he ever prepared to sell an automobile for one cent less than world price to us in the West? Yet he expected westerners to sell energy to him and his people for less than world price. We will never forget that, and we will never forgive.
MO)


Charles L. Caccia: The Hon. Member states that there is no requirement to harmonize under the so-called free trade agreement. I must object to that statement which is incorrect and misleading. I am sure that the Hon. Member did not do it on purpose. Under the schedule for pesticides, Schedule 7, the word "harmonize" is used in the text of that schedule more than five times. By virtue of the presence of the word "harmonize", therefore, there is a reference to a requirement to harmonize. Evidently the Hon. Member has not read that section of the agreement.
Second, the question is one of profound difference as to what type of trade policies we want to have. On this side of the House we believe in diversifying our markets, not in retreating behind the four walls of continentalism. That is the difference between the Hon. Member and myself.
He started very well by making a strong case for GATT in his historical review as to what happened after the thirties, and we fully agree on that. GATT has been good for Canada. Why abandon GATT at this stage? Why not maintain our policy of diversification on markets? Does the Hon. Member realize that between 1984 when his Government came to power, and now, we have lost trade opportunities, and we have lost millions of dollars in exports to the Pacific Rim? Our exports have gone down because of our obsession with the U.S. market.
Does the Hon. Member realize that we have been retreating on almost every continent since 1984, because we abandoned the diversification policy of Canadian exports to concentrate only on the North American continent? That is where we differ. The Hon. Member has a profound belief that we should wallow in the comfort of a market in North America which, by indication of the basic statistics, is already on the decline. This is a retreat from the global scene. Instead, we should be taking a completely different tack. Instead of retreating within North America, we should be expanding and intensifying our efforts on all continents, and develop a policy of trade expansions and marketing policies all over the world. We are not. We have been retreating since 1984. We have been losing foreign markets. That is the reality.
If the Hon. Member denies that fact, then I would urge him to look at the statistics from Statistics Canada, which cannot be accused of being a figment of the imagination of the Opposition, and verify for himself what has happened in the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
last four years to Canadian exports. That is the result of the retreat and the mind set of the Government of today which believes that the future of Canada lies within North America, at the expense of the other opportunities that are waiting for us on other continents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) to ask a question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East on a question or comment.


William Lesick: I was listening with keen interest to the dissertation of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and the twisting of the ideals of free trade. We are supposed to be retreating into continentalism, or within our continent. We are not. We are ensuring that we do not lose trade in order that hundreds and hundreds of wood workers in British Columbia do not lose their jobs. We are endeavouring to agree on free trade and assured trade with the Americans so that we can work together with the Americans. They are our greatest customer, despite our greatest efforts to trade with the European Economic Community, Japan, the Pacific Rim, and China. In China we are increasing our trade, but we are having difficulties because of the protectionism within the European Economic Community. In some areas we are trading less. We are working harder than ever to trade with them. But at the same time let us not be blind and let us not think negatively about our greatest trading partner, the wealthiest country in the world.
As a Government we would be doing a disservice to the people of Canada if we, through looking far away, forgot our neighbour, overlooked our neighbour, and did not appreciate the fact that it has the wealth, the desire, the ability, and the need for Canadian products. Whether those products are manufactured in central Canada, or whether they are national resources, natural gas, oil, gasoline, petrol products from the West, lumber from Alberta, British Columbia, and from the central provinces, the Americans want them. They are asking for them. Why should we turn away from that?
The Hon. Member talks of the environment. In the last four years we have done more for the environment together with the Americans in a positive manner. We have worked hard. In November, 1987, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was renewed. The federal Government of Canada, the Government of the United States, the New York State Government, and the Ontario Government signed an agreement toward resolving the problem of toxic chemicals in the Niagara River. Two months later the Government announced a series of Canada-U.S. bilateral measures to deal with the problems caused by the high level of the Great Lakes.
We are constantly working with our neighbours for the betterment of Canada, for the betterment of the United States,

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
for the betterment of all peoples here. It is important that we work together. We have and they need, therefore this trade is essential. The free trade agreement between the United States and Canada will solidify prosperity in Canada through increased trade.
Any country that trades is successful. Any country that trades becomes richer. We want to ensure the existence of this trade. That is why the Hon. Member knows, deep down, that without trading with the Americans, Canada will lose over one million jobs. I ask the Hon. Member, why does he not admit that free trade is better than what he is suggesting, global trade with people who cannot afford our products and who do not buy? This is where we trade. We want assured trade, and that is what this is all about.


Charles L. Caccia: It would take too long to deal with every item raised by the Hon. Member. Coming from Alberta, I wonder if the Hon. Member is not upset to learn from the text of the agreement that we are at the eve of signing an agreement guaranteeing the pro rata export of hundreds of thousands of barrels of fine quality, accessible, low-cost Alberta crude oil, and accept a firm limit of 50,000 barrels a day of unusable Alaska sludge in return. How does that grab him as an Alberta Member? Does that convince him that this is a great deal with the Americans?
Moving to the other point the Hon. Member made, does he not realize that the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has been with us for a number of years, long before the Government and his Party were elected to power? Does he have any historical sense of what has happened in this country in the last few decades? Does he really believe that it is in Canada's interest to retreat behind the four walls of the North American continent and to tell the rest of the world that we are just part of this North American region and eventually we will be swallowed up by the larger of the two partners? Is that the kind of vision the Hon. Member has for his children and his grandchildren?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the so-called free trade agreement, Bill C-130, is a debate about the future of our country. It is a debate as to whether we will continue as an independent and distinctive country with the powers and capacity to make the decisions we want to make to control our environment, natural resources, culture and social programs and to provide jobs for Canadians from coast to coast and stimulate development in regions that have high rates of unemployment. It is about our capacity to make our decisions ourselves.
In effect, Bill C-130 is a constitutional amendment that itself cannot be amended and that will change the course of our history for the rest of time. Yet it is not being debated as such, it is being disguised as simply a trading arrangement with our American partners.
Many church groups, unions, voluntary organizations, women's groups and environmentalists have protested this trade deal. I simply want to refer to a statement made by one such group, the Anglican Church of Canada, incidentally my own church, which I think symbolizes very well what is at the core of what is wrong with this trade agreement. Four points were made in the Anglican Church's condemnation of the free trade agreement and its urging of federal reassessment of it.
Economic plans must not affect negatively the most vulnerable members of our Canadian society or of our global family.
Surely it is the most vulnerable who will be affected, the people in regions which are economically underdeveloped and the people who depend vitally on social programs.
Economic or social agreements should not be undertaken if they limit society's members from making future decisions on behalf of the common good.
We will be limited in the decisions that we can make in the future and certainly limited in the decisions we can make for the common good, because it will not be our society through our elective representatives who will make these decisions. It will be market forces and dispute settlement panels.
Economic agreements should not be undertaken which reduce our ability as a society to be good stewards of our environment and rich heritage of natural resources.
There are serious environmental implications in the agreement. Natural resources including non-renewable resources will be treated as ordinary commodities, as widgets to be traded across our borders. They will not be regarded as part of our heritage, part of the environment that must be protected and over which future generations have a very reasonable and just claim.
Finally,
ordinary citizens must be allowed an opportunity to understand what is at stake and to take part in a meaningful way in decisions of major importance.
That too is one of the aspects of the betrayal in this trade deal. Ordinary Canadians have not had the opportunity to understand this. Even the Premiers were deceived about vital aspects of the so-called trade arrangement.
People have not had a chance to go over the agreement. It is complicated. It requires books and books and appendices and appendices. The Government of Canada has not dealt squarely with Canadians. It has hidden the deal by calling it one that is merely about trade. It turned out to be not just about trade in goods but also in energy, investment, culture, services and social programs.
It is about how the federal and provincial Governments will or will not get along together, because in future, if the trade deal goes through, it will be the federal Government that will be bossing the provinces and municipalities and enforcing the trade agreement on behalf of the United States, the other party to the agreement. The federal Government will be forcing compliance on the provincial, municipal and territorial Governments. Indeed, if there is ever Indian self-government, Indians too will be affected because all these rights are given away in this shameless deal called the free trade agreement.
June 21, 1988

One of the worst parts of this deal is the part dealing with energy. That is one of the surprises in the deal. People did not know that continental energy would be part of the arrangement. It was supposed to be a deal involving manufactured goods and other ordinary subjects of trading arrangements that other countries have entered into. It was certainly not supposed to be about continental energy.
Even some of the advocates of the trade deal are worried about energy supply. The Ontario Natural Gas Association favours the trade deal because it can see that there will be opportunities to make money of it. We know that the owners and suppliers have interests which are very different from those of the consumers, just as the banks love service charges, but are they good for consumers? Money that can be made by selling non-renewable resources as a commodity is certainly to the advantage of the companies, but it is not to the advantage of consumers and it is certainly not to the advantage of young Canadians who will have to grow older in a very cold climate and in a country that needs its fuel resources very badly.
This advocate of the deal, the Ontario Natural Gas Association, nonetheless points out what the disadvantages of it are for Canadians. In effect, while the National Energy Board retains the authority to review export applications and to identify potential inequities or market anomalies, its ability to act appears to be severely limited. Once we start selling it, we will have to keep selling it. Proportionate reduction of this supply is permitted, but proportionate reduction is not quite as proportionate as one might think.
Canada now supplies approximately 5 per cent of the total natural gas consumption in the United States, whereas virtually the entire Canadian market is dependent on domestic supply. A 10 per cent reduction in natural gas supplies would affect fully 10 per cent of the Canadian market compared with only 0.6 per cent of the United States market in national terms. If we have to conserve our resources because of some kind of crisis, it would be only fair to cut back proportionately. It will not be fair, though. The cut-back for Canadians is very much greater than it is for Americans because they have other suppliers. We can hurt ourselves, but they will be largely untouched. It is a deal that is very much to their advantage but not to the advantage of Canadians.
In effect, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement creates a North American market for natural gas. The U.S. currently has a 10-year reserves-to-production ratio, while Canada has 30 years. If the United States has equal, unfettered access to Canadian supplies, the result is a combined 13-year ratio. We do not believe Canadians have yet realized that their natural gas supply security margin could overnight be more than cut in half, and this Government has not been square with Canadians and told them that.
The same could be said for conventional oil. I will not go into that example because there is not time, but that is a disaster too. Canadians do not know that the supply we have is
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
a very fragile one and it will not last or we will have to go very much farther afield to areas which are much more difficult to work in.
The association says that it does not believe that sufficient consideration has been given to the impact of a rapid increase in the number of long-term, large volume contractual arrangements. This is a very serious matter indeed. Potential shortfalls could occur by the close of this decade. Has the Government talked to Canadians fairly about that? Yet we are treating this as an unlimited supply of a resource that we want to give away cheaply.
Another aspect of betrayal that Canadians did not know was in the trade deal and had to find out by reading the fine print over a period of time had to do with water. Water is not supposed to be in the trade deal, we were told by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). He said, before the full text had been revealed: "The subject of water has never been negotiated in the free trade talks. The subject of water is not part of the free trade agreement, nor will it be". However, water is in the free trade agreement. Article 409 says that once you start to export a good you have to continue to export it. Anyone who begins to export will be obligated to continue.
The schedule to the trade agreement, Tariff Item 22.02, includes waters. The Minister responsible for International Trade tries to make a joke of it and make it sound as though we were only talking about soda water and fizzy pop. That is not so. We are talking about regular water; rivers, lakes, tankers full of water, water that we very badly need as well.
Once a mistake is made it cannot be unmade. One of the very bad parts of this deal is that it freezes those kinds of decisions. Instead of the situation of having a government which can be thrown out and replaced by another government which will change the policy, this decision will be permanent.
This is a subject about which I think our Liberal friends ought to be a little embarrassed because they have talked rather freely about the desirability of water exports and water in the trade deal. This is a subject absolutely vital to our environment. Yet there is no provision in the trade deal for protecting our water sources for purposes of protecting the environment. That is not allowed. It will be treated as any other ordinary commodity.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-130 is no ordinary Bill. It is an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. This amendment affects twenty-seven Acts of Parliament. It is an amendment that involves a reduction in powers at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. The federal Government, which is party to the agreement, will become the U.S. Administration's agency for implementing the agreement.
The Premier of Quebec favours the FTA. He says that his Government will make the requisite legislative amendments,

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and that the federal Government would not have to force him to do so. But what do we do tomorrow, about free trade and the present Quebec Government's policies? If these change, what do we do? The FTA constitutes a freeze on political change in this country. Once that choice is made, we can no longer make any changes. However, a government has no right to tie down future governments.
It is antidemocratic. People should have the right to replace a government and its policies with another government and other policies, something that would no longer be possible after the FTA is signed. The federal Government, supported by the Province of Quebec, will tie all future governments: federal, provincial and municipal. The issues involved are important and include energy, investment, culture, social programs and regional economic development. What if a Quebec government wants to launch a social program? What if it wants to promote economic development in a disadvantaged region? It would have to ask the federal Government to make new representations to the U.S. Administration. We would have to consider whether the proposed development constituted unfair subsidies under the terms of the agreement. This is against the level playing field principle. We would have to consider whether the measure constituted a monopoly prohibited under articles 2010 and 2011.
In that case, economic retaliatory measures by the United States are to be expected. Or the province may be ordered to compensate the U.S. companies involved for their loss of business, including any future losses. In any case, it won't be Quebec or Canada that will decide but the Canada-U.S. Trade Commission. Canada does not have a majority on this Commission, and Quebec would not be represented.
The sovereignty of Quebec is endangered along with Canadian sovereignty. Any government will lose the power to make decisions for its citizens. It would be a victory for the private sector and its values and a defeat for the people and the values of our society, especially social solidarity.
With the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec will again join the Canadian Constitutional family. How ironic! Quebec is joining the Constitution at the same time as the Constitution is being weakened by free trade. The men and women of Quebec must say no to this Agreement with the United States. We say yes to Meech Lake, yes to cooperation between the federal Government and Quebec and no to selling out our political sovereignty to the Americans!

This is profoundly a question of constitutional change. I think the Attorney General of Ontario put it very well in his analysis of the impact of the deal. He said:
What does this mean to federal-provincial relations within Canada? The agreement threatens our traditional system in part by inserting a third party, the United States, with the right to insist on legal solutions to problems of economic regulation, problems that Canadians have tended to settle among themselves without recourse to legal remedies ... The present agreement may effectively require that many provincial policies be approved by the United States before they are put in effect.
That is a shocking intrusion into the normal way in which we conduct ourselves in this country, the normal, co-operative arrangements with which we have achieved all of our social programs-sitting down, negotiating, and figuring out something which suits Canadians and Canadian conditions. I quote further:
The free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has an extensive impact on the power of the provinces to control their economy. This impact is not merely incidental or temporary but involves a systematic reduction of the freedom of Canadians to make policy.
As a consequence, the agreement effects a change of constitutional dimensions in federal-provincial relations in Canada, even though it does not touch the wording of the Constitution ... The ability of the United States to insist on legal rights where Ottawa and the provinces have often compromised and co-operated fundamentally alters the Canadian tradition.
That is what is so profoundly wrong with this agreement. It changes how we do things. It changes the Canadian way, the way of solidarity, the way of co-operation. We do not want the law of the jungle. We do not want legal remedies and market forces determining everything. We do not want American crime rates. We cannot have it both ways. If we want to have our kind of society, we have to pay the price, and we have done so with our social programs. You cannot have the law of the jungle and do it that way.
I am sorry to say that there have not yet been any Conservatives who have bolted from the caucus. There have not been any who remember the Canada of Sir John A. Macdonald, the Canada of using the state creatively to find solutions to our problems. That has not happened.
However, I appeal to Conservatives across the country who did not vote for this Government in order to give it a mandate to bring in free trade, to Conservatives who love their country, to realize that it must now be saved by throwing out the Government. The Government is not going to vote free trade down. It has the power and is using closure. It is going to get free trade through. Perhaps the Senate will slow the process down, but the Government, with no mandate to do so, nonetheless has the power to change our Constitution forever if it gets away with it.
I hope that many Conservatives will regret the decision they made to bring in this Government. I hope they will see the betrayal of trust in so many ways, in patronage, lack of honesty, and lack of openness in all of these respects. I hope that these Canadians will want to keep Canada Canadian and will change their vote in the next election.
When they are deciding between the Liberals and the New Democrats I urge them to be very careful because the Liberals are not so sure about where they stand on trade. A former Liberal Minister of Finance was one of the instigators of it, and the Liberals in Quebec are supporting it actively. If Canadians want to be sure that this deal is defeated, they must support the New Democratic Party because we will tear up this deal.
In a few seconds remaining to me, Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is a profound decision about the future of our
June 21, 1988

country. We are not urging that the status quo remain. We are talking about having the power and the ability to change and to adapt to changing conditions. The world is changing and we must change in response to it. However, we must have the power to do that. This free trade Bill, C-130, takes those powers away from the federal and the provincial Governments. We must defeat the free trade deal, if not in the House, at the next election.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I listened with rapt interest as the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) gave her dissertation about her Party's view of what they believe Canada should be like. I share her concern that we must look after our social programs.
The previous government, together with the New Democratic Party, gave us many social programs and spent money like it was water under the bridge. As our deficit ever increased, they never said how they would pay for their programs.
Our Government agrees that we need social programs, but we will pay for them. In the last Budget we were a fraction of a percentage point within paying for all our debts, including all our social programs. We can only look after our social programs with strength, trade, good management and employment. We cannot pay for our social programs with wishful thinking or myopic views whereby we look after ourselves and no one can touch us. We will only be vassals of the Americans if we are weak and think only of ourselves.
We have proven that we are stronger today than ever before as a result of good management of the economy which this Government is providing for the first time in 40 years. We can address all the concerns the Hon. Member has raised by good management, and a free trade agreement that allows greater trade with the strongest nation in the world, the United States.
The Hon. Member's figures dealing with energy are fictitious. We have more oil reserves in Alberta than all the Middle East combined. A 30 or 40-year oil supply is a figment of her imagination. We have enough oil in Alberta itself to supply the United States and Canada until our grandchildren are grandmothers and grandfathers. We only have to develop it and sell it. Furthermore, we control what we sell. It is only given away if we are weak and myopic. Nothing is given away by this free trade agreement. It is a guarantee to provide our citizens with prosperity and the opportunity to work while controlling our destiny.
The Hon. Member talked about social programs and energy. We need to provide leadership through knowledge, and good business and labour management so that Canadians will have confidence that we can trade effectively not only with the Americans but with the rest of the world.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have seldom heard such nonsense in many of the points that were made. I will attempt to answer them.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Hon. Member talked about controlling the deficit when, in fact, there are still deficits in the area of $30 billion in Conservative budgets every year. A good example of social programs and deficit control is CCF and NDP Saskatchewan governments which pioneered social programs and reduced the public debt. They proved it is possible to have humane and fair government while balancing the budget. I challenge anyone to follow the example of Tommy Douglas and his successors there.
The Hon. Member talked about oil. My examples concerned natural gas and social programs because I only have 20 minutes in this debate to talk about the future of Canada. One cannot cover all the issues. While I chose to talk about natural gas, oil is another question.
The Hon. Member believes that there is an ample supply of oil. That may be true when one includes such far-away places as the Beaufort Sea and other fragile areas in terms of the environment, the tar sands where oil is difficult to retrieve, and oil in the offshore where it may ruin the fishery. The large amounts of oil about which the Hon. Member talks are not readily available.
The Hon. Member said oil would be available until our grandchildren grow up. I remind him that civilizations have lasted for thousands of years and the sun will not burn out for another four billion years. He should not set his sights so short as to say that the oil companies should sell off all the oil in two generations. We are talking about shortages within the next 10 years, which is a dangerous prospect. Although the Hon. Member suggests that there is a lot of easily available energy resources, they are non renewable resources for which even the oil companies predict there will be shortages within the next 10 years.
Even the producer provinces are disadvantaged by this trade deal. The Constitution clearly specifies that these natural resources are under provincial jurisdiction. Yet their right to control these resources is being taken away by this trade deal. They will not have the opportunity to charge lower prices within the province to stimulate economic development and create jobs. They will lose power to create manufacturing while we will be more dependent on selling the resources quickly at the lowest possible price. I suggest that is not a wise use of natural resources.
The Hon. Member brags about social programs. His Party opposed every one of them and only gradually came on board when public opinion polls showed they would be thrown out if they continued to oppose them. Indeed, the Conservatives moved to deindex the family allowance and tried to deindex the Old Age Pension. The Conservatives lost an election over the Old Age Pension because the Senate turned it down. This Conservative Government would have been thrown out if it continued its plan to deindex the Old Age Pension.
Social programs were on the table and were referred to as disciplining monopolies by the Americans. I do not begrudge the Americans their way of operating. The United States is a

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
sovereign country and can do what it wants. However, we have chosen to do things differently in Canada and we have our social programs, including the Old Age Pension, Canada Pension Plan, Family Allowance, unemployment insurance and medicare. We would not have had medicare if a free trade agreement was in place at that time.
Social programs are challenged in several ways. One is the unfair subsidy section of the deal. We will not know for some five to seven years whether the Americans will consider these as fair or unfair subsidies.
They are also challenged under the monopoly section of the free trade deal. I hope other Members will address that aspect, in which provincial governments must beg the federal Government to make representations to the Americans. They may be ordered to compensate American companies for loss of business because profits to corporations are the most important consideration in the free trade deal, not services to people or planning a humane society. If an American corporation will lose money, then it is a violation of the free trade deal. That could interfere with social programs. This free trade agreement is a travesty. It is inhumane and should not be allowed.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to take part in a debate that is very important to this country. Free trade with the United States is neither a luxury nor an intellectual exercise. It merely states the obvious. First of all, Quebec sends two-thirds of its exports to the United States. Second, two million jobs depend directly on our trade with our neighbours to the South. Third, our access to this market of 250 million people must be protected and guaranteed by an official and duly-signed agreement.
Of course, our opponents got carried away by their rhetoric. They maintain that we are selling Canada's independence in order to gain access to the U.S. market. Mr. Speaker, Canada exists by the will of its citizens, and we underestimate Canadians if we think their will is particularly vulnerable.
The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was not signed on a whim. It was the fruit of careful negotiations during which we did not give in on essential matters.
The agreement does not put any restrictions on grants to businesses or on regional development. Marketing boards will continue to exist, which means that Canada will retain the right to determine its agricultural marketing programs.
The agreement also provides for a dispute settlement mechanism. As for the adjustments that will be necessary in certain businesses, my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) and I announced the creation of an advisory committee on adjustment last January. Mr. Speaker, the committee chaired by Mr. Jean de Grandpre will ensure that Canadians take advantage of the new opportunities offered by
free trade, while identifying any adjustment problems that may arise.
The agreement signed with the United States provides the catalyst Canadian business needed to go the extra mile and rise to new heights. With the agreement, Canadians and Quebecers have gained secure and permanent access for their products in key sectors, including agriculture, resource processing, manufacturing, energy and services, all of which will be given a fresh boost.
More secure access to the U.S. market will make Canadian industries more dynamic, more innovative and more competitive, because being able to count on access to this market will give investors the necessary confidence to create new companies, consolidate existing ones and meet the competitive challenge.
The economic impact of the FTA has already been assessed. Experts at the Department of Finance predict an increase of 2.5 per cent in the real income of Canadians. This represents $12 billion more in the Canadian economy and the creation of at least 120,000 new jobs over the next five years.
Mr. Speaker, it is up to the investors and the entrepreneurs, to this country's businessmen and women, to make these figures come true.
Free trade is a challenge, not for government, but for all Canadians who will have to make sure they get the most out of this agreement.
Mr. Speaker, for four years Canada's economy has outclassed the economies of all other major industrialized countries in terms of growth and job creation. We want to use free trade to secure the future economic development of this country.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of job creation, I wish to point out that as Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, I am very interested in small and medium-sized business, needless to say. While big corporations have been streamlining their operations for several years now, small and medium-sized businesses have taken up the slack and are the real driving force of the economy throughout Canada. These companies with less than 100 employees account for 99 per cent of all Canadian companies and 70 per cent of jobs created, on average. Furthermore, they generally spend more on research and development, proportionately, than big corporations.
It is therefore not surprising that they can adjust quickly to technological changes and also transform their industrial infrastructure very rapidly if market conditions change suddenly.
So, Mr. Speaker, I listen to small businesses. Naturally, I talk to them about free trade and do you know what they tell me, these men and women who one would think would be vulnerable and afraid? They are eager for tariff barriers to

June 21, 1988

come down completely. They are eager to see a significant reduction in non-tariff barriers. Yes, these men and women want to take on new markets in the United States and then new markets elsewhere. They have been preparing for months to face this new challenge.
These business men and women are looking for new forms of partnership with the Americans, and also with other countries. They are searching for new markets. In short, they are eager to diversify and broaden their customer base.
My colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism and Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Valcourt), agrees with this; it is his role to defend the interests of small business in Cabinet. Neither he nor I have met systematic resistance to free trade, quite the contrary! Our small businesses have learned to be increasingly competitive. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, they are more than eager to fight on a new trade front, and why not! In many fields already, there is a kind of free trade.
The Canadian and U.S. markets present opportunities shown by these rough figures; 80 per cent of our Canadian exports go to our southern neighbors, while 70 per cent of our imports come from the United States. And I will say something that we too often seem to forget: four fifths of our exports to that country are duty-free. So why a free trade treaty, you will ask me. It is to complete the picture and to ensure access to a market of 250 million consumers. It is to make sure that we can continue to deal with the Americans, and rather than charge into it, we will have 10 years for both sides to adjust.
The complete lowering of tariff barriers will therefore be the end of a long process. The purchasing power of Canadians will gradually increase over the period, by 3 to 12 per cent, according to economists who have estimated the impact of free trade on the standard of living of our fellow citizens.
Have you thought about what salary increase you would need to increase your net purchasing power by 3 to 12 per cent? We will achieve these gains with the help of the country's small and medium-sized businesses that will have to be more productive and offer consumers a wider choice of products. This is also true for U.S. consumers, because they too will have access to more Canadian goods, from which they will of course benefit. One must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that in any agreement, especially one dealing with trade, both partners' interests must be satisfied. Just because Canada will derive great benefits from free trade does not mean that the United States is not entitled to something in return!
I would also like to point out that one provision of the Agreement facilitates the two-way movement of several occupational groups between Canada and the United States. In fact, it is a set of clauses that are very favorable to the service industries, in other words, the products and services that support exports.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on how I see the economic outlook. At the same time, the enterprising spirit that the Government of Canada is always trying to encourage will be stimulated by the prospect of an almost completely open American market; this will contribute to job creation and consolidate Canada's trading base. And a sounder economy automatically means stronger national finances. Citizens who are better able to take charge of their affairs will, I am sure, become better Canadians. Men and women who are more sure of themselves and their abilities and much more certain of their future and their children's and grandchildren's.
The Free Trade Agreement also guarantees us the privilege of keeping our social programs and the right to launch new ones. In short, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to do as we please in our own country. And that, to my mind, is the best definition of sovereignty.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, farmers in the main fruit and vegetable-growing regions expressed some doubts about their ability to adapt to the new rules. We therefore agreed to the temporary restoration of customs duties for these crops over a 20-year period, if these growers experience hardship due to the transition.
The Government negotations have never been one-sided. We consulted the representatives of the major farmers' associations and we really took their demands to the negotiating table as much as possible.
Again, I would like to summarize briefly the four main objectives of our negotiations with the United States. First, guaranteed access to the U.S. market; second, trade rules that will eliminate improvisation; third, a binational mechanism for speedy settlement of our respective national problems; and fourth, maintaining our institutions that reflect our indentity.
Mr. Speaker, these objectives have been realized. They are the very backbone of the Bill before the House today. These objectives, now that they have been realized, are the cornerstone of the future for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, today I want to appeal to the solidarity of all Canadians. Let us forget our differences, and once we have this unprecedented agreement with our most important trading partner, we can legitimately aspire to take our place among world trade leaders. I am convinced that this first step will pave the way for any further developments we may wish to add. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, depends on today's plans.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology and Member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere. He is not often referred to in those terms, Mr. Speaker, but the Federal Liberals and Canada's New Democrats claim that Canada will lose its right to have regional development programs. However, not long ago, the Minister announced a joint program with Quebec for remote regions. The purpose of this program is to help the regions in Quebec, both the outlying and central regions.

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Speaker, I can say that our vast region, including the two other Members, gave this new program an enthusiastic reception. I am sure the Liberals must have been very embarrassed, considering the fact that they completely neglected this region for twenty years because they thought it was too big.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, these are obvious plants, as they say, but the Hon. Member's comments are not relevant to the debate on free trade. I would ask him to stick to free trade and stop making propaganda for the Conservative Government.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to plants, but I see my personal notes and that is what counts.


An Hon. Member:: They are ashamed!


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about this shameful situation that lasted for twenty years, we see them rising in the House and reacting, especially one Member from Montreal who never set foot in this great Northern region.
To get back to this program which represents an injection of $91 million in Abitibi, Temiscamingue, Pontiac, Gatineau and Labelle, comments received thus far from the three Members concerned were that people were really enthusiastic about this joint program with the Province of Quebec. In addition to this new program, other opportunities are being offered to entrepreneurs in my region and throughout Quebec and I am referring to free trade. My own riding gets the full benefit of open and direct access to the U.S. market. The United States are our biggest market, and the FT A will make that market secure. Mr. Speaker, if we really take the trouble to read the agreement and understand it, we notice that Quebec, and of course Abitibi, Temiscamingue, Pontiac, Gatineau and Labelle, have everything to gain under free trade, as was pointed out by the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Robert Bourassa, and by the majority of Quebecers.
I would like to ask the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion what other regional development initiatives he will be announcing very shortly, such as the recent announcement of the creation of this new department.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to comment briefly on my colleague's remarks. I would like to suggest that his comments were very relevant to the debate, because a few minutes ago we heard comments from the Opposition that regional development was clearly affected by the free trade deal. Of course this is not the case. It is not the case when we look at this Government's program that has a tremendous stake in regional development, as evidenced by the Bill establishing the new Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
Let me summarize briefly, Mr. Speaker, some of the initiatives we have taken over the last year on regional development: we can refer to the Atlantic Agency, the Western Diversification Program, the Northern Ontario Regional Development Program, in addition to the more than $1 billion program that has finally been announced jointly with Quebec
just recently, a program that was being negotiated at the same time we were negotiating free trade. So there we have a program and a series of initiatives that clearly show the legislation now before the House in no way hinders the Government's ability, alone or jointly with Provincial Governments to undertake new and major initiatives concerning regional development.
I would also like to emphasize that the free trade deal, as submitted in the legislation, in no way hinders Provincial Governments nor the Canadian Government under those agreements to extend grants to corporations in the same way various levels of Government could do before, should I say, the proclamation of the legislation now before the House.
Therefore, on those two levels, I would like to reassure Hon. Members opposite-there is absolutely no danger for Canada, there is absolutely no obstacle to the freedom of action of the Canadian and provincial Governments in those areas.


Sheila Finestone: I have listened to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret)-who also wears a few other ministerial hats. I would very much like to believe the Minister. I would like to believe the Government. I would like to feel comforted that my concerns as a Canadian, and general Canadians out there, are being protected and considered by you and your Government when you go to negotiate.


Mr. Fretz:: Order.


Sheila Finestone: What I would like to know from you, Mr. Minister-


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Order.


Carlo Rossi: Why order? Are you the president?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Through the Chair.


Sheila Finestone: What I would like to know from the Minister, through the Chair, is if cultural industries were not on the free trade table, if cultural industries were protected, supposedly, somewhat like logs and beer, why was it not clearly identified in Bill C-130? As this is the thousandth day coming up that you have been involved in the free trade agreement and there are 1,000 pages of documentation-


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you listen to what the Member is saying. She is referring to the cabinet Minister as "you". The Hon. Member should know, since she has been here for a considerable length of time, that her questions and comments should be addressed to the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Layton):: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).

June 21, 1988


Sheila Finestone: If cultural industries were not on the free trade table, if cultural industries are to be protected and maintained, how come in a document presented to the U.S. Government, put together by the Senate and the Congress, and presented to the Executive to determine the directions of this Bill, we have as an objective clearly enunciated-and it only took them 18 pages, not 1,000-which states that the elimination of direct investment screening-is the Member not the Minister of direct investment screening? I would like to ask the Minister whether he intends to continue investment screening in the cultural industries.


Robert René de Cotret: There are a number of issues raised by my hon. colleague. I would like to return to something I said in my opening comments. Throughout the negotiations we were very careful to ensure that our institutions that make Canada what Canada is today would be safeguarded. I can give the assurance to my colleague that, to the best of my knowledge after having gone through those negotiations, and I was on the trade executive committee throughout, I am personally convinced that all our institutions, whether we are talking about cultural industries, social programs, agricultural policies, and what makes Canada Canada, are certainly preserved.
In relation to the very specific question raised by my colleague at the end of her comments, I refer her to the Investment Canada Act. It is very much a piece of legislation that is in force, and also the Baie Comeau policy. We certainly intend to apply the Baie Comeau policy and the Investment Canada Act.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions, because we do not have much time. The first is directed to the Minister: How can the Minister state there is no danger for our regional support when we have five or perhaps seven years to reach an agreement on the matter of support that may be acceptable to both countries?

It seems to me if one takes this seven years, or possibly five years, it is quite conceivable within that period of time, in fact quite likely given some of the information that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) was referring to, that the United States will attempt to limit as strictly as possible the subsidies which are permitted to both countries with respect to regional development.
I would like to ask the Minister, as a Member from Quebec, how it is possible for him to justify Clause 6 within the Bill itself. It indicates that it will be possible for Parliament at any time, with reference to any Bill or any regulation, including those of the provinces, to pass a regulation or law to overcome those provincial regulations or laws and make them conform with the trade deal.
How is it possible to see that as a fair and just system of federalism when there is so much power in a sense grabbed by the federal Government through this approach?
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation]


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member somewhat lacks faith in the future. And above all he greatly lacks faith in the Canadian people. He also greatly lacks faith in the relations that exist between the Canadian Government and provinces. Therefore, in answer to his second question, as I understand it, Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Parizeau both are strong supporters of the free trade deal. Both stated publicly it was of real benefit to Quebec. It was essential to Quebec's future.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, there is no concern about that in my view. On the other question, I can assure the Hon. Member there may be negotiations in the future, there are always negotiations, but in the area of regional development, subsidies to corporations, we can do in the future exactly what we could do in the past.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Layton):: The period for questions and comments has expired. The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on debate.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate. We are discussing here the future of Canada, a change in the way the country will function, and a very significant trade deal which is essentially a change in the constitutional concepts of this country. We are talking about implementing legislation in Bill C-130.
If we look at Bill C-130, at the very outset we understand why I refer to the fact that this is almost in the same nature as a constitutional change.
Clause 8(1) states:
Notwithstanding anything in any other Act or law, in the event of any
inconsistency or conflict between
(a) this Act, or any regulation made under this Act, or the Agreement...
That this Act will have a primacy. I heard the Minister's speech which preceded mine. I have listened, asked questions, and I have wanted to be a believer. Basically and fundamentally I believe in freer trade. I believe in a country that should open up and be consistent with its growth and development over a long period of time. Trade is the nature of Canada. But this is not a good trade deal. This is not a free trade deal. It is a terrible contract. It is a contract which damages Canada, which damages Canada's integrity, and which damages Canada and Canadians' right to make their own laws. It is an interesting conundrum.
According to Part I, Clause 8, Canadian law is subject to the free trade agreement. I have before me a document that was released on Friday, May 27, put together by Senator Bensten of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee and Congressman Rostankowski of the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives entitled "Finance and Ways and Means Committee's Recommendations on the U.S. Canada

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Free Trade Area Agreement, its Implementing Bill". This document has been sent to the White House.
This 18-page document sets out what the Americans see for themselves in the free trade agreement. This is the direction that it is being recommended the administration take, though it is not the implementing legislation. However, both Houses have come to agree on this direction and are telling the President how to proceed.
It upsets me to hear some of the questions being asked by the Ministers and the Parliamentary Secretaries. These questions indicate to me that there is little understanding, knowledge or reading of the temperament of our good neighbour to the south. A good neighbour it may be, but good trading partner it is not with respect to the free trade agreement, this concept of what is in the best interests of Canada. It is not in the best interests of Canada.
The first thing we see in this document to which I referred is the relationship of the free trade agreement to federal law. It provides that in the event of a conflict between U.S. law and the free trade agreement, U.S. law shall prevail. It is interesting that we wimps here in Canada say that the free trade agreement will prevail. In the United States, American rights under the Constitution come first. The elephant spoke, and did we mice roll over? We forgot to get out of the way of the elephant.
This is the thousandth day of the debate. We have a thousand pages of documents supposedly outlining the process. I loved the debate we had earlier informing us that water was not part of the free trade deal. Then I read into the record how Section Item 22.01 included ice and snow, and I always thought that they were made up of water. There was somewhat of a lack of veracity and forthcomingness there.
Article 16(10) of this 18-page document is called "International Agreements". If Members of the House would learn how to read, they would be outraged by this. I cannot understand how the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St. Julien) and Hon. Members from points north, south, east and west of northern Quebec can say that they fully support and agree with the free trade agreement. First, they have not seen the American document. Second, I am sure they have not bothered to read this document that was just sent to the White House.
Those Hon. Members did not know what Article 16(10) of this document indicates. It says that they authorize bilateral negotiations to liberalize investment rules, require consultation with diverse U.S. interests and establish the following negotiating objectives, and the first is the elimination of direct investment screening. I just finished asking the Minister about direct investment screening. He spoke with great pomp and circumstance about Investment Canada which he has denuded. He spoke about his book publishing policy which he has not applied.
Article 16(10) goes on to talk about the extension of the free trade principles to energy and cultural industries to the extent
not now covered. This is here in black and white on page 9 of this document. I recommend that the Ministers and Hon. Members read it carefully and take it back to their ridings. I recommend that they show it to their riding executives and see if they will be jumping with joy for the loss of Canadian rights to self-determination.
Government Members can says that we need only five days of debate because this is such a simple, fundamental principle. Yet here we can see where the free trade principles are being extended to energy and cultural industries to an extent not now covered. I suggest that there are a series of very important cultural initiatives that need to be protected if we want to keep any part of our market. If the Government had been straightforward, it would have acknowledged that the cultural industry was on the table or it would have given it the kind of exemption that was given to beer and logs and to ships by the U.S.. However, the Government did not do that. Now we will find that in the next five to seven years, every one of those subsidies will be subject to change.
In Article 16(10) of this document, point 3, "International Agreements", it mentions elimination of technology transfer requirements and other performance requirements not currently barred by the free trade agreement. I hope the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) is listening to this. I would like to have him explain what that means to videos, VCRs, new technologies and electronic book publishing. Does he think that members of the Canadian public are so stupid that they do not understand that they are in jeopardy because the things that define us as Canadians are those things that are found within the book publishing, film, sound recording and broadcasting industries?
It is a sheer disgrace that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) is trying to make Canadians feel as though they are entering into a free trade agreement when it is nothing of the sort. I would strongly recommend that Canadians read this document.
Let us not forget that Senator Bensten and Congressman Rostankowski presented this document as a joint effort. Article 2005, "Cultural Industries", says that the President shall endeavour, if he takes remedial action, to fashion a response that discourages creation of similar barriers in third countries. The Prime Minister has handled Canada as if it were a wimpy country. First he was a wimp with respect to how he would handle social policies. Thank goodness, the grey and whitehaired people of this land stood up and made him back down on the deindexation of Old Age Security. We need them to come up here and talk to him again.
If we take action against big American corporations, particularly with respect to film and cultural industries, they will take an action that will be a blockbuster to teach us a lesson so that third countries will not do likewise. This reminds me of a magazine entitled Cinema Canada. The May 1988 edition at page 19 has an article about something called the
June 21, 1988

domino game. I suggest all Hon. Members read what Mr. Jack Valenti wrote on pages 19, 20, 21 and 22 of this magazine.
The head of the Motion Picture Association of America, Jack Valenti, told fellow members of that association and the President of the United States what they should do, and that is exactly what President Reagan did. Jack Valenti told the President that the Canadians banished from the free trade agreement U.S. films, television and home videos. Because of Canada's insistence, films, television and home videos were exiled from the free trade agreement. I thought they were not in it in the first place. How could they have been exiled?
The Canadians refused to go forward with the agreement unless American movies, television programs and home videos were kicked out. So that is precisely what they did, they kicked them out. The chief crisis in Canada is a matter of survival for the U.S. film industry, says he. Mr. Jack Valenti says that if we Canadians have the nerve to threaten and propose any kind of action the Americans should have swift retaliatory action to ensure the survival of the U.S. film industry.
Can you imagine the survival of the industry if Canada wants to have some part of non-proprietary film distribution in this country? I think, if it wasn't so sad, we could laugh. This is what he has ended up by saying, Mr. Speaker. It goes on to talk about the damage of the proposed Canadian restrictions. He is talking particularly about the film industry. He says: "the Canadian proposal has world-wide ramifications for the U.S. movie industry".
If Canada gets by with imposing trade restrictions on how U.S. film companies operate in Canada, that pattern will surely have a ripple effect and quickly spread to other countries. France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Japan and other countries could decide to adopt the Canadian proposals in their country. If this occurs, our $1.1 billion annual trade surplus, derived from the export of U.S.-distributed films, would be severely shrunken, perhaps by several hundred million dollars. The U.S. movie industry would suffer a massive economic haemorrhage. That is just in case we Canadians would like to make a mistake and be masters somewhat of our own destiny in the field of cultural development.
It is a sad day in this country when all we are prepared to do is to examine, over a very short period of time, very serious legislation that will have a serious impact on many sectors of our economy. I chose to look strictly in the short time that I had at some of the aspects of the cultural industries. My concern is the trust that this country can put into this Government. Can Canadians trust a trade deal signed by a Government that tried, but luckily failed, to blind-side our seniors with old age pension cuts, a trade deal signed by a Government that socked Canadians with more new taxes than ever before in the history of this land? The last count was $27 billion out of our pockets.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture is discomforted. He should be outraged at what is happening to the cultural industries. I think it is very important that we have the opportunity to debate the implications in this Bill, to debate at length and at large, what is happening. If you look at the so-called American irritants with which this Government has dealt, with respect to cultural industries, they neutered the well conceived Canadian-owned book publishing policy, they effectively suppressed the Canadian film industry, a good, solid Canadian film industry, not only through the kind of legislation but also through the cutbacks on capital cost allowance for film production. They watered down, as I said, our film distribution policy. I would like to know what else we expect with our new upcoming broadcast policy with respect to Canadian content. What are we doing and what else do we have to do to please these American cousins?
I really feel we have taken a terribly weak-kneed approach to our relationship with the United States, and it is an approach that has forgotten that Canadians are a strong, proud, unique, independent people, spread across a massive land mass, speaking two languages, in a multicultural milieu, who have aboriginal backgrounds and who have a lot to be proud of and a lot to promote, and who have no reason to take a back seat in the development of trade with the United States, of course, but with other parts of the world as well.
I would suggest to you that it is ironic, we did have free trade with the United States and the cultural industries, but we are not going to have free trade any longer, with the way things are set up.
Should we have left without getting something back from the Americans in this policy and in this undertaking? When you look at the fact that 77 per cent of all news-stand periodicals sold in Canada originate from foreign countries, primarily the United States, 61 per cent if mail copies are included. Three out of every four books sold in Canada are published outside of Canada, mostly originating from the United States. Foreign controlled companies account for three-quarters of the revenues generated by movie distribution companies in Canada. We are talking in the billows. Ninety-seven percent of the screen time across this country is booked for Americans with a sprinkling of other foreign country films.
What other western country has only 3 per cent of its film time taken up in its theatres by Canadian films? The eight largest sound recording companies in Canada are foreign owned. Nine out of ten recording companies in Canada use foreign master tapes. Depending on the market, anywhere up to 70 per cent of Canadian English language television viewing time is spent watching non-Canadian programs, primarily U.S.
By the age of 12, Mr. Speaker, researchers tell us that the average Canadian child has seen 10,000 hours of American programs and a bare 2,000 hours of Canadian programs. What does that say with respect to the future development of this country? One has to realize, if one is looking at a very

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
pervasive mass medium, that can have a very serious impact on the formation and the thinking and the development of the philosophy and the mentality of our children.
The Canadian market, for all intents and purposes, with respect to the cultural industries in particular, is absolutely an American gravy train. If we want to have the right to choice, and that is what I am talking about, the right to choice, then we need to have options. We need policies that will maintain the right to options and choices.
However, according to what we have just finished reading under Section 2005, they can take a sledge-hammer and literally kill us by making an example out of us for third countries. I find that this is a very serious problem that is not being dealt with in the way that is most conducive and helpful. I should really talk about the textile industry in my riding, and the apparel in my riding, and how this Government can't be trusted even in that area. They were promised great help from this Government and ended up getting peanuts. That is another area. Never mind cultural industries. What did they do to the fishing industry and to the lobster industry? The Government should be ashamed of itself. How can we possibly trust it to negotiate this agreement, even if it had been a good agreement? Unfortunately, it is a rotten one.
This document also deals with retransmission rights. This Bill contains the implementing legislation for that. The essential elements of the retransmission rights are not well addressed. There is no definition of local and distance signals or small retransmission systems. These definitions are, for the most part, controversial elements and are being left to cabinet regulations. Four major issues are being left to cabinet regulation including directions to the CRTC.
Why is the Government not forthcoming? If the Government does not want to do it through a Bill and legislation, then it should at least print the regulations rather than leaving them in secrecy. It should be stated forthrightly for the Canadian public to make decisions on.
This is a disgrace. The Government should be ashamed of itself. I hope that when the Canadian public votes they will remember this by putting their X in the proper place on the ballot sheet.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest and admiration to the speech of the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone). I would like to say two things. First, one of the great myths which this Government, among many others, is throwing out about the trade deal is that it does not touch culture. It, of course, has all sorts of clauses in it which touch upon the cultural concerns of Canadians and key factors which maintain the distinctiveness of our country. It includes points affecting the recording industry, the printing industry, and a wide range of segments of our cultural heritage.
Second, as I suggested earlier, there is a tremendous axe which hangs over any cultural initiative which we might choose to take in the future. The need for these cultural initiatives is evident when you look at the status quo at the moment with respect to Canadian culture. Only a miniscule level of Canadian films are actually distributed among our movie chains. There is only a miniscule proportion of Canadian material played on the radio and only a miniscule portion of Canadian artistic activity given its place in this country.
No other country in the world would put up with a situation of having the great bulk of what is seen on its television sets, a high proportion of what is seen in its newspapers, and the great proportion of what is seen in its movie theatres coming from foreign countries. Yet that is the situation in this country. It cries out for action and new initiatives. Yet, if new initiatives are taken under the measures in this trade deal, they themselves will be subject to commercial moves by the United States in an attempt to counteract them.
Is the Member for Mount Royal as shocked as I am by the notwithstanding clause and its potential for damage? We have talked to quite a number of cultural groups in the last few weeks and have felt the deep concern of virtually all of them. Has the Member likewise had that sense of concern communicated to her? Does she believe that the Government's claim that culture has been left off the table is in any sense justified?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that question. If the Government thinks it has pulled the wool over the eyes of the cultural industry; the artists, the singers, the songwriters, and other creative intellectual peoples in Canada, it is sadly mistaken. I suggest that Members opposite read a book called If You Love Canada. They would find out that there is not a sector of the Canadian artistic community, from the music creators to the film producers, the actors, and the technicians, which is not concerned. That is why I feel so sad that there is this tremendous insensitivity.
I appreciate the Member's question about the notwithstanding clause because it is pretty obvious that, aside from a few Members of the Cabinet, government Members have not bothered to understand the implications behind the notwithstanding clause. As I said in my speech, it is very clear that it is to discourage the creation of similar barriers in third countries. In addition, all subsidies will have to be rethought over the next five to seven years. As I believe the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) once said, the hobnailed boot fell, but only one of the pair.
We were told to be quiet and not to worry for the moment. However, this document from the Congress to the White House indicates very clearly that subsidies are to be negotiated and renegotiated in the energy and cultural sectors. Read the document. I do not understand how government Members cannot read what the Americans are saying.
June 21, 1988

For the sake of my children and my grandchildren I would dearly love to believe them. This is a sixth generation Canadian talking to government Members they are deaf as can be. It says: "extension of the free trade agreement principles to energy and cultural industries to the extent not now covered". It could not be clearer than the noses on their faces if they would only read or look in the mirror.
I am very concerned because a whole series of Canadian cultural development subsidies are at risk. They include the book publishing development subsidy, the postal rates subsidy, the museum assistance program, the Indian cultural development and art program, the Canada Council program, the Telecom program, funding for the development of our recording industry, public use payment for authors for their works in public libraries, cultural initiative grants, performing arts assistance, capital cost allowance-rotten as that may be right now-and broadcasting subsidies for our public sector. All of these have been put in place by Governments over time. They had to fall into the lap of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with his lack of comprehension of Canadian pride. That is why we are in this juggernaut right now.
The Member is perfectly right. Our cultural industries mean Canada. The Americans wrap themselves in their defence flag. The only defence we have as Canadians is our cultural uniqueness, and that the Government does not understand.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-130, the Bill which proposes to put into effect the treaty which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) signed at the beginning of the year with the President of the United States. The Bill consists of 123 pages which propose to amend 27 statutes of the Government of Canada ranging from the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Seeds Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Meat Import Act, the Loan Companies Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Bank Act, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Canadian Agricultural Products Standards Act, the Canada Grain Act, the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, and on and on.
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) described this treaty as a revolution. I believe he is right. It is a neo-Conservative revolution that proposes to turn over our existing society.
The Minister for International Trade is talking about a movement that espouses freedom, as do most revolutionary movements. In this case, however, it is freedom for corporations and multinational firms. It is freedom so that they can get the Government off their backs, become deregulated and take their profits wherever they wish. It is freedom so that they will not be forced to provide services in outlying rural areas of our country, like those I represent. It is freedom so they can make their money wherever they choose, whenever they choose.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
It means privatization so they will not have to compete with government agencies, which they say is unfair competition. Corporations say it is unfair to compete with companies like Air Canada that has the highest return on investment of all three airlines in this country. They want to be able to share in those profits. However, they call for privatization when Crown corporations happen to lose money, using the argument that they cannot compete and will be forced to cut their prices accordingly.
The third leg of the neo-Conservative revolution is tax reform. Corporations have succeeded in convincing many Conservatives that the corporate sector should pay no income tax, using the argument that profits should go to shareholders who should pay the tax. Unfortunately, most developed countries have a practice of maintaining retained earnings, which then become earnings which have virtually no tax. Under those circumstances, large multinational corporations with almost no taxes have a distinct advantage over ordinary business people who try to enter the market and compete against them. The Conservatives are attempting to invert the way the economy functions.
This is a complete change from the economic theories of the western countries in the last 80 years. One of the best examples to describe the system of economic development we have been following is Henry Ford. Just prior to World War I, Henry Ford decided to pay his workers another $1 an hour, something which his competitors and federal industrialists questioned. His workers seemed to have a place to stay warm, seemed not to be too hungry when coming to work, and seemed to have enough clothing. They asked Henry Ford why he would give them more money when they would only waste it or save it. Henry Ford said that they may save the money, but they probably will buy cars with it. He used that theory to increase the amount of cars he sold.
Successive Governments have followed that policy of increasing incomes through such things as the minimum wage, better services to people, better education, health care and standards of living to the benefit of everyone. Productivity and the economy increased and everyone lived better.
The new Conservatism seems to be shifting in the other direction and focusing its attention on reducing labour cost and input costs, avoiding taxation, and turning the economic development strategy on its head. That is what Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and our Prime Minister are attempting.
The Prime Minister has been following his three tenets of Conservative philosophy: Deregulation, privatization, and tax reform. However, I believe he has been pressured into making this a long-term proposition by corporations who are concerned about what may happen if the Conservatives lose the next election. Their solution was to persuade the Government to sign a free trade agreement with the United States because American Governments have been easier to manipulate than most other Governments, especially those in Canada.

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
When 1 heard the Minister for International Trade this afternoon, I could not help but recall an old A1 Capp comic of L'il Abner because Senator Fogbound immediately came to mind. I remember him thundering: "What is good for General Bullmoose is good for the U.S.". Of course, he was parroting the famous line by one of the big business people of the era who said that what is good for General Motors is good for the United States. It is still true in the United States that what is good for big business is good for the U.S.A., because big business essentially controls the policy of the United States.
If we are linked with the United States through a treaty, then Canada is not very likely to be able to back out of some of the changes the Government has attempted to make. The agreement goes much beyond the removal of a few tariffs between our countries. If that was all there was to it, the hue and cry would be loud and sharp but not so prolonged.
I was told by one analyst that there are 21 segments to this agreement, 11 of which have nothing to do with tariffs. They are more concerned with setting prices, control and deciding the future policy of the country. They have nothing to do with a normal free trade agreement. Rather than reassurance from big business, there are phrases in the Bill, such as those at page 99, which state: "Every reference in those provisions to Canadian shall be read and construed as a reference to American", and "every reference in these provisions to nonCanadian shall be read and construed as a reference to nonCanadian, other than American". There are statements like: "Canadian-controlled shall be read and construed as a reference to American-controlled". It is a blatant attempt to combine the two countries and make American policy, American law and the whole American ethos one with Canada.
The Minister for International Trade said that he was proposing this legislation which he described as a revolution to save the country from stagnation and save it from the New Democratic Party. During Question Period today I heard members of the Government say that there was no stagnation of this country, but that we had a healthy and vibrant economy. The free trade agreement is not even in effect, so what is he fighting against? Perhaps he is fighting against the NDP and against our policy of interfering in the economy for the good of people, so that we can look forward to improving living standards and health care, services and education.
That is what we see with the Japanese and the European economy. Japan probably epitomizes a country that interferes in the economy. It is probably the closest thing to the antithesis of a free trader that exists on the earth at the moment, and who has the leading economy? Who has the highest living standards by most measures right now? It is the Japanese, and many of the European countries are right behind them. By one standard of measuring economic growth I saw recently, the United States was either ninth or tenth, and rested in about the same place in terms of living standard.
Why is it that the Government insists on trying to push us into this particular kind of deal except for ideological reasons which I have spelled out? What is it that it is saving us from? When the Government began these negotiations it said it was saving us from countervail actions. We all recall that there were countervail actions against our softwood lumber, our shakes and shingles, hogs, pork, salt fish, raspberries, specialty steel, potash, and those were just while the negotiations were going on. What did we come out with? Did we get saved from countervail actions such as those? No, we did not. We had the same process in place. We did not change it. But the Government is now happy with the agreement. I wonder why.
The Government told us it was entering into the negotiations to get a better dispute settlement method, that the dispute settlement system had to be changed and improved. Did we get that? No, we did not. We got no change at all. It is the same dispute-settling mechanism with one little change, after it is all over, we can drag it out even longer by putting in a tribunal which will decide whether or not U.S. law was adhered to.
We were told that with these negotiations we would get greater access to the U.S. market. Now that it is all over, is that what is going to happen? Before the negotiations began, we had access on about 80 per cent of our trade, free of tariffs. We had access to most of the U.S. market. If there was an inequity between the access to the American market and their access to our market, it was in our favour because their tariffs were slightly lower than ours. Now that the walls are coming down, it means, by my simple deduction, that they have better access to our market as a result of this agreement. Most people who have spent any time analysing the deal agree.
We have been told the Government had to do it because it was saving Canada for future generations and it just had to stop what was going on. We have been reasonably well off and we seem to be growing quite fast, but the Government has to put a stop to that. It is not good enough. It was stated by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) that this will result in lower cost of consumer goods. Think about it for a moment, Mr. Speaker. Think about the neo-Conservative philosophy that demands and expects lower wage rates, lower resources, access to lower priced raw materials. Why will consumer goods be lower? Most of them are set by oligopolies that generally price what the market will bear. I submit they will be lower because there will be lower demand. People will not have as much money to spend and therefore prices will be lower. Is that such a good thing? I think not.
We have argued with, I think, correctness, according to the agreement after we analysed it, that signing this agreement and approving this legislation will tie us not only closer to the American economy but would subject us to American power, influence and policies. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge- Foothills (Mr. Thacker), said: "Do not worry. We will still be able to tax ourselves". Hurrah. What good is being able to tax
June 21, 1988

ourselves if we are limited in how we can spend the tax dollars?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Sovereignty.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: What sort of sovereignty can we have if we cannot any longer increase our unemployment insurance programs or our health care, if we can no longer form Crown corporations, which this agreement says we cannot, if we cannot engage in regional development for those areas which are badly hit by economic disruption? We cannot do that because they are a form of subsidization, and we have signed in blood that we will not subsidize. We have said we will not subsidize, that we will follow the same rules and the same processes they have in the United States.
I believe that if the Hon. Member wishes to argue, he would spend his time better reading more than the thousand pages that have been produced at this point between the two parties.


Mr. O'Neil:: I have read more of it than you have.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: We were told that this was a better way than maintaining our own independence and trading with all of the world, that we should restrict ourselves to this one country, focus all our attentions there. We still insist that this country would be better, more independent, more wealthy, more healthy and in a much better financial, fiscal, economic and political shape if we maintain that kind of choice.
What we are arguing is that we need a real choice. What the country needs is a real revolution continuing on the paths to which the New Democratic Party has been trying to direct us.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Revolution?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Without that kind of revolution or evolution, we will not have the continuation for future generations of better incomes, better security, a better country in which we live.


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Higher taxes.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I want to complete my remarks by saying that I am a third generation farmer from Saskatchewan. When I took over my land, I was taught well. I was told that my job was to maintain the land and to manage it for future generations. I have attempted to do that in my career as a farmer.
1 see my duty as a Member of Parliament towards this country to be very similar. I think we have to maintain our land and manage it for future generations. This agreement, in my mind, ignores the future generations. It does not permit them to manage it in a way that we were able to manage it. It restricts the amount of policies future generations will have open to them, and I cannot support this treaty with the United States. For me, this is a sell-out of future generations. It is a sell-out of their future right to govern Canada. It is a sell-out of their future right to develop their economy as they wish. It is a sell-out of the rights of their inheritance of this great, still independent land.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised, perhaps, by my colleague's speech tonight which was very much looking at the philosophic choices which this deal is presenting to us and the losses to this country of future independence and freedom of choice. That is really, I guess, what the trade deal debate is all about. I want to ask the Member, since he is one of the few farmers in the opposition side of the House-


Blaine Allen Thacker: He is the only one.


Steven W. Langdon: You should not talk about the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) in quite that way. I suggest it would be very useful, especially in view of the commitment this Government made to farmers across this country, that agriculture like culture, like the Auto Pact, would be off the table, that they would not be negotiated and then end up being sold out just like other parts of the agreement.
I would like to ask my colleague if he would spend just a few minutes telling us about some of the damage which farmers across this country, in his view, are going to endure as a result of this unfair trade deal.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. I made a speech on this on an Opposition Day several months ago. At that time I spent most of the full 20 minutes I had describing that. However, I think there are a number of things that disturb me a great deal about the deal as it applies to agriculture.
My friend will be aware that a great many of our agricultural products have been traded freely across the border with the United States, products such as red meats, agricultural implements, chemicals and fertilizers. Quite a number of agricultural items have been traded freely.
Those that were not are those with which we have some disadvantage geographically and, therefore, economically in competing, namely, fruits and vegetables, and poultry and dairy products. Some of the things that our Government proposes to do with this trade agreement are very hard for me to accept.
Show me, Mr. Speaker, another trade agreement wherein a country has guaranteed another country that that other country will be able to ship in "no less than 7.5 per cent", in this case, of the poultry requirements of that country. It is not that there is a window of opportunity there but that it shall be "no less than", and into perpetuity. What a way to stifle economic development in one's own country, to invite in 7.5 per cent of one's own poultry consumption needs from another country and to write that into an international agreement stating that it will never be less than that. It may be more. In fact, it probably will be more if this Government stays in power.
Why put such a thing in an agreement? It is there. We did not get any such reciprocity. Even those in the oil and gas industry who think that this agreement is a good thing because

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
it gives them access to the United States market, which they had, will see that there is not a line in the agreement stating that they will get "no less than 10 per cent" of the total market in the United States. This is utter foolishness and utterly unnecessary.
We have also pretended that marketing boards are not in danger. Yet anyone who thinks ahead or can analyse can realize that there is no way we will be able to maintain the slightly higher prices in our country because of our higher costs and still maintain our processing industry. I think that the McCains have put that very clearly. They have quite publicly stated their options. They have said: "If we are going to make frozen pizzas and frozen chicken dinners with product produced in Canada under supply-management which comes to our factory at a slightly higher rate than what we could get in the United States, then we have no choice but to move our factory, our processing plant into the United States". They go on to state: "Unfortunately, it is easy to move a factory, but it is not easy to move our workers." It is virtually impossible to move our farmers. Thus they will be left sitting there in Florenceville or Portage la Prairie without a factory to haul their product to and there will be no point in their continuing to produce chicken, potatoes or cheese.
Those are the problems with the deal. The Government says that marketing boards are still in place, and they are. However, they will not be able to exist for very long. The Government says that the Wheat Board is still there, and it is. However, the Government has taken away a great many of its powers which kept it a substantial institution which was able to do a good job.
These are some of the items that 1 think have created longterm problems for farmers and about which farmers are very upset.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the views of my hon. friend opposite with respect to the NDP position on the multilateral negotiation. I think it is fair to say that members of that Party argue against the free trade agreement which really just reduces the tariffs further than they have already been with the Americans. As well, it puts into place a dispute settlement mechanism. There are rules to govern our trade rather than it being subject to the whim of a very whimsical Congress which, at the moment, is responding to the very powerful interest groups in its own country.
Members of the NDP often talk about the GATT and how we need international diversification. However, under the GATT Canada is truly being pressed on all fronts. I am wondering how the Hon. Member can square with that. Our grape growers are being hurt by the GATT rather than by the free trade agreement.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I am glad the Hon. Member for Lethbridge- Foothills asked that question. It brings out a fact that is sometimes ignored by both sides of this argument.
I have functioned in trading with the United States as a farmer. Even though we had free trade in the commodities that I was trading in it was not any field of roses, so to speak. There were always disputes and tough spots. There were times when one could expect to have one's product stopped at the border. That was with free trade, with an agreement that had been in place for 45 years at that time. The dispute settlement mechanisms have not really changed. The methods that the Americans have to stop this trade have really not changed as a result of this deal.
If we are to be international traders then we have to be prepared to put up with occasional interruptions in trade by the recipient country, whether it is in the United States, Japan, China or the European Economic Community. It does not matter very much whether one is under GATT or a bilateral agreement, these things will happen.
I think the Government fooled itself into thinking that it could improve those minor disruptions and reduce them by signing this agreement. When we analyse what it has got with the agreement, we find it has not got anything any different in reality than what we had before. The words have not improved. They are no stronger than they were before. The process is no different from it was before. All the Government has done is to kid itself that it has something better than it had before. There will still be opportunities for disruptions of trade at the border, at the behest of anyone from pork growers to a feed council to a processor. The U.S. is even more subject to political pressure in terms of its trade policy than we are. That has not changed. Nothing in this agreement can change that.
Congress is not changing its attitude. It is not changing the Constitution or its expectations with respect to what it sees as its role in trade. Thus disruptions will continue to happen after the new agreement comes into effect, or if we stay under the existing agreement. We will have the same problems under the GATT as well. The only advantage under the GATT is that we have an opportunity to form alliances with other members who are being treated by some of the same countries in the same way. We are no longer the only little country dealing with a big country which chooses to act in such a way. We can form alliances with other countries which are similarly affected and eventually we will get some justice.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I disagree in principle with the Hon. Member. I believe the binational dispute panel will be a far better mechanism than what exists now. Now, we have to go to the courts. If we feel that there has been an abuse, we have to go through the court system in that country. It is the judges of that country who deal with these disputes. At least if we have a binational panel we will have a couple of members on it, as will the United States. There will be a neutral chairman. That in itself will stop all sorts of these frivolous actions in which the Americans have been responding to pressure groups. For example, consider the lumber issue wherein one year the Americans lost and the next year they won on the very same grounds. I do not think that that would
June 21, 1988

happen if a binational panel were in place. I think that that is a significant difference.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think the Hon. Member should read the agreement a little more carefully. If the U.S. initiates the complaint, we still go through its court system the same as we do now. If we put in the complaint, then it works under our system. As I read it, the only time that the bilateral disputesettling mechanism comes in is after all the decisions have been made and they get a chance to review the court process and see if American law was complied with or, if it was on our side of the border, if Canadian law was complied with.
We have never had any argument about whether or not American law was being complied with. The argument was with the American law.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate of historical significance for the future of both the workers and businessmen of the Louis-Hebert riding as well as for all those who want Canada to have a future consistent with the skills of our people and the industrial, economic and technological potential of our country.
We have before us a bill which faithfully incorporates the elements of the Free Trade Accord which was signed between Canada and the United States. If I may, I should like to point out its purpose:
3. The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of which are to
(a)	eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States;
(b)	facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free-trade area established by the Agreement;
(c)	liberalize significantly conditions for investment within that free-trade area;
(d)	establish effective procedures for the joint administration of the Agreement and the resolution of disputes; and
(e)	lay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of the Agreement.
There is nothing in this bill which was not part of the Agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the President on January 2. We have now reached the turning point. What motives will influence our destiny? Fear and insecurity? Or confidence and a powerful thrust towards the future? That is the choice we have to make. In this debate on free trade we see a confrontation between right wingers and forward looking idealists whose vision of Canada is altogether different.
I can assure you that most people in my riding and my province support the Agreement which was signed between Canada and the United States. Although Quebec City is called the Old Capital, the men and women who live there are not prisoners of the past, they have modern ideas, and they have
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
both the wisdom and good sense to look beyond the old walls surrounding them.
Quebec businessmen are demonstrating a similar openmindedness. For instance, when dealing with free trade, the President of Shermag, the most important Quebec furniture manufacturer, remarked: "It is a matter of attitude: either you freeze or you charge ahead ", Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what free trade is offering to our workers and our entrepreneurs, the tools to succeed not only in North America, but also in Europe and in Asia.
We can find that same spirit and confidence everywhere in Quebec. Alain Dubuc, a reporter from La Presse, is a very good example. He stated: "Quebec will greatly benefit from the agreement. We can even say that our province has hit the jackpot." All recent surveys show that a strong majority of Quebecers are in favour of the agreement. Moreover, the results indicate that young people are the most supportive. Why? Because the young people of Quebec are looking to the future, seeking individual freedoms and opportunities on the world market. In fact, we are in the second stage of the Quiet Revolution. In the first stage, Quebecers were able to assert themselves in their own territory.
We have now reached the second stage, the conquest of the foreign markets. In fact, numerous Quebec firms, small and large, are already making progress in the American market and increasingly in Europe and Asia. The confidence Quebecers feel towards the Free Trade Agreement speaks for the maturity and the competence of our entrepreneurs and workers. All those strongly in favour of free trade have realized that we have the economic, technological and industrial capability to take full advantage of a market ten times our own. Moreover, those supporters of free trade know that in order to be recognized as one of the economic and industrial leaders of the world, we need to have privileged access to a market of at least 100 million people. Well, the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States would give us privileged access to a market of 250 million consumers.
Those who would say no to this historic agreement would in fact be turning thumbs down on the growth and competitiveness of our industries and the jobs they provide. Basically, free trade is nothing short of the liberalization of Canadian and Quebec businesses.
Having been a member of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Canada's International Relations which, during the summer of 1985, held hearings throughout Canada on the possibility of concluding an agreement between our two countries, I can tell you that these hearings made us realize that most Canadians in all sectors of activities were in favour of such an agreement. We heard all groups and individuals anxious to give evidence- cloose to 300 witnesses. The hearings enabled us to find out what Canadians thought and wanted before our Government

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
undertook serious negotiations with the Americans, the negotiations which finally led to the agreement we are talking about today.
Throughout the hearings most witnesses invariably raised the issue of the very strong American protectionist trend which was a source of very deep Canadian concerns-and I need only refer to lumber, potash, chicken, just to name a few. In addition we ought to keep in mind the fact that, as I speak, 175 legislative measures and the famous omnibus bill-all protectionist initiatives-are pending before the American Congress and the Senate. We therefore had to act promptly to counter this protectionist movement which can be traced back to a number of factors, not the least of which is undoubtedly the slow and vacillating worldwide economic recovery after the recession of the early 1980s, and which is also due to the transition period now being experienced by the international economy.
The Free Trade Agreement therefore offsets and protects Canadians against these measures which Americans were advocating and would have continued to impose had the FTA not been signed.
The importance of trade relations between Canada and the United-States also concerned the Trudeau government, which set up, in 1982, the Royal Commission on Economic Union and Development Prospects. This Commission chaired by Donald Macdonald, former Liberal Cabinet minister costed Canadians 20 million dollars ... Its report, published in 1985, concluded that Canada had to negotiate a Free-Trade Agreement with the United-States.
Let me tell you what this important and voluminous report had to say on the matter: "The world offers Canada enormous challenges and opportunities. Jobs in Canada are threatened by the rapid growth of imports from developing countries, by changes in trade policies and by internal pressures on our trading partners in favour of new forms of protection. Inversely, the growth and technical progress in foreign countries open up new export opportunities and allow us to obtain cheaper and better goods.
Further on, the report says: "The pursuit of Canada-U.S. free trade is not at odds with efforts to strengthen and improve the existing multilateral framework. Rather, Commissionners see it as a complementary approach, involving concentration of our efforts and scarce resources on our most important market.
We see multilateral negotiations proceeding in parallel. In our view, such a two-tiered approach is the best way to ensure that Canadian industry will win sufficient acccess to foreign markets to invest and grow with confidence. At the same time, it will allow us to open our market in an orderly fashion and thus ensure that trade policy does its part in encouraging the development of a more competitive and more productive economy.
Following this introduction, here are the recommendations made in the Macdonald Commission Report: "Canada is
sufficiently strong and independent, however, to pursue bilateral initiatives, including better economic relations with the United States, within the framework of multilateral relations.
Commissioners recommend that the Government of Canada, at the same time it undertakes an initiative at the multilateral level to eliminate trade barriers, open negotiations with the Government of the United States to reach agreement on a substantial reduction of barriers, tariff and non-tariff, between Canada and the United States."
The report goes on to mention that "such an agreement would have to stand within the terms of article XXIV of GATT, protect Canadian culture and that an approach should be developed to use measures of contingent protection by establishing a new Canada-U.S. intergovernmental body to settle potential disputes."
That is what the Macdonald Report recommended.
To show that the free trade agreement is good for Quebec and Canada, and that the overall approach followed by this Government is successful, let us remember that Donald Macdonald, a previous member of the federal Cabinet and chairman of that Royal Inquiry, as well as Gerald Regan, the former Liberal Minister for External Trade, today are among its strongest supporters.
The free trade agreement opens to us Quebecers the door to futur success. And Quebecers have seen all the opportunities that agreement opens up for Quebec. Premier Robert Bourassa is a strong supporter, as well as the former Ministers of Finance Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Landry. Robert Campeau, one of our greatest Canadian entrepreneurs stated, and I quote:
Free trade is the single most important political action in Canada since the
turn of the century.
The chairman of Telemedia, Philippe de Gaspe Beaubien, stated:
That agreement is the key to our future prosperity and strength as a
country.
In Quebec we have shown our know-how over these last 30 years, both provincially, nationally and internatinally. Our confidence has led to major economic development and success stories like Hydro-Quebec, Bombardier ...


Ms. Dewar:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Citation 309 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms indicates that the growing practice in the Canadian House of Commons is that a Member must address the House orally and not read from a written, previously prepared speech.


Mr. Gormiey:: And you've never read a speech, Marion?


Marion Dewar: No, I never have.
June 21, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Layton):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: ... La Laurentienne Insurance Company, and so on and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, engineering firms such as Lavalin, SNC, Roche and Associates, and ADS here in Quebec, to name a few, show our capacity to achieve major goals, and we must be especially proud of that.
However, we should not stop at that success, however outstanding. We must constantly push forward, and this is why, on the strenght of past experience, we must have confidence in our potential, and unite our efforts to provide our young with a promising future.
I will never insist enough on that point. The conclusion of that agreement does not mean we can quietly wait for the rest of the world to come to us. We will not sell our products because people like us.
Mr. Speaker, on two occasions I have interrupted, which used part of the time available to me.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite, I was trying to help. I was watching in the lobby the speech made by my colleague from Quebec, and it seemed to me that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mrs. Dewar)...

The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) made a point of order referring to Beauchesne's, saying that the Hon. Member was reading, but I think we are all wrong. The Hon. Member is not reading her text, she is using copious notes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Layton):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: People are not going to buy our products because they like us but because they are high-quality products that are competitive on international markets. That has been Canada's strength in the past and will be in the future as well.
We must break out of our isolation and go out to conquer new markets. This is an appeal to collective excellence. We say to Canadians: Dare to be the best, and I have no doubts about how Canadians will respond to this appeal. We are people who like a challenge, especially Quebecers.
I am very concerned about the future of the science and technology sector, and I am convinced that our high-tech industries cannot survive without privileged access to U.S. markets. As the President of the Canadian Technology Association said so eloquently: "The market for computers, telecommunications and information technology is international, and if you don't aim for the international market, sooner or
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
later somebody else will come and wipe you out on your domestic market".
That is a harsh truth, Mr. Speaker. If we want to compete with the Americans, the Europeans and the Japanese, we need the basic elements of international competitiveness. The most critical factor for Canadians is to have free and secure access to the richest market on earth.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for Science and Technology, I am interested in research and development and the industrial applications of research. This Government, together with the provinces and all parties concerned, has for the first time in Canada's history developed a national policy on science and technology. The Prime Minister has taken an active part in preparing this policy and in the subsequent follow-up.
We know for a fact that Canada's great challenge is not scientific or technological research as such but the industrial applications of this research. Our businesses and high-tech industries must produce for a market of at least 100 million people to operate on a profitable a basis. This is just what the Free Trade Agreement offers us.
Before concluding my speech, I would like to talk about the impact of the Agreement on Canadian women. Mr. Speaker, I find deplorable the campaign of fear, if not terror, waged by some Opposition Members and union representatives. It is one thing, Mr. Speaker, to oppose a Government project. It is something else to lie knowingly to millions of women in order to terrorize them.
What are they telling Canadian women? That they will lose their jobs; that our health and welfare system will be destroyed; that the violence one finds in the streets of Detroit, New York or Miami will come to the streets of our great cities; that we will not be able to have child care facilities.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, one would have to be desperately cynical to wage such a campaign! We know, because we have the final text of the agreement, that all those statements are imaginary. Nothing in the agreement affects our health and welfare system. Nothing in the agreement threatens our social programs, including child care. Nothing in the agreement changes our Criminal Code, our legal system and our social values. I conclude, Mr. Speaker, it will not take too long ...
On the contrary, the Free Trade Agreement will help our economy grow more and create more jobs than ever. This means that we will have more wealth to distribute through our social programs. It also means that women will have better opportunities to pursue their careers or launch their own businesses.
I am proud of this great Bill introduced by the Government to implement the Accord and I intend to vote for it. It is a declaration by the people of Canada of their confidence, abilities and national maturity.

June 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Layton):: It being ten o'clock, this The House adjourned at 10 p.m. House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).



Wednesday, June 22, 1988


[Stage Direction]
Prayers