1988-06-29

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the residents in my riding watched the election campaign of the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) with a great deal of interest, and now they can't wait for a general election, and it is easy to see why. They figure that the Government will do what it did in Lac-Saint-Jean and make their riding a present of $164 million, a riding that for the past four years or so has seen its Government grants cut, time after time.
What kind of manna will rain from the Tory sky, all in the spirit of justice and equity, on Mount Royal and on this country's 281 other ridings? One wonders, especially now that the Minister of Finance is doing everything he can to reduce the deficit. When you think about it, my constituents may be disappointed, because the Government seems to restrict its largesse to friends and school chums who want a seat in the House to defend strictly provincial interests.
Unfortunately, the new Member for Lac-Saint-Jean is part of that group, and I wonder, as 1 welcome him to the House if he would appreciate being wished a Happy Canada Day as well!


SCHEDULED HOCKEY GAMES BETWEEN SOVIET AND NHL TEAMS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in the midst of the spy embrouillage comes some good news in
Canadian-Soviet relations. It is announced that two top Soviet hockey teams, Central Red Army and Dynamo Riga, will play 14 team games against NHL teams during the next season. Games are scheduled with Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, and Quebec.
Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) can assure us that the NHL is free from Soviet infiltration and no spooks loiter in our dressing-rooms spying out top secret Canadian hockey strategy.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, considerable concern has been expressed about the proposed Rafferty-Alameda dam project in Saskatchewan and the negative impact it will have on the environment of Saskatchewan and North Dakota. Virtually ignored in this debate is the impact this project will have on Manitoba.
The Souris River, which the Government of Saskatchewan proposes to dam, flows southward into North Dakota and then northward again into Manitoba. Damming the Souris River will have a negative impact on any jurisdiction downstream, including Manitoba. The quantity and quality of water flowing into Manitoba will be reduced and the leaching of heavy metals and mercury contamination could become a serious problem in that part of the Souris flowing into Manitoba.
The Rafferty-Alameda project is not a simple arrangement between Saskatchewan and North Dakota. The Souris River crosses the international boundary not once but twice, and the Rafferty-Alameda project will affect not one but two provincial jurisdictions. Despite this fact, no international treaty exists between all the parties affected, especially Manitoba. I call upon the Government to exercise its international responsibility on behalf of the people of Manitoba and refer this complex issue to the International Joint Commission for detailed consideration and negotiation.

June 29, 1988


S.O. 21 ABORTION SUPREME COURT CASE-GOVERNMENT FUNDING SOUGHT BY WOMEN'S ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, as most Canadians know, Parliament is faced with the difficult challenge of rewriting Canada's abortion laws in light of the Supreme Court overturning Section 251 of the Criminal Code. There is also an important trial in the Supreme Court this fall, namely, the Joesph Borowski case, which would, in essence, give legal status and protection under the Charter to the unborn child.
The LEAF organization, which is the legal arm of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, has applied for government funds to pay their legal fees because LEAF has interventionist status at the Borowski trial. This funding is in addition to what LEAF already gets from the Government currently. REAL women also have interventionist status, and are applying for government assistance as well.
I urge the Minister responsible for the status of women and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to give funding to REAL women in fairness as the Government does not provide any funding to REAL women presently.
Under the Department's own guidelines, funding is not to go to any group involved with either side of the abortion issue. But in lieu of LEAF'S previous funding this stipulation obviously has been disregarded.


NATIVE PEOPLES
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, almost two weeks ago, attempts by Dolores Montour to create jobs for Mohawk women at Kahnawake were thwarted. It seems there is no room for Native women in the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
The Mulroney Government has neglected to address the specific needs of the women of Kahnawake, a group that is particularly affected by unemployment, and the way certain Tory Members act towards Native people cannot be called nothing less than degrading and racist.
The problem was not with the project itself but with the Natives themselves, Lopez said.
"All they do is take money from the programs, it's always the same, they
take money and it's never enough."
He recently suggested all Natives should be sent to Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, Chief Joe Norton of Kahnawake sent a letter to the Prime Minister, asking for an apology so did Keith Penner. Canadians support Mr. Norton. They want social justice for the women of Kahnawake, looking for work. We also demand that Native people be treated with fairness and dignity.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF OPPOSITION PARTIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, history repeats itself. In the early forties, after trying in vain to interest central Canada and Europe, the Alberta Government accepted entrepreneurs from the United States who spent millions of dollars drilling dry holes before Leduc came in. That was the beginning of the oil industry in Alberta.
But you should have heard the Liberals and the CCF, now the NDP, rail about the Americans. "They will take over the country". "They will throw out our social programs", et cetera.
Today we are hearing the same predictions from the Liberals and the NDP about free trade. But none of the dire things happened. The Americans worked under Canadian rules, and we lost nothing. We gained an industry and millions of dollars worth of work and employment for hundreds of our people. The same good results can be secured from free trade. So free trade for a greater Canada!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 19, over 140 demonstrators against the Summit Conference as a symbol of international greed and oppression committed civil disobedience. In a disciplined action they crossed over police barriers set up to block thousands of orderly protest marchers on University Avenue.
The police, after behaving very well in public, retaliated against those arrested afterwards by denying them their rights under Section 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that everyone detained has a right to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.
After several hours in jail the police refused to allow prisoners to phone lawyers, refused to allow lawyers to contact
June 29, 1988

or interview prisoners, and used systematic tricks and lies to deprive 140 people of their Charter right.
This deliberate and systematic violation of the Charter was planned in consultation with the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher), as he told us, who therefore shares responsibility for deliberate violation of the Charter.
I call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to apologize to Canadians for his Government's part in this violation of the Charter, and to order a public inquiry to determine who was responsible and what disciplinary action is needed to prevent a repetition of this grave government offence.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has admitted that he has not read the free trade agreement. What utter shame and incompetence! What utter contempt!
The Prime Minister's chief Minister responsible for the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal has admitted that he is winging it. He is winging it with the future of our country. In other words, he does not know what he is talking about when he defends the Mulroney-Reagan free trade agreement.
He is faking it, pretending to know that he understands the agreement when in fact he does not. If the Minister responsible for the free trade agreement has not read it, who on the government side has?


Mr. McDermid:: I have, twice.


John V. Nunziata: I suspect that they are all winging it, from the Prime Minister to the Parliamentary Secretary.
How can the Minister promote the deal without having read it? How can Canadians have confidence in their future when the Government is winging it?
The Minister should be renamed the wing-it Minister or, better yet, the wing-nut Minister.


HERITAGE
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today, and it is with great satisfaction that I rise in the House to emphasize the Government's commitment to environmental issues and heritage sites.
Mr. Speaker, on June 16 this year, I announced on behalf of my Government that $328,370 would be made available for the development and appropriate use of the greenspace of the Domaine Maizerets.
This historic heritage site is very valuable parkland and is of specific interest to the people of the Quebec City area. Developing this park, in addition to providing much needed greenspace, will give users an opportunity to enjoy a natural environment with great potential for education, interpretation, recreation and cultural activities.
We must all work together, Mr. Speaker, to make every part of this country a good place to live.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, about three weeks ago the Finance Committee of this House brought down its report on bank service charges. We all remember the hysterical reaction of the Bankers Association to that report. In fact, the president of the Bankers Association, Mr. Robert Macintosh, accused the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), of being a socialist. I could forgive him everything, but that I cannot forgive the Bankers Association.
The President of the Bankers Association said that he had to shout at the press conference condemning the report of the committee, because he said the chairman had a tin ear. Furthermore, he said that members of the committee were only looking out for their own seats, and that is why they brought down this tough report about services that should be free, about a basic banking account with no frills, about an ombudsman, and about adequate notification.
That was the reaction of the banks. All the banks were absolutely opposed to the report.
Now what has happened? What we find now is that the banks have done a complete turnabout and would have us and the Canadian people believe that they suddenly accept the report. The Member for Mississauga South, and the Member

June 29, 1988
Oral Questions
for York Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan), are willing to withdraw their Bill. We are not, Mr. Speaker.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES CONFERENCE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in my riding almost 400 people from small and medium-sized businesses attended one of those free trade business opportunities conferences much maligned by the Liberal and NDP Opposition.
They came to learn how to benefit from the free trade agreement, and they represent the reality of Canada in 1988, a Canada in which two-thirds of our exports are manufactured goods, a Canada that earns more export dollars from selling life insurance premiums abroad than from softwood lumber or crude oil, a Canada that earns more selling office equipment than from selling meat, a Canada in which sales of telecommunications equipment are four times the value of our nickel exports, a Canada where wheat exports are worth only half as much as our truck exports.
Despite what the Liberal and NDP Opposition would have us believe, Canadians are no longer hewers of wood and drawers of water. Rather, they are eager to take advantage of the free trade agreement and they are confident of Canada's future.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I was looking for the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, or Minister for International Trade, to ask a question, but I presume they are at a remedial training course over the noon hour to catch up on their programs. I will pose my question to the temporary Acting Deputy Prime Minister, to whomever that may be. I guess it is a random selection or choice.
Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister attempted to defend the Minister for International Trade by saying that, of course, he had read every single part of the agreement. Outside the House the Minister for International Trade said no, of course, he had not.
We are faced with a circumstance where we have a contradiction. Considering how important this agreement is, and
considering how Canadians want an informed debate, I want to raise a question with whichever senior member of the Ministry is here.
How can the Government continue to have as a Minister of Trade someone who trivializes the issue to the point where he compares it to selling vacuum cleaners? Is the Government prepared to replace the Minister of Trade with someone who will treat the issue seriously and someone who will come to grips with an issue about which Canadians want informed answers instead of the buffoonery of the Minister for International Trade?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that I have been closer to the seat of Prime Minister than he will ever be.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I also want to say that my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, has, in his own inimitable words, read every jot and tittle, every last word of every schedule, every part of the free trade agreement, and I want the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry to know that.
I also want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister for International Trade has been doing a tremendous job selling the free trade agreement without having read every last schedule. Now that he has, he will do an even better job, and those folkes opposite just better watch out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, considering the comment of the Minister about her familiarity with the seat of power, now I understand how she got her broadcasting Bill through.


An Hon. Member:: By the seat of her pants.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What does that mean?


Lloyd Axworthy: I think it explains a lot of things, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member would want to put his question.


ENERGY EXPORTS-PROPOSED ONTARIO LEGISLATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will pose this question perhaps to the Minister of Energy who may provide us with a half-way informed answer. Yesterday the Minister for International Trade said that the legislation introduced by the Province of Ontario in no way was contradictory or in any way has an impact upon the trade agreement.
June 29, 1988

Yet if the Minister for International Trade had read Article 904(b), of the agreement, he would recognize that it clearly says that any party to the agreement cannot impose a higher price for exports than it does for domestic consumption by any means such as licences, fees, taxation and minimum price requirements, yet the legislation tabled in the Ontario Legislature clearly intends to use those means to set a differential price between domestic and export prices.
If that is the case, can the Minister of Energy tell us whether the Government of Canada has now changed its position? Is it now saying that the provinces of Canada will have the right to set a differential price between energy exports and what Canadian consumers pay? If so, have they informed their American partners to the agreement because the American partners in their statements say that no such differential is allowed? Can we get a clearer description of that policy change which obviously the Minister of Trade announced yesterday?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious the Government of Ontario is trying to play cat-and-mouse and that the Liberal Opposition is its mouthpiece.
To us, the question is a purely hypothetical one. The Minister for International Trade answered the question yesterday, and 1 think his answer was satisfactory to the Minister of Energy.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE RENEGOTIATED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing theoretical about the Bill that has been tabled in a provincial Legislature which clearly gives to that province the power to set a different price for exports than it sets for domestic consumption when the trade agreement, Article 904(b)-if the Minister of Energy has bothered to read it-clearly states that that is not allowed.
Is the Government of Canada prepared to condone and accept the position of the Province of Ontario which will now apply to all provinces and allow them to set a differential price? Will the Government of Canada therefore be prepared to renegotiate with the Americans Article 904(b) and take it out of the agreement so it will correspond to what the Minister for International Trade says is the new policy of the Government?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has tabled a Bill, and that Bill reflects its position.
Oral Questions


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and concerns the administration of the Department of Public Works. Shortly after 12.30 noon today, CJOH Television in Ottawa reported that the RCMP has completed an investigation involving "officials in the Prime Minister's Office" and their alleged involvement in redirecting government leasing contracts in Quebec and in Ottawa to Conservative supporters.
Given the seriousness of these allegations as reported on television today, is the Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister in a position to confirm or deny that such an investigation has taken place or is in the process of taking place at the present time?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this allegation is being brought to my attention for the first time. I would say to the Hon. Member that if he or anyone else has any proof of wrongdoing which they are trying to allege, then they should be prepared to produce it.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT IN HOUSE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Considering that some very serious allegations about the Prime Minister's Office were aired today on television here in Ottawa, is the Minister of Justice prepared to make a statement here in the House of Commons on this question, either immediately or later today?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: No, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONFIRM INQUIRY UNDERTAKEN
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Solicitor General, I want to ask the Minister of Justice a question about these very serious allegations that were indeed made at noon. Could the Minister of Justice confirm that an inquiry has not only been inaugurated but has been completed by the RCMP involving personnel in the Prime Minister's Office and related to another serious allegation of influence peddling involving Public Works and the leasing of contracts?
Could the Minister of Justice at least assure the House that there has been no such inquiry or investigation by the RCMP into the staff of the Prime Minister?

June 29, 1988
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 have to tell the Hon. Member in all candour that I am not aware of any such investigation. As the Acting Prime Minister has indicated, this is the first time this matter has come to the attention of the Government. I can only assume that, if there is an allegation to be made, it will be handled as we have handled any such allegations, whether founded or not. It will be handled with the fullest examination of all elements of any allegation that has been made.
I would simply ask the Leader of the New Democratic Party to remember that, if he brings these matters forward on the floor of the House of Commons, he should be satisfied that there is some basis upon which they should be given the credibility of his office. He is an officer of the House and should not be bringing these matters forward unless he is prepared to stand behind the allegations.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CHECK ON ALLEGATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, to understate it, I would have expected more from the Minister of Justice. We are not making allegations. This is in the news now. It is two hours old. I would have thought that the Prime Minister's Office would be monitoring the news broadcasts as have opposition Parties, and it would have been able to clear this up after two hours and make a statement in the House. That is the point.
Considering that the most serious allegations have been made involving the Prime Minister's staff and the Government of the Province of Quebec, I would ask the Minister of Justice if this will be checked out immediately, and will someone responsible to the House, a Minister of the Crown, agree to return to the House this afternoon to make a statement on this important matter?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there are good reasons why we do not make statements with respect to investigations. I can assure the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that, naturally, any allegation of this sort will receive the fullest examination. I said that in response to his first question.
I want to reassure the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that, if there are allegations made, naturally all these matters are looked into thoroughly. The fact is that in terms of the administration of justice one would want to make sure that there is an unfettered examination of all the elements of the allegation and that we do nothing on the floor of the House of Commons that would prejudice or jeopardize an investigation. I think the Hon. Leader of the NDP would agree with that proposition and not want to do something that would have the effect of prejudicing the investigation.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REPORT TO HOUSE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the Minister of Justice and I hope he could come back to the House within an hour or two and report that there was not an RCMP investigation inaugurated and completed involving staff of the Prime Minister. That is the allegation which has been made publicly.
Will he check that out and report to the House, yes or no?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, allegations are made and investigations carried out. There have been a number of allegations made by the Opposition with respect to so-called investigations which have had absolutely no foundation whatsoever. Everyone is entitled to receive the protection of the law, to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Investigations by the RCMP go forward quite independently of the Government. We do not control the police force in this country. They are an independent entity and carry on their responsibilities with vigour and effectiveness. I am sure the Leader of the NDP would not want to suggest that we should interfere with the RCMP in the conduct of their duties.


ALLEGATION RCMP CONDUCTED INVESTIGATION
John V. Nunziata: My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the RCMP, the Solicitor General, or the Acting Solicitor General, and deals with the same subject. Surely the Government should be in a position here and now either to confirm or deny that the RCMP have conducted a criminal investigation into the affairs of certain people employed in the Prime Minister's Office.
Can the Minister indicate whether or not the RCMP have been investigating the affairs of members of the Prime Minister's staff, yes or no?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been responding to the questions in my capacity as Acting Solicitor General. I indicated that I am not aware and have not been informed of any investigation which has taken place. I am naturally going to make inquiries with respect to this matter, but at the present time I cannot confirm there have been any investigations. The matter will receive my close attention and if the Hon. Member has any specific allegation to make or any information, I hope he will turn it over to the police authorities.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, this is what you call classic stonewalling.


Mr. Beatty:: This is what you call classic grandstanding.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the Minister of Justice is not aware of any
June 29, 1988

possible investigation. I direct my question to anyone on the government side. Have the RCMP conducted an investigation regarding people employed in the Prime Minister's Office, yes or no? Surely someone across the way should have an answer to that question right now.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 have answered that question. If the Hon. Member cannot understand plain English, I will try it in French, but I think he understands.


BANKS AND BANKING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. In light of the Angus Reid poll published today which shows that 75 per cent of Canadians believe that legislation governing bank service charges will be more effective than voluntary compliance, does the Minister not agree that the most effective way to protect the interests of Canadians is through legislation along the lines of the recommendations of the finance committee of this House? Or, does he believe that the road to Damascus goes through Bay Street?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I could produce a poll for the Hon. Member indicating that 100 per cent of Canadians want results on this issue and that is what we are going to produce tomorrow.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is a true believer.
The Consumers' Association of Canada has also said that voluntary compliance does not ensure that, once things got better, service charges will not rise again, as we noticed for example with the recent rise in bank credit card interest rates. Therefore, will the Minister assure this House that he will not lie down for the banks on this issue, as did his two colleagues from York-Scarborough and Mississauga South?


Thomas Hockin: Mr, Speaker, 1 would like to remind the Hon. Member that it was over two years ago the Hon. Member for Mackenzie raised this issue. It was over a year ago 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, all on this side of the House, raised concerns about this issue. As a result, and using the very fine work of the committee, we are going to produce a package tomorrow with which even that Hon. Member will be happy.
Oral Questions


AEROSPACE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology. For more than two years, everyone in the Quebec Government, municipal authorities, Quebec businessmen, unions and the Liberal Party of Canada, through its leader, have been pressuring the Tory Government to locate the space agency in Montreal, a real space agency, not an empty shell. Even the new Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and I don't know whether he is also the new Minister responsible for Montreal, said during his campaign that he would put his full weight behind this question. I hope he weighs as much as I do so Montreal will win!
So my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology. If they don't intend to do what they did in Lac-Saint-Jean and buy votes in Montreal, and if for once his Government could be honest and avoid political scandal, could the Minister announce here and now where the space agency will be located and what contracts it will be given?


An Hon. Member:: He's saving that for the election!


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure to answer the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. During the past year, a great deal has been done for Montreal and for the province of Quebec. An agreement was signed that, according to Premier Bourassa, was a milestone in regional economic development for Quebec. The agreement will provide funding of over $970 million, with another $40 million for private forests in Eastern Quebec. Montreal will get funding for the Vieux-Port development and there will be a special development fund for Montreal's east end. More money has been made available under the subsidiary agreements for Quebec. A new program has been added for science and technology development in Montreal. And as far as the space agency is concerned, an announcement will be made at the appropriate time, as soon as the Cabinet has made its decision.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, this Minister is just like the other guy. He doesn't read his documents and worse, he is deaf, because at a press conference the Premier of Quebec said the Government was not giving enough. It isn't one billion, it's only half a million the federal Government-the Premier blamed you for interest rates, and he blamed you for the shipyards. He blamed you for the space agency. So stop telling stories. The election campaign in Lac-Saint-Jean is over. The lying is over for the time being!

June 29, 1988
Oral Questions NATURE OF AGENCY


Jean-Claude Malépart: What I want to know from the Minister, when he announces the space agency, is: Will the space agency be located in Montreal to administer contracts or will it just be people working in Montreal to administer contracts that will be performed in Toronto? Is it a space agency with powers, contracts, economic benefits, not the crumbs that you Conservatives have been giving us for four years?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it does not happen often, but I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie when he says ...


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate him when he rises in the House to say that the lying is over. This may be his last question in the House, then.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport. The Minister is aware that the residents surrounding Pearson Airport have recently been awakened by run-up noises during the restricted hours of midnight to 6 a.m. For your benefit, Mr. Speaker, run-up noise is engine testing, not the run-up noise we hear on a daily basis from the opposition benches.
The Minister is aware that this run-up creates the same noise level as an engine in take-off or landing. However, unlike take-off and landing, it is not subject to any restrictions.
Could the Minister ensure that action will be taken so that residents around the airport will not be disturbed at these ungodly hours and that this colleague of his, who is also a resident, can get his much needed beauty rest?


Hon. Gerry St. Germain (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, my officials have requested that the aircraft maintenance run-up organizations adhere to the following three stipulations: Inform power ground control of run-up activity; conduct run-ups in an area so as to direct noise to the infield of the airport; and avoid run-ups at night.
This is an important subject for the residents around Pearson International Airport. We are also going to ensure that run-ups are done late in the morning outside the restricted
hours. I believe that should provide some comfort for that area.
*
* *


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the annual report of the Information Commissioner, Inger Hansen, was made public. That report was a damning indictment of the Conservative Government's attempts to stonewall and deny access to information, to, in her words, block the road to openness. She said, "The Act isn't working and I felt I had to speak out".
In view of this harsh and unprecedented criticism of the Government, will the Minister of Justice now admit that his response to the unanimous report of the Justice Committee was a betrayal of the Prime Minister's 1984 promise to strengthen freedom of information, not to gut it? What action will the Minister of Justice take to respond to this devastating attack on his Government by the Information Commissioner?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question. It is not against the Constitution of Canada or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the Hon. Member, or indeed the press, to report on statements made by the Information Commissioner which are complimentary of the Government with respect to the initiatives we have taken.
We responded on a very positive note to the committee report. We have opened up the process. We are the first Government which has had access to information in place while in office. We have been responding in a very positive way to support this initiative and we will continue to do so, even if we do not have the co-operation of the Hon. Member.


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PCO LETTER TO DEPARTMENTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Information Commissioner went on to say, "The Prime Minister did at one time speak out in favour of freedom of information. Maybe he doesn't know what's happening today".
Is the Minister of Justice prepared to withdraw the letter which was sent out by the Clerk of the Privy Council in September of 1986 which basically told Departments that they had to vet through the Prime Minister's office all requests for information which might in any way embarrass the Prime Minister?
Will the Minister of Justice assure the House that this offensive letter, this attempt to gag any information which
June 29, 1988

might embarrass the Prime Minister, will be immediately withdrawn? Will he at least take that step?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I noticed in press reports with respect to statements made by Miss Hansen that she has indicated that she has no hard evidence to back up her statement that there is any prohibition across the board with respect to the federal Government or any attempt to slow down the process.
I think the Hon. Member would accept the fact that we have introduced a regime whereby the Government is committed to public education and an increase in access to government information. We have had some very positive proposals which we plan to bring forward in legislation.
If the Hon. Member will co-operate with us he will find out that we in this Government will have the most effective access to information regime of any Government in Canada. When there was a socialist Government in this country it was not very high up on access to information. That is probably one reason it lost the next election.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. A few days ago, representatives of the Union des producteurs agricoles and the Cooperative federee du Quebec and the Quebec Minister of Agriculture came to Ottawa to meet with members of our caucus, and perhaps with other Members from Quebec who sit in this House, to complain about the injustice and unfairness of the Conservative Government's policies towards Quebec farmers and their Government. For grain alone, they told us, the lost income for Quebec farmers and their Government amounts to S200 million.
I would like to ask the Government what it is waiting for to correct this unfairness to Quebec farmers, their representatives and the Government of Quebec, to correct this revenue shortfall of over $200 million.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Hon. Member's question on this specific subject. I am quite aware of the position taken by certain farm leaders in the Province of Quebec which is, to a certain extent I suppose, shared by my provincial counterpart from that province.
Oral Questions
I have seen the document that they have prepared. I have had senior people within my Department analyse it. It contains many inaccuracies and many flaws.
I want the Hon. Member to know that since we assumed office we have ensured that all the programs we have delivered are fair and equitable to all farmers in all regions.
[ Translation]


HARMONIZATION OF PROGRAMS-GUARANTIES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, in this case, it is not an individual but a whole group of farmers' representatives, including the provincial Minister of Agriculture.
At the same meeting, these representatives also told us of the difficulties they face with the eventual harmonization of programs as a result of the trade agreement with the United States. On their behalf, I would like to ask the Minister to make a formal commitment that marketing programs, supply management and price stabilization that protect farm income and the family farm will be protected. Can these programs be guaranteed and does the Minister give us his word and his Government's commitment that these programs will not be affected by the harmonization process following the implementation of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised that the Hon. Member asks that question, particularly at this stage. He might recall that when we began the process of negotiating the bilateral trade arrangement between the United States and ourselves we made it very clear-it was publicly stated in this very Chamber, I believe on March 16, 1986-that Canada's supply managed systems, Canada's agri-food marketing systems, would remain intact. At the completion of the negotiations we delivered exactly what we stated on March 16, 1986.
In addition to that, there is a provision in the bilateral trade arrangement, Section 710 which clearly sets out that particular issue as part of the trade agreement. Canada's supply managed systems are quite consistent with the bilateral trade arrangement and are quite consistent with Article XI in the GATT.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Last night on the U.S. based Cable News Network, Fred

June 29, 1988
Oral Questions
Grandy, a Republican Congressman from Iowa, indicated that the trade deal between Canada and the United States would allow the capital rich U.S.A. to have full access to the water and resource rich Canada. That differs greatly from what the Government has been telling the House and the Canadian people.
Will the Minister explain why, after his comments, all the words of the Minister for International Trade, and all the taxpayers' money that has been spent, the Americans still believe they have open access to our water?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, did you ever notice the schizophrenia of the NDP? On the one hand they elevate anti-Americanism to the level of Party policy-


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Thomas Michael McMillan: On the other hand, they quote any American they can find, twist his remarks to buttress every manner of contortion of policy of the federal Government. The fact is that the Government of Canada has made very clear through its federal water policy that we are against large-scale exports of water.


John R. Rodriguez: Why did you not exclude it?


Thomas Michael McMillan: We are against inter-basin diversions for such a purpose. That is the policy of the Government of Canada and it stands, no matter what the NDP says on the subject.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows full well that there is no piece of legislation that would prevent that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iain Francis Angus: Let me point out to the Minister that the Congressman involved, Congressman Grandy, is another American actor, who played "Gopher" on The Love Boat. Is the reason the Government is unwilling to bring in legislation to prevent large-scale trans-boundary water diversions because the Prime Minister thinks he is on the Love Boat, having a love-in with President Reagan, and wants us to be nothing more than "go-fors" for the United States?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely ridiculous. The federal Government does not need law or regulation in this case. It has stated its policy, which could not be more clear even to the obtuse NDP.


An Hon. Member:: Policy changes.


Thomas Michael McMillan: The water of Canada is not for sale. We are against large-scale export of water. The free trade agreement does not force either Canada or the United States to sell water to the other. The water policy excludes inter-basin diversions
for large-scale water export purposes. Nothing could be clearer. If we wrote it in a million laws, the policy would not be clearer than that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. He will know that as part of the Canada-Newfoundland agreement to close down the Newfoundland railway, the Government of Canada sought and received from the Government of Newfoundland an agreement for Newfoundland to give up the 1949 constitutional guarantee that the Government of Canada provide for Newfoundland's portion of the coast-to-coast national transportation system.
Yesterday in Newfoundland, Liberal leader Clyde Wells tabled a resolution calling on the Government of Canada to amend the 1949 Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland so that Ottawa continue to pay the additional costs for that portion of the highway system that results from the closure of the railway.
Given that the agreement signed a few weeks in St. John's destroys that constitutional guarantee, is the Government prepared to reconsider its position and restore constitutional guarantees that were part and parcel of Newfoundland entering union with Canada in 1949?


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, there was the commitment in the negotiations that took place between the province, CN, and the federal Government to meet the constitutional obligations.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we know from a declaration made yesterday in the House that the Minister for International Trade did not bother to read the trade deal. We know that the junior Minister of State for Transport has not read the Canada-Newfoundland Railway phase-out agreement because there is clearly a clause in which the Province of Newfoundland gave up its right to constitutional obligation on the part of Canada to maintain a transportation system in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Minister should be ashamed that he does not know it.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF TERMS OF UNION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, given that this agreement, negotiated in haste by Tory Parties in Ottawa and Newfoundland that are in desperate political trouble, changes the Terms of Union between Canada and Newfoundland, will the Government

June 29, 1988

accept the advice of the resolution in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador to effect an amendment to the Terms of Union so that that constitutional guarantee is retained into the future? We cannot accept a deal that was made for short-term political expediency and sells out the future of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, as I clearly pointed out, I do not believe the Liberal Party in Newfoundland is negotiating on behalf of Newfoundlanders. It does not represent Newfoundlanders at this time. Negotiations that have taken place deal with the requirements of Newfoundlanders.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In the three-quarters of an hour since the question of the alleged raid on the Prime Minister's Office by the RCMP has been raised in the House, has the Minister of Justice been able to check with officials about the veracity or lack thereof of that charge?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question. I am informed by the Commissioner of the RCMP that there is no investigation of any alleged wrong-doing on the part of anyone or person on the staff of the Prime Minister's Office or within the Prime Minister's Office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Get up and apologize.


John Edward Broadbent: For what?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Andre:: Throw some more mud, Ed!


Mr. Nystrom:: What is the matter with you?


Mr. Siddon:: Get up and apologize.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Tell us about morality.


Mr. Riis:: Call an election, Flora.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Party of mudslingers.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.
Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Since 1977, only 1.6 per cent of women working in the Public Service have benefited from the federal pay equity law. A year ago this week, the Human Rights Commission recommended a major overhaul of the legislative provisions on pay equity.
I would like to ask the Minister when his Government will implement the Commission's recommendations and give Canadian women real pay equity.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it was this Government that introduced the Employment Equity Act. This Government introduced employment equity and broader affirmative action throughout the whole of the Public Service, and we will continue to bring equality into the Public Service in a way that had not been done in the past. We will do the same thing with Governor in Council appointments. We have done more in this field than any other Government.
Let me add that we have applied employment equity legislation to all businesses that are regulated under federal Government jurisdiction.


PAY EQUITY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we know the legislation is not working. Hamilton Mountain Census Data released this month, and I have here the Statistics Canada report, show that in my community women are earning 60 cents for every dollar a man earns. Why is the Government ignoring the proposals put forward by the Human Rights Commission? Why is it ignoring its commitment to pay equity for the women of Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Employment Equity Act is working. The New Democrats did not want it to work in the first place, they argued against it. They voted against it. They did not want equality for women or for minority groups. The reports are coming in this month for the first time on the Employment Equity Act. We see in hundreds of reports now being submitted to the Department of Employment and Immigration the advances that are being made.
For the first time, over one thousand companies and contractors which are doing business with the federal Government, have integrated the Employment Equity Act in their planning. They have never done that before. What we are seeing is contract compliance for the first time. Over one

June 29, 1988
Business of the House
thousand contractors now have that compliance in place, as do businesses that are federally regulated.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Recent testing for polyaromatic hydrocarbons in the Town of Newcastle, New Brunswick, has discovered samples which exceed the World Health Organization guidelines by at least tenfold. These hydrocarbons have been recognized as a potential cancer causing agent. As a result of this pollution, the town has had to shut down 40 per cent of its potable water.
Can the Minister advise us what federal assistance is being provided to the community and province to assist in discovering the source and correcting the problem?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, I have taken a very keen personal interest in this matter. The situation at Newcastle is serious. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons are an environmental bad actor. The Member will also know that the principal responsibility for this problem rests with the province and the municipality. However, for our part the federal Government is exercising its own jurisdiction to the hilt and backing the province and the community with all relevant and needed technical resources.
If the province or municipality need further assistance at any point in their own work, the Hon. Member can be assured I will instruct my officials to provide that assistance. In the meantime we are paying particular attention, because it is within federal jurisdiction, to water quality in the Miramachi River and to the marine life therein.


TAX REFORM
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Although some Canadians will see a minor increase in their take-home pay this month, the Institute for Research and Public Policy confirms what we on this side of the House have being saying, that in fact middle-income Canadian families are worse off with so-called tax reform than they were in 1984. The biggest winners are the 1 per cent of Canadians earning the highest incomes.
Will the Minister agree with the witness before the committee who said that this tax reform should properly be called "tax deform"?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, many Members who have appeared before the committee have spoken to me not just about tax reform but about the tremendous growth we have had in this country and the fact we are leading the G-7 countries in job creation and economic growth, the fact that we have seen 1.3 million jobs created during this period of time, and the fact that we are taking the courageous move to reform the tax system. As the Hon. Member has pointed out, that will become evident to Canadians in their first pay cheque after July 1. I believe 85 per cent of Canadians will see their taxes go down.
These are the things Canadians are interested in. These are the things I am hearing from people when they come and congratulate me on the performance we have seen by this Government and by this economy over the last three and one-half years.


EFFECTIVE DATE OF TAX DECREASES
Aideen Nicholson: The Minister takes $22 billion out of the pockets of Canadians, returns $2 billion and thinks they should be grateful.
Will the Minister confirm that although some of these tax decreases are effective since January, the payroll deductions only become effective in July and, therefore, the Government has been enjoying an interest-free loan of $1 billion from taxpayers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am quite surprised the Hon. Member would use that $22 billion figure. She is known for the straightforward, honest type of questions that some of her colleagues are not known for and that some of the people next door to her are not known for. She is, but she knows perfectly well that that $22 billion figure is 80 per cent because of the growth of the economy and only 20 per cent because of tax increases. I can understand why she is blushing now, having asked that question.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I wish to advise the House of the results of those discussions. Today, Routine Proceedings will proceed in a normal manner and under Orders of the Day the Government will call Bill C-130, that is, the free trade Bill. It is our understanding that the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition will seek the floor to address the Bill at that time.
Immediately after his remarks, the debate will be adjourned on consent and the Government will call for concurrence in the Ways and Means motion on tax reform. We expect a request
June 29, 1988

for a recorded division on that particular item and, immediately after the recorded division, the House will return to debate on Bill C-130.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Government House Leader has accurately conveyed to the House the results of discussions on the matters he has mentioned, and we give our consent to the proposal he has made.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House in agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-72 was reported to the House on Monday at three o'clock. I presented a motion to amend the Bill under Standing Order 114(5) yesterday at eleven o'clock. The Standing Order is quite specific. It reads:
If, not later than twenty-four hours prior to the consideration of a report
stage, written notice is given of any motion to amend, delete, insert or restore
any clause in a Bill, it shall be printed on a Notice Paper.
Those amendments are not printed. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, why it was not printed?


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member for Calgary East for raising this matter, which was in fact anticipated. I am sure Hon. Members will not be surprised to find that the Chair envisaged this point of order being raised in the House today.
I wish to advise Hon. Members that through the House administration it was brought to my attention that a revised report from the legislative committee which dealt with Bill C-72 would be presented to the House today. Since report stage notices should not be placed on the Notice Paper until the Bill is reported back to the House in its corrected form, I felt, after consultation with the Clerk of the House, that all notices received in amendment to the Bill at that stage would be held off the Notice Paper pending the revised report being presented.
I can assure the Hon. Member for Calgary East and all Hon. Members that their notices will be printed as soon as the report is presented to the House. I thank the Hon. Member for raising the matter.
Committee Reports



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to 25 petitions numbered as follows: 332-4606, 3324622, 332-4623, 332-4636, 332-4643, 332-4644, 332-4700, 332-4701, 332-4711, 332-4713, 332-4714, 332-4716, 3324718, 332-4720, 332-4723, 332-4769 to 332-4771 inclusive, 332-4774, 332-4779, 332-4784 and 332-4786 to 332-4789 inclusive.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Official Parliamentary Delegation of the Canadian Section of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group which attended the twenty-ninth annual meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group in Key West, Florida, from May 5 to May 9, 1988.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the thirteenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
This report deals with financial management in government. Hon. Members will know that the Auditor General has commented that although there is considerable improvement in financial control, policy decisions are being taken without good information on costs, and without full knowledge of the implications of these decisions.

June 29, 1988
Petitions
In this report we concentrate on efforts to improve financial management in government. The report identifies potential savings of many millions of dollars, for example, $40 million in the Department of Health and Welfare by improving the system of income security payments by moving to a more modern system. There are other possible savings of $200 million per year.
We have asked the Government for a comprehensive response to this report.



SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS-TENTH REPORT OF STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE

Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to present the tenth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, which I have the honour to present in both official languages.



BILL C-72-REVISED REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, I have the honour to present the revised report on Bill C-72, as amended, to the House.
An important amendment to Clause 37 had inadvertently been left out at report stage of Bill C-72. This amendment had been adopted by members of the committee and is therefore necessary to be presented at the revised stage of this Bill.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

['I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.']
Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence.
My committee has conducted a review of those portions of the defence White Paper pertaining to our reserve forces, made visits, and held public hearings. The recommendations contained in this report are the result of our deliberations.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and indeed my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 on behalf of a number of my constituents who are concerned that the fabric of Canadian sovereignty is being threatened by the proposed trade deal, and that the federal Government lacks a mandate to negotiate a trade deal with the United States.
They also believe that the trade deal would reduce our country's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural
programs we need. Since the trade Bill would integrate Canada's economy into that of the United States of America, they are asking that the House wrap up its affairs so that a general election can take place on the trade deal.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of residents of the City of Toronto. They are concerned about our immigration policy. Inasmuch as family reunion is a major part of our policy, and whereas many Canadians from Vietnam find that it takes many months or years to bring relatives from Vietnam to Canada as immigrants, and the Vietnamese Government has delayed or stopped immigration for many relatives of Canadians, the undersigned call on the House of Commons to ensure that the Canadian Government will negotiate actively with Vietnam to secure an agreement providing for closer co-operation on immigration, including quicker action on Canadian sponsorships.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition from a number of residents of Toronto who are concerned that the promise of the Government to allow sons and daughters unmarried of any age to enter as members of the family class should be carried through as promised by the Government to take place next month.
Also a two-year old promise of the then Minister of Justice, they wish to be carried out as well. He promised to remove the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more so that both groups would have equal right to sponsor parents of any age.
They request Parliament to call on the Government to fulfil its promises now.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Benno Friesen Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):
Mr. Speaker, I have eight petitions with hundreds of names from communities from Delta to Abbotsford in the Fraser Valley. All of them ask Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.
In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have two duly certified petition to present. The first deals with the trade deal between Canada and the United States. It points out that the Government had no mandate to negotiate such a trade deal, that it would reduce Canada's
June 29, 1988

ability to plan, and that it would further integrate Canada into the North American defence industrial base.
Therefore the petitioners ask the Elouse of Commons to ensure that a national debate takes place on the trade deal and that it results in a national general election before any agreement is signed.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the other petition I wish to present deals with the subject of abortion.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first indicates that the very fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed Mulroney-Reagan trade deal, that the Mulroney Government had no mandate to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States, that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal would reduce Canada's ability to plan the economic, social and cultural programs we need, and that the Mulroney trade deal would integrate Canada further into the North American defence-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member. I fully understand the use, at times, of names to associate with something within the political sphere. However, I would ask Hon. Members not to overdo it.
I think that the continued repetition is perhaps getting to the point at which we might have some objections. I would ask the Hon. Member to keep that in mind.


Cyril Keeper: I am not quite clear what the Speaker meant.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very sorry if I did not make myself clear. We have had a custom and a tradition in this place for many years that we refer to Hon. Members as a Minister, a Prime Minister, or the Hon. Member for whatever riding. I recognize that in common parlance there are times when surnames are used and associated with some aspect of political life or government. I would just ask that Hon. Members not overdo it.


Cyril Keeper: I was reading the petition. Are you indicating, Mr. Speaker, that since it is the content of the petition I should not be reading it?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not attempting to make a severe ruling. I am only asking for some co-operation with respect to the customs of the place.


Cyril Keeper: I will respect the Chair, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Good.


Cyril Keeper: I don't need you barking from the sidelines. I am attempting to present a petition signed by Canadians who
Petitions
want the Government to shove the trade deal, whether it is called the Mulroney trade deal or the prime ministerial trade deal.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre is trying to co-operate with the Chair, and I would ask other Hon. Members to remain silent while he finishes his statement.


Cyril Keeper: I have a petition from a number of Canadians across the country who would like the Government to abandon its trade deal, by whatever name it is called.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my second petition deals with the Post Office. It indicates quite clearly that the Government ought to abandon its policy with regard to the Post Office, because it is destroying post office services in both rural and urban Canada.
The third petition is also with regard to the Post Office. It contains different provisions, but it states that the Government ought to develop a good postal policy rather than continuing to destroy postal services.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present two petitions to the House. The first petition deals with a national general election on the trade deal. It puts forward several reasons why the petitioners do not think that the Government has the right to proceed with the trade deal. They request that the Government ensure a national debate takes place and that that debate result in a national general election before the agreement is put into place.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a duly certified petition on behalf of constituents of Victoria-Haliburton. The petition is signed by 163 residents of Beaverton, Kinmount, Cameron, Coboconk, Dunsford, Fenelon Falls, Cannington, Kirkfield, Lindsay, Little Britain, Minden, Norland, Oakwood, Omemee, Woodville, and surrounding areas.
In light of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is striking down Section 251 of the Criminal Code of Canada, and has left Canadians without any law restricting abortion, the petitioners call upon Parliament to pass legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception, with the exception of situations in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition given to me by the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and signed by 56 people, some from the national capital region and some from Kaladar, and North Brook, Ontario.

June 29, 1988
Order Paper Questions
They ever pray and call upon Parliament to pass into law legislation that will protect the life of the unborn child from conception and at all stages of development, with the exception of the extremely rare situation in which an abortion is performed in order to save the life of the mother.
As in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I bring to your attention a grievance from Montrealers living in the Verdun, Pierrefonds, Bois de Bologne, St. Laurent, St. Leonard, Dollard- des-Ormeaux, Town of Mount Royal, Snowdon, Cote-des-Neiges, Cote-St-Luc, and a variety of other areas in and around Montreal.
The petition is bilingual and states that a 40 per cent cut in the budget of the Challenge '88 program in the Montreal region has a negative impact which goes beyond mere numbers of unemployed students and disappointed community organizations.
It is a well-known fact that almost the totality of cultural communities, visible or otherwise, live in those areas. The increase in available grants to other Quebec regions can therefore bring cultural communities little comfort. They are thus being discriminated against in a way that is unacceptable from a Government wishing to appear committed to a multicultural policy.
Wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly submit the petition which contains hundreds of names.


Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my duty and privilege to present four petitions containing a total of more than 400 names signed by residents of Edmonton, the majority of whom reside in my constituency.
The petitioners believe that human life begins at the moment of conception, and they call upon the Government to enact immediately legislation to protect the life of the unborn child.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 343 and 351.


Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Will the Economic Council of Canada move outside the city of Vanier, Ontario and, if so, what will be the costs involved in the move and relocation of the Council?
2.	What sums of money (a) does it cost to lodge the Council in its present quarters (b) will it cost to lodge the Council in its new quarters?
3.	To the knowledge of the Government, what will be the costs involved for the workers as a result of the move for (a) parking (b) additional transportation (c) other expenses?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: I am informed by the Economic Council of Canada that:
1.	Public Works Canada is currently seeking Treasury Board approval to enter into a lease for accommodation in downtown Ottawa for the Economic Council of Canada. The moving costs are estimated at $760,000 and are expected to be offset by the inducements offered by the landlord.
2.	(a) The annual rent of the present quarters is $581,000.
(b) The annual rent of the new quarters is estimated at $775,000.
3.	(a) The cost of parking for staff will increase from $36 to approximately $100 to $125 per month.
(b)	The costs involved are very much dependent on the mode of transportation (single car, car pool, buses). The distance travelled by 60 per cent of the staff will be much the same or less while the rest of the staff, those who live in the east end, will have to travel an additional three kilometres (approximately) to get to downtown Ottawa.
(c)	The Economic Council of Canada is not aware of any other expenses.


Mr. Riis: During (a) 1984 (b) 1985 (c) 1986 (d) 1987 (e) 1988 up to May I, did the Government authorize permits for the export of any goods falling under Section 7 of the Export Control List where the destination of the said goods was (f) Bangladesh (//) Chad (rV) Chile (/v) Colombia (v) El Salvador (v/) Ethiopia (v//) Guatemala (vm) Haiti (/x) Honduras (x) India (x/) Indonesia (xiV) Iran (x///) Iraq (x/v) South Korea (xv) Lebanon (xvi) Libya (xv/7) Mali (xv/i/) Mauritania (x/x) Morocco (xx) Namibia (xxi) Pakistan (xx/f) Paraguay (xx/77) Peru (xx/'v) The Philippines (xxv) Somalia (xxv/) Syria (xxv//) Taiwan (xxv///) Togo (xx/x) Turkey (xxx) Uganda (xxx/) Uruguay (xxx//) Zaire and, if so, in each case, to what value?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Total values of Export Permits issued for Export Control List, Group 7 goods to the following countries, for the calendar years indicated. When no value is provided, no permits were issued.
June 29, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Country	(a) 1984	(b) 1985	(c) 1986	(d) 1987	(e) 1988 (to 1 May)(i)	Bangladesh	-	-	-	-(ii)	Chad	-	-	219,284	-	-(iii)	Chile	10,185,314	7,419,532	6,182,108	1,175,000	-(iv)	Colombia	5,026,293	10	4,057,496	309,879	-(v)	El Salvador	-	3,686	-	-	-(vi)	Ethiopia	3,000,000	-	-	-	-(vii)	Guatemala	-	14,742	-	-	-(viii)	Haiti	-	-	-	-	-(ix)	Honduras	-	-	-	-	-00	India	16,819,620	33,550,631	35,655,493	30,007,022	82,950,000(xi)	Indonesia	17,794,916	14,176,297	3,237,607	8,598,100	-(xii)	Iran	-	-	-	-	-(xiii)	Iraq	-	-	-	-	-(xiv)	Korea (South)	56,093,761	29,640,539	25,475,164	102,008,723	161,972,291(XV)	Lebanon	-	-	-	-	-(xvi)	Libya	-	-	-	-	-(xvii)	Mali	-	-	-	-	-(xviii)	Mauritania	-	3,000,000	3,000,000	3,000,000	-(xix)	Morocco	8,000,000	5,047,000	1,036,000	11,376	-(XX)	Namibia	-	-	-	-	-(xxi)	Pakistan	45,564,436	23,344,984	2,062,657	73,128,934	1,124,508(xxii)	Paraguay	25,000,000	1,140	-	-	-(xxiii)	Peru	46,000,000	150,520,879	2,000,000	7,376,307	3,048,000(xxiv)	Philippines	10,604,456	58,057	3,257,690	38,114	-(xxv)	Somalia	-	-	-	-	-(xxvi)	Syria	1,000,000	-	441,000	-	-(xxvii)	Taiwan	-	-	-	-	-(xxviii)	Togo	-	-	3,000,000	3,000,000	-(xxix)	Turkey	2,220,000	17,804,160	11,362,742	112,224,593	17,057,300(xxx)	Uganda	-	-	-	-	-(xxxi)	Uruguay	-	2,747	964	-	-(xxxii)	Zaire	-	-	3,000,000	3,000,000	7,527,000


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

["It being six o'clock, pursuant to Order made on Monday June 20, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1)."]
Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, June 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House opposes in principle and therefore declines to proceed with Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, because that agreement, which was negotiated
[Stage Direction]
June 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
in a secretive and irresponsible manner in the absence of a mandate from the Canadian people, will undermine the economic, social and political institutions of Canada, because it will fail to provide guaranteed and secure access to U.S. and other world trade markets, because it will create severe adverse effects on many industries and communities and because it will endanger the economic and social fabric and political independence of Canada."
And the amendment of Mr. Langdon:
That the amendment be amended by adding immediately after the words ''political institutions of Canada," the words "including our valued system of social and regional development programs,".
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss one of the most devastating pieces of legislation ever brought before the House of Commons. We are here to debate a Bill which will finish Canada as we know it and replace it with a Canada that will become nothing more than a colony of the United States.
So urgent and compelling is the impatience of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to pack up this country and ship it south that we are going to debate this Bill for only a few hours. It took 121 years for Canadians to build this Confederation. The Government is proposing to undo that in less than half that number of hours. This Bill represents over 1,000 days of intricate negotiations between the two countries. We will debate the result of those 1,000 days in five days before the House of Commons.

This Bill is a disaster like the trade agreement it will give force of law.
With this measure, the Government is telling Canadians they have no choice but to accept or reject this agreement. It is telling this House that the elected representatives of the Canadian people have no say in the drafting of this Bill and can do nothing to diminish its impact on our country.
We are being forced to pass this legislation in a matter of days without even having seen the corresponding U.S. bill.
At every stage of the talks, there were major differences of opinion between both governments about the wording and the content of the agreement. Nevertheless, this Government is now obliging us to adopt its version of the Bill without giving us a chance to examine the legislation proposed in the U.S. Congress.
Only two and a half weeks ago, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff was still in Washington to negotiate differences between the United States and Canada, not just on minor points but on fundamental issues like the definition of subsidies.

This Bill greatly offends Canadian tradition in three ways: it is anti-parliamentary, it is anti-democratic, it is anti-Constitution. We are being presented with an omnibus Bill which changes 27 existing Acts of Parliament. Clause 8 commits us never again to pass a statute inconsistent with this Bill, never again to enact legislation inconsistent with this trade deal. The
Bill is to supersede any other Act of Parliament, past or future. It has almost the authority of a constitutional provision. Yet the discussion draft that the U.S. Congress negotiated between the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives indicates that that version of the trade Bill, the American version of the trade Bill, can be amended by any subsequent Act of Congress. Not only that, we find that Canadians can be fined, even imprisoned, for contravening American law, present and future, laws we haven't even seen yet.
I raised this in the House of Commons. The Minister was surprised. Now we know why. He has not read the whole deal. He has not studied the document. I am going to take him and the House through several of the provisions that relate right to the fundamental nature of our country. I doubt that the government Members read any of the Bill at all. Here is what it says about people who do not uphold the trade agreement as incorporated into the Bill.
Section 77.26 (1)-Every person who contravenes or fails to comply with ... (C) a protective order covering business proprietary and other privileged information made under American law ... is guilty of offence and is liable ... (E) on conviction and indictment, to a fine not exceeding one million dollars.
The Bill before this House involves Canadians in potential liability, potential imprisonment, and fines up to $1 million, not for offending Canadian law, not for contravening Canadian regulation, but for offending American law, present or future, laws that have not yet been enacted by the U.S. Congress. The Bill is anti-parliamentary for those reasons, and it is also anti-democratic.
Turning to public hearings, we do not know whether the committee will allow public hearings. There have been no public hearings on this Bill to date. There were no public hearings allowed on the text of the agreement. The only hearings across the country were on the general principles of that agreement. There has been no opportunity for Canadians publicly, before their elected representatives or Members of Parliament, to analyse the deal, to make their points, their submissions, to present their briefs on the deal, to analyse the real impact of the deal on their lives, their unions, their jobs, their professions, their businesses.
The whole procedure has been anti-democratic. The Prime Minister has no mandate for this legislation. It alters the fundamental direction of Canada. There was no mention of it in the last general election. It was not a theme put before the people of Canada in the last election. The only time Canadians were ever given an inkling, given an understanding of the Prime Minister's view on this very fundamental issue was when he sought the leadership of the Conservative Party at its national convention in 1983, and when, in response to a debate with the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the current Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), the current Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), he was asked what he thought about free trade and his words were
June 29, 1988

quite clear. "Free trade," he said, "it affects our sovereignty, and we will have none of it."
Those were the words of the Prime Minister when it suited him to be against free trade. Our Prime Minister's aversion to sticking to his word has become famous. Some would say even legendary.
Canadians were not consulted nor did they authorize a deal which changes the whole direction of Canadian history, and we need an election so that Canadians can decide.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not only anti-parliamentary and anti-democratic, it is antiConstitution.
Clause 6-the Minister hasn't read it, he doesn't know, people ask him questions and he's taken by surprise-Clause 6 contains a provision that allows the federal Government to ignore the jurisdiction of the provinces in order to implement the agreement. This would involve not just wine and grapes, as was claimed by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) but also energy, agriculture, our financial institutions, social policies, services, culture, and so forth. In other words, the present Government has allowed the Americans to rewrite our Constitution and to determine our future legislative agenda.

You must be asking yourself the question, Mr. Speaker: How did it come to this? Why? Why are we being forced to rush this Bill through at the last minute, against all our traditions, parliamentary, democratic, constitutional, against the wishes of a vast majority of the Canadian people who want an election before this deal is implemented?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Why? Why are we now
being forced to give hasty approval to legislation which represents the largest sell-out of our sovereignty since we became a nation in 1867? Why? Dishonesty, Mr. Speaker, dishonesty on the part of this Government.
The whole point of getting into bilateral negotiations with the United States rather than negotiating with that country internationally as we have done since the War quite successfully, the sole point of getting into bilateral negotiations was to obtain secure access to the American market. Secure access to the American market meant a specific exemption from U.S. protectionist trade remedy law. It also meant an impartial binding dispute settlement mechanism to enforce that exemption.
We in this Party have been saying that ever since these negotiations first started. I put it in questions to the Prime Minister; my colleague from Winnipeg-Fort Garry put it in questions to the Minister for International Trade. I told the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Ottawa Board of Trade in a major speech two years ago this month that any agreement with the United States that did not have a specific exemption from American trade law, that did not exempt us from protectionist legislation-the 1930 Trade Act of the United States, the 1974 trade law of the United States, the current omnibus Bill still being discussed in the Congress-that any agreement with the United States that did not give us that exemption, that did not give us a binding dispute settlement mechanism, was not worth the paper it was written on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Government, the Prime Minister, his Ministers, used to agree with me on that point.
A year ago the Prime Minister said in New York, quoted by the Wall Street Journal in response to some American reporters: "The U.S. trade remedy laws cannot apply to Canada period". That was when he understood the deal. The former Minister for International Trade, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), said that the objective of any trade agreement-and she said this in the House of Commons-would be the elimination of countervail by both countries. The current Minister for International Trade agreed with his predecessor and with the Prime Minister. Here is what he said in St. John's, on July 2, 1987, a year ago, before the St. John's Board of Trade, and I use the Minister's words:
Unless we get out from under the threat of countervail and other U.S. trade remedy law and unless there is an effective dispute settlement resolution to bind the Americans to their commitments, a free trade agreement with the United States would not be a good deal for Canada.
Those were the Minister's words. We have been saying that ever since these negotiations started. We have been attempting to hold the Government to that sole purpose of any bilateral negotiation with the United States. Well, we all know that the Minister for International Trade is trying to bluff his way through, trying to sell this arrangement to Canadians with jokes and anecdotes. Perhaps that speech in St. John's was one of them, but then again the Minister has not read the deal. He is the man who compares selling this trade agreement to the United States with selling vacuum cleaners. For his information-and I feel I owe him now the responsibility of taking him through the deal that he has not read-this is what the deal says in the actual text. The Minister will have great difficulty comparing that with his last July statement to the St. John's Board of Trade. Article 1902:1 of this trade deal says that the United States:
-reserves the right to apply its anti-dumping law and countervailing duty law to goods imported from the territory of the other Party.
The other party is Canada. In other words, there is no exemption from U.S. protectionist trade law. It is the same law that crippled us on exports of softwood lumber, fish, potash, and put on quotas against steel. Those laws still apply.

June 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Yes, it is true, we will have a new trade tribunal, but how will this trade tribunal ensure our exports guaranteed access to the American market? How will it protect our exporters from that protectionist American legislation? Well, the Prime Minister cannot tell us. We put the question to him. The Minister cannot tell us because he has not read it. The reason the Government cannot tell us is that the trade tribunal will not protect us or give us an exemption from American trade law. Not only will the procedure be longer and costlier for our exporters, the tribunal still will not be able to challenge U.S. law.
Here again I turn to the agreement. How can the Minister know? He has not read the whole deal. But Article 1904:2 states that the tribunal can review a trade decision of the United States Government only:
-to determine whether such determination was in accordance with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the importing Party.
That is American law. It goes on to say that:
-the anti-dumping and countervailing duty statutes of the Parties, as those statutes may be amended from time to time, are incorporated into this Agreement.
In other words, the tribunal cannot challenge the law. Canadian exporters will not be able to challenge American law. The tribunal has the jurisdiction only to interpret that law using American precedent and American judicial practice. Nothing has changed for Canadian exporters. If an American industry feels that a Canadian industry by way of export into the American market is obtaining a share of that market which the Americans cannot tolerate, they have the same remedies in countervail, in quotas, in anti-dumping, and in surtax as they had before this agreement was ever signed.
Canadian exporters are being invited into the Prime Minister's brave new world of trade, with the United States, under the same rules. Not only existing American rules, but as the article I have just recited says, under any American statute present or future as they may be amended from time to time- present American law, future American law, and no restriction on the sovereign authority of the United States.
Also, even at this late date we do not know whether the tribunal's decisions will be considered constitutional by the American courts. Our Ambassador to the United States was properly concerned. He is quoted as saying the following in what seems to me to be the understatement of the year. These were his words:
We would be profoundly concerned if the net result of the U.S. legal constraints is that panel decisions-
That is to say, decisions of the tribunal:
-cannot be implemented under U.S. law.

This House is being forced to pass this proposed legislation at top speed, when we don't even know if the U.S. Government
will have to abide by the tribunal's decisions or whether it will be able to act on those decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I always thought that in business, when one party enters into an agreement with another party and the latter cannot meet his commitments, the agreement is automatically cancelled. Apparently that is not how this Government sees it. Otherwise, we would not be here to rush through approval of our part of an agreement while the other party is not even sure it will be able to abide by its provisions.

What is completely incomprehensible, Mr. Speaker, and totally unacceptable is that despite the fact the Government opposite by its own admission did not get what it wanted in this deal from the Americans, namely, secure access to the U.S. market, an exemption from American protectionist trade law, it went ahead, continued the negotiations, and concluded the negotiations despite its failure to meet that objective.
The principal condition for a deal with the United States was not met by the Americans. Their markets will remain as protectionist and as protected as ever. Their lumber industry will continue to use protectionist trade remedy laws whenever it feels threatened, as will their steel industry, as will their potash industry, as will their fishing industry, as will their textile industry, as will their agricultural industry, because the Government opposite, led by the Prime Minister, did not have the guts to stand up and say to the Americans: "Give us the purpose for which we entered these negotiations. Give us secure access to your market. Give us a guarantee against harassment, a guarantee against unilateral trade law or else there is no deal".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Why? Because this Government did not have the courage or the honesty to return to the people of Canada with a failed initiative. This Prime Minister did not have the courage or the honesty to say to the people of our country, "Well, we tried, but we failed". The Prime Minister had too much political capital invested in getting a deal, any deal, on any terms.
There are those who tell us that Canada need not worry about losing its national personality. Some of us sat in this House listening to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom assure us that there was nothing to worry about in this trade deal. She pointed to the experience of the European Economic Community. She told us that Britain, France, Germany, and the other nations have kept their distinctive nationalities although they are part of the European Community.
That completely ignores a simple reality. This is not Europe. This is not a case of several countries with a distinctive history of 1,000 years, with distinctive languages, of relatively equal size, trading together for a common purpose. On this continent, Canada is roughly one-tenth the power, the size, and the population of the United States. On this continent, we have only half of Europe's history. On this continent, the sole reason
June 29, 1988

for most of us living here is that we wanted a distinct personality, we wanted a nation north of the 49th parallel. We wanted to be Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, about maintaining our national personality. We are concerned with maintaining our national integrity, our cultural identity, control over our resources, our economy, our social programs, and our regional development programs-no north and south division as in the United Kingdom. Ours is a country where there is equality of opportunity from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the northern Arctic. We are concerned over our ability to set an independent foreign policy. These are the issues at stake.
Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of these talks, the Government tried to convince us that we were examining a free trade agreement. That is a myth that should be laid to rest once and for all. In spite of its title and the Government's definitions, this agreement is not free trade.
I also think we should avoid getting into the debate about whether we are for or against the philosophy of free trade, we in the Liberal Party have always been in favour of freer trade, of liberalizing trade and reducing tariff barriers. What we are discussing today is not free trade. It is a selective trade agreement. A number of industries are included and a number are excluded. We must analyse the FTA like any other contract. What did we gain and what did we lose? What did we get and what did we give away?
But read it! Whatever I go in Canada, I tell Canadians: Read the text. And now I have to say the same thing to the Minister: Read the document, sir.
This is not free trade. And it is an agreement that is costing us a pretty penny. We are paying the price every day ...

If it were just a matter of lowering trade barriers, lowering tariffs, we as a Party have always been in favour of that, always in favour of broadening our commerce. We have to remind the House and the country that 80 per cent of all the transactions that now move across the Canadian-American border either way go forward free of tariff. We succeeded under successive Liberal administrations since the War in achieving that. All we are talking about is the remaining 20 per cent, and for that remaining 20 per cent, this Prime Minister gave away the store.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Napier Turner: We have yielded control over investment. The limit for review of direct takeovers has been raised to $ 150 million. Any company worth less than that
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
can be bought up by the Americans and no one in Canada will have anything to say about it. In the case of indirect takeovers, there will be no limit at all. It will be takeovers unlimited.
Just in case there was any doubt that the Americans are being invited to buy up our own country, this legislation turns 242 million Americans into Canadians for the purposes of the Investment Canada Act. How could the Minister know that? He has not read the deal.
Clause 14.1 (10)(a) says:
Every reference in those provisions to "Canadian" shall be read and
construed as a reference to "American" and every reference in those provisions
to "non-Canadian" shall be read and construed as a reference to "nonCanadian other than American".
The Government says that this new investment will bring jobs and prosperity. We have not seen any valid projections that demonstrate that. Ninety-four per cent of all foreign investment in this country since this Government took power in 1984 has been takeovers of existing companies, not new investment, not new jobs. Where are the new jobs that have flowed from these takeovers in the last four years?

Mr. Speaker, we have given up control over our capital markets. What does this Bill say about our banking system? The Bank Act is amended. From now on, Americans will no longer be non-residents of Canada under Section 109.1. Five Americans or five unrelated U.S. corporations will be able to own and operate an American bank in Canada and even buy a Canadian chartered bank. Can Canadians do the same thing in the United States? No, Mr. Speaker, because banking activities are regulated by the Government of each state. And 43 U.S. states, including California, New York and Illinois, have regulations limiting foreign ownership of banks.
So, Mr. Speaker, Americans are no longer considered nonresidents of Canada for the purposes of the Bank Act, but they still consider Canadians as foreigners.

This deal sells out our energy, the life-blood of this country. How could the Minister know that? He has not read the deal. I say to him that he should read Article 904 of the agreement which states that Canada must ensure that any other tax or measure we take with respect to our energy, to use the words of the agreement, "does not impose a higher price for exports of an energy good to the other party than the price charged for such energy good when consumed domestically".
That means that we as Canadians, Quebec Hydro, B.C. Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, Ontario Hydro, nuclear exports from New Brunswick, cannot charge a higher price to Americans than we charge for domestic consumers, nor can we give a specific preferential rate to our own consumers, nor can we set our own surpluses, nor can we set our reserves, nor can we protect our self-sufficiency in the future.
The Minister for International Trade was asked by journalists yesterday whether the Ontario legislation affecting exports

June 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of electricity from the Province of Ontario and allowing Ontario Elydro to set a preferential price for Ontario consumers was against the deal. He said that that is romanticism. Now we know why. He has not read the deal. Now we know why we have never been able to get a specific answer from this Minister ever since he took on the portfolio.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The National Energy Board becomes nothing more than a monitoring agency. That is what the legislation says. I hope the Minister has the time to read it. Clause 84.5(1) says:
The Board may neither refuse to issue a licence or make an order nor revoke, suspend, charge, alter or vary a licence or make an order for the exportation to the United States of energy goods or of any quality, kind or class thereof where that refusal, revocation, suspension, change, alteration, or variation would constitute the maintenance or introduction of a restriction on that exportation.
The National Energy Board is reduced to a monitoring agency. I can recall the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan particularly objecting to the National Energy Program. They felt that Ottawa was overriding provincial jurisdiction over resources. I have said in Calgary, in Saskatoon, in Winnipeg, in Victoria, and in Vancouver that what this deal has done is substitute the word "Washington" for the word "Ottawa". Now the western provinces are going to be under the domain of the federal Capital of the United States.
[ Translation]
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that our provinces have lost control of their energy resources. They fought the national energy program with the Constitution because, as they saw it, Ottawa had taken control of their resources from them.
With this agreement, it is Washington that is taking control of our country's energy resources. We will no longer be able to use our resources as a trump card. But above all, in case of shortage, we also guarantee that energy shipments to the United States will only be reduced in proportion to the total supply. This calculation will be based on figures for the most recent three-year period. Now total supply includes energy we import as well.

Articles 408 and 409 make it clear that the same proportional access regime will apply not only to energy, not only to hydrocarbons, but to all renewable and non-renewable resources including water. How could the Minister really know? He has not read the deal.
The Government and the Minister have denied that water is included in the deal. The Minister makes grand and sweeping statements to that effect but what is the truth? Read the agreement. The truth is that water is included in this deal just as surely as I have this glass of water in my hand. It is here in
black and white. Articles 408 and 409 of this agreement apply to the export of any "good". Article 201 defines a "good" as follows:
goods of a Party means domestic products as these are understood in the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade;
That agreement has considered water a "good" for many years, as the Minister should know. Water is also listed in the tariff schedules attached to the trade agreement.
That is too complicated, too heavy, too burdensome for the Minister because he has no time. He sold the Encyclopaedia Britannica and did not read it, but he is selling something here which involves the livelihood of every Canadian in future generations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Tariff Item 22.01 on page S144 in Volume III of this agreement includes:
Waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated waters,
not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter nor flavoured; ice and
snow.
How could the Minister know? He has not read the deal.
There is another listing, and I know you have the patience to read this deal, Mr. Speaker, because as a Canadian you know what it means to your future. That listing is 2201.90.00 and it refers to all other water. Take the pains to read the agreement. Take yourself through the agreement. Take yourself through the Bill. Read the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. You will come to the inevitable conclusion that water is part of this agreement and we have committed that to the United States.
In response to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and myself, the Minister said there was nothing in the deal to force us to sell water to the U.S. He is not the only Member in this House to come from a fishing province. He is not the only Member to use a red herring now and then. That was one of the largest red herrings we have ever seen in this House. I would like to call it the catch of the day, but it is the catch of the century and Canadians are on the hook.
The Minister ignores the fact that the proportional access regime applies to existing shipments of water. He ignores the Grand Canal scheme estimated to cost between $80 billion and $130 billion to divert fresh water, destined for James Bay, to the United States.
When Mr. Pearson formed the Government, one of my first assignments was as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister responsible for natural resources, the late Arthur Laing. I had to examine the potential diversion from the Harricanaw River in the Hudson's Bay and James Bay Basins to the Great Lakes system. Then we studied in this House at one time the Rocky Mountain trench diversion potential. Always we took the position that there was no such thing as a continental water policy. There was an American water policy, a Canadian water
June 29, 1988

policy, and this resource was precious to the environmental and economic future of this country.
What have we become? When you read this agreement we have become a storehouse, a reservoir for the U.S., by virtue of Articles 408 and 409. I say to Canadians across this country not to take just my word for it but to read the agreement. Unfortunately I have to say to the Minister: Read the agreement. The U.S. gets a guaranteed proportion of our country. What is theirs remains theirs, what is ours becomes theirs.
Is it any wonder that the President of the United States is happy with this deal? Is it any wonder that he comes to this House as a guest of Parliament to say, and this was a treasure for the grape growers of the Okanagan Valley and the Niagara Peninsula and the wine industry in Ontario and British Columbia, "Wouldn't it be wonderful to have California wine?" He said that standing right in front of you, Mr. Speaker. Then, at the Empire and Canadian Clubs in Toronto just the evening before Mrs. Thatcher was here in this House he was praising the deal again. Of course, he has a vested interest and he got what he wanted. He got access to all our resources and did not have to yield anything in return. No wonder he called this the fulfilment of the American dream.
Ever since the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence the Americans have looked to Canada as part of their manifest destiny. I congratulate Pierre Berton for writing The Invasion of Canada and Flames Across the Border so we understand what we did to defend our country against the Americans. I was down in the Niagara Peninsula and the people there say that what the Americans were not able to take by force of arms in 1812-14, they have taken by virtue of this agreement while not firing a shot.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The fulfilment of the American Dream! Fifty-four Forty, or Fight! Manifest Destiny! A United States of America that will go down past the Rio Grande and right up to Alaska and the Arctic frontier. It is a dream come true for Americans. At long last they found a Government in Ottawa dumb enough, stupid enough, patsies so craven in the face of American demands that they just caved in to every request made of them.
I say to the people of Canada that this is not a trade deal. This is "the Sale of Canada Act".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Napier Turner: Let's take for example the Auto Pact. On several occasions, we asked if the Auto Pact was included in the Agreement. One minister after another told us in this House that it was not. In fact, the Prime Minister even said the Pact was a free trade prototype that he wanted to apply in each and every sector of our economy. But the Auto Pact is not a free trade deal. It is a sectorial agreement which is managed and accompanied with guarantees in
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
order to protect the Canadian content. Well, the trade deal has destroyed it. The guaranty system put in place to protect Canada's share in terms of production, employment, investment, and content will disappear while the tariffs decrease. But the Minister continues to deny that. Every time we ask that question, the governement retorts with a multitude of caustic and tasteless answers.
As far as our farmers are concerned, they are in very bad shape. The seasonal tariffs protecting their industry will progressively be eliminated. Since our climate is harsh, our growing season lasts no longer than four to five months. Our farmers will not be able to compete with their American counterparts from California, Florida, Georgia and other southern states where the growing period extends all year round. Canadian farmers are terribly clever, they are better informed than the business people and the professionals, because they have studied the matter, certainly a lot more than the Minister. They well know that a free trade agreement, even if it is really about free trade, is not possible in the agricultural industry.
We can't expect our farmers, whose growing season lasts only four, five or six months, to compete with their American counterparts whose growing season lasts 12 months. It's impossible.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen some Members in this House overlook certain basic facts. But only a Conservative government would have signed a deal which totally overlooks this country's climate.
The farm family is in great difficulty. Our whole way of life on the farm is under siege and this agreement goes a long way to destroying the family farm in Canada. Our whole supply management system is being negotiated away. Every Canadian support system is going to be brought into line by way of harmonization under the definition of subsidy with U.S. standards.
The Minister of Finance asked me whether I have read the agreement. I want to refer him to an annex in this agreement. His colleague, the Minister for International Trade, on his own admission, has not read this whole deal. He says that it is too cumbersome and too bulky. I shared the honour and responsibility of the portfolio of the Minister of Finance. He knows that any Minister of Finance who had not read his Budget before coming into this Chamber, or had not studied every subsidiary document, would not be worth his salt and should not hold the portfolio.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Although my colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), and I have some quarrels with the Minister on policy, we know that he does his homework.

June 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I have read this agreement, as he knows, and in one of the annexes is a list of every major agricultural program supporting the farm economy in Canada which is subject to the negotiation of the definition of subsidy with the United States. It includes the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, the Agricultural and Rural Development Act, the Economic and Rural Development Agreements, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the Special Canadian Grains Program, the Prairie Grains Advance Payments Act, and the Crop Insurance Act. I am not taking that from my imagination. Every one of those agreements upon which the western grain economy has been built is now open for negotiation with the United States.
Since the United States overwhelmingly dominates in agriculture by virtue of its size and market, the level of government support for Canadian farmers will not be determined by Ottawa or provincial capitals; it will be determined in Washington.

The agri-food industry will move to the United States where products are obviously cheaper. In Quebec, ask any food processsing industry what they plan to do. They'll answer: "Good bye! So long! We're moving to the United States." Ask Harrison-McCain, in New Brunswick, the Canadian potato king. He's against the deal because he knows full well there's no future for food processing in Canada because all our economic sectors will feel the negative impact of this deal.
The same goes for our fishermen, on the Atlantic as well as the Pacific coast. We questioned the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), we questioned the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon), we questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). But our fishermen and those who work in the fish processing industry have been sold out. The government has in effect given up its right under the GATT to protect our fish processing industry.

With regard to our lumber industry, I have spoken before the Victoria Chamber of Commerce and Vancouver forums. I have told the people of British Columbia that the jobs of 7,500 workers on the West Coast from Alaska down to the American border are in jeopardy in the processing industry.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Have you talked to Mr. Bentley?


John Napier Turner: I have talked to Mr. Bentley and others in the forest industry. I will stake my next election in Vancouver on the fact that before the Prime Minister started to sing for his supper at the Summit at Quebec City with the President of the United States, we had free trade in lumber into the United States. We had free access for our softwood lumber into the American market.
When the Government was challenged by an attack from American legislation and administrative tribunals it yielded. A
Liberal Government in 1982-83 had resisted that attack. We had beaten back the challenge of the American lumber industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The facts had not changed; the law had not changed. All that had changed was the determination of a Canadian Government to stand up for Canadian exports to the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We self imposed a 15 per cent export tax on our lumber into the United States. As evidenced by the President's letter to Senator Packwood and the other Senators from Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, part of the price of this deal between Canada and the United States was to render permanent the 15 per cent export tax imposed against Canadian lumber into the American market.
Don't just take my word for it, read the deal. I know it is hard work, I know it takes time, I know it is burdensome, and I know it slows down the rhetoric and restricts the vocabulary, but read the deal and you will find that our lumber industry is now permanently caught with a 15 per cent disadvantage in the American market. Why did this happen? It happened to save the Prime Minister's trade deal at any cost.
The trade deal goes well beyond trade. It goes to the control of our economy. It goes to the control of our culture. Yesterday the Minister had the gall to say to us again that it did not touch culture. Despite repeated promises that our cultural industries would be exempted, "print in Canada" requirements have been eliminated and a new regime has been imposed on the retransmission of cross-border broadcasting signals.
The notwithstanding clause, clear in the agreement, has been included and could freeze future cultural initiatives by Canada. If the Americans, under that clause, consider any new cultural initiatives of this country to be inconsistent with what they interpret to be the spirit of the agreement, the agreement gives the Americans the right to retaliate, not only against our cultural industries but against any other sector of our economy.
Read the agreement. Take the time. I know that the Minister will be surprised to hear that answer, but then again, he has not read the agreement.
It is scandalous that the Government opposite has agreed to act as agent for the United States entertainment industry in carrying out that threat.
The deal goes to the control of our regional development and social programs. There is a great word in the agreement, repeated again and again. It is called "harmonization". Our programs are to be harmonized with those of the United
June 29, 1988

States. They include our social programs, our agricultural programs, our regional economic development programs. Under the agreement, that negotiation will take a period of five years to seven years in coming to a definition of what the subsidy means. What does "harmonize" mean? It is defined in the agreement. Harmonize means, according to the agreement, "render identical". Our programs and the American programs will be harmonized. They will be rendered identical.
You know who will do the harmonizing. We are dealing with an economy 10 times our size. We have already thrown away all our cards, because we have a Government with no commitment to regional development and no real commitment to our social programs. Those programs will be harmonized away.
After all, this is the Government of the famous sacred trust. The Prime Minister said that our social programs were a sacred trust, a trust that his Government violated in attempting to deindex old age pensions. The Government seriously contemplated in its discussion papers putting a tax on food, when food banks are springing up all across Canada.
The Government and the Minister of Finance who is in the House have raised taxes in the last four years, primarily on lower and middle income groups while giving special tax breaks to the wealthy. It is a Government that has systematically and dramatically cut regional development funding.
It is that Government and those Members who applauded enthusiastically when a Prime Minister from another country addressed us and said: "Subsidize the inefficient and soon that is all you will have". There you see the hidden agenda of the Tory Government. It wants to Thatcherize Canada and Reaganize us as well.
With the Prime Minister in charge, we are being harmonized, homogenized, and hosed.

In every clause and section, Mr. Speaker, this agreement refers to the harmonization and to the free market system. I too believe in the market system, in competition, in private enterprise, and in the need to reward success.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members Opposite should realize that Canada was not built as the result of the market system. We had to resist continental forces which were pulling us southward and we built our country in the East, West and North. We built an infrastructure to oppose continental pressures. We built a railway, a pipeline and a national highway. We set up a public airline and a national broadcasting system.
With the market system alone we would not have social housing, a public transportation network, or one of the best medical care system in the world. Personally, as a Canadian, I want to continue to live in a country where, if a person has to be hospitalized, they will not check his or her credit rating before his or her pulse!
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

I have said "harmonized, homogenized, and hosed". One would expect that the Minister for International Trade, with his vast experience as a former vacuum cleaner salesman, would know what it would be like to be hosed. But not that Minister. He specializes in providing Canadians with a fact-free analysis of the trade deal.
First he started promoting it. Then he said he had not read it. Then he said he did not have to read it. Then he said he had not read the whole deal. Then he said he read only the important parts. Then he said it was too complicated. Then he said he could not understand it because he only got 5 per cent in algebra. Then he said he was not fully qualified to give speeches selling the deal because he sold vacuum cleaners and did not know how to run one of those. Then he said he sold encyclopaedias that he never read. He asked: "Why should a trade deal be any different?"
That must give one a real feeling of confidence. I am sure Canadians will sleep better tonight knowing that the Minister has never read the trade deal.
Members opposite should look at the kinds of social programs delivered under pure market forces. Members opposite should ask themselves if that is the regime they want to impose on their own constituents. Do they want us to harmonize our minimum wage rates with Texas, where the rate is $1.40 an hour, or the nine other states in the American republic which have no minimum wage rate?
Do they want our unemployment insurance program, covering 85 per cent of the unemployed in Canada, to be harmonized with those in the United States? Under the combined federal and state schemes, only one-quarter of unemployed Americans are covered, and at a rate that is only a fraction of the Canadian rate.
Do they want to harmonize our rules on maternity benefits? There is no equivalent national program in the United States. Only about 40 per cent of American women have any maternity benefits at all, and most of those are for very short duration, less than six weeks, and are not provided by Governments, but negotiated with employers.
Do they want to harmonize our medicare program with those of a country where a quarter of the women of child bearing age have no medical insurance, where 37 million Americans have no medical insurance whatsoever, and where the federal Medicaid program is available to less than half the population living below the poverty line? Is that what Members opposite want? Is that what the Conservative Government wants? Is that what they want for our country?
That is the danger when one blindly accepts the idea of negotiating with the United States on its terms, and subjecting to negotiation with the United States every program that has built this country in terms of regional equality, every infrastructure and social program that has evened out opportunity

June 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and evened out the burden in Canada. Every one of those programs is subject to negotiations with the United States.
Let us be realistic. The Americans do not really believe in free trade. We have talked to congressmen in Washington. We have talked to leading senators on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats. The Americans are not seeking free trade in their trading relationship with the world; they are seeking fair trade. Fair trade is what they define as the level playing field. We all know how that level playing field works. When you step on it, it is an American field, with American goal posts, an American ball, an American referee, and four downs. You know from past experience, Mr. Speaker, what that would mean as a Canadian.
You know me well, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying is not anti-American. It is pro-Canadian. Americans have always been our closest friends, closest allies and our largest trading customer. None of that will change, whether or not this Parliament or this country approves the deal.
Most of us made a deliberate decision to live here. We like it here. We like our style of life, our sense of community, of tolerance. We like the responsiveness of our parliamentary system, our unique environment. Sure, from time to time it may cost more to live here, but the overwhelming majority of Canadians agree with me when I say that the price of being Canadian is a price worth paying.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I am not going to allow this Government to rewrite history. It has been Liberal Governments, working through international negotiations, that brought tariffs down from an average of 40 per cent at the end of the last war to 4 per cent today. Liberal Governments brought our tariff structure to the United States to a point where, as I said earlier, 80 per cent of everything that moves across our mutual border, either way, is free of the impost of customs and tariff. We achieved that without giving away our sovereignty. All we are talking about in improving our trading relationship with the United States is the remaining 20 per cent. For that, the Prime Minister gave away the store.
The Liberal Party has always favoured, and still favours, more liberalized trade, not only with the United States but with all our trading partners. Under the Government opposite, our trade with the Pacific Rim and with Europe has deteriorated badly. As we outlined in our report entitled "Expanding Choices-The Liberal Alternative to the Mulroney Trade Deal", which I had the honour of presenting with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, we believe that as essential, vital and crucial as the American market is to us, we have always done better in negotiating with the United States under the umbrella of international negotiations rather than taking on the strongest economic power in the world head-to-head bilaterally.
We have always done better internationally than by attempting to deal bilaterally and exclusively with the United States, particularly when a Government of Canada appears to want the deal so much more than the Americans.
We would continue to pursue sectoral opportunities like the Auto Pact. We would look for ways to eliminate those irritants to trade. Yes, we believe this country needs a more vigorous trading policy, but a Liberal trading policy would allow us to trade with the world, with special emphasis on the United States, not just an exclusive deal with the United States.

With a Liberal trade strategy the first step would be to eliminate interprovincial barriers. We should begin by experimenting with free trade in Canada. We would introduce a bill which would clearly spell out our trade objectives, financing methods and trade remedy mechanism. We would also regroup within a single administration the talents of our trade experts, in order to concentrate the federal Government's efforts on an essential objective, which is to develop our foreign markets to create permanent jobs for Canadians.
No trade policy can replace a national economic strategy. Rather, a trade policy ought to be part and parcel of such a strategy. No trade agreement, either with the United States, Europe or Japan could make us more skilled or competitive. We must do that ourselves. We must increase research and development investments. We are not going to ensure economic growth by applying technology developed by others.

We need to develop our education system and give our young people the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow. We will commit ourselves to a full employment strategy, to supplementation for the working poor, to better training and retraining for our workforce, to a national literacy program and to a national apprenticeship program. When I have the responsibility to go to Washington to talk to the Americans, whether it be about trade, employment, acid rain, the fishery or about the Arctic, our Arctic, I will not start with the assumption that getting their co-operation means surrendering our political independence and surrendering our sovereignty. That surrender has been the result of this Government's strategy and we can see the results of that approach in this trade deal.
We who oppose this deal are painted by the Prime Minister as being afraid or timid, of having no confidence in our future and no confidence in Canada. That Prime Minister is dead wrong. We do have confidence in this country. We do have confidence in Canada. We do have confidence in our future. The difference is that for us our future is not a continental future. Our future is a Canadian future.
On the trade issue, I am not saying we can do it alone. What I am saying is that we can do it in our own way. We have proved for over 120 years that we can resist that north-south pull of continental forces. We have proved we can create and
June 29, 1988

Ways and Means
build a flourishing, proud and self-sufficient nation. I have full confidence in this country and full confidence in our fellow citizens. I believe we are now mature enough, talented enough, confident enough and tough enough to build our own future in our own way by making our own decisions.
In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation established this House of Commons and the other place. They gave this Chamber the responsibility to build a great sovereign independent nation. They gave our predecessors the responsibility of establishing a unique and distinct nation on the northern half of our continent. If this legislation is allowed to pass, it will be said that in 1988 this House abdicated that role set for us by the founders of our country, that we surrendered that responsibility and abandoned our sovereignty. As a nation, we cannot allow that to happen.
The Minister scoffs, the Prime Minister sloughs it off, but this debate is really about the future of Canada as an independent and sovereign nation. It is about our ability to maintain that sovereignty. It is about our ability to govern our own country, for our own people, in our own way. It is for us to make our own political decisions as to how we want to determine our own economy, our own social programs, our own culture and protect our regions. It is for us to define, establish, maintain and promote our own values and our own national purpose.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


WAYS AND MEANS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts, laid upon the table on Monday, June 13, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) on a point of order.


André Ouellet: The House has just heard one of the most brilliant speeches of the decade. I sat on a House committee which studied parliamentary reform and recommended measures to make this chamber more relevant and the executive more directly answerable to the House. But we are still waiting for the Government response, and the fact that both the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) are absent today is inexcusable. That is sheer laziness and I call this contempt for parliamentary procedure.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.
Pursuant to agreement made earlier this day, the debate now stands adjourned. Orders of the Day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion adopted.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 16661), and of Mr. Langdon (p. 16673).
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to making a few comments on this very important topic of free trade. I would like to begin by putting this debate and my comments in the context of some of the current trade statistics.
One-third of Canada's GNP comes from export. Compare that to Japan which is 20 per cent, or the United States which is 10 per cent. Close to three million Canadians jobs are directly related to export and 80 per cent of our exports go to
June 29, 1988
the United States. Close to 2.25 million jobs are directly related to exports to the United States.
The Canada-United States trade is the largest in the world. The Ontario-United States trade is larger than that of the United States and of Japan. Ninety per cent of the exports from Ontario go to the United States. Just to put this in an historic context, in 1946, 40 per cent of our exports went to the United States. In 1988, 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States. In other words, our exports have doubled.
These statistics are very important for us to keep in mind when dealing with a free trade debate. We are not starting at zero, we are starting with a very high level of trade with the United States. We also have a high level of free trade with the United States as a result of the Tokyo Round from 1979 to 1987. As of January 1, 1988, 80 per cent of our exports to the United States went tariff-free and 65 per cent of their exports came into Canada tariff-free.
The Government's motivations in this free trade initiative are very important and can be summarized under three headings. First, it is our purpose to secure that high level of trade that we have with the United States now. We wish to secure that high level against the growing protectionism within the United States.
Our second objective is to bring a dispute resolution mechanism to solve trade disputes between our two nations. For example, in the last few years, there have been fishing disputes, disputes dealing with the shakes and shingles industry and disputes dealing with potash, just to name three.
Our third major objective is to enhance that trade. As I said, the motivations of the Government are first to secure the high level of trade we have with the United States, second to bring in a dispute resolution mechanism and third to enhance that trade and to create jobs.
This is trade with the richest market on earth, living right next door to us. Surely any other nation in the world would give its eye-teeth for the opportunity that we have at this time. That is what we have seized-


Ms. Copps:: Why don't you take an arm and a leg while you're at it?


John Henry Reimer: I wonder if the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) could simply do me the courtesy of allowing me to speak, and I will do her the courtesy of allowing her to speak when it is her turn.


Mr. Shields:: Let's trade her mouth off.


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 don't want to give my eyes or my teeth.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) has the floor.


John Henry Reimer: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), earlier this afternoon, said that we had no mandate to conclude
June 29, 1988

this free trade agreement. I would suggest that we have a very clear mandate to create jobs. I think everyone on all sides of the House would accept that. Surely then our record in job creation is second to none. Not only are we supposed to create jobs, but we should protect the jobs we already have. That is the one thing that this trade agreement seeks to do. First it seeks to protect and to secure what we have and then to enhance that.
I would suggest that we are seeking to secure the high level of trade and the relationship that we have now, second to none other in the world, and surely we have a mandate to do that against the growing protectionism in the United States. Therefore, I would submit to those in the Opposition who say that we have no mandate that they think again.
What does this free trade agreement do? It does three simple things. First, it eliminates all barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States. It does that in three ways. Some are eliminated immediately on January 1, 1989. Others are eliminated in five equal steps over the next five years. The remainder are to be eliminated in 10 equal steps over the next 10 years. Second, the free trade agreement significantly expands and frees the conditions of cross-border investment. Third, it establishes procedures for joint administration and for a dispute resolution mechanism.
It is also important to realize what the trade agreement does not do. It does not permit the free exchange of labour which is similar to what occurs in the Common Market. It merely provides for temporary passes for those who service equipment. Second, it does not affect Canada's regional development programs, pension programs, medicare programs, child care initiatives, welfare programs, unemployment insurance programs, education programs, pornography control, gun control or ownership and regulation of resources. Those all remain in our hands. Third, it does not create a customs union like the Common Market. Both Canada and the United States will still have their own external trade policies. Fourth, it is not an economic union with a common Parliament as is the case in Europe. It is really just a trade agreement.
As I listened to Liberal and NDP comments made in the House and to comments made by other Liberal leftist commentators, with all their whining, complaining and misleading statements about the free trade agreement, I found that their comments appeared to me to be similar to the techniques employed by Joseph Goebbels. The technique he used was that if you say something loud enough, if you say it long enough and if you repeat it over and over, then it becomes true. I think the tactics used by some of those in this debate are nothing short of shameful. I am struck by the fact that-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You should be struck.


John Henry Reimer: I am struck by the fact that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canadian Export Association and the Chamber of Commerce in my riding all-


Sheila Maureen Copps: So call an election.


John Henry Reimer: -unanimously support this free trade agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You'll be blown out of the water.


John Henry Reimer: The Chamber of Commerce in my riding has gone on record as supporting this agreement. When I did a survey about the free trade agreement of 916 businesses in my riding-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's not what John English told me.


John Henry Reimer: -82 per cent-I wonder if the Hon. Member for Hamilton East could do us the simple courtesy of keeping quiet when someone else is speaking. We will do the same when she speaks.
When I did a survey of 916 businesses in my riding, I found that 92 per cent of those who said that they would be affected by the free trade agreement said that they would be favourably affected by it. I was struck by the fact that at the Economic Summit, all of the leaders unanimously supported this trade agreement. Chancellor Kohl, when speaking here in the House, in an excellent speech congratulated Canada in concluding this free trade agreement with the United States, and he went on to say that this is a forward-looking sign and a wonderful development.
I would remind those in the Opposition of what Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, said when she spoke in the House. She said: "Protectionism is not a lifebelt which keeps an economy afloat. It is a millstone that drags you down and penalizes consumers and the workforce alike. Subsidize the inefficient and soon that is all you have. You lose the competitive edge to export abroad and you keep prices down at home". I would say that Members of the Opposition should heed those words very carefully.
People have tried to say that we are forfeiting our culture and losing control over our own sovereignty in this agreement. There are many people in my riding who come from eastern Europe or the Soviet Union. Those people know that if we trade with a communist, we do not become communist. They know that if we trade with an American, we do not automatically become American. If that were true, then Ontario would be the most American of all provinces because 90 per cent of Ontario's exports go to the United States. We know that it is not true that Ontario is the most American of provinces. All this alarmist nonsense is simply that. Just because we trade with someone does not make us like that someone, but it might help to build bridges and understanding.
Surely we have to commend what Europe did after World War II in building bridges through trade and removing trade

June 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
barriers. That is what we are doing now. I look forward to the day when we have this agreement operating, Europe has its agreement operating, and there is a North Atlantic agreement operating. I think that is the wave of the future. That is what this trade agreement is beginning to do.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in 1984 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said:
Canadians rejected free trade in 1911. They would do so again-
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said:
Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would
only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said:
Free trade ... raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost...
Before we jump on the band-wagon of continentalism, we should strengthen
our industrial structure so that we are more competitive.
They were right then, and they are wrong now to force this agreement on Canadians.
I have said in previous speeches that this trade deal entrenches U.S. protectionism, especially dealing with lumber and fish. It fails to give access to key U.S. markets. It gives unwarranted concessions to U.S. demands and subjects us to U.S. law. It gives the U.S. guaranteed access to Canadian resources, and many feel this includes water. It undermines Canadian energy prices, preventing economic diversification in the West. It opens the door for more U.S. takeovers of Canadian industries. It will destroy key agricultural sectors of our economy. There will be a loss of well-paid union jobs, and women in service industries will be victimized. Regional development programs may very well be at risk when they are considered unfair subsidies.
Today I want to concentrate on the impact of the deal on social programs and health policies. As we all know, Canadians are very proud of our social programs which far exceed those in the U.S. in providing for Old Age Security, protecting the unemployed, assisting families with young children, and providing free medicare for all our citizens. We believe these are inviolable social rights in Canada.
Despite government attempts to deny it, experts agree that this trade deal will have both direct and indirect effects on health and social programs. The Government maintains the public welfare is protected, yet ignores the fact that the U.S. explicitly targeted unemployment insurance as a "government-created trade distortion" in the Atlantic groundfish countervailing duty case. This undoubtedly was a precedent and should have been a warning to the Government. If, as the Government claims, social programs are exempted and not to be threatened by this deal, why did it not ensure this by including a specific clause to this effect?
Article 1907 leaves it wide open for subsidies to be defined over the next seven years through a process of negotiation. There is no guarantee that the Americans will not target any
of our social programs as unfair subsidies under U.S. trade law. In fact, U.S. businesses have always considered that medicare, unemployment and regional development programs are unfair subsidies. Why did the Canadian Government not insist on a specific clause exempting social programs, similar to the cultural industries exemption in Article 2005? This could have been done.
Already the Government is adopting American-style practices in the field of social programs. There are many examples of Government encouraging increased privatization of services, by the Minister condoning provincial practices contrary to the Canada Health Act, and by encouraging commercialization of child care and services for the elderly.
Annex 1408 of the chapter on services in the agreement lists management services covered by this deal. It specifically lists management of general hospitals, psychiatric and children's hospitals, community health clinics, and others. This means that U.S. firms can take over management of such facilities in Canada and operate them for profit as is common practice in the U.S. We already see a trend in this direction in Ontario.
Studies show that standards suffer when services are privatized. Staff are cut and qualifications are not as high. Profits are the primary goal. Our system of medicare is much better and also much cheaper than the American system. Our system costs 30 per cent less than the American system and operates with 13 per cent less staff. U.S. privatized hospitals charge 22 per cent more on average for patient admission than we do in Canada. Do we want an Americanized system of medicare where 35 million people have no coverage at all and where the cost of an illness can bankrupt a family? Of course not.
It is bad enough that the Government is encouraging privatization with poor quality care in Canada, but it is extremely serious that this deal will allow U.S. companies to participate on an equal footing in Canada and enshrines these rights in an international trade deal.
Another very serious section affecting social programs is a giveaway section on monopolies buried in Chapter 20. This requires Canadians to consult with Americans before creating a monopoly, a term which could apply to all our universal social programs. Under this part Canada will lose the ability to create accessible, affordable programs for all Canadians. This could seriously affect future planning of social programs.
Under this agreement the Prime Minister can overrule provincial jurisdiction in health and welfare in the interests of establishing a level-playing field. U.S. child care chains, operating with minimum standards, will have open access to Canadian communities, with the right of public funding. American service firms are given the right to acquire businesses here and the right to national treatment. Disagreement on this matter will be settled through the dispute settlements mechanism. However, this process will undoubtedly influence Canadian policies in the future. It will require us to conform more with inferior U.S. practices.
June 29, 1988

Canadians do not want a Kentucky Fried Chicken type of child care. We want quality care for our kids, care that is affordable and not run just for profit. This agreement will have a very significant impact on the social contract that Canadians hold dear. The policy of harmonization, the level-playing field concept, will force Canadian firms to conform to the pressure of very powerful U.S. market forces. Workers will be affected, their wages and working conditions will be influenced by lower U.S. standards. Fewer workers will be unionized. Women will be forced into lower paid part-time jobs. Family benefits like the Family Allowance and child tax credit will be frowned upon and eroded as unfair subsidies.
Canadians have different expectations than Americans. We have fought hard, led by CCF pioneers, to establish comprehensive universal social programs like old age pensions, family allowances, unemployment insurance and medicare. We pay for these through our taxes. We try to redistribute incomes in a much fairer way to eliminate poverty. This is not the U.S. way. Canada is different than the U.S. We want to remain that way. We do not want to be sold off by a Tory Government through this agreement to become the fifty-first state.
The Prime Minister had no mandate to negotiate and impose this deal on Canadians. He had an obligation to call an election and go to the people with the real truth about the dangers of this deal for Canada and Canadians.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that this is the most rewarding opportunity I have had since my election to the House of Commons, an opportunity to speak to the issue which I consider to be the most significant for Canadians and young people, in short for our whole economy: garanteed access to the United States market.
Before dealing specifically with the matter I should like to go over some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he delivered his speech on free trade earlier this afternoon. For instance he accused us and said that we would tear up or spend only five days debating the free trade issue while it took 120 years just to get prepared for that United States market. I might respond by saying that he wants to take half a second to tear up what Canadians took 120 years to achieve. While he is telling us that he did not have time and that we do not have enough time to study free trade, I would remind him that he should have read the report of and listened to the committee of the House of Commons which has heard many representations from Canadians here in Ottawa and in other major cities. Among others, he should also have listened to the Conseil du patronat, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Council of Canada, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He should read the reports of those organizations and listen to what they have to say.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
He should also have heard and read the evidence before the Quebec National Assembly, before a parliamentary commission where Quebecers made representations on free trade, a parliamentary commission made up of MNAs from both sides, Liberals and Pequistes. He should also have read and listened to the remarks of Quebec Liberal Premier Bourassa. He should have listened to the leader of the Opposition, Mr. Parizeau, to former Parti Quebecois Minister Landry and to Mr. MacDonald, the Liberal minister. Lastly, instead of saying that Canadians will not have time to study the free trade deal, he should have told the Canadian public that a committee made up of Members of this House will also hear representations from Canadians. We will probably be told before this committee that free trade means opportunities for Canadian products.
You will know that Canadians now produce some $500 billion worth of goods and services. A quarter of that or $125 billion is exported. And that quarter, Mr. Speaker, accounts for 3 million jobs for Canadians and of those $125 billion, 80 percent or $95 billion are exports to the United States. And that is what the Liberal Party and the socialists object to! I am both pleased and saddened to lump them together, but I can only say that they are the ones who lumped themselves together in a coalition. That is the $95 billion market that the Leader of the Liberal Party would have torn up. What does that $95 billion means for Quebec? It means in comparative terms that where Canadian production stands at $500 billion, Quebec production stands at $100 billion and that out of Canadian exports totalling $125 billion, Quebec exports $20 billion. That $20 billion accounts for 800 000 jobs for Quebec men and women and out of that $20 billion, 76 percent is exported to the United States, that is to say $16 billion worth of goods and services from Quebec. That means wood, electricity, manufactured goods, furniture, metal products, aircraft, aircraft engines, and so on and the 650 000 jobs that Quebeckers owe to the American market that they would take away from us.
And for those who do not know Quebec's history, Mr. Speaker, that market is very important because in Quebec, since 1960, there has been a lot of fast changes. In 1960, under a Liberal Government that had a different kind of policies than Liberals here, we went through the "Quiet Revolution". The Quiet Revolution meant that in our universities we got rid of the staple training of doctors, lawyers and priests. Instead, we trained business people, engineers, scientists, etc. We also had the "Masters in our own House" policy under which Quebecers increasingly assumed control of their own economy. We now need a market. And recently the Quebec Government, under both the Parti quebecois and the Liberals, put in place systems to promote new financing structures for our business corporations. In other words, it favoured equity investments in our corporations. Those corporations are now ready to go, thanks to the Registered Share Purchasing Funds, thanks to the Caisse de depot.

June 29, 1988
Canada-V.S. Free Trade Agreement
Those corporations now have the capital needed. The Quiet Revolution also gave them the brainpower needed, the young educated professionals.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, 14 per cent of our business leaders and top executives in Quebec are under 30 years of age.
This is what we want for Quebecers, and this is why I support free trade. This is also why I blame the Liberals for not supporting free trade, because those young Quebecers have the education and the capital needed, they are all set and ready to go, and in Quebec we want to sell on the American market, and we have no wish of the Americans putting up tariff barriers again, as we saw in the case of softwood lumber, and as we are now seeing in the case of pork carcasses.
Mr. Speaker, why do Liberals want to scrap the deal? Why are they suggesting to Canadian business people: "You erred, you were wrong in selling to the United States, you should have sold elsewhere-in Europe, in Asia"?
Canadian business people get into the nearest market the same way someone who launches a business does in his village, in his town, in his region-at first he sells to the market next door.
And when I heard today the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) suggest: "We should overlook the American market, the market that has the money, the market that buys our products, the market that knows our products, the market that has a compatible economy with our own in terms of consumer habits and production" ... If were to believe the Liberals, we should overlook that market, go to Europe, go around the world, go to Asia.
Have you ever seen business people forget about their regular customers and say: "We will go 3000 miles farther to sell our goods." That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and that is what the Liberals want us to do.
To me, that way of thinking seems to be obstructing Quebec's growth, and I find it very strange that the Liberal Premier of Ontario (Mr. Peterson) had allied himself with the Liberal caucus here, and has approved the statements made by the Liberal leader. The objective of that alliance is to harm Quebec. That alliance, and that is where the Liberals agree in fact with the Socialists, is to the advantage of southern Ontario.
Because, you see, the riding with 740 000 workers who have benefitted from a free trade deal since 1965 is in fact the one represented by the leader of the Socialist Party (M. Broad-bent), the Oshawa riding. We all know about the free trade deal negotiated in 1965, which is working and which guarantees $30 billions in exports of Canadian made end products. Mr. Speaker, $30 billions are ensured by a free trade deal in southern Ontario, and the Liberals are joined in a coalition. They want all Canadians to be denied the benefits and the "profitability" of free trade in southern Ontario. And that is why the workers from southern Ontario are literally ripped off, because they pay union dues not to finance their collective
bargaining sessions, but to finance the harsh campaign the Socialist party has now launched against free trade.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that it is important for us to vote for free trade because it is important that between January 1, 1989 and the following 10 years tariff rates fall to zero. It is important that our possible disputes be settled in an orderly manner by a binational tribunal. And that is provided in the agreement, a dispute settlement mechanism, some court that will protect us from any negative action by American protectionism.
So Canadians will surely understand, something I doubt the coalition can do, but we will campaign on that issue, and the Canadian people will give us a mandate to sell it to the United States in order that our businesses keep on flourishing.
Ms Sheila Copps (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the Hon. Member talk about mud-slinging. At least the Liberal Party did not have to secure a by-election with money as was done.
If you have the courage of your convictions, if you are convinced the free-trade agreement is such a good thing, why do you not call a general election today? Because we of the Liberal Party are ready to go to the people and ask them... Unlike you who are trying to hide the truth from everybody, to hide what the free trade agreement will lead to. That is because you are ashamed and afraid that if the Canadian people knew what is in that deal, they would never accept it.
I am not surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has not read the documents.
Remember Mr. Speaker, the time I asked in the House, concerning the commercial blood bank ...
Do you remember when I asked him in the House why the annex included commercial blood banks to be established under what is called strictly a trade deal? We are told it has nothing to do with social policy but it will allow commercial, for-profit blood banks to be opened in Canada. The Minister waved the paper and said that it is nowhere in here. He had not even read the deal.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Read the section.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He did not even look at the annex. The annex states quite clearly that the free trade deal includes commercial blood banks.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What clause?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The section and the clause are listed right in the Bill. Unfortunately, the Minister has not read it. Blood banks are included.
June 29, 1988


Thomas Edward Siddon: Read it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Government says that social policy is not touched.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Come on, Sheila, read it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister says to read the clause. I will read the clause.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What is the number?


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have the number of the section. The article is there. The Minister does not want to admit it and the Government does not want to admit it because it realizes it has a secret and hidden agenda.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You are taking it out of context.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am taking it from the vagaries you claim represent the trade deal.
I could cite chapter and verse of the businesses that will be destroyed by this deal and of the people who will lose their jobs. When talking about the number of Canadians who are dependent on multinational corporations, just ask the workers at Firestone in Hamilton what free trade brought to them.


An Hon. Member:: We do not even have it yet.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Ask the workers at Goodyear what benefits they are getting from free trade. Ask the workers at Massey Ferguson. When the going gets tough, the American multinationals pull up stakes quicker than one can blink.
The Government is opening the doors to even more foreign ownership than already exists in Canada. The tobacco industry is 98 per cent foreign owned. Transportation equipment is 88 per cent foreign owned; chemicals, 76 per cent foreign owned; electrical products, 68 per cent foreign owned. I could go on.
The Government is embarking on a plan to sell out Canada and it does not even want to give parliamentarians in this House the right to have a say. I was elected to represent thousands of people in my constituency. I cannot speak for longer than 10 minutes on a deal that will change the very shape and history of our country. The Government does not want the facts on the table. It does not want Canadians to know that our social programs are up for grabs.
Many women in this country hold dear the pregnancy benefits that will potentially be negotiated away if they are determined to be an unfair subsidy.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You are way off base.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It was not a Liberal Member but the President of the British Columbia Business Council who said that this deal presents a threat to medicare as we know it. The Government is supporting this deal because it has a hidden agenda. We saw that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said at the beginning of his mandate that senior citizens' pensions are
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
a sacred trust and will never be touched. The first thing they did was to try to cut back senior citizens' pensions.


Thomas Edward Siddon: No, he did not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope Hon. Members would give the Hon. Member the same courtesy she has given you. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member says the Prime Minister did not try to cut back senior citizens' pensions. There are thousands of seniors in my riding who will attest to the fact that he tried to cut back pensions. Since it took office, the Government has had a hidden agenda to cut back universality, cut back on family allowances and cut back on senior citizens' pensions.
We watched Conservative back-benchers and the bookends clap and wave when Prime Minister Thatcher tried to tell us how to develop our social programs in this country. I do not want to have the rich and poor, the have and have-not Thatcherite philosophy as the philosophy for this country. We have been bamboozled and scamboozled by a Government that is not interested in the best interests of Canadians, but more interested in trying to save the Prime Minister's political hide.
The Prime Minister was acting from a position of desperation. On the Thursday night, Simon Reisman, the chief negotiator, said there was no deal. What happened between Thursday and Sunday? What miracle portended so that suddenly Canadians who had walked away from the table saying it was over now said it would go forward? It was the sale of Canada through our energy policies. It was the continental energy policy, the Achilles heel, for which the United States has waited for generations.
Between Thursday and Sunday Canadians said: "If you do not want to sign the deal, we will give you national treatment for energy". All renewable and non-renewable energy in Canada, including water, is included in the deal. In times of energy shortage every renewable and non-renewable resource, including natural gas, must be sold to the Americans in a proportion determined by this agreement, even when our own resources are running out.
The Government has stripped Parliament of any power by asking us to pass a Bill that says the free trade agreement takes precedence over any active Canadian Parliament in case of conflict. Yet the Americans are saying that in the case of any conflict an act of the U.S. Congress will take precedence over the free trade deal. Yet this weak-kneed lackey, bootlicking Government is actually signing an agreement which states that the free trade agreement will take precedence over any act of Canadian Parliament. It is asking Members of the House to approve a deal that will bind us to future American trade law. If we violate future American trade law, not yet passed by an act of Congress, we could face a million dollar fine or go to jail.

June 29, 1988
Canada-US. Free Trade Agreement
The Conservative Government intends to ram this document through Parliament. It is restricting the rights of Members of Parliament to free speech and is limiting our opportunity to put on the record not only the faults of the deal but the hidden agenda to destroy social benefits, unemployment insurance programs, and medicare.
By hook or by crook, the Conservatives on the back-bench are going to get the kind of level playing field we know is secretly coveted by them. They cannot come forward and do it publicly. They could not cut back on senior citizens pensions publicly because people revolted. They will do it through the back door and blame it on the Americans.
The Government does not want the people of Canada to know what is in the deal. That is why it is ramming this legislation through Parliament. That is why we are not being given an opportunity in committee to fully explore it through hearings across the country. The interpretation of this agreement has not yet been passed through the U.S. Congress.
The Government wants Canadians to consider instead the great principle of free trade and whether they are for or against it. Many Canadians will say that they want to free our
trading policies and trade with the world. But they will also say that they do not want to sacrifice their Canadian way of life in the process. We do not want to give up our right to an independent foreign policy, an independent social policy. We do not want to give up the right for our children to pass laws in the Canadian Parliament that will shape the future of our generations. As a result of this document we are closing the options for future generations to develop a Canadian life style, a Canadian dream.
The Government is selling out to the Americans just so a desperate Prime Minister can have something with which to go to the polls. It will not work. He is not to be trusted. I urge the Government to call an election. They talk about Goebbels. The Government should call an election and let the people decide.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Order made on Monday June 20, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, June 30, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers