1988-12-22

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) and Acting President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 32(1), I have the honour to table in both official languages copies of a report to Parliament from the Public Service Staff Relations Board pursuant to Section 21 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages the first Employment Equity Act annual report to Parliament.


NATIONAL SPORT ACT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-207, an Act to recognize hockey as a national sport.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Parliament of Canada has never officially designated any sport for official recognition.


Some Hon. Members:: Lacrosse!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Lacrosse has never been officially recognized as our national sport.
If there is one thing that is clear across this country, it is the fact that hockey, both as a spectator as well as a participation sport, is an outstanding part of our culture. For that reason I am introducing this Bill officially to declare hockey as our national sport.


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

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present a further petition today concerning saving the Rouge Valley. The title of this is: "Help Save the Rouge". Residents of Scarborough, Agincourt, Etobicoke, the City of North York and the City of Toronto have signed this petition. They are stating that the Rouge Valley in Scarborough is a unique and precious natural area, and that protecting the endangered wildlife and the wilderness area is in the national interest.
The petitioners are joined by the Mayor of Scarborough, the federal Minister of the Environment, Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Community Associations and, indeed, yourself, Mr. Speaker, who is supporting this particular venture of saving the Rouge Valley.

December 22, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
They call upon the Parliament of Canada to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as Canadian heritage land or provincial park.


Mr. Speaker:: I want all Hon. Members to know that I am with great difficulty restraining myself from commenting.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present three petitions today on behalf of residents of southwestern Ontario who have availed themselves of their ancient and undoubted right to present a grievance common to your petitioners with a certain assurance that your humble House will therefore provide a remedy.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject any proposals that threaten our Canadian farmers' marketing systems and programs. In duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the Day.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that everyone would agree that Christmas is approaching, Christmas Eve is just around the corner and that this is not the way that we want to proceed any longer. I think that we all recognize that the Government wants to pass this enabling trade legislation. The opposition Parties do not want it to pass.
In recognizing that fact, I wonder if there would not be some disposition to recess for a few days to allow us to return to have a more thoughtful, more comprehensive debate on this issue and to allow Members to get home to their families for Christmas Eve.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops has put a question to the House. The question is one that your Speaker probably could answer very quickly. But, again, I am constrained from doing so. There may be some response from the government side.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have proceeded as quickly as possible with the disposition of the one item in the Speech from the Throne. There have been certain
delaying tactics but we are proceeding. Third reading will commence today. I think the quickest way to accomplish what my friend wants is to have one complete, all inclusive speech from his critic and then vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade) moved: that Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be appropriate, in starting my address on third reading of this important piece of legislation, just to remind the House and, in particular, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party of the fact that this legislation, which incorporates an agreement reached between Canada and the United States in October of 1987 has now had more than a year of debate, of questioning and of examination by the people of Canada and by the Parliament of Canada. The Bill now before the House on which I am moving third reading is a Bill that has already received extensive consideration in this House. It has been through the process before, through committees of the House, a standing committee of the House, and a legislative committee. I suppose that in all our history there has never been a Bill as well considered and debated in every aspect as this particular piece of legislation.
Rather than suggest to the House that we now adjourn for a few days and come back to continue discussing this Bill further, I want to remind the House Leader for the NDP of what his own Leader said just several weeks ago, there having been an election concerning which the Free Trade Agreement was one of the major subjects of debate. He said this on November 23, as reported in The Toronto Star: "I think the process has been gone through now." Then, as reported in The Gazette of Montreal on the same day he said: "The people of Canada have taken a decision and now Mr. Mulroney has the right to continue with his free trade legislation".
December 22, 1988

Let me just say that never did a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or a Government have a greater right to proceed with any legislation than have this Government and this Prime Minister with respect to this piece of legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: In addition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said this as reported in The Globe and Mail on November 23: "It would be churlish and inappropriate to say something should be done about that law at this stage"-referring to the Free Trade Agreement-"all the chances for amendment that could plausibly have been taken have been exhausted". That was a statement of the Leader of the NDP on November 23-two days after the election which had raged for seven weeks almost exclusively on every street corner and in every house in Canada about the very agreement now before the House.
In La Presse it was reported: "On the subject of the trade deal with the United States, he, Broadbent, said that the only thing left for him to do was to accept the decision of the Canadian people. 'In our parliamentary tradition, the Canadian people have made a decision and Mr. Mulroney now has the right and the mandate to pass the free trade Bill'".
Have we seen that kind of spirit exemplified in the House since we opened again on December 12? Of course we have not. We have not seen any acceptance whatsoever of the result of the election campaign that ended on November 21 with a decision in favour of the continuation of the Mulroney administration which meant a decision in favour of the continuance of entering into force of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Has there been that kind of spirit at all in the last 10 or 12 days? No. What we have seen is exactly what Mr. Broadbent said would be churlish and inappropriate. This is what the Leader of that Party said himself. It would be churlish and inappropriate, and the actions of the NDP in the last 10 or 12 days have been exactly that-churlish and inappropriate. They are continuing to be churlish and inappropriate right down to the last second of this debate.
If that is the way they want this to go, that is the way it will have to go. Because, Mr. Speaker, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement is going to be put before this Parliament for a final decision before Christmas. It is going to be put into effect by January 1, if we can believe statements most appropriately made by Liberal Leaders in the Senate as to what they plan to do the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
week following Christmas, as long as this House does its job before we rise for Christmas Day. Here is something that the Leader of the New Democratic Party said on November 23. He was voluble on November 23 and very reasonable. In La Presse, he indicated:
"It is extremely unlikely that the NDP will reintroduce amendments to the Bill once Parliament resumes . . . Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has been given a clear mandate".
The moment of truth had come in Oshawa. He continued:
"The agreement with all of its faults has been approved by the people. It would not be appropriate to oppose it now."
Do the Members of the NDP ever listen to what their Leader says? Are they just waiting for some new, bright spark to come from out of the West to eliminate their Leader? Does this mean they are ignoring their strictures and the opinions of their present Leader because they know they have a rising star coming from the West? There has never been a star rise from the West, but perhaps this will be the exception.
The appropriate way for this debate to conclude is for the two opposition Parties to agree that we will debate on third reading today and vote this evening at five or six o'clock. That would allow the Members of this House to rejoin their family members for the Christmas season.
This country entered into a solemn agreement, a treaty with another country. It was entered into a year and two months ago. The date for entering into that arrangement was fixed at January 1, 1989. Will we let it be said that Canada cannot meet its commitments with respect to such an agreement after one year and two months, a general election, and hundreds of hours of debate and discussion during the intervening time? We will be shaming this institution before Canada and the world if we do not conclude our business before Christmas. That is the position of the Government, and it is a most reasonable position. If the people do not want to be reasonable, then the Government must continue on.
What about the Liberal Party of Canada, that mighty institution?


An Hon. Member:: You used to belong to it.


John Carnell Crosbie: I used to belong to it. I might have something appropriate to say about this suggestion that I once belonged to it. I admit that in my youth I was wayward.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: We know you were convicted of being an extrovert.


John Carnell Crosbie: Here is a saying I came across the other day that might apply to the honourable opposition critic with respect to trade. I do not know who said this, but it is very appropriate.
"The man who wants to clean up politics would make a good start by getting out of politics."
There was a most appropriate statement made in 1984. It was made to the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). It said, "Do not avoid politics because there are so many hypocrites. There is always room for one more." It could certainly turn out to be true.
Somebody said that I had been a member of the Liberal Party, to which I plead guilty. In 1971, however, I became mature and sensible. Always have an appropriate quote in your pocket. Here is what Lord Halifax said:
"Ignorance makes most men go into a political party, and shame keeps them from getting out of it."
It did not keep me from getting out. I recommend that the hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite consider what Lord Halifax said. Do not stay in the Liberal Party simply because you are ashamed.
I believe there is evidence of more reasonableness in the Liberal ranks than there is in the NDP ranks. We must be fair here. The Liberal Party, experienced in the arts of governing a country which they have governed for most of the last century, are more reasonable. They have accepted the fact that the election is over and that the Conservatives have been returned with a majority. The NDP has not accepted that. They have not accepted their Leader. They are having their strings pulled by Bob White and the seven dwarfs, by Shirley Carr. They are all being manipulated over there. Nobody knows who is really in charge. However, I do not want to aggravate them, this being the Christmas season.
What did the Liberal Leader say following the election? We know that he wanted to let the people decide. That was a mistake, but they did decide. They did not decide the way the Leader of the Liberal Party wanted them to decide. Just after the election he said this in The Ottawa Citizen of November 23:
"He said Tuesday his Party will not block free trade legislation. The people have decided they want the deal."
Then in the same paper, he said: "The people are always right". This is a very sensible position to take.
He said in The Gazette of Montreal on the same day, "We will be restating our position on the matter". Well, by golly, he was right. We have heard that restated a thousand times, but, you know, we let the people decide. "Having stated our case, we let the matter proceed." That was The Toronto Sun of November 23. These are the statements of the Leader of the Liberal Party.
We have had a debate. I have not added up the exact number of hours we have debated this matter since December 12. Perhaps some genius who is good at mathematics could do it quite quickly. We have had many additional hours of debate on the Free Trade Agreement. Everybody has stated his or her position. I know the position of the Liberal Party. I know the position of the NDP. I know the position of the Progressive Conservative Party. The public of Canada knows the positions of the three Parties. The public of Canada is paying no more attention to this Chamber at the moment than they are paying to the man in the moon. They are not paying any attention to politics, with the possible exception of the controversy in connection with language matters in Quebec and other parts of Canada. The public may be paying some attention to that, but they are not paying attention to people who are here debating for the thousandth time a matter on which they decided on November 21.
If they gave us any thought they would say, "What did we elect to the House of Commons? What kind of a charade and farce is the parliamentary system in Canada that this process can go on, that we should be here night after night until one or two o'clock in the morning hacking over matters already decided by the people of Canada? How much longer is it to go on? Is the New Democratic Party to have this continue until Saturday morning?"


An Hon. Member:: If need be.


John Carnell Crosbie: If need be? Well, there is going to be a "need be", because we are not adjourning until the House deals with this matter. You can be sure of that. Whether it is two o'clock on Saturday morning or Sunday morning or Boxing Day, this is going to be dealt with. That is the position of the Government.


An Hon. Member:: Dictatorship.


John Carnell Crosbie: Good, the critic is back. I hope the bright light from the West will listen as well.


Mr. Barrett:: Are you speaking to me?
December 22, 1988


John Carnell Crosbie: The predecessors of the New Democratic Party, the CCF, were not much brighter than their successors, the New Democratic Party. I have here some clippings from newspapers in 1965, when a free trade agreement was under consideration in the Parliament of Canada dealing with the automobile trade and auto exports between Canada and the United States.
The newspapers refer to the free trade automobile pact. We all know today the reverence with which the NDP approaches the Auto Pact. If one mentions the Auto Pact they genuflect. In fact, Bob White becomes a whirling dervish when one mentions the Auto Pact. I will not get into what Shirley Carr becomes.
Let us look at some of the newspaper reports of the day when free trade in the automobile area was being debated. An article in The Globe and Mail on January 27, 1967, quotes Albert Taylor, President of Local 222, as saying:
'We're going to raise hell about the auto pact and see what can be done about getting jobs for the Oshawa area', Albert Taylor, President of Local 222, United Auto Workers of America, said yesterday.
They are going to raise hell about it. They were opposed to the automobile pact which was introduced by our Liberal predecessors, by the way.
On October 6, 1965, in a report from Oakville which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, an article about the Canada-U.S. automobile free trade Bill described the position of the Parties. The Liberals say it is a good deal. The Liberals happen to be right. They have been right in the past, they may be right in the future, although one doubts it when one looks across the hall to see what is sitting on the other side.
The Conservatives said: "Let us see how it works-
I will not go on with the rest of it, but since this is the season for honesty, the rest of the sentence states: "We don't like the way the resolution approving it was rushed through the Commons".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That was Michael Starr.
What was the position of the New Democrats? "Tommy Douglas condemns the arrangement as a gift to the carmakers". "The NDP candidate in Ontario, Oliver Hodges of Winona, said to his nominating convention, "it is a pricing cartel organized between the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Government and the auto makers. It is a secret agreement involving Government money and policy".
Tommy Douglas condemned the Auto Pact as a gift to the carmakers. How things have changed in 23 years. Now we are not allowed to touch the Auto Pact. One of the reasons for the Liberal and NDP opposition to the Free Trade Agreement now negotiated is that they say it affects the Auto Pact.
Mr. Douglas also said that the Auto Pact was a massive giveaway. An article in the Globe and Mail On June 29, 1965, states that:
George Burt, Canadian director of the auto workers, said the union would do its utmost to influence public opinion against the trade scheme.
Are they not lucky that they were just as successful in arousing and influencing public opinion against the Auto Pact as they were in arousing it against this Free Trade Agreement? In both cases they were completely ineffectual.
Mr. Burt went on to say:
. . . and it is with regret and full determination that the UAW announced it will do its utmost to influence Canadian public opinion against the Canada-U.S. automobile free trade plan.
These are the predecessors of Bob White, who now froths at the mouth when someone mentions a free trade agreement for the rest of Canada with respect to the United States. It is okay now for the automobile industry in Oshawa. It is all right for the automobile industry in Windsor. It is all right for the fat cats of the United Auto Workers here in Ontario, but it is no good for us poor Newfies, it is no good for Atlantic Canada, no good for British Columbia and no good for northern Ontario. It is no good for Quebec. It is only good for the fat cats who are representing Oshawa and Windsor and areas like that where the unemployment rate is practically zero. You can hardly find an unemployed person in the areas I have mentioned.
The free trade auto pact is all right now, 23 years later, for the people who live in those areas represented by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and his trade critic and others opposite. But it is not all right for the rest of us Canadians. To that the Canadian people have given a definitive answer. They have said, "if it is good for auto workers, it is good for us and we want to try a bit of the action". That is what this Government is doing. We are seeing to it that the rest of them get a bit of the action.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to be in the Christmas spirit so I will not continue with many of the other quotations.


Mr. Martin:: Read Diefenbaker's quote.


Mr. Milliken:: Do you have anything to say about unregulated foreign investment?


John Carnell Crosbie: Twenty-three years ago at least there was a modicum of intelligence in the Liberal Party of Canada. Today that modicum has been driven out. What we see as a result is across the hall today. We are looking at them today.
What should be the spirit with which the legislation we are now considering is approached? I have given the opinions of the Leader of the Liberal Party, who is no longer listened to by his own caucus. I have given the opinions of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who certainly is no longer listened to by his caucus. The poor man does not know which shoulder to look over next, or who is coming behind him the quickest.
I want to refer to Premier Peterson of Ontario who was in a statesman-like mode. Perhaps he is getting ready to guide the ship of state federally rather than provincially.
Last summer, according to a Canadian Press report, he said that if the people of this country accept the deal, then obviously he has to stand with the results of that. That is a very reasonable statement. According to an article in the Ottawa Citizen on July 27, Premier Peterson said: "Once there is a clear mandate one way or the other, then we will govern ourselves accordingly. I will accept the will of the people". Is it not wonderful how everyone is prepared to accept the will of the people when they think the will of the people will turn out to be their will? However, when the will of the people turns out to be a will-o'-the-wisp, they change very quickly.
The same article goes on to quote Premier Peterson as saying: "I will accept whatever the judgment of the people is. I still would not think it is a great deal but I would accept the verdict". He also said: "I would look at everything we are doing. We will have to look at the situation as it presents itself'. He said that his qualification for supporting the deal, that the Tories must win a majority, is only there because a Tory minority Government probably could not implement it anyway. His qualification has been met. We have a majority.
He also said, as quoted in the Globe and Mail, that if an election is called and the people of Canada endorse the trade agreement he would co-operate in the deal and
consider dropping challenges to it on matters of provincial jurisdiction.
He said: "If the people of this country speak on an important issue, I have to accept the results of that, and I would as a democrat". He said: "I would not think it is a great deal but I would accept the verdict".
Could anything be clearer? I will be asking Premier Peterson to stick to what he said in several matters over the next several weeks, including the situation with respect to beer, liquor and wine. I have always found Premier Peterson to be reasonable and a good person to deal with. I will be calling on him to observe the spirit of those remarks on or about January 1, 1989, if this legislation goes into effect as I think it will.
I call on Members of his Party to observe the same spirit of the remarks of Premier Peterson and the remarks of their Leader on November 23.
I do not want to take too long today. However, I believe I have unlimited time. My record is eight and one-half hours in the Newfoundland House of Assembly. If driven to it, if irritated, if aggravated by interventions and people interrupting me, I am capable to going to Christmas Day.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: We want the record.


John Carnell Crosbie: There are some interventions from Mr. Martin. Some call him Mart-in, some call him Mar-tin, some call him Martine. We will see which one works when the convention comes.
To get back to my remarks, the opposition Parties believe this to be a dark day for Canada's future. We say that this legislation is an expression of confidence in the abilities of Canadians and it is a crucial step for building a stronger, more prosperous Canada. If that was not the case, we would not have introduced it.
I want to say to the opposition Parties, it is time for them to give the Free Trade Agreement a chance. They have made their case here in the House and before the people of Canada. We have made our case. The majority have accepted the case that we put before them, so it is time for them to give this agreement a chance. We will know in three or four years' time, before the next election, whether or not this appears to be a good deal. If at that time it is still doubtful, opposition Parties can make their case again, but in the meantime, I believe it is only fair and right for them to give this important commercial step forward a chance to see whether it
December 22, 1988

works or does not work, to see who is right and who is not right.
I appeal to opposition Parties to cease this campaign of trying to sabotage indirectly the agreement they could not stop directly, of ceaseless questioning here in the House of every example they can lay their hands on of some firm laying some people off or making some readjustments in its workforce. This is something that goes on and has gone on every week for the last 100 years and will be going on for the next 100 years. Why not save their fire for actual cases of lay-offs that are caused directly by the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, if there are any such? Why be crying wolf every day, day after day, with an election on this question just over with, trying to pretend that every lay-off in the country is due to an agreement that has not yet even gone into effect? It is just as right for us to come into the House every day and talk about every job that was created that day or every new investment that has been announced.
I would like to ask opposition Parties, once this legislation is passed, to relax and give it a chance, give it a fair trial. This is important for Canadians. This is important for hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers. It is important for tens of thousands of Canadian businesses. It is important for everyone who lives in Canada that this be a success and that the opposition Parties who oppose it not try to sabotage it. Their duty now is to give it a chance.
If their version of what the future holds turns out to be right, they will be in power in four years' time and we will be out. However, it just so happens that we are right and you are wrong, so you are not going to be in power in four years' time. But in the meantime, our opponents are patriotic Canadians and we therefore believe that they will not continue with a campaign of deliberately attempting to create fear and loss of confidence in Canada and deliberately attempting to sabotage the Free Trade Agreement for the next three or four years. The time has come to give the Free Trade Agreement a chance.
What does it do? It sets out a framework for greater security, stability and opportunity in our trade with the United States. That is all it does. It sets out a framework, crucial for creating the confidence that our enterprises need for investment if we are to keep Canada competitive globally. That is what the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement does.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
It is no miracle. It will not provide miracles. It depends on Canadians to take advantage of the opportunities it offers. It could be a complete failure. It will be a complete failure if Canadians have not got the gumption, the confidence, the initiative, to seize the opportunities that are offered. No one will have anything laid on a platter before him because of the U.S. Canada Free Trade Agreement. We are not suddenly going to see miracles occur here in Canada. All we are doing is giving Canada and Canadians a chance to increase their economic wealth and prosperity, but it is up to Canadians whether they can compete or not compete. We think they can compete. We have confidence in Canada. I will not say anything about whether our opponents have confidence in Canada or not, but we do, so it is going to depend on us.
For Canadian producers, more trade simply means more business for our workers. More trade means more, better and more secure jobs. For consumers, it should mean wider choice and lower prices, and in the longer run, more trade means stronger economic performance, higher personal incomes and increased revenues to support existing and expanded government services.
All of the niggling talk we have heard about how government services will be threatened is so silly. It is so juvenile and also, of course, quite dangerous. How can we continue to improve and expand government services if we cannot increase the economic wealth of this country? This is a means of increasing the economic wealth of the country.
Let me give just three examples of investments that have occurred because of free trade. There are thousands of them. There will be thousands more. We will start with a small example because of the importance of small business. Roseworks, and I am not talking about some woman who works, Roseworks is a fledgling company that intended to move to the U.S. because of its fear that its business would wilt without free trade. It was going to move to the U.S. if we did not get the Free Trade Agreement. Now it says it can blossom in Canada because the agreement is going ahead. That is Roseworks. They have pioneered technology-


An Hon. Member:: What about McCain's?


John Carnell Crosbie: Some honourable nitwit says, "What about McCain's?" I will say this about McCain's. Starting out in a small way in New Brunswick, they are now a world giant and they have been able to compete from Canada. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
will not interfere in the continuing growth and expansion of McCain's, and anybody who thinks that it will has little confidence in McCain's and little confidence in Canadians.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: What did Harrison say?


John Carnell Crosbie: Wallace McCain and Harrison McCain are Liberals, but the rooster must be in the hen pen or something considering the cackling that comes from the other side. Harrison McCain and Wallace McCain are Liberals, but that does not make them any less admirable. I admire them despite the fact that they are Liberals. They are entrepreneurs. They may feel that some aspects of the food processing business might be adversely affected by the agreement, and if they are right, then we are prepared to assist whenever and wherever that might be necessary, but we already heard about a potato plant out in Manitoba that would be closed because of the U.S.-Canada agreement being approved, and we have already heard since November 21 that it will not close at all and no one ever said in the first place that it was going to close, so I can tell you that Harrison McCain and Wallace McCain will take great advantage of the Free Trade Agreement.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Tell us about the cucumbers.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about the cucumbers? I have never eaten a cucumber in my life, Mr. Speaker. I hate cucumbers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I don't like green things.


An Hon. Member:: What about pickles?


John Carnell Crosbie: I don't like pickles.


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, don't look in the mirror.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg soft centre has struck again.
What did Roseworks say? It pioneered technology to preserve fresh flowers indefinitely. I am going to get some of those for occasions in the future when hon. gentlemen will need them as they go to their rewards. The company will increase its staff from 15 to 50 over the next two years. It will export 80 per cent of its product to the U.S. This is one small business in Kingston already saved for Canada. Here is the representative from Kingston fighting the Free Trade Agreement that is going to give his constituents 35 more jobs. He was up
on his feet yesterday jawing away about closure as if he had 100 years of parliamentary experience. If he had any sense he would have certainly closed what he was using yesterday to argue against closure. He would be trying to protect these 35 more jobs in Kingston, an area of Canada that badly needs more jobs. Where is Flora when she is needed, Mr. Speaker? That is the question we have to ask.
Flora MacDonald was my desk-mate. She will be sorely missed in the House. However, I think that the people of Kingston have saved her for something even greater, if there could be anything greater than being a Member of the House. I hope that we will hear a lot more from Flora MacDonald in the future. She is a woman of tremendous capabilities and experience. I hope that the Government will be able to find something for her that will suit her talents and her capabilities so that she can go on serving the people of Canada as she has done for the last 20 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The President of Roseworks-I am glad to see the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands is present. He is going to get the Roseworks, if he doesn't look out.
The President, Mr. Peter Blainey, said the following on December 14: "Without free trade we . . . would definitely have to locate in the United States and those 50 jobs, quite frankly, would not be here [in Kingston]".
Hon. Members still a chance to vote for this Bill on third reading. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he reconsider his obdurate and stubborn attitude and be prepared to be flexible.


An Hon. Member:: Was that after the election?


John Carnell Crosbie: December 14 was after the election, after the loss.


An Hon. Member:: Is it still Canadian-owned?


John Carnell Crosbie: firm is creating in Kingston. Frankly, down in Newfoundland we do not give a damn if it is owned by the Martians as long as it creates jobs for Newfoundlanders and Canadians. We do not care if it is owned by the Afghanistanis. We don't care if it is owned by the Martines, or the Martons, or the Crosbies-in fact, we would prefer it to be owned by the Crosbies. It does not matter to us, we are impartial. If I had any sense I would be owning something and not up here working and slaving until 2.30 in the morning. In fact, if I get any offers that would set me up I would be gone like a flash.


Lloyd Axworthy: How about a nickel, John?


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my belief that the privileges of all Members have been abused when the Minister for International Trade takes advantage of the television cameras and the 10 people who are watching today to make an appeal to do some useful work, because we all know that the work he has been doing for the last number of years has been useless. This is a terrible abuse of the parliamentary channel. I would hope that he would tell us how the free trade deal will help-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister for International Trade.


John Carnell Crosbie: That Hon. Member's future has always been well behind him. He is enjoying his last session in the House. Why did he get re-elected?


Brian Vincent Tobin: With a bigger majority than Crosbie.


John Carnell Crosbie: Because I slaved for his district. I improved Deer Lake Airport. I was a fool. There was a new terminal building at Deer Lake Airport, a $17 million harbour improvement at Corner Brook, tens of millions for the Kruger mill in Corner Brook. There were improvements at the airport in Stephenville, and on and on it went. What happened? Well, we see the results of how things went wrong. We are only interested in doing good for the people of Canada, no matter who they have representing them.
Let us look at a larger firm. I want to look at Nova Scotia based National Sea Products.


Miss Clancy:: Yes, let's look at that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, the Liberals hate success. They hate success. Our Premier is well sprung.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Lloyd Axworthy: Would you articulate on that a little, please?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not going any further, Mr. Speaker.
Earlier this month Mr. Gordon Cummings estimated that 400 new jobs will be created at National Sea Products because of the Free Trade Agreement. He stated: "The seafood industry now will do more secondary processing in Canada. Instead of taking a fillet of fish, putting it in a 16 1/2 pound frozen block, sending it to the United States and processing it there, we'll be able to do that here in Atlantic Canada".
We have had one example of a small business, and now this is an example of a traditional resource industry expanding in Canada because of free trade. It has a $2 million production line on the floor in Lunenburg which, as a result of our success in the election, will now go into operation creating another 35 or 40 additional jobs in National Sea Products in the next few months because of the fact that the people of Canada supported us in the election.
Let us look at one larger enterprise, Du Pont, a giant chemical company. Next, I am going to hear: "Who owns Du Pont?" Is it American-owned or controlled, or Canadian-owned or controlled, or is it Italian-does Luigi own it? Frankly, I do not care who owns it. I would prefer it to be Canadian-owned, but if it goes on doing what it is doing now, and doing what it promised it will do, it has a very warm spot in my heart.
What is this giant chemical company planning to do? It has stated that capital spending in Canada for 1989 will be $150 million, an increase of 50 per cent over this year. Why is it doing this? Its President, Ted Newall, on December 2 stated: "This is designed to help us capture the opportunities provided by free trade with the United States . . . The end to uncertainty about free trade gives us the opportunity to pursue our corporate strategy more vigorously. Export sales will more than double from the 1987 level, approaching $500 million by 1991. Our strategy is to invest in businesses that can serve the full North American market and that can now, or soon, become competitive with the best in the world".
This is one of the so-called branch plant companies that members of the New Democratic Party kick and thrash around about. They don't mind the old branch plants in Windsor; no, Sir. They don't mind the branch plants in Oshawa. I have not heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party rise and kick the bejabbers out of General Motors that has put billions and billions of

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
dollars of investment in Oshawa where he has been returned. It is an oasis of prosperity. We never hear them talk about the branch plant mentality when it comes to General Motors. This so-called branch plant company is going to modernize and expand. Why is it going to do that? Because Canada is a good place to invest, particularly because of the increased opportunities under free trade.
Let us look back at what Mr. Newall said:
The end to uncertainty about free trade gives us the opportunity-
Now we have the opposition Parties in the House wanting the uncertainty to continue. They managed to create an atmosphere of uncertainty for most of 1988. The agreement was entered into in October, 1987. They fought this all through 1988. They then said the people had to decide. The Liberals called upon the Senate, this unelected anachronism. The elected remnants of the Liberal Party in the Senate were called upon to block this deal. They created great uncertainty because of the actions of the Senate, the elected second Chamber. That has to be corrected, in my opinion, and corrected soon. We have to apply the guillotine to the Senate. That is my view on the Senate, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: You send your has-beens there.


John Carnell Crosbie: There is only one E Senate that I want to see, emasculated. That is the result that will have to come for the Senate if the Senate is to survive. Never mind the triple E, we should have the single E, emasculation. Now I am getting diverted from whatever I was saying.
The opposition Parties created uncertainty. Then they said there had to be an election. We had the election. The damage done to Canadian business planning and to Canadians who wanted to take advantage of the new free trade Bill was incalculable.


An Hon. Member:: The majority said no.


John Carnell Crosbie: Millions, if not hundreds of millions, billions of dollars of damage was done because investors had to hold back. They could not carry out their planning because of the uncertainty created by the opposition Parties.
On November 21, the people of Canada spoke, but the opposition Parties still want to carry on creating uncertainty.


Mary Catherine Clancy: They spoke to us too.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Newall said:
The end to uncertainty about free trade gives them the opportunity-
That is why this legislation has to be passed this week. That is why it has to go into effect on January 1, because we have to end the uncertainty. It is our duty to end the uncertainty. It is a virtue to end the uncertainty. The uncertainty must be ended.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Having damaged this country terribly in the last six months or a year, the opposition Parties want to continue to damage the country by going through this charade that we have gone through the last few days.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Utter nonsense.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not going to go along with that. We are ending the uncertainty. We were elected to govern. We are going to govern whether or not the Opposition likes it.


An Hon. Member:: What about the positive amendments?


John Carnell Crosbie: There has not been a positive statement from the ranks of the Opposition since they got into this House on November 21, not one positive statement.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Not one from Kingston and the Islands.


John Carnell Crosbie: Absolutely. Luigi had it right.
I want to emphasize that while the agreement creates a framework for greater stability and opportunity in Canada-U.S. trade it does not mean an end to trade disputes. Will opposition Members listen to this for heaven's sake so we can avoid a lot of silly, tedious questions in 1989? It does not mean an end to trade disputes, and no one ever suggested, except on the opposition side, that it did. Our trade disputes with the United States will continue, Mr. Speaker. They may even accelerate. They may grow in number and profusion because the United States is still under heavy pressure. The Americans still have a huge balance of payments deficit. They still have a huge deficit in the balance of trade. They are still nervous as cut cats. We have an elected Congress that is just as protectionist now as it was six months or a year ago. This does not mean an end to trade disputes, but it means we have
December 22, 1988

much better defences when it comes to trade disputes with the United States of America.
I am telling the Members of this Chamber today that there will be plenty of trade disputes with the United States of America in the future, but because of the foresight of this Government we will be in a position to deal with them from a position of much greater strength than Canada was in a position to deal with them before.


Mary Catherine Clancy: How?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am asked how. You understand, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition Members have not read the agreement.


Ms. Copps:: You haven't read it. You said so yesterday.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was accused of not having read the agreement simply because-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You said so yesterday, that you still haven't read it.


John Carnell Crosbie: I admit it. i have never read the pages with all the algebraic equations. I do not think there is a Member here in the House who has read them either. I do not intend to read them. I am not going to read them.
The Member from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin) is going to look up A minus B over C over X minus Y equals the power of how much grain will be subsidized in the future. That is up to him to read it if he wants to.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is the power of Washington.


John Carnell Crosbie: I knew something was missing. Suddenly my ear drums puffed out and there was the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
The question was how. The institutional mechanisms and the common rules of conduct that are created by this agreement put Canada in a far better position to promote our interests and defend ourselves against protectionist actions. Isn't it strange how every other country in the world would give anything to be in our position in this Canada-U.S. deal?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't Hon. Members come to the GATT conference in Montreal?


Mary Catherine Clancy: You didn't invite us.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Carnell Crosbie: I was host to 96 countries plus 9 other countries as observers. It could have suited a couple of these hon. gentlemen to come to Montreal. We extended a hand of friendship to them to see if they could learn anything, but they did not show up.


An Hon. Member:: We didn't get the invitation.


Mr. McDermid:: Then your Leader didn't give it to you.


John Carnell Crosbie: We had representative Gibbons from the United States and Senator Max Baucus. We had American representatives, but our own opposition Parties did not have the interest to send an observer. We had representatives of the P.C. caucus with us. If the opposition Members had come they would have seen the rest of the world envy us because of this arrangement with the United States of America.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That was pity in their eyes. It is the first time a country gave itself up without a single shot being fired.


Mr. Della  Noce@: It is "boop boop de bepbop"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Our Hon. Member Della Noce has certainly put his finger right on it. "Boop boop de bepbop". Whatever it is. I certainly agree.


John Horton McDermid: Watch Hansard have fun with that one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Protectionism is still a great problem in the United States because of the American's new sense of vulnerability in the last few years from the huge budgetary and trade deficits. We should have a sense of vulnerability ourselves. The mote is not only in the American eye. Canadians can have motes in their eyes as well. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are not perfect. Our trade policy is not perfection. We occasionally err on the side of protectionism ourselves. If we do it occasionally, you can imagine that the Americans do it as well.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Give us some examples.


John Carnell Crosbie: So does every other country. We all feel these protectionist pressures.


John Horton McDermid: There are liquor and wine mark-ups.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Carnell Crosbie: An important segment of the U.S. and its legislators yield to the temptations and blame their problems on the unfair practices of foreign competitors, just as we have a tendency to blame others for our problems caused by our own protectionist actions. The Free Trade Agreement will not stop the American protectionist impulse but it will give us a more effective means to resist protectionist actions directed against our enterprises and employees.


Mary Catherine Clancy: How?


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. lady asks how. The dispute resolution mechanism is the most advanced dispute resolution mechanism ever entered into by two countries in the history of the world. One only has to go to impartial international trade experts to get that opinion. We are going to have the most advanced disputes settlement mechanism in place in the world today. Why?-because Canadians will sit on the panels adjudicating disputes brought in the U.S. by U.S. interests and Americans will serve on the panels struck in Canada to decide disputes brought by Canadians under Canada's trade laws.
Not once during the election campaign or during the free trade debate in this Chamber have I heard Members opposite approach this agreement from both sides. All we hear is their whining and their bitching about what is going to happen here in Canada, about the rights that the Americans will have here in Canada. We have yet to hear them speak about the rights that Canadians will have under the FTA in the U.S.
I cite the example of the health care field. There is only one area in the health care field where the FTA might have an effect on services in Canada, and that is in health management.


An Hon. Member:: That's right.


John Carnell Crosbie: In Canada our hospitals, our health care system, is almost 100 per cent owned by the provincial Governments-


Some Hon. Members:: No, it is not.


An Hon. Member:: That is wrong. It is non-profit, but not government-owned.


John Carnell Crosbie: In some instances, hospitals are run by the Salvation Army or other religious order. In any event, the health care system is almost 100 per cent
publicly financed and controlled by either the provincial or federal Governments. As a consequence, the opportunities for American firms to make inroads in the health management field will be very slim. They will only have that opportunity if a province allows it-


An Hon. Member:: And the provinces will.


An Hon. Member:: Read Article 2011.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Free Trade Agreement does not force, and cannot force, a province to do anything it does not wish to do in the health care field.
But in the United States of America the health system is almost 100 per cent in the private sector, with the result that Canadian health management companies can tender on health management contracts in the U.S. In doing so, they will receive national treatment. They cannot be discriminated against. Under the FTA, they will have every right to compete with American firms on such tenders. In other words, the FTA opens up a vast new market for Canadian health management firms in the U.S. This is an area where we have taken the Americans to the cleaners. U.S. health management firms cannot come into Canada and make the same inroads because of the fact that our health care system is all but totally controlled by Government. As a consequence, the opportunities for U.S. firms in Canada are minimal in the health management field.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is nonsense; absolute nonsense. Tell the truth.
Are you saying that the provincial Governments cannot give a contract to American firms in the health care area?


John Horton McDermid: No, that is not what he is saying. Certainly they can. But that is a decision for the provinces.


Brian Vincent Tobin: And they will do it. If the federal Government cuts back on the transfer payments, the provinces will have to turn more and more to the private sector. You know that. We all know that. You are simply trying to bluff your way out of it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are listening to the bogeyman. The bogeyman travelled around Newfoundland raising this type of fear.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We got five seats. How many did you get?


John Carnell Crosbie: His is a part of the same kind of thinking as that of the Liberal candidate that I mentioned the
December 22, 1988

other night, the Liberal candidate who came across a poor young woman eight months pregnant walking down the road and who said to her: "That's the last free one you'll have."
That is the kind of tactic that was used, and the Hon. Member opposite illustrates that tactic.


Brian Vincent Tobin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin), on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I was not listening carefully, as is my wont whenever the Minister is on his feet, but if the Hon. Member suggested-and I would hope that he did not-that I or another Liberal candidate in Newfoundland said to some poor young woman, eight months pregnant, to quote the Minister, words to the effect "That's the last free one you'll ever have", I would ask the Minister to withdraw his remark, because such an event never happened, notwithstanding the Hon. Member's best attempt to portray it as having happened.


An Hon. Member:: How would you know?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I speak for myself, and I would hope that the Hon. Member would have the good grace to take my word on that and withdraw his suggestion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Hon. Member opposite was up to during the campaign. I don't know whether he bumped into any pregnant women during the course of the campaign. I never said that he was the candidate in question. As a matter of fact, he was not. But there were seven Liberal candidates in Newfoundland, and one did exactly what I am telling the House was done. In other words, he was suggesting to this poor young woman that if the Free Trade Agreement goes into effect, "medicare is gone, and this will be the last free child you'll ever have".


Brian Vincent Tobin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is a tradition of this House, generally, that we do not make allegations or
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
attack people who are not here to defend themselves, and I would suggest-


An Hon. Member:: Oh come on! What have you been doing for the last four years!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I suggest to the Minister that he show some class, as he is capable of doing on occasion, and withdraw that remark. He is making an allegation against an unnamed individual who is not here to defend himself or herself. It is an improper allegation, done in an improper way, and I would ask that he do the right thing and withdraw it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasant change to have a Member of the "rat pack" get all upset when an allegation is made against an unnamed person. Usually it is the rat pack that is making allegations about named persons who are not in the Chamber to defend themselves; they are outside this Chamber in the general public. Usually they are asking questions-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Come on, John; show some class.


John Carnell Crosbie: Usually they are asking questions that imply some kind of scandalous conduct and it turns out that the scandalous conduct never occurred.
We have seen a hundred examples of that. And then the Hon. Member opposite, who is a Member of the rat pack, gets up and states that I should not say something about a nameless person, a true story about a Liberal candidate in Newfoundland, an individual who went unnamed.
Well, thank God the rat pack has finally gone to ground!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to try to wrap up before six this evening, and with that in mind I hope I do not have to suffer any further interruptions.
While the Free Trade Agreement is not going to stop the American protectionist impulse, it will provide us with far more effective means to resist such actions.
To hear the opposition Members in this place speak, one wouldn't realize that Canada itself has an antidumping law, that Canada itself has a countervail law, that our trade disputes law has in it the right of Canadians to approach our regulatory agencies and allege

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
dumping, as was done this past summer in connection with the import of U.S. apples into Canada.
Under Canadian law, Canadian producers and manufacturers can allege that imports coming into Canada are unfairly subsidized, with a request that a countervailing tariff or duty be imposed.
Every trading country in the world has its own set of trade laws. To hear Hon. Members opposite speak, one would think that it was only in the bad old United States of America that there were such terrible laws about subsidies and countervail and anti-dumping.
Canada itself has such laws, and we insist upon retaining those laws until the trading nations of the world can reach common agreement on what an appropriate countervail law is and what the appropriate definition of "trade distorted subsidies" is.
Until that day arrives, we need our anti-dumping and countervail laws, just as the U.S. needs such laws, just as the European Economic Community needs such laws, just as Japan needs such laws, just as any other trading country in the world needs such laws.
The Free Trade Agreement, in addition to creating new opportunities for Canadian enterprises, in addition to providing Canadians with a more effective shield against U.S. protectionist actions, strengthens our bargaining position at the GATT.
I would not expect Hon. Members opposite to know anything about that, because they have demonstrated no interest in the GATT.
While the Liberal Party pledged its dedication to the GATT system, as soon as a GATT panel decision adverse to Canadian interests came down, they began attacking the GATT. That is their wont. They are in support of anything that sounds good. But once there is a result that they do not like, they come out against it.
In any event, in theory at least, they are supportive of the GATT.
They came out against the bilateral arrangement between the U.S. and Canada, but they were all for the GATT. That was their official position.


An Hon. Member:: Just like the Tories on the Auto Pact.


John Carnell Crosbie: And it is the same in the New Democratic Party. They are for the GATT-until the GATT rules, when applied to Canada, result in a decision that we in Canada do not like.
If we get caught imposing a protectionist action of our own and the GATT panel rules against us, we have the two opposition Parties coming out against the GATT. They no longer like the GATT; they don't like the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The NDP Party thinks we can rely on our own little market here in Canada. They believe in autarky, I think it is called; that you can just survive on your own little internal market of 26 million people. They forget that 30 per cent of all Canadian jobs come from exports, and 20 per cent of those from exports to the U.S.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Oshawa.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are only concerned about Oshawa, of course. Oh, the autarkist is getting up. Woeful Willy from Windsor is wending his weary way to his "wittle" feet again.


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


Mr. Langdon:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It concerns a reference the Minister has made a number of times. There was in fact an NDP party last night, which accounts in part for the limited numbers here today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Ordinarily it is the "NDP" or the "New Democratic Party".


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I just want to explain why this strengthens our position in the multilateral trade negotiations at the GATT. In the previous rounds of the MTN, one of the most important parts of the process, if not the most important, was what deal would be struck between Canada and the U.S. The reason was and is that Canada and the U.S. are the largest trading partners in the world. We were the two countries that had the most at stake in those negotiations.
Under the GATT rules any agreement reached between Canada and the U.S. had to automatically benefit other countries under the most favoured nation rule, whether or not those other countries made any concessions to Canada. That is why this agreement is so much more favourable to us than it would be if it was reached in the MTN at GATT. Every concession we made to the U.S. or they made to us would have to be automatically conferred on all the other countries engaged in those negotiations. The agreement means that Canada does not have to pay multilaterally for
December 22, 1988

what we have gained bilaterally from the U.S. The Europeans, the Japanese and the newly industrialized countries will now have to make concessions to us for improved access to the U.S. and Canadian markets. That improves our bargaining position immeasurably on the issue of improved access to their markets, which is another tremendous advantage to Canadians of the Canada-U.S. bilateral Free Trade Agreement.
I am still optimistic about the prospects for a successful Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, but we have all seen how difficult it is to solve the agricultural conundrum. We all saw what happened in Montreal on the four areas not agreed to. These issues now have to be reviewed again in April in Geneva. We made great headway in 11 other areas, but these are all held up because we cannot get certain countries to consent because there has been no progress in the agricultural trade subsidy area.
There is a chance that the Uruguay round negotiations will fail. Without the Free Trade Agreement we would then be left outside any major trading bloc, knocking in vain at the door. Because of this agreement we have assured ourselves of access to one of the largest and most prosperous economies in the world, the U.S. Without this agreement we would be left defenceless, particularly in the event that the Uruguay round of negotiations were not successful.


Mr. Harvard:: Fiction.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not fiction. If you think this is fiction, you are not fit to govern. You do not want to consider what the possibilities are in the future, you do not want to take action to protect yourself today from what might happen to you tomorrow. That used not to be the Liberal view of things, but the Liberal Party has of course changed immeasurably since I left it and the bottom dropped out of it in 1971.
Free trade with the U.S. is an insurance policy against the worst case scenario. What is that? A global slide into protectionism. That is what the agreement does for us. It helps protect us against the fearsome prospect of the worst case scenario, the Uruguay round fails and we slide into a world of protectionism.
For all those reasons we believe the FTA will benefit Canada, just as the reduction of trade barriers between the U.S. and Canada has benefited us now for 50 years. In 1945, I believe it was, 35 per cent of Canada's exports went to the U.S. Last year it was 76 per cent to 80 per cent. This is not something that occurred under a
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Conservative Government. This occurred under many Liberal Governments over many years. In all the years from 1945 until now the Liberal Party was in power except for five or six years under Mr. Diefenbaker, eight months of the Clark Government-


John Harvard: A hiccup.


John Carnell Crosbie: You can call it a hiccup, but it was a hiccup that resulted in the belch that followed under the Liberal Government of Mr. Trudeau. We all know the damage the Trudeau belch did to Canada from 1980 to 1984. The Canadian people certainly quickly regretted the error they made in defeating the Conservative Party of Joe Clark in February, 1980. They soon discovered to their peril and their cost what they had done.
When the Liberal Party got in it had no authority to change the Constitution at all. It had never asked the Canadian people or suggested to them that it was going to cause constitutional revolution. Yet that same Party, with 43 per cent of the vote, now says we do not have a mandate to do anything at all. We have only 43 per cent. The Liberals got into power with 43 per cent of the vote and then changed the Constitution of Canada. Senator Machiavelli Kirby. We all remember that, if we have any memories at all, and how they went about bullying the provinces. They put in the notwithstanding clause. This is their clause which they are now trying to say they no longer support. That Party is the notwithstanding Party. I do not know how anyone can stand them.
We had six years of Mr. Diefenbaker and eight months with Joe Clark, up until 1984. So in the period from 1945 to 1984, almost 40 years, that is when our increase in dependence upon the U.S. occurred. It occurred under Liberal Governments. They adopted policies such as Mr. Trudeau's policy of turning to Europe. What was it called? The third option. Some 65 per cent of our exports went to the U.S. then. The third option did no good whatsoever. The figure on exports to the U.S. now is 76 per cent to 80 per cent.
We are dealing with the situation left to us by many Liberal Governments. Having gotten us in this position they then spend all their time trying to sabotage the solution we achieved to the problems they left us. Instead of trying to be statesman-like and helpful, they try to create uncertainty and ruin the arrangement we have made. We think the Free Trade Agreement will position us better to meet the new realities of international life, whether they involve reduced or increased trade barriers.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I might remind the House that 1.3 million jobs have been created in the last four years. If you listen to Question Period you would think there was not a job left in Canada. The Opposition get up in every Question Period trying to find some place in the country where they can allege a job has been lost as a result of free trade or whatever. They never once mention during the election campaign the economic policies and conduct of the Government. That was never the subject of debate. It was never the subject of criticism by the Leader of the Opposition or by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. They could not criticize the Government's economic record because the Government's economic record was so strong.
Some 738,000 more women are working in Canada in 1988 than were working in Canada in 1984. The youth unemployment rate has been reduced tremendously. It had gone up and increased under the Liberals, despite Senator Hebert's ploy that the media was taken with, lying down outside the Senate Chamber going to starve himself because our youth policies were not satisfactory. What was he doing when youth unemployment went up by 170-odd thousand under Mr. Trudeau? He was in the Parliamentary Restaurant quaffing champagne and eating pate de fois gras.
When the youth unemployment rate was being reduced severely he was demonstrating outside the Chamber, with the help of the media. Members of the media would come along every day to have a look to say: "Are his eyelids open or shut? Is he still alive?" One could tell by the tongue flapping, Mr. Speaker, that he was still alive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We still must have a little respect for the other place.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Minister for International Trade to get a grip on himself. He has now again attacked someone who cannot defend himself, someone who is not in the House, the Hon. Senator Hebert. What we are getting-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Minister for International Trade has the floor.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. gentleman who was just up on an interjection, a new Member to the House, introduced some new language
into the House last night. He has the gall to get up to lecture me about what I should be saying or not be saying in the House. He had better watch himself first, that hon. gentleman. We heard what he thinks is clever language in the House here last night. It did not go over very well then. I suggest to him that he should wait until his Hon. Leader here, the trade critic, gives him the signal before he jumps up and makes an a-s-s of himself again, Mr. Speaker.
I am trying to come to the end of my remarks here.


John Harvard: Please do.


John Carnell Crosbie: What I want to suggest-


Mr. Caccia:: That is unparliamentary language.


John Carnell Crosbie: Who is that croaking up now? That is the hon. gentleman who supports his Leader so avidly. He is such a faithful follower of the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition had to move him into the front row because he could not have him behind his back any longer.


Mr. McCurdy:: You are a model of statesmanship.


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to speak for a moment on the question-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The only Party whose leadership you have not run for is the NDP. You had better watch yourself. Ed Broadbent has a fellow watching you full time in case you abandon your pinstripes for denim.


John Carnell Crosbie: Any Party that I ran for the leadership of would be vastly improved if I made it, that is for sure.
Let me just come to the question of adjustment about which we have heard so much. I want to remind the House once again to get this issue into perspective. Let us take some respected economic forecasting agencies, in this case the Economic Council of Canada, which is as good as any of them can be, and look at what it forecasts for the next 10 years. Remember that the Free Trade Agreement is being introduced over a 10-year period. There is a 10-year period of adjustment for the Free Trade Agreement. Just look at the dimensions of the problem of adjustment as its forecasts show.
The Economic Council of Canada estimates that 439,000 jobs would be created over that 10-year period as a direct result of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. It might be right and it might be wrong. It might be off by tens of thousands, or it might not. It estimates that 107,000 jobs would be lost during that
December 22, 1988

period. That is an average of 18,000 jobs per year. It says that there will be a net gain of jobs likely from the agreement of 251,000 over the period. Remember that our leading economic forecasters say that the result of the Free Trade Agreement is a net increase in jobs. It states: 439,000 jobs created, 187,000 lost, 251,000 net increase. Naturally, we have to be concerned about 187,000 jobs that may be lost. But this country already has a plethora of programs to deal with people who are unemployed and who are in between jobs.
Every year in our dynamic economy something like 3.5 million to five million people change jobs during the year. We have programs. We have the Canadian Jobs Strategy. There are programs of the Department of Labour, programs in the Department of Unemployment and Immigration, programs in the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, to help people who are in between jobs now, and during the time of the Free Trade Agreement or whatever.
Let us get this in perspective. The adjustment might be an adjustment for 187,000 people over a 10-year period. Anyone can come into this House and try to pretend every day that there is some huge emergency outside because of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, but that is pure bluff on their part. That is trying to create a perception. The problem is that there could be adjustments for 187,000 people likely over a 10-year period.
If new programs are needed to assist in any particular area, and there may be several particular areas in which the agreement has adverse effects outside the normal effects, we will be ready with special programs if special programs are needed, just as they were produced for the grape growers of Canada. Let us give the Free Trade Agreement a fair chance.
Once members of the Opposition have finished bewailing the fact that they lost the election, that they were not successful, once that sinks in and the Free Trade Agreement is here, opposition Members will be good Canadians and give this agreement a chance to work-


John Harvard: For how long?


John Carnell Crosbie: I would say it would be reasonable to give it three years in any event. There is not likely to be an election for four years.


John Harvard: Tell us how we are going to get out of it if it is bad.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman wants to know how to get out of it if it is bad. If it is bad, we can give six months' notice and terminate it. Under the Auto Pact one has to give one year's notice. If the Americans want to change the Auto Pact they give us notice of one year and then in one year the Auto Pact is terminated, or we negotiate in between. If either one of the parties to this agreement discovers that it is not to their advantage or was not what they thought it should be-and I do not think this will happen-they can give six month's notice and force a renegotiation or bring the agreement to an end.
All I am suggesting is that the opposition Parties give this a chance. If they are not prepared to give it two or three years, a reasonable period of time, they should give it at least a year. They should not try to break the confidence of Canadians and themselves in any opportunities that a Free Trade Agreement will present to Canadians. They should do their best to help us realize and to help Canadians realize the opportunities there are in this agreement. Surely, they have to admit that there are some opportunities presented by this agreement. Surely, they cannot believe that just about the whole business community of the country is so stupid that members of it are supporting something that will not give them an opportunity at all to advance the interests of their own companies.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Fifty per cent of them are American now anyway.


John Carnell Crosbie: Who is American? I did not realize that John Bulloch was an American. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, headed by John Bulloch, supported the agreement with great strength. Sixty-seven per cent of their members said that the agreement would be of benefit to the small businessmen and women of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Where is your Member for Hull- Aylmer? On vacation today? Where is he? In the sun? Florida?


An Hon. Member:: If you only worked one-tenth as hard as he does.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are they suggesting Luigi is not a
Canadian?
I would conclude by saying that this has been a long siege. I did not realize, when the Prime Minister asked me to become the Trade Minister at the end of March,

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
that the process would be so long and painful. It has been just about nine months since the end of March.
I was happy to accept his invitation. I believe that this is a positive benefit for Canadians. I realize this will not produce economic miracles. It will put Canada into a favoured position among the nations of the world. The United States is still the largest and most prosperous market of any country in the world. The Free Trade Agreement will give us an immeasurable sense of security, particularly if the rest of the world is not successful in the Uruguay round of the GATT discussions that are now under way.
This is an agreement that strengthens Canadian nationalism; that strengthens the opportunity for the development of Canadian culture; that strengthens every region of the country economically; that gives Atlantic Canada a new chance. I have visited Nova Scotia frequently. I heard the complaint that Nova Scotia had been done in by Confederation in 1867, that it had been a prosperous place based on north-south trade until it entered Confederation. Then Ontario and Quebec imposed high tariffs and stifled progress forever in Nova Scotia. What would happen in Nova Scotia if that tariff arrangement were ever changed? We are now removing the shackles from the Nova Scotia economy that they complained about for 110 years of Confederation. They are being removed from New Brunswick where the Premier supports this agreement. Despite the fact that he is a Liberal, he continued to give the agreement his support during the election campaign. The Premier of Newfoundland supports it. We only have one maritime Premier who does not, and that is the Premier of Prince Edward Island.
This deal is good for every region of Canada. This is a positive step forward for Canada. It is good for all Canadians. It is good for the people I represent. I cannot think of any strong, persuasive, rational argument against entering into this Free Trade Agreement. That is why I am proud to have participated in this process. That is why we are prepared to spend every day from now until New Year's Day to see that this gigantic step forward for Canada becomes law and takes effect on January 1, 1989. The time has come for that to be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: We
have had a lot of time this last week to sit in our chairs and reflect. I have come to an important revelation. I now know what the definition of "hell" is. It is having to sit in my chair until 2.00 a.m. passing clauses that I
have never had a chance to debate and getting up four or five hours later and listening to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) for two hours. There is no more cruel and inhumane punishment than the combination of experiences the Members have been put through.
I do not want to disrupt the Christmas season with the same obnoxious remarks that the Minister made. Before the Hon. Minister runs away for his lunch break at the local gas station, let me pass on to him something that the members of the Liberal caucus suggest as a Christmas gift to the man who has nothing.
We have thought longingly about the Minister for International Trade and what would be the appropriate gift for him at Christmastime. We know he has not had time to write Santa Claus, so we are here in the full spirit of generosity and charity to make a contribution. It came to our desk. It is entitled, "The John Deer Spreader Handles More Manure Faster to Save You Time".
"Let's face it. There are other things you would rather do than spend a lot of time spreading manure. That is why we introduced a new 350 Spreader with reliability and performance that gets you out of the field fast. Not only does the new 350 Spreader save you time, it is economically priced. So whatever you would rather do with your time and your money, the 350 Spreader will help you make it possible."
We have the ideal Christmas gift to replace the Minister for International Trade, and that is the 350 Spreader. Just think of the time we would save the Canadian people. Just think of how the people watching television would be saved an excruciating experience if we had a spreader in the place of the Minister. We would get that manure out an awful lot quicker and more efficiently than what we have today.
In the same spirit of generosity, I want to help the Minister on another small item. It seems that the only poignant moment in the whole speech was when he appealed for a new job.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was listening.


Lloyd Axworthy: We hope the Prime Minister was listening.
The Minister said that he would rather be in another place. That is a sentiment shared by about eight or nine million Canadians.
I pass on to him an offer I saw from one of those American corporate giants that he so longingly loves.
December 22, 1988

Before Goodyear closed their plant in Toronto, they still had a job opening left. This would be most appropriate for the Minister's talents and qualities and offer him plenty of opportunity for travel, fresh air, and exercise. They need a replacement for someone to glide over the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day. I can think of no more useful accomplishment for that exercise than what we have had here today. I say to the Minister, "It is not too late". He could run out and apply immediately. There are two weeks until New Year's Day. We will look forward to seeing him hang-gliding over Pasadena sometime on New Year's morning.
I wish to say one thing on this third reading. I have been in politics a long time, and I hate to lose. I hate to lose debates, elections, and debates on important issues. The question that has been raised in this debate by Members on all sides is who won the election and what the election really meant. It is important to spend a moment, because the Members on the Cabinet benches and the Tory back-benchers have been banging their desks and rising to their feet and saying, "We won". Let me raise some questions. Let us see what happened in the Province of Newfoundland.
Here is the chief salesman for the trade deal. In his home province one would think that the magic of his argument, the thrill of his comments, his Don Rickies routine, would have mesmerized the people of Newfoundland to the point where they would run to the polls as fast as possible to vote for every Tory Member of Parliament. But what happened? His own plurality fell by 10,000 votes, and five out of seven seats are now held by Liberals.
Let us look at other Atlantic provinces that the Minister is so proud to talk about with a sense of realism and understanding. What happened in Prince Edward Island? There was 100 per cent rejection of the Conservatives. One accomplishment was that not only did he give a message to the Tories, they made a singular contribution to the environment of Canada by getting rid of the last environment Minister.


Mr. Charest:: The election is over, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: I say to the
Minister of Youth, or whatever he is, the election is not over. The election is just beginning. You had better be aware of it. The election has begun.


Jean J. Charest: That is pathetic, Lloyd.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Lloyd Axworthy: The pathos is in the eye of the beholder. I am afraid the Hon. Member has spent a lot of time looking in the mirror.
Let me recount that there were only two provinces in the entire country that one could say voted in a majority way for the Conservative Party. One of them happened to have an extraordinary number of seats which, by the parliamentary system, gave them a majority in the House. But it was close. We know just how close it was because we know how frantic, sweaty and obsessive-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Dirty.


Lloyd Axworthy: -that is right, and how dirty the Tories got in the last couple of weeks because they knew they were going to lose.
We came very close because there were millions of Canadians who rejected the deal and voted against the Conservative candidates in overwhelming numbers. I point to my own Province of Manitoba where we now have five Members in the City of Winnipeg, where we defeated Conservatives and New Democrats on the basis of a very important message, that it was the Liberal Party that spoke for Canada.
If the members of the Conservative Party ever had a moment of reflection-which I doubt since it is a contradiction in terms-I believe they would realize that it requires them to sit down and seriously consider the election results. The results did not give them carte blanche. They did not give them a mandate for dictatorship. It did not give them-


John Horton McDermid: Give me a break.


Lloyd Axworthy: It did not
endow them with some divine ordination to govern. It gave them a very strong message. It is that there are millions of Canadians who rejected the Government from 1984 to 1988, who defeated 40 or 50 of their own members, defeated six members of the Cabinet and reduced the pluralities of every Tory candidate in this country. More Canadians voted against the free trade deal in 1988, than voted against it in 1911 when it was defeated.


Jean J. Charest: What was the population in 1911, Lloyd?


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is there was a split vote. I want to say with some regret to my friends in the New Democratic Party that it was also a sad sight to see a new coalition emerge

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
in those last two weeks of the election, attack the Liberal Party. It was a coalition of the Tories, big business and the New Democratic Party Leader.
It was hard to imagine that a Party which stood up day after day in the House saying it would oppose to its last breath the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement would, in the last three weeks of the election as it began to slip, turn its fire on Liberals. They forgot that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was the proponent. They somehow forgot that it was the Conservatives who were the advocates of trade and spent all their time, advertising dollars and energy and resources attacking the Liberals. I say that with great regret because we felt that if there had been an effective coalition across the country we could have defeated the Conservatives and we would not be debating this Bill at the present time.


John Horton McDermid: It is all your fault, Steve.


Lloyd Axworthy: That saddens me deeply, Mr. Speaker. I want to say by way of personal reflection that I, like other Members in the House, have been intimately involved with this debate for close to four years. I think I speak for all Members of the House, both those who have just been elected and those who were here, that in a sense it has been a rare privilege to be involved in a debate of such historic proportions, win or lose. In some ways we have been serving in a very dramatic and historic way the reason why we are here.
Every one of us, whatever our differences, runs for public office because we feel we have something to offer.


An Hon. Member:: Lloyd for leader.


Lloyd Axworthy: We know that what has transpired in this country in the past years and months has been something that has demanded the utmost commitment, engagement and involvement. It has required-I make an exception. The Minister of Youth does not have the ability to be committed or engaged. He does not understand what public service means. All he understands is how his job works. That is the limit of his understanding of himself. That is the problem with the Conservatives, and there are too many of them.
That kind of commitment which people have made has been broadly shared by millions of other Canadians. We have simply been their servants in a real way, active as their spokespersons. This has been a very important definition for Canadians. It has required thousands of
people to leave the comfort of their occupations and families and ask themselves some hard questions about what this country means.
This debate, as raucous as it gets and with as much rhetoric that has flourished, did require Canadians to come to grips with some very fundamental questions about who we are, what we are and where we are going. I think that sets the base for a continuing debate in this country.
Anyone who assumes that this third reading of the Bill ends the debate is sorely wrong. It just begins the debate. This has been a catharsis for Canadians. It has given Canadians a new perspective of what it means to be a Canadian. It has brought them to realize that we simply cannot let Parliament work in the abstract in some isolation on the Hill in Ottawa and that the only way we can govern is if people are directly involved and can participate.
In some ways that realization came too late. In part, the Tory strategy succeeded. For a long time they were able to keep this matter hidden in the shadows. The strategy that was elaborated in their Cabinet paper in 1985, clearly stated that the only way they could get the trade deal through was if they did not tell Canadians what was in it. The Minister of Trade says he does not like cucumbers but he certainly knows how to grow mushrooms, which is basically to throw the manure at them and keep them in the dark. That is what the Minister and his colleagues have been very capable of doing.
The doors opened with the election. We suddenly realized that something very important was happening. That is why we have been engaged in this debate as long as we have in this last week and why we felt we needed far more time. That is why we believe it was not simply a matter of turning this Parliament into a sausage machine that would process the votes according to some kind of automatic formula, but would provide a forum in which that thirst for understanding and demand by so many Canadians to know more about this deal could be satisfied.
We have been denied, and so have Canadians. I say as a veteran of this House that it strikes me as being sad, in a way, that we could go through the last few days seeing closure brought forward more often than it was during the famous pipeline debate which was called at the time of a crisis of parliamentary government in Canada. The Government has used closure more often for more
December 22, 1988

incidental reasons than any Government in the past, far exceeding anything we saw in the pipeline debate.
There has been no sense of shame on the part of the Conservatives. There has been no regret or apology, no ability to understand what they were doing. They were totally incapable of understanding that one of the real victims of this whole debate has been Parliament itself and that they have put in jeopardy this fine institution by the way they have used their jackboots to simply tramp on the rights of the House. It seems to me that is one of the first casualties we have to look at.
I invite you back at three o'clock when we can continue our discussion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the recent meeting of representatives of the GATT countries in Montreal once again demonstrated that all negotiations aimed at reaching a trade agreement are laborious and do not always produce the expected results.
The Federal Liberal team and their leader propose a multilateral agreement as an alternative to the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. Such a proposal shows a lack of realism, experience and judgment on their part.
Canada cannot go backwards and accept a sudden and abrupt increase in customs tariffs when it has taken almost 50 years to bring them down to their present level. The Free Trade Agreement is an insurance policy against this reversal of things since it provides for the phasing-out of all trade restrictions between our two neighbouring countries and for the stabilization of our long term economic policy.
Today Canadians are proud to have given their confidence to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and to have supported his proposal for a bilateral agreement with our major trading partner, the United States, while striving at the same time to liberalize further international trade. The Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Speaker, is complementary and nonexclusive.



SOFTWOOD LUMBER TAX-LAY-OFFS ANNOUNCED BY G. W. MARTIN COMPANY

Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the G. W. Martin Company of Sault Ste Marie and Searchmont announced that it will be laying off 65 employees in its softwood lumber operations there. This represents over half the employees in the sawmill in the hamlet of Searchmont. This is a devastating blow for this small community.
These lay-offs have resulted from the Government's infamous export tax on softwood lumber which has cost the company $981,000 during the last two years and is now costing half of the workforce in Searchmont their jobs. I call on the Government to rescind this tax which has cost the softwood lumber industry in northern Ontario millions and millions of dollars and will cost thousands of jobs this winter if the Government does not act. The Government must act now to save these jobs in northern Ontario's softwood lumber industry.



HOUSING


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, thanks partly to this Tory Government, 36,000 children in world-class Toronto must depend on food banks, many because their food money must be spent on rent.
A co-operative group in Trinity-Spadina is trying to build affordable housing. It is ready to go to tender to build 62 units, family and single, two-thirds of them rent-geared-to-income. However, when construction costs rose, this Government refused to give more dollars to meet the cost. Instead, it slashed the number of

December 22, 1988
CMHC unit allocations so that this group may totally lose its two years of volunteer labour and its $200,000 provincial start-up allowance.
This Tory Government did the same thing to the same group two years ago. This Tory Government itself has caused increased housing costs by upping the sales tax on building materials and by refusing to impose a speculation tax to deter its land speculator friends.
I call on the Minister of State for Housing (Mr. McDermid) to take off his rigid dollar cap and enable people to build this and other affordable housing to meet the needs of low-income Toronto people.



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, another urban problem that needs the urgent attention of the Government is race relations. Equal opportunity and equal treatment are cornerstones of a free and democratic society, and most certainly of our Canadian multicultural society.
Recent concerns surrounding the Albert Johnson and Lester Donaldson cases in Toronto, the Michael Wade Lawson case in Mississauga, and the Anthony Griffith case in Montreal, underline the urban race relations problem. I do not want these problems in my city and I know that you do not want them in yours, Mr. Speaker.
Just prior to the election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) committed the Government to establishing a new Department of Multiculturalism. At the very least, that Department should include a Race Relations Commissioner.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in a few days, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Bill will be ratified by this House. This Bill is the culmination of three years of hard work by the Conservative Government and is the boldest economic initiative in the history of Canada.
Thousands of people in all provinces participated in its development, inspired and encouraged by a man who believed in our resources and potential. That man is the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Nineteen eighty-nine is just around the corner, and I hope that Canadians will continue to use their talents to ensure the prosperity of Canada. I pay tribute to the men and women who never despaired, who showed great strength of character in their efforts to develop this complex Agreement that will help employers create jobs and benefit the young people of Canada.
Let it be said loudly and clearly. It took courage, audacity and leadership to develop the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Bravo, Brian Mulroney! Your Government has delivered the goods to the people of Canada. To paraphrase Vigneault, my dear Brian-



CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent):: Mr. Speaker, my riding of Saint-Laurent is the centre of the high technology in Canada. The state-of-the-art technological developments produced there will put Canada at the forefront of the space industry. The creation of the Space Agency will help Canada to become an important partner in the development of space exploration. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister tell the House that even ridings that had elected members to the Opposition would receive their fair share.

However, I am disappointed that the Government has not yet proceeded with its commitment to grant the space agency to Saint Laurent. Have the people of Saint Laurent suffered because of their rejection of my opponent in the election? Surely the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would not give the space agency to Saint Laurent just because it is Premier Bourassa's riding but would because Saint Laurent deserves it.

I only hope the Government will keep its promise to give people their fair share and build the Space Agency in the most appropriate location, that is, in Saint-Laurent, which already has the necessary infrastructure.
December 22, 1988



THE LATE KARL HILSINGER

Mr. Bill Winegard (Guelph-Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, the man known as the "Silver-Suited Skier" has died. Karl Hilsinger, former Canadian Football League all-star and sports consultant to the War Amputations of Canada, died of a heart attack last Thursday. He was 56.
We will all remember Karl Hilsinger as the doubleleg amputee who appeared in television commercials about the Child Amputee Program, the CHAMP program, sponsored by the War Amputations of Canada.
Karl participated in the 1988 Winter Olympic Games in Calgary. He joined with several others in the CHAMP program in skiing demonstrations and he took part in the Olympic Torch relay. During that relay, he refused to use a wheelchair. He carried the torch while walking on what he called his stubbies.
Karl's passing is a tragic loss to the 1,200 young amputees in the CHAMP program. According to Cliff Chadderton of the War Amps, the children worshipped him. He set the standard for how to overcome a disability. He was a man who dedicated his life to others. He will stand tall in our memories.



THE LATE BERNT CARLSSON

Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all of us when I express our sorrow over the tragic crash last night in Scotland of a Pan Am Boeing 747 en route from London to New York.
The New Democrats have suffered a particular loss in that crash, for one of the passengers on that flight was Bernt Carlsson, the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia and a well-known member of our international socialist family.
The New Democratic Party had worked with Mr. Carlsson for more than a decade, especially since his election as Secretary General of the Socialist International in 1976. We were witness to his untiring efforts to improve East-West relations and to address problems of underdevelopment and conflict in the Third World.
In the course of this work we came to know him, and he came to know Canada through his visits here. He was a great socialist and a great friend of mankind. He will be sadly missed, not only by his friends and colleagues in the New Democratic Party but by all Canadians.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, in the last election campaign, the Liberals and the New Democrats have tried to scare the Canadian people, especially farmers, by telling them that free trade could threaten their future. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, our Government was responsible enough to protect our marketing boards by including Article XI of GATT in Article 710 of the Agreement. That means, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian dairy industry will stay in place and grow stronger and that the poultry and egg industries have been strengthened and protected as farmers had requested.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we are sensitive to the fact that we export a lot of pork, beef and horticultural products to the United States. Mr. Speaker, as a responsible Government, we couldn't say no to those producers who need guaranteed access to the American market. We couldn't say no to developing a policy allowing our farmers to expand. That is why, Mr. Speaker, on November 21, Canadian farmers and cooperatives said yes to a Progressive Conservative Government as it is the only party to offer a positive and progressive option for the future of Canadian agriculture.

[DOT] (MIO)



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape	Breton-The
Sydneys): Mr. Speaker, on November, 1988, an election was held in Eskasoni. In the band council election for chief the winner won by one vote.
[Stage Direction]
December 22, 1988
There are allegations of irregularities in that election but the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs says that this matter cannot be dealt with for months. The town is split and there is not even any move for a recount.
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia says that it does not have the jurisdiction and the community of Eskasoni is split down the middle.
There is nothing in the Indian Act to deal with this matter and the people of Eskasoni are being denied the rights that people in other electoral jurisdictions can take for granted and have without any problem.
I ask the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to look into these irregularities and conduct a recount as soon as possible, and I would ask the Minister to bring in amendments to the Indian Act that would look after the shortcomings in the present legislation.

Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) ran the campaign of his life. He ran long and hard for the hearts and minds of Canadians.
Here is this great warrior for Canada wounded in battle, struggling on despite the will of the people, struggling on despite the coming bells of Christmas, struggling on despite the fact that no one is listening, continuing the campaign of his life. Struggling ever onward leading his tattered, weary, and worn band of loyal banditos.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry I have to interrupt the Hon. Member but I think that his comments may well be inappropriate. The Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address the House on an issue which will likely affect all Canadians early in 1989. This issue is the negotiations or lack thereof between the federal Government and its 137,000 civil
servants. These negotiations could result in the largest strike in Canada's history.
The negotiation process has been stalemated by the Treasury Board and apparently its strategy is to offer little, request concessions, force overtime, and generally bully the workers into submission. There is also the ever present threat of cut-backs.
Morale is non-existent.
Generally these people are being treated as second-class citizens. It actually is no surprise since we have already experienced government's attitude to displaced workers as a result of free trade.
We should all make ourselves, as responsible representatives, aware of the plight of our civil servants, acknowledge it and finally address it before a most serious crisis is upon us.



CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, there has been much discussion lately concerning the location of our National Space Agency. Arguments have been raised in favour of both the Montreal and Ottawa regions.
While	both	areas have	unique	advantages,	our
national Space Agency should be positioned within easy travelling distance from other scientific groups such as the National Research Council and Telesat Canada.
Talk of decentralization and reallocation of the Government's resources robs this region of its expressed mandate to provide a full service community to its many residents. I suggest that the Government look closely at locating the National Space Agency within the National Capital Region.



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Organization for Economic Cooperation	and	Development	forecast that Canada's
December 22, 1988

economy, boosted by consumers' confidence and the Free Trade Agreement, should continue to expand at a healthy rate over the next two years.
The OECD noted Canada's manufacturing plants are running at near capacity, while the unemployment rate dropped to a six-year low of 7.8 per cent in the first half of 1988.
Because of continuing strong business investment and profits, the jobless rate is expected to fall to 7.5 per cent by the end of this decade.
With the economy approaching full employment, we must keep a watchful eye on wages, credit expansion, and rising commodity prices, all the factors that could trigger inflation.
Four years in office has proved the ability of a Conservative Government to strengthen Canada's economy. If you think that is good, just watch us in the next four!



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, in the previous Parliament the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) announced the Government's intention to purchase 10 to 12 British or French nuclear powered submarines at a announced cost of $5 billion before June, 1987.
The Tory Government has since revised its cost figures up to $8 billion. However, the Business Council on National Issues estimated the cost at $12 billion but revised it downward when it realized it was hurting its Tory friends.
United States naval experts have been saying $10 to $12 billion, but several experts have recently stated that a $16 to $20 billion estimate is a more likely figure.
During the election campaign, those nuclear subs were the quietest operating pieces of equipment you ever saw. The Tories didn't want to talk about their unpopular desire. It will take 27 or 28 years to produce all those submarines, which means that the Minister of National Defence will be happily collecting his old age pension by the time the last one goes into the water.
Oral Questions
The nuclear submarines program may well be announced quietly before this House reconvenes. If it is, it may be a sad day for Canada's Armed Forces because other areas of National Defence will go in need, all because the Minister of National Defence-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but the Hon. Member has exceeded his time. Oral Questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to put my questions to the Secretary of State, but in his absence I will direct them to the Prime Minister.
The law of the land-Bill C-72-provides that the federal Government, and I quote, "is committed to enhancing the vitality and supporting the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, as an integral part of the two official language communities of Canada, and to fostering full recognition and use of English and French in Canadian society."
The Secretary of State, responsible for implementing this law, said recently that invoking the notwithstanding clause is a legal and legitimate step in that it amounts to using a mechanism included in the Canadian Constitution. As for the Prime Minister, he stated yesterday that resorting to the notwithstanding clause is a breach of the Charters of Rights and Freedoms of Canada and Quebec. Mr. Speaker, the contradiction is obvious: one says white, the other says black. How can the Prime Minister continue to defend his Secretary of State who has publicly admitted he cannot do his duty, which is to promote and protect official language minority groups wherever they live?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: I find it difficult to watch Liberal Members greet this kind of question with applause, for they have always urged all their colleagues in the House to be particularly sensitive concerning linguistic issues in Canada, and always seek to avoid confrontations and create ill feelings over such questions.

December 22, 1988
Oral Questions
I answered this question yesterday and I invite my friend to read yesterday's Hansard very carefully, the answers are there, clear and unequivocal. If my friend can indeed show me a contradiction I would be pleased to comment further. Yesterday I spoke in the name of the federal Government. I stated a position which all Cabinet Ministers endorse. This position is fully consistent with the objectives of our linguistic policy, be it under Bill C-72 or pursuant to the Meech Lake Accord whose main purpose is to do justice to our linguistic minorities wherever they happen to be in Canada.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER DISMISS SECRETARY OF STATE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I know the position of the Government. I heard the Prime Minister very clearly. My question was directed to the Secretary of State. Does he understand what his role is? Does he play a role of importance in this country? I say yes, but that gentleman does not understand his role, Mr. Prime Minister. He does not comply with the requirements of protecting and promoting minority rights across the land.
In answer to a question I put him on June 28, 1985, as reported in Hansard at page 6365, the Prime Minister stated:
... I can assure you that, both as concerns the English-speaking minority in Quebec and the French-speaking minority in Manitoba and elsewhere, the federal Government is there as a friend, as a supporter, and all our resources and potential will be used to promote the cause of our French-speaking or Englishspeaking minorities wherever they may be.
Will the Prime Minister live up to his promise? Will he fire the Secretary of State and replace him with someone who cares, who understands, and who will stand up for minorities wherever they are in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, for a Government that had Serge Joyal in as Secretary of State it takes a lot of nerve to talk about promoting fairness.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Show your courage, Mulroney; show your courage.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let me just read for my hon. friend what has taken place since the Secretary of State was sworn in.

June 7: Renewal and enhancement of the Secretary of State's official languages programs. The Government will earmark more than $1.4 billion for these official languages programs over the next five years.
June 15: Signature of one general and three subsidiary agreements with Saskatchewan: $63 million over 10 years. On June 15, again with Mr. Bouchard, signature of an agreement between Saskatchewan Francophones and the federal Government involving $17 million over five years.
June 27: Signature of a general agreement with Prince Edward Island concerning services in French: $4.5 million over five years.
Premier Ghiz congratulated the Secretary of State. On August 26: Signature of a draft agreement with Nova Scotia, the College de l'Acadie: $5 million over five years.
November 28: Signature of a draft agreement with Prince Edward Island, the Community School Centre in Charlottetown: $5.3 million.
As 1 speak, the Secretary of State, Mr. Bouchard, is busy negotiating agreements in favour of Quebec's Anglophone minority. Such are the valid reactions of the Secretary of State!


RETENTION OF MINISTER IN CABINET
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the Prime Minister avoid a question that relates right to the heart of parliamentary democracy, namely, cabinet solidarity. We have attempted to put questions to the Secretary of State but he has performed the greatest disappearing act this week since Houdini. We cannot reach him.


Mr. Della  Noce@: He was here last night. Where were you?


John Napier Turner: Yesterday, in response to a question I put to him, as reported at page 522 of Hansard the Prime Minister stated:
I was and remain opposed to having a notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Those were the words of the Prime Minister. The Secretary of State is quoted, as early as October 18, 1988, and as recently as December 21, as saying that the notwithstanding clause is "essential for the survival of certain fundamental Quebec values".
December 22, 1988

That is not a nuance, as the Prime Minister attempted to portray to the Elouse yesterday. That is a fundamental difference of opinion. I ask the Prime Minister how can he retain a Secretary of State responsible for minority language rights in this country, and their protection, with such a fundamental difference right at the heart of his Cabinet?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition refers to the greatest disappearing act since Houdini. It is the greatest disappearing act since Turner!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Cheap shot.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to- [English]


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are a slimebag. Speak in English.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Member for Hamilton East says: "You are a slimebag. Speak in English". She is suggesting that by speaking in French I am doing something wrong.

What you have just said is appalling!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to act in the good tone of this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONVENING OF FIRST MINISTER'S CONFERENCE-ROLE OF SECRETARY OF STATE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that-


Mr. Speaker:: As I said yesterday, this is a very important matter for this country. It is appropriate that all Hon. Members extend a level of courtesy to those who ask questions and also to the Minister who gives the answer.
May I repeat that this is a very important matter, not only for now but for the future of our country.
The Right Hon. the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Oral Questions


M. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday and the day before, the Prime Minister stated in this House that he would call a conference of First Ministers to discuss the matter of the override clause.
I ask him, what role will the Secretary of State be playing at that conference? The Prime Minister wants to do away with the override clause. His Secretary of State wants to keep it.
How are they going to sit together at that conference?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause was agreed to by my predecessor in 1981-1982 and it has always been my personal view that a notwithstanding clause is incompatible with a Charter of Fundamental Rights. This is a personal view that may not be shared by everyone, but as far as I am concerned it has always been my belief that if a Prime Minister said: On one hand I give you-

On the one hand I give you inalienable rights, and on the other hand, by the way, I forgot to tell you, I am going to allow the Premier of a given province to override your inalienable rights. That to me indicates that there is something very fundamentally wrong with the Charter of Rights and the granting of an override. That has always been my position in respect of that override clause.


Sheila Maureen Copps: So tell Lucien.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Premier of Quebec, as I indicated, did not ask for that override clauses. He was excluded from that ultimate result.
The override clause, having been granted by my predecessor, the exercise of that now presents in its result a problem for all Canadians, including the Leader of the Opposition and myself.
I have found that what we inherited, the constitutional result of 1981-82, is gravely flawed. While at Meech Lake compromises were made-and it is true that compromises were made-there has never been a concession ever made of which I am aware as grave as that which was granted in 1981-82, when the provinces were allowed to override our so-called inalienable rights as Canadians.

December 22, 1988
Oral Questions
Therefore, the belief that I have stated and the responses that I have given are perfectly consistent with that view.
We inherited the override clause. We will try at a Conference of First Ministers in the future-and Premier McKenna recommends that we proceed slowly in this regard. But, at an appropriate time, we will no doubt review the matter of the override clause, because in my judgment it is at variance with the most fundamental of our rights.
How we resolve this issue clearly will demand reason and fair-mindedness, and tolerance-and I believe that resolve it we shall, because Canadian interests can only be protected.
Minority language interests, minority rights cannot be fully developed while that 1981 override clause exists. That is my view, and that is the view of every member of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: That is evidently not the view of every member of the Prime Minister's Government, because the Secretary of State does not share that view.


An Hon. Member:: That's right; that's the point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I listened with some interest to the Prime Minister's declaration before the House, a declaration he should have directed not at this side of the aisle but at his colleague, the Secretary of State.
If the Prime Minister felt as deeply as he says he felt, he had the opportunity, with his provincial colleagues, at the Meech Lake negotiations to have that clause removed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIEW OF SECRETARY OF STATE-RETENTION IN CABINET
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about here is the fact that the Secretary of State is the Minister to whom the Prime Minister has mandated the responsibility for minority language rights in this country. That is his job. That is his mandate.
So, I ask the Prime Minister how it is that he can retain a Secretary of State, in charge of protecting minority language rights in this country, who is beholden to a "notwithstanding" clause which remains in place at the expense of minority language rights?


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Don't be absurd. You are making a fool of yourself.


John Napier Turner: Yes, I admit to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I am perhaps a little incensed, and I imagine that he is too, staying at the Cabinet table with a Secretary of State who does not want to protect minority rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: I venture to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that when he held high office, as Prime Minister of this country, he would not have tolerated that view in his Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I ask the Prime Minister: How can any minority group in this country feel protected as long as his Secretary of State remains in this Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to Meech Lake, he knows full well-


Some Hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just taken four or five minutes to ask the question. Perhaps his colleagues would be good enough to give me the opportunity to respond.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I put forward yesterday, and again today, in both languages, the view that, in the opinion of the Chair, this is a subject that requires a dignified series of questions and a dignified series of responses.
The public is watching us. Frankly, I do not think they will have too high an opinion of us unless we show more of an understanding for the solemn obligation that all of us in this place are under in respect of a matter that means a great deal to this country. I ask Hon. Members to co-operate.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister.
December 22, 1988


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the Meech Lake initiative was undertaken as an opportunity to bring Quebec back into the Constitution, which all of us agree is a primordial responsibility.
The reference in those negotiations to the "notwithstanding" clause was-and I think this is accurate; we can check Hansard-was made by me. I think I was the only Leader to refer to the fact that this "notwithstanding" heritage of 1981 was deeply unacceptable and would have to be dealt with.

Concerning the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition, I have before me the text of what was said by the Secretary of State, and I quote:
"The use of the "notwithstanding clause" is a legal and legitimate action under the mechanism included in the Constitution of our country."
I think this is accurate. He also said;
"It is therefore incumbent upon the Government of Quebec to assess the circumstances under which it may use the "notwithstanding clause"."
I think that is accurate.
Quebec having been the beneficiary of that clause given by the former Liberal Government, and since the clause exists to the benefit of Quebec and the other provinces, it is now difficult to those who granted that clause to blame another level of Government for using it. I explained the position of this Government, the reasons why I was opposed to its use under the circumstances at hand, that is the decision by the Supreme Court, because I thought that a legislative formula could be found that would reconcile the two major principles laid down by the Supreme Court, that is respect of the French language on the one side, and respect of the provisions of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the other hand. This was not only my own preference, but I think the wish and expectation of every Member in this House.
It is however unfortunate in my view that the Leader of the Opposition, having received most specific answers yesterday, would revert today to that kind of accusation. He knows full well that the answer-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Anyway, I will conclude on this, Mr. Speaker-the answer I gave on behalf of all Government Members, concerning the protection of minority rights, was commended by the Hon. Member for Mount Royal and the Liberal Member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I would think this reflects the wishes of everyone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
This week the Minister announced that Canada has asked the GATT to investigate why the U.S. has prohibited imports of Canadian ice cream since 1970.
Given that the Government told Canadians throughout the election campaign that the Free Trade Agreement would provide "assured access" to the U.S. market, why is the Minister going to the GATT on this question of access just days before the deal goes into effect?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members may be aware, earlier in the year Canada imposed import controls on yoghurt and ice cream, as we have the right to do, in our view.
The United States objected to the import controls we imposed in respect of ice cream and yoghurt and brought a complaint before the GATT with respect to that action. We, therefore, brought our own complaint before the GATT in relation to the fact that, for the last 15 years, the U.S. has not permitted the importation of any ice cream from Canada.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and it is for that reason that we are proceeding before the GATT.
Had the Hon. Member listened to my speech made earlier today on Bill C-2, he would realize that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement does not mean that there will not be trade disputes between the U.S. and

December 22, 1988
Oral Questions
Canada in the future; rather, it simply provides us with a better means of defending ourselves in the future.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I was aware of that for a lot of years prior to this agreement, and it seems odd, after listening to the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade, that we still have to go to the GATT. They have been telling us with this agreement we would not have to do that any more. It appears that their lauded dispute settlement mechanism does not have any effect, which is what we on this side have been saying.


CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL POLICY-U.S. POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, during and since the negotiations the U.S. has continued to press for changes in our agricultural policy with regard to our marketing board system and our position on Article 11 of the GATT, while at the same time restricting our access to its markets through the omnibus Trade Bill and other measures.
What is the Government proposing to do to defend Canadian agricultural interests in the coming year, 1989?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have been debating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement now for some 14 months. It has been stated repeatedly by us, and it is a fact, that of course GATT is still in existence. Canada and the U.S. both still belong to the GATT. As a matter of fact, I was a host to a GATT conference in Montreal about ten days ago where 96 countries of the GATT gathered together. I invited observers from the NDP and the Liberal Party and they did not attend. Perhaps that explains why there is some confusion here.
The U.S. has argued that our adding ice cream and yogurt to the import control list on January 28 last is inconsistent with our obligations under Article 11 of the GATT. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has nothing to do with it. It is not in effect yet. Even if it were, we still have GATT rights, as does the United States.
We are now going to the GATT with respect to the Americans' obtuseness in quibbling about our import controls on ice cream and yogurt when for 15 years they have not allowed us to export ice cream to the U.S. We are not putting up with that kind of treatment from the U.S. or anyone else.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-PRICING AND MARKETING SYSTEM
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, it has not been clear from the negotiations thus far that Canada is pressing for a strengthened Article 11. Will the Government respond to the Prairie Pools' request for written assurances that the Wheat Board's pricing and marketing system will be protected under GATT or the FTA? Will it strengthen Article 11 so these marketing boards can continue to operate as they have for years and years?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the GATT has been in existence since 1947. I am not quite sure how long the Canadian Wheat Board has been in existence.


Mr. Mayer:: Since 1935.


John Carnell Crosbie: Since 1935. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that Article 11 of the GATT is not going to be changed without our consent because there has to be consensus. All 96 countries would have to agree. We have no intention of agreeing to anything that would endanger the Canadian Wheat Board in any way, shape or form.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. First, I would like to inform him that it is not the Government's position that we are disputing, but rather the contradictory position taken by his Secretary of State.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister to explain how his Government plans to play two fiddles at the same time and for how long. How can he say that he is against the notwithstanding clause, while his Secretary of State says that the clause is vital? Their statements are clearly contradictory; one does not need a dictionary to see that. One is against the clause and the other says it is vital. Might I remind the Prime Minister that, although he may have inherited the notwithstanding clause from his predecessor, it was he who appointed the
December 22, 1988

Secretary of State of Canada and therefore he who must assume full responsibility for that appointment.
I ask the Prime Minister to explain why he has not yet asked the Secretary of State for his resignation since the Secretary of State has not had the courage to hand it in.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the implications raised by this issue will be looked at very closely by the people of Quebec. Quebecers are taking a closer look at the way the Liberal MPs are formulating their questions. The position I have taken on behalf of the federal Government is clear and constitutes an ongoing, coherent policy on the protection of minorities.
The Secretary of State made a few statementss on the use of the notwithstanding clause. It is true that the Secretary of State considers the notwithstanding clause to be a key, or vital, means of protection for the Government of Quebec, which is responsible for the protection of the French fact, not only in Canada, but across North America. In my opinion, his position is a legitimate one since the clause was allowed by the previous federal Government.
The position of the Secretary of State is that the clause is vital because Quebec, having been excluded, has not yet been reintegrated. Once the Meech Lake Accord is signed and Quebec integrated in the constitutional fold, Quebec will enjoy the same protection as that enjoyed by other minorities across Canada. In view of this, the Member from Shefford will undoubtedly want to encourage all federal Liberal MPs to actively support all of the provisions contained in the Meech Lake Accord.


POSITION OF SECRETARY OF STATE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem. When there was a vote in this House on the Meech Lake Agreement, I stood up like the great majority of my colleagues and supported the Agreement. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister does not want to link the two things, because he himself yesterday said there should be no link between Bill 101 and the Meech Lake Agreement. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he changed his views since yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister how he can accept that his Secretary of State squarely contradict him, despite the bonds of friendship, all the so-called cabinet solidarity, and why he lets the Secretary
Oral Questions
of State try and sing the tune of his pro-PQ wing while he speaks otherwise? What I want to know is this: Is there one truth or is there two truths-one for the Prime Minister and another to suit his Secretary of State?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in 1981-82, after the Constitutional negotiations, Quebec was left out, isolated and humiliated by the then Liberal Government. Since that time, Quebec has been coping with that reality. One of the realities is that in the course of that unfortunate constitutional negotiation, the then Central Government granted provinces the "notwithstanding" clause. Premier Peterson had not asked for it, Premier Bourassa had not asked for it-it was granted by the Government at that point. With Quebec still excluded from the Constitution this Government, with the support of the other Party Leaders, tried to find a formula that would bring Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional fold, that would allow Quebec's full participation in the Canadian constitutional decision-making process. Once-


An Hon. Member:: We supported that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, you are right. The Hon. Member supported that. Once it has achieved its goal of cultural security within a united Canada with full participation in the constitutional decisions, there is no doubt, as its Premier indicated, the Province of Quebec will be ready of course to review the "nothwithstanding" clause that was granted to it in 1981, because once Canada is unified, with Quebec playing its full role in the Canadian decision-making process, there will be no more need for override provisions such as the clauses that were granted in 1981-1982.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. About two months ago Mervin Budd of London, Ontario, was arrested in Nepal for preaching Christianity and has been held in prison since that time. Mervin Budd is a prisoner of conscience. He was not smuggling drugs. He did not kill anyone. All he did was express his belief in Christianity.

December 22, 1988
Oral Questions
In light of the fact that the Government of Nepal has endorsed the Helsinki Accords and the human rights resolution providing for the freedom of religion, will the Minister please assure the House now that everything possible is being done to ensure that this Canadian citizen will be released from prison in Nepal as quickly as possible?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of Mr. Budd's detention. He has retained a lawyer. We asked the American consulate to offer him yesterday . . . and we are still waiting for answers.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PROVIDE ASSISTANCE
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for the answer and her assistance thus far.
Reports indicate that he may be in prison for two years before trial. Mr. Budd in a recent letter to his mother states that he is not satisfied with the help he is getting from his own Government. The Minister says that there is someone from the American Embassy perhaps assisting.
I ask the Minister again to reassure Mr. Budd's family and all Canadians that no stone will be left unturned by his own Government to make sure that this innocent man is freed? We need not the Americans to help us with this individual but our own Canadian Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that, when we do not have a consul in a given country, the normal procedure is to act through a foreign consul who has offered to help us.
The American consulate was supposed to meet with Mr. Budd yesterday and to report to us afterwards. But, after experiencing communication problems in that remote area, we will probably get more information today.
I would also like to tell my hon. colleague that he can rest assured that the Canadian Government will assume
all its responsibilities and give Mr. Budd the help he needs.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. Given the fact that thousands of farm families are still waiting for their drought assistance cheques which he promised them so that they could pay the bills piling up on their kitchen tables, and given the fact that not a dollar of the $850 million promised to grain farmers by the Minister of Agriculture appears in the Supplementary Estimates for 1988-89, could the Minister please tell the House whether he is still haggling with his provincial counterparts over this money? Or is he finally able to tell us when farmers and their bankers will be getting this money?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we announced and signalled to the agricultural community as soon as we possibly could, the extent of the magnitude of the drought program and the need to have it put in place as quickly as possible so that farmers could arrange their financial affairs in an appropriate fashion.
The forms are close to being ready for being sent out to the producers. We hope that they will be out in the next week or 10 days. Everything is proceeding as it should, consistent with the program that was announced.


TIMING OF PAYMENTS
Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, since obviously the Minister of Agriculture does not have much more idea today about when this money will be coming out than he did 10 days ago, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
In light of the genesis of this program which was announced ten days before the election, and which was reconfirmed in the House two days before the Assiniboia, Saskatchewan, by-election, could the Prime Minister tell us when he is planning to call the Beaver River by-election so that farmers and, indeed the Prime
December 22, 1988

Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, will know when this money is coming?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I must say I find the Hon. Member's representations somewhat inconsistent. As I recall, New Democratic candidates all over the country during the election campaign were calling for an announcement for drought. We gave them the announcement for drought, and now they are complaining about it.
As I said in a reply earlier to another member of the New Democratic Party, I regret they are disappointed that we made the announcement and that we are helping farmers. I really regret that very much.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister as well. It relates to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to be meeting next month with representatives of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities to discuss the funding of municipal infrastructure.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he would advise the House whether this meeting is an indication that there has been a change in policy on the part of the Government, whether the Government is now prepared to fund municipal roads and sewers? Or is this meeting merely a public relations exercise?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, no, there has been no change in government policy on this matter. I and the Minister of Finance and other Ministers stated our position very clearly, that believed that this was a provincial and a municipal responsibility, and we could not provide the kind of funding of the magnitude that the Liberal Party could fund. That was made consistent right across the country.
I indicated to the President of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that I was prepared to meet with him, but at no time was there ever any commitment
Oral Questions
or suggestion of a commitment for funding. That remains the position of the Government.


HOUSING
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the matter of federal support for housing in Ontario. My question is for the Minister responsible for housing.
On Tuesday the Minister said, and I quote from Hansard:
Let me say at the outset that my predecessor did not make a
commitment to add an additional 7,000 subsidized housing units.
That statement is factually incorrect.
I have in my hand a copy of the official news release of January 28, 1988, by the former Minister responsible, the Hon. Stewart Mclnnes, and the Housing Minister of Ontario, Chaviva Hosek, and I quote from it: "121 nonprofit housing groups in 79 Ontario municipalities have received approval to develop 6,990 residential units in 1988 under the federal-provincial non-profit housing program".
Will the Minister responsible for housing admit that his statement on Tuesday was wrong? Will he make the commitment today to provide the funds for the number of housing units promised to the Ontario Government and the people of Ontario?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, no, I will not change my statement from Tuesday. In 1986 this Government in co-operation with the provinces decided how they would handle the funding of the non-profit housing situation. At that time there were certain moneys allocated and dollars allocated to the social program aimed at those most in need. That was a decision of the Government at that time.
I notice that it is the provincial Government that makes the commitments. It makes the commitments based on the moneys available. The provincial Government made the commitments, used up all the money, and is now back asking for more money. It knew exactly what the amount of money was, as indicated by a letter from the Deputy Minister of Housing from the Ontario Government in January. If the Minister of Housing in

December 22, 1988
Oral Questions
Ontario made those commitments, she should meet them.


FEDERAL COMMITMENT
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, that is simply not good enough.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Beryl Gaffney: The news release that is right here was a joint news release by both the Minister of Housing and Ms. Hosek. Why will the Minister and the Government of Canada not keep its promise? Surely the Government has a responsibility to keep its word. It is not doing it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, that is not factually correct.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is your own news release.


John Horton McDermid: This Government committed dollars to the social housing program across this country, and every single dollar has been spent.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for LaSalle- Emard, and I ask a single question given the time.


Mr. Masse:: The new chief.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: I would not join your Party, let alone become your Leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Boyer:: We do not want you and we do not need you.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the constraints of time, I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question directly.


FREE TRADE
M. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of International Trade.
Yesterday, in answer to a question by the Hon. Member for South Western Nova on the possibility of obtaining a definition of what is a subsidy in the context of free trade, the Minister said, and I quote:

"The omens are not good about agreement. . . Perhaps over the next five to seven years we will be able to".

My question is as follows: Does the Government agree to terminate the agreement if a definition acceptable to Canada is not agreed to within seven years?

My second question, in case the Minister has a little difficulty understanding me-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. gentleman for his election to the House. I can advise him that he is neither wanted in our Party nor would he be needed as Leader, as we have a Leader for the rest of the century.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman may find a vacancy at the top of his own Party. It has been vacant now for four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in response to the main body of the Hon. Member's question, we do not know whether the negotiations to find common definition of trade distorting subsidy will be successful or not. In the history of the world there has never been a successful negotiation to that end, but we will give it our best effort.
I am delighted to see that the Hon. Member got his Party's chief financial officer to work on his leadership campaign. He will need him.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that, given the fact that one issue took up a great deal of time, Hon. Members will co-operate in letting the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Burnaby have her first question in this session.
December 22, 1988


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister is aware that there are more than one million Canadian children living in poverty. He is responding to their desperate need with a miserly 36-cent increase in family allowances this January. In fact, that is a cut in the real value of family allowances.
During the election my Party called for a 20 per cent increase in family allowances and the refundable child tax credit. Will the Government consider making that increase as a real first step in dealing with the desperate problem of child poverty?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question earlier in this session. Let me point out two things to the Hon. Member. The reduction of poverty, particularly as it affects Canadian children over the last four years, is obviously what the Government and I think Canadians generally are pleased with. We would like to see more, but that statistic is something I want to point out to the Member.
Second, the other day I gave figures on the increases for Canadian families, particularly those low income groups, relating to the family allowance and the child tax credit. I was incorrect in some of those figures because they were, in fact, higher than the ones I gave to the House. The total benefits that the Hon. Member refers to, from 1986, with actual full indexation, was an increase of $370.32.
While it was not in the legislation, there was a substantial increase in the child tax credit included in the terms of the budgetary provisions of the Minister of Finance. I think every social policy agency argues that the child tax credit is the way to go. We have expanded that dramatically.
The Hon. Member should look at that side of the ledger. She will find a substantial increase well beyond any inflationary figure.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that, given the time, I will do everything I can to get her second question in, perhaps tomorrow. She might discuss this with her Whip.
Business of the House


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask unanimous consent of the House to table a report?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House in both official languages the report of the Canadian Group of the Interparliamentary Union, report of the official parliamentary delegation which represented Canada at the Interparliamentary Conference in Sofia, Bulgaria, September 19 to September 24.
I want to add that the Canadian group is proud of the notable accomplishments by our delegation led by Senator Nathan Nurgitz. Canada's proposal to amend the rules to ensure that the Union's executive committee always includes at least two women parliamentarians was adopted unanimously.
Second, Senator Joan Neiman was elected to the union's committee which monitors and investigates violations of human rights of parliamentarians throughout the world. The essential work of this committee, which will now have direct Canadian input, deserves the support of all parliamentarians.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the Deputy Government House Leader the usual question which will enable him to give us a statement of government business for the next period of days.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Elouse that for the balance of the day the House will continue consideration of third reading of Bill C-2, the legislation to enact to Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States.
The Opposition has quite properly stated its intention to prolong debate at third reading. Therefore, I give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the Order of the Day is called for resuming debate on the motion standing in the name of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) for third reading of Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, and on any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.
Tomorrow we will proceed with the motion of closure and complete debate at third reading of Bill C-2, probably at one o'clock a.m. Saturday, December 24.
During Motions under Routine Proceedings tomorrow, after discussion with my colleagues opposite, we will propose a motion without debate, the effect of which will be to adjourn the House to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving a Message from the Senate respecting the giving of Royal Assent to the said Bill, and that immediately following Royal Assent on the said Bill a motion to rescind the Order of the House of December 16, 1988, respecting sitting hours shall be deemed to have been moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Speaker shall forthwith deem such motion adopted, in keeping with the undertaking we gave during debate, and shall adjourn the House for a reasonable time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy) had the floor.


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Government has just brought in another motion of closure. The Deputy House Leader in his former life must have been a doorman in a steam bath. He is using closure so often, he does nothing but close the doors and not open them.
One of the initial casualties of this agreement has been the rights and obligations of this Government to act as the trustee and guardian of parliamentary procedures. This has been thrown to tatters and shovelled into the dustbin of history. Other precedents have been established in the last week and a half that will substantially distort future proceedings of this House for many generations to come. We regret that the haste and indecency with which the Government has proceeded upon this legislation has forced it to use these measures.
I keep coming back to the question that many Canadians have, "What was the point of these measures? What was the motivation that prompted this intense, unfeeling and insensitive distortion of the parliamentary system?" We were told it was because the Opposition would stop it all. There was a paranoia on the other side that there would be a wholesale onslaught from the trenches. The Government never gave us a chance to present the amendments we wanted to present so that it could see there was nothing in those amendments that was designed to contradict the agreement but simply to improve it. We recognize that there is a majority. We are not subject to any illusion, but we felt there were deep concerns on the part of many Canadians that had to be answered. We constructed amendments in that light. If the Government had given us a chance, followed the normal procedure and opened up report stage so we could have had the opportunity to table those amendments, it would have seen that the whole intent and purpose was not to obstruct but to improve.
I want to indicate to the House, the Government and Canadians what they are missing. This could have been a much improved piece of legislation without doing any damage to its intent.
Where do we begin? We begin with an amendment that called for the establishment of a special committee of the House that would have the responsibility of examining the implementation of the Bill. It would provide a forum for Canadians to come forward and make their concerns heard. It would lay before the House an annual report as to the effectiveness of that
December 22, 1988

implementation. Is there anything subversive in that? Is there anything designed to place dynamite under Parliament by asking that there be a parliamentary committee established to monitor and watch over what is taking place? We had evidence today of why it was necessary. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said he was not sure that the negotiations on subsidies would be successful. Surely we have a right to understand why, to have officials come forward to set out their concerns and parameters. The only response we heard back was that they could send it to one of the standing committees.
Let me pass on my experience in those standing committees with a government majority. Last summer the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade was seized with the examination of Bill C-130. When we put forward a motion to ask that the committee be allowed to travel throughout Canada in order to give Canadians the opportunity to make their case, it was voted down by that majority. That is what this Government wants us to trust, a majority on the committee that knows no restraint and simply follows the bludgeoning hammer designed to run legislation through.
That is why we felt it was essential that there be a committee with a stated mandate as part of the legislation. That is not so unusual. We have done it with the intelligence security committee where we had a mandate. We have always provided an assurance that on something as important as this there would be an opportunity to be heard. That was accompanied by another amendment that there be a form of sunset clause, that after three years this Parliament be seized with the full scope of the agreement and be allowed to judge its impact, ramifications, and consequences for Canadians.
We heard the Minister for International Trade this morning wax incomprehensibly. Lie tried during his presentation to indicate that there were going to be benefits. That is a judgment call. He ended his comments by saying that the committee should be allowed to judge. Let us take that at face value. If they are going to be allowed to judge, then they need to have facts upon which to make a judgment. The only way they can get facts is if Parliament has an Opportunity to examine those issues and determine whether the agreement is working the way the Government said it would.
There is nothing in this amendment that in any way subverts the legislation. It makes it better. It gives Canadians an opportunity to be heard. It ensures that
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Parliament will be the ultimate judge as to whether this agreement is working.
I say to the Conservative Members of Parliament, to the back-benchers, do you see something highly treasonable in that particular amendment? Is it so bad that the Government had to bring in closure to prevent us from bringing it to the floor of the House? Is there something so iniquitous about Parliament looking at this important agreement that would motivate the Government to use Draconian measures to prevent any debate whatsoever? Any fair-minded person would have to say no.
Here are other examples of amendments that are important to submit. There is an amendment which said that under Clause 4, for greater certainty, nothing in this Act or agreement would preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new adjustment programs to help firms and workers adjust to the changing results from the implementation of the agreement. Horrors! Imagine the nerve of the opposition putting forward an amendment that Canadians have the right to choose whether they will help workers or communities that are dislocated by this agreement? Is that not an awful thing to do? Is it not terrible that this will not see the light of day on the parliamentary table because it was so contrary to the spirit of the agreement?
There is awfully good evidence as to why it is necessary. We have seen it in front of us today. Colleagues of mine have brought to the Speaker's attention a series of dislocations already taking place. My friend from High Park has already talked about a factory in his riding. My friend from Winnipeg North Centre has had Canada Packers close down in his riding. We have the horrible example given by the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) and the close of the Gillette plant. Those are examples. They are prima facie evidence.
Of more concern is the underlying fallacy in the argument of the Government that this agreement will create so many jobs that we will have no need for adjustment programs. That has been the defence they have been using. Let me counter that with a couple of specific points. First, the Macdonald Royal Commission which, in a sense, fathered or mothered this agreement, whichever term one would like to employ, said that essential to any trade agreement with the United States would be a massive undertaking of adjustment programs. Do you know why it said that? It is because in testimony before the Macdonald Royal Commission, one Simon Reisman, the mouth that walks, had suggested clearly that if we were to sign an agreement with the

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
United States, we would need to have a transition adjustment insurance program for workers.
I have heard Simon Reisman's name used in sacred terms by members of the Government, St. Simon himself, the author of this agreement, the man who will win the humanitarian of the year award from the B'nai B'rith for his felicitous, kind words during the election campaign, that great public servant, of course, not interfering in a partisan way in the election campaign. St. Simon himself has said that one of the essential ingredients of any trade agreement is the inclusion of an adjustment program, but the Government did not see fit to include it. Why would it have even the slightest hesitation in accepting an amendment of this kind? The Americans presumably would not be upset, but maybe they would.
Then I take you to the testimony of Gordon Richard, the deputy trade negotiator, who when he appeared before the committee last summer, was faced with a question on the very same amendment. He explained to the committee that one of the reasons the amendment could not be accepted is that under the agreement, future adjustment programs would be vulnerable to counterattack by the United States. We would be subject to countervail by any industry or group that received a new adjustment program.
Now we understand why the Government does not want amendments dealing with adjustment. It did not want to face the truth and reality which is, in the words of its own official, that the agreement itself would preclude the establishment of new adjustment programs. I say in all honesty, it is cruel not to have an amendment like this in the Bill because workers will be affected, people will be put out of jobs and communities will be closing down.
That Mickey Mouse program that the Minister of Employment calls the Canadian Jobs Strategy has been criticized by the House of Commons committee itself. The Tory members of the committee said it is not working. Its budget has been cut back by 30 per cent or $500 million. It is a total failure in providing decent training for Canadians from one coast to the other. Its unemployment insurance program has new severance rules which prevent older workers from getting decent training. It is not a proper support for those workers and it is cruel and inhumane to throw workers on the scrap heap simply because this Government is afraid of what the United States might do to it under this agreement.
Similarly, we moved other amendments, and we would have moved others given the opportunity. Have you seen anything so far that upsets the apple cart, Madam Speaker? Hardly. We wanted to put forward another amendment which said that for greater certainty, nothing in the Act or agreement shall be so interpreted as to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs including health care systems, unemployment insurance, child care, pensions minimum wage, labour law, maternity benefits and so forth. Is there something wrong with saying that in the Bill, greater certainty should be established to ensure that this agreement would not lead to the suppression of those programs? We have heard statement after statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicating that no such programs will be affected, so what is wrong with entrenching in the legislation his own words? What is the Government afraid of? Why would it not want to have the Prime Minister's own words in the legislation itself?


Mr. Keyes:: Maybe the U.S. does not want it?


Lloyd Axworthy: I am
receiving a great deal of assistance from my colleagues. They are a wonderful source of inspiration.
If we start looking at the evidence, we begin to know why. We already know that there have been trade actions which take direct target at many of our social programs. To wit, the United States trade law passed last August, the omnibus Trade Bill, includes within it a new definition of subsidy, something the Minister for International Trade never talked about, which said that any Canadian industry that receives a grant that is specifically targeted or can be construed to be a wage subsidy would be countervailable. That would include things like guaranteed annual incomes, even maternity benefits and assistance to the working poor. Those are the kinds of programs that any decent, humane Government may want to consider.
In order to give some protection for those programs from action by the United States, there should be something in the legislation to say this was the clear meaning of the Government of Canada. Once again, we received from the Government nothing but a deaf ear. I suggest that that makes all those brave promises and commitments made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign ring hollow. That shows just how unwilling he and Members of his front bench are in living up to their word. This has not been a strong point
December 22, 1988

of the Prime Minister. No one will ever accuse him of maintaining sacred trusts.
I believe that we have in front of us now in the commitment the Prime Minister gave during the election campaign the same kind of double dealing, the same lack of honesty that we received during the last election campaign when he said that he would not touch social programs. We have the same commitment and unwillingness to give a guarantee.
1 could spend more time on that issue, but there are many of my colleagues more qualified than I to speak to this specific point. Let me go on to another form of amendment which I think is very important, an amendment which says that notwithstanding Article 103 of the agreement, the federal Government shall not compel municipal or provincial Governments to the use of override legislation to comply with any provisions of the agreement with respect to health care facilities, the management services enumerated under industrial classifications Nos. 861, 862, et cetera.
Why would that amendment be important? There are several reasons. First, the Province of Ontario has already moved legislation, Bill 147, to retain discretionary powers in this field, to ensure that under its constitutional right to decide on the form and nature and character of its health services, it could not be interfered with by anything under the agreement, but as we know, Section 103 is an override clause in the legislation giving the Government the right to come to Parliament and say that anything that contradicts the agreement, even in provincial jurisdiction, can be overridden. That effects a fundamental change in constitutional jurisdiction and the division of power without even having had a constitutional conference.
Once again, all we asked was for the Government to live up to its word and to ensure that there would be an amendment that would give clarity to the declaration of the Government that this particular part of the Bill dealing with health management services would not prevent provincial Governments from protecting the sanctity and integrity of their own health management programs. This amendment as well was not allowed to be tabled in Parliament. I suggest that once again, we have weakened the defence of Canadian provinces and Canadians in general from that kind of incursion.
I go on to suggest as well that a further amendment in the area of services is worth considering: Notwithstanding Article 1405 of the agreement, the inclusion of additional health, education or social services to the list
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of covered services or the increased access provided under the terms of the agreement is subject to ratification by Parliament. Under Article 1405, Canada is committed to negotiating new services to be included under the agreement.
I am not sure how many Canadians were aware that in this new round of negotiations we are entering into, there will be a whole new list including educational services and transportation services. Anything is on the table to be included. That is important because there is a real potential for putting not only our health and social services in jeopardy but also our educational system. Under this agreement the Government could negotiate to include a whole range of educational services. That is a big part of the service industry. We know that education is absolutely crucial to the question of the Canadian identity, Canadian textbooks, software, the right to establish who teaches our children, who provides adult education and who provides those kinds of services.


Mrs. McDougall:: Free.


Lloyd Axworthy: The
Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall), who should know these things, is all of a sudden finding out. On goes the lightbulb in the Minister's head. A Minister who is in the area of providing support for adult education should be aware of this program. I would suggest that if she is now perturbed by the knowledge that has just dawned upon her perhaps she should go back to her colleagues and say, "Maybe its time we brought in an amendment. Let us go back to committee and amend it to make it correct".
There is another example of why amendments are crucial. I want to draw to the attention of the House a series of amendments. I will not take the time to read them all but I point out that these are amendments to provide for the protection of farm marketing boards. We would ensure that all processed agricultural products containing the sum of not less that 10 per cent of Canadian farm products would be covered by the Import Control List. We would set up an inquiry board to look into the whole impact of this agreement in the horticultural, agricultural food processing industry. We would reserve the right to have import restrictions on chickens, eggs, all the feathered products. We would ensure that nothing in this agreement would alter in any

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
way the rights, the duties and the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. We would apply certificates to the import question.
There is a whole series of amendments relating to agriculture, blow was that important, Madam Speaker? First, agriculture was never supposed to have been on the table. Again the Macdonald Royal Commission said it should not be. Once again, the Macdonald Royal Commission, the bible of the trade agreement, clearly said that agriculture should be exempted because agriculture was not just a commercial enterprise. It was so mixed up in the social fabric of this country, in the stability of our rural economy, in the sense of the family farm and the kind of small town community life that to apply pure commercial criteria to it would be a serious mistake. But the Government did not listen to that. It went ahead and did it.
Now the Government has put in jeopardy a whole range of issues. If you think I am kidding, Madam Speaker, you only have to go back to the words of the Minister for International Trade today or to the GATT meetings in Montreal last week. What did he say? He said that the Western Grain Transportation Agreement, perhaps the most important subsidy to western Canadian farmers, is now on the negotiating table. He is prepared to wipe it out. He is prepared to negotiate it away. He does not care. That is part of the commercial judgment.
He does not understand, even though he is a former Minister of Transport, how essential that is to the continuation of a certain way of life in western Canada, to say nothing of our grain economy. Because the Government has committed itself in an agreement very explicitly to follow without hesitation the line of thinking and the ideology of the United States in this area, it has committed itself to wholesale attack on a large number of programs that provide real stability in our agricultural sector.
Members opposite may protest that, but I say to them, "don't protest. Accept the amendments". That is all they have to do. They can show good faith. Accept these amendments and we know that the Government will be able to live up to its word. We will not argue. All the Government has to say is, "Okay, those amendments are once again reflective of commitments that were made during the campaign". Is it not interesting that what was said up to November 21 has been quickly forgotten in late December? All those fine protestations seemed to have vanished like the winter wind. We know the reason. There is an agenda for a wholesale attack on
these programs. One by one they will be picked off; first the cherry plum pickers. Off they go, one by one.
I go back to the point I made earlier. Where can Canadians find out? Who will they be able to talk to about these secret negotiations that are going on, negotiations on services, on subsidies and on technical standards? These are all things that my friend the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Crawford) spoke to last night in a very effective way. Because this Parliament has not been given any right to consider it, once again we are being denied those privileges.
I have a few more examples, Madam Speaker. One, I think, is absolutely crucial, and that is the role of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. That will become a very important agency in this Government. It will be responsible for undertaking all the various action disputes between ourselves and the United States. One of the real fantasies perpetrated during the campaign was the concept of secure access. I read all those documents from the Business Alliance and from the Canadian multicorporate conglomeration for the preservation of corporate culture in Canada, whatever it was that was spending all that money on newspaper ads. What was the headline? "John Turner is lying, the Liberals are lying. This is a great agreement because it gives security of access to Canadians".


An Hon. Member:: The Minister said the opposite.


Lloyd Axworthy: Now who is
lying? We had the Minister in the House this morning admit that there is no security of access. In fact, U.S. trade law will still apply. U.S. trade organizations will still have the right to countervail, to take action. All we have is a puny, minor, miniscule little review agency which is simply going to do the job that is already being done by the International Court of Trade.
In return for that Rube Goldberg machine that was introduced by this Government as part of the agreement, what did we give up? Access to the GATT to challenge U.S. trade law. We gave up perhaps the most important protection for Canadians, one that we would not simply have the right to challenge whether the law was fairly applied. We have given up the right to challenge U.S. trade law itself. Is that what this Government calls secure access? Let me give some mechanics. Under this review mechanism the U.S. industry will have enhanced powers to attack Canadian industry. The omnibus Trade Bill gives the Americans the right to petition the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government will do all the
December 22, 1988

research for them. It does not cost them a cent. Harassment will have a field day. Why bother having to compete with Canadians when all you have to do is go to your friendly U.S. trade commission and say, "We want to take a trade action against a Canadian exporter" and the commission will do all the work for them, pay for all the research, the high-priced lawyers, run it through the commission, all expense-free?


Mrs. Finestone:: And Canadians have to pay themselves.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is exactly the point. We do not have a similar kind of role. That is why our amendments give the right of Canadian industry to petition the International Trade Tribunal to get the same kind of assistance to examine U.S. imports into Canada to determine whether they are being unfairly subsidized. At least we should have equal power, equal status and equal rights to those of American industries. If the Americans are going to harass us, we should have the same right to harass them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: This Government, as it has shown in the past four years, negotiates on its knees. It is not prepared to give Canadians the same right or grant them the same kind of assurances that they are prepared to let their American counterparts give. We have seen it so often in so many ways. My colleague from Mount Royal in the field of communications can tell you just how unfair a balance that is.
What do we recommend, Madam Speaker? One of our amendments state that the International Trade Tribunal be given that right. Is there something horribly treasonous about Canadian business people having the same right as their American counterparts to go before their own trade tribunal to examine whether the U.S. is unfairly subsidizing American products and then asking for the Canadian Government to help them out?
I would plead guilty in a court of law if I really thought that was an act of criminality. All I say is that it demonstrates why we as Liberals have a much better understanding of how the trade process works. We are not motivated simply by this subservient, servile kind of attitude that if the American Congress says it is right we simply say, "Yes, Sir, Mr. President".
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
There was a further amendment of direct concern to my colleague from the Thunder Bay area. On two occasions this week that new Member has brought to the attention of the House and of the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) the fact that the softwood lumber tax is now having a devastating effect upon the entire industry in northern Ontario, and that could be expanded to right across the country. That is a 15 per cent tax.
I will not tire the House with memories of Christmases past, but I do recall with some nostalgia the former Minister for International Trade who, during the election campaign, was a well paid commentator for the CBC. During the Christmas season two years go, when faced with an American challenge on our softwood lumber products, rather than going to GATT and challenging it to prove that its law was accurate, went down to Washington to negotiate. We were hanging on every word out of Washington over the Christmas season to see what type of miracle would come forward on Christmas Eve. Unfortunately, when the cameras beamed in on Washington, the Minister was not there. She was in Hawaii on the beach negotiating in longdistance terms. The end result was clear to see. We got one of the most curious, strange and unorthodox solutions in the history of Canadian trade. The Minister emerged from a beach hut to announce a major victory for Canada. She said: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have put a 15 per cent tax on ourselves". Canadians rose up with wild hurrahs and said: "What a brilliant move by that Minister of Trade".
At that time the price of the Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar was 75 cents. It is now 84 cents. Not only have we added a 15 per cent tax, but an extra $700 or $800 million of additional cost in lost markets to the softwood lumber industry. As a result, they are closing down.
The Minister of Trade sees no evil, hears no evil, and believes no evil. He walks around like a three-headed monkey saying: "I do not know what is going on. Why should I care?" All we suggest in our simple amendment is that Article 2009 in the agreement shall be deemed to be of no force or effect in Canada. That would simply eliminate the grandfathering of the softwood lumber tax. That means that we would have an opportunity to renegotiate or, even more importantly, challenge the United States in front of the GATT. We know full well that the trade law upon which that decision was based would be struck down by the GATT. It is an unfair

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
trade law, and simply because the United States asserts it to be fair in its own jurisdiction is no reason why we must accept it. This grandfathering prevents us from doing it. It prevents Canadian softwood lumber producers from getting fair and proper appeal to an iniquitous tax which is forcing people out of work.
I say to Members of the House, why should we not at least move an amendment to take this out of the agreement, in order that we can put our own softwood lumber producers back in the ball game? Give them a chance, and at least get back at the negotiating table, and if that does not work, at least go back to the GATT and challenge it there. This closes the door forever and ever.
All economists predict that the exchange rate will continue to rise once the agreement goes into place because there will be pressure for harmonization. Mr. Cohen, the former Deputy Minister of Finance, stated after the election-he did not quite get to say it during the election-of course we will be harmonizing exchange rates, tax rates, and social programs. The end result will be that the type of desperation faced by softwood lumber producers in northern Ontario will be shared by British Columbia, the Maritimes, Quebec, and all other places where that most important industry is in the country.
We are only a few hours away from a Christmas season where perhaps even Tory hearts are somewhat sensitized. The Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Comuzzi) points out that close to 420 workers will be affected by the Great West Forest Products lay-off on Christmas Eve, and there will be more to come.
Here we have an accommodation: no new adjustment programs, grandfathering of the softwood lumber clause in the agreement, and locking in a new negotiation on subsidy. Talk about putting handcuffs on the Canadian industry. The Government states that it wants Canadian industry to go forward and compete, to thrive, and to show its entrepreneurship. It is the Government that is putting a padlock on its fortunes. It is the Government that is putting it into a box. It is the Government that has bound the softwood lumber industry to a form of perpetual damnation in the tax system.
Those are only a small selection of amendments that we are dealing with. My friend, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and others, will deal with the question of how it affects the environment. My friend, the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), will be dealing with the question of agriculture. My friend, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), will
be dealing with questions of culture and communications.
Under the agreement textiles were to be a great breakthrough. I can remember meeting with the Canadian apparel manufacturing institute and others here who stated that the Government had told them if they signed the agreement that it will be open sesame, and there will be all these new markets. Once again the Government talks about having confidence in your country, go forward and multiply, be smart, and be competitive. What did the Government do in the agreement? It signed an agreement which put quotas on the amount of fabric that the apparel manufacturers could use from Third World countries, even though it knew that one of the underlying basic foundations of the apparel industry is its ability to bring in fabrics from Third World countries, process and manufacture them here in Canada to put a strong fashion imprint on them, and then be able to sell them abroad.
The Government of free enterprise and entrepreneurship has said it will not let the industry buy those fabrics, and that it will put a quota on them. If the apparel industry goes ahead and attempts to avoid any form of duty remission, the American Government will have the right to apply a penalty against our manufacturers. That is written into the agreement.


Mr. Flis:: That is their concept of free trade.


Maurice Brydon Foster: They took the shirt off our back.


Lloyd Axworthy: Then the Government states that if we go before the International Trade Tribunal maybe we will try to get a little lowering of that capping. Nothing has been heard since.
Of course, in the agreement it is open season for American garment manufacturers to come into Canada on their own products and do what they want. We will end up with the interesting and illogical position where Canadian apparel manufacturers will have to use American textiles, bring them into Canada and try to sell them back to the United States. That is a wonderful case of Tory economics.
The rhetoric is denied by the facts. The rhetoric and the reality do not match. The Government can use all the language that it borrows from Mrs. Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, but when it gets down to it in the agreement itself the Government has put a series of strait-jacket on Canadian industry and enterprise. That is why we wanted to move amendments to try to clarify
December 22, 1988

and at least give the Canadian textile and garment people a fair chance.


Some Hon. Members:: A level playing field.


Lloyd Axworthy: A level playing field is the correct term, and 1 thank my colleagues for that suggestion.
Before I leave, Madam Speaker, I can see that you are deeply engrossed in the examination of the Bill, I wish to recall for the newer Members of the House that we had an interesting exchange, over approximately two years, about whether culture was on or off the negotiating table. We were given assurances, including assurances by way of sworn testimony, that that would never even be considered; that it would never be accepted. But the Government then played a little sleight of hand. They said: No, we didn't negotiate culture, but we did negotiate cultural industries.
By changing the terminology, they make it right.
And we have, therefore, a whole series of impositions-impositions that will have a direct impact upon our printing industry, among others. We have eliminated the tax exemptions which prevail for that industry, with the result that a large amount of job printing will now take place in the U.S. The same applies to advertising, to transmission rights, and so forth.
There is a whole host of very important ingredients that are essential to the maintenance of the Canadian communications industry that have been bargained away.
Also threatened is the manufacture and production of records and discs.
And then we have Clause 2005, a clause which gives the U.S. the right to countervail and counteract any future initiatives in this area.
As we have come to learn, these are not simply dead letters in the agreement. They already have an active life. We know now that government Departments are already applying standards and judgments on various programs based upon what is in the Free Trade Agreement.
The Western Diversification Office is already screening all applications for regional development grants based upon what it considers the Americans will or will not be able to countervail under the wording of the Free Trade Agreement. And you can bet that the Department
Canada-V.S. Free Trade Agreement
of Communications is doing the same thing in any planning that it is involved in. In terms of future cultural initiatives in this country, any planning will now have to be monitored and considered in accordance with the parameters set by the FTA.
This agreement sets up Jack Valenti as the new tsar of the Canadian cultural industry. It is no longer a question of simply saying "Yes, Mr. President". After the "Yes, Mr. President", we will be told: "Go to Hollywood and check with Jack." That is going to be the rule of thumb from now on for our Department of Communications.
It is not simply the legalese that is important; what is absolutely critical is the result.
In the amendments that we presented, we endeavoured to provide greater certainty, such that when and if Jack Valenti and his cohorts and colleagues and the other cadre of media moguls in the U.S. decide that they want to challenge a new Canadian initiative- for example, an initiative in respect of video tapes or books-we would at least have words in the legislation implementing the agreement that could be taken before the trade commission or the review panel to support our view of the law. In that way we could present our interpretation to the adjudicators in black and white.
If we had that type of wording in the legislation, we might have a better defence when we appear before the adjudicators; we might have greater ability to offset the countervail initiatives. But this Government refuses to even consider such an amendment.
For the life of me, I do not understand why it is this Government is prepared to give up so easily the defence of our own interests. It would be an easy matter to include in the legislation the words "for greater certainty". That is not the type of amendment that would do damage to the essentials of the agreement. And if down the road there is a challenge to a Canadian initiative in this area, we would at least have something written in the legislation reflecting the intent of the Parliament of Canada, reflecting the interpretation of the Parliament of Canada.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why this type of an amendment was not given honest and open consideration. At the very least, we should have had the opportunity of hearing the arguments from the government side as to why such an amendment should not be made.


Sheila Finestone: It is because of Clause 2011.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) is quite right. Under Clause 2011 we are prevented from using many of those forms.
It is evident to me that what this Government said during the election campaign is not reflected in this legislation. There is a large leap between the commitments and guarantees that were offered to Canadians and what this Government is prepared to enshrine in the Statutes of Canada to give life, meaning and force to those commitments.
This Government has been entirely negligent in refusing this Parliament the opportunity to consider amendments which could at least give some modicum of reference to the commitments the Prime Minister so gallantly made during the election campaign.
The Prime Minister was scornful in his castigation of the church groups, the women's groups, and the Opposition generally, saying that those in opposition to the Free Trade Agreement did not know what they were talking about.
The refusal by this Government to accept this type of amendment will mean that those concerns will remain. Those groups will take no assurance from Bill C-2 in respect of the deep anxiety they feel in terms of what the Free Trade Agreement means for their future. The legislation before us will in no way satisfy their concerns.

One must understand that the Free Trade Agreement will have a negative impact on the cultural, farm, textile, agricultural and food sectors throughout Canada and on all organizations that made representations to the Committee and to Parliament during the last Session of Parliament. The hearing process is over, finished. There is no reason to disregard the amendments proposed by these organizations.
Also, Madam Speaker, I am appalled by the indifference of the Conservative Government vis-a-vis these organizations.

The purpose of the amendments was simply to provide some support, some succour, some sense of assurance to the organizations which have these concerns about the Free Trade Agreement-and they are in the majority.
The flavour reflected in the amendments is only one indication of the near inability on the part of this Government to understand what is going on out there.
While they like to pride themselves on being the hard two-fisted representatives of the business community, they don't understand what is going on out there. Perhaps they turned their hearing aids off as they went door to door during the election campaign. Whatever happened, they were not listening very well. They weren't listening to those Canadians who were lamenting for our nation.
These are not Canadians who are motivated by partisan feelings. Those to whom I spoke were ordinary Canadians, people not having particular ties to one Party or another. I heard high school students saying that, in the light of the Free Trade Agreement, they were mourning for their country.
When you have an 18 year old telling you that he is mourning for his country, that he is feeling that his future is being mortgaged-and those were the words they used-


Ms. Dobbie:: Only because you are telling them that their future is being mortgaged.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 hear the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South (Ms. Dobbie) saying that they held this view mainly because of what they were being told. Well, it shows a great sense of confidence in the young people of Canada to think that they could be so easily manipulated!
I say to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South that she will find out soon enough that Canadians cannot be manipulated. In fact, if any manipulation did take place, it was by Hon. Members opposite. I saw the kind of literature that she put out, and I can tell the House that she is going to pay a big price for that.


An Hon. Member:: A one-time Member.


Lloyd Axworthy: I saw the Chamber of Commerce literature that was flooding Winnipeg South, claiming that we have secure access-and oh, what a total lie that was; what a total fabrication that was. Talk about manipulation!


An Hon. Member:: What about the stories to seniors?


Lloyd Axworthy: We are hearing now remarks from the Tory back-benchers. They will not face the fact that many Canadians did turn against them. They cannot understand how it is that they lost so many seats; how it is that they lost so many cabinet Ministers. In the light of the fact that they lost so many votes across the country as a result of the Free Trade Agreement, one
December 22, 1988

would think that there would be some slight twinge of conscience on their part.
The Free Trade Agreement is not an act in and of itself. The Free Trade Agreement and its implementing legislation do not stand in isolation; they are part and parcel of a new course that has been set by this Government, a course taking Canada away from its historical course, uprooting the traditions, beliefs and feelings we have held about the way in which this country can best govern itself. For some reason or other the Conservatives have seen themselves over the last two years mainly as Republicans. I guess they were sort of influenced through our media by President Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. They said: "Isn't that wonderful?" Not wanting to think about complicated matters, they followed the pattern in a simple way.
That is dangerous because one of the results has been that this country is being divided. This country is divided. One of the ironies is the Prime Minister saying this week: "I am the great conciliator. I am the great harmonizer". I have never seen this country more divided than it is today under that Prime Minister. Not just along traditional language or regional lines but increasingly along economic and social lines.
There is a growing underclass in Canada which feels totally unrepresented by the Government. One million children live in poverty in this country and we cannot get the Government to lift its eyes to pay attention. What is the Government's answer? Food banks. In a modern society, with the belief we have that the public sector can do something, we are prepared to tolerate widespread poverty among our children, and our only answer is to say go and visit a food bank.
That people are prepared to take food to the food banks is a wonderful tribute to volunteerism. My little boy has for four days raided the pantry for Kraft dinner and canned vegetables to go to the food bank through his daycare centre. It is a wonderful spirit. Yet that is not the way we should deal with poverty.
As Disraeli said, this is a country divided into two nations, rich and poor. What is happening here is happening in industrialized societies around the world. It is almost a revolt of the privileged. They are fighting a major action to protect their privileges and power, status and wealth, and they are not prepared to share any longer, and it is the Government that speaks for that privileged class.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Many Canadians are concerned about the role we will play in the world. I found it fascinating that one of the trademarks of the Prime Minister and others during the campaign was to talk about how this trade agreement represents Canada's coming of age, our new maturity in the world. What happened? The week after the election, the Minister for International Trade goes to GATT and gives in to the Americans. He totally adopted their position on agriculture, on trade, and we lost our role as broker. We lost our ability to provide a bridge to Third World countries. The Minister had no interest in Montreal in trying to open up links to the countries of Central or South America or East Asia. His point on agriculture was that the Americans are right, the Europeans are wrong. That is all we have heard from the Minister for International Trade and the Minister responsible for Grains and Oilseeds.
That was a signal. It means the Government is going to start snuffing out our horizons. It is inevitable that over time our horizons will shrink. The signals we send and receive will be one-way signals to Washington. Can you imagine what it will be like ten years from now?


John Horton McDermid: When you were in there the percentage of our exports to the U.S. went from 60 per cent to 80 per cent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Ten years from now when a U.S. Government in the future tramples on the rights of a small country like Nicaragua or Grenada and an MP gets up and asks our Government of the day to take some stand on the fundamental rights of a small country, do you think after this trade agreement we will have the ability or will to do that?
Some Hon. Members; Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lloyd Axworthy: They say "yes". They will not even do it now. How many times have we asked them to stand up against the economic embargo of Nicaragua and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has refused time after time after time?


Patrick Boyer: You heard the Minister's position on ice cream today!


Lloyd Axworthy: We have the Minister's statement on ice cream. It had all the quality of his campaign style, which was to go to university and tramp on a kid. I say to the Hon. Member that there is a difference between words and action.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: I have seen you in debate before.


Lloyd Axworthy: The day that Minister actually takes some action against the Americans will be a miracle. It will make the three wise men going to Bethlehem pale by comparison simply because it will never happen. It will never happen.


Patrick Boyer: Terrible analogy.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Listen to the Messiah.


John Horton McDermid: Pink Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: We have never seen one example of that Minister or his Government standing up. Not on shakes and shingles, softwood lumber, pharmaceuticals, film distribution or cultural industries. Not once.


Sheila Finestone: They got knee-capped.


Lloyd Axworthy: They could not be knee-capped, they were on their knees. They got hit in another vulnerable part of their anatomy. I can understand why the Minister for International Trade said this morning he has an aversion to cucumbers. I fully understand why he said that. He spent too much time sort of pulling them out of various-oh, well, that is enough.


Patrick Boyer: That was going nowhere.


John Horton McDermid: You stopped just in time on that one.


Lloyd Axworthy: We recognize very clearly that the horizons of this country, its ability to really play a mature role, will be snuffed out. You cannot integrate yourself economically and socially and not begin to integrate yourself politically.


John Horton McDermid: Here we go! The American hordes are coming over the 49th parallel.


Lloyd Axworthy: I read a famous old text written by a great conservative philosopher, George Grant, called Lament For a Nation. He talked about continentalism and its impact upon this country. He talked about foreign ownership. He is not a Liberal. The Tories love to trot out Don Macdonald. I am trotting out George Grant. He is probably one of the most fascinating and interesting and fertile minds in the history of this country. He even happened to be a Tory.
Last summer, before Mr. Grant succumbed to cancer, which we all regret, he had lunch with the Leader of our Party. Guess who Mr. Grant supported in the trade debate? The author of Lament For A Nation said: "I
lament for my country even more in 1988 than I did back in 1964". He could see it dying on the vine. He understood what it all meant. He understood that the modern Mulroney Party no longer believes in the traditions of the Progressive Conservative Party that used to stand up for Canada. Under the leadership of people like John Diefenbaker and others, it knew what independence meant. He was not always right but he certainly knew what it meant. This particular crowd has no understanding of that concept. They have no ability to meet that kind of question.
What they are doing in this trade agreement opens the door to continentalism such that we will never be able to recover if it goes ahead.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: The removal of trade barriers? Come on, Lloyd.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South (Ms. Dobbie) is once again showing her deep knowledge of the agreement. She is saying we are just taking down a few tariffs. That is all that is in the agreement, she says. Madam Speaker, Exhibit A is the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. I recommend it to the reading of the Hon. Member. She could probably get some help from the Minister of Trade who today admitted that he had begun reading it.
The Hon. Member has said that this is a matter of reducing a few tariffs, or words to that effect. Why is there Chapter Nine on energy with a whole series of changes to the National Energy Board and to the rules regarding the pricing mechanism? What does that have to do with energy?
There is another interesting chapter on investment. Somehow investment has now become tariffs.
Here is another part of the agreement. It is entitled "Financial Services". It deals with the application of national treatment toward banks, trust companies and credit unions. There is no protection at all under the rules for them. There are new negotiations opening up for inclusion on the list. This is the Hon. Member who prides herself, as a former President of the Chamber of Commerce, on really understanding business. Yet she does not know what is in the agreement. She does not have the slightest idea. She has not even read the index yet. She has not bothered with the fact that it relates to about 101 other items not dealing with tariffs.
December 22, 1988

That is a difficulty in which Hon. Members opposite are being caught out in terms of their fabrications. They have tried to sell this, on the one hand, as a simple few changes to tariff duties. We have said all along that if it were simply some changes in the tariff duties then we would not be here today. No one would be opposing that. As Liberals we have a far more effective record in bringing down tariff duties than anything the Tories could think of. In the last 40 years the average tariff range was 50 per cent in our trade in goods with the United States. We brought it down by 2 per cent, 4 per cent and 5 per cent, depending on the commodity. That is a pretty good record.
We have had free trade in commodities such as softwood lumber until the Government imposed an export tax on it. We have never had any trouble bringing down tariffs, of carefully managing the ability of Canada to bring down trade barriers around the world. We have been a very successful interlocutor at the GATT meetings to make sure that that happened.


John Horton McDermid: What about the Auto Pact?


Lloyd Axworthy: The
Minister for the homeless cannot remember the commitments made by his predecessors. Let us talk about the Auto Pact for a moment.


John Horton McDermid: The tariff rates came down on the Auto Pact, too.


Lloyd Axworthy: I do not
want to take up the time of the House to talk about the impact. The Minister for trade and the Minister for the homeless and other Members opposite have a habit, a bad habit which is sort of like falling hair, of treating the Auto Pact as if it were free trade. It was not. Any fool knows that the Auto Pact that was signed back in the 1960s was not free trade but a managed trade program. It had guarantees built into it. We retain the right to reapply a tariff as a penalty against any U.S. manufacturer who did not live up to the guarantees of that agreement.
Under the Free Trade Agreement we take away the tariffs and the penalties. We give an indication of open hunting to the U.S. North American manufacturers to blow us out of the water any time they want. That is what they call free trade.
Members opposite say that we have debated this for so long and that we have had so many meetings on it. Yet they show total and abysmal ignorance of what is in the agreement and what it can be used for.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
In this kind of debate the ability or the willingness to respond with an important series of constructive amendments has been snuffed out. It has been thwarted. We lament that. We mourn that. We see in this agreement not just a series of economic and commercial matters but a fundamental change in the way the country is going to be governed. The agreement takes away the ability of the Government to provide for a way to respond to regional initiatives, new cultural programs and new agricultural requirements. Who knows what the future will bring? We know that the most precious instrument available to Canadians, the ability through their elected representatives in Parliament to take action on their behalf, has been eroded. It has been given away.
If we combine that with the type of decentralization that is going on through the Government's constitutional proposals, and the giving away of programs such as housing and regional development, we see that we are turning the country into a nation of shopping centres. There is no longer any central focus to it. There is no longer any dynamo at the centre to take initiatives to provide for the form of initiatives that are required.


John Horton McDermid: What total poppycock.


Lloyd Axworthy: All I can
say to the Minister for the homeless is that he has become a motor mouth. If he would only start thinking and stop talking he would be a lot better off.
We have this type of fundamental restriction. That is one of the real dangers of the agreement. It is that it is giving away the substantial ability of ordinary Canadians to participate in decisions that will affect them.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Tell us how.


John Harvard: Give her a short lesson.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will give a lesson to the Hon. Member if she wants to know how. Let us start first with the area of foreign investment. It is very important for any country to retain some ability to manage investment flow into its own country. The flow of capital is absolutely essential, and also what happens to that capital.
Any self-respecting country would retain at least the right to intercede if it felt that foreign capital were simply being used as a mechanism for takeover and acquisition, and for stripping Canadian businesses of their technology, research or development. Every country does that. Even the U.S. under its various

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
defence security measures retains controls in all those vital areas, something which they are debating now.
What has happened with this agreement? We have given it away. Close to 20 per cent of industries will no longer be covered. Therefore they will no longer have the right as Canadians to say: "Wait a minute", whether it is a small business firm in Winnipeg that comes up with a new product or some group from Kansas City which wants to buy it up and say: "We will take it over". We have no right any more under this agreement to say: "But keep the technology here and the jobs here". They can strip it within 24 hours, move the technology and research back and we will never see it again. That, I say to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South, is how this country is losing its ability to manage itself.


John Horton McDermid: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will the Hon. Member entertain a question?


Lloyd Axworthy: No, Madam Speaker. The fact is that the Minister for International Trade was less than forthcoming this morning. We simply want to follow in the example of his leadership. The fact is that the Minister for the homeless and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South do not like what they are hearing. They cannot accept the reality of what they are hearing. They find themselves uncomfortable and uneasy. They have a bad itch where they are sitting. That does not mean to say that we will stop talking. We still have something like 36 hours, and they will hear it all. They will hear every word of it.


Barbara Jean McDougall: We have heard all those lies before.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to a matter of privilege. The Minister of Employment has said that these are lies. That is against the rules of the House. I think we either ask the Minister to withdraw or have her withdraw from the House. I am raising that first point as a matter of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I did not
hear the comment. If the Hon. Minister feels that she has said something that is unparliamentary, she will withdraw. I did not hear it personally. I cannot ask her to withdraw something which I have not heard personally-


Lloyd Axworthy: I will have the opportunity to check the "blues" or the videotapes to
see what the Minister had to say. We will reserve the right on that for tomorrow. I would say that for all the lament we have raised, there are still some very important and positive things that have come out of this debate. It has been an important experience for the Liberals as a Party. 1 have been proud to be in this Party with the leadership of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and the way he conducted himself during the campaign in providing leadership to all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is a sign for the future. That is no temporary circumstance. The election was a rare, unique, and difficult experience. The Party was able to define clearly some very important standards and objectives for itself. We were able to understand very clearly the threat we raised and some of the new contours of this society of ours. We were able to see the visible, naked exercise of power in a way that we have not seen before.
The communications industry and the media in this country have become very concentrated. Virtually all the newspapers in the country are being run by four or five large corporate empires whose owners supported free trade. The fact that their newspapers did so may not be entirely coincidental.
That should be a sign of some danger. As a Liberal Party, we felt the wrath of that kind of corporate concentration. We understand what kind of danger it poses, not just for our Party but for all future political Parties. It puts a brand new element of power in our society that seems not to have any accountability, control or sense of responsibility. There is no law that says how it can be used.
We saw the enormous weight of that power in terms of being able to spend millions of dollars of advertising without being responsible to anybody. The tax system of Canada encourages that to happen. They can write it off. The taxpayers of Canada help pay for it. It has become so concentrated. It is in the control of such a small group of people. That is one of the new contours and new characteristics of our country that we as Liberals, who have always fought for the dispersal, accountability, and responsibility of power, will have to face in the future. We will have to take a look at the laws of competition, elections, and other areas to make sure there is a measure of accountability.


John Horton McDermid: I saw Mel Hurtig's ads. I saw Maud Barlow's ads. Good old Maudie.
December 22, 1988


Lloyd Axworthy: It is
amazing that the Minister for the homeless is so sensitive. Now he is saying that somehow the Council of Canadians, which has an individual membership of 3,000 or 4,000 people, is comparable to Alcan, American Express, or the BCNI who have enormous corporate treasuries and a tax-exemption status to draw upon. We go back to that basic standard. Do they understand what is going on in the country? Do they have any comprehension of what is taking place? The Minister has not the slightest understanding that there is a difference between groups of private citizens in this country coming together in terms of voluntary association and the power of many corporations with vast treasuries dictating and determining what is going on in this country. That is not surprising. That is why we understand what the trade deal is all about. The trade deal is a way of establishing and incorporating that power and that privilege as far as the governing structure of this country is concerned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: This election, in defining clearly some new issues, talked about the concentration of power and how it is now being irresponsibly used to effect political decisions. It also points out the real damage we have done to this country in terms of its entrepreneurial and economic opportunity. We are beginning to see the denial of many small businesses and regions in being able to share in the wealth of this country. The impact and consequence of this agreement will be to further consolidate power in terms of the magnetic field of the market-place. It will not ensure a fair sharing throughout this country. That is a total denial of the history of Canada.
I go back to Mr. Grant's book, the conservative philosopher, who said that in a way Canada is an exception to the rules of economics and geography, working against those rules. It has been a political entity. It has been shaped by decisions of people through their own publicly-elected, democratically-elected institutions. People have had to exercise real will to decide what kind of country they want. It is that institutional opportunity that we are surrendering and giving up.
We as a group believe we have a continuing mandate in this issue, not confined just to Bill C-2 or to this particular trade agreement, but to maintain an ability to offer a different opportunity, a different set of views and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
values to this country. We think they are far more in keeping with what Canadians want.
We believe that in the next four years this Government will have to look over its shoulder every step of the way, because there will always be a Question Period. There will always be a demand that it show accountability and responsibility for the act which it is incorporating in this legislation. If government Members have the slightest illusion that this is the end of the debate, that they are home free, then I say they had better go home and have a few more dreams of plum trees and Christmas trees. This is just the beginning.
We believe we have come out of this election as a stronger Party with a better definition and better able to offer Canadians a real alternative and choice for the future. We are placing this Government on notice that this is what it will face in the House.
We hope the Government recognizes that we are trustees for many Canadians who say they want Canada to come home again. They want to end the divergent, destructive course that this Government has initiated by moving into foreign waters and down pathways that it does not belong. We want to bring the country back to its roots and back to its historical traditions. We want to provide a real opportunity for all the young people who were foreign to this election, who realized for the first time they had to make a choice of what kind of country they wanted. They made a choice in large majority for the Liberal Party of Canada.
That is where young people were voting. It is that generation which will provide the next impetus, initiative, and sense of force as to where this country will go. That is why we have confidence and are fully committed to continuing to offer the kind of trusteeship for that generation to ensure the group opposite will pay the price and suffer the consequences of their actions. They will be faced with a group of people who have come here armed with far more Members and stronger voices to be able to offer that kind of comment.
By way of conclusion on this third reading, it has been a privilege for me to be a part of this debate, to help shape some points of view and to ask the questions. In light of the debate we have been through and the fact that Canadians have been denied the opportunity to have their voice heard, I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), that the motion be amended by striking out all words after the word "That" and by substituting the following:

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
"Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be not now read a third time, but that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for reconsideration of Clauses 3 through 150, inclusive."
If this amendment is accepted it will give Canadians a chance once again to be heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robinson:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the seriousness and importance of the debate on Bill C-2, particularly at third reading, I would ask that the House grant permission to our official spokesperson, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), to have equal time with the two previous Members who had the floor previously.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the critic with the New Democratic Party has had private discussions with his colleagues in other Parties and requested extra time, but to grant equal time with the opposition Party and the Government is a little unrealistic. He made a certain commitment to us as to the extra time, but made it very clear to the House that he would not take advantage of that. I think we will just leave it at that.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think it would be proper and right that my colleague, the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), be given proper opportunity to express the case of his Party at third reading, and we would certainly be in agreement that he use the time allowed to him, subject to discretion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is in somewhat of a quandary. Is there unanimous consent to give the Hon. Member extra time, or is there a time limit? I would like the House to help me on that point.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the Hon. Member take his 20 minutes which he is allotted and, when that is up, ask for extra time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: It is Christmas.


John Horton McDermid: We are following the rules of the House. Relax. At that time it will be given to him, with discretion, to which he has committed himself to us. So we will carry on as required by the orders of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not have unanimous consent at this time. I will give the floor to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the last time this situation arose in the previous Parliament I was told that it was not possible to ask for extra time at the end of one's 20 minutes. That is why I make the request to the House. If you were to apply a limit of 40 minutes, I think that would be certainly satisfactory to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Whether the Hon. Member asks for it at this time or a later time, the Chair would still need unanimous consent to grant the Hon. Member more than 20 minutes, which would now be his according to our rules.
As I do not have unanimous consent at this time-


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the dilemma facing the Speaker. I would simply propose that Parties grant unanimous consent to the Member for 40 minutes to give his speech at third reading.


John Horton McDermid: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not have unanimous consent at this time. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon).


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. McDermid), despite our earlier discussions, has not giving unanimous consent to that suggestion.
I want to begin with what I believe many Canadians feel as this debate comes to a close, that is, a lament for a nation. It is a lament which was summed up not by New Democrats, not by a socialist, not by a Liberal, but by a Conservative by the name of George Grant in 1965. He said:
To lament is to cry out at the death or at the dying of something loved. This lament mourns the end of Canada as a sovereign state. Political laments are not usual in the age of progress, because most people think that society always moves forward to better things.
Lamentation is not an indulgence in despair or cynicism. In a lament for a child's death, there is not only pain and regret, but also celebration of passed good.
'1 cannot but remember such things were that were most precious to me.'
Grant goes on in his opening chapter to say that he laments Canada's death as a celebration of memory:
December 22, 1988

In this case, the memory of that tenuous hope that was the principle of my ancestors. "The insignificance of that hope in the endless ebb and flow of nature does not prevent us from mourning". At least we can say with Richard Hooker: "Prosperity may know we have not loosely through silence permitted things to pass away as in a dream".
That is why we in this Party throughout this debate have refused to accept the silence which the Government has consistently attempted to impose not just on us as a Party, not just on the Opposition in the House, but on the people of this country.
It is a silence which it has attempted to impose through every possible rule in the book.
It is silence put upon the people of the House through the most Draconian use of the rules of closure. It is silence put upon the people of this country by the most constraining use of hearings across this country, which should normally in the course of a decision so vast and crucial to our country's future have been simply taken for granted and organized as a matter of course, so that every community across Canada would have had the chance to ask the questions, make the representations and put the points of view they as Canadians felt they had the right to put forward. We have faced not just an attempt to silence the voices of Canada. We have faced as well betrayals on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at every stage of this debate. These betrayals have been so clear, so evident, so absolutely forthright, that they will live black throughout the rest of the history of our country.
In April 1987, the Prime Minister said, and I quote him exactly: "The trade remedy laws the United States cannot apply to Canada, period." Yet we find in this agreement that these trade remedy laws still apply, despite the Prime Minister's absolute commitment.
Second, quoting from Fortune magazine, the Prime Minister said, after he was elected: " If somebody wanted to buy a little of our water, somebody wants to buy some oil, someone wants to buy some wheat, hell, we're in business. That's what it's all about." Yet this same Prime Minister has claimed that he and his Party were attempting to do everything possible to stop the sale of water to the United States, despite those comments. I call it a betrayal.
Finally, perhaps the most unfortunate, the saddest, the blackest of his statements was: "Free trade with the United States is like sleeping with an elephant. It is terrific until the elephant twitches, and if it ever rolls
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
over, you're a dead man. Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would do so again in 1983."
In his campaign literature, the Prime Minister said he intended to "pursue bilateral discussions with the United States in specific sectors". That is precisely the policy of the New Democratic Party, which we were consistent in following and the Prime Minister was inconsistent in rejecting, leaving to the people of Canada a legacy of betrayal.
I do not want to fight the last election campaign, tempting though it is. I want instead to pay tribute to all our new Members who have spoken in this debate. These Hon. Members, each of them from previous Conservative constituencies, have brought to the floor of the House the concerns of Canadians. The Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter) talked about the environmental problems which face our country as a consequence of this deal. The Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Samson) has talked about the problems which face the forests of Canada and the workers therein as a consequence of the Government's refusal to insist on a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to softwood lumber being eliminated before any trade deal is signed with the United States.
The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Taylor) talked in detailed, effective terms about the agricultural problems which we face as a country as a consequence of this agreement. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert-Churchill River (Mr. Funk) talked with passion of the social problems which face our country in the future as a consequence of the trade deal.
Finally, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey), the first Alberta voice speaking from other than Conservative ranks, has spoken from this caucus and has told this House that unlike what we have heard from all the Conservatives from Alberta, the energy consequences of this deal will hurt not just Canadians in central Canada, in eastern Canada and in British Columbia, but in Alberta itself.
There is not a commitment in this deal, search as the Hon. Member for Calgary Southwest (Mrs. Sparrow) might search, to guaranteed access for Alberta energy to the American market, nor is there a commitment that in the future, Canadians will be able to count on security of supply for our energy needs. That is shameful, and I

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
am proud that we have somebody from Edmonton East who can speak about it so effectively.
All of these people and many more I could have talked about have given their maiden speeches on this deal in the past week. All of them defeated Conservatives and, if I were a Conservative, I would want to listen and understand why and try to do something about the reasons which led to those defeats.
Instead, the Government has not listened. Its Minister said, before any amendment was even presented, that there can be no amendments to this Bill, before he even heard what was to be suggested by the Opposition. There was no chance to even present an amendment on behalf of this Party or the other opposition Party, because the Conservatives kept the debate at Clause 2 and imposed closure yet again on that stage of parliamentary proceedings.
We had amendments to help with all of these concerns, amendments to see to it that there was an attempt to set up a definition of Canada within the definitions clause, rather than just defining the United States.
A definition to deal with the override clause permits the federal Government to undercut any provincial law in the future which contradicts this trade agreement, something which will be constitutional poison in the future of this country. We had amendments to present which would have set out that there has to be something in the agreement, not just in the legislation, which prevents Canada from exporting water to the United States. We would have had an amendment to present which would have said for greater certainty, nothing in the agreement should be interpreted to adversely affect Canada's social, cultural, environmental, agricultural and regional development programs.
We would have had a very clear and explicit reference to Articles 2010 and 2011 to make it quite clear that they could not prevent social initiatives in the future as they do at the moment. We wanted to present an amendment to stop any future granting by this Government of further increases in import quotas to the United States for dairy, poultry, eggs and other marketing board products. Yet we did not have a chance to present these. We had an amendment to suggest that the Canadian Wheat Board had to be defended, that assurances had to be given by the Government, as has been requested by the prairie pools. Yet that too was not given a chance to be debated on the floor of this House, let alone the chance for representatives from the prairie
pools to testify, as should have been possible on a Bill as crucial as this one to their future and to the future of all Canadians in western Canada.
We had suggestions which we wanted to present as amendments to ensure that nothing would prevent any party, provincial, municipal or federal from taking action to protect the environment. We also wanted to see to it that the subsidies negotiation was given some constraints so that the Government could not simply run off and give away more of the country as it has given away so much in this present trade deal. That was not possible to present.
We had amendments to set up a special committee of the House to oversee what happens with these negotiations in the future on subsidies. We had amendments to suggest ways in which it would be possible to set in place legislation which would give workers who were hit in vulnerable sectors, vulnerable communities, vulnerable firms as a result of the trade deal, the chance to be able to obtain special help, something which was obtained in the context of the Auto Pact, something which we fought for as a Party to get in the context of the Auto Pact and something after we achieved permitted us to accept and support the Auto Pact.
We had other suggestions which dealt with energy which said to Canadians right across this country that energy in Canada has been paid for by tax breaks from every Canadian from east to west. Everyone has paid for the development of energy in this country. We do not have the right, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren, to give away what Canadians in the past have paid for through their taxes, the right to selfsufficiency in this country before we export to the United States.


John Horton McDermid: We are not giving away anything.


Steven W. Langdon: All of these commitments we would have liked to put forward in amendments, Madam Speaker. I think it is time, as the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said, to look ahead, to look at some of the questions that will be faced in the future. Very tough questions will have to be faced by Canadians over the next 10 years. These questions include the whole problem of adjustment.
What adjustment is going to be possible for workers? There has been no response. There has been no development of the program of older worker adjustment which was supposed to have been in place months ago and yet is not in place. What about the subsidies discussions?
December 22, 1988

These have not been reported to the House. We have no sense of which direction we as a country are taking on these discussions. Then there are threats to the Wheat Board. Again we have no suggestions from the Government in its response.
Since you have reached the 20 minute mark and the suggestion was that I ask for leave to complete my remarks which would go for another 10 or 15 minutes at this stage, I would now like to ask for unanimous consent to make that completion.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, if I ask the Hon. Member a question he would have another 10 minutes. Can I ask him to carry on with what he was going to explain to us about the future?


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


Steven W. Langdon: I am sorry the Minister has not been prepared to see that his side give unanimous consent.


David Barrett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Am I clear in interpreting that the Hon. Member was given the 20 minutes that he requested by asking leave of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Once the 20 minute period expired, the Hon. Member could benefit from a 10 minute question and comment period. One question was put and the time was given to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, which I have given him. We are now in question and comment period. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor has the floor.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


David Barrett: The request by the Hon. Member was leave of the House to continue for 20 minutes. That question was not put to the House before the Minister spoke. That is the request of the Member. I suggest that be put to the House first.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If the Hon. Member had, as I did, listened to the comment made by the Minister, it was obvious that we did not have unanimous consent of the House for the Hon. Member to continue his speech for another 20 minutes. I think this has been ruled upon. We are now into the 10 minute
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
question and comment period. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor has the floor.


David Barrett: It was not put.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question was put.


David Barrett: It was not put.


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


David Barrett: The Minister stood up and made a decision before-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member will understand that once the Hon. Member was recognized on a point of order, it gave leave for the Hon. Member to use a 10 minute period for questions and comments to continue and finish his speech. There was no doubt in my mind that there was not unanimous consent of the House for the Hon. Member to get an extra 20 minutes, which is why I ruled the way I did.
Time is moving along. I am sure no one would like the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor to lose this very useful time. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


David Barrett: That is a threat from the Chair.


Mr. Merrithew:: Sit down. The Speaker is up.


David Barrett: Do you not hear points of order? You did it on a supposition. You did not ask the House.


John Horton McDermid: You are in the big leagues now.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has attempted to explain to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca that it was obvious from the Hon. Minister's comment that there was not unanimous consent.


David Barrett: You did not put the question.


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


Steven W. Langdon: I would simply echo the points made by my colleague. The usual procedure is to ask if there is unanimous consent.


David Barrett: Correct.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Steven W. Langdon: If there is not unanimous consent-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is not unanimous consent.


David Barrett: That is what we want to know. Jackboot government, that is what you are.


Steven W. Langdon: If I could respond-


David Barrett: The Government brings in closure and then will not let the Hon. Members speak on top of it. That is jackboot government.


Steven W. Langdon: Let me respond, if I could, to the speech of one and three-quarter hours by the Minister, and slightly longer by the Liberal critic, although the Liberals have been willing to accept a slight extension of my comments by making a number of final points.
First, one of the points the Minister made this morning is absolutely and directly inaccurate. He suggested that hospitals in Canada were government-owned. In fact, only 13 per cent of hospitals are actually owned by provinces. A further 41 per cent are owned by non-profit corporations. A significant portion of hospitals, in excess of 5 per cent, are owned by profit-making corporations. That is a reality the Minister should bear in mind.


John Horton McDermid: What is the point?


Steven W. Langdon: I want to make one brief comment with respect to the Auto Pact that the Minister once again trotted out. I would have thought that dead horse was one that even this Minister would have ceased riding. The reality of the Auto Pact is that the conditions which exist within it make it something completely different from the Free Trade Agreement we are discussing today.
I wish to conclude with some final pledges on behalf of our Party. First, I want to say to the United States that it may feel that it has succeeded in capturing what it wanted from Canada. There will be at least one Party in the House of Commons that will watch every step the United States takes, every pressure which it exerts on Canada, and will fight for Canada at every stage, despite what the United States might wish to do.
I wish to make a second pledge. We as a Party may have lost this battle. However, Members on the Government side of the House should understand that the fight continues. As a Party we believe in an independent Canada, unlike either the Liberals or the Conservatives when they are in office. I believe that this must be a central fight and a central commitment for our Party.
Another pledge I want to make on behalf of our Party is that we shall watch-dog the Government as closely and completely as we can, and as relentlessly as possible, to protect our country and our people as the negotiations take place with respect to subsidies, and as the Government enters into harmonization discussions which can harm so much of our economy.
The fourth pledge that I wish to make is that this Party shall fight as hard as possible for the victims of this deal. Whether or not the Prime Minister wishes to believe that there are such victims, there will be, and they must be protected. As a country we have always done so in the past when we put trade changes into effect, and for us not to do so this time is shameful.
Finally, I want to say that, in my view, ultimately Canadians must decide in more than this election about the trade deal. I accept the fact that they have voted to give the trade deal a try. That is the nature of our parliamentary democracy. Despite the fact that only two provinces gave majorities to the Government, that is enough to give the Government the capacity to put this deal into effect.
Canadians have voted to give this deal a try, but they will also vote in an election or in some other from to give this deal a judgment when it has been tried for some period of time. I suspect that that judgment will come after many of the problems which we on the Opposition side of the House have identified as certain to flow from the trade deal.
I believe that those problems will come, and the judgement of the Canadian people will take place on the basis of the deal, on the basis of the problems, and not on the basis of the millions of dollars which big business poured into the last election campaign. Ultimately, the people of Canada will win, and I believe that it will be the New Democratic Party which will represent that victory by the people of Canada over corporate capitalism as typified in this deal. That is the reality of the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Members of the House for their vigorous participation in this very important debate, and I thank them for the courtesy of listening to me speak very briefly to an issue that has been quite thoroughly debated in this House of Commons. In fact, as of December 12, 1988, I am informed, the Free Trade
December 22, 1988

Agreement had been debated for 331 and a half hours over the course of 64 days, and I think we can now add to that another 40 to 50 hours. The finest tribute that can be paid to Canadian democracy is the extent of debate that can take place in a free Parliament on an important issue such as this, a Parliament whose sittings have been extended to accommodate the debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor on a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) can explain the number of uses of closure in this debate as part of parliamentary democracy-


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the Hon. Member that his remarks do not constitute a valid point of order but, rather, a question, and it is one which will have to be saved for another occasion. The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, to respond to the question raised by the Hon. Member, and any implications arising therefrom, probably the most eloquent and sensible answer was delivered one month ago today by the very distinguished Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who said, and I quote: "The people of Canada have taken a decision and Mr. Mulroney has the right to continue now with his free trade legislation."
Because the Leader of the New Democratic Party is widely regarded as a democrat, he then went on to say something that I would ask the Hon. Member to bear in mind, and it is as follows: "Given the election results, it would now be churlish and inappropriate in my thinking, right now, to say something more that should be done in terms of the law at this stage. It should pass."
Those were the words of the Leader of the New Democratic Party one month ago today. I believe the Hon. Member would agree that there has been adequate discussion. This sense of democracy was expressed as well by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), who has said many times in this House and elsewhere: "On a matter of this importance, let the people decide." And, Mr. Speaker, the people have decided.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Martin Brian Mulroney: May I, en passant, deal with one of the more specious arguments ever raised on the floor of this House of Commons, and it is in connection with the latest theory of some Members of this House that the election was won by someone other than those sitting on the right hand of the Speaker.
The argument seems to be that the British parliamentary system no longer exists, that somehow there is a new system, a referendum/republican system in place somehow, somewhere; that it is the majority of the number of votes on the other side that counts, and not the number of seats, as we have believed since the founding of this nation.
Well, for those who hold that view-and nothing could be more spurious, or unfair, or in violation of the fundamental principles of the British parliamentary system-let me just deal with it on the basis of our most recent history.
In the Twenty-eighth Parliament, elected in 1968, a Parliament of which the Leader of the Opposition was a Member, the Government of the Day, a Liberal Government, obtained 45 per cent of the vote; in 1973, the Liberal Government of the day obtained 38.5 per cent of the vote. In 1974, an election in which the Leader of the Opposition participated actively, the Liberal Government obtained 43.2 per cent of the vote and introduced wage and price controls.
In 1980, the Liberal Government obtained 44.3 per cent of the vote and introduced the National Energy Program and patriated the Constitution, with the problems that that has given rise to. And while I disagree-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You all voted for it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: While I disagree very fundamentally with the National Energy Program, and while I disagree with some of the problems inherent in the Constitution, I never once quarrelled with the legitimacy of the Liberal Governments in those periods to proceed with those measures, the reason being that in each case the Government had received, not in terms of popular vote but in number of seats, a clear majority from the people of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with pride to take part in the final chapter of this important debate in the history of our country. On November 21 Canadians expressed their confidence in Canada and in their future together. They gave our Government the mandate to take Canada

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
proudly and boldly into the future. They wanted a government that was prepared to deal with change positively and constructively, that looked forward with confidence to the future and outward with self-assurance to the rest of the world.
I want to conclude my participation in this debate, which has now been going on for a few years, by reflecting on some statements which I consider to be important. The Free-Trade Agreement is an affirmation of a strong and sovereign Canada. The Government pledged to ensure that the continuing negociations called for in the agreement will further contribute to making Canada a stronger and more confident and sovereign nation. Our two-track approach to trade policy puts Canada in a unique position to advance Canadian interests. Canadians are ready and enthusiastic to use the Agreement to renew and strengthen the Canadian economy.
Over the course of the election campaign, Canadians came to a momentous decision about the future of Canada.

Canadians thought long and hard about who they are and where they are going and, upon reflection, having considered it all, as Canadians do, they liked what they saw: a Canada aware of its identity, its potential, its role in the world; a Canada which has led the industrial countries in economic growth over the last four years; a Canada that has generated 1.3 million new jobs; a Canada which has provided brand new opportunities for our youth, and new trading opportunities for the future.
Canadians took a look at all of this, compared it with the alternative, and said: Yes, we want more of this for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We live next door to an energetic superpower. That is a fact of geography, and it is a fact about which we can do very little. Some people see it as a threat. We see it as an opportunity.
Canadians and Americans have lived in harmony for more than two centuries. We agree on many things. We pursue many of the same goals. We share a continent and we share a love of freedom. But we are profoundly different in many ways. Our affairs are organized and managed as a constitutional monarchy, while theirs is a republic.
We have a unique legal heritage of British common and French civil law. We are an officially bilingual country. We have embraced the multicultural reality of Canada. Although we are staunch allies of the United States in NATO and NORAD, we do not always view the world in the same way. In fact, we have very many important differences of policy and substance which we have expressed time and time again in fora around the world.
However, we do not believe in stridency as a substitute for policy in the conduct of our relationship with the United States of America. Nor do we see isolation as a prerequisite to sovereignty. Relations with the United States of America today are sound. Ours is a policy of building up and not tearing up. Ours is a policy of cooperating across the table and not shouting across the table.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: When neighbours quarrel, everyone suffers. When neighbours co-operate, everyone benefits. We prefer the politics of co-operation to that of confrontation. I think we are proving it works in Canada's interests.
Canada is a trading nation. Nearly one-third of all our economic activity is generated by trade, and three million Canadian jobs depend directly upon trade. Trade is one of the largest challenges facing this Government, this Parliament, and I suspect it will remain the largest challenge that will face Governments for some time to come. The world is shrinking. Nations are becoming increasingly interdependent. The internationalization of business is intensifying. We have to come to grips with these rapidly changing facts of modern international economic life. They cannot be ignored.
One way that Governments can help is to make life less uncertain through international co-operation and agreements that substitute rules for power politics, to try to bring some order out of chaos.
Canadians have long been champions of international co-operation, whether multilateral or bilateral. Few countries have Canada's institutional reach around the world, in the United Nations, in the Commonwealth, in the "sommet de la francophonie," the Economic Group and other fora of economic co-operation such as GATT, the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank.
December 22, 1988

Because we live next door to each other, Canadians and Americans have over the years negotiated a wide range of agreements with each other, either on a one on one basis or collectively with others. For example, to protect our essential security interests we both became charter members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and of the United Nations. We also forged the permanent Joint Board of Defence in NORAD to look after the special needs of our shared responsibility for North American security.
To promote environmental protection and human health, Canada and the United States are active participants in the United Nations Environment Program and the World Health Organization. We also have bilaterally the IJC and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Just as we stayed at the table until we achieved a mutually beneficial trade agreement, one that stands, according to the G-7 leaders, as a model to the entire trading world, so, too, will we stay at the table until we achieve a mutually satisfactory agreement that will solve once and for all the problem of acid rain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: As all Members know, the habit of bilateral and multilateral co-operation between Canada and the United States is widespread and longstanding. I think most people, irrespective of where they sit in the House, would agree it has been largely beneficial to us, to our economic well-being, and to the manner in which Canada has surged ahead economically in the world.
Over the years we have negotiated some 200 treaties and protocols and arrangements and understandings with the Americans. Yet we are still here, more Canadian, more confident, and more prosperous than ever before. I believe that years from now the Prime Minister of Canada will stand in this House of Commons and he will be able to say that because of the Free Trade Agreement, Canada, at that time, is even more prosperous, more independent and more sovereign than ever before.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all these agreements, multilateral and bilateral alike, protect and advance Canadian interests. They strengthen Canadian sovereignty, for every international negotiation is an expression of sovereignty. The levers of economic management that symbolize sovereignty are not those that lead to protectionism. They are those that promote a strong and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
outward-looking economy. Years of experience have demonstrated that policies that discriminate, ultimately impoverish; those that allow the winds of competition to blow, result in prosperity.
The FTA eliminates the tariffs on trade between Canada and the United States, tariffs both Canadian and American, that made Canadians poorer. Throughout the Agreement, the principle is the same, and quite simple: Canadians and Americans will treat each other, fairly. But in Canada, Canadians alone will decide how Canadian economic life will be regulated while in the United States, Americans will decide how their economic life will be pursued. The real levers of economic power remain fully within Canadian hands. We can be confident of more open and less arbitrary trading conditions. We will no longer have to go to Washington to plead for special treatment or exemption. We can now rely on the rule of law and a dispute settlement process in which we have an equal voice. Where then is the threat to sovereignty? The answer is simple and very direct, Mr. Speaker; there is none. Our sovereignty will be re-inforced by the dynamic expression of the modern and prosperous Canada which will result from the Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Free Trade Agreement continues the process of making trade more and more secure. It also provides for continued negotiation or evolution because, as the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) and others have pointed out, future negotiations are more than the matter of subsidies. We will continue to work with the Americans to improve the rules and reduce barriers affecting government procurement of goods and services. We will continue to work on more rational industrial and health and safety standards.
We will continue to seek to bring greater order to agricultural trade practices which are so debilitating for farmers across Canada, western farmers and those in the East, who have suffered so dramatically because of trade distorting agricultural subsidy practices adopted at enormous expense by countries in the European economy, and responded to by the United States. These hurt Canadian farmers unfairly.
We want to build a better system to deal with discriminatory cross-border pricing practices. We both want to introduce greater protection for owners of intellectual property, as well as fairer ways to share access to new technology. This Government will pursue

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
these issues not only between Canada and the United States under the Free Trade Agreement, but whenever progress can be made and wherever Canadian interests can be advanced.
Earlier this month in Montreal, GATT ministers reviewed progress in tackling these questions on a multilateral basis. I think all Canadians had an upfront view of just how difficult it will be on some of these complex issues to reach a broad consensus.
Progress in the GATT is often limited. It is always painfully slow. Sometimes, on some important issues, years go by without the slightest movement.
We have too many millions of jobs. We have too many young people crying out for economic opportunities. Unemployment is too high in places such as Newfoundland, Labrador and British Columbia. People want economic opportunity. They cannot wait year after year. They are saying yes to the kind of dynamism that comes from a bilateral trading agreement with our largest trading partner.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is all the more reason to draw some satisfaction from the results negotiated bilaterally by Canada and the United States. For Canada the issue of subsidies is of critical importance in both our bilateral and multilateral trading agendas. We are particularly concerned about subsidies that distort trade in agriculture. We are also pressing for greater clarity and consistency in the use of countervailing duties in free trade.
What will not be discussed in any forum is Canadian social programs. They are simply not part of the agenda. Programs such as medicare or pensions are not at risk, never have been-nor will they ever be jeopardized in any future negotiations. One of the most unfair events that ever transpired in this election campaign, or in any other, was the suggestion that some elderly person who is helpless or sick might lose her pension by voting a given way when everybody knows that Canadian social programs never were on the table, and never will be. The only thing that will happen is that they will be better as a result of the wealth that will come from more trade in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: When the elderly receive their cheques in January, February, March, June and July, and those pension cheques are going up, and when they go to the hospital and the state continues to pay 100 per cent of the freight, they are going to say after a period of time: "What were the Liberals and the NDP telling us? Why were they telling us this?" To their shame and eternal regret Canadians will remember what was said. They will penalize those who tried to abuse their trust and their confidence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Member from Winnipeg said today in his speech that he had a tough time even though we had received by far the largest number of seats. He said that he had a tough time accepting the verdict, that he was not sure what Canadians meant. As Canadians watch these events unfold they will teach the Hon. Member from Winnipeg what democracy really means, if they have to give it to him time and time again until he gets it straight. When one wins an election, one has won and one has the confidence of the people to proceed with the mandate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the election of November 21 was a ringing vote of confidence by Canadians in themselves. They voted for the future rather than the past. They chose to take up the challenge of competitive excellence. They have answered a clarion call to build a stronger nation in a new decade and a new century.
Canadians want to look forward and outward. This Government is doing that. The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement does that. But economic renewal is not the sole responsibility of the Canadian Government. It is the joint responsibility of government, business and labour. It requires cooperation and consultation, and is very seldom successful when there is confrontation.
The challenge to government is to create a climate conducive to success. The challenge to business is to seize new opportunities. The challenge to labour, with its ideas and its leadership, is to help make it work.
If all three pull together, all Canadians will benefit as new and better jobs are created and a deeper pool of natural and national wealth results for Canada.
All experts say that over the next 10 years the Free Trade Agreement will create about 250,000 new jobs.
December 22, 1988

This means 250,000 new jobs for young Canadians, over and above current predictions, and I think that if we can create that many new jobs for Canadian youth, it is good for Canada and we must do even more.
Parts of the Canadian economy will undergo reshaping and restructuring in order to meet the challenge of world competition and to seize the opportunities for growth, for innovation and for greater prosperity in all regions of Canada. Mr. Speaker, this challenge must be met head on and to the benefit of all Canadians.
The trade union movement has an important and constructive role to play. I believe Canada's labour leaders will take their place at the table and join the dialogue in order to advance the interests of their members and contribute to the national well-being.
I have had conversations with some of Canada's labour leaders and look forward to meeting with them in the new year. Every independent analysis indicates the FT A will create thousands of new jobs across every region of Canada, particularly in the most disadvantaged regions, if I am not mistaken.
But there will be some dislocation and change and governments must be ready to accomodate this reality in an innovative and productive way.

In general, properly handled and sensitively dealt with adjustment is a positive process indicative of a workforce that is responsive to change, seeking a better life for themselves and their children. We already have one of the most highly skilled and highly mobile forces in the world. Some four million Canadians change jobs every year. They move up. They move ahead. They move on. New and better jobs are created when positive adjustment takes place.
For those of us who represent far flung regions of Canada-and I see Members from Newfoundland, British Columbia and north-eastern Quebec, for example, in the House-as a result of new industries and new jobs created in the regions of Canada, thousands of our young people will be able to work at home rather than moving to other provinces in search of work. When we have created jobs in regions in those areas far removed from central Canada, we will have done the country a service because we will have strengthened the nation by bringing prosperity to the outer regions of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Martin Brian Mulroney: Over the next 10 years not all adjustments in the economy by any means will result from implementation of the Free Trade Agreement. It is quite to the contrary. Adjustment is going to come to this House, to all its Members and to all of us from technology, from changing tastes, from changing demands, from changing international competition and from changing policies here and around the world. The agreement was designed to accommodate some of these fundamental realities and fundamental Canadian interests and special adjustment problems.
Some industries, such as cultural industries and transportation, were exempted entirely. In other sectors, all current practices were grandfathered, such as the beer industry and all the service industries. Marketing boards for our dairy and our poultry producers are fully preserved, and special safeguard provisions were made for our horticultural industry.
Perhaps most important, the agreement provides for a phasing-in period of 10 years, precisely to allow time for industries to adapt and adjust; a decade, a 10-year period for labour and management and Governments of all stripes to work together to prepare not only for the changes but for the tremendous opportunities economically that can come to Canada and to all our regions.
Through our comprehensive consultations program with industry, throughout the negotiations, representatives of each sector in effect chose voluntarily the pace at which they could live with tariff reductions.

However, Mr. Speaker, should even the measured phasing-in of the FTA prove too difficult for some industries, its safeguard provisions allow either government to re-impose the tariff on a temporary basis. More generally, the federal and provincial governments have a variety of programs in place to ease adjustment for individuals, for companies and for communities-such as unemployment insurance and re-training and relocation programs, and so on.
In addition, The de Grandpre Commission will identify what more is needed specifically to meet the adjustment challenge of the FTA. Its primary focus is to look at the need for more people-oriented programs, training and education programs intended to ensure that Canadians have the skills necessary to compete, to produce and to excel.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Before we entered into the trade talks, we consulted widely with Canadians, building on the consultations undertaken at the time by the Macdonald Royal Commission, chaired by the Hon. Donald Macdonald, a former Minister of Finance and one of Canada's most distinguished sons who today serves us proudly as our High Commissioner in London. During the negotiations, we consulted closely with business and other affected interests through the International Trade Advisory Committee and the sectoral advisory groups. We sought the advice of labour and Canadians, and we benefited from the participation of the Canadian Federation of Labour in the consultative process. We worked closely with the provinces.
Apart from all the meetings with the Ministers of Trade and their officials-and there were countless dozens of those-I personally had the occasion to meet no less than 11 different times with the First Ministers for meetings lasting up to 14 and 15 hours, seeking their advice and their support.
I am proud to say today that in large measure, because of the hard work that went into the consultative process in making a federation work the way a federation should, that no less than eight premiers out of ten supported then and support today the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the U.S.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Parliamentary committees studied the issues and consulted Canadians before, during, and after the negotiations. I believe the trade debate of the last several years has raised the awareness of all Canadians as to the importance of trade in the life of our country. I believe it is important for that discussion to continue, and I know that it shall.
Members from all parts of the House have indicated the intensity with which they propose to continue the debate and the vigilance they propose to exercise with respect to the application of the treaty. That is a very commendable and appropriate attitude for all Members of Parliament. I wish them well in this. I offer them my full co-operation.
I just say, en passant, that it will be interesting to look back and read Hansard some years from now, because 25 years ago, when the Government negotiated the Auto Pact, a lot of people were opposed to it then who today say that they actually fathered the same agreement. If I happened to be looking at the Hon. Member for Essex-
Windsor (Mr. Langdon) of the NDP when I said that, it was entirely by accident.
I believe it is important for that debate to continue. Government, business, labour, the universities, and public policy institutes need to co-operate in developing a wider and deeper understanding of the challenges of trade. As a step in the right direction, the federal Government will soon announce details of a special fund to help the development of greater understanding, not only of the agreement itself, but also of Canadian trade policy.
1 have asked the Minister for International Trade to be in touch with officials at the University of Ottawa and at Carleton University, as well as business and labour leaders, regarding the establishment in Ottawa of a world-class Canadian centre for the study of international trade policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We would propose that the Ottawa centre become a world-class centre for the teaching and the research and the analysis of trade issues, not only around the country, but around the world. I think all Members of the House of Commons will not only applaud and encourage this kind of initiative, but I hope they will participate actively in its building, its encouragement, its design, and in its support.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: After the next election, there might be a job as a visiting professor for the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. There will always be a place for the Hon. Member in Canadian trade policy debates.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: After Simon Reisman, I suppose?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Simon Reisman will be there too. I can assure you of that. Canada has all kinds of extraordinary and impressive people who have served Canada through the public service. None has been finer and none has made a more durable contribution than Simon Reisman.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can say that about Simon, because I know he would never say it himself.
In a phrase, the Free Trade Agreement is a major insurance policy for two million Canadian jobs. It represents more secure access to the United States market and new opportunities for economic expansion.
December 22, 1988

It is clearly a good deal for Canada, and it is a fair deal for both countries. Most important, all remaining tariffs on U.S. imports will be removed over 10 years. As we all know, about 80 per cent are gone already. Tariffs remain in value-added products like petrochemicals and finished goods like urban transport equipment, auto replacement parts, textiles and clothing. That is where the jobs are.
There is now, because of the tariff removal, the potential for substantially increased employment. The removal of tariffs means Canadian consumers and producers will pay less for American products. It is a bonus as well for production costs at plants across Canada. We will-and this is the history of all liberalized trade initiatives-be more efficient, more productive, and better able to compete. It enhances productivity. It strengthens market ties. It boosts innovation. It increases research and development. It compels us to be better traders.
Any time that challenge has been there, any time those markets have been available, Canadians have responded to the challenge, provided they get fair and secure access to those markets. What we have done is to give Canadians the kind of access they need so that the youth of Canada now being challenged and now being given the opportunity can go out and compete with the very best in the world and win, because we believe the youth of Canada are the very best in the world.
There will be no more U.S. quotas on Canadian uranium or steel exports, no more import taxes on Canadian oil or gas exports, no more customer user fees on any Canadian exports.
We will have a genuine shield against new U.S. protectionism, whether from Congress or from the administration. There will be a binding dispute settlement mechanism which ensures that United States laws are applied impartially on Canada and vice-versa. Canadians exporters will have a shield against harassment by their American competitors. This dispute settlement feature of the Free Trade Agreement is unique and has attracted the interest as well as the envy of the Japanese, among others.
It was reported in November of last year in the Washington Post that when the mechanism in the treaty was examined, the leadership of Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan all were seeking the same kind of treaty that Canada had signed with the United States, particularly the dispute settlement mechanism.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
When I saw all of those countries lined up seeking the kind of privileged access that Canada had obtained, I knew what I had always known, that this kind of treaty would serve Canada's interests well.
There will be new opportunities for duty free and more secure access by Canadian exporters and more incentives to produce finished goods in Canada before export. There are new provisions regarding services which affect architects, consulting engineers and computer scientists, Government procurement and business travel, investment as well as new trade remedy rules which, together, as the Leaders of the G-7 nations expressed at the Toronto Summit, serve as a model for the trading world.
I have indicated before but I think it is probably worth repeating, at Toronto there were representatives of the seven industrialized nations, including the European Community whose economies produce 55 per cent of the GNP of the entire world. They ranged in the political spectrum from Mrs. Thatcher in the United Kingdom who is a Conservative to Francois Mitterrand in France who is a socialist. All of them together in one voice said that this Free Trade Agreement is beneficial and it is a model for the trading world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will be getting the translation of those remarks to my friend from Essex who has a great interest in following the evolution of socialist ideologies elsewhere. I am sure he was impressed, for example, by the recent statements of the Prime Minister of Spain with regard to their adhesion to the European Common Market and the importance for all economies to seek secure access to large trading markets.
The competition in 1992 is not down the street, the competition which, incidentally, is being led by socialist governments, is in Europe with 320 million people, which will be the largest, most dynamic, most powerful market in the world. That is our competitor and we will be there to compete with them evenly and effectively so that Canadians will win.
We will have better rules of the road for $200 billion a year in trade, which is the largest bilateral trading arrangement in history. That is a very important consideration. We will have more certain application of those rules. I believe this will ensure that our trade will be more secure. It will protect the jobs in Canada and give us larger access to jobs of the future which themselves will increase.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Something which the Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy) said in his comments today, with which I certainly agree, was that as a politician he did not like to lose. I believe all of us as parliamentarians feel the same way. Everyone of us here, I suppose, has run for election or office and has lost at some point. It is never the most pleasant experience. I think we all accept that as part of the democratic process.
I do not suppose any disrespect is intended by the voters toward anyone. They are confronted with the realities, they make up their minds. They throw them in and they throw them out. That is the way Canadian democracy has always functioned. That is the way it worked in the past and that is the way it will work in the future.
Even though I sympathize and understand the sentiment expressed by the Member from Winnipeg, in the last election Canadians indicated the direction they wanted to move. They chose the path to prosperity over a path of continued protectionism. The margin was decisive and the mandate is clear. Once this Bill is passed into law we can proceed to implement the agreement on schedule.
Somebody once said: "Let the people decide". The people have decided and all Members of Parliament, as democrats, agree with the verdict and the supremacy of the verdict of the Canadian people.
I believe Canadians chose the broad avenue of confidence over the blind alley of fear. They chose an instrument which promises more jobs and more wealth for future generations of Canadians instead of the poverty of protectionism.

Canadians and Quebecers alike gave it very serious consideration. They examined the matter very carefully and listened to the provincial governments. They heard various interest groups and assessed the economic impact it might have, be it in British Columbia or in Quebec. They looked at it with great care and attention. They chose greater security in our most important market, they decided that lower cost for consumers and increased productivity were more compelling than hollow appeals to anti-Americanism. Canadians know we cannot compete in the world by withdrawing from it. Canadians know we cannot claim better access for our exports while we erect walls around our own market. That is not the way it works. We are all proud of the values that distinguish us as Canadians. To remain totally distinct, we need the means to do things our way.

The Free Trade Agreement will in substantial measure ensure our prosperity and help our well-being as Canadians. Canadians have in effect decided. They want their Government and their Parliament to get on with it.
As the Leader of the Opposition said on many occasions, and I agree with him, the people are always right. The people have said yes to a more prosperous Canada. They have said yes to the international competitive challenges of the 1990s. Years from now it will be said of this generation of Canadians that we made the right choice for Canada, that we faced the future with abundant confidence in our country and in ourselves.
I believe that the next century will see a remarkable coming of age of this country, that we will be celebrated at once as a nation for our competitiveness and for our compassion. When the world looks to Canada, people will say as they reflect upon this time, the challenges and manner in which they responded: "There indeed is a nation of people who chose to build. There is a land of opportunity, there indeed, with its imperfections, is a land of tolerance".
I think and 1 hope it will be said of us that we kept faith, not only with ourselves, but with the place destiny has reserved for our country, Canada. Clearly, all Members of the House of Commons, irrespective of our backgrounds, irrespective of our partisan views, agree that above everything else there comes the national interest and in our own way, in our own democratic dialogue, and disagreements, each of us is promoting his or her view of the national Canadian interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I want first to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for recognizing the terrible gaffe his Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) made earlier today when he gave one of those nothing speeches. The Prime Minister has done a remarkable job of covering up for him.
The Prime Minister said a moment ago that this Free Trade Agreement would mean a stronger, more sovereign nation. I say to him that this country could not survive with a policy of unfettered free trade. We would be swamped. We have in many ways here in Canada a branch plant economy in certain important sectors. I say
December 22, 1988

to him that all that would happen with that kind of concept would be the boys cranking up their plants throughout the United States in bad times and shutting down their entire branch plants in Canada. It is bad enough as it is. I say that to him with conviction, because I have it on very good authority.
These lines I just read about a branch plant economy, about our inability to survive unfettered free trade with the United States, these words are not mine originally. I cannot claim credit for those words. No, they were said by a fairly prominent public figure in Canada, a man by the name of Brian Mulroney, the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition. That same gentleman who just gave us his usual guff, word for word I quote him, his 1983 version of free trade. I challenge the Minister-


John Horton McDermid: What was the date?


Roger Simmons: It was June 1983 when he knifed the former Prime Minister. It was the same time.


John Horton McDermid: He wasn't Leader of the Opposition.


Roger Simmons: He was about to be in a day or so. The Minister for homelessness can interject all he wants. He ought instead to go out and read up on his portfolio so he can figure out what he is supposed to be doing. In the meantime, this quotation will stand the test of time. It is from a gentleman who was in the process of jumping the former Prime Minister for the leadership of their Party, and he said: "This country could not survive with a policy of unfettered free trade. We'd be swamped. We have in many ways a branch plant economy in certain important sectors. All that would happen with that kind of concept would be the boys-"
He would know all about the boys because he was one of them. He was one of the branch plant managers. He was the fellow who shut down Schefferville on behalf of the boys back in the States. When he says the boys, he says it in a very collegial way. He knows whereof he speaks. He is one of the boys. He goes on: "All that would happen with that kind of concept would be the boys cranking up their plants throughout the United States in bad times and shutting their entire branch plants in Canada. It's bad enough as it is." That was said by the very same gentleman who just gave us all these sugary phrases about a more sovereign, stronger nation. How can we believe a word he says?
He said also a moment ago that social programs are not at risk. The impression left is that because he says it, because the Prime Minister of this country says it, it
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
therefore has to be right. That same Prime Minister, in September 1984, said almost the same words. He said, "Old age pensions are not at risk. I would never touch old Age Pensions, not me". That was his assurance then. It was a sacred trust in 1984.
It was not very sacred the following spring when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) got his hands on the idea and got his budget draft approved by the Prime Minister, the same Prime Minister who in 1984 was talking about sacred trust. Six months later, in the Budget of February of 1985, he was allowing the Minister of Finance to take the initial steps to gut the old age pension program, to deindex it. A more graphic word is "gut" but it means the same thing to the old people who do not have enough to live on now.
When the Prime Minister stands in this Chamber and gives me his assurances of a more sovereign nation, I have to hearken back to another day when he warned us about unfettered free trade with the United States. When he gives me the assurance about the sanctity of social programs, I remember another day four years ago when he talked about the sacred trust. I very quickly come to the conclusion that I can take his word just as about as much now as I could then.
The curious thing about the Prime Minister today is that he protests too much. He is still trying to convince himself that he won the election. We know he won the election. We understand that. We can read. We can count. Nobody in this Chamber is disputing that point.
Of course the Tories got more seats than the Liberals or the socialists on my left, but the point that the Prime Minister is missing or completely skating around is that there are an awful lot-forget percentages if you wish- there is a large body of people with some pretty gut-wrenching concerns about the Free Trade Agreement. At the very least, they want to be assured, not bamboozled by the Prime Minister. They want to be assured, and he could put his money where his mouth is by simply allowing an amendment to this resolution.
As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy) has proposed, nothing in this agreement will invade the sanctity or will disrupt social programs. If he is as concerned about the seniors of this country as he pretended a few moments ago, let him put his money where his mouth is. Let him allow at least one amendment. We have proposed several. The Prime Minister would put a lot of minds at ease tonight if he,

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
instead of giving blind assurances-which blind assurances have not been worth the paper they were written on in the past as we know-would allow that one amendment from the Member for Winnipeg South Centre, which would have the backing of every Member of this House I am sure. It would say that nothing in this agreement could ever touch our social program package here in Canada. He says: "Don't worry. It is all under control".
I represent a riding called Burin-St. George's, with 158 communities stretched along the south coast of Newfoundland and up part of the west coast. Included in the riding are many people below the poverty line. We have many people who are aged. We have many people whose mother tongue is English and quite a few whose mother tongue is French. All of these people would be very much at ease tonight if they could have the assurance that their social programs will not be interfered with.
1 find it curious that the Prime Minister and the negotiators over the last couple of years did not think it needful to protect social programs. By the way, the assurance in the negotiations that nothing will be done to impede social programs is not worth an awful lot when you realize that while these negotiators did not have time to put in a caveat to protect social programs, they had a lot of time to protect the beer and the wine industry. They had a lot of time to put in a caveat that provides a de facto factor subsidy to Americans in terms of our energy.
Do not give me this guff and puff about "Well, there was no need to protect social programs because the Americans are our friends. They have always been our friends and they would never do anything like that to us". Tell that to the lumber people. Tell that to the people in the shakes and shingles industry. See what they will do when they get a chance and go behind your back. If there was no need to protect social programs because of that great American propensity for fair play, why was there a need to rush in to protect the wine and the beer industry? Why was there a need to subsidize our energy to the Americans?
I heard the Prime Minister talk about not believing in stridency as a substitute for policy. He does not believe in stridency. He believes in acquiescence. He would make a deal with anybody as long as that person loves him. He would give the shop away as long as he can smile through it all. It is the arrogance, unmitigated gall, to come in here with a straight face and tell us that this Free Trade Agreement is the best thing since sliced bread.
Incidentally, the Prime Minister has discovered acid rain. After four years, he has actually discovered acid rain. He is going to solve the problem. Where has he been for the last four years when our lakes have been polluted because of the industrial plants in the northeastern United States? Our fish are dying in Newfoundland. Where has he been, Madam Speaker? Finally somebody told the Prime Minister-one of his speech writers dropped a new phrase on him-acid rain. I bet he has gone out to buy a bottle to see what it taste like.
Liberals support free trade, Madam Speaker. I am going to give you the names of a few people who did and do support free trade long before the leadership candidate of 1983 from Baie Comeau was telling us of the evils of free trade. Men like Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, five Liberal Canadian Prime Ministers in this country who believed so much in free trade between Canada and the United States that they among them during their respective terms of office achieved a free trade agreement with the United States whereby 80 per cent of all the goods moving between the two countries moved without barrier. That is how much we believed and still believe in free trade.
We believe so much that we have facilitated free trade movement of 80 per cent of all of our goods between the two countries. What is this fuss about? What is it that brings us here a couple of days before Santa Claus time? We would all be home with our families if we had any basic common sense. Why is it that the Pearsons the Kings and the St. Laurents of this world did not allow that 20 per cent to move without trade barriers, without tariff? They recognized, as we recognize in this Party, that the price was too high.
I say to the Prime Minister, you can have 100 per cent free trade. Nobody has ever begged that question. The question we ask is at what price. Is the price worth it to get the other 20 per cent? The answer is no.
Embodied in the answer are a lot of other questions. Yes, about social programs. Yes, there are questions about regional development. You have only to look at the plant closings, Gillette, P.G. Canada, British Footwear, Northern Telecom, Canada Packers, and Ortho Diagnostic. You have only to look at the closures since November 21-closures since November 21 in terms of the announcement but decisions made before November 21 and sat on. Get used to it. You will hear more about it, Madam Speaker. That is why we have not rushed in to give away the shop for the sake of the other 20 per cent. We realized then and we realize now
December 22, 1988

the silly trade-off, the unconscionable trade-off, the unjustifiable trade-off that would be involved thereby. Yes, we support free trade in this Party because we invented free trade. We are the Party that allowed 80 per cent of our goods to trade between the two countries free of tariffs. Liberals know a sell-out when we see one. We see one.
The retired judge in Alberta Marjorie Bowker was quoted often during the election. She found in her study of the Free Trade Agreement that half of the chapters in the agreement had nothing to do with free trade at all. They talk about economic union with the United States of America.


An Hon. Member:: She was a family court judge.


Roger Simmons: Why this unseemly rush three days before Christmas? In real terms, why do we find ourselves in this Chamber?
There is nothing magic about the date of January 1. The whole world will not come tumbling down if the agreement does not go through the House by January 1. That is only a ruse in order that the Prime Minister can ram this legislation through when the people of the country are out buying Christmas gifts and putting up trees.
It could have been done in a much more orderly fashion, if the Prime Minister had the compassion and concern for the business and the future of the country that he endows once in a while when he comes in here. He could have had it done in a more orderly, more honest, and less hypocritical fashion if he had allowed Christmas to take its course, and then in January he could have called us all together and had a sensible debate about an issue which affects the very future of the country.
In conclusion, in many respects it is a seriously flawed agreement. I wish to mention the job that has been done on the shipbuilding industry as a result of the Free Trade Agreement. I have here an industry profile published by the Minister of State for Industry Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle). It mentions in here that the United States protects its domestic shipbuilding through the Jones Act. The following is a quote from the document that the Minister put out this week: "Under the FTA tariff barriers on commercial vessels will be eliminated over a 10-year period". That means that
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
boats can be brought into Canada free of tariff. However, the major obstacle for the Canadian marine industry, the Jones Act, will remain unchanged.
That sums up what we have been saying about the Free Trade Agreement. It is a one-way deal. It is a win-win situation for the United States and a lose-lose situation for Canada. Nobody will feel that more than the people in Marystown in my riding.
1 could also talk about my concerns in terms of the basic sovereignty issue, the regional development issue, job losses, and all this talk about job gains. They will be marginal, low quality, low-wage jobs. We will be the hewers of wood and the drawers of water for the Americans if this thing really gets rolling.
In conclusion, of course we accept the verdict of the electorate. However, we are under no obligation to accept the policies of the winning party, particularly when those policies involve the sell-out of a way of life, and the sell-out of a country. The real winners in this election were not the Tories. The real winners were big business. They bought this one and we are going to pay for it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope that following the celebrations those of us Canadians who are very interested in what is going on in the House of Commons, as we sit here on the eve of a very important holiday for the people of this country, will take advantage of this moment and re-read the well articulated remarks of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy). He outlined for all of us the type of concerns we have as Canadians, which we have every right to express in the House. They are the types of concerns which agree that, fine, the people of Canada spoke.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wanted to ensure that the Hon. Member knew that she was on questions or comments.


Sheila Finestone: Excuse me, I was on debate. However, I would certainly be pleased to ask my colleague a question.
Does the Hon. Member feel that the absence of any clear enunciation in the Free Trade Agreement was the cause for anxiety felt by many seniors, and by many people who are concerned about the social network that we have in place in this country? Was it the absence in

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the agreement of any clear definition that those programs are not to be touched that caused many of those concerns?


Roger Simmons: I thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), for her question. Of course, she is correct. Let us think of the anxiety that could have been avoided had the Government and the negotiators the same concern for social programs as for the beer and wine industry.
I say to my friends on the government side, who seem to be amused that we should put the minds of senior citizens at ease, that the Government should have included a single sentence and got the signature of the American negotiator on that point. That is what it is all about. We have seen the Americans before on those issues. The shakes and shingles is the latest case.
In Atlantic Canada we saw the reaction and the manner of the Americans in terms of the fisheries issues. They told us one thing, and the next morning they stopped all our fresh produce, all our fish, at the border. In my riding alone there are 15,000 jobs-I think that the Minister of homeless is blowing again. Once in a while he comes awake and surfaces, and then luckily for all concerned he goes back to sleep.


John Horton McDermid: That is like you. Every four years you surface.


Roger Simmons: I have been active during the last four years. I had good term in the Newfoundland House of Assembly, spent a year as the Leader of the Opposition, missed my friend from Brampton, and decided to come back and keep an eye on him.


John Horton McDermid: That is funny. You never wrote, you never called.


Roger Simmons: My friend, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, puts her finger on the very nub of the issue. That one sentence in the whole agreement, a sentence no longer than that which protects the beer industry, as the one that protects the wine industry, a sentence only half as long gives the Americans the whole shop in terms of our subsidizing energy so we can give it to the Americans. I say to the gentlemen opposite that a sentence that short would have relieved a lot of minds and would have avoided a lot of concern during the campaign.


Mr. Young (Gloucester):: It would have meant no deal.


Roger Simmons: My friend, the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Young), makes the point. That is exactly it. But had that phrase been insisted upon by the Prime Minister and his negotiators, would there have been a deal at all? That is what Members opposite are skating around with their fine phrases about social programs.
I ask you to decide, Madam Speaker, whether their phrases are worth the paper that they are written on, given the fact that in the September 1984 election the Prime Minister said the same type of phrases about old age pensions.
As the Hon. Member for Mount Royal so nicely pointed out, not only were the seniors concerned because of the absence of any assurance in the agreement, but they were concerned for another reason. They had had bitter experience with this Prime Minister. They had learned not to take his word, and they were not about to be led down the garden path twice in a row by the same
guy-


Mr. Parent:: The Hon. Member from Newfoundland was talking about the negotiations which had just taken place. I know the Member was present when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave his speech today. The Prime Minister had glowing words for our chief negotiator, Mr. Reisman. In view of that fact, would the Hon. Member comment on the manner in which the negotiations were carried on by Mr. Reisman?


Roger Simmons: Hon. Members will recognize that I was not at the negotiation table. I was, however, before the television set watching the public manifestations of those negotiations.
I am not sure of the degree to which we can blame Mr. Reisman. He had his instructions. It is his political masters who ought to have hemmed him in a bit more, who ought to have told him: "Simon, you sign no deal unless our social programs are specifically protected. Simon, you don't sign that agreement if our long tradition of regional development is violated".


An Hon. Member:: Simon says.


An Hon. Member:: Simon left.


Roger Simmons: That is the point. Who was doing the saying? Was it the political masters, or was it Simon who was doing the saying?
December 22, 1988

1 want to say one more think about Simon, whatever his credentials, and I believe that they are considerable in the area of negotiation; I will not downplay that. However, as a public servant, he has much to learn.
One of the most galling aspects of the last campaign was not only did we have to run against Canadian and American big business with their millions, with the Tories and the socialists thrown in as bystanders, we had to fight Simon as well. We were fighting the armchair expert, the person who was accountable to no one, save for the Prime Minister. We had to contend with his blow by blow analysis of what ought to be the case in terms of the governing of this country.
What a sham! The Prime Minister, had he had any understanding of the institutions of government at all, would have given the guy the flick for opening his mouth.


An Hon. Member:: Give him the hook.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Elk Island, on debate.


Mr.   Brian@: Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a great privilege to have this opportunity to speak in the Parliament of Canada during this historic free trade debate.
Before entering into my remarks in support of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, let me express my sincere appreciation to the fine people of the new constituency of Elk Island for their tremendous support of me and of the Progressive Conservative Party during the recent federal election.
The new federal riding of Elk Island was formed by combining sections of three other ridings: Vegreville, Pembina, and Wetaskiwin. Elk Island includes a special blend of agricultural, industrial and urban interests. The riding of Elk Island has a population of over 77,000 people. The people of Elk Island are a diverse, strong and vibrant people. They are hard working people, with high standards and values. Many are pioneers or descendants of pioneers who, through determination and hard work, have built the modern thriving community in which they live.
The main population centres in Elk Island are Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan, and Beaumont. Elk Island also includes the communities of Lamont, Chipman, St. Michael, Bruderheim, Josephberg, Ardrossan, New Sarepta, Looma, Rollie View, and Hay Lakes.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I am honoured, Madam Speaker, to represent the good people of Elk Island, all of whom contribute to a very rich cultural mosaic. In addition to a large number of people of British descent, over 7,000 of the residents of Elk Island share German ethnic backgrounds, and nearly 6,000 are of Ukrainian heritage.
We are also proud to have a significant French component and a significant Dutch component.
We are indeed culturally rich in Elk Island, with fine people from many cultures in addition to those I have already mentioned, including Poles, aboriginal people, Chinese, South Asian, and others.
As we are in the Christmas season, Madam Speaker, let me offer to all of the good people of Elk Island, on behalf of my wife and our children, my sincere best wishes for a healthy, happy and peaceful holiday season. As well, on behalf of all of us in the riding of Elk Island, please let me extend our very best wishes to all Canadians from coast to coast for a joyous and pleasant holiday season.
It is a great honour for me, Madam Speaker, to speak in the Parliament of Canada today, and I should like specifically to express my appreciation to my parents, Nicholas and Mary O'Kurley, who helped me to develop a respect and a love for Canada.
I will be speaking in favour of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Madam Speaker. I believe it is an agreement that is good for Elk Island, and we in Elk Island believe that it will be good for Alberta and for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Kurley:: We, the people of Canada, have just come through one of the most important elections in Canadian history. The voters in my riding, as in other parts of Canada, were faced with a major issue. The issue was not necessarily just free trade; the real issue in the election campaign was economic management. Free trade was only a part of the larger over-all issue of managing Canada's economy.
Canadians from sea to sea elected a Progressive Conservative majority Government because they believe that this Party is the one most capable of maintaining economic stability and managing Canada's economic future.
In Elk Island, 85 per cent of eligible voters turned out to deliver their message, and the message was a resounding "yes" to Prime Minister Mulroney's Progressive

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Conservative Government and a definite "yes" to free trade.
The United States is by far Alberta's largest export market, accounting for about 75 per cent of total exports. In 1985, the value of exports to the United States exceeded $10 billion, with natural gas and crude petroleum exports accounting for 50 per cent.
The Economic Council of Canada suggests that Alberta's output could increase by 3.5 per cent, more than the national average of 3.3 per cent. According to the Canada West Foundation, Alberta could have the most to gain of all of the western provinces, and perhaps of all provinces.
The Free Trade Agreement creates a long-term stable environment, an environment which will help Alberta's energy sector plan for the future. As Hon. Members will be aware, Alberta's energy sector fears the possibility of American protectionism. Under the Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. is prohibited from implementing energy import fees, surcharges, taxes, and quotas in the future. The United States, further, is committed to consultation and disputes settlement procedures on regulatory rulings.
Alberta's exports of natural gas to the United States represent 35 per cent of total Alberta production. Crude oil exports to the U.S. amount to $3 billion, or 25 per cent of total Alberta production.
Canada's energy future depends upon oil and gas projects such as the oil sands megaproject. The Free Trade Agreement will provide the assurance of access to a large market, something that is necessary to support such projects.
Allow me to speak briefly about agriculture. When I speak about agriculture, I speak not only about farmers. When I speak about agriculture, I speak about jobs in fertilizer plants. When I speak about agriculture, I speak about small businesses and small towns that depend on a healthy farm economy. When I speak about agriculture, I speak about farm implement dealerships, grocery stores, restaurants, service stations, and many other small businesses that depend upon a healthy farm economy. When the farmer has a dollar in his pocket, they all benefit.
Canadian farmers are among the greatest traders in the world. It is vital to our economy that agricultural producers be allowed to sell their produce in Canada, the United States, and around the world. That is why it
cannot be over-emphasized that Canadian agriculture is a big winner under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. That agreement will greatly benefit Canada's farmers, food processors, and consumers.
One of every ten Canadians is involved in the food production chain. Canada exports almost $3 billion every year in farm products to the U.S., our largest export market. Including grains and oilseeds, over half of our food product exports is to the U.S.
Throughout the free trade negotiations the concerns of the agricultural community were of utmost importance to the Government. Canada went into the negotiations insisting that we would maintain our marketing boards and that is exactly what we achieved. We have ensured that our supply-management systems will remain intact. Nothing but nothing in the agreement jeopardizes the continued operation of Canada's supply-management systems, including those for dairy products, poultry and eggs. Other supply-management systems can be added, if desired, in the future, provided that they are in accordance with our rights under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The FT A will provide more assured and predictable access to the U.S. market for Canadian agriculture and food exporters. Hog and cattle producers, meat packers, and other groups who have been the target of U.S. countervailing duties, anti-dumping and safeguard actions will appreciate the provisions that the FTA creates. For the first time a process for settling trade disputes that develop between Canada and the U.S. will be established. On that I would like to be a little more precise, so let me give an overview of some of the benefits of the agreement by sector.
For dairy producers, the made-in-Canada arrangement for producing, marketing and pricing milk, our milk marketing boards, is secure. Our import control list is secure and no increases were granted in the import quotas for dairy products. Ice cream and yogurt were added to Canada's import control list earlier this year. For egg and poultry producers, Canada retains its import quotas for poultry, eggs, and related products. For beef, veal and pork producers, access to the U.S. market for their exports is improved and secured under the FTA as both countries have agreed to exempt each other from meat import laws.
For wheat and grain producers the agreement will not jeopardize the continued operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. The agreement by both countries not to impose import restrictions in the future will provide
December 22, 1988

security of access for grains and oilseeds. Finally, both Canada and the U.S. have pledged to further their efforts to seek solutions to the ongoing international problems of agricultural subsidies through multilateral negotiations.
Both Canada and the U.S. have much to gain from an improved trading environment for agricultural products. While there will continue to be protection for producers who choose to concentrate on serving only the Canadian market, our export oriented farmers and food processors will gain guaranteed access to the biggest and fastest growing agricultural market in the world.
Farmers for Free Trade, an organization made up of 36 agricultural groups and food processors, summed it up best recently when they said: "When you produce some of the best quality farm products in the world, don't you want the freedom to sell to the wealthiest consumer market in the world?" Of course, you do. That is why most Canadian farmers and processors want free trade with the U.S. Americans will pay for that unique quality.
Alberta's largest market for agriculture and food products is the U.S. It is a key to the future development of this industry. Alberta agriculture and food product exports to the U.S. totalled $372 million in 1986.
The U.S. is a relatively small market for Canadian grain and oilseed exports. Under the FTA there is room for growth in certain areas such as rapeseed, oil, high quality oats, malting barley and wheat. The removal of U.S. tariffs on these products will benefit Canadian producers.
Canada has obtained access which is more secure and free of tariffs and other barriers for agriculture and food products of major export interest. The existing marketing systems for dairy, poultry, and egg products are maintained. The right to implement new supply-management programs and import controls under the GATT is retained. The creation of an open investment climate and a free energy market, the elimination of the damaging constraints of federal policies like FIRA and the NEP, will result in a resurgence of investment in the oil and gas sector. Furthermore, this new activity in the energy industry will stimulate Alberta's service industries. This will mean that an expanding western economy in western energy translates into more jobs for steelworkers and equipment manufacturers.
Interest in and support for the FTA in Alberta is very high. The business community is excited about the challenge and by the opportunity to compete in a more
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
secure and open atmosphere. Albertans have known a lot of challenges in the last few years. The devastation of the ill-conceived National Energy Program was compounded by the rapid decline in world oil prices. Since 1984 Alberta's industries have been streamlining and restructuring. With the many challenges the Alberta economy faces, the free trade legislation at least offers some security in that it provides stable and beneficial bases on which to move into the 21st century.
Merci beaucoup, Madame la presidente.


Mr. Brewin:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member may wish to defer being congratulated for just a second, although I do join with his colleagues in congratulating him on his speech.
I have a question for him. I always thought that Alberta Conservatives were strong defenders of provincial rights, particularly on energy.
Given that Section 92 of the Constitution Act gives provinces control over development, conservation and management of non-renewable energy, how does the Hon. Member square what I presume to be his concerns about provincial jurisdiction with the Free Trade Agreement's clear interference with provincial rights in the energy field, particularly the restrictions that it imposes on the rights of provinces to intervene in exercising their jurisdiction under the Constitution Act?


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his very good question. In his question he referred to our obligation to share our energy in times of declared energy shortage. What should be brought to the attention of the House is that our position with regard to Canada's obligation to share our energy in times of shortage was not established under the Free Trade Agreement. That obligation was established in 1974 by Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal Government in an agreement that was made with 21 other industrial countries to share energy during times of world shortages.
With respect to provincial control of resources, they still have control. We do not have to sell one spoonful of oil to the United States if we do not want to. The only thing that there is an obligation with respect to sharing is during times of a declared energy shortage.
With regard to pricing, if we have in Alberta a producer who can find a consumer in the United States willing to pay twice the world price of oil, then he can

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
sell it. There is nothing in the agreement that limits that.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Elk Island (Mr. O'Kurley) has spoken eloquently and at length about agriculture. I notice that he did not once mention pesticides. I am sure he is aware of the fact that there is a difference in the management and the administration of pesticides in Canada and the United States. Basically, in essence, in Canada we have a system whereby pesticides are licensed pursuant to the pest control products legislation. That legislation places the emphasis squarely on demonstrating the safety of the product on human health.
South of the border in the U.S. pesticide legislation requires a balancing of risks and benefits. In the risks are also included health risks sometimes related to carcinogenic consequences. Considering the uncertainties in terms of quantifying risks our system is a much safer one than the American one.
The Hon. Member is interested in agriculture and must know about pesticides. Would he support an amendment to Schedule VII in Chapter Seven of the trade agreement which would give the Government of Canada the powers to ban, restrict and regulate pesticides in Canada in order to protect public health? Is the Hon. Member aware of this serious shortcoming? Would he support an amendment to that effect?


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. With respect to pesticides, they would fall under the environment. There is a specific clause in the agreement that states that there is nothing in the agreement that limits Canada's ability, or for that matter, the ability of the United States, to bring in any legislation that would protect the health or the environment of either country. Thus the amendment seems not to be necessary in that regard. This is a trade agreement on trade and tariffs. If we want to speak about the environment then we will have an agreement on environment.


Mr. Karygiannis:: Madam Speaker, 57 per cent of the Canadian people said no to the deal, yet our friend from Elk Island stands up to try to defend it.


An Hon. Member:: Is that a question?


Jim Karygiannis: I will put the question to him. The Tories always liked for Canada to make money. They have always been supporters of profits. In the last three
days of the federal election they spent millions of dollars through their friends in order to buy their mandate.
If the Hon. Member is such a great supporter of profits my question is this: Why has the Government made it impossible for Canadians to make a profit from our energy resources? Why should the Americans pay the same for our resources as we do? Why should we not make a profit from them?


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Madam Speaker, my assumption is that the Hon. Member opposite was referring to a differentiated price for energy. As I mentioned, we have no obligation whatsoever to sell any energy at all. If we can find a buyer in the United States who will pay twice the price for any of our energy, we can go ahead and do that.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member some short interrelated questions. Given the principle that any quality assurance program has to be monitored to study the impact on citizens, would the Hon. Member agree that when implemented the trade deal has to be monitored by Parliament to ensure that Canadians are not impacted negatively?
Second, given two honest differences of opinion in the interpretation of any legal document such as the Free Trade Agreement, does the Hon. Member not agree to the principle that a good lawyer and a common man would ask that a clarification of the agreement be put into writing?
Third, if at the end of the seven-year review of the subsidy program the United States gives Canada an ultimatum, surrender subsidization or terminate the agreement, what would be the Hon. Member's stand?


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. With respect to subsidies and the suggestion that our subsidies are threatened, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade provides protection for our social programs so that any social programs such as family allowance, medicare, seniors' pensions, or unemployment insurance are generally available.
If we learn from the fisheries case in 1985, which issue was taken to court, we will remember that unemployment insurance was challenged as an unfair trade subsidy. In fact, the case was thrown out of court on the basis of the GATT legislation which states specifically that any social program which is generally available is not considered to be a trade subsidy.
December 22, 1988


Mr. MacWilliam:: Madam Speaker, with regard to the Hon. Member's comments that Canadian agriculture is a winner under free trade, I wish first to advise the Hon. Member that independent studies have indicated that in British Columbia over 30,000 agricultural jobs may be on the line with the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement. For the Hon. Member's information, Mr. Gerald Geen, who is the President of the B.C. Tree Fruits Association, has publicly stated that the tree fruit industry in British Columbia will be wiped out by the Free Trade Agreement.
There are grape growers throughout the Okanagan and here in Ontario whose crops will be eliminated once free trade is implemented. The Government has as much as admitted the loss of the grape growing industry with the $28 million subsidy applied to the B.C. grape growers so that they can pull out their vines and ease their way in to oblivion.
One of the policy advisers to the Government, when he was in the Okanagan and being pressed by farmers with regard to the impact on trade, said: "When it comes right down to it some things are more important politically than they are economically". I was there to hear the remark and I wrote it down.
My question in regard to the devastating impact this trade deal will have on the tree fruit industry, the agriculturalists of the Okanagan Valley, and the grape growing industry is: How is this trade agreement beneficial to those grape growers who are having to pull their vines out because they will no longer be competitive?


Brian Alexander O'Kurley: 1 thank the Hon. Member opposite for the question. With regard to adjustments and moving from one walk of life to another, there is a normal rate of adjustment with or without the Free Trade Agreement. It has been said that if there are 100 firms or companies, 18 of those would normally change. Under the Free Trade Agreement there will be one extra. With respect to the significance of changes that will result from free trade, that is not a serious problem.
With respect to the grape growers, the Niagara fruit belt where there are many grape growers, they gave strong support to Progressive Conservative Members, which indicates that grape growers were in favour of the Free Trade Agreement. It indicates that free trade was not the major issue in the campaign.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The major issue in the campaign was that of economic management. They put their trust in the Conservative Government because they knew what the alternatives were.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has expired. Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I am glad to be back in this House participating in this free trade debate. We as parliamentarians are fulfilling our responsibilities and the honoured traditions of this House by representing the people who elected us to come back here and ask questions. The most important aspect of the exercise we are presently involved in is the need for clarification, assurances, and understanding. There is definitely no consensus out there. People are confused and concerned. People have questions.
We would be well served if the House had been of better humour. We would be well served if many of the questions posed in this House by the Opposition could get answers that would make people feel good and know that the future will be as prosperous as the Government has held it to be.
I will not argue the merits or the lack of merits of the Free Trade Agreement per se. The Fiberal Party is a free trade Party. I am a free trade person by spirit, background, and training. I am a free trader from my family, my husband, and from my own inclinations.
When I sat down to study this Free Trade Agreement, many questions arose. Many concerns surfaced. It is only in the best interests of harmony, peace, justice, and equity that those questions be answered and many of the concerns laid to rest.
It is true that this is a living document. It will be defined over the next five to seven years. While that is being done, we must keep in mind the concerns that are fundamental to our future and to the future of our children.
We came to this House because we are proud as Canadians. We wish to retain that pride of self, that particularity of person, and the persona that we have developed as a result of the social and economic contract which we have developed as Canadians over the history of this wonderful land. It is a young history. It is only 120-odd years old. We are flourishing in terms of our cultural development and whole ethic of management. We have a social contract that is different from that of our neighbours to the south. I call the Americans

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
neighbours and friends because they are. I do not particularly care for the language which indicates an anti-Americanism of spirit on any side of the House.
This country has developed a culture that is indigenous to itself. On the one side we have a scale that is held on two sides by a balance. It is that balance, the economic prosperity which is brought by good business heads, a fine labour force, by able people who are prepared to work-

-in both languages. It makes no difference which language is used, but the desire to work, to be proud of oneself-

That is part of our Canadian culture.
On the other side are the aspects of the life we have put together, the social contract and the social fabric that are so key. Those things are called medicare, pensions, unemployment insurance, and workers' compensation. These are perceived to be the kinds of fair balance-

Social equity, equality under law, an even balance. That is what Canadians want and need to express their cultural identity. That is what Canadians hold dear.

The cultural, economic, and social fabric are intimately interlinked in this country. That makes us different from our American cousins. It is that fabric that we must maintain here in Canada. It is that fabric that is being questioned. I see my colleague from Calgary where?


Mr. Edwards:: That is an unkind thought.


Sheila Finestone: Anywhere. Wherever.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Edmonton.


Sheila Finestone: Edmonton. I forgot about that competition. After visiting both those cities, I certainly would have an interesting choice in your fair city.
Those are the contracts that we want to assure. If you listen in a dispassionate, pragmatic, cerebral way and remove the emotion, the questions posed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy) are well-founded, plausible questions. The recommendations he wished to present for inclusion as part and parcel of the agreement that was signed, the exemptions
that would have allayed the fears, were well thought through and well-founded.
Having spent part of the summer on the free trade committee, a lot of the question marks would have disappeared had those clarifications been brought forth in the legislation. I would like to read some of them into the record. They are important. When this Centre for International Trade which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced tonight is established here in Ottawa, I would hope that some of these matters will be carefully surveyed and supervised and that we can be assured that they will be maintained and kept in place.
Some have said that the negotiations were done by candle-light. Some were very upset when Simon Reis-man, the ambassador, walked away and when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), and Mr. Burney of the Prime Minister's Office ran down to sign that document finally and to save this agreement. The questions still remained. Mr. Reisman walked out for a reason. That reason, I hope, will be proven unfounded.
Let us look at the type of negotiations that must be kept off the table, kept clear, neat, and clean as part of the contract. This agreement must prevent, limit, and restrict the Government of Canada for allowing the exercise of loss of authority in any of the following areas: In social policy, including but not limiting the continuation and existence and establishment of new health care, unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, child care, pensions, minimum wage laws, labour law, and maternity benefit programs.
The Prime Minister waxed eloquent about development and people being able to live a full and wonderful life outside the centres of this country, whether in the hills of Nova Scotia, in the North, or on the islands. By what means will regional development programs be assured? We only wanted an amendment stating quite clearly that there would be an exemption with respect to regional industrial development.
The amendment concerned the use of Canadian natural resources, including but not limited to energy, mineral, and water resources. We wanted a clarification.
We wanted clarification of Canadian cultural industries, including but not limited to the performing and visual arts and new cultural technologies and forms as they may emerge.
December 22, 1988

Another concern is the maintenance and development of a viable food production and processing industry. There is the protection of the environment and health of Canadians, and any and all other matters essential to the health and security of Canadians.
The Government told us not to worry, but for the sake of assurance 1 would ask the Government to include it in the agreement as an exemption. The Government has not been sufficiently open-minded or concerned about the views of its constituents, if it does not understand that including these exemptions will avoid the concerns that over 50 per cent of the electorate has expressed.
I accept that the Government has a legitimate right to govern. However, the majority of Canadians did not vote for the Government, and it has a double obligation to answer to them in a clear, unequivocal way.

-unequivocally, by including these exemptions in the Agreement.

I want to deal with an area in which I have had a great interest in the last four years of my mandate. I am talking about the cultural sector.
The agreement should have included a much stronger clause than what is contained in Article 2005 dealing with the supposed elimination of any concerns about cultural industries. There must be a much stronger clause which expressly states that no retaliatory measures may be taken against any Canadian government initiatives in the interest of the protection or promotion of cultural businesses in Canada.
The fact that the Government has not taken such action is disconcerting.
Some of the documents produced by the American Government in this area caused great concern. For instance, let me refer to a document that I brought to the attention of the House in May, 1988. It contains the recommendations of the American Finance Ways and Means Committee to the President of the United States on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It was tabled and released on May 27, 1988.
The Senate committee chairman was the Hon. Lloyd Bentsen and the Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means was the Hon. Dan Rostenkowski. The report stated with respect to the relationship of the Free Trade Agreement to American federal law that in the event of a conflict between U.S. law and the Free Trade
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Agreement, U.S. law shall prevail. At that point the Minister was forced to remove a very obnoxious clause contained in the original Free Trade Agreement. Article 8 stated that the Free Trade Agreement would prevail over all Canadian law. Fortunately that ridiculous and poorly conceived clause was removed.
The recommendation with respect to Article 1610 dealing with international agreements was to authorize bilateral negotiations, to liberalize investment rules, to require consultation with diverse U.S. interests, and to establish certain negotiating objectives.
One was the elimination of direct investment screening, which they achieved. Another was the extension of Free Trade Agreement principles to energy and cultural industries to the extent not now covered. This suggests to me that our cultural fabric, the expression of ourselves as a people through our writers, singers, dancers, or those involved in the performing or visual arts, should not get too much exposure. We should not see more of ourselves but more of the American presence. That is not our purpose nor is the policy of the Government.
Shortly after the Americans passed the Free Trade Agreement in June, 1988, the U.S. Bureau of Public Affairs, Department of State, sent an official business communique which included a list of questions, answers, and clarifications.
For example, it asked: "Why aren't cultural industries included in the FTA?". The answer is:
The United States is sensitive to Canadian interests in fostering its distinct cultural heritage.
That is very nice. It goes on to say that certain cultural industries are exempt. It goes on to state:
Furthermore, the United States retains the right to rebalance concessions with measures of equivalent effect if future cultural policies are detrimental to our commercial interests.
The American entertainment industry is interested in the bottom line while here it is true that we wrap ourselves in the flag. What is wrong with that? It makes for part of our distinctiveness as Canadians. The answer goes on to state:
The agreement does not require invocation of its dispute settlement provisions in order to take such countermeasures.
Not only are we supposedly exempt, we cannot even go through the dispute settlement mechanism if we have a complaint because we are exempt from it according to Article 1607.
The next question asks: "Doesn't the cultural exception adversely affect U.S. firms?" The answer states:

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
No, the FTA improves Canadian treatment of U.S. commercial interests in the cultural area. It provides for tariff elimination (e.g., on videos, records, printed material)-
The Government should have read the Donner report. While the Government stated that it carefully listened to the SAGITs, one of the most important reports the SAGIT heard was made by the recording industry. The recording industry indicated through the Donner report why it was not pleased with what would happen to the industry.
Our smaller printing and publication industries cannot enjoy the economies of scale and therefore will lose their power to produce some of our own materials.
The answer goes on to state:
In addition, the Free Trade Agreement allows the United States to take measures of equivalent commercial effect in the event that Canada enacts additional restrictions which impair U.S. access to the Canadian market.
In other words, if our attempt to recover our indigenous Canadian culture and access to Canadian culture affects their bottom line, no matter what the industry it will be unacceptable. We cannot even make a cultural impact on the world because the Bureau of Public Affairs goes on to state in its answer:
This right should serve as a dis-incentive to the use of cultural exceptions for measures that, although nominally cultural, have significant commercial effects.
Something nominally cultural would just happen to be our films, books and music. Those are the nominally cultural things which, through the Canada Council, we have seen fit to support. Various other programs, including Telefilm Canada and programs supporting a Canadian concept to the broadcasting industry, are the things that have Canadianized us through the communications industry. Instead, we have gone to a continental-ist North American approach which is totally unacceptable.
I know there is not agreement on the part of my colleagues with this vision. We read American documents which indicate to American businesses that they do not have to worry. I suggest that we had better start worrying pretty darn quick.
I have come to the end of what I have to say, I see. I suggest that it would have been in the best interests of this country and of the Free Trade Agreement had the amendment we wanted to propose been debated and accepted by the House. That amendment provided that for greater certainty, nothing in the Act or agreement
shall limit or restrict the support of the Government of Canada for the development of cultural industries or cultural business in Canada.
I am speaking not only for myself. The artists and members of the performing industry in Canada are very seriously concerned. They have grave reservations about this Bill. Take a look at what has been done with respect to cultural industries under Article 1607.4. Investment in Canada and the purchase of Canadian cultural properties after 1992 is perfectly allowable under the deal we have now signed. I find that extremely regrettable. I cannot wait for your question, dear friend.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is a treat to which I had looked forward throughout the election campaign, because 1 had, in spite of what was happening elsewhere in Quebec, very little doubt that our hon. friend would be back with us. I know that like many of us, she wondered at one point whether it would be worth doing again. We all have those moments of doubt, but I am delighted, for Mount Royal and for our country, that she is back, and I am sure she will serve very well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Now then-


Sheila Finestone: First some soft soap, and then what?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I find that the artists with whom I have spoken are far more interested in access to the Canadian market than in worrying about what may be happening external to them in a continentalist approach or a commercial approach.
My friend is more precise and more honest than the vast majority of them, but many opposition critics have said that the entire artistic community is rejecting this trade deal.
Just four names come to mind of people in the visual arts field who have embraced this trade deal as having the potential to create more wealth and thereby give us better business to support the arts. They are Ken Danby, Alex Colville, Christopher and Mary Pratt, all well-known, distinguished Canadian visual artists.
To come to my good friend's question and the point that she made about the statements of Congressman Rostenkowski and others, I would ask my hon. friend opposite how U.S. legislators or the U.S. administration would react to each of the statements that have been made in this debate in the House of Commons over the last two weeks.
December 22, 1988

If the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy), for example, were taken seriously by the U.S. administration and by the congressional leadership as being representative of a significant body of Canadian thinking, whose view might prevail, would we not think that there might be some kind of a shrinking back and horror on the part of the U.S. administration?
In fact, there are those who have asked, when they have pointed their cigars at the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre, if there is anything on God's green earth that that man is for. My hon. friend, I know, is for Canada, as I think I am, and I would like to ask her whether she sincerely believes that our Canadian sense, that sense that I know she has of being proudly Canadian, has in any way been eroded or impaired over the past shall we say 35 years during which our trade and our close relationship with the United States, largely under the regime of her Party, have grown closer and closer. Is it not true that many of the Canadian cultural and other institutions which we hold so dear have flourished and grown during that period? Is there not truly in this agreement nothing to impair that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Member for Mount Royal.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to try to answer in a more global sense the questions of my colleague and friend from Edmonton Southwest. At the outset, though, I would like to suggest to him that the remarks of my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre were genuine. He has a son and he is anxious to pass on to his son the same kind of love of country that the Hon. Member has instilled in his children and I have and have instilled in mine.
Over the last 35 years, there has been incredible growth and development in Canada. I said we are a young country. Through the Canada Council and our broadcast policies, we have fortunately put lots of money into trying to promote our artists and their ability to find a medium of expression, whether in the visual or the performing arts.
The Broadcasting Act allows for a great deal of Canadianization, and my concern is that that forms opinions and thoughts. If our children and grandchildren are constantly exposed to American programming, they will not necessarily turn out to be bad people, but they will not turn out to be people with a concept of a Canadian reality.
I am concerned that the capital cost allowance, which was a way to incite the private sector into investing in
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
film distribution and production, was cut out because of pressure from Jack Valenti. The watering down of our film distribution Bill embarrassed the former Minister of Communications whose arm was twisted, as did the Baie Comeau policy and the concept of buying back our own products and distribution potential for our products. All those are now compromised.
All I wanted was assurances. I would recommend that Hon. Members look at Article 1607.3, Article 1607.4, and Article 2011. I do not want to go into the nullification clauses or the divestiture clauses. The concepts were there. The philosophies were there.
The Minister of Energy (Mr. Masse) did a good job. They have all tried but nothing has happened. The Government is now in a position of losing all the effort and initiative that was started by Liberals and carried on by the Conservatives. Cultural protection is a ongoing commitment of which we do not have enough in this House. If we are to be concerned about who we are, the money, support, political policy and political will- not just throwing money but having a vision of where we want to go-must be integrated into the political philosophy and the legislative action of this country. That means a film and a book distribution policy, all the policies that concern marketing, distribution, and exhibition for ourselves first. For the stranger at the gate, 97 per cent of our market they have in filming and 80 per cent they have in film distribution. I do not have to give the Hon. Member the figures. He knows them. Yes, I have serious concerns.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I know the time is brief. Let me just pick up the theme of the Member who has been addressing us. It seems to me that the whole thrust of the free trade initiative taken by the Government is to further commercialize Canadian life. When one discusses and addresses the cultural themes as has the Member, one has to look at the global picture in that sense as well.
What we have, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said during the television debate, is just a commercial agreement. He honoured tonight all the virtues, in particular that of competitiveness. It strikes me that we hope to have a society in Canada that has somewhat different values. One of them that we ought to be cherishing and giving a higher place to is that of a broadly based cultural policy in which all Canadians can share. The only way we can have that is to have a strong

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Government that gives support to cultural activities across the board. That is undermined by this agreement.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would say it is in jeopardy. I do not say that it is totally undermined. We need a clarification so that we can be assured that the exemptions are there. That is what I called for. I agree with what the Hon. Member said.


Charles L. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) on her fine intervention. Would she care to comment on the fact that this week we were not given an opportunity to put forward, discuss, examine, and vote upon amendments which could have improved the quality of this agreement in order to protect culture, the environment, and the health of Canadians?


Sheila Finestone: I thank the Hon. Member for the question. If there is anything that has made me very sad, it is the fact that the Government has used the guillotine procedure called closure. It is totally unnecessary, not in the interests of Canadians, and is only exacerbating the great difference of opinion expressed through the vote.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address Parliament on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, an agreement whose prime purpose is to manage the future growth of a financial agreement that has recently grown to become of increasing interest to United States politicians who wish to save their political skins by relying on trade protectionism.
During the election campaign in my constituency of Regina-Wascana the New Democratic Party, the Liberal-Communist coalition, time after time attempted to frighten our aging population. The opposition was simply out to scare the people with emotional drama and mistruths. It just about worked. As a Progressive Conservative candidate elected from Regina-Wascana I am the first one to represent these citizens in 26 years on the side of government. It took a very special effort to become elected.
It was a very close election running against a high profile Party and a high profile individual in the form of the previous Leader of the Provincial Liberal Party. He is no more. However, I was supported with an extremely strong and well organized campaign team.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank those voters who supported my election. I wish also to assure those who chose otherwise that as a result of my election I will continue my commitment to all as I have the past
nine years as mayor of the City of Regina. I commit to the maintenance of a real and genuine concern for the citizens of Regina, my birthplace, my home, and my family's home. I wish also to convey my commitment to the residents of the entire constituency, that of Regina- Wascana, the breadbasket of the world up until this past drought stricken summer.
The recent election campaign is one that I am sure most of Canada regarded with a certain degree of amazement. The campaign provided this amazement in that I am sure that, at least in recent memory, there has not been an election conducted by members of the Opposition who have their statements strongly ridiculed by the media and yet have gone unchallenged. I view this as quite appalling for people seeking public office, to make the kinds of statements that members of the Opposition have made and expect the Canadian public to have any respect for members of those political Parties.
The Opposition said, in attempting to frighten the voters, that in five to seven years our social programs would be considered subsidies. They seem to have this clairvoyant trait that eludes those who are responsible for providing government. They say that five to seven years from now these matters will be singled out and eliminated with some future agreement. If we just listen to that argument, it reaffirms that our social programs are not subject to this agreement. This agreement is what we are signing, not something which is to be determined five to seven years down the road. It is absurd that this agreement should have written into it matters not relative to it.
It is the Opposition's duty to oppose and that it did. They provided opposition to the extent that the media called much of it to task. I quote from an article printed in the Winnipeg Free Press on Thursday, November 3. On page 7 the article is headed "How John Turner misleads on trade", and reads:
The Leader of the Opposition has been lying about the content and impact of the Free Trade Agreement. Statements he makes on the subject, almost without exception-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would just remind the Hon. Member that what a Member cannot say in the House directly should not be said indirectly and I refer precisely to the word "lying".


Larry Schneider: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought in quoting from a news article that was permitted. I will withdraw that. I will proceed:
December 22, 1988

Statements he makes on the subject, almost without exception, are fundamentally untrue.
It seems to me that Canadian citizens would have to ask themselves where is the defence of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) to this statement? How can anyone call anyone else-a word I cannot use in this Chamber-in our society without having this slanderous statement pursued through the courts? Where has this pursuit been? I have not seen it. I have not heard it and, therefore, I can only conclude that the statements contained in this newspaper article, effectively, are true. In the event that someone may be under the mistaken impression that the New Democratic Party is exempt from these tactics, let me quote from another article I have entitled "Liberals and NDP wrong about trade deal: Canadian Federation of Labour". It goes on to state:
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has won an unexpected backing from the Canadian Federation of Labour for his charge that opposition Parties are misleading voters about free trade in the federal election campaign. Federation President Jim McCambly said the Liberals and New Democrats are suggesting things that are simply not true in their attacks against the free trade pact with the United States.
If industry and media are making these kinds of statements and telling Canadians that the Liberals and the NDP are telling the public things which are not true, are saying to the public that people are doing things that I cannot say in this Chamber, making statements that are fundamentally untrue, who are the public to believe? The Free Trade Agreement has claimed to be or will be responsible for everything from bad weather to mongolism.
The Opposition went on to say that this agreement would motivate Americans to take over our hospitals and make a profit, that we would have a two-tier health system, one for the rich and one for the poor, but we already have hospitals and health care services in Canada that turn a profit. In Ontario alone there are 16 such private profit making hospitals including Hawkes-bury. Some are even owned by Americans. Extendicare, a private facility in Saskatchewan and Canada, operates more than 100 high level care homes for senior citizens.
While we are speaking of private profitable health services there is one that operates in the backyard of the Leader of the New Democratic Party with the full knowledge and support of the New Democratic Party, I trust. No, sir, I do not know what kind of deal they have made with Dr. Morgentaler.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Let us talk about why we entered this trade deal, what is in it for us, and why we should enter into a long-term contract to trade with our closest friend and neighbour. Why is it so important now that 80 per cent of our trade is already tariff-free? We entered the agreement for two reasons. We wanted to assure access to the United States for our goods and we wanted exemption from protectionism.
The Free Trade Agreement gives us both. The Free Trade Agreement places the two countries on more of a level playing field for our goods and theirs. It makes us more competitive. It tears down the barriers that inhibit trade. It gives us guaranteed and full market access to a market of 250 million people. Without it we would be the only country in the developed world without an ensured market of at least 100 million people. We would be left out in the cold. Tariffs are not the only form of protectionism. There are quotas, technical barriers, and other artificial irritants at the border.
This agreement eliminates many of these barriers and gives us a binding dispute mechanism to deal with those that are left. Some of the Canadian and American countervail and anti-dumping laws remain intact with the Free Trade Agreement, however we are now equal partners in settling disputes and have a mechanism to deal with them fairly, quickly, and impartially.
On the other hand, any new U.S. trade legislation must be submitted to Canada for formal inspection and negotiation, with the trade deal itself on the line. This was a landmark concession given to Canada by a country which always holds its cards close to its chest.
Perhaps, most important, the Free Trade Agreement exempts us from the omnibus Trade Bill. That is a frightening piece of protectionist legislation passed by the American Congress that imposes quotas and tariffs on other countries which export to the United States. If any American industry thinks that a foreign export is injuring it in any way, the President and the Congress of the United States are mandated to impose a penalty that is a quota or a tariff, unilaterally, to protect that American industry. The Free Trade Agreement gives us an exemption to the omnibus trade Bill.
The Liberals say that they believe in free trade, but that they do not believe in this deal. What would they replace it with? First, they say that they would modernize and strengthen GATT, and amend the mechanism within GATT for reaching decisions. GATT is a 96-Member agreement. How can we, as one country,

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
achieve a modernization and strengthening to our trading arrangement of something to which 96 nations are a party. Let us be realistic. GATT has been evolving since 1947. How could we amend GATT by ourselves when we cannot cut a deal with our best friends and biggest trading partner within GATT? Come now, who would listen?
The second strategy of the Liberals would be to go after multilateral rather than bilateral agreements. Although this would involve a number of nations, my Liberal friends in Regina estimate that it could be accomplished in the short period of time of two to two and a half years.
We are already doing multilateral and bilateral deals as GATT members. The Free Trade Agreement is a model for GATT. It will help speed the GATT process along. However, how would two and a half years be feasible when some of the decisions taken at the time of the Kennedy Round of negotiations in the 1960s still have not been implemented.
Saskatchewan trades around the world. We are looking to expand those markets, particularly in the Pacific Rim. Our largest trading partner is the United States, followed by Japan. After that our next 10 trading partners, in descending order, do not even speak our language.
Third, and perhaps most significant, the Liberals trade strategy calls for sector by sector trade negotiations consistent with GATT. Unfortunately for Canada, GATT frowns upon sector by sector negotiations. It simply will not permit them. GATT considers them sweetheart deals, and they are simple unacceptable. GATT would not tolerate the Auto Pact today, if it had not previously been negotiated. However, that has been protected by the Free Trade Agreement.
What is the NDP's vision of a trade policy for Canada? Is it a call for monetary reform, again reform of a policy which involves all major nations of the developed world? If we cannot do a free trade agreement, then why would anyone in the world listen to us as the voice of reason when it came to establishing a monetary policy?
Members of the NDP state that they are against free trade. They call for managed trade on a sector by sector basis, like the Auto Pact, consistent with GATT. I have previously commented on what GATT thinks about sector by sector arrangements.
The previous Liberal Leader tried it and the protectionist wall around the United States became strong. That is why the Government initiated the Free Trade Agreement in the first place. Members of the Liberal Party say that we should reduce tariffs multilaterally. That is what we are doing through GATT. We are one of 96 nations which include the United States. However, as I said before, it is an extremely slow process that will not give us special access to the U.S. market. It certainly will not protect us from the omnibus trade Bill and growing U.S. protectionist sentiment. The policy of the NDP would inhibit foreign investment, and discourage foreign corporations from setting up shop in Canada and employing our workforce, ordinary Canadians.
A loss of foreign capital would lead to a further drop in the Canadian dollar, higher interest rates, and ultimately a larger deficit. The Free Trade Agreement will entice foreign companies to manufacture in Canada in order to take advantage of our open and secure access to the huge United States market. Foreign investment in manufacturing means jobs for Canadians.
Finally, the NDP wants us to negotiate through GATT using the GATT appeal process. That is tremendously slow and much more cumbersome than the dispute mechanism currently in the Free Trade Agreement. Even with the Free Trade Agreement we are entitled to us the GATT appeal process over the bilateral Free Trade Agreement approach, if we so wish.
In the past GATT, unlike the Free Trade Agreement, has given Canada no protection or reprieve from being side-swiped in the subsidy war between the United States and the European Economic Community. That war has forced our grain prices through the floor, and deficiency payments to farmers have cost Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars.
I have heard much in the House this past week and throughout the campaign about big business and the role that they play with respect to the promotion of the Free Trade Agreement. If one studies the make-up of the shareholders of many big businesses in Canada, one will find that the major shareholders, to good degree, are pension plans. Those pension plans belong to the average Canadian citizen.
It has been said that there has been no consultation in this process. I have documents that indicate that 59 groups appeared as part of the Saskatchewan Public Consultation Process on Trade Negotiations covering a period from August 6 to August 29, 1986, and October 21 to November 23, 1987. On 20 dates hearings were
December 22, 1988

held for 20 different trading sectors. There were an additional 35 town hall meetings covering a period of November 16, 1987 to March 1, 1988.
Perhaps public opinion could best be said by the Ottawa taxi driver who drove me to the airport last Saturday morning. He said: "I voted for Brian Mul-roney because Canada needs free trade and he can be trusted".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Larry Schneider: That taxi driver has the wisdom to know that wealth means sovereignty. Why do the Liberals and the NDP not have that type of intelligence?
There have been comments made that the Free Trade Agreement is bad for agriculture. Why are the Premiers of our agricultural provinces pushing so hard to get it passed? Do they know something that we do not? Why are the hog marketing boards, the stock growers, the barley, Canola and wheat growers, taking ads out in newspapers across Canada calling themselves "Farmers for Free Trade"? Do they not know what they are talking about?
The Free Trade Agreement will shelter us from American protectionism which is largely aimed at agricultural products: livestock, animal feed, Canola, and grain. Do not take it from me, take it from Fletcher's Meats, flax growers, the United Grain Growers, the Saskatchewan cattle feeders, and Farmers for Free Trade. It is their business and they are very vocal in their support. They are not big business. They are ordinary Canadians.
What about the business community? The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Retail Council of Canada, the Life and Health Insurance Association of Canada, the Canadian Association of Small Business, and the Manufacturers' Association are among 31 associations that strongly endorse trade in a brochure entitled "Free Trade-Good for Canada". There is much to do about big business benefiting from the Free Trade Agreement.
I have been in contact with the owner of a small furniture business in the City of Regina. He has been in business for 25 years making hospital and hotel furniture, computer tables, and the like. He is anxiously looking forward to free trade and getting into that bigger market. Just let us give him a chance. He feels that he is able to compete and in anticipation is planning a growth strategy for the next few years. Many feel that,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
because the United States population is 10 times our size, we would have great difficulty competing in an open and free market.
Let me talk about Sweeprite Manufacturing of Regina, a manufacturer of street sweepers. In speaking to the owner, a Hungarian immigrant, Les Hulicsko, he advised me that in the manufacture of a street sweeper he must bring component parts into Canada from the United States and pay a duty. Once the street sweeper is completed and exported to the United States, there is another duty levied. He said that if both those duties were eliminated not only could he provide better wages for his employees but he could expand his operation, be even more competitive than he is in the United States, and create more jobs. In fact, 75 per cent of his street sweepers are already sold into the American market.
There are not many in the House who know that adjacent to my constituency is the constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre previously served extremely well by Mr. Bill Gottselig in the previous Government.
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre is now left without government representation, but that does not bother me. I investigated a small clothing manufacturer in the City of Moose Jaw called CanaDay's. It is a manufacturer of leisure wear, employing some 125 people. It was suggested by the NDP Member for the riding in which CanaDay's is located that CanaDay's is fearful of the Free Trade Agreement.
He must have been speaking to someone other than those to whom I spoke, because the indication that I got was that the major concern of CanaDay's with respect to ability or inability to compete in the United States relates to technological advances. It seems that a major U.S. competitor of CanaDay's has acquired computerized laser cutting equipment. This laser cutting process is one that CanaDay's will have to watch closely, Free Trade Agreement or not. It is a manufacturer of quality products, and it feels that, by keeping its quality standards high, as Canadian manufacturers are known to do, it will be able to maintain its current share of the market.
The Free Trade Agreement does not pose a threat to CanaDay's.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Larry Schneider: We also have in Moose Jaw a small meat packing plant employing 28 people. If growth

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
continues, as is predicted under the Free Trade Agreement, that plant will have to increase its staff by 55 per cent. That is 15 union jobs generated because of the Progressive Conservative initiative as it relates to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
I have a photograph of my father taken during the 1950s, at a time when he was walking the picket line. The placard he was carrying at the time had words to the effect "Protect us from Technology".
As much as that fear was in place then, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you it exists today, but not to the same degree. We have learned to work with technological advancements and to use technology to provide us with greater social benefits, a greater standard of living, and a better workplace.
The debate throughout the past few days and months has centred on who supports and who does not support free trade.
Three months ago the annual meeting of the Municipal Economic Development Officers of Canada was held. In attendance at that meeting was the Municipal Economic Development Officer for the City of Moose Jaw and his counterparts from all cities in Canada. And what did they do? Every city in Canada unanimously agreed that the Free Trade Agreement was good for Canada.
Premier Grant Devine and Mr. Fred Mitchell, President of Intercontinental Packers, in a joint statement issued recently, announced that in late January of 1989 Intercontinental Packers will embark upon a $8 million modernization of its beef processing facilities in Saskatoon.
I bring that announcement to the attention of the House today because I rather suspect that the New Democratic Party Members from Saskatoon, Regina's great sister city to the north, would likely find it convenient to overlook.
The project in question represents phase 2 of a $24 million four-phase expansion by Intercontinental Packers, which itself is one of Canada's top four meat packers and the largest industrial employer in Saskatchewan.
The modernization of its beef processing facilities, to be completed in October of 1989, will double the plant's kill and chill capacity to 5,200 head per week, creating 148 new union jobs in the process.
Intercon is the third largest pork wholesaler in California, and you can bet that it supports the Free Trade Agreement.
The media, Mr. Speaker, have contributed to some of the mistrust that exists in the minds of Canadians as well. Allow me to quote from an article produced by a research bulletin called "On Balance", a division of the Fraser Institute, a national non-partisan research organization.
The Archive sponsors and conducts research on the fidelity of the public information function performed by the national media. The methods employed to do the analysis were described by Ms. Lydia Miljan, Archive Co-ordinator, who said, and I quote:
Researchers analysed thousands of individual statements made by reporters and those who were interviewed by the Globe and Mail and the CBC. In all, statements made between 407 journalists and 1,318 interviewees were examined.
Ms. Miljan, an expert in communications noted, and I quote:
Since 70 per cent of the resulting news coverage was based on partial or clipped interviews or paraphrasing of comments by interviewees, we infer that the resulting news coverage reflected decisions made by journalists as to which clips or which paraphrased comments to include in the final news item.
The choices made by journalists about content were consistent with the views they expressed themselves. While journalists confined their comments to statements of fact eight times out of ten, CBC reporters, when they did express an opinion, presented anti-free trade statements two out of three times.
This contrasts with The Globe and Mail, wherein reporter expressions of opinions were almost equally balanced at 56 per cent against and 44 per cent in favour.
Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that, thanks to the CBC and the scare tactics employed by the Opposition, the public were misinformed and improperly informed during this campaign?
Time does not permit one to vent one's frustration fully, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the process that has taken us this far, and I know I must conclude. But before I do, I must tell you and the citizens of Canada that I, as the Progressive Conservative Member for Regina-Wascana, will do everything in my power to represent a truly progressive attitude, an attitude that embraces a positive vision of my city and of my country.
I represent a strong, free and independent Canada, a country that stands on its own in the trading world. I
December 22, 1988

represent a Party that believes in a strong economy, a Party that believes in strong job creation and strong investment, both of which will help pay for the caring society that we have all built together.
1 and my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party love our cities, our towns, our villages; and, above all, we love our country. Our citizens can count on our commitment, regardless of how long it takes to shed ourselves of the dubious and negative statements aimed at preventing us from obtaining our goals.
It is our commitment to reduce our national deficit, to broaden our tax base, and to provide for the highest living standard that can be obtained by any citizen in this world.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince Albert-Churchill River on questions or comments.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the Hon. Member who has just spoken. First of all, he was concerned about accuracy of fact. While he was speaking I went out and checked and in fact I am unable to find where Canada is exempted from the omnibus trade Bill in the U.S. In fact, I thought one of the issues was that Canada is not exempted from the U.S. omnibus trade Bill.
I would ask the Hon. Member to point out in the agreement the clause under which Canada is exempted from the U.S. omnibus trade Bill.


Larry Schneider: Not having the agreement in hand, it would be extremely difficult for me to cite chapter and verse in that respect. However, as has been explained many times in this place, the Free Trade Agreement is a bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States, and that fact itself will exempt Canada from the omnibus trade Bill, which is aimed at those trading communities that do not have a trade agreement with the U.S.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Prince Albert-Churchill River, on a supplementary.


Raymond John Funk: There are a few other questions that I would ask the Hon. Member to address. I asked the Trade Minister of Saskatchewan whether Clause 1603 of the agreement would make illegal the surface lease agreements that we have in northern Saskatchewan, agreements which guarantee 50 per cent local labour, local content. The Saskatchewan Minister was unable to answer my question, and I would ask for the Hon. Member's comments on it.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Second, I refer the Hon. Member to Clause 2010, which deals with monopolies. If in fact the Devine Government in Saskatchewan privatizes SaskPower and SaskTel, my interpretation is that we would be restricted from buying those back without compensating Americans.
Third, under Clause 1304, the procurement clause, and specifically the American appendix thereto, minority owned businesses are exempted from free trade across the border, whereas the Canadian schedule does not exempt such businesses.
I should also like to refer the Hon. Member to Clause 701, which has to do with not subsidizing into each other's agricultural markets. At page 308 there is a stand still letter in that respect.
Given the export subsidies that we have seen coming from the U.S., I would ask for the Hon. Member's comments on that.
I would also like the Hon. Member to comment on the opposition to this agreement of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, bearing in mind that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool represents the vast majority of Saskatchewan farmers.
Furthermore, I would ask him why Regina and Saskatoon would not take the same view as Fargo, a city of one-third their size, if it is such an advantage to be close to that American market and a part of it.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, I would be only too happy to answer the Hon. Member's questions if I could understand them. Perhaps the Hon. Member could put, in more precise form, his third and fourth questions, and perhaps even his sixth.


Raymond John Funk: Are you referring to the local content question? I didn't number my questions.


An Hon. Member:: Just ask your questions again, one at a time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.
I might say that the procedure is not generally that the Hon. Member who has completed his speech asks questions. However, as I understand it, the Hon. Member for Regina-Wascana is seeking some detail in respect of the questions asked.
Perhaps the Hon. Member could rephrase his questions.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, should I ask them one at a time? Can I sit down between questions and continue with the series?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That can be done but only if the Hon. Member putting the question is the only Hon. Member standing up. If other Members stand up during this question and comment period, the Chair would have to go to that other Member. So far the Hon. Member has been the only one to stand up. If it continues, there will be no problem in following that procedure.


Raymond John Funk: Of particular concern to people in the Prince Albert area is Article 1603, Performance Requirements, which states:
Neither Party shall impose on an investor of the other Party ... a
requirement to:
a)	export a given level or percentage of goods or services;
b)	substitute goods or services from the territory of such Party for imported goods or services;
c)	purchase goods or services used by the investor in the territory of such Party or from suppliers located in such territory or accord a preference to goods or services produced in such territory;
We have surface lease agreements in northern Saskatchewan which are very important to the economy. They require that 50 per cent of goods and services be purchased locally. To my mind that kind of arrangement is illegal under the FTA and I would ask the Hon. Member to comment.


Larry Schneider: Mr. Speaker, in that I am expected to give an answer from memory, I defy him to ask the question from memory. In fact, the question almost seems to defy answering. If I can paraphrase the question, it essentially seems to say-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Give him some help.


Larry Schneider: He is from Saskatchewan and we help each other out there. He needs some help. He is from northern Saskatchewan. I love that part of the province. I should tell the Hon. Member, while I have his undivided attention, that the greatest fishing in the world, and the coolest, freshest water I could ever hope to find is in northern Saskatchewan, the area the Hon. Member represents. I am extremely delighted that he is here to represent northern Saskatchewan. We find it to be an extremely sparsely populated area. As a matter of fact, that area generally referred to as northern Saskatchewan occupies the top northern two-thirds of the province so it is quite a vast area. Of course, surface rights are
certainly something we are all very intrigued by. Certainly we are interested in following the rights that natives have in that area. There have been gold discoveries in northern Saskatchewan.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Uranium.


Larry Schneider: Gold shares have just shot up. I know the lake I go fishing at has quartz evident right on the surface and where there is quartz there is usually gold. I think we are going to find that northern Saskatchewan in the very near future will be deemed to be the gold capital of Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Then they change their MP.


Larry Schneider: Isn't that funny? Things roll along and then they change things.
However, it certainly is in Saskatchewan's and Canada's best interest to have the right to access the world's richest uranium beds. As a result, we are able to export that uranium from Saskatchewan to the U.S. unprocessed with a minor duty. If we were to enrich the uranium, a value added component, the tariff would be at least double or triple. The Free Trade Agreement will have a tendency to alleviate that problem.
With respect to the rather wordy question that my friend attempted to float down to this part of the chamber, if one was a lawyer one might be better able to understand it. As well, I understand the Hon. Member put that question before a provincial Minister. Therefore, I would say that in his initial concept he conceded it was a provincial matter and I ask him to direct the question back to that Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is over. Debate.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased and privileged to again represent Vancouver East as a Member of Parliament. I think that area is one of the most dynamic in Canada, with people from many different backgrounds, many families who have struggled with a great deal of hardship to raise their children. The vast majority of those people are, of course, opposed to this trade deal. I know they sent me back to Ottawa with a considerable majority and I thank them for that support. I know they have sent me back with a mandate to continue to oppose this deal which will be so hard on people like themselves, and particularly on many of the industries and jobs in our community.
December 22, 1988

When we tallied up the votes, the Conservatives should take note of the fact that 87 per cent of the voters in Vancouver East voted against the deal. Only 16 per cent voted Conservative.
Like many Members of this House, I have been receiving letters from constituents and 1 would like to have been able to read some of their comments into the record. It is the people of Canada who are saying so strongly that the Conservatives must pause, take another look at this, and at least consider amendments. One of the women in my riding said: "I do not think adjustment programs are adequate compensation for victims of the trade deal. I believe there is no way to compensate for our loss of control over Canada's economy which would result from this agreement". Another letter from an immigrant man who came here from Germany 30 years ago said: "I have learned to love this country and its people. I worked very hard in the last federal election to beat the Progressive Conservatives and their Free Trade Agreement. Please don't be discouraged by the majority of seats the PCs have won. It is only 43 per cent out of 13.5 million". He went on to say: "The sum of the antifree trade voters is 12,195,000. That is a lot of Canadians". He says: "No, Mr. Mulroney does not have a mandate".
I hope the Government realizes that this Party has fought this deal night and day and is going to continue to fight. We are certainly going to continue to make sure that we watch very carefully for its impact on people and we will be fighting for its victims. Believe me, there will be victims.
A number of times in this House, and of course in the recent election, I have summarized the concerns we in the NDP and many Canadians have about the trade deal. First of all, the Government admits, although it does not always agree with the objective figures, that many workers will be dislocated.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Some.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Literally thousands in the fish processing industry alone. I should say there are several thousand jobs that are at risk this month. By the beginning of the year, many, many workers will be out of work in that industry. As my seat mate, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), said in his very eloquent speech the other night, we know the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is unable to even protect the rights of Canadians to gut their own fish. That Minister, and the former Minister for International Trade, have
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
not protected the jobs of the B.C. workers in the fishing industry.
Workers in the garment industry will find themselves literally being phased out. There are a number of such industries in my riding. The women employed there are largely from Asia. Many of them do not speak English. Many of them are struggling to try and support their families. I think a lot of them are single parents. They will be without jobs. They do not have language skills and they certainly do not have adjustment programs available through the Canadian Jobs Strategy, I can tell you that, despite what the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) tries to tell us here in this House. People are becoming increasingly concerned. The whole impact of the trade deal on the service industry is of great concern to women. We have many concerns in Vancouver East, as do other workers across the country.
We have said repeatedly how deeply concerned we are that this deal locks Canada into a continental energy policy, something that the United States has wanted for a long time. It limits our ability to serve Canadians first and to give favourable energy prices to Canadian secondary industries. My colleagues from British Columbia and Alberta also know how important it is that we in our resource based economies are able to diversify more. This deal inhibits that potential.
The removal of restrictions on U.S. investment in Canada opens the door even wider to U.S. control of our economy. We see now some of the things that have been developing even before the trade deal is signed, sealed and implemented. Since the election, as my Leader pointed out when he asked for an emergency debate, there are at least eight major companies in Canada which are moving jobs to the United States. We know very definitely that this is the result of the trade deal.
We also know that, unfortunately, jobs in the shake and shingle industry in British Columbia are not going to be replaced. The Government made practically no protest when President Reagan said that he was going to keep the tariffs on shakes and shingles, the very item which was to initiate the trade deal and which was to end such protectionism.
We are already seeing the impact. I would like to speak a bit about social policies since I am the critic for social policies for my Party. We have a very deep concern that this trade deal will change the social fabric of Canada and that it will erode our social programs.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Some of this will happen through specific provisions in the trade deal. I think much of it will happen as a result of the long range impact. Of course, the Government continues to deny this. There is evidence right in the Bill.
I would like to mention quickly several of the sections. I refer to Chapter 14, "Services", Article 1408, which covers a long list of health care and social agencies, a total of 296 service industries that will be covered by the deal. It allows for United States profit-making companies to come into Canada to manage health services and social services. We know that this includes general hospitals, psychiatric services, nursing homes, community health clinics, home-making services, blood banks, ambulances and many other types of services.
When I was looking at this matter today I realized that most of those services were services for the elderly. We do not want our older people to be victimized by profit-making commercialized industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We know that there are steps that have already been taken. I heard a Member from Alberta referring to private health services. Of course they are here. That is what Conservative Governments are encouraging, just as they are encouraging privatization of child care. We do not want an Americanized profitmaking medical system in Canada. Article 1408 will lead to that.
Chapter 19, Article 1907, provides for the definition of subsidies over the next five to seven years. We all know that we have higher social benefits and universal social programs which are much better than anything that is offered to American citizens. American businesses and American traders feel that these are unfair subsidies. We have heard of businesses putting the pressure on already in this regard.
We also know that the pressure is coming from Canadian businesses. The Macdonald Commission talked about a review and a change in social programs which would have offered us guaranteed poverty.
There will be pressure from United States businesses. There will also be pressure, which has started already, from Canadian businesses, to reduce regional development subsidies and to reduce social programs and programs such as medicare, family benefits and, yes, even pensions in the long run.
Why were these programs not excluded? The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that we do not have to worry, that we should stop using these scare tactics, that we are just fear-mongers and those who do not agree with him are a bunch of liars. Why did he not put exemptions in the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Why did he not exempt social programs? Why does he not do it now? We have amendments that would help him to do that. But, once again, the Government refuses to listen to Canadians as it does not want to listen to members of Opposition Parties. It refuses to put in the kind of protections that would help people feel that their social programs are protected. Canadians, regardless of politics, feel very serious about this.
Chapter 20 on monopolies, particularly Article 2010 and 2011, is another section that has a serious implication for social programs. It restricts Canada's right to establish Crown corporations or to introduce public social programs in the future. These would be viewed by the United States as monopolies. It means that if we had not had medicare, we would not have any opportunity at all to introduce it. We would not be able to introduce pharmacare, denticare or other programs that are universal in nature and would be regarded as monopolies.
This means that we will not be able to have a control over the development of our own social policies in the future. I will refer to that point a little later.
The level playing field, harmonization and the equal treatment concepts in this nefarious trade deal will all have a negative downward pressure on social programs in Canada, and our ability to develop our own social policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I wish to make one other point before 1 leave the question of subsidies. There is a very interesting coincidence here. Those of us who have been working on the child care programs and have studied the government program should note that this is just a seven year program. It is grandfathered at the end of seven years. Is it not interesting that at the end of seven years the subsidy situation in the United States in our trade deal will also be decided? I think there is a very interesting coincidence here which we must look at. I would be very surprised if under the Conservative regime, locked into this trade deal was that the child care provisions
December 22, 1988

would be likely to proceed beyond that. We want to go forward in terms of achieving equality. We have a long way to go yet. Women and minorities would certainly agree with that.
We do not want to go backward. We have a Charter of Rights and we are proud of it. We believe very strongly that as Canadians in a large country such as Canada we have an obligation to contribute to subsidies for the poor regions, or for the poor communities. We feel very strongly that we have an obligation to our neighbours, to children, no matter whose they are, to make sure they get a good start in life, as well as to older people to ensure that they are secure and do not have to worry about their later years.
Authorities state that this really will jeopardize regional development subsidies in the future.
It will be difficult to maintain programs on employment equity. I am telling Hon. Members that after today's report on employment equity it is evident that we must strengthen it. We do not have enforcement. In the United States there is not any type of program that is similar. Thus women, minorities, native people and disabled people in Canada will be told: "Sorry, we have to get down to that lower level playing field. It is away down in the basement". These social rights are not something that are compatible with our commitments to the trade agreement.
There are many different aspects. The Government refuses to amend unemployment insurance benefits to conform with court decisions that say it must change those benefits to conform with the Charter. I am referring particularly to provisions for parental leave, older workers, and spouses. Surely the Government, which said it would amend all legislation to conform with the Charter, should have immediately said: "We will do this. We will get a good start on a parental leave program." But no, it is not going to do that. The Government is going to challenge it and appeal it to higher courts. There is a definite relationship there which shows how little it cares about social programs and how willing it is to try to reduce them.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member's speech. It is an excellent speech. I am concerned that here we are in this House hearing this excellent speech, and this is a Government Bill, and there is not a single Member of the Government to hear this speech.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I am here. What do you mean? We are all Members of the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East has the floor.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Thank you. This is not unusual, I would like to say to my friend. Sometimes we are thankful. Sometimes it is a blessing.
If I may continue, the Prime Minister told Canadians not to worry, that he would look after them, that social programs would be protected and that the opponents to free trade were only a bunch of fear-mongers and liars. Remember how often we heard the word "lies"? I can tell you, people did not like that language.
Let us hear what is happening now. What is happening to his Bay Street friends, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Chamber of Commerce? Just this week these organizations that financed his campaign are pressuring the Government to establish a royal commission to reduce social spending. Interesting, is it not? What is also very interesting is the language they use. They say they are concerned about "non-wage compensations". Does that sound familiar? That sounds like there is a real connection with the trade deal. Of course, it is part of preparing for the trade deal. Of course, the Prime Minister wants to hide that fact. Again, we have got to be watching him every step of the way.
I want to warn this Government on behalf of New Democrats, the people of Vancouver East, and Canadians across the country that we will not tolerate cuts to essential social programs. That is a given in Canada.
I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has just honoured us with his presence. It is a very timely entry. I want to ask him why the Conservatives have not mentioned a very important report from the Canadian Council on Social Development which was published last September. It was not mentioned at all in the campaign, and it is very important. The CCSD says that the FTA will have far-reaching and unpredictable effects on Canada's economy, on social programs, and on the social policy process through which Canada responds to the needs of its citizens.
The CCFC is not satisfied that the FTA will safeguard Canada's existing social programs. More important, it may encumber future social policy development. They go on to talk about harmonization which will affect public policy in Canada by hampering our ability to develop social programs to respond to Canadian

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
needs. They talk about monopoly provisions which I referred to. They talk about social programs that will be considered unfair subsidies to Canadian labour costs. They talk about a number of other things. They talk about management of social services and the rights of aboriginal people who are very worried that this trade deal will mean they cannot proceed with aboriginal treaty rights.
I want to say that everyone in this House cares very deeply about our country, Canada. It is the most beautiful country in the world. When I say beautiful, I do not mean just our scenery or the fact that we have reasonably fresh air, fresh water, and space.
The most important thing is that we are a caring society. Our people have struggled over the years. We come from many different backgrounds and continue to come from many parts of the world. We care about each other. We do not put the market-place first. We must make sure that in the future we respect these desires and social rights which I say our Party is largely responsible for. That is one of the reasons Americans do not have it in the United States.
We do not want our economy based on military spending. We do not want our social services to be privatized and operated for a profit. We cherish medicare, and we want to make sure it is extended, not cut back. We want all our citizens to have a right to decent, affordable housing, to incomes above the poverty line, and to opportunities for our children to grow. We are very concerned that the free trade deal will inhibit these goals and, therefore, we will be continuing to oppose it along with many millions of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. White:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to welcome the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) back to the House. I would like to mention that we spent several years working together on the health and welfare committee in the last Parliament. I know her to be a reasonable person, so I have a comment and a couple of questions I would like to ask her.
First of all, my background is in health care. I spent 12 years working in the health care field. I would not support any agreement I thought would be harmful to health care. What is covered in the agreement and what is mentioned are health care facilities and management services; not the level of service, not the type of service, but the management of those services. The services themselves are under provincial jurisdiction and come
under Government procurement by the provinces. They are outside the jurisdiction and scope of the Free Trade Agreement.
I have two questions, Mr. Speaker. According to international trade law, any social program that is generally available to the entire population is not considered a subsidy. I would like to know if the Hon. Member for Vancouver East can cite one precedent in international trade history where a social program has been successfully challenged as a subsidy.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East mentioned that under the Free Trade Agreement there would be pressure from U.S. businesses on social programs because they would be considered unfair subsidies. I would like to point out briefly a couple of matters and then ask a question.
If one were to have a hip replacement operation today, it would cost five times as much in the United States as in Canada. If one were to have a heart by-pass operation, it would be roughly double the price in the U.S. as it would be in Canada. The cost of health care in the U.S. is 10.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product, whereas in Canada it is between 8 per cent and 9 per cent. I ask the Hon. Member, rather than the argument she gives, would the pressure not be on the U.S. to adopt a system like ours rather than vice versa?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I want to thank my hon. friend who has been a very pleasant participant on the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. I know him to have a very sincere interest in this subject. I would like to thank him for his question.
I must say, for someone involved in the health care field as well as in the political field, such a question is a little hard to comprehend because of the sheer volume of the pressure in the United States. I am sure he was paying attention to the recent American election where the idea of a minimum health program proposed by the Democrats was thought to be a communist conspiracy by most Americans.
That may be somewhat of an exaggeration, but there is no question that there is not the same philosophy in the United States toward the state responsibility to provide for the social need of its citizens because of the whole free enterprise market based society in the United States.
December 22, 1988

I strongly believe that the reason for the difference is that there are people like Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and many other pioneers who came out of the CCF and the NDP who fought very hard for this. There are also people like John Diefenbaker and others who responded to these challenges. This has become the mores of Canada. It goes beyond political partisanship.
It would be extremely naive to expect that Americans would try to achieve the kind of social programs that we have in Canada, such as medicare. My husband recently had an accident in the United States. He was taken to hospital where he spent about an hour. He received a bill for $1,000.
There are millions of Americans who have no coverage at all. People can lose their life savings if there is an illness in the family. That is why we are concerned.
I know how Conservatives feel about privatization and profit. The committee on child care found that commercial services generally do not have as much an obligation to provide top quality services because their goal is the profit margin. Therefore, they move in at the minimum standards established by the provinces.
This Bill opens the door for much greater American style services to come to Canada. As we said earlier, we do not want that, and I do not believe senior citizens want that.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments very much. Coming from Saskatchewan, medicare is a very important topic to me. It played a major part in the campaign.
I was in Saskatchewan during the medicare crisis when the doctors went on strike. I found it interesting to say the least that many of those who opposed medicare at the time, including Senator Barootes, who was a member of the Saskatchewan College of Physicians and Surgeons and led the opposition to medicare by helping organize doctors to go on strike, and the American Medical Association which helped fund that strike, were out there during the election assuring that this Free Trade Agreement would not affect medicare.
One of the reasons why so many Government Members were defeated in Saskatchewan was because the people of Saskatchewan did not believe them. Mr. Emmett Hall made some contribution to the debate. He was described as the father of medicare. Many people have claimed to be the father of medicare. Certainly the Liberals and Mike Pearson claimed to be the fathers of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
medicare. John Diefenbaker and Mr. Emmett Hall claimed to be the fathers of medicare.
I was in Saskatchewan during the doctors' strike. Is it not true that the people of Saskatchewan, like Allan Blakeney, Woodrow Lloyd and Tommy Douglas and the NDP in Saskatchewan who really are the mothers of medicare because they had the birth pains of this important social innovation to North America?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am not sure whether Tommy Douglas would have thought himself as a mother, but he was a caring person. I guess fathers as well as mothers can be that.
My colleague has described the situation very well. He was much closer to it than I. Certainly we are proud of the movement that started in Saskatchewan and which is now established as an institution in Canada.
During the last Parliament when the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare reviewed Canada's health programs, something I hope we continue, I was impressed with the figures that refuted some of the myths, that our programs cost more than American programs and were not as adequate as many European programs.
We also found that the cost of medicare in Canada as a percentage of GNP is much lower. We get better value for our health care dollar. It is a very sound economic as well as social investment. We do not want it threatened by a trade deal or by the pressures that are bound to come from the huge country to our south which does things differently.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to address the Thirty-fourth Parliament on an issue with which I have some familiarity, having been here in the previous four years.
I have made acquaintance with some Members of the Opposition. I want to welcome the new Members of Parliament from all Parties and I look forward to vigorous debate with all Members of the House in the years to come. I look forward to the kind of progressive legislation that this Government has brought forward under the leadership of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
There has been much discussion about this subject in the last two years. The Opposition complains that there is only a limited amount of debate during this, the Government's second effort to bring forward this legislation after the election. Let me explain to new

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Members why it was probably wise for the Government to limit the debate.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), related some of the suggestions that were made by candidates in his riding during the election concerning the effect of a free trade agreement.
I had a similar experience in my riding. Let me illustrate the kind of intelligent debate we heard from opposition Parties in my riding. At the first all-candidates meeting I attended, the New Democrat candidate stood up in front of 170 constituents and told me that on the day we sign this Free Trade Agreement the 22 million unemployed Americans in the United States today will come to Canada and take all our Canadian jobs. Talk about intelligence. That gentleman lacked some.
The Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) will recall the episode of the New Democratic candidate in Manitoba who went to a school in Winnipeg and told the young students there that if we signed the Free Trade Agreement, the United States would send the Marines to Canada to take our energy. Is it possible to imagine a New Democrat suggesting such a preposterous thing?
Another candidate, a Grit, I believe, claimed that if we signed this Free Trade Agreement, the Americans would take our blood banks. Now get this. We would probably be getting some of our blood from Los Angeles and San Francisco, probably resulting in an increase in AIDS. That is the kind of nonsense that the Liberals opposite should take a good, keen look at.
Here is a new one. I checked with some of my colleagues who are here today just to get an idea of what was being said during the election campaign. One gentleman who ran for the New Democratic Party claimed that young Canadians would all be drafted into the U.S. Army if we signed this Free Trade Agreement.
The opposition Parties had a concern about water, and many of us in this House recall the water problem. I think some have had water problems, as the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) indicated earlier on, but here is what Americans were going to do with our water if we signed the Free Trade Agreement: They were going to suck the Hudson Bay dry.
During the election campaign, the Hon. Member who is a New Democrat from the former riding of Winnipeg-Bird's Hill and I went to an environmental
debate. I thought he had an interesting line. He suggested that because of free trade, we would have more pollution in Canada. I always considered him to be a fairly intellectual individual, but that particular campaign got to him, I am sure. His logic was that there would probably be an expansion in some of our primary industries, and as a consequence thereof, there would be more smoke-stacks and more pollution.
Let me give a more down-to-home example of what happened during the election campaign. Back home in an area I used to represent called Selkirk-my hon. friend who got elected from Selkirk is with us tonight- there is a gentleman who took on that bastion of New Democrat power. We remember him well, that bastion of the New Democrats. They said: "Come and run for us, Uncle Howard". Remember Uncle Howard? "My goodness, you are going to be in the front-benches of the New Democratic Party in the House of Commons".


An Hon. Member:: In the Government.


Felix Holtmann: In the Government? Anyway, he was the force of socialism in Manitoba, brought Manitoba to its knees, lost the Manitoba Government and ran in the federal election. Before he ran, the Prime Minister said: "Thanks, Howard, but no thanks". That is what happened to dear old Howard, and when I introduce my new colleague, I introduced him as the man who saved Canada from Howard.
In that wonderful constituency was a place called the Manitoba Rolling Mills, not Dofasco, not Falconbridge, just nice, little Rolling Mills owned by an United States company employing 700 people.


An Hon. Member:: Ordinary people.


Felix Holtmann: Last election they were average, this time they are ordinary. The suggestion was that the company would fold and another would open in the United States. I am glad you Liberals are listening because the New Democrats do not want to hear this. They promised that that plant would close and Howard would stand behind all the workers and make sure they had a compensation package. What happened? A Canadian company from Quebec bought out the American company. Now are competing with these big American companies and our steel is just moving in droves southward. I am terribly excited about that.
A little earlier on, we did hear from the Hon. Member for Regina Qu'Appelle (Mr. de Jong). I notice that his riding changed. He is probably happier than the dickens about that because he got back here. Some of them
December 22, 1988

rehashed what all those former Members said about free trade and about getting on with an election. I would like those new Members way across in the corner to listen to this.
The Hon. Member for Regina Qu'Appelle said on June 20:
However, if the Government did not insist on passing the free trade legislation and held it back until after an election, it could call an election in mid-September or the end of September. We could then proceed and hold an election during the campaign of which this issue would be widely debated and all the ramifications would be explained to the Canadian public and they would have an opportunity of voting and deciding upon such a major reorganization of the power structure of the country. If the electorate decided to elect a majority of members of the Conservative Party, the Government could then reintroduce this legislation-
Look at the kind of nonsense that they debated during the campaign, and they want to come down here and start this nonsense all over again?
It is amazing that we are not out shopping. I have not done my Christmas shopping but it is worth holding off for a little while because there are a couple more things that I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the rest of this House, about this particular Free Trade Agreement. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) talked about McCain's. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the Member for Winnipeg-


An Hon. Member:: Soft centre.


Felix Holtmann: God bless him. The Leader of the New Democratic Party talked about McCain's in June. Before the election I happened to have a McCain's plant in my constituency. It is a big employer. We happen to have a Campbell Soup Company plant too.
By the way, our candidate in the New Democratic Party was supported by a pretty heavy labour movement. They started a little rumour in these two plants that the plants would disappear. We heard what the president of McCain Foods said at that time. Those rumours, they were nothing but rumours, all of a sudden faded away. In The Globe and Mail of December 1, I could not believe what I read about Campbell Soup. During the election, they were going to cut down, close down, slide out, slip out, no more soup for you and I, we could not even go to the soup kitchen any more according to the Liberal candidate running against me. According to the New Democrat over there, there was going to be no more soup, we were going to be on water and tea. Why are they not now saying "Holtmann, you
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
were right," because this is what the president of the company said:
Campbell Soup Co. Ltd. will double its spending in Canada next year, and that, the chairman says, would surprise all those people who predicted the U.S. multinational would pull up its stakes after the federal election and go back home to Camden, N.J.
Exactly the opposite will happen. It will double its production, and thank goodness you folks over there can eat soup again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Felix Holtmann: The article goes on to say:
Mr. Clark also denied persistent reports that his company would privatize the Canadian operations if the free-trade agreement with the United States went ahead.
He will not privatize anything. They will continue to manufacture and produce the best soup in the world in Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. That is what they are going to do.
Let us get on to McCain's. Yes, I understand from our good friend, the Minister for International Trade, that the McCains are Liberals and good Liberals. They are probably more sensible than any we have seen in the House of Commons.
Two days after the election, this just jumped out at me:
McCain also added its name to national advertising opposing the deal during the federal election campaign.
"We talked quite sincerely about the deal, our views were well known," Fredstrom said. "But the idea of linking this directly to the closure of any facility was not even remotely mentioned."
He said, and this was in my constituency, that he was not aware of any change or cut-backs planned for the Portage la Prairie plant. As a matter of fact, McCain's Food will do its very best and intends to expand its business under these changed conditions.
Don't you find that just about the most hypocritical thing that happened during this entire election campaign and free trade debate, Mr. Speaker? One would believe that the United States is taking over this country and we would have to go to the U.S. and add to the unemployment lists. In one case the Americans were coming here to take our jobs. Maybe now in the New Democratic Party they think it is great to be unemployed.
This will just rock the NDP right out of the House of Commons. Something happened just before the election. A letter was sent to me by an American. If this is

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
offensive to anyone on the other side, he or she may leave the Elouse of Commons. This is from one of our neighbours to the south where people will be basking in the sun about a month from now.


An Hon. Member:: In 24 hours.


Felix Holtmann: In any event, this gentleman is the president and chief executive office of a company called DOSCO, Inc. The company deals in precision machinery and manufacturing in San Antonio, Texas. I have had a conversation or two with the gentleman since but not prior. A constituent brought this letter to my attention. Let me read it into the record. It regards the Canada-U.S. free trade issue:
Dear Mr. Holtmann:
1 have watched with great interest the various Canadian political parties debate Canada-U.S. free trade issues. I understand that the Progressive Conservative Party is attempting to implement free trade. Hopefully, after receiving a strong mandate in the coming federal election, your Party will be able to implement free trade between our countries immediately.
DOSCO Manufacturing, Inc. is an old time "Aerospace Manufacturer." We have a 152,000 square foot facility on 33.5 acres. We support all U.S. departments of defence weapons systems utilized throughout the free world. I have tried (unsuccessfully) to sub contract several million dollars worth of contracts in Canada over the past couple of years.
The reason that I have been unsuccessful with the Canadian firms that I have been in touch with is that these firms are not able to obtain the funding required to support my contract requirements. The Canadian banks in the past were reluctant to grant adequate "lines of credit" to these firms to support U.S. contracting requirements. Nor were these firms able to obtain assistance from the Canadian Government to assist them in start-up costs, equipment purchases, etc. DOSCO Manufacturing, Inc. is prepared to provide several million dollars worth of manufacturing contracts to Canadian firms if these firms are able to support our effort in terms of quality, on time delivery and price.
For those of you in the New Democratic Party that is probably too complicated for you to understand. This is business talking, real business. The letter goes on:
A free trade agreement with the United States will not Americanize the Canadian people. I strongly believe that it will open new markets for all kinds of manufactured and related products for both countries. All business interests in Canada and the United States must rally and support this critical effort. We must become partners and together we will prosper in the years ahead. It is in the best interests of all concerned to ensure this trade agreement is finalized. The erosion of both Canadian and American industries must be stopped. Together we must become more aggressive in our markets. We must become more competitive and place continued emphasis on the "Quality" of our products "Quality" of service we provide.
Another area you might as well close your eyes and ears to because the NDP has never understood things like that. The letter goes on:
We must take "deep professional pride" in our day to day efforts towards these goals. Canadians and Americans are survivors. We must remain strong and flexible.
The fears which Canadian businesses have of large U.S. corporations are not well founded. Located at your own constituency is a business that is flourishing while, at the same time, competing with huge U.S. manufacturers such as FMC Corporation, Hobart Bros., Stewart and Stevenson Services (the largest Detroit diesel operation in the world) and many others.
1 know for a fact that in 1983 this business consisted of one man working out of his home in his kitchen and today employs probably in excess of 20 people. For more information concerning this great company, please contact Mr. Doug Eryou, President, Mid-Canada Equipment Sales. 1 have done business with Mr. Eryou since his company was founded. The quality of Mid-Canada's Manufacturing efforts and over all services is second to none. I have used his company "as a role model" for my own.
Mr. Holtmann, 1 believe in Canada-U.S. free trade and 1 comprehend the inherent unlimited benefits to both Mid-Canada and DOSCO. Accordingly, I wish you the best of luck in your campaign.
As I view this, there is an American company looking to Canada to find a manufacturing base for its products. We can compete. We are competing and we have done a tremendous job. We are a mature country. As the Prime Minister said earlier, we are not afraid to take on the world. We have the ability and we have the proven ability. We are not going to hide in a shell like the New Democrats and the Liberals want us to do.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Member and it concerns his opening comments. He extensively discussed the risk of threats and scare tactics in the campaign. He had a litany of complaints against the members of the New Democratic Party in particular, whose actions I would not pretend to justify, but also members of my Party who were alleged to have scared members of the public during the course of the campaign as though somehow that scared them into voting against the Government.
I was a candidate, as the Member well knows in the election, and I heard some things too. The Member should know that I heard of Conservative candidates saying that if the general public did not vote for this trade agreement, we would lose millions of jobs in Canada.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: That is true.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: And things were going to go to pieces. The extraordinary thing is I have lived in this country for a little over 40 years. We have not had a free trade agreement such as that on which we are voting tomorrow and we have not lost millions of jobs. Why suddenly would jobs disappear if we do not sign this agreement?
December 22, 1988


Mr. Hockin:: Because of protectionism.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Does the Government know something the rest of us do not know? If so, I would invite the Hon. Member to tell us.


Some Hon. Members:: Protectionism.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They must have some secret economic studies that show the country is going downhill under this administration. That was not made public in the election campaign and we were told millions of jobs were about to be lost if we did not sign the agreement.
I would like to hear the Hon. Member explain to the House why we were going to lose all these jobs if this agreement were not approved. It is one thing to suggest that there might not be certain jobs created but that was not the statement made. The statement made was that millions of jobs would be lost. I suggest to the Hon. Member that was striking terror into the hearts of Canadians in a desperate attempt to get them to vote for the current Government. It influenced the outcome of the election far more than any scare about any risk to pensions, medicare or anything else that was mentioned, certainly more than any of the stories with which we were regaled in the early part of the Hon. Member's speech.


Felix Holtmann: I am glad I have heard from the replacement of the Hon. Flora MacDonald, and, Sir, I do not think you will ever get your feet into her shoes, fill them well, or understand what you are doing.
Let me return to the subject. I wish to take the Hon. Member back and give him a little history. Four years ago in 1984 when the Conservatives were elected, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised "jobs, jobs, jobs". The Hon. Member shakes his head, obviously he remembers it well.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We have heard it all before.


Felix Holtmann: In every Budget brought in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), and the Leader of the New Democratic Party rose in their places in the House and predicted the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. In every case they were wrong. The reason the Liberals lost the election is that they have no credibility, and the Liberal Party has no credibility because it has never predicted anything right in the House of Commons.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We have not been wrong in the prediction of jobs created by the Government in four years. We have created 1,000 jobs every day since we were elected. Canadians understood that. If the Hon. Member checks back through his campaign, it was probably his Leader they did not believe any more. It was probably the New Democrats that they did not believe any more, because it was absolutely ridiculous.
The two opposition Parties basically think that Canadians are stupid. The Member accused this Party of promising to create millions of jobs over the years to come. He states that that is fearmongering. With all due respect to the Member opposite, when the United States Marines come in to take our energy, perhaps that is a little fearmongering; or that we are going to pollute all of Canada because there might be some new primary production, that is a little bit of fearmongering. That is really grasping for some reason to oppose the Government.
That is why we do not need a long debate on Bill C-2, because it is nonsense what Members opposite have been telling the House of Commons and the Canadian people for the last week and a half. They have heard it all before, and they do not want to hear it again. It is as simple as that.
I do not know if I am allowed to make a wager, Mr. Speaker, but if we called another election tomorrow we would fill up half those seats on the other side as well.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Unlike the Hon. Member on the other side of the House, my colleagues and I, including our Liberal colleagues, like to deal with facts rather than with hyperbole, inflammatory statements, and personal accusations. I wish to turn to some of those facts tonight.
The Member mentioned how good free trade will be for McCain Foods. I have an ad that was placed in major papers across the country that stated: "Free trade should be fair trade. The U.S. would not have signed the present agreement if their farm and factory workers were treated like our Canadian farmers and factory workers. There is nothing wrong with the concept of free trade, but this contract is a disaster for the agri-food industry in Canada". One of the signatories to that was a representative of McCain's.
I suggest to the Member opposite that his comments regarding the industry in Portage la Prairie may be modified somewhat. Through discussions with the representatives of The Western Producer, Mr. Archie McLean indicated that the McCain's plant may very

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
well be closed down in that area if the Free Trade Agreement is passed.
The Member also indicated the job creation potential regarding the Free Trade Agreement. Early in the discussions on the agreement the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated that free trade would create 350,000 new jobs. He then reduced that to 250,000. I believe it was further reduced.
The Prime Minister did not indicate that more than 800,000 Canadian workers were expected to lose their jobs. He said that approximately 7 per cent of the workforce could be expected to be dislocated. That translates into 800,000 job losses. It is simple arithmetic that when 800,000 is taken away from 350,000, it is not a ringing endorsement of the Free Trade Agreement.
How can the Hon. Member justify the job creation potential of the Free Trade Agreement when, in fact, John Orr of the Council of Canadians used Statistics Canada figures to indicate that the job loss potential of the Free Trade Agreement may amount to approximately 500,000 jobs. In fact, those figures were also suggested when the Minister of Employment stated that there could be a job loss that could exceed half a million jobs.
How can the Hon. Member justify his statements regarding the job creation potential when so many Canadian workers are facing job losses with this Free Trade Agreement?


Felix Holtmann: I will have to return to an issue that was discussed often in the House. When members of the NDP objected to the Auto Pact and suggested that that was going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, exactly the opposite happened. There is a very simple answer to the problem faced by the two opposition Parties. I would love it for them to predict once something that turns out right instead of wrong. It has never come out the way they have predicted in the last four years. With all due respect, through the Speaker I say to the Hon. Member that you are going about the same thing you did when you lost the election. You are trying to scare Canadians. Have a nice evening.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my constituents of Broadview-Greenwood. This is the second time in 50 years that they have elected a Liberal in Broadview- Greenwood. I would also like to let my friends know at the Pride of Erin, where we are holding our Christmas party tonight, that the reason I am not there is obvious.
My researchers put together a pretty good speech for me about three days ago. In the last few days I have listened to so many speeches that have been repetitive that I have decided to throw most of it out of the window.
I want to talk about my Liberal colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin). Two nights ago she made a terrific speech. It was one of the best that we have heard in the House. As reported at page 369 of Hansard the Hon. Member stated:
But there are those who wish to work and live out their days as true and proud Canadians, under the protection of a Government in control of their political and economic destinies.
Without being facetious or sarcastic, 1 say to the Hon. Members on the other side of the House that I hope they are right. Certainly I would not object to being wrong in this instance. 1 do hope, for the sake of Canada and its people, that they are right.
What was fascinating was that the Minister responsible for housing, for whom I have a lot of respect, was sitting across the hall and he said: "So do we hope we are right".
It was only when I heard that comment that I began to feel there was some real sincerity on the other side of this House in connection with this whole debate.
Like a lot of members on the other side, I am a businessman, and this place, for me, represents the nation's boardroom. And while I realize that Hon. Members opposite have won the election-and I do not want to refight it-we on this side are also board members; and even though you on the government side control the board, we have an obligation to state what we have been told by our constituents.
We have heard statistic after statistic about the number of votes received by one Member or another. The combined vote against free trade in my riding was almost 80 per cent. In fact, 10 days before polling day, it stood at 90 per cent, and then Mr. d'Aquino rolled in with his business sponsored ads, and I must tell you that they were very effective. It was a great job of communication.


An Hon. Member:: They told the truth.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I am not sure that they did tell the truth, and I think the Minister of State for Housing (Mr. McDermid) alluded to that the other evening.
December 22, 1988

My point is that we on this side have a legitimacy in putting forward in this place the views of our constituents.
Some two hours before listening to the speech of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, I listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), and I must say that I could not get over the man's logic. He talked about the fact that we on this side, in not supporting this deal, are showing a lack of confidence in Canada.
There are some parts of the Free Trade Agreement that I do like. One part that I do not like, however, is Chapter 16, which deals with foreign investment in Canada. By 1992, we will have unlimited, unregulated foreign investment on any acquisition under $150 million.
From 1980 to 1984, we saw almost $27 billion in investment come into this country, and that in the middle of the worst recession in our history and in the middle of the National Energy Program. That was regulated investment, where Canadian jobs were guaranteed and where investors were obliged to put a certain amount into research and development in an effort to get a world product mandate going.
We had all sorts of investment during that period. While we lost some deals, 99 out of 100 that were put across the table from us were accepted.
From 1984 to 1988 was a period in which we had the new spirit of Investment Canada. Quite frankly, 1 think that Investment Canada, as a public relations gesture, was a good thing. But, in four years we had some $40 billion worth of foreign investment come into this country, almost all of it unregulated. We were still doing all kinds of business, and now we go to a trade agreement with the U.S. under which investment will be virtually unregulated.
I do not understand the logic of the Minister of Finance when he makes the statement that we on this side have no confidence. To my mind, we show more confidence when we use the leverage we have to negotiate for senior management positions, where we negotiate for R and D, versus his approach where we throw all the regulations out the window.
The Minister of Finance then went on to compare the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement with the agreement between Australia and New Zealand. I couldn't believe it. He was talking about two countries that operate under the same British law. There is no comparison to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
be made between the situation which exists as between New Zealand and Australia and that which will exist between Canada and the U.S., the U.S. being one of the greatest powers in the world. I simply could not understand the man's logic.
That is one of the things that has troubled me about this whole debate. This Government loves making deals. However, when legitimate arguments are brought forward, it refuses to talk about the possibility of any amendment to those deals.
I know that many Hon. Members opposite are businessmen, and I respect the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) as a businessman. I know that he has been involved in many board meetings. We all know that when agreements are being discussed in such meetings and the legal advice is that the agreement under discussion is unclear, it is suspended while clarification is sought.
Why wouldn't we suspend the Free Trade Agreement until we got that clarity? Hon. Members on the government side represent two-thirds of the board. They control the board, but almost 60 per cent of the shareholders of this country, the citizens of this country, have some concerns about this Free Trade Agreement. They are voicing concerns about it, and I cannot understand why we do not take the time to clarify some of those concerns.
Most of the people in my riding are not anti-business. If they were anti-business, I would now not be sitting in this place. Neither are they anti-free trade, nor antiinvestment, nor anti-American. They are Canadians who realize that a deal can be cut two ways; that all investment in fact doesn't pay off. In any event they do not want it at any price. They want to take a look at the price.
The Minister of Finance, in his speech, said that Gerald Regan supports this deal; that John Bulloch supports this deal. I don't know whether Hon. Members opposite have looked at John Bulloch's survey, a survey to which only one-tenth of the membership responded. I have looked at it, and I can tell you that one of the first questions asked was something to the effect: "If you had the potential of increasing your business by almost 50 per cent, would you be in favour of free trade?"
Well, come on! Fet's get serious. I saw that survey, and quite frankly I do not think that Allan Gregg would approve of it as being something on which one would base qualitative or quantitative analysis.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I go back to 1984, when this Government was fresh in terms of its mandate. At that time the Business Council on National Issues, in one of its research papers, suggested to the Government that it should deindex pensions. I remember the attempt by the Minister of Finance to do that, and I also recall, as Hon. Members opposite will recall, that when things hit the fan, the first to desert the Government was Thomas d'Aquino and the Business Council on National Issues. That is something that was discussed in their caucus. They didn't want to hear anything further from him.
The point is, sometimes the hurt and the pressure of big business can take us on a course that we have not fully thought through.
I have talked to many of my business colleagues about this free trade deal, and I am finding that many have not in fact read the deal; that all they have read are selected excerpts.


An Hon. Member:: Not unlike the Minister for International Trade.


Dennis Joseph Mills: It is for that reason that I think we are getting ourselves into a little trouble.
The Government always refers to the view of the Economic Council of Canada.
I took a look at the committee hearings where Judith Maxwell appeared, and she admitted that this was a hypothetical model. She could not absolutely confirm that those 250,000 jobs would be guaranteed.
My point is that no one really knows how many jobs will be lost or gained, but we know that in the 1970s, Michigan, New York, and Ohio lost 17 per cent, 10 per cent, and 11 per cent of their manufacturing sectors respectively, while California and Texas gained 21 per cent and 31 per cent respectively.
We know of all kinds of people in this country who are looking toward those markets in the southern parts of the States where there are no corporate income taxes, no personal taxes, no payroll taxes, low unemployment insurance premiums, and so on. How will our companies compete when 12 American states paid minimum wages last year ranging from $1.40 an hour to $3.00 an hour; when nine sunbelt states have no minimum wage laws at all; and the lowest paying province in Canada, Alberta, pays $4.50 an hour?
We all know the statistics but, ladies and gentlemen, I want to make this point. I listened to the Prime Minister attentively today. He talked about our signing over 200 protocols and agreements with the United States. Why could he not pick up the phone to the President, and we know he has this tremendous access to the President, and say to him: "Mr. President, I want to talk to you about another protocol or agreement. It would go something like this. In light of our general election there are a few areas of this free trade deal where we need some simple clarification. These areas include regional subsidies, social programs, and the environment. The Minister of the Environment spoke specifically about water being excluded. We have told Canadians repeatedly that these areas are not affected by the deal, and by way of a one-page special protocol agreement attached to the Free Trade Agreement we can accomplish what we were mutually trying to do, with minimal confusion".
My sense is that the Prime Minister could probably make that happen, and I cannot understand why there is this incredible reluctance to get a one-page protocol attached to the Free Trade Agreement. I cannot understand it. We can quote selectively, repeatedly, and then we can all walk away from this. You who control the board would have done your duty, but even though we are the minor players on this board, we still speak for over 50 per cent of the Canadian public and we could at least say we have done our duty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Jordan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on a fine speech, one of the best I have heard in the House in the short time I have been here. He used an interesting statistic, and I wonder if I could get him to elaborate on it a little.
He was talking about 250,000 new jobs which are supposed to be created over the course of the next ten years. I wonder if he has thought how that would apply to a town of about 5,000 people. Could we put it on a mathematical basis and see how many jobs that would create? If he has not done that, I have done it for him.
If that were done for the Town of Gananoque, in my riding, we would see a total of six new jobs being created. I have cautioned the town. I said that they should not go out and expropriate a lot of new land in neighbouring municipalities because they are not going to need it on the basis of six new jobs in the Town of Gananoque, assuming we can even keep the number of jobs we currently have.
December 22, 1988

I want to ask my colleague if he has extrapolated any of those figures to any of the municipalities in his jurisdiction? If he does, I am sure he will find the figures to be exactly the same. That is not really a great reason for jubilation in the ranks of the unemployed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) keeps referring to all these think tanks, economic councils, and so on. When we get into committee these people all admit that these are hypothetical situations. I have not done the calculation my colleague talked about, but I want to go back to the Minister of Finance and his speech the other day, when he said the standard of living in Canada would never be higher than after this deal.
How can he make that statement and in the same breath be constantly preoccupied with adjustment programs? It is not logical. I cannot tell you specifically, but I think we are fooling ourselves by quoting selectively.
[Translation\


Mr. Jean Corbeil (Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I take part in the debate today because I know that my remarks will faithfully reflect the mandate given to me by the electors of the riding of Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies.
I say that with conviction, Mr. Speaker, because I also know that the decision made last November 21 by the people of Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies shows how very aware they are of the importance to us in Montreal East of the innumerable benefits which will flow from the free trade deal with respect to the revitalization of our sector.
On that glorious day of November 21, Mr. Speaker, my constituents chose to spend their efforts and energy to work towards a more prosperous future by voting massively for the Progressive Conservative candidate. This is because their instinct told them there was only one team qualified to steer Canada towards the harbour of prosperity over the competitive sea of North American trade. Of course, that team could only be the Progressive Conservative Party!
Therefore I want to express my sincere thanks to the residents of the beautiful riding of Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies for honouring me with their support. I can assure them that I will work tirelessly on their behalf during this first mandate and during all the others to come.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not remind our colleagues of the Liberal Party and of the socialist Party that the riding I represent in this House is highly industrialized. In fact, in the city of Anjou where I was mayor for 15 years, there is an industrial park where more than 350 industries of various sizes are located. In the district of Riviere-des-Prairies, which is home to more than half of the total population of my constituency, there is also a lot of industrial activity.
Before making a final decision about leaving the comfort of a mayoralty which had given me so much satisfaction in the past 15 years I wanted to find out the business community's reaction to the free trade deal which was to be the main issue of the impending election.
Mr. Speaker, I met with dozens of manufacturers full of the entrepreneurial zeal typical of modern Quebec and free of any past economic inferiority complex. They are builders set out to conquer America, Mr. Speaker, not industrial barons or social magnates descending on Earth from some mysterious galaxy. They are the children of ordinary folk who worked hard to educate this new generation, a generation of determined, selfconfident and dynamic university graduates, primed to take on the exciting challenges of today's world.
Mr. Speaker, I discussed free trade with these owners and managers of small and medium-sized businesses. Not one of them feared free trade. On the contrary, these men and women wanted to see the agreement implemented as soon as possible. The previous Parliament suffered through 350 hours of pessimistic rantings by opposition prophets of doom and gloom. These same prophets later conducted a 51-day scare campaign, a veritable assault on the minds of Canadian men and women. The people of Canada rejected their allegations with a majority vote. Now, the present Parliament is again being made to suffer through an incongruous medley of lucubrations which has lasted days already.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the media and the public have become embarrassingly indifferent to the business conducted in the House of Commons as a result of negative ravings which have emanated from the two opposition parties since the start of the session.
In the face of this behaviour, Mr. Speaker, the people in my riding of Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies and throughout Quebec, have clearly indicated to the Liberals and the NDP that they did not believe their bogeyman stories and would never believe them.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I am particularly proud, Mr. Speaker, to be one of the 63 members that Quebec has elected to the Parliament of Canada to ensure the rapid passing of the free trade legislation. In my opinion, the men and women of Quebec showed new confidence in their ability to compete, not only east and west across this vast and beautiful country of ours, but also south to that captivating land called the United States of America.
In an effort to reassure our sorry detractors and attempt to convince them to overcome their baleful distrust, might I remind them, Mr. Speaker, that before the free trade negotiations began, our Government gave its expert negotiators explicit instructions in regard to our social and regional development programs. These programs were absolutely not to be negotiated under the Free Trade Agreement because they are distinguishing and essential features of Canadian society and constitute the fabric of our specificity.
During their many arduous meetings, the Canadian and U.S. negotiators attempted to draw up a code to regulate various subsidies and thus create an appropriate setting for healthy bilateral trade relations between their respective countries.
Since an understanding to that effect could not be reached, Section 119.07 of the deal provides that we will attempt to develop rules on the use of Government subsidies over the next five to seven years. On a number of occasions, the Prime Minister of Canada, our Prime Minister, has been extremely clear in repeating that Canadian negotiators will be under the same instructions for future negotiations of the subsidy code. In brief, Mr. Speaker, no compromise is nor will be considered concerning our social programs and our regional development initiatives. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, either country may of course implement any internal trade laws it may pass. However, decisions concerning countervail and antidumping duties from now on will be reviewed by the binational dispute settlement tribunal. This is a worthwhile achievement because it must also be stressed, Mr. Speaker, that in order to obtain a favourable ruling on a countervail case, a country must show that the subsidies offered by the exporting country are unfair and may cause serious harm to an industry in the importing country.
We have been deluged by the sinister rhetoric from Hon. Members opposite since the beginning of this session, Mr. Speaker. Our colleagues often neglected to mention, inadvertently I should hope, that those rules are absolutely in line with those under the GATT. Because under the GATT, there are specific tests and a
rigid procedure on those matters, and those structures are included unchanged in the Free Trade Agreement. A countervail case is extremely difficult to substantiate, as demonstrated by the fact that although the United States always had the right to argue that social and regional development programs were unfair trade subsidies, they could not succeed even once in proving their case. There is a whole world of difference, Mr. Speaker, between having the power to exercise that hypothetical right, and the cold reality of court decisions.
The history of current trade between Canada and the United States is ample proof of that, because we only experienced a single case of that sort. It dates back to 1985, when an action brought against the Canadian fishing industry claimed countervail duties against Canadian fishermen and the unemployment insurance program for fishermen. The action was dismissed by the lower trade tribunal of the U.S. Department of Trade.
And as supplementary information, I would stress that on May 1st, 1988, the American trade representative, Mr. Clayton Yeutter, stated he did not believe the matter of subsidies or social programs would ever become a problem. Although that question was raised in Canada by we know who, it is his contention that this was never raised at the negotiating table and should not be raised in the future. Mr. Yeutter also added that subsidy decisions must be made under the framework of what has always been acceptable at the international level. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, under international law, programs are not considered to be subsidies if they are of universal application. There is hardly any need to emphasize that our social programs, including medicare, unemployment insurance, pensions, etc., are offered to everybody in the population, which means they are in no way subject to countervail, unless in the view of certain warped minds.
Mrs. Judy Bello, Advisor to the U.S. trade representative Mr. Yeutter, also is of that view. According to her, American firms would be losing their time with such allegations of trade distorting subsidies. The Government of Canada, as a whole, and our Prime Minister, in particular, have been very clear in setting out Canadian objectives for negotiations regarding subsidies.
The Agreement shall respect our commitment to eliminate regional disparities and promote economic development throughout Canada. As the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has repeatedly stated and proven in this very Chamber, Canada's economy is remarkably flexible. It is constantly adapting to social
December 22, 1988

changes, developing new approaches to remain internationally competitive and seeking new opportunities.
Over the past four years, Mr. Speaker, this Progressive Conservative Government has recorded achievements in the area of job creation which have made it the envy of the entire industrialized world.
During the last election campaign, many voters in my riding asked me about two specific points in the Free Trade Agreement. The first thing they wanted to know was what effect the involvement of U.S. firms on Canadian soil would have on the Canadian economy. Secondly, they wanted to know whether the Progressive Conservative Government could maintain the job creation record it had achieved between 1984 and 1988 if re-elected and for how long. To the first of their questions, I replied that about five million Canadians changed jobs each year and, of those, over one and a half million do not go back to their former employers. In 1986, for example, 381 plants each employing more than 100 people, were shut down, leading to 49,000 lay-offs. During that same year, thousands of new jobs were created through the opening of 326 new plants as well as the expansion and modernization of existing plants. The end result was that many more jobs were created than were lost.
Retraining and adjustment, Mr. Speaker, are natural occurrences in our economy. Managing change is the key to increased prosperity provided by this Progressive Conservative Government. Since our party came to power in 1984, the unemployment rate has dropped steadily, year after year.
In addition, our worker adjustment programs such as the Canadian Jobs Strategy, proved most effective in helping people laid off as a result of plant closures. All government adjustment programs are currently being reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Adjustment to ensure that they meet the needs of Canadian workers who may be affected by transfers.
In reply to the second question, I told the men and women of my riding that all of the skilled economists who had examined the various aspects of the Free Trade Agreement admitted that some foreign firms might decide to shut down their Canadian operations and others not to open a Canadian branch because of the phase-out of tariffs under the Agtreement. However, each and every one of them stated that these possibilities should not be assessed through the grossly distorted
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
prism that is created when one examines an issue with a closed mind.
Historically, foreign firms did not open branches in Canada simply to avoid high tariffs. They did so also because of the growing Canadian market, the proximity of certain U.S. markets, lower production and distribution costs and higher productivity rates of Canadian workers, and in doing so, created thousands of jobs.
Foreign subsidiaries, Mr. Speaker, are just as active in international trade as Canadian companies: they export 25 per cent of what they produce. In fact, the multinationals account for 70 per cent of trade between Canada and the United States. Furthermore, Canadian firms established in the United States buy five times more from their Canadian parents than what they export to Canada through their production facilities in the United States.
The Free Trade Agreement will afford Canada greater and more secure access to the American market and this, Mr. Speaker, will encourage plants here in Canada and foreign plants of Canadian companies to modernize their operations, to take advantage of economies of scale and to specialize to meet the needs of an enlarged market comprizing over 250 million consumers rather than one restricted to 25 million consumers. And we must not lose sight of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that southern Ontario, the heart of the Canadian manufacturing industry, is closer to New York than are Detroit and Chicago.
Those who oppose the Free Trade Agreement lost no time in pointing out that it was to blame for the Gillette plant closure. However, Mr. Speaker, any honest observer will recognize that Gillette was obviously rationalizing its operations globally by closing plants in the United States, in Europe and in Latin America as well as in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this Government expects that over 150 billion dollars in new investments will be made in Canada by Canadian businesses in the course of the coming year.
For example, Du Pont Canada has recently announced a 50 per cent increase in capital spending, which will reach 156 million dollars in 1989, in anticipation of the Free Trade Agreement.
R & M Metal of Montreal has decided to go ahead with investment plans totalling some 19 million dollars for 3 new plants in Ontario and Quebec, thus creating

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
225 new jobs. The company is doing so in anticipation of the Free Trade Agreement.
In Toronto, Canadian Thermos will create 102 new jobs by expanding one of its plants at a cost of 2.5 million dollars, also in anticipation of the Free Trade Agreement.
In La Presse of Tuesday, December 20, 1988, Mr. Jaime Benehimol, CEO of Ogivar, a Quebec manufacturer of IBM-compatible top-quality micro-computers, said, and I quote:
The Free Trade Agreement scheduled to take effect on January 1 will give my company a more secure access to the American market. I predict that Ogivar will do 15 to 20 per cent of its business south of the border.
And those are only a few examples of the kind of statements we can expect to hear in the months and years to come.
If every plant opening and plant expansion cannot be directly attributed to the Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that, by the same token, the Agreement cannot be blamed for every plant closing. However, it will encourage most American-owned manufacturing companies established in Canada to increase their investments in our country. They will stay here mainly because it is a good place to do business.
It is the kind of environment that the Government led by our Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, has been creating for the past four years and it is in that direction that he intends to guide our country on the eve of the 21st century.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the depressed Hon. Members opposite, I invite them to read in the December 26 issue of MacLean's magazine an article written by seasoned journalist Peter C. Newman and entitled:
"A study in contrast between two at the top". [Translation]
The last paragraph of that article is particularly important and reads as follows:

"It is difficult to compare two such different politicians, Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Trudeau, and Brian Mulroney's historical record is far from complete, but so far he has earned much higher political marks than his
predecessor and this year-end seems like an appropriate moment to give him due credit".

Mr. Speaker, that is why Canadians gave such strong support to the Progressive Conservative Party and why, on November 21, 1988, they decided to renew the 1984 mandate they had given to Brian Mulroney and his team, which was to steer a challenging course for this country. Mr. Speaker, our destiny is too noble to be left in the hands of mistrusting people who are unable to entertain a positive outlook. In return, the Government of the Progressive Conservative Party has asked the people of Canada to face up to the challenge of realism, dynamism and confidence.

"Let the people decide," someone said. The people have decided, so we are going to move along with free trade and build a better Canada for our sons and daughters.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has the floor for a question or a comment.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to welcome our new colleague in the House. Back home, the former mayor of Anjou is a well known and highly respected personality. His presence in the House is a plus.
I would like to ask him a question concerning the Gillette workers. You mentioned the fact that free trade did not have anything to do with that change, with the closing of the plant, but that it is the result of the rationalization of Gillette's work force on a world-wide scale. I agree with you.
But there are still two questions about this kind of situation. First, what is the responsibility, the political will with respect to the major companies, the multinationals which have cornered more than 72 per cent of our market? Canadian consumers like Gillette products, they readily use them, and these best selling products are made by Canadian workers.
Is it not time for the Government to express its political will to the effect that the companies which have grabbed more than 72 per cent of our market have a responsibility towards the workers who made these products, and with respect to the well-being of our society, of our workers, and that responsibility would be to keep their plants operating? That is the first part of
December 22, 1988

my question, now comes the second part: What are we going to do about the 560 people who have now been laid off or dismissed? What have we done to prepare for this sudden influx of jobless people on the labour market? Do you not believe that we ought to have plans of action for the men and women who have now been laid off?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, whenever a plant shuts down in Canada and that Canadian men and women are thrown out of work, whatever region of the country they inhabit, it is a sad situation and, of course, our society must respond to such issues and attempt to find solutions.
However, there was a Prime Minister whom the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) would know, I am sure, and who once said that the Government has no business in the bedrooms of Canadian men and women.
1 would suggest that the same thing applies at the commercial level. If the Government of Canada were to be expected to go in each plant and each company to take over management. . . And I do not think that that is what the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) wants because we would be forced to conclude that the Liberal Party has adopted both the philosophy and the methods advocated by the socialists. I do not believe we have reached that point yet.
Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the governe-ment to ensure that businesses in Canada comply with Canadian laws. The responsibility of the government remains the same regardless of the location or size of these business, of whether they employ 10, 50, or several thousand people, or whether they belong to Canadians, Americans, Japanese or Europeans.
Sometimes a business decides that it has to close down. I do not know of many businesses and certainly not of any the size of Gillette that would close down a plant, branch, head office or sales office simply on a whim. Such decisions are business decisions the purpose of which is to avoid bankruptcy or the closure of all operations and the lay-off of an even greater number of workers.
The Government must ensure that these companies comply with Canadian laws and regulations and that workers who are temporarily laid off have access to the various social programs, such as unemployment insurance benefits and adjustment programs, which are not threatened by the Free Trade Agreement. This, the Government has done admirably. Displaced workers must have access to all adjustment programs available
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
in Canada so that they can rejoin the labour force and maintain the dignity that comes with employment and a valid contribution to the prosperity of Canada.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned Clayton Yeutter in regard to the discussion on subsidies. I remind the Member that Clayton Yeutter, as Trade Representative, was also the individual who said after Canada signed the deal that Canadians did not understand what they had signed and that in 20 years Canada would be sucked into the U.S. economy. 1 think the comments he made show very clearly the U.S. agenda.
The Hon. Member commented on subsidies specifically with regard to regional development programs. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated earlier that Canada's regional development programs would remain untouched under the trade deal. That is at least a halftruth.
Admittedly, the trade deal does not name specifically these programs. It does call for the two countries to establish over the next five to seven years a comprehensive definition of just what constitutes an unfair trade practice or an unfair subsidy.
Members of the House know very well that the United States has already challenged many of our regional development programs as unfair trade practices. They are very likely to continue to do so in the next five to seven years of negotiations. Let me mention a few: The industrial regional development programs; federal and provincial agricultural programs, such as the Farm Income Insurance Program in British Columbia; agricultural marketing boards; export development programs; and even the concept of interest rebates and loan guarantees, low interest loans for small businesses.
In light of the fact that this deal has so many loose ends attached with regard to the comprehensive definition of what constitutes a subsidy, why has the Government gone into a trade negotiation when so much is left to be determined over the next five to seven years? It should have been locked up before that deal was signed.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend that I can persuade the Hon. Member opposite that the Governe-ment took the right decision since this matter has been discussed here in this House for over 350 hours in the previous Parliament. There was an election campaign

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
that lasted 51 days during which these people carefully avoided discussing specifically about the Free Trade Agreement. Instead, they launched an assault against the very minds of adult men and women of Canada, and especially the most vulnerable people, Mr. Speaker, by using scare tactics on the issue of old age security pensions and social benefits. So, during the few minutes I have left, I will not try and persuade him that it was indeed justified. However, our Government successfully concluded this Free Trade Agreement that the Canadian Parliament will officially ratify in a few hours.
I would simply like to tell him that with respect to the negotiations-

With respect to the negotiations on subsidies, the Government has made it clear that an essential Canadian objective will be to conclude an agreement which takes full account of our commitment to eliminate regional economic disparities and encourage economic development in all regions of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, this Government is firmly committed to ensuring economic prosperity in Canada from coast to coast and to ensuring that each and every region of Canada benefits from this economic prosperity. This will only be achieved with the implementation of a free trade agreement. This is the central thrust, the cornerstone of our party's program and we will have it adopted. We only have a few hours left during which we will be subjected to the hogwash of these people who stubbornly refuse to understand.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here tonight to deliver a speech on the trade Bill. Before I start that, I want to congratulate the Speaker on being re-elected to the chair. It is a position that he certainly deserves. He has done a remarkable job and has been extremely fair at all times.
I would like to congratulate you, too, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment as Deputy Speaker, and to congratulate the other two Speakers associated with committee stage. I want to say to the new Members who have been elected to this Thirty-fourth Parliament how impressed I and the Members who have been around here for a while are with the quality and the talent that has been elected to this Thirty-fourth Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: They have certainly been an example to us in this debate by being willing to stand up and express the views of their constituents. I am sure that many of them will have a good, long career in the House.
I want to say to the new Members at the outset, do not let hateful partisan politics destroy some excellent friendships that they will have the potential to build here in the House of Commons. I see at the end of the Chamber on the other side the Hon. Member from the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia. He was elected for the first time the same day I was. He is still here. The Hon. Member for Victoria Haliburton (Mr. Scott) was elected on the same day, as was Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand). I think we have carried on good friendships over the years, and we make more as new Members come into the House. I say to them, cultivate that because they will be long-lasting, valued friendships.
The new Members can build bridges in this place with a great sense of decency. When there is a crowd of people together every day, there is always room for a sense of decency. They have the power to set that example and to build decorum in the House of Commons.
I am very mindful of the time I gave my maiden speech in this House. I was followed by the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who praised me for my remarks. As a result, I got national coverage. There was another reason why the right hon. gentleman did that. One of my uncles was a poll captain for him in Prince Albert, and I am sure that John, in his good, old political style, wanted to impress the good people to whom I was related in his riding of Prince Albert.
I think all of us have to take a look at the decorum in this House. I noticed in this debate that new Members no longer have been granted the right and the privilege to rise in the House to speak for the first time without interference or interruption. I think that is something we have to take a good look at and try to improve, because they should have that right.
Emotions, as we all know, have been riding high in this House since December 12. That is only natural, coming off the hustings and being back here with only three weeks off in between. The cooling-off period from now until we come back will, I hope, have a positive effect on the decorum in the House.
I want to comment on the heat of the election campaign and on the Canada Elections Act. The trade
December 22, 1988

debate throughout the election created a lot of heat, a lot of strong debate and, of course, a lot of emotions in the business community. On Tuesday last, 30 days following the election, the Members of this House had to submit a record of donations to their campaigns. While we are all required to live within the parameters of the Canada Elections Act, we all know very well that there were millions and millions of dollars poured into advertising in the latter days of the election campaign and that those people who spent that money will not have to report that to Elections Canada.
Are we to have an elections Act that will allow multimillion dollar corporations to slap ad after ad, regardless of quality, on national television to swing elections while the candidates running for public office must themselves remain super clean? There must be a formula worked out whereby interest groups will have to either funnel their funds through one of the political parties or be accountable in some other way to Elections Canada. Otherwise we will not have fair election campaigns, regardless of what legislation we pass with regard to election reform.
I want to thank my own constituents in the Ottawa Valley in the new riding of Renfrew. In my view, it should still be called the riding of Renfrew-Nipis-sing-Pembroke because that is precisely what it is. Sometimes you have a hard time explaining this to people who make these decisions. I certainly did on two occasions.
I want to thank the people of the federal riding of Renfrew for returning me to this House. I have always taken this job very seriously. I appreciate mixing with people who are interested in the future of this nation. I have met some very interesting and intelligent people in this place.
At the age of 14 my greatest desire was to be a Member of Parliament. The people of the riding of Renfrew and the riding of Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke before and the riding of Renfrew-North, and Nipissing-East and prior to that, the old riding of Renfrew North have given me the privilege of having that lifetime wish. That makes it all the more reason that I am so grateful to them at this time.
We have a great chance as Members of Parliament to relate to the people across this nation. We have a great responsibility as we hold that public office to make them
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
feel that we are their representative, that we are interested in their problems and in their aspirations which they express to us from time to time.
I am very concerned at this time about the path that our country is now taking. The election is over and a majority has been elected to bring in the trade deal. 1 still hold very deeply the concerns that lie ahead. In matters of sovereignty, in matters of regional development at which a serious look must be taken now that we are into this new process, because no matter how you spell it -I am glad the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) is here tonight-it is going to affect regional development in Canada because of that famous word "subsidization". He knows as we do that forest industries have been affected and cannot get regional development because if they receive money to start up, it means, in the eyes of the Americans, that they were being subsidized. The Americans would complain and take action.
I suppose too, Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian nationalist I am concerned about the continentalism nature of what we are doing here in this Parliament during these two weeks. This nation was built on an east-west transportation system. Quebec itself was very anxious to join Confederation in 1867 because it did not want to be usurped by the then gung-ho American nation in its very rambunctious mood following the years of the Civil War in the United States. Quebec wanted to preserve its language, religion and culture. Quebec willingly came forward and joined three other provinces to begin the nation Canada.
Today as we see the east-west roots given up in favour of north-south continentalism, it will be interesting to see how this affects the social fabric, the culture and so on of that province in Canada.
Sectors of the forest industry are suffering because of what I would like to call the tinkering and manoeuvring of the Government in relation to trade. I am speaking here about the 15 per cent export tax placed on softwood lumber. This deal was brought in overnight without warning. The former Minister for International Trade was patting the Government of Ontario on the back saying: "Way to go, fellows. You are really hanging in there for us and putting up a good fight." They were willing to take it to court. At midnight, on the news, the rug had been pulled right out from underneath the Province of Ontario. A Memorandum of Understanding had been signed which resulted in a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber in Canada.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Carnell Crosbie: The provinces all agreed except for Ontario.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Minister is starting to shout across the floor. I am not going to get into that debate with him.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not shouting at all.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I have a case to present to him tonight that I think he should consider very carefully. I am delivering it to him in the sense of a representation on the floor of this House because there are several Members on this side of the House who have met with our business people in the softwood lumber industry. They are hurting, and this message has to be taken seriously.


John Carnell Crosbie: Take it to the Government of Ontario where it belongs.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Ontario Government did not create the problem. This Government created the problem and it better get on with solving it.


John Carnell Crosbie: This Government did not.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: If you are going to increase stumpage fees in the Province of Ontario to make up the difference of that 15 per cent export tax today, the Province of Ontario which now collects $25 million on stumpage fees per year would have to increase that to $80 million, a more than 300 per cent increase. That is totally unacceptable and unreasonable. The Minister should renegotiate the Memorandum of Understanding.
The Government, it seems, no longer speaks for Canada. The agreement speaks for Canada. The trade agreement speaks for Canada.
We had more freer trade and less small business set asides in the defence field with the United States in the 1950s than we have today. The Pentagon only allows certain contracts to go outside the United States. Supply and Services officials say nothing has changed under this agreement, that it is still the same. Americans can still bid on our defence contracts. We had more free trade back in the 1950s than we have today.
Let us take a look at the farm community. I will give just one example. I picked this one out because it deals with the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. If my memory serves me correctly-I stand to be corrected because I am not absolutely certain-the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act is another Act passed about this time of the year. A group of us came back between Christmas and New Year's and passed the farm Bill.
This one set up the various farm marketing agencies. In any case, we had an amendment which was was put off because of closure, time allocation, on second reading of the Bill. We wanted to amend Bill C-2 by adding thereto immediately after line 7 on page 4 the following clause:
For greater certainty nothing in this Act or in the agreement shall in any way diminish, reduce or alter the objects, duties and powers of the bodies established or pursuant to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
The amendment would protect national farm marketing agencies or supply-management in Canada by maintaining the authority of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and not give it away. The Act currently provides supply-management policy for poultry and dairy products. The Act can also be used to introduce supply-management and national marketing for other commodities if and when a majority of the producers of the commodity in question so desires.
I want to go immediately from that example of the farm community to the lumber issue. In 1972 the Canadian and United States Governments agreed to remove all lumber tariffs and establish common species, grade and engineering specifications for their lumber.
In the mid-1980s the United States lumber industry called for countervailing duties against Canadian lumber on the grounds of low stumpage rates-the fees that companies pay to provincial Governments for the right to cut trees on public land-were a form of disguised subsidy.
The signing of the softwood lumber agreement on December 30, 1986, also known as the Memorandum of Understanding, resulted in a 15 per cent tax on the export of certain softwood lumber products from Canada to the United States. The effective date of the export charge was then set at January 8, 1987, and that is when the problem started. However, the agreement contained so many exceptions that most lumber enterprises were confused. This confusion pushed 25 lumber manufacturers to form a coalition to sue the federal Government. That coalition claimed that it was economically discriminated against under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The coalition stated that its members had to pay the tax, while 20 of their competitors got exemptions. It asked for damages and compensation in excess of $10 million. In that instance there were some who did not have to pay, and others who did. Obviously, that is what
December 22, 1988

the Minister for International Trade calls justice, if we are to take seriously what he stated tonight.
I have here an example from one of my industrial people who stated:
You and your colleagues have certainly heard enough from the solid wood industry across Canada regarding the devastating effect of Bill C-37 on their industry. We as a company do not promote the abdication of replacement measures to satisfy the U.S. protectionists. The inequities created by this legislation can only be exacerbated by this approach. We do, however, appeal to our elected representatives to find a way to stop the bleeding in the White and Red Pine industry before it is too late. The casualties are piling up.
He goes on to state:
Our. .. operation has probably been hit harder than most because we had geared our 1976-1977 rebuilding program and product policy to the U.S. market. We developed a good customer base and distribution system in the Northeastern States.
Our volume to the U.S. has dropped from 60 per cent to 39 per cent and the effect of our redirection of volume to the domestic market has caused a glut here at home and prices have dropped to unacceptable levels for everyone.
You are giving me the high sign, Mr. Speaker. I have some other things that I would like to put on the record. Eastern white pine has a traditional distinct place in the United States market, and that is a case for white and red pine product exclusion from the proposed U.S. duty on Canadian softwoods.
I would be glad to give this list to the Minister for International Trade to help him fight the battle.
The volume of eastern white pine exported to the United States is diminishing, and in effect is insignificant. It is $72 million, over $14 billion, or one-half per cent. That is what is being fought over in the United States. It was never the intention-and this is the imp tant thing that I want the Minister for International Trade to hear-of the petitioners for countervailing duty to have the duty applied to eastern white pine. Eastern white pine does not impact on the price of U.S. pine species. This is evidenced by the fact that the United States pine prices did not increase upon the imposition of the preliminary 15 per cent duty on October 16, 1986. Wood costs to eastern Canadian white pine mills is comparatively high, and cannot be regarded as subsidized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent in the House to give the Hon. Member two more minutes to complete his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I thank all Members of the House for allowing me to put two more items on the record.
The unwarranted U.S. duty is causing unnecessary and devastating injury to the eastern Canadian producers. The already tenuous margins in this business are eliminated and the survival of the industry is at stake. Because of the insignificant volume and co-mingling of species, red pine should also be excluded from any duty.
I thank Hon. Members of the House for allowing me to complete my speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Shuswap.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Although it may be presumptuous of me, as a new member of the House I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his comments regarding the challenge faced by new members in the Chamber. It has been a fairly active two weeks. Certainly, with regard to maiden speeches, it has been rather difficult for some Members to deliver those. It is a daunting challenge for all of us. I appreciate the comments made by my Hon. colleague in that regard.
I share the concerns of the Hon. Member regarding the third party advertising and political activity that has obviously taken place in this past campaign.


John Carnell Crosbie: Like the union movement.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: The Member indicated that money does speak very loudly, and that certainly was the case in this campaign.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, from the CLC and all your union buddies.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Big money made itself very well heard in the 1988 election. In future, changes must be made to ensure that fairness does prevail.
With regard to the rather vituperative and inflammatory rhetoric that has often dominated this Chamber in the past two weeks, I am sure that many Canadians watching must wonder what they are paying us to do. When they listen to the discussions and the tenor of the debate, it gives them every reason to tend to lose confidence in the proceedings in the Chamber.
Earlier the Hon. Member mentioned that it is an honour to serve the House. It certainly is an honour for all new Members. I feel excited about it. In the election campaign many of us were called liars throughout the campaign. I agree with the Member that that type of

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
rhetoric has no place either in the Chamber or anywhere in the political forum.
In conclusion, on behalf of the new Members, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his comments and to reflect upon them tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions and comments, the Hon. Minister for International Trade.


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to congratulate the Hon. Member, certainly not on his maiden speech, but on his remarks. He mentioned a problem that is one that we certainly need to look at, which is the question of extracurricular spending by other than political parties during the course of an election campaign.
As I remember the situation, the Government attempted to make some moves in the direction of reforming the Elections Act before the election took place, and it could not receive any co-operation from the two opposition Parties. Perhaps my memory is a little rusty, but there was no agreement between the three Parties as to what changes should be made to the Elections Act.
On this occasion the Hon. Member does not agree with the position taken by most Canadian businesses and industries with respect to the question of free trade, and because most Canadian businesses supported the Free Trade Agreement and did the right and patriotic thing by demonstrating their support, the Hon. Member does not agree with that, and he feels that it should be looked into.
Well, I think it should be looked into as well-not just because of abuses by the corporate community but because of the abuses by the Canadian labour movement, which forks over a large part of the dues collected from union members to the New Democratic Party, a Party heavily supported by the labour movement.
Just imagine Canadian businessmen and businesswomen daring to express their views during an election campaign. Why, if one is a business person, one shouldn't have a view at all. Business people should just creep around the country apologizing for being industrialists, apologizing for creating employment. One certainly shouldn't express one's views publicly or pay for advertisements if one is a business person. No, that would be a terrible thing to do. But one can be a member of the labour movement hierarchy in this country and do just that. The labour movement does not get the
permission of its membership, the rank and file of the unions in this country, as to what it does with the funds collected.
The unions take the dues of their members, many of whom are Liberals, many of whom are Progressive Conservatives, and turn around and contribute to the New Democratic Party, and to the New Democratic Party only, for campaign spending. As well, the union hierarchy travels around the country making speeches on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
These people can be at the bargaining table with the Government negotiating a collective agreement while coming out publicly in support of candidates who are running against the governing Party.
We had Daryl Bean, the PSAC representative, involved in the election with my old friend Captain Morrissey Johnson. It is perfectly all right for the union hierarchy to get involved in that sort of thing. There is no conflict of interest involved in that. They can take the dues paid by the membership, and turn over a portion to the New Democratic Party. Yet, we never hear a word of protest from the New Democratic Party against that kind of injustice, against that kind of arbitrary treatment of moneys paid by the union rank and file in this country, moneys forked over to the New Democratic Party without any authorization whatsoever on the part of the union rank and file.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member for Renfrew (Mr. Hopkins) will agree that when we do have a look at this, that we have a long look at the abuses perpetrated by the labour leadership in this country, the abuses perpetrated by the Bob Whites and the Shirley Carr and the Nancy Riches of this country.
Nancy Riche was threatening to come into St. John's West and run against me, Mr. Speaker. I was expected to quake in my boots that this virtuoso of the Canadian labour movement, an individual originally from Newfoundland, was going to come down to St. John's West and run against me.


An Hon. Member:: Here comes the rhetoric.


John Carnell Crosbie: She thought better of it, Mr. Speaker; she did not come to St. John's West. But she was everywhere else in the country campaigning for the New Democratic Party.
Who was paying her salary? Why, it is paid out of moneys paid by Liberals, by Progressive Conservatives,
December 22, 1988

by Libertarians; out of moneys paid by people not interested in politics at all.
Their money is taken by the hierarchy of the labour movement and forked over to the New Democratic Party for use in election campaigns-and we see the results in the tattered remnants of the New Democratic Party that we see on the other side of the House. There are not too many of them in the House this evening because their Leader has lost all control over them. There is not even a handful in the Chamber this evening.
But, I digress.


Some Hon. Members:: Ho, ho!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member for Renfrew has raised a serious point. He is concerned about the softwood lumber industry, the plight of which certainly has to be reviewed.
That industry did well in 1987, but is not doing well now, and the prospects for 1989 are not as good as one would like them to be. As the Hon. Member will understand, there was a Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the provinces and the Government of Canada, with the Province of Ontario only disagreeing. While there was not over-all agreement, it was felt that, rather than incur a countervail tariff in the order of 15 per cent in the U.S., the moneys involved, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, should be retained in Canada through the imposition of an export tax imposed by the federal Government, with the proceeds of that tax being turned over to the provinces, or an increase in the provincial royalty.
British Columbia, which accounts for 70 per cent of all softwood lumber exports to the U.S., chose to go the route of a royalty increase, and it can adjust that royalty to account for exchange rate fluctuations. If the exchange rate changes, a quarterly adjustment can be made to the royalty rate.
However, the federal export tax cannot be adjusted to take account of exchange rate fluctuations.
Ontario opted for the export tax as opposed to going the royalty route, and it now seems that it might be more advantageous for Ontario to have gone the royalty route. I suggest that the Hon. Member approach the Government of Ontario on this as well. Certainly if the industry and the provinces wish to enter into discussions to review the situation, that can be done. It seems to me that it is something that will have to be reviewed in the next month or so.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am pleased to hear the Minister's offer to review it. Certainly, the Memorandum of Understanding should be reopened and discussed further. I point out that the industry was quite prepared to fight the legal battle on the countervail action, as was the Province of Ontario.
There is concern in British Columbia today because of the course of action chosen. It is not considered to be a perfect solution. There is a great deal of concern in the softwood lumber industry in British Columbia today about the course taken.
I appreciate the remarks of the Minister-and certainly I am glad I created such an interesting debate on the subject of the Canada Elections Act. It may be that we can get some action on that in the not too distant future as well.
The Minister insinuated that I was of the view that industrialists and corporate people should not have a view to express-and that is not what I said at all. Any Canadian citizen, regardless of his/her walk of life, can express a view, whether during an election campaign, or at any other time. That is a basic freedom. My point is that one should not have the right, and does not have the right, to go out and buy the views of other people during the course of an election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Macleod on debate.


Mr. Ken G. Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of participating in the debate on the motion for the third reading of Bill C-2. At the outset I should like to thank the voters of the new, although historically significant, federal riding of Macleod.
It is a real honour to have been chosen by the people of Macleod to represent them in the House of Commons. It is the area in which I was born and reared, and where my family roots are deep.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this historic debate. I look forward to sharing with my colleagues in this place some of the history of my corner of Canada, the southwestern corner of Alberta, tucked up against The Great Divide.
I share this not for any narrow political purpose but because the people of Macleod are a great example of the kind of people who will take advantage of the opportunities created by the Free Trade Agreement.

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The people of Macleod share a strong sense of history with many other Canadians. But because of our history, we Albertans appreciate certain values-which we hope all Canadians will seize and once again hold dear.
We in the riding of Macleod are close to our history. As a younger man I can remember marvelling at the depth of history in other parts of this country. I recall reflecting upon the fact that buildings can be found in St. John's, Halifax, or Montreal that are hundreds of years old. The oldest buildings remaining in my part of Canada are less than a century old.
I came to appreciate the value of being so close to our own history. I grew up in the company of people who, when they were building their lives, were building the history of my corner of Canada.
The advantage we take from that history is that we have acquired the values of our immediate forebearers, and it is those values-values of practical self-reliance, of courage, of perhaps bloody-minded determination- which will carry us through the years ahead.
As the son and a grandson of cattle ranchers who built their lives in the foothills of southern Alberta, I cherish those values-values which so many of us share. Above all else, we treasure the fierce spirit of selfreliance characterized by the hunters, the farmers, the ranchers, the oilmen, the lumbermen, and the coal miners who opened up our part of the country.
Let me go back first to the people who inhabited the mountains and the plains and the foothills, those who have so strongly influenced those of us who live in the riding of Macleod. The native peoples, primarily of the Blackfoot confederacy, lived a nomadic life which today is recognized in such historic sites as the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, near Fort Macleod. With a first class interpretive centre, this location is recognized by UNESCO as a world heritage site.
I should add that the natives of the plains benefited from unfettered trade with their neighbours long before other races arrived on the scene. Further, after the arrival of the non-natives, our communities had free trade with our American neighbours to our mutual benefit. That was when the means of supply was oxen wagons from Fort Benton, Montana, long before the CPR arrived.
As the new Member for the renewed historic riding of Macleod I cannot fail to mention Colonel James F.
Macleod who helped lead the Royal Northwest Mounted Police to the West. On behalf of the Dominion of Canada this force established law and order. It wasn't easy. The Americans had nothing to teach us, we did it in our own fair minded but determined Canadian manner using tact and diplomacy.
After Fort Macleod was founded in the autumn of 1874, a second fort was established. This second post, which has always suffered in the shadow of Fort Macleod, is that small community on the northern outskirts of my riding, locally known as Fort Calgary. Some of you may have heard of it.
Along the Macleod Trail between these two centres grew the communities of Dewinton, Okotoks, High River, Cayley, Nanton, Stavley, Claresholm and Granum. One of the landmark events in western development was the signing of treaty seven between Her Majesty the Queen and the native peoples of our area. Today the descendants of those natives have four reservations within the riding of Macleod. The Blackfoot are at Gliechen, the Peigan at Brocket, the Sarcee near Calgary and some of the Stoney or Assinaboine at Eden Valley. These people have had a proud but at times troubled history. However, I believe they have a strong future and I look forward to working with them to build our future together.
I mentioned many communities of Macleod and they are now looking forward with eager anticipation to implementation of the Free Trade Agreement. We need the economic diversification and the manufacturing jobs. The opportunities this agreement will bring are so important to our young people. We want to give them the choice to come back to our small communities and work where they were raised.
We all know the future will not necessarily be an easy ride. It never has been easy. We recall the loss of more than 60 lives when, at 4.10 a.m. on April 29, 1903, the face of Turtle Mountain in the Crowsnest Pass came tumbling down on a sleeping mining town. Today, the Frank Slide interpretive centre commemorates that tragedy, as well as the Hillcrest mine disaster and other significant events. It also pays tribute to the people from so many diverse nationalities who suffered through the trials and tribulations, the booms and busts of international coal markets. The people of the Crowsnest Pass understand perhaps all too well what tough times are. Many look forward to the FTA which will decrease the cost of mining equipment, making our coal more competitive in international markets.
December 22, 1988

We the people of Macleod are accustomed to taking risks to pursue our future and build our dreams. It was in May of 1914, in Turner Valley, when the well named "Dingman #1" came in, establishing the first major oil and gas discovery in Alberta. It was the richness of that field which built the foundation of the energy industry in western Canada. In the years that followed, selfreliant, risk-taking Albertans seized their opportunities and the communities of Turner Valley, Black Diamond, Naptha, Hartell, Little Chicago and Little New York grew and prospered. Little New York subsequently became Longview, and I am very proud of that community near which I was raised.
My point is those oil wells were not discovered by people who tried to hide behind protectionism or subsidies. Many of those wells, and much of our oil and gas industry, were built by ordinary Canadians, using money from wherever they could get it. They dared to take the risk and they dared to be successful.
I do not have time to elaborate on the colourful history of ranching in Macleod or on the achievements of dryland and irrigated farming such as is found in the County of Vulcan where wheat is king. However, I would like to pay tribute to some of the artisan talent which flourishes in many communities such as Bragg Creek and Pincher Creek. Many Members of this House have had the pleasure of eating good Alberta beef, or perhaps Glenwood cheese from my riding. The people of Macleod look outward for markets, ideas and challenges. No better example could be cited than the hosting of the Winter Olympic ski events at Nakiska in Kananaskis country last Lebruary.
The story of the people of Macleod is a story of people who have made the best of what they were given, who have a strong belief in themselves and their neighbours, who face risks with courage and conviction. It is my greatest aspiration that all Canadians will cherish these values as have our forebears. If all of Canada does that, then the world will be ours. We will eat the Americans for breakfast, and then look up for lunch and dinner.
In my riding more than 80 per cent of the constituents voted for candidates supporting the LTA with the U.S. Lor the information of the socialists of two stripes opposite, that is a clear majority.
In the future, Canadians will look back on this debate, which has engaged our nation for nearly three years in one form or another, as one of great significance. It has been a watershed. It should remind us all of other great historic times in this Parliament. Lor example, one of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the most historic steps for us in western Canada was the establishment of the Canadian Pacific Railway. That was a very positive step and this may well be the only time that I as a western Canadian politician will speak favourably of a railway. However, at the time of that great initiative in 1872, Sir George Etienne Cartier said: "All aboard for the West!" Now, in the closing days of 1988, there is a new train waiting ever so patiently in the station. It is the free trade train. It is called "The Spirit of Canada Luture", not the "Ghost of Canada Past" as Members opposite would wish it to be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: That train is getting ready to move forward to the 21st century and a future of new challenges and new prosperity.
I would like to draw to your attention one of the less well known advantages of the Tree Trade Agreement. In 10 short days, after it has been passed, a Canadian tariff of 9.5 per cent will be removed from a critical piece of equipment used throughout my riding. That is, a saddle. Yes, a saddle for riding horses. We, the cowboys from Alberta, cowboys from all across Canada, will ride high in our new saddles which will cost us 90 per cent of what they do now. One of the first things we are going to do is round up the Opposition, throw on the saddle, tighten the cinch, and ride them until they figure out for themselves which way the rest of the herd is going.
As I indicated earlier, more than 80 per cent of the voters in my riding supported candidates favouring free trade. We are on board the free trade train. We are on board the spirit of Canada's future. I know the West is on board. I know Quebec is on board. We say to the rest of Canada, to the Maritimes, to Labrador and Newfoundland, to our friends in Ontario: "All aboard, the train is pulling out".


Mr. Kaplan:: Just do not take the night train from Ottawa.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Members opposite can continue to wallow in the slough of despair and backward looking self-pity at the side of the tracks. Or they can get a ticket to the future on the train to prosperity. There is still room for all Canadians before we pull out of the station. All aboard Canada. Look out, America, here come the Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member if his ringing endorsement of rail transportation means that the overnight train service from Ottawa to Toronto, which is about to be cancelled without this Government taking any steps to restore it, is going to be reversed.


John Horton McDermid: Ask him if he rode the goddamn thing the odd time.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Even though I come from the Prairies, I can recognize a red herring when I see one. I would say that that is one.


John Horton McDermid: He has never ridden it in his life. He doesn't even know where the train station is, for Heaven's sake.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the record may show a totally uninformed allegation made by the Minister for the homeless to the effect that I have never taken the overnight train. I have taken it. However, more important, members of my family use it, and use it frequently.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member who just spoke of the train might have mistaken the light at what he thinks is the end of the tunnel for a train coming. There is a joke about a horse, but I will not tell it.
Rather, I would like to speak about the mandate from the West. The mandate the Conservative Party got from the West is restricted to the Province of Alberta. The Reform Party is nipping at the heels of the Conservative Party throughout the West. I think my Leader probably regrets by now having spoken of the two-party system. However, it might be the New Democrats and the Reform Party in the next election if the Government keeps treating western Canada the way it has been.


Mr. Siddon:: You have 50 seats in the West. What are you talking about?


Raymond John Funk: Twenty-two in Alberta. Take those seats out-


John Horton McDermid: Why would you take out Alberta? What do you have against Alberta?


Raymond John Funk: Very little.


John Horton McDermid: The NDP hates Alberta.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What have you got against Alberta? You are devastating the economy out there.


Raymond John Funk: There has been a lot of talk about mandate. It can be argued either way, that with 43 per cent there is a majority of Members. Yet 53 per cent voted against free trade, which has also been argued here. If the truth were known, neither that side of the House nor this side of the House has the absolute certainty with which we can bat each other in this forum.
After the debate we went through during the campaign, I hoped there would be some movement by the Government to set up a legitimate monitoring process that every Member in the House and every person in the country would have some confidence in, both those who support free trade and those who oppose it. I have not seen any movement toward that kind of monitoring.
If we are to get out of the impasse and the bad feelings that have been created to make this House work, then perhaps some serious attention will be paid to a monitoring process in which some people have some confidence. Hon. Members opposite might not agree with that, but if they have as much confidence in this deal as they say they have then they would want a monitoring process to demonstrate that.
My question is this. The Hon. Member mentioned that there are four Indian bands within the boundaries of his constituency. The Indian bands in my constituency were very concerned about the effect of free trade on their tax status. For example, would that be considered a benefit that could be grieved? They were worried about third party interests when it comes to settling matters such as land entitlements. They had a study done which stated that since they are at the bottom end of the wage scale they would be the first ones to lose their jobs.
What kind of assurances has the Hon. Member received from his own Party that I might pass on to the Indian people in my riding regarding how this deal would specifically affect them?


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, if I might just answer one of those 20 questions. The Hon. Member should understand that the fundamental concept behind the Free Trade Agreement is that it does not discriminate against any Canadian. It provides equal opportunity for every Canadian regardless of where they live, whether they live on an Indian reserve in my riding, a small town in southern Alberta, Calgary, Montreal or St. John's East or West, or anywhere else in the country. It provides
December 22, 1988

them with an equal opportunity and equal benefit. It is up to people to take advantage of that opportunity. 1 know that this Government has done more in the last four years for western Canada than any other Government has done in the last 50 or 100 years.
Since we are talking about trains, I would like to share something with the rest of my friends here. I would like to talk about the beauty of the mountains we share with British Columbia. I am getting a signal from the Speaker that perhaps I should be wrapping up.
As a gesture of friendship I invite the Speaker and Members of the House out to Alberta to see the beauty of the Rocky Mountains for themselves. Perhaps they can then go on to British Columbia to enjoy the wonders there.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the last question or comment, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Members for LaSalle-Emard.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has shown such incredible insight-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: It really is a nice place, Mr. Speaker. I am having a lot of fun.
The Hon. Member has shown incredible insight into free trade interspersed first, of course, with his travelogue. I wonder if he might answer the question that the Minister for International Trade was unable to answer this afternoon, that is, in his opinion, would the Free Trade Agreement be vitiated if we were not able to obtain a definition of subsidies acceptable to Canada?


John Horton McDermid: You are so far off base. What a jerk. I cannot believe that.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: I do not have to answer that question. He was perfectly capable of answering the question himself. He has answered the question a thousand times across this country already. We do not need to give him one more time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle has the floor on debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister for International Trade.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a unique point of order. What I want to find out from the Chair is this: Is a Member of the House, just recently elected, allowed to make comments from Florida where he is spending a few days of repose as is reported today in Le Droit?
The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Rocheleau) is giving certain opinions from Florida. I wonder whether it is permissible, when we are here together in an emergency session debating a very important issue, the new Liberal Member for Hull- Aylmer should be in Florida giving his opinions about Herbert Marx, Clifford Lincoln, and Richard French. What are his opinions on what we have been discussing here in the House for the last 10 or 12 days? Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this matter be referred to the committee on privileges and holidays.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The matter may be one of concern to the Minister for International Trade, but I am sorry to say that is not a point of order. On debate, the Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker. I wish to participate in the debate. I know that the hour is getting late. It is the silly season, especially with the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). It is also getting late in this long debate on the Free Trade Agreement.
As Parliament continues to debate this agreement, which will be put before the House some time in the next day, one phase of this debate comes to an end. This debate will continue for many more years to come as Canada enters into a new period of its social and economic development. Due to the action of the Government, all Canadians will be concerned about the effects this will have on our nation. We will monitor it closely to determine exactly what effects the action of the Government will have on us all.
There is a certain amount of speculation. As is the duty of the Opposition, we are obliged to show the weaknesses of the Government's legislation. The Government is anxious to show the positive aspects of what it is introducing. The part I find distressing in such an historic and momentous decision is that the Government is intent to ram through this piece of legislation. The Government says and claims that this certainly has been debated enough. In the last campaign, it became the

December 22, 1988
Canada-JJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
major issue. It was the major topic of debate in the previous session of Parliament.
There are some important pieces of information that the Government has never released to the public. The Government has conducted intensive studies on various sectors to determine economic impact.
Earlier this year I attempted to get copies of those studies, as did The Globe and Mail. What the Government released to us was inadequate. It was only partial information. The Government knows. At least some of its Departments have done projections to determine the impact this legislation will have on various sectors of the economy. If the Government was honest with the Canadian people, it would make that information public. It has chosen not to.
I suspect what motivates the Government is more ideology rather than economic thinking and projection. The Government is ideologically motivated with a neoConservative agenda which is quite different from the historic Conservative agenda. In the neo-Conservative agenda, it is the market-place that has become the primary motivating force. Earlier considerations by former Conservative Prime Ministers and leaders have always balanced the consideration of the market-place with other considerations; the social consideration, the cultural consideration, particularly as they pertain to the development and maturity of Canada as a nation.
It has been a Canadian tradition that there be an acceptance of some form of mixed economy. We have always debated what the mix should be. Former Conservative Governments have introduced Crown corporations, believing as well that the public sector has an important role to play in a country like Canada, a country with vast resources, a vast land mass, a concentration of people in few areas, next to a very powerful country, the United States. There has been an agreement among all political parties that the public sector has a role to play in order to maintain a Canadian identity. Through that, we developed the CBC, the arts board, and various cultural organizations to foster and strengthen our cultural identity going east and west.
We realized that the public sector was needed in order to have economic development occurring throughout our country so that a Canadian living in Newfoundland, northern Quebec, Saskatchewan, or British Columbia would have basically the same type of opportunities. This was a vision shared by all political Parties. With the introduction and eventual passage of the government Bill, that tradition will come to an end.
We can debate in this House whether regional subsidies and medicare are to be threatened by this agreement. Government Members indicate that there is nothing in the agreement which says that medicare has to go. They are right. There is nothing specific in there, but when we listen to government Ministers speak, they admit that with this agreement we will become more of a market oriented economy.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: It creates jobs.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It creates jobs. Hear, hear!
This is the confirmation. I am not standing in the House today and saying that market factors are to be ignored. No, far from it. In a mixed economy, the market plays a very important role. It is our tradition as a country that we recognize certain hearts outside the market forces. That is why the development of health and medicare in this country has been done on bases other than just market forces.
There is a recognition that if health services were developed based on profit motives, we would have a system similar to that of the United States, an inequitable, unfair, and very inefficient system. As a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, the health system in the United States is much higher than the one in Canada. We have developed a public system, one that is equitable, fair, and efficient.
Of course, our tradition has been one of mixed development in which health should remain in the public sector. Everything in the American system is market driven and market oriented.
That is also true of culture. Culture in the United States is called the entertainment industry: that which can make a buck is developed and that which cannot make a buck is not developed, the bottom line test is profitability in a pure market economy.
The health system in the united states was developed in terms of its profit capacity, the entertainment industry in the united states has developed in terms of its profit capability.
We have done something different in Canada. We developed our cultural policy with the national interest in mind, in order to maintain and foster the Canadian identity, not because it happens to make a profit. We have developed a health system in Canada that is based on human needs, not on the need to make a profit.
December 22, 1988

Conservative Members have agreed that with this agreement we will have a more profit driven economy.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Would that not be sad?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Would that not be sad? Those Members cannot see beyond the ideological blinkers of the new right. It is the philosophy of Margaret Thatcher, our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and Ronald Reagan, as well as Grant Devine in my province. There is no end to where they see the eventual erosion of much of the public sector.
Margaret Thatcher is even going to privatize the sewers and the waters in Great Britain.


Mr. Malone:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: The new right shouts: "Hear, hear". I maintain that the new right runs counter to the history and philosophy of this country. It runs counter to the essence of what Canada is all about. We have seen this not just with this legislation but in terms of tax reform and the Drug Patent Act. We see the elimination of the public sector, but the public has a role to play. An increasing number of the economic decisions on the Conservative agenda in this country will be made in the boardrooms, the boardrooms of multinational corporations.


John Horton McDermid: The big bogy man.


Simon Leendert de Jong: There are very few Progressive Conservatives left on the benches. They should really be called the neo-Conservatives, or the new right.
Their vision is one in which the top 20 per cent of the population receives some 42 per cent of all personal income while the bottom 20 per cent receives some 4.1 per cent of the total income. Of course, this is acceptable according to the Conservative philosophy. If you help those at the top they will eventually create the new wealth and the new industry and direct that wealth and new industry to plants, thereby creating employment and so on.
There are alternative visions. There are two distinct economic models within the OECD countries. One model followed to a certain extent by the Japanese, and certainly by most European countries which have had social democratic Governments on and off throughout the post-war period, has been what I would call a cooperative capitalist model. In that model, capital, labour and the public sector work in co-operation and focus the energies of the nations. They receive certain social
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
contracts within the nation and have developed one of the highest standards of living in the world.
There is a fair and equitable distribution of wealth. There is low unemployment, low inflation, low public debt in countries like Sweden and Norway.


John Horton McDermid: The highest suicide rate in the world.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore the childish interjections of the Minister opposite.
There is that co-operative model. On the other hand there is what I would call the Rambo economics of North America. This American model which my friends opposite so slavishly worship hds been totally dependent on the arms race and foreign public borrowing. The United States has become the biggest debtor nation in the world, with over $500 million per day going into paying the interest on its debt.
The Americans require foreign borrowing and, as such, require the highest interest rate in order to attract offshore capital to maintain their economy. Of course, the higher interest rate creates a strong U.S. dollar which prices them out of the market. This creates a catch-22 situation, and the American economy is indeed on very thin ice. The crash that occurred in October, 1987 is an indication of the weakness of that economy.


John Horton McDermid: Economics 25.


Simon Leendert de Jong: My friends opposite may think it is funny. Indeed, it is funny if you have a sick sense of humour.
The American economic model has been totally subsidized by public spending, mainly on arms production, creating one of the highest deficits in the world.
The irony of it all is that the one element which might save it is Mr. Gorbachev of the Soviet Union proposing arms reductions. In fact, the visit of Mr. Gorbachev to New York resulted in the rise in the stock market. I realize that Conservatives have great difficulty dealing with that fact.
The point is that there are different economic models. The North American Rambo economic model which has created such environmental, social and economic crises cannot continue. In order for us to survive, we must begin to develop an alternative model that is based essentially on co-operation.
In preparing for our remarks, I found a very impressive document. It is "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis", prepared by the Canadian Conference of

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Catholic Bishops in 1983. they were reacting to the recession that had set in, yet when one reads the comments that the bishops made then they still make a lot of sense today. They said:
We are now in an age, for example, where transnational corporations and banks can move capital from one country to another to take advantage of cheaper labour conditions, lower taxes, and reduced environmental restrictions.
Incidentally, the Free Trade Agreement further fosters that. The bishops went on to say:
We are also in an age of automation and computers where human work is rapidly being replaced by machines on the assembly line and in administrative centres. In effect, capital has become transnational and technology has become increasingly capitalintensive. The consequences are likely to be permanent or structural unemployment and increasing marginalization for a large segment of the population in Canada and other countries.
They then spoke of a new direction and an alternative vision and said:
Yet, in order to forge a true community out of our present crisis, people must have a chance to choose their economic future rather than have one forced upon them. What is required, in our judgment, is a real public debate about economic visions and industrial strategies involving choices about values and priorities for the future direction of this country. Across our society, there are working and non-working people in communities-factory workers, farmers, forestry workers, miners, people on welfare, fishermen, native peoples, public service workers and many others-who have a creative and dynamic contribution to make in shaping the economic future of our society.
The bishops talked about community control, alternate technologies and production for human needs rather than for export and for profit. They talked about an ethical society in which people worked together in harmony and with a sense of community of interests.
This is the direct opposite of the economic model of which my friends across the way are such strong advocates, an economic model of purely market forces in which the race belongs to the swift and the battle to the strong. The bishops talked about an economic model in which the economy is subservient to the meaning of human needs and not to the making of profit.
When everything is said and done about the legislation that this Government is introducing, it is not so much an economic document as a political document. What it will put into effect and help to foster is not a caring society but a society that I abhor, a society in which the wealthy will get wealthier and the masses will become poorer, a society that will benefit only a few and
is not in the interests of our fellow Canadian citizens. Therefore, I do oppose this motion.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am using this as the entry to a discussion.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Please do not prejudge my thought. I am asking for your help, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege and parliamentary inquiry. I heard the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) refer to the absence of an Hon. Member in his remark earlier, and I would like to be guided. Is it in fact within the rules of this House to do that? As a new Member I would like to be guided.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a rule in the House that an Hon. Member should not talk about the absence or the presence, for that matter, of a particular Hon. Member. The rule does exist. I do not recall the incident that the Hon. Member refers to. However, I will look at Hansard, and if need be, I will return to the House on the matter.
In the mean time, on questions and comments, I recognize the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I have, together with my colleagues in this House, listened for many minutes now to the Hon. Member for Regina Qu'Appelle (Mr. de Jong) expound on these special theories of economic philosophy, this model that he tends to focus on which has done so much good for the world.
I want the Hon. Member to understand that I am proud to be part of a caring Government that cares for the people of Canada. I am proud that we have a caring Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) and a caring Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: I think we too often hear this notion that the socialists of the country have a monopoly on caring, and that is the greatest hypocrisy one can imagine when one puts it in the context of the disinformation campaign they used throughout the preceding election campaign to confuse Canadians and to try to somehow suggest that members of this Party and this Government do not care about the future of our children in this country we all love so dearly.
We have heard the Hon. Member talk about models as if he were an academic. I would like to suggest to him that I thank the Lord that this Hon. Member is not
December 22, 1988

teaching my children in a Canadian university. He is essentially saying that the models of neo-socialism-he did not use that phrase but that is what he is preaching-have somehow been the great success story of history when the exact opposite is the truth. Communism is an unnatural form of economic management, as is the form of socialism which the Hon. Member advocates.
One of the two questions I want to ask the Hon. Member this evening is: Why have these neo-socialist theories, which have been tried in Canada by several provincial Governments, led by the Party of which he is a member, and imposed upon Canada by the recent Liberal Governments of former Prime Minister Trudeau, failed so miserably to deal with the poverty and the regional disadvantages in Canada? Why is it that the more we pump regional equalization and redistribution of wealth into the more impoverished parts of Canada, the more their incentive, productivity, and economic well-being have been reduced? Why have these neo-socialist Governments driven up the deficit, creating more poverty in the regions of Canada that need help the most.
Before the Hon. Member responds, I would like to ask a second question. The second question has to do with the unprecedented turnaround in the Canadian economy which has occurred over the past four and a half year tenure of the Government of which I am proud to be a member.
I want the Hon. Member to tell the Members of this House and the people of Canada why he so denounces the very economic theories which have created the greatest increase in productivity, employment, opportunity, and confidence in our future that this country has seen in this century.
The Hon. Member is a member of a Party that came into this House in November of 1984 and decried the policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), saying they would produce 150,000 more unemployed Canadians. Then, in the following four and a half years, we found that 1.3 million Canadians went back to work, 80 per cent of them gaining full-time employment. We saw Canada rise from being seventh among industrialized nations-


Simon Leendert de Jong: Are you going to let me answer? Are you going to sit down or not?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Perhaps the Hon. Member will allow me to complete my remarks. We saw this country rise from
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
being seventh among the industrialized nations of the world to being number one, becoming a leading member of the G-7. The second question which the Hon. Member will want to answer-


Simon Leendert de Jong: All you are doing is giving a little speech.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You just made a little speech yourself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle now has the floor.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is a slippery Minister we have. No wonder he is the Minister of Fisheries. What a slippery Minister he is.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Answer the question.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Well, many questions were asked by the Minister. Let us start off with the Minister saying that they care. The question is: What do they care about? What does this Government care about?


Thomas Edward Siddon: People.


Simon Leendert de Jong: He says "people". I really wonder. When the Minister for International Trade was in Newfoundland politics, when Newfoundland was trying to decide where to go, he wanted Newfoundland to join the United States. That is our Minister for International Trade.
The Prime Minister was the head of an American company and shut down a Canadian branch plant, so that is what the Prime Minister cares about. In Saskatchewan we have a Premier and a Tory Party. In fact, the former Leader of that Conservative Party in Saskatchewan left the Conservative Party and started the Unionist Party. The Unionist Party wanted Canada to join the United States.
We see this hidden strain within the Conservative Party that has been there for many years. What it really cares about is for us to become another state of the United States. We have seen it in the actions of the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade. We certainly know all about it in Saskatchewan where we have seen provincial Conservative Members sitting in the Legislature, starting a Unionist Party and advocating that we join the United States.
In Saskatchewan we know what those people cared about. That is why we defeated so many of them. The

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
people of Saskatchewan did not want anything to do with what those people really cared about.
Members opposite talk about the economic wonders of the Government. Let us step back a second. When it got into power in 1984, it got into power at the end of one of the most severe recessions, a recession that had been deliberately done by the western economies in order to put an end to the high inflation. The western industrialized nations jacked up interest rates, threw their economies into reverse, which resulted in very high levels of unemployment. Of course, with the nature of Canada's economy mainly being a branch plant, and one that is very dependent on raw resources, it was one of the first to be hit by the recession. Canada was also one of the last to get out. The Tories were lucky that they came into power at the end of that recessionary cycle.
When one looks at where things are today compared with 1981 before the recession period, family income has not gone back to where it was before. The reason family income is higher now than it was in 1984 is that more families are now two-income families. In fact, the average young working family needs two incomes to put a roof over its head and supply the basic necessities of life.
There is more employment now than there was in 1984, but certainly things have not come back to where there were in 1981 before the recession started. We still do not accept levels of 7 per cent, 6 per cent, or 5 per cent unemployment. I suspect that the Tories like to have a little bit of extra unemployment, because after all it does keep wages down and it does help their corporate friends.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Sarnia- Lambton, on a question or comment.


Mr. James:: I wish to make a comment to the Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle (Mr. de Jong) who talked about studies not being conducted.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, on a point of order.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I wanted to offer an observation that the Hon. Member has not answered either of the questions posed. The fact of the matter is that the Government that gave Canada good economic management is also giving Canada free trade, and he is afraid to admit it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let the record also show that what the Minister stated was not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think we should proceed with the question and comments of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton who has been seeking the floor for some time.
A point of order from the Hon. Member for Burlington.


Mr. Kempling:: I wanted to make a comment or a question to the Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On questions or comments the floor w'ill be given to the Hon. Member for Sarnia- Lambton.


Kenneth Albert James: I wanted to make a couple of comments in connection with the comments made by the Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle. He made mention that studies have not been done, or that he did not receive studies. Perhaps the Hon. Member did not go over to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. It conducted a number of studies. One was done on petrochemicals and how they would be affected by the Free Trade Agreement. For the information of the Hon. Member, I would like to mention what the study states about the petrochemical possibilities under free trade.
It states that the FTA will have different impacts upon the gas based and oil based segments of the petrochemical industry. In addition, there could be investment opportunities for a range of aromatic products where the historically higher U.S. tariffs have prevented access to the U.S. market. It states that over all the FTA will have a positive impact on the industry. The elimination of tariffs will increase existing exports and will open the U.S. market to a range of oil-based products now excluded by high tariffs. Investment prospects for additional facilities to supply the North American market have been improved. These opportunities will include products based upon competitively priced primary petrochemicals such as polypropylene and aromatics.
Many studies were conducted by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion that indicated the positive impact of the Free Trade Agreement. I cannot imagine why the Hon. Member has not taken the time to read these important studies.
The Hon. Member also mentioned public support of our social services, our identity, and our sovereignty. The socialists never want to talk about history, but if the Hon. Member looks at the historical events in Canada from 1935, as we have ever liberalized trade with the United States, he will find that those are the very same
December 22, 1988

years that the public sector introduced veteran's allowance, unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age security, spousal allowances, and medicare. The socialists never want to talk about history.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Gloucester.


M. Douglas Young: Could the Chair indicate to the House whether or not we are continuing with debate on this matter, or are we still in the period for questions and comments? It seemed to me that, under the rules, there was a time limit on the period reserved for questions and comments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is in the question and comment period.


M. Douglas Young: What is the time period allocated for the speech, as well as for questions and comments after those speeches?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for the speech is 20 minutes. The time for questions and comments is 10 minutes. At the discretion of the Chair, sometimes the 10-minute period for questions and comments is extended. For instance, if a member commences in the ninth minute, the Chair does not intervene and limit the question or the time for the person to answer to 30 seconds. That is discretionary, and the Chair will do its best to make sure that the rule is enforced.
The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton.


Kenneth Albert James: I wished to mention to my hon. friend in speaking to his concern about social policy development in Canada that through the years from 1935 to 1988 we have liberalized our trade with the United States, lowering tariffs from an average of 30 per cent down to an average of 9 per cent or 8 per cent, and have entered into additional major trading agreements with the United States-for example, the Auto Pact and defence sharing.
Over the years carrying on through until child care was introduced, at the same time as we were negotiating the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, we have ever built that social policy and that social safety net in Canada.
That has been done by the Liberals and the Conservatives, certainly not the socialists because they were never in power to do that. If we followed through those very same years we would find that the economic wherewithal in Canada has ever increased and that our cultural
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
development has increased through those very same years.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I think the point made by the Hon. Member goes against the free trade legislation, rather than supporting it.
The point I made earlier in my remarks is that this country, from the point of view of its culture and its economy, regardless of the Government in power, has evolved as a mix.
We recognize that there is a need to have both the private and public sectors involved in the economy, though there may be disagreement as to degree.
The Free Trade Agreement will restrict the public sector to a degree to which all previous Governments in this country would have taken exception. It is the economic philosophy of the neo-right, the near right, that will change the political-cultural mix of this country, and that is what we find so unacceptable. We are becoming more market oriented. Our health services and other services will be more and more determined by market forces, as opposed to a system based upon taking care of human needs, as was recommended by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and others in this country.
That was a statement made by the Canadian Conference of Bishops in 1983, and it is one that I think continues to be valid today.
Of course, it may be that the Minister is not at all concerned with what the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has to say.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, every Parliament has its own emotion, and certainly that is true of this the Thirty-fourth Parliament.
I concur with the statement by the Hon. Member for Renfrew (Mr. Hopkins) that this Parliament has in it some extraordinary talent. The speeches thus far have been excellent. That is obviously the result of an election campaign that had a single issue, an issue which has prepared Hon. Members for a unique session of Parliament, a session dedicated to that same issue.
Like the Hon. Member for Macleod (Mr. Hughes), I should like to start with a brief background of my riding.
The constituency of Macleod, I might say, takes its name from Colonel Macleod of the Northwest Mounted

December 22, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Police, an individual who is a part of the prairie heritage dating back to the mid-1800s. The same is true of Chief Crowfoot, after whom my riding is named.
Crowfoot was born a Blood, in what is now Montana. He migrated into the northern part of southern Alberta and was adopted into the Blackfoot tribe, becoming a chief of the Blackfoot Nation, and eventually becoming the most powerful and the wisest of the chiefs of the Blackfoot territory, taking in the full lands of the Sarcee, the Peguis, and the Blackfoot.
Crowfoot was recognized on several occasions by Sir John A. Macdonald. Because of his wisdom, his counsel was sought by Ottawa. He was a person who, in his early years, was a nomad who followed the buffalo herds.
As I said at the outset, every Parliament has its own unique emotion. We are all here to do what we can and what we feel is best for our constituents.
Perhaps before I go any further, I should take a moment to extend my sympathies to those from among us who are ill and hospitalized.
As all Hon. Members will be aware, one of the successful candidates for the Progressive Conservative Party died within days of his having been elected to Parliament. His only desire was to have the opportunity of serving his constituents and his country.
I also note that an Hon. Member from the Liberal benches is also quite ill and is in fact hospitalized at this moment.
I hearken back to the time that Colonel Macleod and Chief Crowfoot met at what is now Gleichen, Alberta for the signing of Treaty No. 7. Here was Chief Crowfoot, a person born a Blood and raised a Blackfoot, an individual who did not know the English language, and yet we can see from annals of the Northwest Mounted Police the words of wisdom he imparted to us. On the occasion of the signing of Treaty No. 7, it was recorded in the annals of the Northwest Mounted Police that he made the following remarks:
In a little while I will be gone from amongst you. Whither I come and whither I go, 1 do not know. What is life? It is like the flash of the firefly in the night; it is like the breath of the buffalo in the wintertime; it is like the little shadow that races across the grass and loses itself in the sunset.
Those are poetic words. And here we are as Members of Parliament with our own "flash of a firefly in the night"; an opportunity to do something in the time that
we are here, an opportunity to act in accordance with the reasons for which we were elected.
I feel privileged to have served in this House during a period when our Constitution, imperfect as it might be, was patriated, and I believe that in the same way the trade arrangement that we are about to enter into with the United States of America will change the nature of our country. It brings with it for my part of the country the enormity of hope that has been heretofore lacking.
Western Canadians felt alienated from the mainstream of Canadian life as a consequence of the unfair and discriminatory freight rates favouring central Canada. Those discriminatory freight rates led to western Canada exporting its raw materials as opposed to upgrading them, enhancing them.
While the grain was grown in Saskatchewan, the flour was milled elsewhere. We had the coal, but we did not have the industries that used the coal; we had the forests, but we had no upgrading facilities. Our products were all exported in raw form.
The other major impediment to the betterment of western Canada has been tariffs. Let me give some examples that I believe can be easily understood.
Malt barley is grown in western Canada and exported to the U.S. I am one who advocates that we ought not to be exporting malt barley in the volumes that we are. All that needs to be done to malt barley is to add energy and water, and the result is malt. But why don't we export malt to the U.S.? It is because raw product attracts no tariff, whereas manufactured or processed products do.
Looking at the latest figures on that, in July of 1988 malt barley was selling for $80 a tonne. If you add energy and water, it sells for $160 a tonne. How could either a Liberal or socialist then want to give up the right to bring down tariffs?
What about the natural gas and petrochemical industry? When we convert the natural gas to methane and ethane products and sell them in the U.S., we have to climb over 16 per cent and 18 per cent tariffs. Natural gas is tariff-free and it is going down the pipeline to the U.S. every day. And every day along with the natural gas go the jobs of our sons and daughters. That has made us and continues to make us the producers of raw materials without the capacity to value add, to process, and to manufacture.
December 22, 1988

We have the enormous advantage of the Auto Pact which in its 23 or 24 years has seen $500 billion of foreign investment in southern Ontario. We want that kind of investment to bring stability to the western basin.
I could hardly believe what happened in the 1972 economic summit in Tokyo where Canada agreed to sell shiploads of whole logs, mostly from British Columbia, to Japan. Having detopped and debranched those trees, we loaded them on ships and sent them to Japan. Each of us knows intuitively that if the Japanese had the forest they would be selling us prefabricated homes, labelled on the side in five languages for shipment around the world.
That is the kind of advantage Canada has and must have. We are the only nation in the western industrial world that does not have a guaranteed market of 100 million people. We have only 25 million. What an unnatural market it is, stretched out across 5,500 miles. It is only in southern Ontario and western Quebec that it is a real, normal market. Yet just below Alberta, just below Saskatchewan, just below the Atlantic region, exist large markets where we can ship our value-added products.
To what purpose? My friend from Regina- Qu'Appelle talked about social programs. It is not a case of one Party caring more than another Party. We all care. However, if you are a Progressive Conservative, you can afford to care. We must have the wealth. It does one no good at all to care, to say I love these people. If you cannot generate the wealth to help those people, one is simply whistling past the graveyard.
Through the course of the election we heard all these funny arguments about how this agreement would destroy our sovereignty, our nationality, and take away our social programs. Then toward the end of the election we heard how it would ruin our environment.
I want to make the point that I believe precisely the opposite will happen. It will help our environment to have a trade relationship with the U.S. We are about 15 years from the baby boomers becoming the senior citizens of our country. When that happens, you will be able to draw a very interesting graph which will look like an upside down thermometer with a narrow column of workers and a big balloon on top of senior citizens who require social services and medicare. If we do not take our raw materials, process them, turn them into manufactured goods, thereby creating more jobs, then the only way we can shoulder the burden that will start
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
15 years from now is to sell even greater and greater amounts of our raw resources. We will have to cut down more trees, destroy more forests, and sell them abroad. It is time to pause and say "Let's get smart like the Japanese".
For those in the NDP who get so nervous about the notion of foreign investment, I ask them: Is Germany threatened in some way because of the foreign investment that put that country on its feet after World War II? Japan was devastated in World War II. It was foreign investment for an extended period of time that put that country on its feet. They welcomed foreign investment. It made them an economic power today.
One-third of the wealth of this nation is dependent upon trade. We are more dependent upon trade than any other nation in the world with the exception of West Germany. Unlike the beginning of this century when most of our trade was with the mother country, Great Britain, almost 80 per cent of our exports go to the U.S. Yet, when our Government came to office in 1984, there were over 400 pieces of protectionist legislation on the table in State Legislatures and in Washington which would, in whole or in part, impact negatively on Canada.
Those who like to say that the Free Trade Agreement is not the answer have to tell us what they would do for a nation so dependent upon trade for its wealth. If they do not respond to that question in a specific way, then they commit the citizens of this country to diminishing social programs, weakened sovereignty, weakened identity, and weakened culture. It is trade that allows us to grow and develop the richness of our culture.
I want to address for a moment the question of "they are so big and we are so small, therefore the U.S. will always win". First, bear in mind that in the 14 trade associations in the world, in virtually every case, the smallest country has grown the most. All the economies involved grew but the smallest one grew the most. Bear in mind that Canadians are better educated. We have better health delivery systems. If Japan is going to build a Toyota plant in North America, why would they not locate in Canada and take advantage of our education and health systems? Those systems will attract foreign investment from around the world. We raise better pork and beef, and cheaper, too. We have better telecommunications systems than the U.S. does. We produce automobiles cheaper than it does.
We do many things better than the U.S. because we are competitive. We can compete and this notion that we are so small and they are so big is exactly the same

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
argument we heard when the Auto Pact was introduced. We were told they would run over us, and here we are exporting two out of every three cars that we build.
My time is up, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House for giving me its attention. I apologize to the Hon. Member for Regina-Qu'Appelle (Mr. de Jong) because he did not have an opportunity to ask his question, but I do feel somewhat relieved.
December 22, 1988


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one minute past midnight, pursuant to the Order agreed to on Friday December 16, 1988, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. today.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 12.01 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 23, 1988