1988-12-21

GENERAL ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have sent the following letter to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Ms. McDougall):
Fishermen and plant workers on the Labrador coast feel that they are discriminated against under the U.I. regulations. The benefit period now ends May 15. Yet ice is in the bays on the Labrador coast until the end of June. During that time it is impossible for Fishermen to fish and, therefore, for plant workers to work . ..
. . . Labrador fishermen feel they are economically punished because of a fact of geography. Through no fault of their own and because of forces beyond their, or anybody else's, control they are without income for six weeks every year.
What other group in Canada is systematically denied income every year simply because of geography?
... In the long term what is needed is an income support plan for fishermen separate altogether from U.I. But until such time as that is introduced we must make U.I. work, inadequate as it is.
The Fishermen on the Labrador coast are among the most disadvantaged in Canada. They have struggled for centuries to eke out a living .. . But the fact remains that at the present they need a cash income during the winter months including the period from May 15 to June 30. The fishermen of Labrador are asking for simple justice when they ask for the extension of U.I. to the end of June.



TERREBONNE CONSTITUENCY-CHOICE OF THE FUTURE

Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the people of Terrebonne for the confidence they showed in me on November 21. By giving me a majority vote, they also gave a majority vote to the Progressive Conservative Government and its extraordinary leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). For the second time in a row, the men and women of Terrebonne elected a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I shall endeavour to live up to the confidence they have shown in me.
The people of Terrebonne wanted someone who knows where he stands. They did not want a Liberal or a socialist, Mr. Speaker, as neither party knows where it stands. The people of Terrebonne, like the rest of Canada, showed great political savvy by refusing to give in to the unfair scare tactics used by the Liberals and the socialists.
The people of Terrebonne, in their unbounded wisdom, intelligence and self-assurance, chose the way of the future. The people of Terrebonne, Mr. Speaker, chose the way of free trade because they know that it will be good for them. We, the Conservative Party, know where we stand, and we shall keep our word.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, once the free trade legislation has been enacted, the Government must quickly turn its attention to the problems of Canada's urban frontiers, our cities.

December 21, 1988
To some extent three of those problems, the lack of affordable housing, inadequate public transportation, and the need to clean up the environment, are all linked. The development of a modern, high-speed commuter rail network around our cities would not only help solve transportation problems, but would also provide the infrastructure necessary to increase substantially the supply of less expensive land available for badly needed housing, while at the same time reducing pollution and conserving energy.
The linchpin is the high-speed commuter rail network. Rail is a federal responsibility and no Progressive Conservative Government has ever failed to build a railway to solve a problem. Let us hope this one will not be the exception.



CHILDREN


Mr. John F. Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in the last 12 months at least half a million children in the Third World have died because of a slowdown or reversal of economic progress in their countries. UNICEF, in its annual report released yesterday, places the blame squarely on the crushing burden of debt owed by these countries to banks and financial institutions in the industrialized world.
UNICEF has called for a summit of world leaders to reduce this deadly accumulation of debt. It has asked for Canada's assistance in promoting such a summit. As one of the rich countries in the world we have an obligation to accede to the request.
I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to make every effort to ensure that such a summit will be held. In 1989 the UN will be adopting the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The protection of these rights, however, must start now.



GENERAL ELECTION


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to congratulate you on your reelection as Speaker of this Hon. House. On November 21st, constituents of Louis-Hebert returned me here and I want to thank them today. Like my first term, this second one entails heavy responsibilities, but I am convinced that with the support of all my constituents and people in the community, I can perform my role in an efficient and dignified manner.
As in the past, I intend to keep listening to the people in Sainte-Foy, Sillery and Cap-Rouge, and my constituency office will always be open to all.
In this holiday season, I would like to extend to all those 1 am privileged to represent in this House my best wishes, and may the New Year bring peace, health and happiness to you and members in your family!



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year the united counties of Prescott-Russell and the municipalities of Clarence Township, Cambridge Township, North and South Plantagenets, Plantagenet Village, and the Town of Rockland signed resolutions asking that the National Capital Region be enlarged to include their own municipalities.
After Question Period I intend to move in the House of Commons a Private Member's Bill to enlarge the National Capital Region to give that privilege to residents of the constituency that I have the honour and privilege to represent. I hope to have the support of all Hon. Members in this House so this Bill can be enacted as soon as possible.
December 21, 1988



FREE TRADE


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, during the last elections, my Liberal opponent travelled around the constituency claiming everywhere and on every forum that free trade would have nothing worthwhile, and that it would be detrimental to Brome-Missisquoi. Not only was he completely wrong, but in so doing he insulted the hundred or so entrepreneurs in my constituency who show remarkable dynamism. Indeed, between 1984 and 1988, more than $1 billion were invested in Brome-Missisquoi; 1,600 permanent jobs and 1,400 temporary ones were created. In our area, we are not afraid of free trade; in our area, we have confidence in the future. As proof of what I said, two weeks ago Dominion Textiles, a supposedly vulnerable company, announced the creation of 200 new jobs in Magog. Yesterday, General Electric announced a S40 million investment, the creation of 210 new jobs and the consolidation of 150 jobs. This means 560 jobs over two weeks for Brome-Missisquoi! The Leader of the Opposition may call that marginal, but to me this involves the future of young people in my constituency and I feel this is excellent news.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Val-d'Or's Societe Espalau is investing in the United States and, through Forage Moderne, it has just opened a new American branch plant which will operate under the name of Modern International Inc. This company will be carrying out exploratory drilling in the United States, mainly in Nevada. It expects to begin work as early as February 1989.
Seventy per cent of Modern International shares will be held by the firm Forage Moderne of Val-d'Or. Through this investment it will gain access to a new market in a region where mining exploration is at its peak.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of initiative taken by far-sighted Abitibi businessmen in the context of free trade.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, right now, in almost every municipality in eastern Ontario and across Canada, city officials are being faced with rapidly deteriorating municipal infrastructures. The capital costs involved for adequate rehabilitation are well beyond the capacity of any local government.
Sewage treatment plants need millions of dollars to upgrade them to an acceptable capacity level. In eastern Ontario alone, 38 plants fail to meet provincial standards, often resulting in raw sewage being discharged directly into our rivers. This type of pollution is an environmental crime and it has to stop.
The federal Government must co-operate with the provincial and municipal Governments and pay its share of these costs. I urge the House to act swiftly on this matter.



CHILDREN


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, Christmas is a time of good food, family, and friends. At Christmas we indulge our loved ones, especially our children.
How sad that this Christmas over one million children in impoverished families will be disappointed. How ironic that, in a country as rich as ours, one out of every six children is denied proper nutrition, housing, and clothing. We allow the potential of all of these children to be jeopardized by a miserly and outdated attitude towards social policy.
The Child Poverty Action Group tells us that over
300,000	children in Ontario, our richest province, are poor. In my own province of British Columbia 126,300 children are disadvantaged, much higher than the national average, and they are going to school hungry.
The National Council on Welfare warns us that the federal Government is systematically cutting all child benefits by 3 per cent a year.

December 21, 1988
Oral Questions
Our children are safe and warm. Is that why we don't care?



PLANETARY CHALLENGE OF THE 21ST CENTURY

Mrs. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, forced to compete with other economic unions in the rest of the world, Canada had no option but to secure its fair share of the market with its powerful and friendly ally, the United States, so as to face up to the many worldwide challenges of the 21st century.
The socialists and the Liberal Party, two reactionary factions whose ideas have yet to reach beyond the threshold of the 20th century, would have us revert to the horse and buggy days of our forefathers.
Mr. Speaker, McLuhan correctly predicted that technological progress, media and communications development, as well as more numerous economic ties between nations would propel us further away from the moribund economic nationalism which leading members of the Opposition are attempting to revive.
Mr. Speaker, taking a leaf from the book of the Hon. Member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. DeBlois), I use a dead language so as to be better understood: Quousque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostral How long will you Liberals and socialists abuse the patience of the population?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In its judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada declared as it related to the Quebec sign law that it was clear that it was within the power of the Quebec National Assembly to promote the French language as the predominant priority principal language of the province, but not at the expense of excluding minority language rights.
Does the Prime Minister approve of the legislation introduced by Premier Bourassa, applying the so called inside-outside formula which excludes the use of nonFrench signs outside business establishments? Does he think that that Bill meets the test of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the last two days I have indicated that I neither approve of it nor do I believe that it meets the test of what the Supreme Court said. I indicated this in response to the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace and other members of the Leader of the Opposition's Party.
I indicated this morning that the position I have held and continue to hold is that I hope the Government of Quebec could find, as the Supreme Court suggested, a way of accommodating those two fundamental principles of respect for the French speaking dimension of Quebec and respect for the principles enshrined in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
That in regard to the specific issue is the way we wish it to be done. Anything less than that of course is disappointing to us. I have conveyed this to the House time and time again. I have responded to members of the Leader's Party. In respect of the protection of minority rights in the Province of Quebec, both the Member for Mount Royal and the Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace complemented me and congratulated the Government on its stand on Monday and Tuesday.


John Napier Turner: If the Prime Minister is of the view that the legislation introduced by the Premier of Quebec does not meet the test of the Supreme Court judgment, as he just said, how can he approve of that legislation?


APPLICATION OF NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said several times that, in general, he is against applying the notwithstanding clause. Does the Prime Minister approve of the use of this notwithstanding clause in the Quebec Bill itself as a way to get around the Quebec Charter of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to counter the effects of the judgement rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I was and remain opposed to having a notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
December 21, 1988

I was opposed to the Canadian Government's making such a concession to the provinces in 1981-82. It was not Quebec, but other provinces, that sought this concession. Mr. Bourassa did not request the notwithstanding clause; he was not there. The clause was a concession to the provinces. If I am against the clause, I am of course against using it if such use is contrary to the fundamental rights contained in the Quebec and Canadian Charters of Rights and Freedoms. I do not blame the Government of Quebec or the Government of Ontario for the existence of the clause. Neither Premier Peterson nor Premier Bourassa asked for it; it was a concession of the Canadian Government to the provinces. And unfortunately, today, using this clause has a negative effect on the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter of fundamental rights. That is my position and I think that, in essence, it is shared by almost all Hon. Members.


PROVISIONS OF QUEBEC BlLL-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let us see what position we have obtained from the Prime Minister this afternoon. He has admitted that, in his opinion, the Quebec Bill now before the National Assembly does not meet the test of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment. Therefore, logically, he ought to disapprove of that Bill but has not said so.
He says he is against the notwithstanding clause, and yet the Quebec Bill employs that notwithstanding clause. Therefore, logically, he should not approve of the Bill, but we cannot get a statement from him as to his opinion on the Bill before the Quebec National Assembly.
May I ask the Prime Minister a further question?


Mr. Masse:: You are not in a courtroom.


John Napier Turner: The Hon. Minister says that I am not in court here. This is the highest court in the land. This is the House of Commons of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Both of the Prime Minister's admissions, on the test of the Supreme Court
Oral Questions
of Canada as it is reflected in the Bill, and the notwithstanding clause, should lead him to the conclusion that he cannot approve of the Quebec Bill.
I want to put it in other terms. Does the Prime Minister believe that the Quebec Bill, in its suppression of the use of minority languages outside commercial business establishments in Quebec, offends the Quebec Charter of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and if so, does he not believe that that Bill should never have been introduced in its present form?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is asking me a question his colleagues asked me on Monday and Tuesday, and the answer remains the same. I answered the question very clearly and very specifically.
The Quebec Bill, in my judgment, clearly does not meet the tests set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, and therefore, clearly, if it fails to do that, one of the tests being respect for the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Province of Quebec, surely in the absence of that, it offends the Charter. Therefore, as I have indicated, anything that offends the Charter is something that I find unsatisfactory both as a legislator and as a Canadian.


Mr. Nunziata:: That's pretty strong. That's strong language, Brian.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has asked a question which is of great importance to the whole country. The Prime Minister is responding. I am sure Hon. Members would want the Prime Minister to continue his answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on October 26 in Sherbrooke, I said that in my maiden address in the House of Commons I said then that it was fundamental to the idea of Canada to ensure that the rights of our linguistic ethnic minorities are protected at all times. I believe we have done so with the Meech Lake Accord which fully respects the rights of English-speaking Canadians in Quebec and French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. We have recognized Quebec as a distinct society, and English-speaking Quebecers are an integral part of that distinct society.

December 21, 1988
Oral Questions
That is what I said in Quebec during the election campaign and that is exactly what I am saying today.

I call to my friend's attention, in regard to the instrument that gave rise to the problem we are dealing with, a press conference that took place on Wednesday, November 18, 1981, as reported by Robert Sheppard and Michael Valpy, in which the then Prime Minister was asked about the agreement to let Legislatures override fundamental legal and equality rights, about whether the Government of Canada under the new Constitution had consented to different language rights for Canada and for the rest of the country.
At page 322 it states: '"Well, yes', said the Prime Minister with some candor. 'You are asking me now', he said, 'if I consider it' the Constitution-'a success. No, I consider it an abject failure.' He abruptly stood up and walked hurriedly outside into the rain into his waiting black limousine leaving the riddle behind him". The riddle is still here. The riddle and the challenge of language rights will only be solved by tolerance, generosity, and leadership, such as the kind that Members of this House I believe have always provided.
That is the commitment that we have made in regard to language rights elsewhere.
We have been left with a less than perfect instrument which we must all try to correct.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER SHARES VIEW OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister and relates to the series of questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition.
I appreciate the Prime Minister's remarks about the notwithstanding clause, and I should like to ask him how he can reconcile the statements he has just made with those of his Secretary of State who must also champion the rights of official languages minorities.
So I am asking the Prime Minister whether his views are shared by his Secretary of State, or whether his being away from the House attests to his disagreement with the Prime Minister?


Right Hon.   Brian@: Given the seriousness of the debate, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by this kind of question. Would it be fair on my part to ask whether the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been away for two days indicates that he disagrees with the Hon. Member for Shefford? Surely the Leader of the Opposition had good reasons to be absent, just as the Secretary of State does. He deserves as much consideration on the part of the Hon. Member for Shefford.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I will not seek justification for the absence of the Secretary of State, but justification for his remarks. I am asking the Prime Minister how he can reconcile the position he has just stated-and I agree with him-with that of his Secretary of State, which happens to be the opposite. Are there two kinds of truth for the Government, or is the Government trying to have its cake and eat it too? I would like the Prime Minister to tell us the Government's clear, precise and specific position which agrees with that of the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State is supposed to be the authorized spokesman for official languages minorities, and the matter comes under his responsibilities as Minister and Secretary of State.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yesterday I explained that there is no contradiction whatever in the position of the Secretary of State and mine as expressed to La Presse. I speak for the Canadian Government as Prime Minister of Canada. What I said is the full position of my Government, and all Members, I mean all Ministers endorse this position.
Now are there differences concerning certain nuances? I would draw the attention of the House to a statement made the day before yesterday by my friend and published in La Presse of December 20. I quote:
Mr. Lapierre has stated that the privileges of the National Assembly must be respected. According to him, federal MPs can only express personal opinions.
So the privileges of the National Assembly must be respected if it is to legislate in fields under it jurisdiction, and that is exactly the opposite of what your leader has just said.
December 21, 1988


PRIME MINISTER'S CONVERSATION WITH QUEBEC PREMIER
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister on the same subject.
As the Prime Minister knows, the Supreme Court of Canada made a decision on Bill 101. It notably underlined that the Government of the Province of Quebec has the right to give predominance to the place of the French language in that province and suggested a course of action for a Government that wanted to do that

appropriately do that in the Province of Quebec-but which at once would be consistent with the Quebec Charter of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights. The Premier of the Province of Quebec took a decision to move in a different direction instead of that one, and instead used the notwithstanding clause.
If I understood the Prime Minister clearly today, he has expressed his unequivocal opposition to the route that has been chosen. Has he in conversations with the Premier of the Province of Quebec in the past 24 hours, or before suggested very directly the desirability that the Premier change his legislation and bring in a Bill that would be consistent with the two Charters and, at the same time, give the desired predominance and desirable prominence to the French language in the Province of Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP is asking me whether today I conveyed my opposition or my views on this. I conveyed my views on this to the Premier of the Province of Quebec before the decision was made.
Last Sunday morning I called him and conveyed my views that anything at variance with the principles established by the Supreme Court would clearly run counter to the fundamental precepts maintained by the Supreme Court. I was of the view that the Supreme Court decision could be accommodated with all of the necessary respect being given to the two fundamentals that were mentioned.
The Premier of Quebec clearly has come to a different point of view, which is not mine, and which I regret, because it runs counter to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms both of Quebec and Canada-it runs counter to the positions I have encouraged elsewhere-and he is in the process of passing this legislation because of an instrument that was provided in 1981 which allows a
Oral Questions
provincial Premier to override the most inalienable rights in the Canadian and Quebec Constitution. This is something of grave importance that goes back, not to any Meech Lake Accord but to 1981-1982 which, no doubt, will ultimately have to be resolved.
If my friend is asking me whether today I have dealt with it, I dealt with it on Sunday before the matter arose.


PREMIER'S RESPONSE TO PRIME MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since Sunday, and more relevantly since the Government introduced this legislation in the Province of Quebec, we have had a breakdown in the constitutional process at the national level. We have had some significant resignations from the Government of the Province of Quebec itself in the Quebec National Assembly.
In the Prime Minister's serious conversation with the Premier of the Province of Quebec at the time, did the Premier indicate that he would be open at some point to changing that legislation in a direction that would be consistent with the goals of achieving predominance of the French language in the Province of Quebec but which would not in any way impinge upon the freedom of expression in our country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not indicate that in a conversation with me.
1 believe I saw him in his televised press conference indicating that if Meech Lake were passed and if the protections for English and French-speaking minorities contained in Meech Lake came to pass, that it may very well be that that would be sufficient protection for the Premier of the Province of Quebec to forgo the kind of initiative that was taken. I would want to check carefully what he said, but my belief is that what he was saying in his press conference was that, if Meech Lake were passed, that those protections sufficient for English and French-speaking minorities would exist. I think that would be along the lines being sought by my own friend and would be encouraging. But in the conversation that I had, no such undertaking was given to me.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET QUEBEC AND OTHER PREMIERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may be right, but if I remember correctly, the Premier of Quebec said the opposite-there was

December 21, 1988
Oral Questions
no connection whatsoever between Meech Lake and his decision as Premier of the Province of Quebec.
But I would like to ask the Prime Minister a simple question: considering that the Premier of Quebec might change is policy, has the Prime Minister decided to have an early meeting with the Premier of Quebec and the other Premiers to continue the Process of constitutional change and, at the same time, solve certain fundamental problems?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered yesterday to my friend that I wrote to the Premier on October 7 to set up a First Ministers' conference during the first quarter of 1989. No doubt constitutional matters will be discussed at that meeting.
But the problem remains intact, to use the phrase of my predecessor on the matter of the Constitution. He himself in his book judged the 1981-1982 Constitution very severely. The major flaw was Quebec's absence. They did not succeed to bring Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional mainstream, even with the "nothwithstanding clause".
So, here is a challenge for us all to try and find a formula that would allow an honorable and enthusiastic return of Quebec into the Canadian family-then we will be in a position to proceed with the other important decisions such as Senate reform, justice for our native peoples, and all the other major questions that await us. But we can do nothing unless we can find a formula that will allow Quebec to come back honourably into the Canadian Constitution.


REQUEST THAT FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING BE CONVENED
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of questions for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister criticized the Premier of Manitoba for linking the question of Meech Lake to the Language Bill in Quebec. The Prime Minister today in Question Period has just made that linkage himself.


Mr. Valcourt:: That is stupid.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact is he just did.
Second, the Prime Minister has not indicated what his reaction would be to the calls by the Premier of New Brunswick, the Premier of Ontario, who have asked for
an immediate First Ministers' meeting to consider the notwithstanding clause and to consider the question of how we can provide a national protection for minority rights.
Will the Prime Minister now agree that a First Ministers' meeting would be immediately called in the new year and that specifically on the agenda would be the question of how the notwithstanding clause could be a matter of agreement among all the provinces and the federal Government to eliminate it from the Constitution in order to ensure the full protection of minority rights?
Why was that not part of the Meech Lake consideration? Is the Prime Minister now prepared to reconsider his position and put it on the table so that we can eliminate the precedent that was established a few days ago?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there are two serious misstatements of fact in the prefatory remarks of my hon. friend. He stated that Premier McKenna asked for an immediate First Ministers' Conference. He did no such thing; he said the contrary. He said that a First Ministers' Conference would be premature.
The Hon. Member then indicated that I made a linkage between Meech Lake and the utilization of the right.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, I did.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I said no such thing. I said that Premier Bourassa in his response in a press conference appeared to indicate that he could forgo perhaps ultimately the utilization of the notwithstanding clause, if the protections for Quebec and the other minorities were there pursuant to the adoption of the Meech Lake Accord. It was not at all what I said. I made no so such linkage whatsoever.


An Hon. Member:: Do you disagree with them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I made no such linkage at all because there is no linkage between the Meech Lake Accord itself and what has transpired in the Province of Quebec. The Meech Lake Accord provides for greater protection, and greater justice, and greater equality for English and French-speaking minorities across Canada, and surely all Members of the House must be in favour of that.
December 21, 1988


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not answer my question.
The country is looking for decisive national leadership at this very crucial time in the history of the country, and the Premiers are asking for it. We now have an opportunity to do something fundamentally important for the protection of minority rights in the country, similar to what the House of Commons did a few years back when, in the province of Manitoba, there was a threatened abrogation of French-speaking rights and the House adopted a resolution which the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, fully supported.
As a national Leader and the head of the Government what action does the Prime Minister intend to take to deal with the very serious circumstances we are in? Will he call a First Ministers' meeting? Will he put the question of national initiatives to protect minority rights on the agenda? Will he consider eliminating the notwithstanding clause from the Constitution as part of the talks at that First Ministers' meeting?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that even my hon. friend will acknowledge that he gets the Christmas prize for temerity. It takes an awful lot of nerve to ask me if we will deal with something in regard to the protection of minority rights, particularly as those minority rights might be affected by a notwithstanding clause.
My recollection is that he was a Member of a Government that gave the notwithstanding clause away, and it should never have been done.


Lloyd Axworthy: You are the
Government now; take your responsibility.


Ms. Copps:: How is the Tory, Sterling Lyon? [Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: As I said, the matter at this point is very important to the country, and we should therefore extend a level of courtesy to all Members in this House.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when I was in Saskatchewan on April 14, 1988, when there was a problem in regard to minority rights, I was asked in the presence of Premier Devine how I fundamentally felt about the concept of minority rights. My philosophy is one that
Oral Questions
perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to repeat in one line.
I said, if you want to understand how you should deal with minorities ask yourself what it would be like to be in a position of a minority and treat the minority with all the generosity that you would want extended to yourself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: What are you going to do about it? Come on, Brian, show some leadership on this one.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That applies to English-speaking minorities in Quebec, French-speaking minorities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and elsewhere. It applies across the board.
All Members of the House, all Leaders of political Parties in this House, recognize that language can indeed be a difficult instrument of division, but it can also become an instrument of some unity and strength. It has to be treated fairly and in a responsible, thoughtful manner.
As I indicated yesterday, I will be meeting with the First Ministers.
I think we made very substantial strides with Bill C-72 which provided substantial enhancement of minority language rights in the federal Public Service and across Canada. We did the same thing with the Meech Lake Accord, perhaps not perfectly, but we made great strides in protecting English and French-speaking minority rights across Canada. We can do more.
I am satisfied, if the atmosphere is one of calm reason, that ultimately tolerance and justice, for which Canadians are well known, will prevail and we will have the type of Canada which brings fairness to minorities wherever they are.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Two weeks ago the people of Canada were witness to an unseemly manifestation of corruption in the guilty plea of the former Member of this House for the riding of

December 21, 1988
Oral Questions
Gamelin. This man was not just an ordinary crook, but an elected Member of the House, and a Member of the Prime Minister's caucus.
This guilty plea and the preferred indictment process chosen by the Crown have now covered up the facts and background of this corruption, but the public interest requires disclosure of this information.
What steps will the Prime Minister take to expose and explain this insidious chain of corruption associated with his Tory Government?


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member feels very strongly about this question, and it is a matter of importance. I would just point out that it may well be administration of justice in the province, but the Minister is rising and we will hear the Minister.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs and Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as you indicated, this question relates to a matter that is still before the courts. I have no intention to make comment on it, and I would hope that the Hon. Member would show in his subsequent activities in the House a greater respect for the institutions of the country, including the courts, than he has shown in his first question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Contempt himself!


VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT QUERY
Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has failed to note that the matter I just addressed has been the subject of a guilty plea in the courts of this country.


Mr. Beatty:: It's still before the court.


Derek Vincent Lee: As the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister know, common law criminal procedure permits parties harmed by an offence to make submissions to sentence through the Crown.
Will the Prime Minister make a commitment to the House to submit a victim impact statement to the court so as to impress upon the court and all Canadians the seriousness of these offences?


Mr. Charest:: That is incredible!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Where is your Leader?


Mr. Andre:: Out of order!


Mr. Foster:: I do not think the Tories like this question. Methinks the Tories do protest too much.
Ms. Copps. Ripping off the public!


Jean J. Charest: Any other case you want us to handle?


Sheila Maureen Copps: How about Sine Stevens' legal bills? Bribes, that is what we are talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances, I think we should move on to the next question.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT SOCIAL PROGRAMS-POSITION OF CANADIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
During the election campaign, the Chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce wrote a letter to the Leader of my Party, saying, in part, and I quote:
We have no fear whatsoever that our social or development
programs will be affected by the free trade agreement, and we have
said so repeatedly.
In the light of the statement by the Chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce yesterday that his organization is now calling upon the federal Government to cut spending on universal social programs, including the unemployment insurance program, as well as spending to industry, which would take in regional development programs, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he is prepared today to say, in an unequivocal way, that he will reject the request of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce for this type of cutback in government spending, and in fact maintain the level of government spending on social programs in this country.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: The Hon. Member is quite correct in quoting someone as saying that the Free Trade Agreement will have no effect on the social services, the social programs
December 21, 1988

that are now in effect in Canada. That is quite clear when one reads the terms of the agreement.
As to any suggestion that those outside of government can influence government spending, I can only tell the Hon. Member that we in this Government decide upon government policy, and not anyone from the outside.
The fact that many members of the labour movement in Canada are asking that the Leader of the New Democratic Party be removed from office is not to say that their advice should be heeded. The fact that the same individuals who came out against free trade are now coming out against the Leader of the New Democratic Party is not to say that their advice should be listened to.


CHAMBER'S REQUEST THAT ROYAL COMMISSION BE APPOINTED
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The "Bay Street" buddies of the Minister, mainly in the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, have called upon the Government to establish a royal commission on social programs in this country.
I would ask the Prime Minister to confirm today that he will say "no" to his Bay Street buddies, that he will say "no" to the multinationals in this country, and that there will be no royal commission looking to cutback the social programs in place in Canada today.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the majority on this side of the House were elected by the voters of Main Street Canada, and those are the people we intend to listen to for the next four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOFTWOOD LUMBER TAX-LAY-OFFS ANNOUNCED BY GREAT WEST FOREST PRODUCTS
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
Great West Forest Products of Thunder Bay today announced the lay-off of 180 employees.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!
Oral Questions


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: That lay-off will be followed by a layoff of a further 180 people who work in the bush. In addition, 60 independent contractors will lose their jobs.
This lay-off, in total, will affect 420 workers.
In its press release the company states that the closure is a direct result of the 15 per cent export tax imposed by this Government.
Why has the Government not taken action to get rid of that export tax, a tax that is costing hundreds of jobs in northern Ontario?


John Carnell Crosbie: The export tax was a tax-


An Hon. Member:: That is a tax on Main Street Canada, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: The export tax was a tax imposed after a great deal of consultation between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the provinces most affected by the threattened American actions in connection with softwood lumber. Rather than having increased tariffs attached to Canadian softwood lumber products going into the U.S., it was felt that the money should be kept in Canada, and it is for that reason that the export tax was imposed.
Through the increase in stumpage fees and, in certain provinces, the imposition of the 15 per cent export tax, the additional moneys are retained in Canada, principally in British Columbia, as opposed to going into the coffers of the U.S.
Mr. Speaker, this is not something that was voluntary on our part. It was, rather, to salvage a situation that was not of our making.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That was Pat Carney's "final offer".


John Carnell Crosbie: When and if it becomes possible to alter that arrangement, and the provinces and the other parties concerned wish to have it changed, we would be more than willing to sit down and discuss it with them.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Are you going to amend the Free Trade Agreement?


REQUEST FOR ELIMINATION OF PROVISION IN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: My
information is that this is just the tip of the iceberg in so far as the loss of jobs in Thunder Bay is concerned.

December 21, 1988
Oral Questions
Thousands of jobs will be lost this winter due to this export tax.
As has been said, it is something that has received grandfathering treatment under the Free Trade Agreement. I would ask the Minister whether the Government is prepared to take action to eliminate the grandfathering treatment and to delete the applicable clause from the Free Trade Agreement.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe the Memorandum of Understanding has a termination clause in it, and if the provinces and the other parties concerned believe that it is an arrangement that should be terminated, thus allowing the Americans to proceed with the countervailing tariffs that they threatened, that is a step that could be taken. But we would certainly have to consider such a course very carefully.


Lloyd Axworthy: Take it before the GATT. Challenge them.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Indian Affairs.
Yesterday I was informed by representatives of New Brunswick Indians that the Department of Indian Affairs has adopted a new set of social policies, policies that encourage native poverty.
Indian communities now face a series of unilateral cut-backs imposed by the regional administration of Indian Affairs, which cut-backs will make life very difficult for those communities, communities in which unemployment runs as high as 90 per cent.
Is the Minister aware of these cut-backs, and does he agree with them?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Beausejour wishes to have information on the budget of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for native people
and Indians, especially in New Brunswick, I can show him that over the last four years, the funds for services to Indians increased steadily since 1984. Therefore, his allegation of cuts is not based on facts and he would do well to check the figures before rising in the House and uttering such nonsense.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET INDIAN DELEGATION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Indian communities of New Brunswick were the ones who showed me those figures and said there were cuts. Could the Minister explain why he has so far refused to meet with this delegation that is now here in Ottawa in order to understand the implications of these cuts on these communities? Does he agree to meet with them? They are here and wish to meet him.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am glad to see that the Hon. Member for Beausejour has managed to find time to meet with these Indians. I could tell him, Mr. Speaker, that I have never refused to meet with anyone. Indeed, the Indians of New Brunswick probably never had a Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development who gave them so much time because I am the first one from New Brunswick; however, I do not intend to make appointments in the House of Commons. But certainly, if they want to contact me, I am ready to meet them.


PRICE OF OIL
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, and is as follows:
'Twill be the night before Christmas, and up at the Soo More than 600 steelworkers will have no work to do.
Lay-offs at Algoma for up to two months Starting just before Christmas have folks down in the dumps
And the reason is low sales of tubular steel-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Harvey: If I may continue:
'Cause out in Alberta nobody will deal.
With oil prices staying disastrously low,-
December 21, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Let him finish!


Mr. Speaker:: Given the time, perhaps the Hon. Member would like to put his question.


Ross Harvey: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it is so rarely that I am struck by the Calli-opean Muse. It costs jobs in Ontario. It costs jobs in Alberta. When will the Minister approach his Alberta confreres to negotiate a reasonable Canadian floor price for Canadian oil?
Tabling of Documents
Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to lay upon the table, in both official languages, copies of the annual report of the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act; and I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Hon. Member is not trying to suggest that we return to the National Energy Program.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East on a very short supplemental.


FLOOR PRICE QUERY
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, no one is talking about a return to the National Energy Program.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Harvey: What we are talking about is allowed for in the Western Accord that the Minister signed in 1985, a floor price for Canadian oil.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, obviously, if the Minister sets a ceiling price, he will set a floor price. And if so, we would be right back to the national energy policy.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) and Acting President of the
Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 20, consideration in committee of Bill C-2, an Act to enact the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act-Mr. Crosbie-Mr. Danis in the Chair.
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That further consideration of clauses 1 to 150, the Preamble, Title and Schedule and any amendments proposed thereto at the Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-2 shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.


The Chairman:: The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands rises on a point of order.


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Chairman, as Hon. Members will know, the present closure rule was introduced into the House of Commons in 1913. The words of the rule are quite explicit. We heard them in the motion just read by the Deputy House Leader. I refer to the words: "The items shall be the first business of the committee and shall not further be postponed". I submit that the words "further be postponed" have a specific meaning. In my submission, the motion as proposed is out of order.
The words of the closure rule in the House have been unchanged from their introduction in 1913. At the time of their introduction the Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was the Minister who had framed this particular rule, made certain statements about the application of the closure rule. Those words are instructive for understanding the manner in which it is to be dealt with in the House today. I would like to refer to House of Commons Debates of April 10, 1913 where, as reported on page 7536, Mr. Meighen was discussing the manner in which this rule would be applied. He stated:
December 21, 1988

I do not know that I understand the question but I will repeat what I have said and 1 think the hon. gentleman will understand me. Clause 2 is under discussion and the Government have reason, by what they have observed, to see that it is being obstructed, or on reasons that appear to them good, they move that the discussion be adjourned.
He was interrupted, and then further stated:
Nothing more, however, is done at that time and they pass to clause 3. That is the next thing to do, without a doubt. Clause 3 then becomes the subject of discussion in the committee. Clause 3 is under consideration and the committee discusses it also for a time, and the Government takes the responsibility for the length of that time. Then, if the same conditions develop; if the Government deem it is their duty as the custodians of the rights of the people of this country, they can move that the consideration of that clause be postponed. Then the committee passes to clause 4 and it is in the same category, and nothing is done as yet except merely to move the postponement.
In this committee we have considered one clause only, and it has not been postponed. How can it be further postponed, that is the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Following the introduction of the closure rule in 1913 it was applied in the debate on the naval Bill in that year. The procedure described by Mr. Meighen in the passage I have quoted was followed faithfully throughout the discussion on the naval Bill in Committee of the Whole, and indeed on all other parts of the Bill.
In 1917 closure was invoked again on two occasions. Rather than go back to the 1917 Debates, I would like to read from Hansard of May 31, 1956 where the events of 1917 were summarized by a person now sitting at the Table of the House, Mr. Stanley Knowles, who rose on a point of order similar to the one that I am raising today. At that time he summarized the use of closure on the naval Bill in 1913, and at page 4509 of Hansard he stated:
In the case of the naval aid bill in 1913-hon. members can find this in volume V-after considerable discussion clause 1 was carried. Clause 2 was discussed for a considerable time and then was postponed, as recorded in column 9276. Clause 3 was moved in that column and postponed in column 9339. Clause 4 was moved on that page and not postponed until column 9348. I could go on right down to clause 6. It was only after all of the clauses had had some discussion in the committee-I am not confusing the issue by pointing out the kind of so-called discussion we had on clauses 1, 2 or 3; I am letting that go because the issue about clauses . . .
Mr. Knowles continued to discuss the pipeline Bill, and I need not read that.
Mr. Knowles described two instances in 1917 on a Bill having to do with the Canadian National Railways, and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I will not read it all because it is exactly the same procedure that was followed in 1913.
Having referred to those three precedents, there is a further one in 1919 to which I wish to refer you, Mr. Chairman. That is the debate on April 25 and 28, 1919 on the Bill to establish the Canadian National Railways Company. In all of those cases that I have cited the procedure was followed: the clause came up for consideration before the committee, was considered by the committee for however brief a time, then consideration was postponed.
The closure motion was moved after all clauses had been considered, and a day's debate was then held which went at that time until 2 a.m.-now we go until 1 a.m.-and the question on the Bill was finally decided.
That procedure changed in only two instances. I wish to describe them briefly because obviously they will be relied upon by the Government in support of this most unusual procedure. I submit that they are quite different from the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. The first of those occasions arose in 1932 in a discussion on a Bill entitled the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act of 1932.
That particular Bill contained three clauses. The first was the operative clause, the second required that all Orders in Council and regulations made under the Act be tabled in the House of Commons, and the third was the title. During the consideration in the committee of that Bill, following lengthy discussion on clause 1, the Government invoked the closure motion similar to the one being considered today, and moved that further consideration of all clauses not be postponed.
At the urging of the then Prime Minister, the Chairman ruled that the discussion on clause 1 had covered the discussion on all the other clauses of the Bill because it was the operative clause in the Bill, and he allowed the Government motion to be voted upon. It was first carried in the affirmative and the closure rule went into effect so that the decision was made later that day on the Bill.
The second example of procedure, which I submit was incorrect, as was the 1932 example I have just cited, occurred 32 years ago in the pipeline debate. In an earlier speech in the House on the procedural motion last Friday I have already discussed the import of that particular measure.
During the course of the pipeline debate on May 31 there were seven clauses in the pipeline Bill. There had

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
been three considered in Committee of the Whole and postponed. Consideration was proceeding on Clause 4 and had proceeded for some considerable time. The Government moved a similar motion to the one moved today, that further consideration of all the clauses not be postponed. It was then that Mr. Knowles, among others, and Mr. Fulton, who was a former colleague of some of the people on the other side of the Chamber, raised points of order objecting to the proposal that had been put before the House.
The Chairman ruled that the motion as proposed was in order. The Chairman's ruling was appealed to the Chair. The Speaker also ruled that it was in order, and his decision was appealed to the House and upheld on appeal. That decision was made on Friday, June 1, a day referred to by former colleagues opposite as Black Friday. On the following Monday they were so disturbed that the Speaker had made such a ruling that they moved a motion of non confidence in the Speaker of the House, an unprecedented move, and debated that for some days in an effort to undermine his authority.
There are no other precedents of which I am aware, or that I have been able to find where this rule has been used in Committee of the Whole.
Based upon a review of those authorities, I submit that the motion now before us is out of order. I submit to the Chair that the 1932 ruling, upheld in 1956, constitutes a bad decision and one which ought not to be followed. As a consequence, the Chair should ignore the rulings of 1932 and 1956.
R. MacGregor-Dawson, in his book Procedures in the Canadian House of Commons, published in 1962, states, at page 130: "The precedent established in 1932 and strengthened in 1956 is obviously an undesirable one. A system under which only a few clauses of a Bill are considered before being passed is neither wise nor sensible."
In addition, the Speaker of this House, on Thursday, December 15 last, made a ruling on a previous closure motion moved by the Deputy Government House Leader, and I should like to quote from that ruling. At page 78 of Hansard, we read the following:
After a very careful consideration of this point, I am more persuaded by the weight of precedent and practice. Taking into consideration the gravity of the measure to be invoked and the necessity of protecting the rights of the minority, it is my feeling and decision that the intention of the Standing Order as drafted and as it has been applied is to allow a majority to impose closure only after
debate on the question has begun. This is to ensure that such a debate is not unfairly or prematurely curtailed. In this instance, debate on the motion had clearly not begun when the Hon. Minister served notice.
And I submit that debate on any clause but Clause 2 of Bill C-2 had not begun at the time of the notice of motion calling for closure, or the motion itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: If you are not persuaded that the rulings of 1932 and 1956 are incorrect, then I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that there is another significant difference. I have in my hand the 1932 Bill that was under consideration. As can be seen, it is one page in length, with a title page. I also have in my hand the pipeline Bill, which comprises some seven or eight pages and a title page. And I now have in my hand Bill C-2, the Bill which we are being asked to conclude committee consideration of today, having only discussed one clause, and one can readily see how thick it is. In addition to the Bill itself, it has schedule, after schedule, after schedule.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the 1932 and 1956 precedents, being poor rulings, ought to be overlooked by you, and that you should take cognizance of the precedents established in 1913, twice in 1917, and again in 1919, precedents established in accordance with the view of the author of the closure rule as to how that rule should operate in this House.
I submit that that is the proper course for the Chair to follow. The motion of the Deputy Government Leader ought to be ruled out of order, and we should proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: What is your answer, Doug?


Marcel Danis: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis), on the same point of order.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset, I must say that the case presented by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands is an extremely convincing one.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I simply wish to add two points, the first of which is to repeat again that the last time we saw this procedural blitzkrieg take place was back in 1956, 32 years ago, during the pipeline debate.
December 21, 1988

I refer the Chair to Citation 334(8) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which makes it perfectly clear that the precedents conflict as to whether closure may be moved on a clause which has not yet been called and postponed in Committee of the Whole.
As the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands has indicated, on four occasions-1913, twice in 1917, and in 1919-all of the clauses had been postponed before closure was moved; and on two occasions, in 1932, in connection with the unemployment and farm relief legislation, and in 1956, in connection with the pipeline legislation, closure was used on clauses which had not yet been called.
Obviously the precedents conflict; there are precedents on both sides of the argument. But, I think that we in this House would be well advised to look to the most recent decision of our own Speaker, a decision brought in on December 15 last in respect of the attempt by the Deputy Government House Leader to give notice of closure in respect of a debate which had not yet begun.
In his ruling, the Speaker made it perfectly clear that such a course was unacceptable; that procedurally, such a course was inappropriate.
I submit to the Chair that we are in exactly the same position at this time. We are being asked now to accept the notion that we can discuss closure on questions that have yet to be put. I suggest to the Chair that the motion of the Deputy House Leader to invoke closure be ruled out of order.


Marcel Danis: The Chair recognizes the Minister of State.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me compliment the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands on his initial foray into the procedures of this House. I compliment him on the considerations which he raised in his argument.
He asked us to follow comments made during debate in this House, and that we consider to be a worthwhile effort. Such comments are always instructive. However, I think the Chair would agree, as would all Members, that we are more inclined to follow the precedents set by previous Speakers than we are comments made during the course of debate.
Rather than asking the Chair to overrule the decisions of previous Speakers, we request that the Chair follow precedent.
Canada-US. Free Trade Agreement
The Hon. Member for Kamloops made the comment that, on December 15 last, a notice of closure was ruled out of order-and, yes, it was. That notice of motion to invoke closure was ruled out of order clearly because it had been given before the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill had commenced. I understand that. At the time I commented that we had ventured into that area knowing that there was no precedent. I can recall saying at the time that we had decided that we would test it to see if we could make it stick-and it didn't stick, and I can recall complimenting the Chair at the time on its ruling.
Obviously, the notice of closure should come at the proper time. I grant that. But I suggest to the Hon. Member that there is a big difference between the situation of December 15, which involved our having given notice of closure before the debate had actually started, and the situation which prevailed last evening, at which point we gave notice that we would be moving closure during Committee of the Whole consideration at the first crack.
I draw to the attention of the House the actual wording of the Standing Order 57, which states that any Minister of the Crown may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not further be postponed, and so forth.
In accordance with Standing Order 57, I gave notice yesterday of our intention to move closure today. We are now in Committee of the Whole, having resumed Committee of the Whole consideration of the Bill, and it is for that reason that I have put the motion at this time.
I submit to the Chair that we have used all of the proper and required forms, proposing that all of the elements of the Bill, none of which had been voted or stood by the committee at the time of the putting of the motion, be the subject of the closure motion. All clauses and all elements of the Bill were included in the notice, and the request was that it be dealt with as the first business of the Committee of the Whole.
There is an "s" or a pluralized form in the standing order that has been unchanged since 1913, other than, as has been mentioned, to change the hour from 2 a.m. to 1 a.m. The clear intention of the order is that one closure motion can be moved with respect to all parts of the Bill, or any specific parts. We went on to add schedules and to make sure that our notice was allinclusive.

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I want to refer my friend to the pipeline debate and the decision. I think it is important to note that in this particular case it was a decision of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, which was appealed to the Speaker, and then the Speaker's ruling was challenged. What we had here was something that does not happen anymore, that is, a challenge of the Speaker's ruling. Not only do we have the ruling but we have the force and effect of a House decision backing up a Speaker's ruling.
I want to read what the Speaker said on June 1, 1956. He said this:
The question is the following one:
In committee of the whole, Mr. St. Laurent (Quebec East) moved that at this sitting of the committee of the whole house on Bill No. 298, an act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, the further consideration of clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this committee and shall not be further postponed.
Mr. Fulton raised a point of order that the motion was not in order on the ground that certain clauses of the bill have not been before the committee and also that other clauses were postponed before being considered by the committee, and therefore, in accordance with standing order 33, the said clauses could not come within the ambit of the proposed motion. The chairman ruled that in accordance with the rules and the practice of the house the motion is in order. Whereupon Mr. Knowles appealed to the House from the ruling of the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Philip Derek Lewis: I bet they are. I will bet they are; and they are saying: "What the devil are you doing? The people decided". That is what they are saying on your phone calls.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I close not with a procedural argument, I admit, but I suggest to you that the public was asked to decide a fundamental question, that is, the free trade Bill. They decided. We are here to take action on that debate. I submit that the action we are taking by way of notice of closure and the closure motion is fully in order.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some very brief submissions on the point of order. I would submit that the motion moved by the Minister is out of order. I concur with the comments
December 21, 1988

of my colleague with respect to his reasons why the motion is out of order. I would further submit, Sir, the wording chosen by the Hon. Minister would also render his motion to be out of order. I would like to read it for the House. He moved a few moments ago, presumably under Standing Order 57 of the Standing Orders, and I quote:
That further consideration of Clauses 1 to 150, the Preamble, Title and Schedule and any amendments proposed thereto at the Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-2 shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
The operative words are: "shall not be further postponed". The intent of the motion moved by the Hon. Minister is that the debate ought not to be further adjourned. Under Standing Order 57 of the Standing Orders it speaks of the notice that must be given at a previous sitting of the House. It refers to the difference between not further adjourning a debate and not further postponing consideration of any particular clause that may be under consideration.
As my hon. friend submitted, how can one further postpone something that has not yet been postponed? As
1	understand it, the only clause under consideration at the present moment is Clause 2. At no point was Clause
2	ever postponed.
With respect to adjournment, I suspect that what the Minister is trying to do is to limit debate until later this day, in other words, to exhaust debate not only on Clause 2 but on every clause in Bill C-2. But he chose the wrong motion. Once again he used the words "shall not be further postponed".
If you refer, Sir, to Standing Order 57 of the Standing Orders you will see that the first part of the clause indicates that at a previous sitting of the House a certain notice must be given. It states that the Minister:
-may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles shall be the first business of the Committee, and shall not be further be postponed;
I submit to you, Sir, that the motion is out of order because the Minister chose the wrong wording, as well as for the reasons given by my learned friend. In order to further the intent of what the Minister was trying to do he ought to have used the words "that the debate shall not be further adjourned and that any clauses presently postponed shall not be further postponed".
In closing, I would ask that you, Sir, refer to the dictionary definitions of the words "adjourn" and "postpone". In the Oxford dictionary "adjourn" is
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
defined as "being moved to another place or time"; and "postpone" is defined as "keep from occurring until a later time".
At no point did this House "keep from occurring until a later time" any particular clause under consideration, especially Clause 2. We did in fact adjourn the debate yesterday until today.
For those reasons I ask that you rule the motion moved by the Minister out of order.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Chairman, I want to participate briefly in this point of order. I do not need to revisit a lot of the ground already covered.
I think it is very clear this motion is in order for a number of reasons. If we refer to Citation 334 of Beauchesne's, as was done by the NDP House Leader, it says very clearly we have the precedent to proceed with this motion. We are backed by precedent, we can proceed, and as anyone who looks at the procedures of the House well knows, we tend to look at the most recent precedents as setting the tone and determining the rules that we can use in this institution today.
The other point made about that particular precedent is that it was agreed to by the entire House of Commons. It was put to a vote and Members endorsed it. However, I think there is one other element which has to be taken into account.
This happened back in the 1950s. Since that time there has not been an attempt, as far as I am aware, by any committee to go back and revisit this clause, to look at the precedent that was established in the pipeline debate, and attempt to overturn that precedent. I have participated in two groups which looked at the rules of the House of Commons and the precedents and suggested reforms, the Lefebvre Commission and the McGrath Committee. The latter committee was the author of the many rule changes we saw in the last Parliament.
I submit that the reason for there never having been an attempt to look at the closure rules and say that the pipeline debate precedent should not be used, is very simple. The majority decision of the House of Commons at that time was found acceptable and it has allowed this House to continue to do the type of thing we are doing today by introducing this motion. In fact, the precedent does apply and there has been no attempt to change it.

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


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have had some brief discussions with the House Leaders of the other Parties. I would suggest that in the event the Chair wishes to reserve on this decision and consider it, it would be helpful to all Members of the House if we were to agree on a time to come back to the House for a decision. I am not trying in any way to suggest that you rush this decision or anything like that, but if you found it appropriate, we might be prepared to convene to hear your decision at seven-thirty and to continue with clause-by-clause consideration in the meantime. If we can work out a specific time I think it will be helpful to all Parties.


Marcel Danis: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands, the Hon. Member for Kamloops, the Minister of State, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston and the Hon. Member for Peace River for their comments on this procedural matter. I will in fact take this matter under advisement for some time and I was going to suggest that we come back at the call of the Chair. However, I understand it would be easier if the Members had a specific time at which to return. If the suggestion made by the Hon. Minister is acceptable to the other two House Leaders, the Chair would also find it acceptable.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to rush you in your decision or in any way ask you how you intend to proceed. Standing Order 57 states that immediately before the Order of the Day, the Minister may do what he has done, that is, move closure in accordance with Standing Order 57.
A point of order was raised. Now, on the Minister's suggestion, you say we shall proceed to debate Clause 2, which is not yet before us, because the Orders of the Day have not yet been read. That poses a problem ... Listen carefully. There seems to be something missing.
If there is nothing before the House, there is nothing before the House. We can't invent something.
If the House agrees to proceed with the debate on Clause 2, the Chair must put a thing called Bill C-2 before the House. Then, we shall proceed with the debate.
I do not understand. I therefore ask the Chair to tell us how-the suggestion is a good one-but how do we proceed? I would like to know how we are to get out of this.


Marcel Danis: I shall reserve my decision in any event. There, I think that is settled.
My next decision is that I intend to adjourn for some time. If the House, if Hon. Members had wanted to continue the debate by agreement, that could have been done, but I see, I think that it might be in the interest of the House of Commons at this time and of the Committee to adjourn for a while.
So I intend to adjourn. All that I ask you now is whether you have a time to suggest to me. I will certainly take more than an hour, at least. But I think it would be preferable to have a set time so that all Hon. Members know when to come back.
I think that the suggestion of 7.30 p.m. seems reasonable to me and if there is no further objection ...


SITTING SUSPENDED
Marcel Danis: Is it the wish of the Committee to suspend the sitting to the call of the bell?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The sitting of the Committee was suspended at 4.25 p.m.
[Editor's note: For continuation of proceedings see Volume B]

Wednesday, December 21, 1988
[Editor's Note: Continuation of proceedings from Volume A.]


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The Committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Marcel Danis: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by a number of Members.
In the point of order raised earlier today, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands argued that the Hon. Minister of State for the Treasury Board was premature in giving notice of closure in relation to Bill C-2 because debate had not begun on many of the clauses that he referred to in his notice.
This leads easily to the further argument that the Minister's motion now before the Chair should be rejected. Since this motion must flow from his notice of yesterday, it too, it is argued, is defective.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands and the Hon. Member for Kamloops quoted from the Speaker's ruling made last week on December 15, 1988 in support of their argument. I should first address that issue.
Standing Order 57, without a doubt, provides for the giving of notice of closure either in the House or in Committee of the Whole. The Speaker's ruling of December 15, 1988 clarified what appeared to be an ambiguity as to the timing of the notice, and he ruled that notice can only be given once the debate has commenced on the matter to be closured.
Consideration of Bill C-2 in Committee of the Whole has also without a doubt begun, particularly as the committee is currently on Clause 2 of the Bill. The Minister, during the course of the consideration of Clause 2, gave notice of his intention to close debate on Clause 2 and on all remaining clauses of the said Bill. The timing of the Minister's action is, in my view, in keeping with the Speaker's ruling. Unlike the situation referred to last week, the Minister has served notice after debate on the committee stage had begun.
The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands and the Hon. Member for Kamloops further argued that the Minister's motion is procedurally faulty because it attempts to closure in Committee of the Whole parts of the Bill that have not yet been debated or postponed.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops is right in saying that Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 118, Citation 334, paragraph (8), sheds little light on this matter and that the citation is not quite definitive.

And I quote:
Precedents conflict as to whether closure may be moved on a clause which has not yet been called and postponed in a Committee of the Whole. On four occasions (1913, 1917 (twice) and 1919) all clauses had been postponed before closure was moved. On two occasions (1932 and 1956) closure was used on clauses which had not been called.

The committee will appreciate that since notice of this point of order was given yesterday, I have, in anticipation, reviewed in detail all the precedents mentioned in that citation, and for the benefit of those who may not yet have time to do so, I believe it would be useful to take the time to summarize them.
In 1913, the order in Committee of the Whole was on the Naval Aid Bill C-21. On February 28, 1913, debate commenced in Committee of the Whole on the Bill which contained five clauses. Clause 1 was adopted; Clauses 2 to 5 were all debated and postponed. Prime Minister Borden then proposed a new Clause 6, and it was debated and postponed. On May 8, 1913, notice of closure was given by the Prime Minister. On May 9, 1913, the Prime Minister moved:
That further consideration of the second, third, fourth and fifth clauses and the proposed sixth clause of this Bill shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
This motion covered all remaining clauses of the Bill in a new proposed Clause 6. The motion was agreed to 71 yeas; 44 nays. No procedural objections were made on the proceedings.
It should be noted that Prime Minister Borden had a very specific purpose in postponing consideration of all

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the clauses before invoking closure. Under our rules, new clauses are considered only after all clauses have been considered. I refer Elon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 765.
Therefore, had the Prime Minister proceeded in any different manner, he could not have proposed his new Clause 6 to the Naval Bill since closure could preclude the Committee of the Whole from reaching Clause 5 before the hour provided for interruption.
In 1917, there were two occurrences of closure in Committee of the Whole. All four clauses of Bill C-125, the Canadian Northern Railway Act, and all five clauses and the schedule of Bill C-133, the Wartime Elections Act, were first postponed before closure was invoked. The Debates or the Journals offer no explanation of why this procedure was followed and there was no objection or procedural discussion.
The 1919 case is more analogous to the 1913 case. The Committee of the Whole was debating Bill C-70, the Canadian National Railway Act. The Committee had adopted some clauses and postponed others in what was a 30-clause Bill. As in 1913, the Prime Minister was required to seek the postponement of all the clauses because he, too, wished to move two new clauses numbered 31 and 32. Like Prime Minister Borden in 1913, if he had proceeded any differently and had invoked closure any earlier, he would probably have been precluded from moving any amendments.
The next instance of closure in Committee of the Whole was on April 1, 1932. Prime Minister Bennett moved:
That further consideration of the title and Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, shall be the first business of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
This motion covered all clauses of the Bill, although only Clause 1 had been formally called and debated. The motion was put and carried and there was no procedural challenge to the fact that some clauses had not been called or postponed. This precedent is virtually identical to the situation the committee now faces.
The most recent example of closure in Committee of the Whole took place on May 24, 1956, when debate commenced in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-298, the Northern Ontario Pipeline Corporation. Clauses 1 to 3 were postponed, Clause 4 was being debated, and Clauses 5 to 7 were never called. On May 30, 1956,
notice of closure was given by Prime Minister St. Laurent. On May 31, 1956, Prime Minister St. Laurent moved:
That at this sitting of the whole House on Bill No. 298, an Act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipeline Corporation, the further consideration of Clauses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, the title of the said Bill, and any amendments proposed thereto, shall be the first business of this Committee and shall not be further postponed.
The closure motion covered all clauses of the Bill, although Clauses 5 to 7 were never called or debated. A point of order was raised, and the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole ruled the motion in order, referring to the 1932 precedent. His decision was appealed to the Speaker, who confirmed the ruling. The Speaker, whose rulings were at that time subject to an appeal of the House, were also challenged.
The question was put to the House for decision, and the ruling that the Minister could closure clauses not yet called was sustained by a vote of 143 yeas to 50 nays.
To address the matter raised by the Hon. Member for York-South Weston, I should point out to the committee that the language used by the Minister today is the same as in every case heretofore mentioned.
As I said earlier, Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citation 344, offers little direction, but an analysis of the cases seems to provide some indication.
In two cases, 1913 and 1919, it would appear that the clauses were postponed for procedurally strategic reasons. In two other cases, both in 1917, all clauses were simply postponed and the debates shed no light on why. On the last two occasions when closure was invoked, in 1932 and 1956, some of the clauses in the Bills concerned had not been reached, and in the latter case rulings were made by the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and the Speaker, which were subsequently confirmed by the House itself, that the closure motion was in order.
The 1958 Fourth Edition of Beauchesne's gives us a little more to consider. The committee will remember that prior to 1968 most Bills of Supply and of Ways and Means destined for a Committee of the Whole were preceded by a resolution first considered by the Committee of the Whole.

Citation 167 of the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne says, in part:
-If, under this Standing Order, the notice applies to several proposed resolutions, the whole of the sittings allowed for discussion may be engaged in only a part of them and the
December 21, 1988

remainder has to be voted on without the House having debated them at all. The right of free debate is thereby abolished in so far as those proposed resolutions are concerned.
This citation is very important, and I will read it again in English.

-If, under this Standing Order, the notice applies to several proposed resolutions, the whole of the sittings allowed for discussion may be engaged in only a part of them and the remainder has to be voted on without the House having debated them at all. The right of free debate is thereby abolished in so far as those proposed resolutions are concerned.
It is obvious from that citation that Beauchesne's 1958 Fourth Edition at least envisaged the possibility of closure being applied in Committee of the Whole to parts of a Bill not yet debated.
The Hon. Minister of State for the Treasury Board made a strong point in underlining that the 1956 precedent which confirms the 1932 precedent carries the authority of sustained Chairman's decision, a Speaker's ruling, and a recorded decision by the House itself.
The Hon. Member for Peace River accurately pointed out that in all the recent discussions of procedural reforms, closure has remained untouched.
Therefore, in light of the 1958 Beauchesne's citation, the precedents of 1932 and 1956, and the lack of further direction by the House since 1956, I must rule that the Minister's Notice given yesterday is valid and that his proposed motion is in order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Danis: It is now my duty to propose the question without further debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I respectfully appeal your ruling to the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the Chairman of the Committee made the following report:
When the Order of the Day to resume consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, was about to be called, the Hon. Minister of State for Treasury Board proposed to move that further consideration of Clauses 1 to 150, the preamble, the title and schedule, and any amendments proposed thereto of the Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-2 shall be the First business of the Committee and shall not be further postponed.
A point of order was raised by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands about the procedural acceptability of the notice and the form of the motion.
After hearing argument, I ruled that the notice was in the proper form and could be proceeded with.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Whereupon, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands appealed to Mr. Speaker from the decision of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Speaker to stand the House for a few minutes to consider carefully the reasons the Chairman has given. I shall do that, to the call of the Chair.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, when you say "to the call of the Chair", will the bells ring for five minutes as they did on the previous occasion?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that would be appropriate.


SITTING SUSPENDED
[Stage Direction]
The sitting of the House was suspended at 7.52 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8.15 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: I have been following the proceedings carefully. I listened to the Chairman's ruling, and I have considered the arguments from both sides of the House. During the recess just concluded I read the Chairman's ruling, and I am satisfied that the two precedents mentioned, that of 1932 and that of 1956, are persuasive precedents. I rule that the Chairman has properly applied them to the issue before us. Therefore, I confirm the ruling of the Chair.
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-2, an Act to enact the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act-Mr. Crosbie-Mr. Danis in the chair.


Marcel Danis: The motion is the following one: Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moved:
That further consideration of Clauses 1 to 150, the preamble, the
title and schedule, and any amendments proposed thereto at the
Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-2 shall be the first business
of the committee and shall not be further postponed.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion (Mr. Lewis) agreed to: Yeas, 147; Nays, 77.

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


Marcel Danis: I declare the motion carried. The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East, on debate.


Mr. Belsher:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to compliment you on accepting the position of Chairman of the Committee of the Whole. As well, I congratulate you on your re-election. I should also like to extend a special welcome to all new Members of the House. I wish them well and look forward to working with them.
I should also like to say a special thank you to the people of Fraser Valley East for again honouring me with their support and sending me back to Ottawa to be their representative in this the Thirty-fourth Parliament.
We are on Clause 2 of Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement. The agreement itself is about the phasing out of tariffs. The position of the Opposition is: Given that 80 per cent of the trade between Canada and the U.S. is free of tariffs, and given that we are getting along fine under that regime, why bother with the other 20 per cent?


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear! A good question.


Ross Belsher: The fact is, the 80 per cent of the trade that is without tariff is trade in raw materials. It is the value-added exports that attract tariffs, and it is those tariffs that we are endeavouring to phase out over the next 10 years.
To give Hon. Members an example, a pair of shoes produced in Canada would attract a 48 per cent tariff if sold in the U.S. Yet, raw materials flow back and forth across the Canada-U.S. border without tariff. The Opposition Parties have played to the fears of Canadians. They say that because something is not in the agreement, it is at risk. That is just not true.
The Free Trade Agreement is a trade agreement only. It is a way of ensuring continued access to the largest market in the world, the U.S. market. Bill C-2 merely implements the agreement consummated by the Prime Minister and the President over one year ago, an agreement which will ensure continued access to each other's markets without fear of tariff barriers, without fear of protectionism.
In the Fraser Valley, the independent shake and shingle producers know first-hand the detrimental effects of protectionist measures. In a recent letter to the Prime Minister, the Fraser Valley Independent Shake and Shingle Producers Association stated:
We urge you to pass the Free Trade Agreement as soon as practical so that others, when faced with similar actions from the U.S., will have a definitive course of action available to them that will lead to a more timely and objective solution.
Further, they went on to state:
We strongly agree with your opinion that had the Free Trade Agreement been in place in 1986, this specific section 201 action by the U.S. against us would not have been implemented.
This from an industry which has suffered without a free trade agreement.
I have heard opponents compare the Free Trade Agreement to being as dangerous as laying down beside an elephant. To those people, I say: Please wake up to reality. We are already laying down beside an elephant. The Free Trade Agreement is to protect us should that elephant decide to roll over.
As I stated during the election campaign, the Free Trade Agreement is good for the people of my riding of Fraser Valley East, and for the people of Canada. It does not threaten our social programs. It does not give our resources to the Americans; it does not give our water to the Americans; and it does not threaten our agricultural supply management systems.
We cannot say it more clearly than that, and still the Opposition Parties try to scare Canadians into believing their wild accusations.
I am glad to see that Canadians cannot be hoodwinked. They have clearly stated, as the results of the election of November 21 indicate, that they are not afraid of progress.
I see the Free Trade Agreement as ensuring that the American market-place remains open and accessible to Canadians, providing opportunities for continued economic growth and ensuring the continuation of the prosperity we have begun to build in the past four years of Progressive Conservative government.
Fet me take a moment to review the history of free trade. The idea of some sort of free trade agreement with our neighbour has been around since Confederation, and even before. Sir John A. Macdonald sought reciprocity and turned to his national policy only when the U.S. rejected the idea of reciprocity.
Sir Wilfrid Faurier, the seventh Prime Minister of Canada, and a Liberal, wanted unrestricted reciprocity with the U.S.
In the 1930s, both Canada and the U.S. entered into a Most Favoured Nation agreement to help stimulate one
December 21, 1988

another's economies in the wake of the depression of the 1930s, leading to the establishment of the GATT.
In 1982, the Canadian Senate, dominated by Liberals, issued its report on free trade with the U.S., which report stated, and I quote:
-the desired restructuring, growth and competitiveness of Canadian industry can best be achieved by the negotiation of a bilateral free trade agreement with the United States..
In 1983, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed the Royal Commission on the Economy, headed by Donald Macdonald, a former Liberal Finance Minister. That commission was in place for three years, during which time it held public hearings in every part and region of Canada. Its conclusions were straightforward and clear:
Free trade will help make us richer and, by making us richer, strengthen the fabric of our country and increase our selfconfidence. It will offer our nation a more secure relationship and make us less vulnerable.
Earlier this month, Canada hosted the GATT countries in Montreal for the purpose of conducting a review of the mid-point results from the GATT Uruguay Round.
GATT was formed January 1, 1948. Canada was one of the 23 founding members. This agreement sets out the rules for international trade. We remain firmly committed to GATT today and the rules it has put in place. It remains the cornerstone of our trade policy. The FTA is fully consistent with the spirit and letter of GATT. Article 24 allows GATT signatories to negotiate free trade areas.
The most current round of multilateral negotiations began in September of 1986. It is to be concluded in 1990. These negotiations, called the Uruguay Round, included on the agenda across the board negotiations on agriculture. Unfortunately, there was no agreement. There is an obvious need for more discussion within GATT on agriculture. Canada's import controls in support of supply-management programs are in conformity with GATT. This is not the case with the U.S. or the European Economic Community. The U.S. and EEC support policies that generate large surpluses which are in turn dumped on the world market with the help of massive export subsidies.
At the recent Montreal meetings we worked to reduce trade distorting subsidies which are causing serious difficulties for our farmers. What we were concerned with at those meetings in Montreal was the fact that Article 11, dealing with supply-management and import
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
restrictions, is imprecise. Canada's position is that the Article should be clarified to ensure that it is not misused, that the appropriate agricultural products are covered and the Canadian supply-management system is compatible with post-Montreal GATT obligations. Unfortunately, the 96 GATT member countries at the meeting could not agree on a negotiating framework and the gap between the EEC and the U.S. was too great at this time. However, we will continue to work toward a solution at future meetings.
Because of Article 11, even if you were to throw out the Free Trade Agreement you would still be faced with doing something about trade distortions. That is something the opposition Members failed to tell the farming community.
The Government had three objectives regarding agriculture in the Free Trade Agreement. One was to improve access for farm products, then to make access more secure, and then to preserve our agricultural policy instruments. Those objectives were met. The agreement gradually eliminates all tariffs and addresses a broad range of agricultural non-tariff barriers. It also safeguards the Canadian agriculture marketing system, and provides flexibility for the introduction of new supply-management systems consistent with rights and obligations under GATT.
With respect to the specific impact on the major agricultural sectors of most interest to the people of the Fraser Valley, this agreement will have no effect on the supply-management system for dairy products or the poultry industry. There will be no effect on primary producer returns for poultry and eggs from tariff reductions since import controls are maintained, although import quotas for chicken, turkeys and eggs will be increased slightly to the benefit of the food processor. That was based on an average of imports over the previous five years. Increased export market opportunities for high quality finished cattle for slaughter and high quality beef and pork is what is expected by that industry.
The Opposition, over these many months, has been saying that we sold out our energy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Free Trade Agreement says, in Article 902, that Canadian and U.S. rights and obligations under GATT on legitimate trade restrictions on energy products are affirmed. Canada retains its power to control the flow of Canadian energy exports. It also says that if you have contracts, contracts must be lived up to. As it affects British Columbia, this part of the agreement talks about the Bonnyville power system

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
which B.C. wants access to in order to sell energy to the California market. That is covered in Article 905.2.
Article 907 deals with Canadian uranium and electricity exports. It has been said that we cannot sell energy to the U.S. at a higher price than what it is sold for in Canada. That is just not so. Article 908 says that Canada's long-term obligations under an international agreement are still in effect in times of supply shortages. That agreement was signed with the former Government some 10 or 12 years ago.
We have many times been accused of selling out our water. Yet we know water was spelled out very clearly in the agreement. The agreement says nothing it contains, except Article 401, applies to water. It goes on to explain that water means natural surface and ground water, in liquid, gaseous or solid state, but does not include water packaged or as a beverage or in tanks. Yet the opposition Members neglected to tell the people that these things were in the Bill.
What has been said about the agreement after the election? In a series of interviews on November 23, the Leader of the NDP said various things. He was quoted in The Globe and Mail as saying the Canadian people have taken a decision and the Prime Minister certainly has the right to continue with passage of free trade. At another point he said it would be churlish and inappropriate to say something should be done about the law at this stage. All the chances for amendments that could possibly have been taken have been exhausted.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Who said that?


Ross Belsher: That was the Leader of the NDP. In La Presse on that same day he said in our parliamentary tradition, the Canadian people made a decision and the Prime Minister now has the right and mandate to pass the free trade Bill. Later on he said the Prime Minister has been given a clear mandate. The agreement, with all of its faults, faults by NDP standards, has been approved by the people. It would not be appropriate to oppose it now. He indicated it was extremely unlikely that his Party would reintroduce amendments to the Bill once Parliament resumes.
So much for what the NDP say. Let us now see what the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition said on the same day. In the Ottawa Citizen he was quoted as saying that the people decided they want the deal. He said the people are always right. In the Montreal Gazette he is quoted as saying they would be restating their position on the matter but they let the people
decide and the people have decided. Having stated their case they would let matters proceed. What happened between November 23 and today?
The Tourism Industry Association of Canada ran an ad which said that tourism and free trade feed each other. That association, representing over one million Canadians directly or indirectly employed in the industry, believes it is important for all Canadians to understand that tourism is a $21 billion industry, second only to the auto sector in foreign revenues earned.
It generates roughly $9 billion in taxes and is growing more than twice as fast as any other major industry. Tourism means jobs for one in ten Canadians; one in four for Canadians under 25. Some 20 per cent of our tourism revenues come from visitors beyond our border. The association urges all associated with the industry to consider the many economic benefits that will flow from the Free Trade Agreement to ourselves and to all our different enterprises and to Canada.
Another organization we are well acquainted with in this Chamber is that of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They talked about their wish list for Christmas with the new Government. The results of more than 17,000 personal member interviews showed strong small business support for free trade. Six small and medium-sized firms out of every seven said the agreement will have a positive effect on their business. The importance of free trade to the over-all health of the small business community cannot be ignored.
They go on to say that small business is vital to the growth of the Canadian economy. Companies with less than 20 employees were responsible for some 85 per cent of the job creation between 1978 and 1986. The over-all health of small business will likely reflect the over-all health of the Canadian economy.
Much has been said about the Americans and their ability to make their laws for themselves. People fail to realize that Canada has not given up its ability to make laws, nor have we changed our laws.
The agreement is of economic benefit to Canada. This Government has started upon this road and has followed it through because we feel it will be of benefit to the Canadian economy. With benefits flowing to the Canadian economy, what better assurance is there for the social programs that Canadians enjoy?
History is on our side. We know that through history, when tariffs have been lowered, trade has gone up. With
December 21, 1988

trade, there are benefits. We know that Canada produces more than it can consume. So, where will we go for our markets? The money is not sufficient within our own country.
I am glad to be a part of the Government that is setting this trade deal in motion. I will be pleased to stand in my place when it comes time to vote on the third and final reading in support of the motion that this Government has taken under the leadership of our Prime Minister and his Cabinet and to do my part to further the Free Trade Agreement with the United States of America.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on the Free Trade Agreement, pleased at the fact that the voters of Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing chose me to represent their interests in Ottawa, and pleased with their belief that the Free Trade Agreement is bad for Saskatoon, bad for Saskatchewan, and bad for Canada.
It is with sorrow that I speak today. The sorrow comes from seeing a Government that is so ideologically driven, and bound to big business backers introducing legislation which so vigorously attacks Canada's best interests. It attacks Canada's control over its own resources and ability to set its own economic destiny. It attacks Canada's social programs, health care system, environmental standards and financial investment strategies. It threatens Canada's family farms and agricultural institutions with extinction.
This deal strikes at Canada's very heart and identity. It should be seen as part of a wider, neo-Conservative agenda. It is part of the agenda of the Conservative Government and its business allies to reduce and remove the differences between a free-enterprise market-driven United States and the social democracy, albeit one which requires further improvement, which the New Democrats and the CCF before them in Saskatchewan pioneered for Canada and which Canadians have built over the last 40 years.
Even the Conservative Party played a part in this process of developing the Canada we know today.


John Carnell Crosbie: Talk to bad boy.


John V. Nunziata: You are not supposed to heckle, Mr. Crosbie. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Canada-US. Free Trade Agreement


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


An Hon. Member:: Do you have to rain on everybody's party?


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for York South- Weston on a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: I regret very much and apologize to the Hon. Member for having to interrupt in the middle of his speech. There is a tradition in this House when a new Member is making a speech that Members on the opposite side ought not to heckle. The Minister of Trade and his side-kick, the Minister of Housing, have been heckling the new Member as he has been delivering his speech.


Marcel Danis: It is not really a point of order. It is tradition that we do have a bit of civility when the person-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Danis: I am talking to the Hon. Member who just made the representation, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston. I am just making the representation for the Hon. Member, for his edification. I have just been speaking to him, and he is not helping me by speaking across the floor. There is a tradition here to have a little civility when a Member is making a maiden speech. I agree with him, but that goes both ways. Therefore, I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, even the Conservative Party played a part in this process of developing the Canada we know today. CN, CBC, and the first regional development programs were enacted under Conservative Governments. They were rather different governments from this one. As everyone knows in this House, John Diefenbaker would be as fiercely opposed to this free trade deal as we are on this side of the House today.
The Conservative Government, along with its business allies, is on a path to destroying all that makes Canada a better, more caring and compassionate society than the United States. It cares not about the consequences, the potential job losses. It cares not about the loss of control over energy and resources, over our investment strategies and job creation programs. It cares not about the consequences to Canada's economic and social fabric.
There have, however, been two positive consequences of this free trade debate. First, it encouraged Canada

December 21, 1988
Canada-V.S. Free Trade Agreement
and Canadians to think clearly about what type of society they wanted. As the election shows, most Canadians in Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing and across this country said "no" to the type of Canada proposed by the Government across the aisle. Second, it flushed out this Government's and the business community's neo-Conservative agenda for this country.
This Free Trade Agreement is really an economic constitution for Canada. It establishes the market as the final decision-maker over important economic and social issues which we in Canada have grown to see as being partly the responsibility of our democratically-elected governments. It is not just a commercial or business deal. It strikes at the heart of Canada's social fabric.
It is worth noting that virtually all of the business organizations which supported the Free Trade Agreement have been promoting a neo-Conservative social and economic agenda over the past decade at both the federal and provincial levels. Only yesterday they were calling, as we have heard today in this House, for a review of social spending in Canada. This provides opponents of the Free Trade Agreement with legitimate and real grounds for suspecting that social programs and regional development subsidies are at risk.
This is not a commercial deal but a reflection of the political, social and economic agenda which is totally unacceptable to the majority of Canadians, as the election on November 21 showed. This Conservative Government has given in to its big business friends. It is a case of whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
This deal is bad for Canada in so many ways that we cannot deal with all of it in a short 20 minutes. Therefore, I would like to concentrate on two issues-agriculture, and social and health programs.
We all remember the assertions made by the government Ministers that agriculture was not on the table. Yet against the advice of most agricultural organizations and the advice of the Macdonald Commission, agriculture was included in this deal. It is by far the largest article in the Free Trade Agreement.
What about agriculture? As all Members know, most farmers are opposed to the Free Trade Agreement. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the largest farm body in the country, called it a "threat to many sectors of agriculture and unacceptable in its present form". The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool says that the deal will undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and other marketing boards. The Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee said the same thing. The National
Farmers Union, the Federations of Agriculture in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario all came out strongly opposed to the implications of this deal. Even some of the Government's own advisors have indicated this Free Trade Agreement is bad for agriculture.
Why is there so much opposition to this if the Government says it is so good? Farmers across the country agree that supply-management across a wide range of agricultural products is threatened.
Last weekend I met with representatives of supply-managed sectors in my constituency. The riding contains significant chicken, turkey and egg producers, between 75 per cent and 80 per cent of Saskatchewan's dairy industry. They all fear for their existence under this deal. Tariff removals and expansion of global and supplemental quotas threaten Canada's supply-management system which has served both producers and consumers well. Provisions which allow producers access to cheaper U.S. imports pose a real threat to our farm and our rural communities.
The Government tells farmers that they need not worry, that marketing boards are safe. Farmers in Saskatchewan did not believe the Government on November 21 and they do not believe the Government now. It is for good reason.
In his recent debate with Michael Dukakis in the presidential elections, President-Elect Bush said that he was opposed to supply-management. The U.S. government's position at GATT to remove Article 11 which permits supply-management has been supported by the Government. It is not surprising that our supply-managed agriculture sectors feel threatened by this deal and by the Government.
Grain farmers fear for the continued existence of the Wheat Board and we have seen moves against that in recent weeks. The list goes on and on.
The Government seems unable to understand or is prepared to ignore that giving up control at the border will destroy our marketing boards and destroy the agricultural industries and the rural communities they serve.
Furthermore, the health of Canadians is at stake here. The Americans have lower health standards, lower sanitary standards, and lower production standards than us. Practices are permitted in the United States which we will not tolerate here. This Free Trade Agreement will give rise, through the harmonization process, to
December 21, 1988

Canadian standards being replaced by lower and less desirable American standards, to the detriment of Canadian consumers, Canadian producers and our rural communities.
In summary, this agreement is a dangerous agreement for Canadians because of what it does to our import barriers. No one will be able to persuade the Americans that our marketing boards and our Wheat Board are not barriers to trade. Yet the Government is prepared to sacrifice western agriculture to its ideological agenda.
I want to talk briefly about health and social programs. We have heard a lot about how our health and social programs are protected under this deal. All members of the House know the social and health programs which Canadians enjoy were developed first by CCFers and New Democrats in Saskatchewan. Those Saskatchewan New Democrats fought for these programs and some of them even lost their lives in that fight. They fought against the same forces that now support the Free Trade Agreement.
Social and health programs have a special place in the hearts and minds of New Democrats in Saskatchewan. It was not Mr. Justice Emmett Hall who developed medicare, it was Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd and Allan Blakeney. New Democrats and Canadians know that and they are proud of that. If not for these three, Douglas, Lloyd and Blakeney, and those CCFers and New Democrats who supported them in Saskatchewan against all odds, Canada would not have a medicare system today.
Much of what makes Canada distinct as a society and a more caring and compassionate society than the United States, a better society I believe, grew out of the vision and work of the CCF and NDP in Saskatchewan. We will not let this House or Canada forget it.
Our health care systems are in danger under this Free Trade Agreement. The Free Trade Agreement will threaten our health care system and the health of Canadians in three main ways: First, it opens up Canada to the American market-driven, for-profit system of management of health care; second, it places permanent legal and political limits on the future powers of Canadian governments to regulate health care services or establish new publicly funded health services; third, it encourages ongoing political pressure from business on both sides of the border to level the playing field by cutting publicly supported social services, including health care.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
In Saskatchewan we have seen first-hand considerable evidence of this strategy already. We have seen considerable evidence of the attack on our health care system with the decisions of an increasingly unpopular Progressive Conservative Government there.
Many articles in the agreement serve to attack our health care program, but I will only mention two. Article 2010 sets out the conditions under which either party may establish a monopoly. The definition of a monopoly would include future expansion of Government social services that might replace private services, such as a new dental care program or eye care program. Where the establishment of a monopoly affects American investors, Canada must notify and consult the United States in advance and endeavour to minimize or eliminate any nullification or impairment of benefits under this agreement. If that does not give up something, I do not know what does. If that does not give up the right to ensure that Canadians receive the sort of health care we decide we want, I do not know what does.
According to Article 2011, the nullification and impairment article, almost any present or future Canadian regulation, law, or health care program that had any effect whatsoever on American trade, investment, or profits in health care services, could be challenged by the U.S. Government or American corporations.
According to Article 103, the trade deal is binding on all levels of Canadian Government and essentially constitutes an economic constitutional document. Once in place, it limits the powers of all levels of Canadian Government to carry out action and exercise the powers that they have traditionally enjoyed in the provision of social service programs.
The omission of health and social programs from the Free Trade Agreement does not mean they are secure. All will be vulnerable to attack as unfair subsidies, and subject to countervailing duties or pressure for reduction or elimination.
This risk applies to Canada's health care system, unemployment insurance benefits, Canada Pension, Old Age Security, Family Allowance, equalization payments to poor provinces, subsidies to industries, regional development programs and eventually even perhaps to federally funded day care, none of which exist on the same scale in the United States. All these are subject to serious challenges. All these ensure that Canada gives up a great deal under the agreement.

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Over-all, we lose under this agreement. We give up our resources and our control of public services, but we do not even get guaranteed access to the American market in exchange. The Free Trade Agreement in no way prevents the United States from continuing to apply countervailing duties, as it did in the softwood lumber case. The dispute settlement process must apply the trade law of the country concerned in resolving disputes. We get no protection from that under the trade agreement.
Set in its broad context, the Free Trade Agreement forms part of an over-all strategy of Canadian big business to roll back the gains in public ownership. We have given up an enormous amount. Canadians voted against this deal on November 21. The constituents of Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing voted against this deal on November 21.
I hope I have given some indications as to the reasons why they voted against it and why they did not accept the vision of Canada the Government presented.
It is an unfortunate and sorry day for Canada when we give up so much for so little.


The Deputy Chairman:: The Hon. Member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Plamondon:: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I am greeted with such applause by the Opposition. They must have the wrong list.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take part in the discussion of clause 2 of the free trade legislation. It is indeed a pleasure, because this is one of this Government's best achievements, certainly an achievement that will bear fruit for the coming generation and all those after that.
But before getting into the heart of the matter, that is clause 2, I would like to tke this opportunity to hail my constituents who re-elected me with a 23,000 vote majority. This was a clear approval, by 69 per cent of the popular vote, of this Government's policies and the performance of their Member of Parliament. I am deeply touched by that vote of appreciation, which I view as a heavy responsibility for the Government and for myself to pursue in the same direction. I therefore hail all the areas in my constituency, starting from the beautiful community of Becancour which over these last
four years has enjoyed enormous levels of investment, because Becancour, which has the largest industrial park in Quebec, had always been the center of federal-provincial bickering at the official level, but has now enjoyed a climate of co-operation over the last four years, which resulted in the location of five major industries in Becancour's park since then. For instance, Norsk Hydro will soon hire 350 employees, the aluminum recycling company soon to be joined by a magnesium recycling company.
Finally, this park is doing better and better thanks to this Government's drive and especially its policies, either in the area of Nicolet which also has enjoyed heavy investment, mainly the $1,200,000 Museum of Religions, as well as the whole area of Saint-Celestin, Anneville, Sainte-Monique, Grand-Saint-Esprit, a part of our country which often had felt neglected by the previous Government and has been in full economic swing for four years now. So the people in that area, people in the Baie Dufebvre area which are the biggest dairy producers in the country, were not afraid of free trade-they did not believe the lies, and the false rumors the Liberal Party tried to spread in the constituency of Richelieu through the efforts of their candidate.
Ours is a proud region, and I enjoyed telling the story of Baie Dufebvre's farmer, a good Conservative, who was told by his neighbor, a Liberal farmer who, having been used to years of arrogance was always boasting of having the best performance: You know, in the morning I get aboard my jeep, and when the day ends I have not seen the end of my farm. To which our good Conservative friend replied: I also have a jeep like yours. This shows that the era of arrogance is over in that region, the fear Liberals tried to instill into the people during the election campaign is over.
This is also true of the area of Pierreville-the Pierre Thibault company which makes fire trucks, is banking enormously on free trade to increase its work force and of course its list of customers-all because of higher productivity that free trade would bring about. The regions of Yamaska and Saint-David and the communities in and around the Sorel-Tracy region, namely Saint-Robert, Saint-Aime, Sainte-Victoire and Saint-Ours, will benefit greatly from free trade. My constituency, Sorel-Tracy, in particular, stands to gain considerably. Companies like Atlas Steel and Slater Steel, which buy much of their raw material on U.S. markets, will gain guaranteed access to those markets over the course of the next ten years and see the rates drop from ten to two to one per cent annually during that time.
December 21, 1988

The Free Trade Agreement is a gold mine for companies like Fer et Titane and large companies such as Soreltech in the Sorel-Tracy and neighboring regions. Those regions were predestined for free trade. I salute the voters in my riding of Richelieu and thank them once again for the wide margin and the 69 per cent majority they gave me. I intend to keep working as I have done during the past four years, that is, to represent them and voice their concerns in this Chamber, and, especially, to ensure the economic growth of my riding.
Mr. Chairman, as we are now reviewing Clause 2 of the Free Trade Bill which deals mainly with definitions,
1 would like to share with you a few thoughts concerning social programs. Our social programs received special attention from the Liberals during the election campaign, a campaign based on fear, a lack of confidence in Canada and in Canadians' ability to perform in the North American context. As they had too few economic arguments, the Liberals turned to scaremongering, saying that our hospitals and our social programs would be jeopardized by the Free Trade Agreement. Experts proved it wasn't so, of course, and we had to remind the Liberals and the people of Canada that their fears were totally unfounded!
On the issue of federal-provincial relations, the Liberals claimed that it was impossible to come to any agreement with the provinces. Yet, we managed to do so. They have always been rather arrogant. This reminds me of an anecdote concerning the Liberal team which was in office before we took over in 1984. It seems there was an African province which had a problem with elephants. So this African province appeared before the United Nations and urged that a special commission be appointed to solve the problem created by surplus elephants within its territory. Thus Canada was appointed, as were France and England of course, along with the Americans, and their mandate was to find a solution to the problem of surplus elephants in that province.
The Americans did not waste any time coming up with their solution: How to can elephants and sell them for human consumption. The French produced a report entitled: Is control of unwed female elephants possible? Our English friends took a novel approach in their report: Can we organize safaris for the royal family with a view to reducing the number of elephants in that region of Africa? But nary a word from the Canadians, the Liberal Government just could not produce a report. So two months later the UN President called and said:
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Are you going to release your report on the elephant problem? Two months later they delivered a long report entitled: Do elephants fall under provincial or federal jurisdiction?
So that is the kind of Government we had, forever wondering, before intervening, whether a given issue was a provincial or federal responsibility, instead of creating a climate of co-operation between the provinces, as this Government has done, which has resulted in a significant economic fallout in all ridings throughout Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Since the trade agreement was signed we have often said that the integrity of Canada's social security system is not threatened by the Free Trade Agreement. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the greatest threat against our social programs would be a stagnant economy, protectionism and the status quo. Not only does the trade deal not threaten our social programs, but our Government and future Governments will have all the leeway they need to prepare new social policies to meet the needs of all Canadians. Our social security system is second to none in the world and we are proud of this collective achievement.
Mr. Chairman, history has shown that we can enhance our social system while remaining competitive on the market. Canadian companies have shown that they can compete internationally and the argument that social programs are an unfair burden and hurt the competitiveness of Canadian companies is invalid.
In 1965, Madam Chairman, Canada acquired a health insurance program and over the next 20 years, trade with the United States grew steadily to reach nearly 80 per cent of our total exports. During this time, health insurance was never considered an unfair burden by business. Why would we believe today, Madam Chairman, that our health insurance program or our old age security pension plan in particular would affect our ability to compete? Only a flourishing economy is able to give a country an adequate social security system for its people. And that is just what the Free Trade Agreement will give Canada: prosperity.
These same social programs, Madam Chairman, cannot be considered subsidies because-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, if you know the Standing Orders, you know that Members may talk about anything in the House when it sits in Committee of the Whole.

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Madam Chairman, the Hon. Member has just said that the Free Trade Agreement will guarantee a flourishing economy. I would like to know whether he is saying that to the Gillette workers.


Jean J. Charest: It seems to me, Madam Chairman, that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) should know that in Committee of the Whole, her question is absolutely not a point of order. We are surprised that now, after four years of experience in the House of Commons, she does not know better. Maybe we should not be surprised, Madam Speaker. But anyway-
It is obviously not a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Chairman, I think that if each and every time we disagreed with the arguments put forward by members of the Opposition or the NDP, we would be rising on points of order at every word so to speak. But we extended them the courtesy of hearing them, and I hope Opposition Members will extend me the same courtesy by hearing my arguments. I would be most pleased to join the Hon. Member at any time in a debate on workers' problems and the number of new jobs created by this Government, as opposed to the number of jobs lost when they were the Government.
But let me come back, Madam Chairman, to the matter of social measures. I was saying that those same social programs cannot be viewed as subsidies, because under a principle of international law, under the American and Canadian legislations, they are not when they apply to the whole population, such as health care, unemployment insurance, old age security pensions, maternity benefits and other social benefits.
Moreover, government services such as health care are excluded from the agreement. Only management services for health care facilities, such as maintenance, food services and payroll services come under the agreement.
The inclusion of those services, Madam Chairman, only recognized the status quo. It will neither encourage nor discourage the entry of American firms into the management of health care facilities. The activities of those businesses have been and will be under the jurisdiction of provincial Governments; where a provincial Government decided to privatize the management of those health facilities and thereby to allow American firms to bid for contracts, American firms wishing to locate in Canada could then do so.
The inclusion of management services for health care facilities, Madam Chairman, in no way threatens the
viability of our programs. The Free Trade Agreement poses no threat, and provinces have all the leeway needed to manage their own facilities.
If I may, Madam Chairman, I should like to quote Mr. Ritchie who was on the Canadian team which negotiated the free trade deal. He said:
If these facilities are administered by the federal or provincial Governments, if they are quasi-public and non-profit making, in all such cases they are not covered (by the Free Trade Agreement). Even if they are commercial. Of course, the Governments have every right to regulate, even regulate who can become the owner of such facilities.
As Mr. Ritchie sees it, clearly the problem of privatizing health facilities has nothing to do with the free trade deal.
Ninety-five per cent of Canadian hospitals are publicly-owned, therefore they are not covered under the FTA. As long as these facilities remain public property, nothing in the trade agreement threatens the ownership of our hospitals. When there is talk of managing health care facilities, the reference is to services only, services such as computers and catering, for example.
Madam Chairman, I am proud to live in a country which over the years has managed to use its resources in such a way as to make it possible for all citizens to enjoy decent living conditions. I know that all Government Members share my views.
Madam Chairman, we are not the only people in this country who are convinced that the Free Trade Agreement will not affect our social programs. Eminent personalities like Judge Emmet Hall, the father of health insurance in Canada, Claude Castonguay, who is mainly responsible for giving Quebec health insurance, Therese Lavoie-Roux, Quebec's Minister of Health and Social Services, Pierre-Marc Johnson, former Minister of Social Affairs in Quebec, Bernard Landry and so many others have maintained that nothing in this Agreement endangers the viability of our social programs.
But there is more than expert opinion, Madam Chairman; there are all those Canadians who on November 21 gave the Conservative party a second mandate to bring this great enterprise, the Free Trade Agreement, to completion. They are people who care about the future of the country, as we do, and who have understood that Canada's sovereignty in the field of social policy is not threatened by this Agreement. There are all my constituents in the riding of Richelieu, Madam Chairman, who gave me a second mandate and
December 21, 1988

whom I am proud to represent-young people, others not so young, entrepreneurs and builders who have confidence in themselves and who know that they can meet the challenge of free trade.
These are the same people, Madam Chairman, who have understood that only a strong, prosperous Canada can guarantee the viability of our social programs. And this very prosperity necessarily depends on implementing the Free Trade Agreement with our largest trading partner, the United States.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and again, let me thank those who voted for me in Richelieu.


Mr. Flis:: Madam Chairman, after a leave of absence of four years, it is indeed a great honour to speak in this Chamber again. I was looking forward to returning because in the four years I was absent the Members who served here brought in some excellent changes to the rules of the House.
For example, Private Members' Bills are getting to be much more important now, and I know of the work done on that by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I know that parliamentary standing committees have been give much more authority and accountability. These are all positive steps in the right direction. The bells are much more pleasant to listen to, and that is a step in the right direction as well.
One thing that disturbed me very much upon returning was the fact that from day one the Government facing me has been closure crazy. It will not allow us to put amendments. It will not listen to what is being said. It will not listen to the new Members of Parliament who represent the people of Canada.
In 1981 when the Liberal Government brought in time allocation on a borrowing Bill, nothing so Draconian as closure but simply time allocation, the Minister for International Trade who introduced Bill C-2 to implement the Canada-U.S. FTA said:
What about closure, Mr. Speaker? We have just seen this government attempt to hijack the whole Canadian nation, not Parliament but our whole country, destroy the very consensus on which it is based by using their majority in this House to do things they were not authorized to do by the public ... They are not a legitimate government when they attempt to change the very nature of Canada-
Now who is changing the nature of Canada? Those were the words of the Hon. Minister for International Trade, but he wants to change the nature of Canada
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
without listening to the new Members of Parliament or to Canadians.
Directing the House Leader, of course, is none other than the Deputy Prime Minister. I used to have a very high respect for him, but let me tell Hon. Members what he said:
If we believe in parliamentary democracy and the right to freedom of speech, then we must ensure that the rights and privileges of Parliament are always secure.
By virtue of a closure motion today we have a further contempt for and erosion of the spirit and privileges of this institution. I believe tyranny begins when parliamentary debate ends.
He went on to say:
At the very outset I must say that I abhor this tactic. I find it offensive. I find it repugnant because it strikes at the basic fabric of our parliamentary democracy. Instead of having a parliamentary democracy we have what resembles a parliamentary dictatorship.
Who is the dictator today trying to force the most important Bill next to the Constitution through this House without allowing any amendments, bringing in closure every day since we have been here? Who is the dictator now?
I want to thank the people of Parkdale-High Park for re-electing me and sending me to speak on their behalf. My predecessor received a total of 34 per cent of the votes.


Mr. McDermid:: What did you get?


Jesse Philip Flis: And even those were votes won by intimidation, votes by third party advertising presidents sending letters to workers intimidating them to work for the Conservative Member. I have never seen an election with that kind of intimidation. It is a disgrace that the Tory Party would stoop to doing that.
I am here to represent my constituents. Before I got to Ottawa there were already letters on my desk awaiting me. Here is one from two of my constituents:
Dear Mr. Flis:
We are just two of the many Canadians who are very concerned about the future of this country. We do not believe that a majority of Canadian people want this deal passed, and an over fifty-per-cent vote against the Conservatives strengthens this belief.
Please continue to fight as loudly as you can against free trade. In a democratic society it is the majority who should decide and it is our opinion that a national referendum is the only true way to discover whether Canadians really want this deal passed. This issue, the future of Canada, is too important to allow Mr. Mulroney to assume a majority of consent of the Canadian people.

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
If the recent decision to close certain plants in Ontario and Quebec is a preview of the results of free trade, then Canada's future is in doubt:
Yours truly,
Charlene E. Black, & William K. Jackson
The Minister of non-housing should have the courtesy to listen to the constituents of Parkdale-High Park.


John Horton McDermid: I am listening.


Jesse Philip Flis: He never listens. He has no respect for our constituents.
Here is another letter from Andrew Cullen. Mr. Cullen, from 89 Constance Street, writes:
Dear Mr. Flis:
I want to voice my support for your opposition to the trade pact and 1 hope that you will do what you can to stop or amend it in the House.
Here is a constituent who realizes that the Conservatives won a majority. What is he asking through me? He is asking that they accept amendments.
The Liberal Party through our critic, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre, has presented excellent amendments on behalf of our Party. We would like to see an amendment that would provide a permanent review by parliamentary committee. What is wrong with that, Madam Chairman? You would allow it. You are a fair person. The amendment would be like this:
The implementation of this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for that purpose.
What is wrong with such an amendment, or an amendment to allow to review and report after three years? We would simply word it as follows:
The committee designated or established for the purpose of subsection (1) shall, within three years after the coming into force of this Act, undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, and shall, within a reasonable period thereafter, cause to be laid before each House of Parliament a report thereon.
What is wrong with that amendment, Madam Chairman? We have an amendment about the protection of our environment and health. I know the Tories are not interested in protecting our environment and health. They have no respect for Canada's environment. They have no respect for our health programs. We would word it:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or in the Agreement shall restrict the authority of the Government of Canada to protect the Canadian environment and the health of Canadians.
The Tories will not accept that amendment. What about an amendment to protect the cultural industries, worded:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or in the Agreement shall limit or restrict the support of the Government of Canada to the development of cultural industries in Canada.
What is wrong with that amendment?
Do you think, Madam Chairman, that the Tories will accept an amendment to protect health care facilities management services? We would word it:
Notwithstanding Article 103 of the Agreement, the federal government shall not compel municipal or provincial governments, through the use of override legislation, to comply with any provisions of the Agreement with respect to health care facilities management services enumerated under the Standard Industrial Classification numbers-
For their information we even list the numbers because the Tories cannot read, Madam Chairman. What about an amendment on adjustment programs? I raised in this House during Question Period the ripple or chain effect this Bill will have on small industries. I gave an example of Hamida Textiles Inc. In canvassing I met a constituent who was selling equipment to restaurants. Another was in the pharmaceutical business, another in the furniture business, and another in the medical supply business. Everyone told me that if this trade deal went through they would go under.
All we are asking is for protection for those small businesses that will go under. What kinds of adjustment programs are there for them? What kinds of retraining programs are there? The Bill does not give any. The Minister gives great promises, but will he deliver on those promises? Can we trust this Government? This is a Government which promised that senior citizen's pensions would not be touched. What happened? The Tories tried to touch them, but we would not let them.
We heard a lot of debate about the social programs. If they are not going to be touched as the Tories say, why not allow us an amendment such as this one:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or in the Agreement shall be interpreted so as to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs, including the health care system, unemployment insurance, child care, pensions, minimum wage law, labour law and maternity benefits.
These are all programs which the Liberal Governments brought in over the years and which the Tories want to give away. I am very honoured to return to this House at the same time as the Hon. Members for Nunatsiaq and for Western Arctic.
December 21, 1988

[Translation\


Mr. Ferland:: Point of order, Madam Chairman.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) on a point of order.


Marc Ferland: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I am sorry, but there is a tradition in this House that allows Members to clap their hands but not to pound on their desks. It might be worthwhile to point this out to the new Members.


John V. Nunziata: Madam Chairman, I rise on the same point of order. On behalf of the Official Opposition I would like to apologize to the Hon. Member for waking him up.


Jesse Philip Flis: The Hon. Member knows that he has no point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Would the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park wait for a second, please.
I know that there are a number of new Members. The Hon. Member for Portneuf raised a very valid point, and I am sure it would be very much appreciated by everyone. The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park has the floor.


Mr. Arseneault:: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Is the Chair saying that we were not correct in what we were doing here? We cannot hear you from here.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Restigouche might hear a little better if he would wear the earphone which is provided to every Member.
There is a custom in this place where people do not normally use their desks to applaud, but use their hands.


Guy H. Arseneault: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will keep an eye on everything.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member is quite welcome. The Hon. Member for Parkdale- High Park.


Jesse Philip Flis: I know that the Hon. Members for Nunat-siaq and Western Arctic would want to see an amendment on aboriginal claims which we would word it: "For
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
greater certainty, nothing in this Act or in the agreement applies to the lands, resources, and waters claimed by aboriginal people pursuant to an aboriginal claim, or to the laws and policies relating to such claims."
I think that everyone in the House should support that amendment, and we should be proud that there are MPs in this House who represent those people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: In this whole Bill the term "subsidies" is not defined. We know the negative impact that that might have on regional economic development. We would like to introduce an amendment to protect our regional economic development programs. We would word it: "For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or in the agreement shall, in any way limit or restrict the exercise of the authority of the Government of Canada in any of the following areas".
Time will not permit me to list all the areas, but areas such as the economic development of all regions of Canada on an equitable basis, and formulation of plans and integrated strategies to support development and diversification of the economies of all regions of Canada. The Government has our amendments. However, it will not allow us to table them.
My constituents of Parkdale-High Park sent me here, if not to kill the Bill, at least to make it better. When we were the Government I remember us debating the Constitution, the Western Grain Transportation Act known as the crow Bill, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Bill, and the Ports Canada Bill. We allowed amendments from the Official Opposition. Will the Government allow any from this Official Opposition? No, it has forgotten what Parliament is all about. It is hijacking Parliament.
One of my constituents is concerned about foreign takeovers, and in his letter he further states:
I am a computer software contractor, and even though I can compete well in the U.S. (I did about $30,000 worth of business there last year) I am worried by the lack of foreign takeover protection. Our high-tech industries may be able to compete, but they are vulnerable to foreign buyouts.
We certainly have competitive industries, but if they are taken over they are no better to us than any other branch-plant; the profits move south and are not ploughed back for the future, then the technology moves south, and soon after the jobs move south. I already see a dangerous level of penetration of our industry, and I think we will find one day that the winners have been bought and that we are left with the loser.
The letter is from Andrew Cullen, a constituent of Parkdale-High Park.

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Minister of State for Housing is not listening to grass roots Canadians. He thinks that he knows it all. I invite him to come and visit Parkdale-High Park where people have nowhere to sleep and where six to eight people have to sleep on the floor in one room. 1 invite the Minister to come and see what the housing crisis is all about and to listen to the grass roots people.
I not only received letters from the riding of Park-dale-High Park. I received letters from across Canada. The following is a letter from Saskatchewan which states:
Dear Mr. Flis,
I am writing as a Canadian citizen, who is extremely concerned that an independent Canada be left for my children and future generations of Canadian children.
1 therefore urge you, as an elected member, representing the over 1,200,000 more Canadians who voted against the Free Trade Agreement than voted for it-to be true to your mandate-and fight the F.T.A.
That is someone from Saskatchewan who is asking me to stand here and fight this agreement. Perhaps I am receiving so many letters from Saskatchewan because I was born and raised there. The letter further states:
Canadians elected you, on the promise to fight for our future. Your duty to Canada is to fulfil that promise.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours truly,
Jessie L. Steinhauer-Edwards
I also received a letter from New Westminster, B.C., which was addressed to Jesse Flis, Parkdale-High Park. It states:
The results of the recent federal election clearly demonstrate that a substantial majority of Canadians voted against the Mulroney-Reagan Trade Deal. In fact, only in the provinces of Alberta and Quebec did the Mulroney government receive absolute majorities and, again, not in every riding.
Therefore, we strongly urge you to work to the best of your ability to oppose this deal that the majority of Canadians do not want or in the alternate, based on tactical considerations, fight for effective amendments to lessen its adverse effects on Canadians.
Here is someone from B.C. asking us to fight to bring in amendments, and the Government will not listen. It will not even let us table the amendments. Talk about hijacking Parliament, shame.
Every Prime Minister has a vision of Canada. Unfortunately, the vision of the present Prime Minister is a scary one. He wants to give up what our immigrant parents built for over 100 years. They built this country with their bare hands, and the Government wants to give it away to the United States.


Mr. Mayer:: What a bunch of rubbish.


Jesse Philip Flis: In this Parliament we are casting an historic vote on Canada's fate. We are casting a vote to decide whether we want a mosaic Canada like our fathers built or a melting pot Canada. We are to vote on whether we want a Canadian Canada or an American Canada. We are to vote on whether we want a sovereign nation or whether we want to be the fifty-first state of the United States.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We choose Canada.


Don Boudria: I rise on a point of order, Madam Chairman. I am seeking clarification and assistance from the Chair. I have had the opportunity to review the precedents, and I am unable to find where it has been decided that it was not permitted in any way for Members, either in Committee of the Whole or in the House of Commons, to manifest their approval of another Member's speech by way of applauding on the desks as opposed to with their hands.
Given that this was raised by a Member across the way, and it has been reviewed by yourself, I am seeking assistance from the Chair. Thus far it has been the practice, started by some individual caucuses which for reasons known to themselves would demonstrate their approval in a manner that was changed after television was brought into the House of Commons, but there are no rules preventing or suggesting by which means the applause should be manifested. Perhaps the Chair could enlighten Members on the ruling that was given some time ago.


Mr. Oberle:: I will be prepared, Madam Chairman, to allow the Hon. Member, and perhaps the one sitting next to him, special dispensation to thump their desks. It seems to me that it would better reflect the nature of their respective characters.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Restigouche.


Guy H. Arseneault: Madam Chairman, I do not need special dispensation from the Hon. Member. I can speak for myself. I can only say that the speech was such a great one, I could not restrain my enthusiasm. It is not my fault that those on the opposite side were awakened.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I should like to respond to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
December 21, 1988

There is not in fact a written rule forbidding Hon. Members from using their desk tops in that manner for the purpose of showing approval or disapproval in respect of what is being said. However, because it causes sound problems for the television technicians, it is a practice that has fallen into disuse.
I see no difficulty in new Members being made aware of the problems that it causes, and it is my hope that it is not something that would again become a practice in this Parliament.


Don Boudria: Madam Chairman, if I may, I should like to express my appreciation to the Chair for its clarification of that previous ruling.


Mr. Attewell:: Madam Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Markham, on a point of order.


Bill Attewell: Madam Chairman, having been born in the Parkdale-High Park area of Toronto, and having spent my first 20 years in that area, I am embarrassed by the lack of substance in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park.
I wonder if we might be able to get all-party agreement to give him another 20 minutes, in the hope that he can come up with something of some substance and content.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! It is unanimous.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jesse Philip Flis: On a point of order, Madam Chairman-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park on a point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Chairman, because of all the heckling, I was only able to get half way through my remarks, and certainly I could use another 20 minutes in order to finish them. I am willing to accede to the request of the Hon. Member for Markham, and in fact I now seek unanimous consent of the Committee of the Whole to continue for another 20 minutes.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have asked whether there is unanimous consent that the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park be permitted to continue for another 20 minutes, and that unanimous consent is not forthcoming.


Mr. Cote:: Madam Chairman, before I start, I would like to thank the people of the magnificent riding of Richmond-Wolfe for turning the riding around and helping to bring this Government back to power.
Here are a few facts about my riding. Richmond- Wolfe boasts 52 municipalities and towns and 53,000 voters, 11 per cent of whom are Anglophone. Its main industries are in the manufacturing and mining sector. The city of Asbestos exports asbestos; Disraeli exports Shermag furniture; Bromptonville and Windsor export pulp and paper; Valcourt, in my riding, is home to Bombardier, a large, well-known firm. The people of Richmond-Wolfe voted for Yvon Cote and the Government because they are convinced of the positive impact and economic benefits of free trade. I share their conviction and take this opportunity to thank them for their support.
It is with great pride, Mr. Chairman, that I take part today in the debate on the Free Trade Agreement. On November 21, the people of my riding, and millions of other Canadians like them, showed the rest of the world-yes, the rest of the world-that Canada wants to open itself to the world. They are the people, Mr. Chairman, that I have the honour and privilege to represent in this Chamber.
Barely a few years ago, China, Iran and even some European countries seemed to us to be somewhat distant and inacessible and we even had difficulty imagining that other economic systems could exist. All that really mattered for us was our own country, I might even say our own town or village. Well, we realize now that there is in this world, in addition to Canada, a great many other countries and thousands of towns and villages, and that it extends beyond the oceans, as we know now through the printed media and other forms, as well as through our travelling and business acquaintances.
Today, whenever we switch on our television sets, we can visit this planet which includes more than our parish, our town and even our country, and we can even reach out to other planets.

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Today, we must learn to share with others. Technical progress in the area of communications, the specialization of production and even transformation technologies, as well as the lack of some resources are factors which, among others, have contributed to opening up the world, especially in the area of trade.
As I was saying, we are no longer the citizens of a ward, a city, or even a country. In several respects, we belong to the international community.
I think we all know the Rolling Stones who do not belong to this country. We all enjoy eating New Zealand lamb and we are pleased to taste clementines from Morocco. We enjoy the fragrance of French perfumes. We wear clothing made in Hon Kong and we are happy to drive European or Japanese cars.
In my own riding, we have an international vocation. Pulp and paper from Brompton and Windsor, as well as asbestos from the city of Asbestos are exported everywhere in the world, the Bombardier firm with its snow and transportation equipment, are all proof that we are no longer living in a small village, but that we have become international in our dealings exchanges with other countries.
Mr. Chairman, such is the reality which we must accept. I regret that the people sitting in the Opposition cannot recognize this reality. We must maximize our opportunities by opening up trade with the rest of the world. As a matter of fact, as recently as December 15, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated before the Conference of the Americas, and I quote:
To use a truism, national economies are becoming more interdependent, and what occurs outside our country is now as important
as what occurs inside.
Again, this goes to show you that what concerns the rest of the world concerns us too.
How many countries are now geared to the international market? Let's take for example the European Economic Community, or the free trade deals between Australia and New Zealand. I should also mention Israel and the United States, and countries like Canada and the United States which are slowly but surely moving towards such international agreements.
The obvious thing about free trade is that it seems to satisfy the needs of each and every country, each and every partner, while making good use of the economic, geographical or political characteristics which make them unique. It is like two merchants in a village who, instead of competing against each other, decide to merge
through a partnership agreement. In such a way will Canada, instead of being the so-called little brother to the American big brother, become an equal partner with the United States, with the same rights and claims.
History shows us therefore that Canada and the United States have developed through this century a most powerful trading relationship.
The idea of striking a free trade agreement with the United States did not come by chance to our political leaders nor is it a drastic change in Canada's history. This agreement, Mr. Chairman, is merely the logical extension of an existing relationship in accordance with the trend towards trade liberalization which prevails in the international economic community.
While I am on the subject of history, Mr. Chairman, allow me to recall certain events. In 1911, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister of Canada, sought to liberalize trade with the United States. In 1935, to refresh the memory of the Liberal Opposition, Mackenzie King signed an agreement with the Americans in order to reduce tariff barriers between Canada and the United States. In 1983, to again refresh the memory of the Liberal Opposition, the Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, also sought to establish sectorial trade deals while establishing at the same time the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development prospects for Canada, better known as the Macdonald Commission.
I am only recalling a few facts of our history. They all have in common the same will to modify and even depolitize the framework of the economic relationship between Canada and the United States.
That relationship exists mainly because of the geography of our two countries. Is it not a fact that Boston is nearer to Montreal than Vancouver or even Calgary for instance, without of course making it a matter of distances to our fellow citizens in western Canada.
Clearly, nature had its way. The value of our exports to the United States has been on a constant increase, Mr. Chairman. Today, nearly 80 per cent of our exports go to our neighbors down South. Some believe, or used to believe at least that since we already exported close to 80 per cent of our products, there was no need to sign an agreement for freer trade because of the access we already had to the American market.
However, Mr. Chairman, that access is very uncertain. Let us simply recall lumber which many Members already referred to in their speeches, and which was a
December 21, 1988

victim of American protectionism. So there are dangers to be avoided. If the Americans had fully countervailed, as they were getting ready to, the countervails that were being contemplated could have ruined 20 of Quebec's towns and villages, and wreaked havoc in British Columbia.
Those situations, Mr. Chairman, are a constant menace for Canada and whole segments of our economy. The rising protectionism in the United States is in fact a constant danger for our country and certainly could have become so, had it not been for the prospect of the Free Trade Agreement with our neighbours down South. And indeed, the Free Trade Agreement is checking that strong American tendency to protectionism while granting Canada a privileged trade status.
That agreement, Mr. Chairman, allows us to maintain our access to the United States and develop the potential of other sectors that until now were being kept away by tariffs that often were very high. We need the American market, as the United States also needs Canada to strenghten their international economic credibility.
On this matter, Mr. Chairman, let me quote Mr. Bernard Landry, an economist and former Minister in the Levesque government:
For a few years in particular, the Americans have been promoting freer trade on the global scale in a very far-sighted and probably generous way. They are preaching to the rest of the world fair practices and fluid trade.
Their argument stands to lose weight if the economic borders between the U.S. and their main partner are more anarchical and less open than, let's say, those between European allies.
And that is one good reason why the United States want freer trade with Canada. This trade deal is also important to us because it gives us access to the American market. Not only do we have to continue trading with the United States, but we also have to face more aggressive international competitors. The emergence of new industrialized countries from Asia, including the exceptional development of Japan and the growth of China, not to mention Europe of 1992, are all key elements to the new dynamics of international trade. We will have to fight very capable competitors. We already know that. So, it won't be easy to maintain and assert our position on the world economic scene.
Mr. Chairman, in this tough competitive world, Canada was the only big industrialized country which did not have access to a market, at home or abroad, of more than 100 million people. And we all know the importance of such a deal.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Free Trade Agreement will give us access to a market of more than 250 million people, giving us the opportunity to produce in huge quantities and to lower production costs. This is what we mean by economies of scale. So, who will be the big winner in all of this? The United States compared to us, or us compared to the United States. Obvious, isn't it? We will gain access to a market of 250 million people. Americans are the ones who might have doubts about a market of only 25 million people spread out from East to West! I think the advantages are obvious. Therefore, to succeed on international markets, we must be competitive, Mr. Chairman, and there is no magic formula for maximizing our chances of success. We have to offer the best products at the lowest prices. It's simple logic.
We already have trading relations with Europe and Asia, but we must put all the chances on our side if we want to maintain these relations and develop new ones. The world has changed, Mr. Chairman, and we must be competitive if we are to maintain our standard of living. We must therefore hold our own on the international economic scene and, to achieve this, we must start at the beginning by respecting the nature of our own trading dynamics.
The prosperity of the Canadian economy depends largely on its capacity to export. A third of our GNP depends on trade and accounts for 3 million jobs, 2 million of which are linked exclusively with our trade with the United States.
Mr. Chairman, the Americans are our major trading partners. We are an exporting nation and a lot of our wealth comes from trade. Why seek elsewhere what we already have near at hand?
Mr. Chairman, just south of the border lies the greatest industrial country in the world with which we have been trading for more than a century and which offers us the possibility of developing our economic potential. The opponents of free trade have been desperately trying to have us believe that this agreement threatens our sovereignty, our social programs and our regional development policies.
Finally, if anything threatens our sovereignty, it is our stagnant economy. Mr. Chairman, nothing in this Agreement threatens our national sovereignty. Under this Agreement, we maintain our capacity to manage our own cultural, social, economic and environmental promotion tools, that is our own destiny. How have we managed to implement all those programs so typically Canadian, when for the past 50 years we have lowered

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
our tariff barriers and increased our trade with the United States? Have we lost those social programs? Have we lost our sovereignty? Never. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it's partly our profits from increased trade over that period that allowed us to introduce health insurance, old age pensions, family allowances, and all those great social programs at the heart of Canada and our well-being.
Some key figures have also maintained that nothing in the Agreement threatened the viability of our social programs. Those people, Mr. Chairman, are none other than the fathers of the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, namely Mr. Justice Emmett Hall and Mr. Claude Castonguay. Let me quote the latter: "I disagree completely with those who say that our social programs are threatened by free trade. On the contrary, with the Canada-U.S. Agreement, we stand a better chance to maintain and possibly improve our social programs." Their statements have been endorsed by the Quebec Minister of Health and Social Services, Mrs. Lavoie-Roux, and by a former holder of that portfolio, Mr. Pierre-Marc Johnson.
In conclusion, we must not be deceived. Mr. Chairman, only an economically strong Canada will be able to support these programs and our ability to promote new ones. That is what I call acquiring the wherewithal to assert one's sovereignty. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, the world is changing and evolving rapidly. Now, trade is not only nationwide, but rather worldwide. Therefore, any responsible government must set its trade policies with this in mind. If our country manages to add a successful round of GATT negotiations to the success of the Free Trade Agreement, it will have a solid base for growth and prosperity. That is the rationale for the twofold approach to trade which the Conservative Party intends to pursue. Mr. Chairman, there could be no valid alternative to such a good, realistic vision of the dynamics of trade. That is why on November 21, Canadians, and in particular the voters of Richmond- Wolfe, chose to trust the only Canadian political party that is able to ensure the economic future of this region and also the nation.
The people have spoken. They clearly expressed their opinion and there can be no more obstacles to implementing the policies that the people have freely chosen to support. Canada is therefore committed to seeing its trade initiative with the United States through, in the firm conviction that it will be an important springboard for the development and prosperity of this country. The world is opening to us, Mr. Chairman, and we must give
ourselves the tools required to keep and strengthen our place in the international economic community. This is the challenge that Canada will meet because we are giving it the chance.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Chairman, I too rise with a great deal of pride in this debate. I am one of the new-old fellows. A few days ago the House Leader said that first we had the rat pack and now we have the retreads coming back. There is an old saying in French-

The more things change, the more they remain the same! The House has changed a little. Instead of 282 Members we now have 295 and each Party is well represented in the House.

I want to talk tonight not only about free trade. I want to mention how very happy I am that the citizens of the riding of Welland-St. Catharines-Thorald chose to send me back here. I also want to say something about the gentleman who sat in this House in this place for four years. I refer to Mr. Allan Pietz who was a member of the governing Party on the other side of this place. Mr. Pietz served my riding very well. He is an honorable and honest man.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gilbert Parent: We first met in the 1979 election. I nudged him out. He then came back in 1984 to defeat me. I have won the seat again.
I come back with some humility as a matter of fact. Most of the Members in the House have not tasted defeat. I have. It gives one a different perspective about what one tries or is trying to do when one comes back to this place.
The riding of Welland had its name changed. It used to be just the riding of Welland, which it was since 1867. Since 1935 it was held by a Liberal Member of Parliament. I will try to hold it a little bit longer. I must tell Hon. Members that the people of the riding were served well by Mr. Pietz. I hope to continue in his tradition.
Tonight I want to talk about the free trade Bill which is before us. Yes, it is an historic Bill. In it Canada is choosing the direction that it will take for the foreseeable future. Make no mistake about it, our country is
December 21, 1988

now going down a road which will be more and more driven simply by economics. I wish I could say that I believe in my heart that economics will not be the only thing that matters to members of the Government. 1 ask them in the name of the people who elected me to be cautious before they do any tampering with any of the programs that we have put in place over the years.
Free trade is not something which is new to my Party. We in this House know that it was the Liberal Party which was in power with the exception of a few years under the leadership of Mr. Diefenbaker and the present Secretary of State for External Affairs. From 1948 to 1984 Liberals are the ones who negotiated the trade deals which made it so that we could trade 80 per cent of our goods, at least, and 90 per cent in Ontario, with the United States where there were no tariffs or duties put on goods. We did that by being sure that we did not dislocate too many Canadian people. We did it always keeping in mind that first and foremost we are here not only to make the almighty dollar but to take care of those people who are given into our care for whatever time we serve in this place.
At the outset of the election and before that in 1983 even the Prime Minister said: "Don't talk to me about free trade. I will have none of it-not now, not ever". Some time in the intervening years the Prime Minister decided to change his mind. In so doing he has virtually dragged us down that road, that road which I think is going to offer a number of pitfalls.
With respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe that this free trade deal is not a good deal for Canada. The reason I oppose it is because it does not give the type of protection that I believe the people of Canada will be needing in the months and years ahead.
When the Government set out to put free trade into motion, it wanted three things. One of the things it wanted was free and unfettered access to U.S. markets. I submit the Government did not get such a concession from the United States.
A second thing the Government wanted was a tribunal that would settle disputes between the two countries. It did not get a tribunal which could make binding decisions. All this tribunal can do is decide whether Canadian law or American law has been broken. We know from the softwood lumber deal and the 15 per cent tax that we have our people put on their product that this has remained in place even with the free trade deal. What many of the premiers wanted and this Government said it wanted was an exemption from
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the omnibus trade Bill, the protectionist trade Bill, coming into place by the United States. They did not get this protection.
For the three things we set out to do and did not get, what did we have to promise? What did we give up to get this non-deal? One of the things we gave up is control over our energy. It is well known in this House that through this free trade deal, the Americans will have as much access to our energy at Canadian prices as we have. We know that even in a time of crisis when things are difficult for us here in Canada, we will not be able to take care of our citizens first unless we give the Americans the same amount of energy that they had negotiated before on an average of three years.
What do we do with our industries that are located close to energy supplies around the Niagara Peninsula and Niagara Falls where hydro is sold at a cheaper rate in Ontario than in the United States? We, as Canadians, have developed that energy over the years. Now we will share it without any extra costs to the Americans. They will be paying the same that we will be paying.
Under the National Energy Program, established by the Liberal Government, we had to have a 25-year supply in the ground before we could start exporting. Then it was 15 years. Under this Government, I guess we do not need any supplies for ourselves. Whatever we take out of the ground, we should sell as fast as it comes out.
I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that we have given up control over our financial institutions. We used to have in Canada FIRA, the foreign review agency, which screened any foreign take-overs of Canadian companies worth more than $5 million. We will have some kind of screening in the years ahead, but after three years, the only screening that there will be by an agency called Investment Canada is for any companies that are worth over $150 million.
We have approximately 7,500 companies worth more than $5 million in Canada. Of those, only 10 per cent are worth more than $150 million. This means that foreign companies will be able to come into Canada to buy up, raid, and merge with Canadian companies so that control of these companies is in the hands of companies from a foreign nation. How long would the United States put up with another nation owning 90 per cent of their energy? How long would it take them to pass a law so that they would have control of their own destiny? Yet, we invite people into Canada to take

December 21, 1988
Canada-US. Free Trade Agreement
economic control of our country. By so doing, we diminish ourselves as a nation.
One of the speakers from the other side mentioned earlier that whoever pays the piper is the person who calls the tune. I suggest that before too long, the economic control of our country will be in American hands. They will be calling the economic tune for Canada. We are going to have to dance to whatever song they want us to play.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]
-I am sorry, I do not recall the name of his riding-


An Hon. Member:: Richmond-Wolfe.


Gilbert Parent: -of Richmond-Wolfe talked about pensions-


An Hon. Member:: A Quebecer.


Gilbert Parent: A Quebecer is a Canadian. Is there a difference between a Quebecer and a Canadian? It is the same thing, even here in this House?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


Gilbert Parent: He talked about old age pensions. I remember a few years ago when a woman was here on the Hill, I believe her first name was Solange, and she spoke to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and at the time the Prime Minister wanted to reduce old age pensions. She said to him: Mr. Mulroney, you lied to us. Imagine saying words like that to a Prime Minister! She said: You lied to us. We voted for you, and then you forgot all about us. Bye, bye Charlie Brown! You remember that, don't you?

Not only when he spoke about his sacred trust of the old age pensions. It was not long before even the Old Age Pensions were attacked.
We have heard it said time and time again that social programs will not be touched. We have been asking: "Where does it say they will be protected?" There is no place in this agreement where it says they will be protected.
I question seriously whether our social programs will not be attacked and diminished. I believe there will be pressures brought upon this Government by the American Government when they come to negotiate what is a subsidy. These subsidies, if they are seen to be unfair subsidies, will result in demands that they be taken off or diminished. Who is going to suffer for that, Mr. Chairman? I submit to you it will be the Canadian people who will suffer for that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: They do not care.


Gilbert Parent: I do not want to say they do not care. I believe that Hon. Members on both sides should want what is best for the Canadian people. Even if the Americans do not put this kind of pressure on, perhaps it will be our own Canadian businessmen.
There was a report by the Quebec Association of Businessmen. They were saying that they will need some relief because of the moneys they are paying for the social programs of the people who are working for them. Already we are getting indications that there will be pressures being brought to attack those people in our society who can least defend themselves.
We have built these social programs over the years, block by block and step by step, so that the Canadian people would be taken care of in their old age. Do we want to become like the Americans in harmonization? If we do, we do not rise to the highest level. I suggest that we will be falling to the lowest common denominator, and that will be falling into the American system. I for one would deplore that very much.
I want to comment briefly on the tactics in this campaign. I sat in the House for a number of years. There were only two times in 10 years that I ever heard the word "liar" used, and on both occasions the people who used the word were kicked out of the House, rightly so. There should be no place in this House for the term "liar", much less for anyone in the House or outside the House to call one of the leaders of our Parties in this country a traitor. These are the kinds of words we heard in this campaign. It is a shame. It brings all of us down when we start talking like that, and we should avoid it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Down in the mud.
[ Translation]


Gilbert Parent: Yes, it is very sad when people say such things.

Someone once said that ours is a MacDonald riding. I guess that means we have working people, like my dad was, who work in the factories and try to make a living as best they can for their families.
December 21, 1988

For the first time in five campaigns there were employers in my riding writing letters to employees, stating that if they did not vote for free trade, they were in grave danger of losing their jobs. It is a form of blackmail. When big business tries to put pressure on ordinary Canadians who are trying to make a living, how do you want them to react, if not at least with a little bit of fear? That is why I expressed at the beginning of my speech how very proud I was to represent the people of Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold. They did not knuckle under to that type of blackmail.
While I do not even like the word, I do know that what they were doing was unfair. It is not in the Canadian tradition to try to force people to one's way of thinking. The Canadian way has always been to try to bring people around to your way of thinking by giving them good arguments.
This is a bad deal. I ask Government Members to act with caution. This may be the fulfilment of the American dream, as Mr. Reagan said it. But it is not the fulfilment of the Canadian dream. Those dreams are in the hands of the Government for the next four years.


Mr. Corbett:: Mr. Speaker, first let me express my appreciation to my constituents in Fundy-Royal who have given me the opportunity to represent them again in the House of Commons for my fifth mandate.
It indeed has been an interesting time since 1978. As a matter of fact, this last election was probably one of the most interesting and different campaigns that I, along with most other of my colleagues, I know on this side, have experienced since we began our political careers.
At the outset of this campaign, the Leader of the Opposition took a prominent place. I note with interest how quickly that prominence seemed to quickly diminish to the point where the subject of conversation among Canadians was what the Leader of the Opposition would do wrong on a particular day. On the first day we saw the Leader of the Opposition stumble on one position while, on the second day, he stumbled into another position. One began to wonder what the Leader of the Opposition would stumble on next. Is it not a shame what took place?


Sheila Maureen Copps: It keeps him out of jail.


Robert Alfred Corbett: What took place is a shame. That is what led us to why we are here now. I know it is difficult for the Opposition to try to concentrate on what happened during the campaign-
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Sheila Maureen Copps: Michel Gravel.


Robert Alfred Corbett: -and what went into it-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sinclair Stevens.


Robert Alfred Corbett: The fact is that we and the Canadian public were subject to a very inept campaign by the Opposition. They wondered what they could do to grip the imagination of people in order to get them out of the dilemma concerning the actions of their leader. In Montreal the Liberals were concerned about whether their leader would come back to Montreal, and what kind of trouble they would expect if he did.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Tell us about Gravel.


Robert Alfred Corbett: They decided they should do something dramatic to capture the imagination of Canadians. They decided to revert to that tactic that is most despicable. While they knew it to be cowardly, they would do it as a last resort. The Liberals had no substance or background. They had no future unless they did something dramatic. They decided to attack those people in our society.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. I would appreciate a little civility. I would appreciate if Hon. Members would let me hear the speech, at least to see whether the Hon. Member is in order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We are on Clause 2.


Robert Alfred Corbett: I must say that nothing does my heart and soul better as a Maritimer from the cradle of Confederation than to be able to present to the House of Commons, Canadians and the nation a speech to the melodic strains of O Canada sung, a little off-tune, by the Member from Hamilton. She demonstrated her incapacity in the last Parliament. If she continues, I am sure she will do the same amount of damage to the Canadian electorate in the future.
How were the Liberals going to accomplish these objectives? They were going to approach those people in this country who were least able-


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of order. To correct the record, I think the Hon. Member believed somehow that I was humming the Canadian national anthem. I was humming the American national anthem. I am surprised that the Member does not know the difference. I am not surprised he will not know the difference five years from now, but we still have our anthem.

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


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Member for Fundy- Royal.


Robert Alfred Corbett: What it points out to me is that she is unable to as much as carry a tune as she is to carry a message. To get back on track, trading agreements are nothing new to Canada. In the last 40 to 50 years, we have been involved in trading arrangements with various countries. We have been developing trading arrangements with the United States for the last 40 to 50 years.
It was only a couple of weeks or so ago that there was a big meeting in Montreal, a place near and dear to all of our hearts. Where on earth were all of these people? Why were they not thundering down to Montreal to be in touch with what was going on with the very important General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? They are the ones who expressed so much concern over the number of weeks we were involved in the election campaign.
It seems that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor created some hullabaloo in the House the other day because his Leader had not passed on his invitation to attend this meeting in Montreal, as though it were the Government's fault that his Leader decided that he should not be provided with this invitation. If this is such an important issue, why is it that all these people were not flooding to Montreal, taking up all the hotel rooms, fighting for positions in the conference room? Of course, the answer is that they are not at all interested in trading agreements, as they have not been for the last 40 or 50 years.
What interest is shown when we start discussing tariffs on a bottle of perfume or a suit of underwear or a can of paint?


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to indicate that the Hon. Member yet again inaccurately described what took place with respect to invitations to attend the GATT meetings-


Marcel Danis: That is not a point of order. On debate, I recognize the Hon. Member for Fundy- Royal.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Chairman-


Marcel Danis: The Chair has ruled that that is not a point of order. On debate, I recognize the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I do not doubt that the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor is attempting to take
up the time of the House with frivolous points of order because he has nothing left to say. The people said it all on November 21 and we are here to prove that point.


Steven W. Langdon: Point of order-


Robert Alfred Corbett: Let me tell Hon. Members why these people are not flocking down to Montreal to listen to what was going on when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade met.


Marcel Danis: I recognize on a point of order, and the Chair presumes it is another one, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Chairman, the point I rise on is that you as the Chairman might hear the point of order before making a decision that it is not a point of order. My point is that the reason people were not at the GATT conference to share in the Government's failure was because of a poor approach which the Government took-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Danis: The Chair fails to see how that can be a point of order. I recognize the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal.


Robert Alfred Corbett: I am delighted that that was brought to our attention. Canada has been a member of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for a good number of years. As a matter of fact, it was the Hon. Member's colleagues, in conjunction with the Government they supported for so many years, the Liberal Government, who determined that we were so ineffectual to this point. At least we have been able to bring the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to this country to start discussing this country's needs, the first time in a good many years that has taken place. It is to the credit of this Government that we have accomplished at least that much, and that is a heck of a lot more than we can say for Hon. Members opposite. Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
The reason that they did not go to Montreal was because, to their constituents, a discussion about a 15 per cent tariff on a can of paint or on a suit of underwear or on a bottle of perfume is just about as sexy as watching paint dry. I know that to some opposite, that might come as a bit of a shock, but those are the kinds of things they discuss at those meetings. If I stand before Hon. Members and all of a sudden determine that they will lose their medicare and old age pensions-
December 21, 1988


Marcel Danis: The Chair has a point of order from the Elon. Member for Restigouche.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member would stick to the facts. I do not think it is right for the Hon. Member to presume why I was not at the GATT hearings.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal has the floor.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I will not take that matter up with the new Hon. Member. He can be excused for his ignorance. There is no question that over the next number of years he will become more acquainted with what takes place and how this Chamber works. However-


Marcel Danis: The Chair has another point of order from the Hon. Member for Restigouche.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Chairman, I may be a new Member but I am just an ordinary person and I do not appreciate the word "ignorant". As a schoolteacher and an educator, I never allowed that kind of thing to take place in the classroom. This is the highest court in the land as far as I am concerned, and it should not be allowed here. I think the Hon. Member is lowering himself, and I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that comment.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You should listen to some of Sheila's speeches.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Stick to your tricycle, Perrin.


Henry Perrin Beatty: See what I mean? Get a grip on yourself, Sheila.


Marcel Danis: The Chair understands full well the reaction of the Hon. Member for Restigouche and the Chair does believe that that type of language should not be used here. However, I will not ask the Hon. Member to withdraw, but I would hope that that type of language would not be used.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with the Hon. Member. There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of issues. If one comes to the House of Commons thinking he or she knows everything about all that goes on, indeed that will create one of the difficulties with which we are faced this evening. We should not expect the people who walk into this Chamber, fresh from the streets and high schools of this nation, when they have not had any opportunities or experiences, to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
deal with the issues placed before them. They should have the experiences of our front-benchers who have a wealth of knowledge. If you think that I was referring to the individual's intelligence, Mr. Chairman, of course I did not intend that to be the case whatsoever.
We have an opportunity as a nation to take ourselves out of this ignorance and move ourselves into the 21st century to become a part of a world trading nation that will bring prosperity and will provide our children and grandchildren, who would otherwise would not have had a chance, great opportunities. These people would have denied them the opportunity to deliver that message to the people with any enthusiasm on November 21.
Speaking of November 21,1 wish to say that today is a great occasion. December 21 is our first anniversary. I would like to congratulate the Government on a grand election which was held just one month ago, and it was a great day for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Alfred Corbett: The people have decided. We now have a chance to move forward and provide more opportunities. We have a chance to leave the archaic attitudes of members of the Opposition behind us. We can provide Canadians with new opportunities and social programs-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. The Member for Fundy-Royal has claimed today is his anniversary, the anniversary of his Government. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that today happens to be the darkest day of the year, being the winter season.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the Government on its first anniversary of the election and remind Hon. Members opposite, as it has just been brought to my attention, that not only is it the first anniversary, but it is also the longest day in the country's calendar.
Today, as the Government, we have that opportunity of continuing to bring to the country's attention the most significant program the country has probably seen since Confederation, one that will be responsible for bringing increased prosperity and a future that none of us will ever regret.

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


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Alfred Corbett: I also want you to understand, Mr. Chairman, that our senior citizens who were concerned about losing their old age pensions, who were concerned about their grandchildren being drafted because of the lies and the other things that were being brought to their attention by way of fearmongering et cetera, are still receiving their old age security. This Christmas will be brighter. This Christmas will be more wonderful and their grandchildren will be more secure.
Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, the greatest problem that we have with free trade is not the fear of protectionism but the prosperity it will bring all of us as a nation. It will bring us together more united, happier and more able to go forward as we look forward to enjoying the future prosperity that is inevitably going to come.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Chairman, tonight's poem will be in blank verse, and without discernible meter, so I hope it is deemed to be in order.
I was interested in the remarks of the Member for Fundy-Royal who observed that he was coming here to this body to represent the cradle of Confederation. I am certain that Members of this House and perhaps the people of Canada watching, wherever they may be, will deem it ironic that the Member comes from the cradle of Confederation to serve on the benches of a Government that seems determined to turn this House into the grave of Confederation. Do I hear a point of order already? Surely not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Nobody is listening.


Ross Harvey: You are too kind. By heavens, the Government members are feisty tonight. It must be the opening of the Parliamentary Restaurant so late in the evening.
I am pleased, however, to have this opportunity to speak tonight because there will be scores of new members elected to this House for the first time-on that anniversary so lately heralded by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal-who will not have the opportunity to speak in this House on this Bill at any of its stages, at any point in its progress.


John Horton McDermid: You have had three times already.


Ross Harvey: I am sorry, my good friend. This is my first time on this Bill.
The reputation which this Government enjoys for factual information is more than borne out by the chap heckling at this point. There are, I would guess, between 60 and 80 new Members in this House who will have no opportunity to address this Bill despite it having been unquestionably the most important issue discussed in the recent election, which means the constituents who elected them, whether or not on balance they approved of the Free Trade Agreement or rejected the Free Trade Agreement, will be unheard in this House in this Thirty-fourth Parliament, which is, after all, the Parliament-I think it is safe to say-that will pass this Bill into law.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Harvey: Those Canadians will not be heard because of this Government's unbridled determination to pass this thing by an artificial deadline that means nothing to anybody save it. It is inexplicable unless, of course, one takes into account perhaps overwhelming pride, or perhaps the arrogance of power, or some other such unworthy motivation. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I tonight have this opportunity and I intend to use it and I thank you very much for it.
What we have before us in this Bill is a new fundamental Constitutional document for this country for, as the Bill itself holds out, in those instances where there is a statute or a regulation or some other instrument which is in conflict with the Free Trade Agreement, it is the Free Trade Agreement which will prevail.
I must admit I have not been to law school. That is true. I think that may put me in the minority in this House, but it is true nonetheless. But it does seem to me that the principal characteristic of a fundamental constitutional document is that it overrides anything with which it comes into conflict. That seems to be- Members opposite will correct me if I am wrong-in the nature of this Free Trade Agreement. Hence, it is only reasonable to deem it a fundamental constitutional document.
It is a fundamental constitutional document which, being put in place, gives the Americans, the Congress of the United States, the administration in Washington, a part it has never enjoyed before in this country.
This can be seen as the culmination of two centuries of American state craft, if such is what you want to call it, but I do not think it is a thing which Canadians ought necessarily to celebrate. I do not know if it is a thing which we ought to greet with open arms: "Hurrah. The Americans at long last seem on the verge of achieving
December 21, 1988

the aims they have striven for for 200 years." What kind of Canadian Government would celebrate that? Obviously the Canadian Government we have here now, is the Canadian Government that is bidding to become the grave of Confederation.
In the election just passed-and we have heard a lot about this in the last few days-there was the great question of mandate. Members across the way claim that their Government enjoys a mandate. It is true the Government enjoys the mandate to govern and to put this legislation before this House and it enjoys the mandate to pursue with the passage into law of that legislation with all the vigour it can muster. We, however, on this side of the House enjoy a mandate as well. It may not be as overwhelming, but it is a mandate. God knows, the mandate I enjoy in Edmonton East is hardly overwhelming. I am here by virtue of 38 per cent of the votes cast. I do not claim that to be overwhelming.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: We can all be forgiven for one mistake.


Ross Harvey: It is, however, just a wee bit better than the 36 per cent earned by the Conservative candidate who supported the deal. When put together with the votes received by the Liberal candidate, who equally vigorously opposed the deal, you will find that the votes cast in Edmonton East gave a majority, a clear majority, to the anti-free trade forces in that election. The profree trade forces, including the Reform Party, God bless them, even the old Christian Heritage Party-and with that, if you want them, you can even have the Western Canada Concept and the Western Independence Party. They are yours. Fine, take them. But you still do not get a majority in Edmonton East. In fact, by that measure you do not get a majority across this country.
Might I draw the attention of Hon. Members to this display which I sport on my lapel: "53-43 No Deal". It means that the combined national vote of those candidates opposed to the free trade deal was 53 per cent. The combined national support of those Conservative candidates supporting the deal was 43 per cent. Roll in the Reform Party, roll in the Western Canada Concept, roll in every other group, but the Government came up with 47 per cent.
Members opposite can call that a mandate if they want, and in many respects it is a mandate, but it is not a majority. A majority of Canadians rejected this deal.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Having established that point irrefutably, I would like to move to the deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Harvey: I hold up a copy of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and Members opposite applaud. That is magnificent, Mr. Chairman.
This booklet accompanied me to every door on which I knocked, and to every forum at which-not always to the enlightenment of those I addressed-I spoke.
At every occasion in the campaign concluded November 21 I had this trusty little booklet with me. The reason I had it with me was because, prior to the election, when I was out canvassing, when it was already an issue, the electors of Edmonton East kept telling me: "We don't know what's in the deal. We don't understand it. We wish someone would tell us what is in the deal". That is why I carried this around with me.
From time to time it was only a matter of turning to various parts of the deal. For example, chapter 19 is one of my favourites. I do not know about elsewhere, but in Alberta this deal was held up as that shining instrument which will guarantee to our producers and manufacturers unfettered access to the American market. That is how it was sold to the people of Alberta. Yet, when I went door to door and opened this little booklet at page 271, and read out Article 1902 which states:
1.	Each Party reserves the right to apply its antidumping law and countervailing duty law to goods imported from the territory of the other Party-
2.	Each Party reserves the right to change or modify its antidumping law or countervailing duty law-


John Horton McDermid: Each Party.


Ross Harvey: Indeed, no question. We can do it too. However, the point to bear in mind when the Conservative Government was selling this to the Canadian people as a guarantee of access is that it is clear in Article 1902 that it is no such thing. Having simply read it, it became clear to the people of Edmonton East.


John Horton McDermid: Now read chapter 18. Chapter 18 refers to that, be honest now. Read it.


Ross Harvey: I have read it. But the
point is right here in paragraphs 1 and 2, and it states-


John Horton McDermid: What does it say about the law?

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


Ross Harvey: As the Minister for International Trade seems so fond of saying, if this deal had been in place the shakes and shingle tariff never would have been imposed, the softwood lumber tariff never would have been imposed. That is nonsense. It is perfectly within the right of the Americans to impose those duties under Article 1902.
For example, let us say a steel plant in Edmonton comes up with some fantastic new steel fabricating process that takes the market by storm, and it is exporting into the United States to beat the band. There is nothing under Article 1902(2) to prevent the Americans from introducing new tariff laws to prevent that.


John Horton McDermid: Read chapter 18.


Ross Harvey: I have read chapter 18 but it does nothing to impair the effect of Article 1902(1) and (2).


John Horton McDermid: What does it say about introducing new trade legislation? Come on, get with it. What does it say about being GATT consistent or FTA consistent?


Ross Harvey: Nothing that is not overcome by Article 1902.


John Horton McDermid: Read chapter 18.


Ross Harvey: I have read chapter 18. It does not defeat Article 1902.


Steven W. Langdon: No guaranteed access. None at all.


John Horton McDermid: He's changing his tune about the laws.
Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East: They are very excitable tonight, Mr. Chairman. Do you suppose that they have been dealing with Mr. Ben Johnson's staff? I would suggest that the pages check whatever it is that they are putting in the water.


John Horton McDermid: Order. What was that crack about Johnson?


Ross Harvey: Another article that the people of Edmonton East found most intriguing was Article 2005. We were told originally that cultural industries were not on the table. Then, having been dropped on the table by accident, it was discerned that, by God, they were exempt. It is true. The first four words of Article 2005(1) are: "Cultural industries are exempt". By God, congratulations.
Alas, Mr. Chairman, those of us who felt so compelled continued to paragraph 2 where it is with grieving heart we read:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Party
may take measures of equivalent commercial effect in response to
actions that would have been inconsistent with this Agreement but
for paragraph 1.
How the heck did that get in there?


Steven W. Langdon: That's the contradiction.


Ross Harvey: I have not been to law school, but as I read this it means that if, for example, in a surfeit of nationalist fervour the Government decides to pursue vigorously a national film industry including subsidized distribution-whoa! Flora, where are you? I hear Members opposite saying no, no. I know that it is too much to ask until Members opposite are replaced by the New Democrats. Before the century is over, it will happen, Mr. Chairman.
In any event, in this deal there is nothing to stop the Americans from imposing a duty of equivalent commercial effect on anything.


Mr. Fulton:: Right on.


Ross Harvey: Let us say, Mr. Fulton's cherished salmon.


John Horton McDermid: Order.


Ross Harvey: Or perhaps those automobile parts for which this particular province is so well famed.


Steven W. Langdon: Be careful now.


John Horton McDermid: Reel him in a little, Steve.


Ross Harvey: What we have here is an exemption for culture that is no exemption at all. It is merely a shifting of commercial responsibility from culture to anything else the Americans decide. It becomes even more interesting when one reads the definition of cultural industry found in Article 2012 which states that "cultural industry means", among other things:
c) the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of audio or video music recording,
In my town there is an outfit called Stony Plain Records. It is one of the most successful independent Canadian record labels in the country. The owner of that company, Mr. Holger Petersen, is a good friend of
December 21, 1988

mine. We used to play in a band together. It was not a very good band, but it was fun.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Sort of like the NDP.


Ross Harvey: The owner of that company has told me that this clause, by itself will drive him out-only two minutes remaining, Mr. Chairman. How time flies when one is having fun.
Let me now deal with the subject of subsidies and social services. Over and over again we have heard the assertion that there is nothing in this agreement that will in any way affect social services or health care.
One can only wonder whether those who make that assertion have ever read the schedule to Chapter 14-


An Hon. Member:: Certainly, Crosbie has not.


Ross Harvey: -and, if they did, whether they took the time to figure out what the numbers mean. It is just a bunch of numbers. But when one reads those numbers, when one compares them to the StatsCan industrial classifications, one finds, for example, that "Management Services" includes the management of nursing care homes, of homes for the handicapped, and of foster homes.
We could wind up raising a generation of "McChil-dren".


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Ross Harvey: Under No. 861, we have the administration of general hospitals, of rehabilitation hospitals. Also included would be public health labs and blood bank labs.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Time.


Ross Harvey: I do not want to stand here and accuse Hon. Members opposite of having lied to Canadians during the last election campaign, but I will tell you, there was some mighty thick smoke. In some ridings, such as Edmonton East, the voters saw through that smoke; in fact, the majority of Canadians, 53 per cent, saw through that smoke. And, if this Government ignores that majority, it does so at both its peril and the country's peril.


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


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Calgary Southwest, on debate.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Mr. Chairman, I am extremely pleased to be able to participate in the debate on the Free Trade Agreement.
At the outset, I should like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Vancouver South on his re-election to this House and on his having been chosen as Speaker of the House. As well I pass along my congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman, on your re-election and on your again assuming the post of Deputy Speaker of the House and Chairman of the Committee of the Whole.
I welcome all new Members to this place. Certainly, they have been totally immersed in parliamentary procedures over the course of the past few days, and I congratulate them on the job that they are doing.
I also wish to extend my thanks to the constituents of Calgary Southwest for their support in re-electing me to this the Thirty-fourth Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: You have a mandate.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Yes, I do have a mandate. Indeed, I had five opponents, and none received back their deposits.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Having been elected with the biggest majority in Canada, we certainly can say that you have a mandate.


Herbert O. Sparrow: The Hon. Member is correct in saying that I was elected with the largest plurality in Canada.


Mr. Della  Noce@: A majority of 30,000.


Herbert O. Sparrow: The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement represents the most comprehensive free trade agreement ever concluded between two countries. It covers more trade and trade related issues than any other agreement in the world. More important, it breaks important new ground and thus will be of great value to both the U.S. and Canadian economies.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It breaks the backs of the workers of Canada.


Herbert O. Sparrow: The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement sets new standards for trade agreements and is consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the GATT.

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
It meets the test of fairness and of mutual advantage. It is a win-win situation. It is an agreement that moves Canada into the 21st century, with a sound base and a focus on the future, for utmost success.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert O. Sparrow: It will provide a stable climate, a stable environment for my children, for your children, and for our grandchildren.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert O. Sparrow: Canada cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world. Hon. Members opposite want to look inward, want to look backward, but they do not want to look forward. Your views and your practices do not work today, and they will not work tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East, on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to interrupt, but I should think that the Hon. Member, with her experience in this place, would recognize that under the rules of the House she should be addressing the Chair.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Calgary Southwest, on debate.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Mr. Chairman, we must face reality, and this Progressive Conservative Government is facing reality, is meeting the facts of the real world head-on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert O. Sparrow: Our trading regime has changed over the last 40 years. It has changed dramatically since we signed the GATT in 1947-48. We are a trading nation. No fewer than three million jobs in Canada depend upon trade, and 30 per cent of our gross revenues comes from trade. We have to trade to exist, and we must have secure markets in order to maintain our standard of living.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert O. Sparrow: Canada is blessed with an abundance of natural resources. In the past, we have been extremely successful in selling our primary products. But today Canada wants to upgrade, wants to process such things as our natural gas, our uranium, our forestry products, our fish-all of our products. When we do so under the
current regime, the processed product is subjected to large tariffs or duties.
Today Canada exports most of its natural resources tariff-free, whereas value-added products meet with a heavy tariff.
Taking the petrochemical industry as an example, 40 per cent of Canada's total petrochemical sales are in export markets. Of the methanol produced in Canada, 80 per cent is exported, attracting a U.S. duty of 18 per cent. The tariff on polyethylene is 12.5 per cent; and on styrene, 7.4 per cent.
Every 2 to 2.5 per cent reduction in tariffs translates to $28,000 to $30,000. Once the Free Trade Agreement is implemented, the removal of the tariffs applied to petrochemical products will add millions of dollars to the cash flow of the petrochemical industry in Canada, thus leading to new investments for facilities.
Only last week Novacor of Calgary announced a multimillion dollar expansion and upgrading of its petrochemical plant at Joffre, Alberta.
The Free Trade Agreement is already having an effect in Alberta.
Let me point out how tariffs work against us. Sunlce is a Calgary firm that manufactures ski clothes. Its products are very well regarded world-wide. The volunteers who participated in the staging of the Fifteenth Olympic Winter Games in Calgary, as well as many of the participants, wore Sunlce garments.
All Hon. Members will be aware that Calgary hosted the Fifteenth Winter Olympic Games, held in February of last year. We are very proud of that.


An Hon. Member:: And a job well done, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert O. Sparrow: The Sunlce Company wished to sell its products in the U.S. But guess what-there was a 23 per cent tariff imposed on them. So what did they do? They went into the U.S. and built a factory, hiring American citizens to work in that factory.
It created jobs in the U.S. It did not create jobs in Canada, and we were the losers.
Let me take a moment to quote a passage from the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, held in Calgary, Alberta, in 1973. A new Member of this House was in attendance at that conference, in the person of
December 21, 1988

the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca had the following to say on the subject of tariffs:
Tariffs have encouraged the concentration of manufacturing in Central Canada, with western Canada supplying agricultural products and other raw materials. The national tariff structure inflicts particular penalties on western Canada.
He also said that bilateral negotiations with another country, in particular the United States, were likely to make western Canada more productive than the GATT.


Some Hon. Members:: Who said that?


Herbert O. Sparrow: Davey Barrett. He also stated in his 1973 conference that the most obvious and most important market for western Canada is the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Who said that?


Herbert O. Sparrow: Davey Barrett. He also said that the lowering of U.S. tariff walls could provide a breakthrough for western Canadian industries. There it is.


Some Hon. Members:: Who said that?


Herbert O. Sparrow: Davey Barrett.


Steven W. Langdon: Point of order-


Henry Perrin Beatty: He just took the bait.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Chairman, the Hon. Member should not be referring to Hon. Members of this House by their names. She also should not be suggesting that particular Hon. Member ever supported this trade deal because he did not at any time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: Reel him in, Bobby.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Barrett for leader.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am sure the Hon. Member, as an experienced Member, will find another way to refer to a Member than by his name. She should use the name of his riding. As far as opinions expressed, that is a question of debate.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Madam Chairman, I realize why there was a point of order. The Hon. Member across the way is perhaps a little bit embarrassed over the new Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


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


Steven W. Langdon: I rise on a point of order, Madam Chairman. I hate to raise points of order in view of the tremendous majority my good friend received.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Don't refer to her as your good friend. That is a slur on her character.


Steven W. Langdon: However, I think it is also a rule of this House not to attribute motives. I certainly never would have as a motive embarrassment over the strong fight against the trade deal which the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca put forward.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Madam Chairman, I was just going to say a few words about protectionism. Protectionism is going to continue to rear its ugly head. I know we heard a great deal about the softwood lumber deal. The Opposition never brought up the fact that in 1986 we were charged by the U.S. Commerce Department with unfair subsidies.
Two years later the same charge was made, but guess what happened? The U.S. law was either manipulated or distorted because of political pressure. This Free Trade Agreement will install a bilateral dispute mechanism which will not allow political pressure to change or distort international trade law.


Mr. Harvard:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Chairman. I have a question concerning the rules. I am a new Member, so forgive me for not knowing the rules-


John Horton McDermid: You have a rule book in your desk.


John Harvard: I will read it. I have heard something somewhat familiar to me because I come from the Province of Manitoba. I heard it on that side of the House. It is emanating from those Members. I heard it in the Province of Manitoba. We tried to stamp it out in the last election. We were almost successful in the City of Winnipeg.
I am referring to whether it is permissible for us in this House to listen to Tory bullshit?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Harvard: I come from Manitoba and that is what we call it. We call a spade a spade.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is getting to be quite late in the evening. Members are debating quite

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
passionately. It is of course quite understandable that Members will not always agree with what is being said on one side or the other. On the other hand, the language used by the Hon. Member is not the type of language that Members appreciate hearing in this House, especially when a Member is on his feet.
I think it would be proper at this time for the debate to continue.


Herbert O. Sparrow: Madam Chairman, I do hope that since I have been interrupted quite a few times you will extend my time.
I was talking about protectionism. The chairman of the U.S. Senate subcommittee on trade, Sam Gibbons, met with me last May and we discussed protectionism. That committee has before it 139 Bills on protectionism. They are not necessarily directed against Canada in particular, but I can assure you that if Canada does not get this agreement through we certainly will suffer and be caught in the side-swipe when the U.S. moves forward on its omnibus trade Bill.
I want to spend a few moments on energy. There is nothing in this agreement that forces Canada to sell anything to anyone, nothing. The provinces retain complete control and full jurisdiction over all their natural resources. They have the right to control exploration, development, and production of all their oil and gas. This agreement secures a market for our exports only if we are a reliable supplier. That is fair.
As well, neither country will be able to place restrictions on energy exports or imports. We started way back in June, 1985 to deregulate the industry. Oil in June and natural gas in October. We got rid of the National Energy Program. We got government intervention and control out of the oil and gas industry. We said: "Let the free market move. Let private enterprise do it".
I was totally embarrassed today when the Hon. Member for Edmonton East rose in Question Period and asked the Minister when this Government was going to put a floor price on oil. I can tell you: Never. Never, never, never.
All through the election I heard that we were selling out our natural resources. Canada cannot charge more for its exports than we charge our own residents at home. That is nonsense. All contracts are freely negotiated on a commercial basis. In that regard one can look to Quebec and what the Premier of Quebec has done in terms of selling his electricity into the northern U.S. He sells it at two and a half times more than what
he is getting from the residents of Quebec. These are freely negotiated contracts.
I want to repeat again that this Government believes in private enterprise. We are not going to interfere, nor should we, in terms of regulating an industry. Our job here is to create a stable fiscal climate to allow industries to get on with the job and let the free market operate.
To develop, to explore, and to produce natural resources cost millions and, in fact, billions of dollars. Canada is a huge country geographically, but popula-tionwise we are very small. We do not have the capital to bring on stream our natural resources. We need foreign investment. Investors look for a stable, reliable country. That is what the Conservative Party stands for, and I am proud of it.
Our synthetic reserves in northern Alberta, the oilsands, the heavy oil, the frontier reserves in the Beaufort Sea and off the East Coast are extremely costly to develop. They take years to bring on stream.
Do we want security of supply? Do Canadians want security of supply? If they do that is exactly what this Free Trade Agreement will bring them.
I wish to quote the Canadian geological potential for oil in Canada. It is 680 years, but it takes money to develop. In terms of natural gas it is 167 years. We have not even started looking for it. We have an abundance of natural resources. That is exactly what we will produce.
During the election I heard a great many myths about the environment. They went: "Oh, dear, time and time again Canada will be forced to harmonize with the United States environmental standards". That is nonsense. Under Article XX of the GATT we can protect public morals, such as through the prohibition on trade in pornographic material. We can protect human, animal or plant life or health. We can protect the environment. It is all in here under Article XX.
In closing I want to say that we did not leap into this deal overnight. It started in March, 1985 with the Quebec Summit. We got an agreement in the fall. We spent 18 months negotiating. We spent 18 months talking to ITAC. Simon Reisman, the negotiator, had a 40-person team. The International Trade Advisory Committee. There were 15 SAGIT sectoral advisory committees. They met every month. They reported to Mr. Reisman who in turn reported to our Minister of Trade.
December 21, 1988

This particular agreement has had more study, more provincial government input, more industry input than any other agreement ever entered into by the Government of Canada.
The dispute settlement mechanism is described in chapters 18 and 19 chapters. It probably has to be one of the very strongest benefits of the deal. There was a report done by a legal firm in town called Fraser and Beatty which states that it is a tremendous asset, probably one of the very best dispute settlement mechanisms that exist.
The Free Trade Agreement is important for Canada. We did win a mandate. We have more seats in this House than the other two Parties. We have the right to fight this, and we will.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Chairman, the constituents of South West Nova know my feelings on free trade. I would like to spend my 20 minutes asking the Minister some quick, simple questions which my constituents and many Canadians have asked me-


An Hon. Member:: Can he answer them?


Coline M. Campbell: I do not know; it is up to the Minister.
Obviously, a great many Members do not realize that they have the privilege of being able to question directly Ministers and their officials. I regret that the officials are not here tonight.


John Horton McDermid: They are here. I can get them in one minute.


Coline M. Campbell: You may need to, John; excuse me, 1 will ask you the question in a minute.
I am sure the Minister can answer the simple questions. They will be brief and to the point.
My first concern relates to the working group on subsidies as set up by Article 1907. I realize that the two countries have agreed to establish a working group to develop more effective rules and disciplines concerning the use of subsidies, and to develop a substitute system of rules for dealing with unfair pricing and government subsidization. 1 have a number of questions on subsidies for the Minister. The Minister of Trade, I am sure, is aware that we have debated back and forth in committee. I am only exercising my right as a member of this
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
committee to ask him some questions. I know that he is brief in his answers.
Has the Canadian Government, the Cabinet, done an evaluation of what is a subsidy as it relates to Canada and the Free Trade Agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Madam Chairman, naturally over the years we have looked at what is a subsidy. I cannot stand if the hon. lady is going to stand.


Coline M. Campbell: I just asked for a yes or no answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: We can wait until the end of the hon. lady's speech and then I can give the answers.


Coline M. Campbell: Just answer yes or no.


John Horton McDermid: Sit down and let him answer.


Mr. Dick:: He can answer for 20 minutes if he wants.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't be a dick.


Coline M. Campbell: Is the definition of a subsidy in the Free Trade Agreement to be retroactive before January 1, 1989? Will companies presently receiving Atlantic Canada Opportunities grants in the East be penalized, or is there a cut-off date for when the subsidy begins? In other words, is there a cut-off date on to when a subsidy actually begins for the Free Trade Agreement? My question requires a yes or no answer. 1 am just asking.


John Carnell Crosbie: Obviously, the answer is no. There has been no agreed definition of what is a trade distorting subsidy. We are hardly going to make it retroactive if there ever is an agreement.


Coline M. Campbell: In other words, we had better hurry up and get all our grants in first before January 1,1989.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Coline M. Campbell: I have the final determination that was made in the United States with respect to the Atlantic groundfish countervail action. I am sure the Minister is aware of the list which is contained in that determination.
I do not really want to go into details. I want to outline some of the programs that were determined to be a subsidy in that determination by the Americans. I wish to enumerate 11 or 12 of them, because I think

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
that they are important vis-a-vis whether or not the delegates on the committee have some type of order to look at these as subsidies.
They are: the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Promotion Branch, assistance for the construction of ice-making and fish chilling facilities, certain types of investment tax credits, programs for export market development, regional development incentive programs, industrial and regional development programs, fisheries improvement loans programs, Department of Fisheries and Oceans grants to fishermen and fish processors-I am reading from the determination. There are 38 subsidies listed which went into the evaluation. I could go on with the list.
The Hon. Minister knows that we are both interested in harbour development for fishermen, but preferential user fees to fishermen under the Small Craft Harbours Program were determined to be a subsidy. There is also government equity infusions into National Sea Products and Fishery Products International. It is no wonder that if it is not going to be retroactive it will not hurt at all.
Then you can go to the ones that affect Newfoundland, Mr. Minister, such as Newfoundland grants for the rebuilding and repairing of fishing and coastal vessels. There are about eight of them.
There is a list of subsidies. I want to know whether the Minister will give any instruction to the working group that will evaluate the rules on these 38 points which brought in countervail on subsidies. I do not want to know what happened to each program. I want to know if the Minister has any direction for that working group when it comes time to set it up. It is coming by January 1, if we pass it between now and the end of the year. Has the Minister given a list of protected industrial growth subsidies to the working group? Has he made such a direction?


John Carnell Crosbie: There seems to be a lot of confusion in the mind of the Hon. Member. I suppose her departure from the House for four years has caused some confusion in her mind of these matters.
The subsidy situation is this: With or without the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the United States now has a law, as do we, to deal with the question of whether or not exports into the United States are unfairly subsidized. We have the same laws in our country. There is nothing strange or peculiar about the fact that the Americans have those kinds of laws. Every
trading country in the world has them to protect themselves from unfair trading.
Therefore, if the Americans export products to Canada that are unfairly subsidized in a trade distorting way, then a Canadian company can make a complaint to the relevant authorities here in Canada. If they can show that the American product was unfairly subsidized in a trading sort of way, then we can put on a countervailing tariff. This is a law that works both ways.
Last year, this year, next year, the Americans will be able to bring actions against Canadian exports to the United States under their trade law if they allege that some product of ours has been unfairly subsidized. Up to the end of this year, the case will be determined by an American agency. They would make a determination whether or not under their trade law there was an unfair trade distorting subsidy.
After January 1, that will no longer be the case. We will be able to have a dispute resolution process to which we will appoint two members.


Coline M. Campbell: It is my job-


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Chairman, I was asked a question, and I have the floor.


Coline M. Campbell: No. Madam Chairman, he has not answered my question.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have the floor.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: If I am asked a question, I should be able to answer it. After January 1, when this legislation passes this House, we will have a new dispute resolution mechanism. There will be a board appointed-two Canadians, two Americans-with a neutral chairman.


Coline M. Campbell: A point of order, Madam Chairman-


An Hon. Member:: We are in committee, Madam Chairman.


John Carnell Crosbie: Have I the floor, Madam Chairman?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Not at this time. There has been a point of order raised by the Hon. Member for South West Nova.


John Carnell Crosbie: Either the Hon. Member is asking questions or she is not. What kind of nonsense is this?
December 21, 1988


Steve Eugene Paproski: There was a point of order.


Coline M. Campbell: I specifically asked the Minister a question. I do not need a lesson on countervail.


John Carnell Crosbie: You do, you certainly do.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Chairman, I do not know if you have had the experience of sitting in Committee of the Whole.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order.


Coline M. Campbell: He cannot answer the question. My question was a simple question on whether or not he was going to provide any guidance on subsidies as of January 1. Please answer the question. I do not need a lesson. I will make a speech if you want me to. It is my time. I am asking a question. Answer the question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: If I can continue with the answer, the Hon. Member is confused.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order.


Coline M. Campbell: I am not confused about subsidies. It is the whole issue that you have to discuss.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. There is something that should be made a little more precise for all Members in this Chamber. It is the prerogative of a Member, in Committee of the Whole, to ask questions of the Minister responsible for the Bill. The time taken by the Minister, now that we are within a situation of closure, is part of the 20 minutes in which the Hon. Member has to make a statement. Whenever a question is asked, I think the Hon. Member should be allowed the time to answer.
The last time the Hon. Member for South West Nova rose, she rose on a point of order. The point of order was not made and debate started again. I will not consider the time which has been taken by the point of order. This discussion will not be taken into account when adding up the time which the Hon. Member has coming to her.
The Hon. Minister had the floor. I think it would be useful to everyone if the answer is concluded as quickly as possible.
Canada- US. Free Trade Agreement


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will try to finish very quickly.
The present system is that every case is decided individually. There is no agreed definition on what is a "trade distorting subsidy". If two countries could agree together on a definition of what makes up a "subsidy", it would save a lot of time and effort on everyone's part in taking these individual cases before dispute tribunals. That is what the committee will be doing over the next five to seven years, attempting to see if we can agree with the United States on what is a definition of a "trade-distorting subsidy". We will not agree to any definition that will endanger regional development programs in Canada. The law will not change in the United States. It will not change here unless we both can reach agreement in this committee.
The omens are not good about agreement because 96 GATT countries have not been able to reach agreement. Perhaps over the next five to seven years we will be able to do so. We are not going to agree to anything that is damaging to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for South West Nova.


Coline M. Campbell: I just want to say, Madam Chairman, thank you for your indulgence. I feel that it is my right to have my 20 minutes. The Minister does not need to instruct me on the preamble to his question. I am only asking: Did he or did he not instruct the group that will be sitting down as to matters that are priorities with respect to Atlantic Canada? He says he would not agree. That is fine. I am just wondering if he has made a list.
My next question concerns Chapter 12 of the agreement. I am pleased to see that the Government grandfathered the ownership of the vessel that catches the fish in Canadian waters.
There is a difference between the East Coast and West Coast, and I will not worry about the West Coast since the Government obviously does not. I am only interested in the East Coast.
The explanation in Chapter 12 states that the powers of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure that Canada obtains benefits from our fisheries resources remain intact. The agreement protects the current Canadian policy restricting foreigners-I presume

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
foreigners means the U.S.-to a minority ownership of licensed Canadian vessels, or of companies that own licensed vessels.
What is most astonishing to anyone in inshore fishing is the statement: "or hold enterprise allocation".
The Minister must know that 80 per cent of the East Coast fisheries is under enterprise allocations.


Mr. Siddon:: That is not true.


Coline M. Campbell: This means someone can go to the American stock exchange and have a minority interest in Fishery Products and National Sea. The Canadian fish which we fought so hard to control within our waters is now going to them. It also means that you can take 150 inshore boats-


Thomas Edward Siddon: Point of order.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Chairman, that was not the Minister I was talking to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Minister rose on a point of order.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I think the Hon. Member would want the House to have correct information. She should tell the House that 80 per cent of the Atlantic fishery was not under enterprise allocation. She should tell the House the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Coline M. Campbell: He does not know what he is talking about.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Minister may want to enter into debate at a later stage. It is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for South West Nova.


Coline M. Campbell: The Minister knows the fishery policy. We all know it on the East Coast. Fifty-one per cent of the boat ownership must be owned by Canadians. That is grandfathered. Huwever, we do not know who will own 49 per cent.
For example, if Investment Canada has a level of $150 million, an entire sector of an inshore fishery could possibly be bought at 49 per cent, so that the direction of that inshore fishery could change hands. I do not think that was what the Minister wanted. I am sure he did not want to give up control of our fish in our waters to a foreign minority shareholder.


Thomas Edward Siddon: A point of order-


Coline M. Campbell: When you consider that it has to be landed on shore-


Thomas Edward Siddon: Point of order-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Minister, on a point of order.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I think the Hon. Member would want the House to know that inshore fishermen must have Canadian licences and that only Canadians can own-


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have advised the Hon. Minister before, and it would be appreciated if he would rise on debate and not try to debate on a point of order.


Mr. Tobin:: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the fact that you pointed out that there was a world of difference between a point of order and debate. The Minister is interrupting the flow of an eloquent and passionate speech with fictitious points of order that are really debate. Let us hear from a passionate defender-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I would point out to the Hon. Member that I made this point with the Hon. Minister. I will give the floor back to the Hon. Member for South West Nova.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Chairman, I will return to some of the other concerns I have in this Free Trade Agreement. I am concerned about the technical standards. I am concerned about restrictive trade practices. I am concerned about temporary entry permits.
There is a difference between American immigration law and Canadian immigration law. I suggest that Americans could come in and spend as much time as they want here, while I believe Canadians are restricted by immigration laws to six-month period.


John Horton McDermid: Where does it say that?


Coline M. Campbell: They can come up here for an extended period of time. There is no discretion.


John Horton McDermid: Where does it say that?


Coline M. Campbell: I have the section and I will send it to the Minister later.
I understand that mirror legislation must be passed with respect to the temporary entry permit. How long
December 21, 1988

will it be before we will have the same right to go to the States as Americans have to come here? Or, will there be shorter periods?
I also want to deal with cheap labour.


John Carnell Crosbie: When do we get a chance to answer the question?


Coline M. Campbell: I did not ask a question yet. I will ask a question if you want, Mr. Minister. Does the Minister expect that inshore fish landed at our wharfs would be processed anywhere in eastern Canada when it could be processed anywhere in the States cheaper?
In other words, I understand the grandfathering position so that the fishing capacity has to be 51 per cent owned by Canadians. However, I can see the minority taking hold of that and taking it over. I understand that it is grandfathered and that you have to land inshore fish at the wharfs. However, I believe that ultimately our company will not be able to buy because they must compete with the cheap labour and processing.
Does he not believe that the inshore fishing community will be harmed by the process of landed fish going straight to the States to be finished?
The Minister may say that this agreement will allow us to process our fish further. Yes, you can find six people to do fish cakes. They can do all the fish cakes the Americans will eat. That is six more jobs, but what about all the plant jobs? Seasonal workers may be considered a subsidy and the fish may be sold to the States and processed there. The inshore fishery will go out the window.
We are worried about communities and their lifeblood. You are worried about fish cakes for National Sea and Fisheries Products. I cannot believe that any Minister coming from the East would allow a minority shareholder to put our landed fish stocks in Boston or anywhere there is cheaper labour.
Fisheries Products International and National Sea already have places there because it is cheaper to bring the fish there. How will the Minister keep our natural resources in Canada?


Steve Eugene Paproski: There are only a few minutes left, if the Minister wishes to answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: How are you going to keep them down on the farm now that they have seen Paris? I am glad
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the Hon. Member wanted to observe the rules of the Committee of the Whole by asking-


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am sorry, I recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor on a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Chairman, I have a procedural question I would like to raise with you. It is my understanding that once closure has been applied in Committee of the Whole, it is not possible to conduct question and answer sessions, and that an Hon. Member is limited to one intervention as the Hon. Member for South West Nova has already done. I wonder if that is not the case, Madam Chairman.


Steve Eugene Paproski: At one point. The Hon. Member probably did not understand, although I made that point very clear at the outset of the speech of the Hon. Member for South West Nova. Should the Hon. Member wish to ask questions of the Minister responsible for the Bill, the time the Minister would take to answer the question would be deducted from the 20-minute period allowed to the Hon. Member. Otherwise, it would be considered an intervention from the Minister. Within the 20-minute period, the Member may again rise to his feet and be recognized after asking a question of the Minister. Does that answer the Hon. Member's question?


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, Madam Chairman, but this creates a problem with what I understand to be an important rule which comes into effect when closure is imposed by the Government in Committee of the Whole, that is, that a Member cannot speak more than once.
In this case, the Hon. Member for South West Nova will have spoken a number of times and the Minister will have spoken a number of times. That would seem to contradict the rules imposed under closure.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Perhaps the Hon. Member will allow me to try again. Once we are under closure, no Hon. Member is allowed to speak for more than one 20-minute period. Should the Hon. Member choose to ask a question of the Minister responsible, the time the Minister takes to answer the question is taken into consideration within the Hon. Member's 20-minute period. This is a choice the Hon. Member can make.
The time which was allowed the Hon. Member for South West Nova has now expired. We will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Guelph.

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


John Carnell Crosbie: Now do I have the floor?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Of course we accept and support totally the explanation you have given to the Hon. Member who raised the question, but I simply wonder if Madam Chairman took into consideration the time that was spent in explaining to the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor what exactly was happening tonight when tallying the total time spent by the Hon. Member who has just spoken. I wonder whether or not there is time remaining for the Minister to give his normal short, succinct and brief answer and for the Hon. Member to respond.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I can assure the Hon. Member that the time taken by points of order during the Hon. Member's speech was taken into consideration and added to the normal time, but now the time has in fact expired and we are resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Laval.


John Carnell Crosbie: I haven't answered the question yet.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Laval has the floor.
[ Translation]


Mr. Ricard:: Before I begin, Madam Chairman- [English]


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Chairman, before the point of order was made, I understood that the Chair had recognized the Hon. Member for Guelph.


Steve Eugene Paproski: At this time of night, the Hon. Member may allow the Chair to have a problem when recognizing a Member. I do apologize. I recognize the Hon. Member for Laval.


Guy Ricard: Madam Chairman, before I begin my comments, I would like to congratulate the Minister of External Trade (Mr. Crosbie). For almost 18 months he was accused of not having read the trade agreement. I suggest that he deserves a good hand of applause for the way he has been answering questions, and if my colleagues want to join me, we are going to very strongly applaud him.


An Hon. Member:: It would seem he learned it by heart since that time!


Guy Ricard: Yes indeed, it would even seem he learned it by heart. Congratulations, Mr. Minister.
Madam Chairman, I would like to make a brief statement. What is the purpose of the legislation now before us? As stated, it isto strengthen the unique and enduring friendship between the two countries and their peoples as befitting great trading partners,
to strengthen Canada's national identity while at the same time protecting vital national characteristics and qualities,
to promote productivity, employment, financial stability and the improvement of living standards,
to establish a climate of greater predictability for Canadians to plan and invest with confidence and to complete more effectively in the United States and global markets,
to build on Canada's rights and obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other multilateral and bilateral instruments of cooperation,
to contribute to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and provide a catalyst to broader international cooperation, and
to establish effective binational procedures for the resolution of disputes in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving the two countries and, generally, any dispute arising out of the Agreement;
Mr. Chairman, reciting that statement, I am still wondering why Opposition Parties are cautioning Canadians against the right to negotiate or trade with the United States, which will enable all residents in Canada to benefit from the Agreement.
I wonder how they can explain to Canada and Canadians that we should exercice caution because when trading with the Americans we could be tricked.
During the past week and a half, and maybe longer than that now, I have heard in this Chamber all kinds of comments and allegations, and often falsehoods, about what this Bill would have us do with our American colleagues.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, when two people decide to enter into an agreement, they sit down at a table to hammer out the details of the agreement, then finally sign it. The process, I would think, is the same when the parties involved are two countries. This Chamber is full of lawyers. I am sure they will agree with me on that. When two countries decide to enter into an agreement, the same rules apply. They sit down together, each side says what it wants and they try to come to an agreement.
We are 25 million strong in Canada and we produce much more than we consume. Obviously, we try to sell our products to other countries as best we can. Part of our excess production goes to the United States and we are currently trying to increase our sales to that country.
December 21, 1988

We know that to the 250 million Americans, Canada is a small market. But for them, the Free Trade Agreement means much more than trying to sell or buy consumer goods.
It shows that they can get along with another country. It sets the scene for future negotiations with the world. The ultimate purpose of the Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Chairman, is not to establish trade between two countries, but to establish world trade. What we want is a world market for our products. If you remember, some time ago, we clearly showed that Canada could compete with any other country in the area of high technology. Canada, and I should say even Quebec, boasts the best engineers in the world. Laval has produced good engineers, Mr. Chairman. I am one of those engineers and I am not afraid to say so. There is a large firm in Montreal called Lavalin which competes on the world market. It is the only engineering consultant firm to have succeeded in getting into Russia. And that's no small feat, Mr. Chairman. These people are able to compete on the world market, which means that if we can sign agreements with our American partners, we will be able to tackle the world market, as well as sell our expertise, goods and services. Of course, the Liberals will say that we will never be able to achieve that goal, because they themselves were never able to prove that in the past. They were never able to set up a system to help us expand.
As far as the implementation of free trade is concerned, Mr. Chairman, they claimed during the election campaign that we were unable to foresee its impact.
Mr. Chairman, we are saying that custom duties will be entirely eliminated for approximately 15 per cent of our bilateral trade. As soon as the agreement is implemented, goods made in Canada or in the United States such as computers and computer hardware- this is high technology-fur, clothing, frozen fresh fish,-I wish to pay tribute to my colleague the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) who clearly demonstrated last night what he will do with cod. Animal feed, skis, skates, whisky-which may be somewhat important but which will be able to cross the border tax free. At the same date, custom duties will be reduced by 20 per cent on approximately one-third of all the other goods exported or imported. For instance, machinery, paint, furniture, paper and paper products. The Minister himself mentioned paper products yesterday.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
He said that we were supplying the raw material in Canada, but that the Americans were making the finished product; with a new free trade agreement, we could make it here. Hardwood plywood, oil, and spare parts for cars; this will affect my friend the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and Luigi. These duties will be reduced by another 20 per cent until these goods account for approximately 50 per cent of our bilateral trade.
Let us deal now with embargoes, Mr. Chairman. Canada will lift its embargoes on second hand planes and cars which are 8 years old or older, but this restriction as to the age of second hand cars will be gradually eliminated by as much as 2 per cent per year until January 1, 1993. Of course, there is a lot of detailed planning behind all of this.
Residence permits for businessmen. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I tried one day to go and work in the United States as an engineer and I found it very difficult for a Canadian professional to be hired in the United States and try to secure a position there without being sponsored by an American firm. And this caused a lot of problems because the company which wanted to do business in the United States market had first to ask for a working permit there which they could never obtain. So they were compelled to join an American corporation to sponsor a Canadian corporation. With free trade, new rules for temporary visits to the United States by business people, professionals, merchants, investors and persons transferred within a company will take effect for Canadian citizens. That seems clear to me-it is not hard to understand.


An Hon. Member:: American citizens too.


Guy Ricard: American citizens as well, that is true. You are right, sir, it is free trade we are getting into. So if we go down there, they have the right to come up here, to our country. And I think that we are big enough, mature enough and man enough to accept it and to work with the agreed upon rules.
So, Mr. Chairman, looking at all that, we easily realize that it cannot be bad for Canadians.
What will be the effects on a province like Quebec? For four years, we have heard the Liberals here tell us that the Montreal area was being neglected by the federal Government. The Montreal area has the labour force, the infrastructure, everything we need to give those people the chance to take on the world market, the

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
American market. But they must be given the opportunity to do so.
For 20 years, the Liberals tried to subsidize companies that had trouble surviving. It was like putting bandaids on wooden legs, Mr. Chairman. They never solved the problem. With the means at hand, we tried to solve the problem effectively. We saved Petromont. We invested millions, but in an intelligent manner. We enabled this company to compete, to restructure, to go after markets that were closed to it until then.
So, Mr. Chairman, if the Montreal area can have access to the American market, if it can produce high tech products, if it can produce finished products, what will it do? We will sell them to the Americans. Indeed, we have already started. Look at companies like Spar, which produces the Canadarm for the U.S. shuttle-


An Hon. Member:: It is made in Lotbiniere.


Guy Ricard: It is made in Lotbiniere-even better. There must be some small screws made in Lotbiniere.
Mr. Chairman, we realize that Canadians can do.
Mr. Chairman, I remember the demagoguery the Opposition parties resorted to in 1984-85 when we talked about giving Crown corporations back to private enterprise and decentralizing. We then had the first company sold to private enterprise, namely de Havil-land. I remember that very well because at the time I was chairman of the Committee on Regional Economic Expansion and we had held hearings on the sale of that corporation to private sector interests. I recall that at the time someone said that if the Government were to get rid of Crown corporations it would kill that industry, create unemployment and witness the exodus of Canadian brains to American companies since Boeing was then the prospective De Havilland buyer.
We also had the privilege of listening to Mr. Bob White who had come to make representations.


An Hon. Member:: Not Bob White?


Mr. Richard:: Bob White, in person.


An Hon. Member:: The leader of the NDP?


Guy Ricard: The future leader of the NDP. He came here with his retinue of 15 or 20 people and attempted to laugh at the state, to ridicule the Canadian Government. He was not aiming only at the Conservatives, Mr. Chairman, the Liberals too were a target because, naturally, for Bob White absolutely nothing exists
except socialism, the NDP and socialism. As far as he was concerned, any sale of a Crown corporation to the private sector was a scandal, soon to degenerate into a cancer.
We witnessed the same scenario when Canadair management decided to sell some of their shares to private interests. The same people came to the House, they appeared before the committee where they made demagogic statements and accused us of every sin in the book, they came to tell us we were selling this country off to the Americans, they came to tell us that we were getting rid of our heritage, Mr. Chairman, our heritage!
Now if we consider the results of these sales, this privatization, without actually saying that we created jobs, the fact is that these companies almost doubled the number of workers they had at the time, they increased their profits three and four times over. That is what they did. The beauty of it is that the additional provincial and federal taxes and every other tax related to their purchasing power enabled us to justify fully the loans we had made, and then some.
I said that the Montreal region is home to a number of high technology industries like Spar in the riding of my friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux), Canadair, Paramax, Canadian Aviation Electronics, each one a high tech undertaking which would stand to gain a lot. But in order to achieve this, Mr. Chairman, the Bill under consideration first has to be adopted. We must adopt this Bill because it is the tool we need to amend the laws that will enable us to develop our high technology.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk to you about the Space Agency. During the election campaign, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that the space agency would be built in the Montreal area. If you take a look at last week's newspapers, you will see that a dozen of the members in his caucus want the agency to be built in Ottawa. It is obvious that the Members involved are Opposition backbenchers. The fact remains, however, that the Liberals can't seem to get together to decide where they want the space agency to be built. They wanted to trip us up by trying to pit us, the Members from the Montreal area, against the Members from the Ottawa area for the space agency. They wanted to create a rift between us.
Mr. Chairman, on this side of the House we did not stoop down to that demagogy, we did not trip over. We did not compromise ourselves. The Prime Minister (Mr. December 21, 1988

Mulroney) said he would make a statement in due time and all other Ministers abode by that.
What is important to us, Mr. Chairman, it is not whether the Space Agency is in Montreal or Toronto or Ottawa. What is important to us, Mr. Chairman, is that Canada be recognized as the high technology place, the place to develop aerospace. If we can have people in Saskatoon and Halifax working on high technology, aerospace products, people in Montreal will applaud, Mr. Chairman, they will support that, and those people will be able to promote the aerospace industry in Montreal.
I think that on this side of the House, all Members here, all Conservative Members share that view, and everyone is working for the good of Canada-everyone wants to promote Canada.
Mr. Chairman, as my time has expired, I would like to conclude by saying that the sooner the Bill is accepted, the sooner Canada will grow, the sooner the high technology industry in Canada will be improved, and the better it will be for Canadians, Quebecers and especially people in Laval.


Mr. Crawford:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the constituents of the riding of Kent for the trust and confidence they have placed in me. As a representative for the riding of Kent in southwestern Ontario, I pledge to go above and beyond the call of duty for my riding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rex Crawford: It is indeed an honour, a privilege, and a humbling experience to be a new Member of Parliament. In this my maiden speech in this hallowed Chamber, I am pleased to put forward my comments regarding the free trade deal in this historic debate, and particularly on how it may affect Kent. I wish to concentrate on three aspects or issues that are of specific concern to Kent: agriculture, the automotive industry, and the environment.
Kent County has some of the most fertile land in Canada, and it is number one in the nation for corn production. Day in and day out our farmers are confronted with things not under their control, such as the weather, low market prices, and high input costs. The trade deal puts at risk one of Canada's most basic industries, our food industry. The Government said that our supply-management boards are left intact by the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
trade deal, but elimination of tariffs on processed foods will undercut Canadian poultry, eggs, and dairy marketing boards. As more processed foods are imported from the United States, the authority of Canadian marketing boards will weaken, and processors and farmers will lose business.
Article 401 will eliminate tariffs on fruit, vegetables, and processed foods. This will frequently make it difficult for our fruit and vegetable producers to compete with imports from the United States, especially the southern states which have a much longer growing season.
Our shorter grower season limits our ability to grow fruit and vegetables relative to the U.S. These products are generally in larger supply in the U.S. and at a lower price than in Canada. Therefore, because our food processors pay higher prices for Canadian than U.S. fruit and vegetables, by eliminating tariffs the trade deal obviously puts pressure on processors to relocate operations in the United States, closer to the source of cheaper supplies.
Our farmers are faced with more than Mother Nature, with more than the big banks breathing down their necks. Now the trade deal throws our farmers to the wolves.
The use of pesticides will be forever changed by the trade deal. Just as we are recognizing an urgent need to develop policies that move us away from a dependence on herbicides and pesticides, the free trade deal commits us to an American approach that actually makes it easier for certain pesticides and herbicides to be licensed.
Schedule 7 to Chapter Seven specifically concerns pesticides. It states that the U.S. and Canada must "work toward equivalent guidelines, technical regulations, standards and test methods". The difference between the U.S. and Canadian approaches are quite real. In the United States there are 20 per cent more active pesticide ingredients registered for use, and over seven times as many pesticide products.
One good example is the herbicide Alachlor, a probably cancer-causing substance which the U.S. continues to license, but it is banned in Canada. Alachlor, which has been demonstrated to cause tumours in test animals, has been found in both ground and surface waters across Canada. According to Health and Welfare officials, the evidence that it could be cancer-causing was the most convincing they had ever seen for a

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
pesticide. Yet, the U.S. found that the benefits outweighed the risks and it continues to register Alachlor.
Not surprisingly, the manufacturer has argued that Canada's licensing rules should be changed to reflect the American criteria. The free trade deal will weaken Canadian pesticide regulation. The effect will be to trade the adverse impact on Canadian health and environment in a return for greater profits to the transnational chemical industry.
That is clearly unacceptable. The citizens of Kent are concerned that this Government will not even consider amendments which would safeguard our ability to ban, inhibit, or restrict the use of pesticides or chemicals, an ability which is cast in doubt by Schedule 7 of the Free Trade Agreement.
What about the environment in general? The constituents of the riding of Kent have a heightened awareness of this Government's poor record on the environment. The northern parts of Kent County draw their water from the Sinclair River, an international waterway and a waterway that is threatened by chemical spills, blobs, and waste water.
The residents of North Kent, which comprises the native reservation of Walpole and the Town of Wal-laceburg and the Town of Dresden, want a clean water pipeline from Lake Huron so as to eliminate the threat of spills and to permit them the same quality of water as that available to the City of Sarnia.
This Government has repeatedly said that the free trade deal is not about the environment. In fact, the environmental significance of the trade deal has been apparent from the outset. As early as June 1986, this Government's own environmental advisory council called upon it to conduct a public and thorough assessment of the implications of the Free Trade Agreement, and this before negotiations were concluded.
The advice of this Government's own advisory council on the environment was ignored.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Rex Crawford: In response to the critics of the trade deal, the Government is now claiming that the environment is protected under Article 609 of the agreement and under Article XX(B) of the GATT.
This Government's claim that nothing in the trade deal prevents Canada from regulating to protect the
environment is entirely false. Its strategy appears intended, once again, to capitalize on the fact that most Canadians have not read the Free Trade Agreement.
One is left with the impression that the environmental concerns were not omitted recklessly or inadvertently. The Government has drawn attention to sections of the Free Trade Agreement and the GATT which, we are told, concern the environment; but neither provision applies to the very parts of the Free Trade Agreement of greatest environmental concern.
By raising Article 609 and Article XX(B) of the GATT, the Government underscores its total failure to protect the environment from the worst impacts of the Free Trade Agreement. The only conclusion left is that the framers of the deal were careful to make sure that their major objectives were not stopped by any concern for the environment.
There is no mention of environmental protection anywhere in this trade deal. As a consequence, the implications for the environment are not clear. No environmental impact study of a Free Trade Agreement had been carried out by the Government before, during or after the deal was signed.
As well, Canada may face pressures to lower our standards to American levels. Canadian business could argue that our stronger regulations in such areas as acid rain emissions, air pollution, liquid waste disposal, and the use of pesticides could put Canadian companies at a competitive disadvantage.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Shame. Another sell-out.


Rex Crawford: The Ontario Environment Minister agrees that subsidies given by federal and provincial Governments to reduce pollution emissions may be attacked by American companies as unfair subsidies. The definition of "unfair subsidies" is to be decided over the next five to seven years. Pollution control subsidies and subsidies related to the environment have not been excluded from this deal.
Mr. Chairman, this Government's concern for the environment takes second place to its concern for big business and the profits of big business, with no concern for the environment.
The auto industry is of prime importance to the riding of Kent. Because of our proximity to the major car manufacturers, our auto parts factories have grown and prospered. The auto pact has played an important role in that success.
December 21, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rex Crawford: Throughout the negotiations, the Government maintained that the auto industry would not be part of any Free Trade Agreement and that the Auto Pact would remain intact. Yet, when the free trade deal was made public, one found an entire chapter dealing with changes to the Auto Pact, Chapter 10.
The trade deal, Mr. Chairman, makes several significant changes to the Auto Pact, changes which eliminate Canadian safeguards and essentially gut the Auto Pact.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Shame.


Rex Crawford: First of all, the policing mechanisms are removed. The Auto Pact allowed companies to move autos across the border tariff-free if those same companies manufactured in Canada 60 per cent of the value of vehicles sold in Canada. Car makers are required to pay full tariff on any imports that do not meet the 60 per cent requirement, and the tariffs are set at such a level that it is always in the car maker's interest to build the cars in Canada, creating jobs for Canadians in the process.
The Free Trade Agreement removes this policing mechanism by phasing out tariffs on original equipment and tires over 10 years, and over five years the tariffs on replacement parts. Without these tariffs, manufacturers will have fewer incentives to invest in Canada, with the consequent impact on jobs for Canadians. Also, the deal introduces a new 50 per cent North American rule of origin.
In order for original parts to move between Canada and the United States at the tariff rates specified in the Free Trade Agreement, at least 50 per cent of the manufacturing cost will have to be incurred in North America. The Government refused to accept the advice of the automotive parts manufacturers of Canada, who warned the Government that unless the North American content requirement was raised from 50 per cent to 60 per cent, up to 20,000 jobs could be lost in the auto parts industry in Canada. This particular aspect of the agreement has many in the riding of Kent very concerned, given that the livelihood of many of the residents of the riding of Kent depend upon this industry.
A third way in which the Free Trade Agreement weakens the Auto Pact arises out of the fact that it restricts the Auto Pact to current participants only. Canada has agreed not to allow companies other than the existing North American car makers to qualify under the remaining provisions of the Auto Pact. We
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
will no longer be able to use the Auto Pact and its access to the U.S. market to attract new investment from Asian companies in order to create jobs.
These changes essentially gut the Auto Pact. This Government has agreed to move from "managed trade" to "free trade" in automobiles.
With tariffs tied to performance requirements, we have been able to create jobs and prosperity in the Canadian auto industry. Why this Government would abandon the Auto Pact when it is working in Canada's interest is baffling. Ideology conquers common sense again.
How has some of the auto industry reacted? As I mentioned earlier, Victor Lonmo, the President of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers of Canada, predicts that 20,000 jobs will be lost in the auto parts industry as a result of this free trade deal, with the job losses occurring primarily in the high technology sector involved in electronics and engine design.
All labour unions in the industry oppose this trade deal on the ground that it would allow auto makers to move Canadian jobs to the U.S. While I do not agree with the politics of Bob White, the President of the Canadian Auto Workers, he makes a reasonable statement when he states, and I quote: "If you have the safeguards without a penalty, how can people be so sure about the future? If you take away the penalty enforcement, I think you put a lot of jobs in jeopardy."
Another aspect of this deal that leads us toward the economic union of the U.S. and Canada is the impact of the minimum wage laws here and across the border. While all Canadian provinces have minimum wage laws, nine American states have no standards. In addition, the minimum wage in 12 of the states is under $3 an hour. In fact, in Texas, the third most populous state in the union, the minimum wage is $1.40 an hour.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Shame. What a disgrace.


Rex Crawford: Under this trade deal, Canadian workers will find themselves in competition with lower paid and poorly protected workers from Texas and Mississippi.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They don't care about workers. That is what they want. That is the hidden agenda of this Government-big business.

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


Rex Crawford: Factors in the southern states such as lower labour costs, fewer unions and lower employee benefits, have contributed to an exodus of manufacturers from the northern states, all with the highest minimum wages in the U.S. Employment in the manufacturing sectors of Michigan, New York and Ohio dropped by an average of 13 per cent. This same north-south trend will apply to the Canadian manufacturing sector in the aftermath of this trade deal.
Almost 60 per cent of low-income workers are women. Minimum wages are especially important to part-time workers, 75 per cent of whom are women. Thus the threat posed to Canadian minimum wage standards is greatest for women, as well as for the disabled and cultural minorities. Some two million U.S. manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1979, and it is expected that 90 per cent of the new jobs created in that country between now and 1995 will be in the lower paying personal service sector. This trend is also occurring in Canada.
Given that minimum wage workers in Canada currently find themselves on the low end of the ladder already, they can ill afford further pay cuts to the low levels experienced in the U.S. However, companies will be pressured to harmonize, equalize, and jeopardize the blue collar worker.
The very grave concerns the people of Kent have for this trade deal were demonstrated in my election. The working class, blue collar workers, know they will be hardest hit by this trade deal. They voted for a Party that looks to Canada's future and does not plan just for the next fiscal quarter. They want to see action to train and retrain displaced workers.
The Government says it has the programs in place to look after those who will be negatively affected by this deal. What have the Tories done with industrial training programs? Cut them by 45 per cent. The Government capped support for apprenticeship programs at $37 million this year, a cut of $400,000 from last year. That is the Tory commitment to apprenticeship.
The Government should be following the lead of the Ontario Government, a real leader in skills training. In 1984 the federal Government spent $2.2 billion on skills training. In 1988 it was cut 27 per cent to $1.6 billion. That does not show me that the Government has a real commitment to training and retraining our workers and young people. In the meantime, the Ontario Government added 98 per cent new funds to its programs.
I could go on and on about the effects of this deal on culture, energy, foreign investment policy, the service sector, financial services, women, medicare, unemployment insurance, pensions, child care services, education and Crown corporations, but I will not because I know my colleagues on this side have covered those points very thoroughly.
To conclude, I want to say what a pleasure it was to take part in this historic debate. The future will show who was on the right side of this debate. I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to stand at 12:30 this morning and speak on Clause 2 of the free trade legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the residents of Longueuil who voted for me and gave me a strong majority last November 21. Residents of Longueuil gave me 53 per cent of the votes. Believe me, I made at least 75 speeches on free trade during the election campaign. It is mainly for that reason that people from Longueuil voted for me. In my riding of Longueuil there are many small and middlesized businesses, as well as some large ones, namely Pratt & Whitney. Ninety-nine per cent of these businesses, supported the Progressive Conservative Party because they firmly believe in free trade and in Canada's future under free trade.
Mr. Chairman, the Liberal Party has always claimed to be a very democratic party. They said that it was up to the people to decide but, in 1984, we formed the government with 211 Members. We had the power and we had the mandate to act. But they said that we had to be more democratic than that. The people should be consulted on free trade. Do you know what they did? They used the non-elected Senate to block the free trade legislation. That's antidemocratic. We went to the people because we wanted to be democratic. We consulted the people. Is the Liberal Party still willing to block the free trade legislation with its non-elected majority Senate? If that is what we call democracy, I think that we are off the mark and that Canadians absolutely don't understand what Parliament is.
Canada's geography, Mr. Chairman, is such that it is spread out lengthwise. Canada is a huge country stretching five thousand kilometers from East to West. And the population, of course, is concentrated in the South because people prefer living in the South rather
December 21, 1988

than in the North. To the South, we have the Americans, our neighbours. Through the decades, Canadians and Americans have done business together. We work at that. We buy and we sell. We have learned to work together. They have become our friends. Eighty per cent of all our exports are headed to the United States. That accounts for 2,500,000 jobs which depend directly on our sales to the United States. That's enormous! We absolutely had to make a choice and we decided to reach this trade agreement with the United States precisely to protect those jobs instead of simply saying that we were going to create jobs.
But 250 economists in Canada came out in favour of free trade because they say it will create jobs. I say that what was even more important in all this was the fact that the Americans had decided to use protectionist measures which might have resulted in at least 2 million Canadians losing their jobs. Can you imagine such a situation with a country like Canada, with 25 million people and some $300 billion in accumulated debts. If unemployment continues to increase, if corporations do not make benefits, where will we end up? We will end up broke. So it was really important for Canada to sign this agreement with the United States to continue to develop and grow.
Some businesses in Longueuil, Montreal, and elsewhere in Quebec and Canada export between 20 per cent and 60 per cent of their production to the United States. If the Americans had continued to implement their protectionist measures, these businesses could have lost between 20 and 60 per cent of their market. They would have lost all their machinery. Their only choice would have been to move to the United States. If we want to keep these businesses here, we must make it possible for them to grow, and that is what we are doing with the Free Trade Agreement.
Over the past ten years, we have witnessed a fairly remarkable technological evolution. As you know, there have been changes: even in our own offices, computers have replaced secretaries. That is a dramatic example. We have replaced our secretaries with computers. Unfortunately, we did not make these computers. Why? Because we are not assured of a major secure market which would justify the necessary research and development for these highly sophisticated machines. If we want to develop high technology to replace the jobs we have lost, we need a market which is large enough to justify
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the investments in research and development. That is why the Free Trade Agreement with the Unites States is really essential and necessary for Canada. We had the possibility of accepting or not accepting free trade. We also had the choice of progressing or dying. It is because we decided to progress that Canadians provided us with this mandate.
Concerning social welfare, I have never heard so many lies as during this election campaign. We were told that social welfare would be affected. We have been doing business with the United States at a fairly accelerated pace for at least 100 years-80 per cent of all our exports are sold to that country-and we have done it while maintaining our social programs. There has been no change. We will continue to grow with the United States and we will also have a long-term guarantee that we can continue working with that nation and keep our social programs.
I heard Mrs. Begin, the former federal Liberal Minister, say that free trade would force us to sell our hospitals. It is nothing but lies. None of the clauses in the Free Trade Accord says that we have to sell our hospitals. There will be no changes of any kind before or after implementation. We have always been free to sell our hospitals if we wanted to. But nothing in free trade deal forces us to sell our hospitals. Besides, most hospitals belong to the provinces who can choose to do what they want with them.
You know, there were all kinds of rumours during the election campaign. Some even said at one point, I think it came from the Liberal Party, that free trade would lead to an increase in AIDS.


An Hon. Member:: Mrs. Begin said so.


Nic Leblanc: I think she is the one who said that. I do not know whether she was talking about free love or free trade, but no matter, she was talking about AIDS. So those bold remarks of Mrs. Begin give some idea of what we are seeing here, the type and mentality of this Liberal Party, and that is continuing. That is the way Mrs. Begin spoke and that is what we are still hearing today.
They scared the elderly. That is vile, that is base, that is unacceptable. Most of these people have nothing more than their old age pensions to live on, yet our opponents went as far as telling them they might lose their pensions. Well that is ... I would rather not say it. It makes me sad, just how low can you get.

December 21, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
But as you would know, Mr. Chairman, older Canadians had their revenge because the Liberals and the NDP treated them like ignorant and naive people. They called them everything under the sun, and they would have us believe things that did not make any sense. So of course they voted for Nic Leblanc of Longueuil.
They also talked about the flag game, you know, the American flag going up and the Canadian flag going down. What misleading statements!
I had the privilege to have as Opposition candidate at home, a Liberal candidate in Longueuil, a distinguished gentleman called Michel Dupuis, a former ambassador to Paris, the chief adviser to the Official Opposition for External Affairs. You know what he wrote in his mailings?


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Nic Leblanc: Beware! Beware! This is a former ambassador speaking. Beware, the Americans are coming! He was referring to dignity. People in Longueuil should have someone they deserve. He was referring to dignity, stating in his ads: Beware, the Americans are coming! Imagine! A former ambassador! This is much viler than I thought. I thought he meant the Americans were coming to buy our products. I told my people: This makes no sense, it is much too low. He must mean the Americans are coming to buy our products, they are coming to help us make our industries grow and create jobs. I found that so vile I could not let the people think that a former ambassador, an official who represented Canada, could say anything so vile. He wanted to protect the dignity of this Parliament and the famous people who are representing us around the world.
Service industries have a yearly $24 billion sales figure. Seventy per cent of our Gross National Product. In Canada, 8.8 million jobs are associated with the service industries.
With free trade, the service industries will have an opportunity to operate in the United States. And I can tell you that all those service industries eventually will be able to operate there. The way they treated service industries-Mr. Garneau, whom I can name because he is no longer here, said we did not have in Quebec people intelligent enough to compete with the Americans in the service industry. I would like to tell Mr. Garneau that I find it rather sad that an insurance company would hire him. We have especially in Montreal, since I am very close to Montreal, I am more familiar with what is going
on in Montreal, I can tell you that in Montreal there are companies like SNC, Lavalin, great service industries. Lavalin for instance is the third largest service corporation in the world.
I can say that Lavalin is very proud of the fact that the Conservatives have come to power since it will now be in a position to do even more business with the United States and to keep on moving ahead. With greenbacks worth more than our currency coming in, Lavalin will be in a position to create more jobs in our fine city of Montreal, on the south shore, in Quebec and in Canada. As you well know, last summer the leader of the Opposition stated in a press conference that free trade with the United States would not be a good thing for us. He said that we should make rules whereby we could sell to all countries of the world rather than limiting our sales to the United States. But, as you know, that would mean the status quo. He was talking about something we have already been doing for 50 years. It is a well known fact that for some thirty years now, the European Community are joined in an economic agreement. Japan and Asia have decided to do the same. They are about to enter into an economic agreement.
We have been trying to increase our sales in Europe for 100 years, but even now we only sell 7 per cent of our products in that part of the world. Only 7 per cent of all our exports go to Europe. Europe is one of the most industrialized and advanced region of the world, where you find a lot of consumers, where the workers are well paid, etc. Yet, we only sell them 7 per cent of our products. We are unable to sell our products to Japan, because it is technologically more advanced than we are. We don't do much better with the Africans, the Asians, the Brazilians, or the Central Americans, because they don't have much money to spend. So, what market is still available to us, what market would allow us to grow as a nation? The United States! For fifty years now, we have had access to this natural market, and we will continue to do so. It only proves that the leader of the official Opposition never understood and still does not understand what free trade with the United States is all about.
Let's take for example the Montreal area, a small circle here, which I talked about during the campaign. On an 800 kilometres area, in the Montreal region, we draw a circle from Montreal where 75 million people live, that is 75 million consumers. I am sure you realize that if the Americans were to put a barrier between Canada and the United States, that would only leave 6 million consumers in the Montreal area. A company
December 21, 1988

would never chose to locate in Montreal if there were only 6 million consumers, never. To be able to attract good R&D or hi-tech company, you need to have a population of at least 50 million.
I wanted to talk about farmers, I wanted to say to Mr. Proulx who claimed that free trade was not good, I can say to Mr. Proulx that only-


An Hon. Member:: Who is Mr. Proulx?


Nic Leblanc: The head of UPA. Were he the least bit intelligent he would invent a kind of cheese the Americans like. But I can tell you that with only one kind of cheese, if 250 million Americans decide to buy cheese, a single brand might feed all the cows in Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nic Leblanc: But he did not think of that. He lives in the past, does not believe in the future. So much for that.
Mr. Chairman, it was a pleasure to speak to you this evening, to the people of Longueuil and to other Canadians. Rest assured that with free trade Canada will remain prosperous. Canadians got the message. The Conservatives got the message. Young people got the message. Mr. Bourassa got the message. And smart people who know the rudiments of economics got the message. Over the next 20 years you will come to realize that free trade is the best historical deal ever made by Canada.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to say this is my maiden speech in this Parliament. I heard a speech earlier tonight by the Hon. Member for Calgary Southwest. That is a Conservative Member. I heard a lot of speeches tonight from the Conservatives, but that was a passionate speech. Imagine a Tory with passion. I have never come across a passionate Tory. It is a contradiction in terms. It is saying that there is such a thing as a progressive conservative.
I want to stir the ashes a little bit with respect to the last election. Hopefully we will find a phoenix or two. I want to stir the memories of Members and of Canadians who are watching here tonight. I heard the Conservatives during the campaign. They talked about lying. They accused certain leaders of the opposition parties of not telling the truth.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. I heard them in the debates saying that the opposition was going around scaring senior citizens. They said that we were accusing the Prime Minister of lying. I ask you, did I bring my mother on the platform?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Did I announce that I was deindexing old age pensions?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Did Brian Mulroney say he was deindexing pensions?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: And did he force us to-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please.


John R. Rodriguez: Who was really lying to the Canadian people? Us?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Or was it those terrible Tories over there?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


John R. Rodriguez: Absolutely. Do we all remember the Wheel or Fortune show in Montreal where they had the smoke and a few mirrors? They started to announce all the Tory candidates from Quebec coming on to the stage. When they had gone through 75, I was still looking. I turned around and said to my wife, "Where is Michel Gravel?" He did not come out of the fog. "Where is Madame Blais-Grenier? Where is Mr. Cote? Where is Monsieur Bissonnette?" They came out of the fog. It was like Godzilla meeting Dracula.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order. In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 57, at this time it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage of the Bill now before the House.
Accordingly, the question is on Clause 2.
Shall Clause 2 carry?

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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 2 agreed to: Yeas, 163; Nays, 95.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 3 agreed to: Yeas, 159; Nays, 108.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 4 agreed to: Yeas, 160; Nays, 111.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 5 agreed to: Yeas, 154; Nays, 108.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 6 agreed to: Yeas, 155; Nays, 109.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 7 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 7 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 8 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 8 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 9 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 9 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 10 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 10 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 11 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 11 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 12 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 12 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 13 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 13 agreed to: Yeas, 158; Nays, 108.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 14 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 14 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 15 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 15 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 16 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 16 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 17 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 17 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 18 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 18 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 19 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 19 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 20 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 20 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 21 carry?
December 21, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 21 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 22 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 22 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 23 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 23 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 24 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 24 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 25 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Clause 25 agreed to: Yeas, 159; Nays, 104.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 26 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 26 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 27 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 27 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 28 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 28 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 29 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 29 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 30 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 30 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 31 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement The Deputy Chairman: Shall Clause 32 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 32 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 33 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 33 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 34 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 34 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 35 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Clause 35 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 36 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In my previous incarnation, Mr. Speaker, I was a bit of a statistician. I see a trend developing. I wonder if we might dispense with the counting and simply record 158 to 110, if that is acceptable to the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's about average, Mr. Speaker. Clause 36 agreed to: Yeas, 158; Nays, 110.
Clauses 37 to 50 inclusive agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 150 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
John Carnell Crosbie: that the Bill be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. Call in the Members.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think I detect a sense in the House, if we are calling in the Members, that a five minute bell might be sufficient.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You just lost the vote.


An Hon. Member:: He said the "yeas" have it.


Mr. Speaker:: To clarify the confusion, the yeas have it. Call in the Members. Before we do that, there has been a suggestion that a five minute bell should suffice.


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement to dispense with the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: Five minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Five minutes.

The House divided on the motion (Mr. Crosbie),
which was agreed to on the following (Division No. 16)
 YEAS Members		division:
Anderson	Boyer	ClarkAndre	Brightwell	(Yellowhead)Atkinson	Browes	ClarkAttewell	Cadieux	(Brandon-Souris)Beatty	Campbell	CliffordBelsher	(Vancouver Centre)	ColeBernier	Cardiff	CollinsBertrand	Casey	CookBird	Chadwick	CooperBjornson	Champagne	CorbeilBlais	(Saint-Hyacinthe-	CorbettBlenkam	Bagot)	CoteBosley	Champagne	CoutureBouchard	(Champlain)	Crosbie(Lac-Saint-Jean) Bourgault	Charest Chartrand	(St. John's West)Crosby	Kindy	Robitaille(Halifax West)	Koury	Roy-ArcelinDeBlois	Landry	Schneiderde Cotret	Langlois	ScottDella Noce	Larrivee	(Victoria-Haliburton)Desjardins	Layton	ScottDick	Leblanc	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dobbie	(Longueuil)	ShieldsDomm	Lewis	SiddonDorin	Littlechild	SobeskiDuplessis	Loiselle	SoetensEdwards	Lopez	SparrowEpp	MacDonald	St-JulienFee	(Rosedale)	StevensonFeltham	MacDougall	TardifFerland	(Timiskaming)	TetreaultFontaine	MacKay	ThackerFretz	Malone	ThompsonFriesen	Marin	ThorkelsonGerin	Martin	TremblayGibeau	(Lincoln)	(Rosemont)Gray	Masse	Tremblay(Bonaventure-iles-dc-	Mayer	(Quebec-Est)la-Madeleinc)	Mazankowski	TremblayGreene	McCreath	(Lotbiniere)Guilbault	McDermid	TurnerGustafson	McDougall	(Halton-Peel)Halliday	(St. Paul's)	ValcourtHarvey	McKnight	Van de Walle(Chicoutimi)	McLean	VankoughnetHawkes	Merrithew	VenneHicks	Mitges	VienHockin	Monteith	VincentHogue	Moore	WeinerHoltmann	Nicholson	WenmanHorner	Oberle	WhiteHorning	O'Brien	WilbeeHudon	O'Kurley	WilsonHughes	Paproski	(Swift Current-MapleJacques	Plamondon	Creek-Assiniboia)James	Plourde	WilsonJelinek	Porter	(Etobicoke Centre)Johnson	Pronovost	WinegardJoncas	Redway	Worthy-160Jourdenais	Reid	Kempling	Reimer	Kilgour	Ricard	(Edmonton Southeast)	Richardson	NAYS	Members	Althouse	Comuzzi	JordanAnawak	Copps	KaplanAngus	Crawford	KarpoffArseneault	de Jong	KarygiannisAxworthy	Dionne	Keyes(Saskatoon-Clark's	Duhamel	KristiansenCrossing)	Ferguson	LanganAxworthy	Fines tone	Langdon(Winnipeg South	Fisher	LaporteCentre)	Flis	LeBlancBaker	Fontana	(Cape Breton High-Barrett	Foster	lands-Belair	Fulton	Canso)Bellemare	Funk	LeeBenjamin	Gaffney	MacAulayBlack	Gardiner	MacDonaldBlaikie	Gauthier	(Dartmouth)Blondin	Guarnieri	MacWilliamBrewin	Harb	MaheuButland	Harvard	ManleyCaccia	Harvey	MarchiCallbeck	(Edmonton East)	MarleauCampbell	Heap	Martin(South West Nova)	Hopkins	(Lasalle-Emard)Catterall	Hovdebo	McGuireClancy	Hunter	McLaughlin
December 21, 1988

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Mifflin	Riis	VancliefMilliken	Robichaud	VolpeMills	Robinson	WaddellMitchell	Rodriguez	WalkerMurphy	Rompkey	WappelNault	Samson	WhittakerNunziata	Simmons	WoodNystrom	Skelly	YoungPagtakhan	(North Island-Powell	(Gloucester)Parent	River)	YoungParker	Skelly	(Beaches-Woodbine)-Peterson	(Comox-Alberni)	107Phinney	Speller	Pickard	Stewart	Proud	Stupich	Prud'homme	Taylor	Rideout	Tobin


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 2.03 a.m., this House stands adjourned until later this day at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.03 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 22, 1988