1988-08-29

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the hounour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to six petitions numbered as follows: 332-5243, 332-5244, 332-5250, 332-5353, 332-5278 and 332-5289.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to table the sixty-ninth report of the Striking Committee.
If it is the pleasure of the House, I intend to move the adoption of the sixty-ninth report later today.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CONCURRENCE IN SIXTY-NINTH REPORT

['Mr. Speaker, I just wish to give notice that I wish to withdraw a Bill of mine concerning Central America. However, I would rather discuss it first with other people concerned and I will rise later, please.']
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, if it is the pleasure of the House, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent):
That the sixty-ninth report of the Striking Committee, tabled earlier in the House, be adopted.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to move his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table, on behalf of 4,725 residents of Beauce, a petition that reads as follows:
"We the undersigned citizens of Canada demand that the federal government currently in power prepare, without delay, legislation that will provide full protection for the human fetus from conception to birth. We would also like legislative action to be taken as soon as possible."
I hereby table this protection containing 4,725 names. [English]


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present this petition, properly certified, from approximately 200 constituents of the riding of Kent. It is their wish that food irradiation not become part of food processing in Canada and that our children not become human guinea pigs in a process that may prove to be hazardous. Therefore, they petition that unbiased, independent agencies and scientists complete studies on the safety of consuming foods that have been irradiated and the effects of long-term consumption and environmental dangers involved and that in the event any food irradiation is allowed, it should be clearly labelled as treated with ionizing radiation.
[DOT] (DIO)


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition, duly certified according to Standing Order 106, from a number of residents of Toronto. They point out that the Conservative Government, without a mandate from the Canadian people, undertook to negotiate a trade agreement that would weaken our national sovereignty, interfere with many of the programs we need to develop our country, and fails to obtain protection against American countervailing

August 29, 1988
Order Paper Questions
duty laws, the agreement's main object. Therefore, they request Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed agreement through a national general election.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have another petition signed by residents of Toronto, Surrey, Burnaby, and other municipalities in British Columbia referring to the promise of the former Minister of Justice to eliminate the unfair distinction between Canadian citizens and permanent residents of three years or more so that both groups would have equal rights to sponsor parents of any age. Since this promise has not yet been fulfilled, the undersigned residents and citizens of Canada call on the House of Commons to ensure that the Government fulfils its promises now.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have two duly certified petitions. In the first the petitioners point to the danger of accidents from nuclear powered or nuclear armed ships in Canadian ports. They point out that this is a threat to the environment and Canadian citizens and therefore call upon the Government not to purchase nuclear powered submarines for Canada.


James Douglas Manly: The
second petition calls upon Parliament to act as responsible guardians and see that all development on the irradiation of food be stopped. They say that governments at all levels must take immediate steps to stop their agencies and Crown corporations from promoting and encouraging such development.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting on behalf of a number of residents of Grand Centre, Cold Lake, Medley, and Bonneville, important communities in the distinguished province of Alberta, who say: Whereas the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return; whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the free trade agreement. I see the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in the Chamber. I am glad to know that many of his constituents are interested in this matter.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Do you know where Grand Centre is?


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I request that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

I think the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) was seeking the floor?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to give notice that I wish to withdraw a Bill of mine concerning Central America. However, I would rather discuss it first with other people concerned and I will rise later, please.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade) moved: that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, i am very pleased and proud to be moving third reading of this historic piece of legislation which will lead to implementation of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement negotiated last fall and which has been before us since December of last year.
I am a proud Canadian, although I only became one in 1949 as a result of a campaign in Newfoundland to decide the future of that province. I stand in a line of proud Canadians who have sought to secure for the people of Canada the benefits of free trade with the U.S. This is not something that has just occurred in the last year or two or three. This is part of Canadian history, the process of securing freer and freer trade with the United States of America. It is not something new, it is not something startling, it is not something unusual, it is not something revolutionary. It is part of a continuing process since Canada was formed in 1867.
For over a century leaders of Canadian Governments have sought to secure the kind of benefits that can come from free trade with the U.S. Down through our history, up until now, the opposition of the day, whatever opposition it was, always rose in a chorus to say that Canada's sovereignty, Canada's very nationhood would be imperiled by a free trade agreement with the U.S. Whenever this topic has come up, that has always been the cry of the Opposition, no matter what Party
August 29, 1988

the Opposition was. Our sovereignty is imperiled, gone or endangered. Our nationhood is going to disappear because we are going to have a different commercial arrangement with the U.S. That was the call.
For those who opposed Canada-U.S. free trade, Sir Wilfrid Laurier had a name for them in 1911, and 1 quoted him at second reading. 1 noticed that several newspapers got the quotation wrong. They attributed to me what Sir Wilfrid Laurier had said. I would have been glad to have been his speech writer in 1911 so long as I could still have been here today. Sir Wilfrid Laurier called those who opposed Canada-U.S. free trade in 1911 and I quote him: "The freaks of unreasoning passion". That is a perfect description of those who oppose Canada-U.S. free trade today, freaks of unreasoning passion. They cry out that you are not a true Canadian. How often have we heard that in the last few months? You are not a true Canadian, you are somebody who is willing to sell out your country if you are for Canada-U.S. free trade.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) calls the legislation we are debating today the sale of Canada Act. That is the best he can do in his cheap jaunts across the country spreading misinformation about this legislation. When he says it is the sale of Canada Act, he is not just accusing Members of Parliament on this side of the House, the Government, of being traitors to their country, people prepared to sell out their country. He is accusing prominent members of his own Party. That includes Premier Bourassa. Of course, that accounts for his cool response to the importunities of Mr. Turner who went to see him on August 17, and we cannot say he got a rapturous embrace. He was hoping it would be indecently close but it was not. No criminal charges could be laid as a result of that visit.
Premier McKenna of New Brunswick, another prominent Liberal, who said the free trade agreement is in the national interest and in the interest of his province, is being called by his national leader, just as we are, a traitor to Canada, a person who supports the sale of Canada Act. If you are willing to sell your country, does that not indicate you are a traitor, you are a sleeveen, you are a less than desirable person, that you are unpatriotic.
It indicates to me that you are guilty of treason. Yet, this is the kind of statesman-like utterance we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and their lieutenants for months now.
This is not new. Sir Wilfrid Laurier suffered from the same, what he called, freaks of unreasoning passion. Were these leaders of the colony of Canada before Confederation any less Canadian for entering a reciprocity treaty with the United States in 1854? This goes back as far as 1854. Who would claim that Canada was diminished or weakened as a result of that initiative? The opposite, of course, is true.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Were Sir John A. Macdonald and, after him, Alexander MacKenzie, failing to serve Canadian interests when they sought to renew reciprocity with the United States in the 1870s? They wanted a continuation of the reciprocity arrangements. Were they traitors to Canada? Of course they were not, and no one would suggest that they were.
Was Sir Wilfrid Laurier putting in peril the very idea of Canada when he campaigned in 1891 on unrestricted reciprocity with the United States? Was he putting in peril the very idea of Canada when he reached an agreement for this in 1911? No, of course he was not putting in peril the very idea of Canada, and his descendants, those people who say they belong to the same Party as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, are today saying that this U.S.-Canada free trade agreement puts in peril the very idea of Canada. What specious nonsense, what malicious tripe. One is statesman-like to keep one's language so moderate when one thinks of the nonsense we have heard in the House on this.
Were Canadian governments doing anything other than acting in the national interest in the 1930s when they entered into two Canada-U.S. trade agreements to reduce tariffs? Were they then acting contrary to the Canadian national interest? Of course they were not. Did Canada become any less Canada as a result of these two treaties of the 1930s? Of course it did not.
In 1945 Mackenzie King had a negotiation proceed between Canada and the United States for free trade. Simon Reisman was then a young man entering the government service. He was one of the secret coterie of people appointed by Mackenzie King to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States. Was Mackenzie King then a traitor? Was he putting in peril the very idea of Canada when he had that negotiation initiated?
Of course we all know that he did not go through with it. He got cold feet in the end. No one in the Cabinet knew what he was up to and his descendants in the Liberal Party today complain that there was not sufficient consultation when the Cabinet was not even consulted in those days. I have suggested before that he consulted only his mother, then in the afterworld, in reaching that decision.
When Louis St. Laurent led the Government in the late 1940s and 1950s and arrangements were entered into with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, were they then betraying their country or endangering the very idea of Canada simply because we were going to get a more sensible set of rules for international trading, Canada being an international trader? Of course they were not, as Mackenzie was not. There was very little consultation of course. The public was not consulted. The public was not asked to vote on whether or not we should join GATT.
Lester Pearson was denounced in 1965 for selling out the auto industry. Who denounced him? Why, the precursors of the New Democratic Party, the swivelling socialists. You don't know where they are going to swivel to next. They denounced

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Lester Pearson as betraying this country because he entered into the Auto Pact. Today they have the Auto Pact wrapped around their bosoms so closely that they have in-grown chest hairs. You cannot touch the Auto Pact, according to the Leader of the New Democratic Party who represents Oshawa.
Oshawa has tremendous prosperity as a result of the Auto Pact. There is not even a blip on the unemployment screen in Oshawa. There is full employment. General Motors has invested $10 billion in Oshawa over the last 10 years because of the Auto Pact, which is basically free trade in the automobile industry and is the main reason for the tremendous prosperity of Ontario today. There is full employment in the southern part of Ontario.
However, in 1965 Pearson was said to be selling out the auto industry. He went ahead anyway and signed the Auto Pact. He did not go to an election first. He was not asked to go to an election. It had not featured in earlier elections. The Canadian electorate had not been asked to give their opinion on this subject.
When opinions were given the unions and precursors of the NDP were against it, of course. They are against everything. They are against every change in the status quo. They do not want anything in Canada or the world to change. The NDP policy is the policy of Clement Attlee of 1945. We all know that his policies got the United Kingdom autarky. We can live in Canada with our little market of 26 million people and prosper and increase our national wealth by trading back and forth with one another.
Lester Pearson went ahead anyway. Lester Pearson understood the difference between opposition politics of calculated hysteria and Canada's national interest and he went ahead. Who gained? Oshawa gained, Ontario gained, and Quebec has gained from the Auto Pact.
Last year 89 per cent of all of Ontario's exports went to the United States of America, a tremendous proportion of them being automobiles and parts, compared to a national percentage of 76 per cent of our exports going to the United States of America. The part of Canada which is the most dependant on the United States market for its prosperity is Ontario. Is it not peculiar that many people in Ontario do not understand that? However, there is beginning to be a much better understanding of that. Perhaps that is because the Ontario provincial Government has not taken the lead. For some reason it has appeared to be against this agreement.
Over one-quarter of the gross domestic product of Ontario, 27.4 per cent, over one-quarter of the wealth generated in Ontario every year, comes from exports by Ontario to the United States and hon. gentlemen opposite are willing to put that at risk. The people of Ontario would be 27.4 per cent poorer every year if they did not have this trade with the United States which we are trying to protect for them. In Canada as a whole 18.7 per cent of our gross domestic product comes from trade with the United States. The national average is, therefore, much lower than the average in Ontario. We on
this side of the House are fighting for the strength and prosperity of Ontario, whether or not they know it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: All the Canadian leaders I have cited sought the same thing, they sought to give Canadians the opportunity to sell freely abroad and thus build prosperity at home. That is what we are attempting to do. We want to give Canadians the opportunity to sell freely in the United States and to continue to build prosperity at home, which is what we have been doing since 1945. In 1945, only 36 per cent of Canadian exports went to the United States. Today, 76 to 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States of America. That is where our opportunities are. We are trying to enlarge them, secure them, and protect them.
To my astonishment two national Parties are fighting this tooth and nail, and the labour movement is doing the same. No amount of obfuscation or misrepresentation will satisfy the two Parties I have mentioned and the Canadian labour movement, which are all against this agreement. All we are doing is trying to protect how well we have done and to increase our opportunities in the future.
The effort of successive Canadian Governments to strengthen Canada by putting our trade relationship with the United States on a secure and equal footing is not new. The Opposition strategy that tries to obscure this objective by encouraging unfounded fears about a loss of sovereignty is not new either. In fact, our sovereignty is enhanced by this agreement. We become more sovereign, we become more powerful. We become better able to defend and protect Canada as a result of this agreement.
For example, if this agreement is carried into effect in future disputes, we will have binational panels to decide these disputes. In the United States, a binational panel including Canadians will sit with Americans and decide what action should be taken as a result of a complaint made in the United States under American trade law. That is an extension of Canadian sovereignty. We do not have that right or any protection in that line now. We can be subject to the most political kind of decision.
We are enhancing the sovereignty of this country, yet there are people sitting opposite who are so blinded by their desire to be in power or see someone else out of power that they will not grant one virtue to this agreement. I have not heard one of them, once in this debate, say one positive thing about the U.S-Canada Free Trade Agreement. All they have done is try to encourage fear.
When trade barriers between Canada and the United States have been lowered, we are told by the Leader of the Opposition that Canadians will have been hosed, harmonized and homogenized. The Leader of the Opposition does not have very many good lines, that is why he uses this one so often. He
August 29, 1988

should get some other speech-writers. The Leader of the Opposition says that we will be hosed, harmonized and homogenized when the barriers come down on January 1, 1989. I say that he should add that he is attempting to hoodwink the Canadian people when he says they have been hosed, harmonized and homogenized. He is an attempted hoodwinker.
If the Leader of the Opposition happens to be correct, which of course he is not, then he is saying that Premier Bourassa is hosing, harmonizing and homogenizing the Canadian people. That is a very rare thing for a premier of Quebec to do. I see a premier of Quebec hosing us, but I do not know about harmonizing or homogenizing the rest of us. He is saying that Premier McKenna, a member of his own Party, is prepared to hose, harmonize and homogenize. I suppose it is safe to say that, now that the United Church has met in British Columbia.
He is saying that Gerry Regan, former Premier of Nova Scotia and former Minister for International Trade for Mr. Trudeau, is to do the same. He is saying that Donald Macdonald, who was appointed by Prime Minister Trudeau to head a royal commission on Canada's economic future and prospects, and which brought in a report, and that all the people sitting with him, including Michel Robert, President of the national Liberal Party of Canada, are out to hose, harmonize and homogenize Canadians. It just shows how foolish, juvenile and inaccurate is the statement by the Leader of the Opposition.
If those who support this agreement are hosers, homogeniz-ers and harmonizers, and traitors, then there are an awful lot of Liberals in this country in exactly the same boat, including Senator George van Roggen who had the courage, gumption and backbone to resign his position as chairman of the foreign affairs committee.
Historically, we see that the exact opposite is true. Since World War II, successive Canadian governments have pursued policies that have decreased trade barriers. Those same governments have created the modern social safety net that we enjoy today. They have pursued regional development and supported our culture and industries. We followed in that tradition of Diefenbaker and, to be fair, the tradition of Liberal governments in doing this.
In fact, we introduced our own Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which, already in one year, is astoundingly successful as we continue to pursue regional development.
Our colleague, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald), and her predecessors have supported cultural industries with might and main.
We are bringing in child care with legislation that is before the House, adding to the modern social safety net. One can argue the details about whether it does enough, does not do enough, or spends enough or does not spend enough. We are bringing in free trade and child care. Surely that gives the lie
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
to the people who run around Canada trying to mislead and frighten Canadians and senior citizens about what this means. I do not know how they can look at themselves in the mirror every morning. They are a hard looking crew in the first place.
Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent, John Diefenbaker, and Lester Pearson did not see any contradiction between tariff reductions, increased exports to the United States and domestic social and regional development policies to build a strong and unique Canada. None of them saw any contradiction because there is no contradiction. That is why we are able to take these steps. It is because of the prosperity in Canada as a result of our international trade and trade with the United States of America.
In terms of 1986 dollars, from 1947 to 1986, merchandise exports to the United States grew from just over $7 billion to almost $94 billion, an increase of over 1,225 per cent. During the same period, the welfare of Canadians went up tremendously. Per capita, Gross Domestic Product in 1986 dollars grew from $7,400 to almost $20,000, an increase of almost 170 per cent. Total employment in Canada grew from 4.8 million to 12.3 million, up 155 per cent, with employment in manufacturing rising by 88.7 per cent.
I might point out that in the last four years, employment has gone up 1.292 million. Let me also point out that in the last four years, 728,000 more women are working in Canada than were working four years ago. Yet we listen to this silly and vicious opposition day after day. There has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of women in managerial administrative jobs. Youth unemployment has gone down by 240,000 in the last four years. It increased 141,000 from 1980 to 1984, when Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals were in office and the pitiful grump we see here today had a majority. Youth unemployment went up, but where was Senator Hebert when he was needed? He was in the Parliamentary Restaurant having pate de fois gras when the unemployment figures were going up. The Opposition critic sitting over there today was the Minister.
In the same period, 1947 to 1986, public spending on education went up from $147 per capita to $1,237 per capita in 1983-84 in real terms. Spending on health care increased from $54 per capita to $1,211 per capita by 1985 in real terms. All this took place while we were becoming more and more dependent on the U.S. in our trade.
Direct financial benefits under social security programs rose to almost $50 billion in 1985, from $3.8 billion in 1947, for all public welfare programs, including health. This took place all the while we were becoming more and more dependent on the U.S. market.
More open competition with the United States led to economic growth and it led to a dynamic, distinctive Canada. The past four years in which we were getting closer and closer to free trade with the United States has made us no less compassionate as a society, no less progressive as a nation, and no less Canadian. That is the fact. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will sustain and strengthen that growth and

August 29, 1988
Canada-XJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
development if it is not sabotaged by the Opposition Parties and by the Canadian labour movement, that mindless organization that seems to be opposed to every change that anyone proposes in Canadian society today.
History and statistics, the plain facts, are not of much interest to the Opposition. We know its technique; level a charge, sometimes directly, sometimes by innuendo, that if one is for free trade, one is selling out Canada's sovereignty. The sale of Canada Act, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition calls it, is really for a brighter tomorrow Act. It is for our future, for our brighter tomorrow.
Is the Opposition suggesting for example, that Brian Peckford or John Buchanan would sacrifice their people's future or sell out their province or their country? How about Frank McKenna? We cannot mention a NDP Premier because there is not one. We cannot even mention them anymore because they are a vanishing breed. What happened to Pawley? Or I should I call him A-Pawley?
Is Robert Bourassa a man who is willing to deliver the future of Quebec into the hands of a foreign country? What an insidious and insulting suggestion made by the Leader of the National Party about the Premier of Quebec. He is saying in effect that Premier Bourassa is willing to deliver Quebec to a foreign country. Are the four western Premiers men who would falter when the good of their province and country hangs in the balance, Frank Devine or Don Getty and the others? Are these eight Premiers not sincerely seeking the good of their country by choosing to support the free trade agreement?
Is the suggestion that eight out of the ten Premiers of Canada are insincere traitors to their country? Is that the suggestion? That is the innuendo. That is what the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party go about this country suggesting. They are saying that not only this whole Party here but every Premier of Canada, except two, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, are traitors to their country. What a scurvy, scurrilous kind of campaign is being waged against this commercial arrangement.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition goes from one end of the country to the other saying it is the sale of Canada Act, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party repeats the charge that the very idea of Canada is imperilled.
The issue of free trade with the United States is not about who is or who is not a good Canadian. It is not about whether or not you sell out your country. It is not about imperilling the very idea of Canada. It is about the rules of commercial trade. This is what it is all about. What are rules of commercial trade between Canada and the United States going to be? How can we change them to our advantage? That is what it is about. But the opposition Parties do not want to debate or discuss it on that level. They want to discuss it in a cloud of insinuations
and innuendoes to arouse the fears of people, for instance, that the social security system is going to fail. Imagine, Madam Speaker, going around trying to disturb senior citizens in Canada by feeding them those malicious lies? Mr. Bourassa said with respect to that charge:
Mr. Broadbent should know we're not talking about the sovereignty of Canada ... How could you seriously say that Canadian sovereignty is at stake when we want to protect Canadian markets in the U.S.?
That is Premier Bourassa's answer. I would like to see the Leader of the New Democratic Party go to Quebec and debate face to face with Mr. Bourassa. Is Mr. Bourassa a traitor or not? Is he giving up Canadian sovereignty or not? The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should have some backbone and meet Premier Bourassa face to face to make these charges and debate them with him. Gerald Regan said:
1 believe the greatest assurance of protection of our sovereignty, of our culture, is the maintenance of a strong economy, and free trade with the greatest market on earth gives an opportunity to strengthen our economy that any other country on earth would give their eye teeth to have.
That was said by Gerry Regan who for two years under former Prime Minister Trudeau tried to negotiate sectoral free trade with the United States and got nowhere. He is honest enough and patriotic enough to give his views now, as he is doing. He is still a Liberal but no longer in active politics. That is his answer to those statements.
What about business, the exporter, the resource and manufacturing and service industries, which are the creators of wealth and employment in Canada? Where do they stand? They stand almost unanimously on the side of the free trade agreement. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports free trade. The Quebec Conseil du Patronat supports free trade. The Consumer's Association of Canada supports free trade. The Canadian Council for International Trade supports free trade. The Canadian Export Association, does it know something about exports the Opposition does not? Yes, it does, and the answer is, of course, that it does support free trade.
Mining associations, forestry associations, fisheries associations, agricultural associations, energy associations, service industry associations, and manufacturers associations, scores of them from coast to coast, support free trade. The Alberta Pork Producers Marketing Board, the Alberta Sheep and Wool Commission, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, the Canadian Meat Council, the Manitoba Farm Business Association-Manitoba-the Manitoba Hog Producers Marketing Board, the Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board, the Saskatchewan Pork Producers Marketing Board, the United Grain Growers, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, and so it goes, the people in the market-place competing every day, seeking new opportunities, those who understand the realities of international trade, those with the practical experience, all support free trade. Do they want to sell out Canada?
August 29, 1988

Every time the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says it is the sale of Canada Act, he is accusing these people of being traitors who want to sell out Canada. He is not only accusing members of the Government and every one in the Cabinet, and Premier Bourassa, Premier McKenna, Gerry Regan and Donald Macdonald, but he is accusing pork producers, the Cattlemen's Association, John Bullock, and all the rest of them, of being traitors and wanting to surrender Canada.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was asked by the New York Times about business people who are saying: "John, you are on the wrong side of history". He is not only on the wrong side of history, he is on the wrong side of the street. He is on the wrong side of everything one can conceive. He is just wrong. I quote Mr. Turner's reply:
The business organization that has been most vocal in strongly supporting this trade deal has been the Business Council on National Issues, and a considerable percentage of their members are American-owned.
Can you now understand the answer, Madam Speaker? Do you see the innuendo: "These jerks cannot be true Canadians if they support free trade". That is the suggestion of Mr. Turner's answer. He says a considerable percentage of the the members of the National Council on Business Issues are American owned, so how can we trust what they say? This is a man who used to sit with them and sup with them. He used to send his bulletins out to them, the McMillan, Binch bulletins. He got back into public life in 1983, and we were a long time waiting for him. He was just there at the right time. But Mr. Turner supped with these people, he was retained by them. He took their fees. He lived with them. And he said we cannot trust their views because a very considerable percentage of them are American owned. That is the innuendo, we cannot trust them. Well, he was wrong, as he has been wrong so often in this debate.
The Business Council sent him an open letter saying that over 90 per cent of the assets and about 75 per cent of the control of member companies of the Business Council on National Issues are in Canadian hands. Who signed the letter? David Culver, the Chairman of Alcan, the very respected Canadian business leader, Chairman of Noranda, Alfred Poulis, and Thomas D'Aquino, in their capacity as officers of the Business Council, signed that letter and they pointed out the following:
By embracing the rule of law, the (free trade) agreement offers Canadians greater security and opportunity... In our books that is a plus for sovereignty.
These are responsible spokesmen for Canadian business and they deserved to be treated as such. They do not deserve to have it suggested that they are unpatriotic, that they are dictated to by Americans, that they are not even Canadian owned, when the fact is that 90 per cent of their assets and 75 per cent of the control of those companies are in Canadian hands.
Let me add one other quote from a respected business leader, Mr. Laurent Thibault of Canadian Manufacturers' Association. He stated:
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Canadian Manufacturers Association's support for the free trade agreement represents a dramatic change for this association. Historically, Canadian manufacturers have been among protectionist voices. However, the world economy has changed dramatically and we must change with it. The new trading environment created by the FTA obviously poses great challenges to Canadian manufacturers, but the consensus among our Members is that the FTA is a necessary strategic step that will help achieve our long-term objective of becoming globally competitive.
That is the position of members of the CMA which, historically, have been protectionists. That is why Sir John A. Macdonald's policy was developed. It was to protect manufacturers. In other parts of the country for 100 years the woods have welled with the voices of those protesting the tariff policy that protected Ontario and Quebec and exposed the rest of Canada which was cut off from its natural north-south trade. This is being changed by the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
[DOT] <1150)
The CMA recognizes that the world economy has changed dramatically. We must change with it. Who does not recognize that change must be dealt with? The Canadian labour movement does not, nor does the New Democratic Party. The people who now say they control the Liberal Party but who won't control it much longer do not. After the deluge in the next election they will be washed out to sea.
What the free trade agreement is all about is Canada becoming more competitive in all export markets. Why is free trade with the U.S. important for our position as an exporter globally, not just to the U.S.? As Donald Macdonald's commission pointed out, we are the only major industrialized country without secure access to a market of at least 100 million people. We have secure access to no market but our own-26 million Canadians. That is the only secure access to a market that we have. We have a chance to have secure access to the U.S. market under this agreement. The United States has access to its own huge market. Japan has access to its own burgeoning market. The countries of the European Community have access to the huge European Community of 320 million people. If Canada is to continue to develop world-class enterprises, we must be capable of competing and winning against the best in the world. Bell Canada and Northern Telecommunications come to mind as two such enterprises.
In the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement there is a breakthrough in services. All other GATT countries are watching Canada and the Canada-U.S. agreement to see how the services provisions will work. We are trying now to negotiate services provisions with the 95 nations that are involved in GATT. We have broken new ground. Madam Speaker, did you ever hear that mentioned by the Opposition Parties? Of course not. The Opposition is dismissive of the gains we have made in achieving more and enhanced access to the U.S. market, but those directly involved in the day-to-day business of exporting know better. What do they know?
They know that under the agreement tariffs will be phased out between Canada and the U.S. Better rules of origin will be

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
put in place. National treatment will be extended to Canadian businesses in the U.S. All we have from the hon. gentlemen opposite is words about national treatment being extended to American companies up here. Do they not realize that national treatment will be extended to our companies in the U.S. where the market is 10 times as large? This is astounding. All we have ever heard is them complain that we will give U.S. companies national treatment here. Did we ever hear them once say: "My golly, what a help this will be for Canadian companies. They will not be able to act in a discriminatory fashion against Canadian companies in the United States any longer". Do we ever hear mention of that? What is wrong with them? What makes them so vicious, so unfeeling, so unreasonable and so unscrupulous?
Non-tariff barriers such as discriminating products standards will be reduced under the agreement. Access to U.S. federal government procurement will be improved. I have heard Members opposite complain about the fact that the Americans will get a chance to get some procurement in Canada. Never once have I heard them say: "My God, Canadian companies will get a whack at U.S. government procurement". Never once have I heard that. What is wrong with them?
Certain service industries gain freer access. Communications is one of them. Temporary entry for business and service personnel is made easier. Exporters know that access has to be made more secure because the Auto Pact is reaffirmed.
Do you know. Madam Speaker, that only one year's notice is necessary to be given to cancel the Auto Pact? The Americans can cancel it on one year's notice. So can we. Yet the Leader of the New Democratic Party acts as though nothing can happen, nothing can change the Auto Pact. He does not even acknowledge that the Auto Pact was in serious danger of being challenged by the Americans a couple of years ago before we started the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Now that we have the Auto Pact reaffirmed, and the people of Oshawa know the facts, the hon. gentleman will be out in the next election and our candidate will be in. Exporters know that safeguard actions by the U.S. will not apply to Canada if the problem arises from a third country. What the experts call a new sideswipe we have achieved. If the Americans take some action against third countries it will no longer automatically apply to Canada if we are not the problem as is now the case. We have got no credit for that from Members across the way. The Hon. Member for whatever in Winnipeg-
Miss MacDonald. Fort Garry.


John Carnell Crosbie: -Fort Garry, or the Hon. Member from Windsor, who should be a firm supporter of this agreement since it does so much for Windsor, sit there knifing it every day. Safeguard actions against Canadian producers will be subject to binding dispute settlement. We have received no credit for that. Countervail and anti-dumping actions will be subject to binding dispute settlement. Other trade disputes will be dealt with through a formal dispute settlement procedure
under the Canada-U.S. Trade Commission. We never get any credit for that.
Members of the Opposition say that binding dispute settlement is of no value and that we are better off without it. What do people in the business world think? The following is what Gordon Cummings thinks. He is the President of National Sea Products in Halifax.
At present we find that the U.S. political lobbyists have been hard at work;
that the United States Trade Commission is judge, jury and prosecutor in one;,
that we stand guilty unless we can prove ourselves innocent

That is the present position Gordon Cummings says. He is not a member of our Party. I do not know if he is a member of any Party. He goes on to state:
What the free trade agreement can and will do is stop the frivolous U.S. actions, the bullying and the prejudgment that has hurt the Atlantic fishery, and some other sectors I can't claim to speak for, like lumber, potash, pork and tires. I have no reservations in speaking for myself and for National Sea Products when I say we welcome the dispute settlement mechanism outlined in the free trade agreement. And nothing has shaken my strong impression that the rest of the Atlantic Canadian fishing industry feels the same way.
That is the assessment of a senior spokesman for an industry which in recent years has faced six countervail actions and two anti-dumping actions. Other businesses agree. Do they know something members of the Opposition do not know? I would like to know how many countervail actions the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has been involved in. I would like to know how many actions the academic from Windsor has been involved in. The answer is that they have not been involved in one-not one single countervail action.


Mr. Langdon:: How about you, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: I have been involved in several. But the gentleman from whom 1 am quoting has been involved in six countervail and two anti-dumping actions. The only dumping actions that I have been involved in is dumping the New Democratic Party and dumping the Liberal Party. I will go on the rest of my life involved in anti-dumping actions against those Parties.
Binding dispute settlement was a key objective for Canada in the negotiations. It constitutes an important shield against U.S. protectionism.
The following is what Ambassador Allan Gotlieb had to say. He has done an outstanding job for the country in Washington. This might be an appropriate place to mention Simon Reisman who did outstanding work on behalf of his country. He came back from the private sector.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Gordon Ritchie is another man to whom a statue should go up in connection with this monumental task. He was Simon Reisman's deputy. Alan Nymark who is still with us in the TNO. I could mention, of course, many dozens of others. I should and I will mention my predecessor, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) who led the whole procedure.
August 29, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: As Ambassador Gotlieb has stated:
The U.S. political system is well adapted to allowing the 'losers' to seek protection .. . This is an age of special interests. The [U.S.] legislative agenda is now run largely by committee and sub-committee chairmen ... beyond the control of any President. They interact with highly motivated, handsomely financed special interest groups, seeking legislative fixes to their problems.
That is what we face in Washington. Those "fixes" for U.S. industry are protectionist measures.
We have heard the Opposition in the House, time after time in the last year or two, going on about these protectionist measures that U.S. congressmen implement, trying to blame them on us and the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, instead of blaming them on the U.S. system. How can they blame them on the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement when we have not yet got it? Why don't they support the agreement which will help protect us from these fixes?
Ambassador Gotlieb further stated:
The free trade agreement will go a long way to substituting the rule of law for the politics of protectionism. For the smaller partner in the world's largest bilateral trading relationship, that will be a very significant achievement.
This is a man who knows. He has been on the scene for seven years. He was appointed to Washington by a Liberal Government, and continued on by our Government. We recognize merit when we see it. In addition, Mr. Gotlieb is a public servant. He knows the system, and his testimony is that it is a very significant achievement. That is what the free trade agreement is all about. Long-term solutions based on reciprocal principles, not raw political and economic power. We cannot win in the battle of raw political and economic power with the United States. It is ten times our size. If, by some misadventure, Mr. Turner got into office, or Mr. Broadbent, or a combination, say, Mr. Broadturn, or Mr. Benturn, or Mr. Turnbent, if a combination of those two parties got into office, can one see them taking on the United States with all its raw political and economic power? Can one see them engage in a battle?
While I think of it, Madam Speaker, I might point out that the Leader of the national Liberal Party suggested blithely that he will tear up the free trade agreement. This is the most irresponsible statement by a leader of a national Party since 1867. In fact, one would have to go back to Polybius in 50 B.C., or somewhere back beyond that to get a sillier statement. At different times he has said different things. He will negotiate a new free trade agreement, or he will negotiate a sectoral series of agreements, or he will take the trade personnel from External Affairs where Trudeau put them four or five years ago and put them back in the trade department. Imagine the astounding gall. The crowd that scrambled the eggs is now going to unscramble them and put them all back in
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
a separate Department, and that will cure all Canada's trade problems.
Ann Hughes, a member of the American Government in the Trade Office in the United States spoke in Canada. She was asked whether there was any chance, if Canada turned down this U.S.- Canada Free Trade Agreement, that another one could be negotiated. She gave the perfect answer to that. She said that it would be disingenuous for anyone to think that if we turned down this arrangement there will be another one for many, many years. Disingenuous is putting it politely. It is dishonest to even suggest that it could be done.


Steven W. Langdon: Good.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) says: "Good". He does not want a trade agreement with the United States. This is astounding. The Hon. Member, who is from Windsor where the whole prosperity is based on Canada-U.S. trade, says that he does not want a trade agreement with the United States. This is astounding. This is academia gone nuts-academia nuts, I suppose, Madam Speaker.
Not only our security of access but our sovereignty is strengthened, as I said, by putting our trade relations with the U.S. on the basis of equally binding legal principles. Security of access means preserving Canadian jobs and industries that might be threatened in the future. It means preserving Canadian jobs. It means creating new jobs in Canada because of our more secure access to the United States market.
Alastair McEachen, President of the Retail Council of Canada, stated:
There are a lot of investments, mostly European, waiting to be made in Canada once the free trade pact is in force. Canadian companies are also waiting for the free trade outcome before investing in their own operations.
Many investments are waiting to be made here. Who is keeping them waiting? The Opposition is keeping them waiting. Who is creating the uncertainty? The NDP and the Liberal Opposition is creating the uncertainty. Who is the worst offender? A man who should understand this. A man who went with McMillan, Binch and pretended to be au coeur, bosom to bosom with, and in sympathy with the business community of Canada for the years 1970-75-when he fled the scene here-until 1984. He should understand this.
Who is creating the delay and the uncertainty, preventing the investments from pouring in here now, and preventing Canadian businesses from getting ready to take advantage of the free trade agreement because they do not know when it is going to come into effect? It is the Leader of the Opposition, and I will touch on this a little later, who called on the Liberal majority in the Senate to say that they would not put this through until there was an election. We have no binding commitment that they will put it through if there is an election, Madam Speaker. I do not trust them one bit.

August 29, 1988
Canada-V.S. Free Trade Agreement
The damage that this is doing to Canadian business and industry is incalculable. They do not know whether they should be getting ready for January 1, 1989, for some time during 1989, or not getting ready at all because of the type of campaign waged by the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada.
What of the charge that the free trade agreement means we are turning our backs on other markets such as the Pacific Rim and Europe? I will give the answer given by the Economic Council of Canada:
Many believe that freer trade and expanded trade with the U.S. precludes expanded trade with other countries. There is no logical basis for this view. In fact, expansion of our exports sector to serve U.S. customers could well facilitate the economies of scale needed to reach more distant markets.
There is economic sense, logic, and an unbiased view of the Economic Council of Canada created by Liberal Governments to give impartial advice to Canadian Parliaments and Governments. Its advice is in direct contradiction to the opposition canards.
That is the case with the free trade agreement. It will benefit every region of Canada. It will create jobs, it will increase investment, and it will make Canada stronger. It will help us continue our development as a compassionate, dynamic, and distinctive society. That is what it will do.
While it is simple in its principles, the FT A is complex in its application, as we know in the House. It has to be complex because it is so comprehensive. The second major line of criticism offered by the Opposition, after claiming that the FTA sells out the country, and I have dealt with that, is to take the complexity and try to distort and misrepresent specific provisions of the agreement. There is not time for me to deal with all the distortions and misrepresentations. My colleagues will deal with many of them. I will deal with four. The first is the Quebec stock savings plan.
Three weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition stood in the House and charged that the Quebec stock savings plan was inconsistent with the national treatment provisions of the free trade agreement. He was completely and totally wrong. Premier Bourassa had to correct him and set him straight. He cited the sections of the agreement to him and embarrassed him. Never has a Canadian political leader been so embarrassed and caught out so far by a member of his own Party as was the Leader of the Opposition by Premier Bourassa.
I have a clipping here from The Globe and Mail of August 17, which states:
Mr. Bourassa warned that he will defend the free trade agreement if it is attacked.
"If there are errors in fact, concerning free trade or other things, I will maintain my position," he told reporters. "Neutrality does not mean inaction".
Premier Bourassa is going to be very, very busy during the coming campaign, because there are going to be many errors in fact spread by the Liberals and the New Democratic Party in their vicious and hysteric attempts to stop this agreement
from going through. So that was the Quebec stock savings plan.
On August 17 Mr. Turner rushed to Quebec City to try to patch things up with Premier Bourassa. After they had met, Mr. Bourassa said that he would intervene only to correct misstatements as I have just quoted regarding the free trade agreement. He is going to be busy. Mr. Turner was chastened. He looked chastened. He looks very chastened. But, unwilling to let the point go, he said that future stock savings plans would be barred.
He tried to change it and to pretend that he was partly correct. Wrong again. Two wrongs do not make a right. His trade critic and he are speaking. Perhaps his trade critic does not know, either. He is blinded by unreasoning prejudice against the free trade agreement. The investment chapter of the agreement applies only to direct investment, not to portfolio investment. The Quebec stock savings plan is safe. Any stock savings plan is safe. The Leader of the Opposition is not safe. He is running around Canada being criminally negligent in what he says about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and what he says about the Government and what he says about the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He is criminally negligent in every word that he says when he is on the so-called campaign trail across Canada.
I advise the Leader of the Opposition to read the definition of investment on page 240 and 241 of the agreement. "Stock savings plans, present or future, Quebec or elsewhere, are not covered by the agreement". We have gone through the same thing on water, on blood. My God, Dracula is on the way from Romania, because there is going to be blood everywhere here in Canada, according to certain members of the Liberal Opposition. Blood is going to be sold. No more free blood.


Mr. Marchi:: Political blood.


John Carnell Crosbie: These are the kinds of fright tactics that have been raised against the free trade agreement. The second one that I am going to deal with is unemployment in fish processing.
On August 18 the Leader of the Opposition went to Newfoundland and made completely false statements. Incredible. He charged that Atlantic fish processing jobs are threatened by the free trade agreement. Wrong. Article 1203 of this agreement specifically includes controls on the export of unprocessed fish by Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Quebec.
He went there and pointed to the fact that both Canada and the U.S. retained the GATT rights that they had before we entered the free trade negotiations, which is true. But, in a statement of administrative action, the U.S. has indicated to us that it will not challenge existing Atlantic fish processing regulations under GATT. So Atlantic fish processing jobs were never threatened. They were made more secure by the FTA.
August 29, 1988

The provisions are somewhat complex. To go and make a false statement is extremely simple. This is the technique that the Leader of the Opposition and the others have adopted. There are distortions and misrepresentations. Because the agreement is complex, it is not easy to explain the answer. It is the simple lie, the simple exaggeration, the simple allegation, and a complicated response has to be made, which is not easy for ordinary people to follow. That is the technique.
We all know who had those techniques before. 1 am not going to mention it. Sensibilities get too stirred up when we refer to who was a specialist in this kind of technique in the 1930s.
Atlantic fishery processing jobs were never threatened. They are made more secure by the FTA. Not only that, but the presidents of the two largest fish processing companies on the East Coast-in fact in Canada-Vic Young of Fishery Products and Gordon Cummings of National Sea, have said again and again that the free trade agreement is going to lead to more, not fewer, jobs in processing.
The Premiers of the provinces where the fish industries are strong support the agreement. How can the Leader of the Opposition go into such a milieu and make these kinds of false statements? Here are some of the other false statements that were made. "Many federal programs designed to assist Canadians may be challenged by the Americans under free trade". False. They can be challenged by the Americans now, they could have been challenged last year, five years ago, next year, but we are going to have some defences to these challenges in the future if the FTA is passed.
Here is what the Leader of the Opposition said according to the St. John's Evening Telegram'.
Any advantage, any grant, any incentive, any tax holiday or whatever given
to a Canadian that is not available equally to an American will be considered
to be an unfair subsidy.
A complete untruth. If it is said knowingly, we know what that means. 1 am not going to get into parliamentary niceties now. When I am outside this House and on the campaign trail, I am going to call a spade a spade. You cannot call a spade a spade in this House. You have to call it a heart. But outside, that is different. It is completely false. "Any grant, any incentive, any tax holiday, any advantage or whatever given to a Canadian not available equally to an American will be considered to be an unfair subsidy". It is totally false.
He told Carbonear residents, a major employer in the province's Fishery industry, "We will be endangered by free trade". It is completely and utterly false. I am glad to see that the ranks of the Liberal Party have swelled by 25 per cent. There are four of them now that the Member has come in.
Electricity. Mr. Turner warned that other natural resources, such as hydroelectricity and offshore oil, will fall prey to the Americans. You can see the Americans coming over, taking our hydroelectricity and our oil. The poor dams are falling prey to the Americans as they do this. "As an example", he
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
said, "that the agreement to develop the Hibernia oil through the Grand Banks will be overridden by the free trade agreement and it converts us into a continental reservoir in the United States".
I do not want to get involved in parliamentary vernacular and decorum. It is an untruth. Hibernia is not affected by the free trade agreement; it is grandfathered under the free trade agreement. It is affected by being given more assured access. The products from Hibernia will have more assured access to the U.S. market as a result of the agreement. That is one of the positive benefits of the agreement. It is not going to be overridden by the free trade agreement or converted into a continental reservoir of the United States. We will sell the oil to Canada for Canadians or to Americans or to Nicaraguans or to whoever we want to sell it to. We could sell it to the British or to whoever wants to buy the oil. This is a deliberate untruth.
He says:
Under Section 4.08 and 4.09, all of our resources, renewable or nonrenewable-hydro, water, coal, gas, wood-are swept into a continental
reservoir with the United States ... What's theirs is theirs, and what's ours has
become theirs too.


An Hon. Member:: What nonsense.


John Carnell Crosbie: Is this the leader of a national Party? Is this a responsible person, addressing an audience in Carbonear and giving them this trash, this untruth, these diabolically false assertions, as to what happens to our resources? "What's theirs is theirs, and what's ours has become theirs too". Does a person like that think for one moment that he has a chance of becoming a leader of this country again? Not at all. Never. Not a chance.


Some Hon. Members:: Never.


John Carnell Crosbie: I can go on with further statements. The Liberal Leader said:
Free trade may also mean the end of many of Canada's social programs such as Medicare.
It "may also mean the end". How could the free trade agreement also mean the end? This is the most diabolically vicious series of untruths spoken by a leader of a national Party of Canada in a hundred years, and he is not going to get away with it. He is not going to get away with it, not for one minute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is what I call, in the last couple of quotes, a harmonization hoax. The Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party claim that we are compelled to bring our social programs into line with those in the U.S.
They claim that we will have to abandon regional development. They do not give any reason why we have to do this; they just announce it and try to pretend that this is so. This is

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
part of that campaign. When you try to pin them down, they say that there is going to be more open competition between Canadian and U.S. firms. That is going to be the cause of this. That myth is exploded by the facts that 1 have given this morning, of the growth of social programs and regional development since World War II. It is at the same time that we were reducing our trade barriers with the U.S. All of these other things were burgeoning forth. It is going to continue that way. That is why we are going to always have improving child care systems, that is why we can have programs like the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It is not disappearing; it is improving. It can only improve as long as we have the economic wealth to improve it, and we are only going to have the economic wealth to improve it if we can improve our access to the United States market. That is the sequence.
They point also to the negotiations over the next five to seven years on countervail and anti-dumping. What is antidumping? Anti-dumping is about selling goods for less in the other country's markets than in your own, so that cannot be the problem.
So then they point to countervail. What are countervailing duties? We use countervailing duties just as the Americans use them and every other country uses them. They are to protect a domestic industry from significant harm caused by unfair, trade-distorting subsidies given to foreign companies exporting into your market. If some foreign country exports into Canada at prices less than their costs or less than they sell at home, then we can bring in a countervailing duty, or if they subsidize their goods with unfair subsidies, trade-distorting subsidies, to compete in other countries, we can bring in a countervailing duty if we can prove it. The U.S. does it and we do it. It includes things like direct export subsidies.
For example, if Canada paid the producers of a widget 50 cents for every $1 widget to the United States, that would be a direct export subsidy. If the company exports its widgets to the United States, the Government will pay it 50 cents a widget, a direct export subsidy. The Americans would have a right to complain. It has nothing to do with medicare, child care, old age pensions, family allowances or social programs and has nothing to do with regional development programs of general application.
A general regional development program such as ACOA which is open to everyone, general application, cannot be challenged with countervailing actions, or it cannot be challenged successfully. Of course anything can be challenged. The point is, can it be done successfully?
We want to achieve a clear set of rules for countervail that prevents the kind of politicized decision-making we saw in the U.S. in the softwood lumber case. Binding dispute settlement is our main line of defence against those politicized decisions while we are working out the countervail rules with the Americans. If the Americans suggest, some time in the next
five to seven years, some kind of distorted approach to those issues, we will simply say no. We will not agree to their suggestions. That is all we have to do, just say no. Nothing forces us to say yes.
The final representation I will deal with this morning is what I call the hijacking of the GATT. The Opposition claims the free trade agreement undermines the multilateral trading system that is so important for our access to global markets. That is not true. That is confirmed, of course, by Arthur Dunkel, the Secretary General of GATT. He has said that the free trade agreement will in no way hinder each country's trading obligations with the rest of the world.
We follow a two-track policy in trade negotiations. Bilaterally, with our largest trading partner, the U.S., we are improving the relationship by a bilateral agreement. Multilaterally, through the GATT, we are negotiating now with the GATT. I have been at several meetings myself. Our chief negotiator is Sylvia Ostry. We are going to Islamabad in the first couple of days of October to meet again with 22 other countries in preparation for the mid-December meeting in Montreal of all the GATT countries, the mid-way point of the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations. We are pursuing a two-track policy.
We have achieved success in the bilateral negotiations with the U.S. We hope for a successful outcome in the MTN negotiations, but those are far from complete. They have another couple of years to go. We have to get 95 other countries to agree. GATT Article 24 specifically provides for free trade agreements between member countries and our agreement comes within GATT Article 24.
In June in Toronto, as we all remember, the seven leaders at the summit, our largest trading partners in Europe and Asia, strongly welcomed the free trade agreement and noted the contribution it would make to success in the multilateral trade negotiations. Our policy is two-track: one U.S.-Canada where 75 per cent to 80 per cent of our exports go, the other with the world.
Let me give the last word on the nature of the Opposition's criticism to a Liberal Senator. I will quote George Van Roggen, one of the most experienced and knowledgeable individuals on trade matters in Parliament. He is the Liberal Chairman of the Senate Committee and has been at dozens of Canada-U.S. parliamentary meetings. He is widely respected, but stabbed in the back by his Leader when his Leader made a statement calling on the Senate not to proceed with this agreement, not to give this a sober second look but to give it an inebriated no look at all, I suppose. Senator George Van Roggen has said:
I think if it weren't for the verbal terrorism of the (free trade) opposition frightening people to death, the man in the street would be instinctively in favour of (the free trade agreement).
That is an exact description of it, verbal terrorism. Then he went on to say:
August 29, 1988

That's the trouble here, the proponents are stuck with trying "to explain a difficult legal trade document while the opponents can sit back and make the most outrageous statements by pushing the right emotional buttons."
Senator Van Roggen is right, all the way from the sale of Canada to imperilling the very idea of Canada to the free trade agreement representing a fundamental change in the direction of the country to the stock savings plan falsehood to the fish processing falsehood to the harmonization falsehood to undermining the GATT falsehood to fabricated issues like blood and water. The Opposition has taken the low road. It has chosen to distort rather than to debate the issues. It has been a pusillanimous and discouraging exhibition on their part. I am going to talk bluntly here.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to tear up the free trade agreement and the Leader of the NDP wants to tear it down, the big difference between these two characters. One is an up tearer, the other is a down tearer. What do they say they are going to do instead? What is their alternative for Canada?
The most recent Liberal proposal was presented by the Leader of the Opposition to Mr. Bourassa on August 17. Mr. Bourassa was not buying it. He continues to support the free trade agreement. This latest Liberal proposal replaces one announced with much fanfare by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry who is a fandaglio of fanfare. On June 13, he had another fandango. First there was the announcement of June 13 by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and no one bought that. Then the Leader of the Opposition had another plan. The latest plan had five points, three relating to trade, one relating to international monetary policy and one relating to domestic policy.
The Leader of the Opposition is supposed to be expert on world international monetary affairs because he was the Minister of Finance in the early 1970s. Michael Wilson knows more about it, has more knowledge of it in his little finger than the Leader of the Opposition has in his whole six-foot body. Michael Wilson got the other major countries of the world to agree on the G-7, including Canada, so that we participate in these monetary meetings. Michael Wilson is the Minister of Finance for the eighties.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is well known that we are not to refer to Members by their names but by their positions in Cabinet or their constituencies, and the Hon. Member has done this three times in a row without being rebuked by the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Minister is well aware of the rules and will abide by them.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is a very important point and I will be very, very careful in the future not to transgress.
Let me refer to the Halifax Herald Limited editorial of August 16, "Turner's trade gambit". After the Leader of the Opposition met with Mr. Bourassa, the editorial said:
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Indeed, even those who share the Liberal disdain for the trade agreement must be chagrined by the ground which is always shifting under the leader's feet.
First, he wasn't too sure about the deal; next, he was going to rip it up; at one point, he was for free trade but not "this deal"; now, he wants a sectoral agreement and more trade with those Far Eastern countries with which Canada cannot possibly compete in several key areas of the economy.
That is a short and succinct description of the Liberal alternatives to the trade pact. I have not got time this morning to quote it, but 1 would refer Hon. Members to an article on the same subject by George Bain entitled "Turner's free trade package, is it funny or serious?", concluding that it was neither. It was pitiful. This appeared on August 20 in The Chronicle-Herald. He ends up by saying, "Fifth, in light of all that went before, Mr. Turner's talk about being willing to go back to sectoral free trade talks is hokum". That is another objective observer, the dean of Canadian newspaper columnists, George Bain. I recommend that as an excellent article.
Let me give just a couple of quick summations. June 14, "Turner rules out trade pact if Liberals govern", says an article in The Financial Post: "Turner made it clear yesterday that he opposes any bilateral free trade deal with the U.S., as he unveiled an alternative economic and trade strategy. The Liberal proposal was contained in a report by a task force chaired by Liberal trade critic, Lloyd Axworthy. The Liberal alternative calls for a strengthening of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade".
Now, imagine! For two years the world has been trying to strengthen GATT. It was our Minister, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, who went to Uruguay with the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) and were very helpful if not largely instrumental in getting the countries there to agree to start the process of negotiating on GATT again, the Uruguay round. Two years later comes the great Liberal alternative. What are they calling for? A strengthening of GATT? Is that not marvellous? We have been trying to do this for the last two years. It took two years for that to sink in to the Johnny-come-latelys and the mind of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry and get him all excited about it.
Here is something else from a CP report: "A future Liberal Government wouldn't seek new bilateral trade agreements with the U.S. or any other country, Liberal trade critic Lloyd Axworthy said today. He said the cornerstone of the Liberal trade policy issued in the June 13 report is a rejection of comprehensive two-way trade deals of the kind negotiated by the Conservative Government. The Party is committed to liberalizing trade with the U.S. and the rest of the world but on a multilateral basis or individual sectors such as the 1965 Canada-U.S. Auto Pact. We are not talking about signing individual free trade agreements, said Axworthy".
Then we go to The Globe and Mail of June 27 and discover a new trade critic for the Liberal Party. We have surprise announcements made by the MP for Montreal-Sainte-Marie

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(Mr. Malepart). He said: "The Liberals would tell Canadians we won't negotiate one deal with the U.S. but several deals with other countries. We won't put all your eggs in one basket. Eventually Mr. Turner will make public a series of principles of accord on which any Liberal free trade deals could be based".
This is the Malepart version. He said: "This thing wasn't dreamed up overnight and dropped on the caucus just like that, said Mr. Malepart, the MP for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. It was worked out after a lot of thought. We relied heavily on findings of various public opinion polls".
Oh, is that what the task force was doing, looking at all the little public opinion polls to see what their tatterdemalion trade policy should be and then support strengthening the GATT two years after the process started?
The Ottawa Citizen of June 14: "A liberal government would not only scrap the free trade agreement with the United States but would not try to renegotiate in hopes of striking a better deal". That is very sensible. Not only going to scrap it, they will not even renegotiate it. This is John Turner: "At a news conference Turner said the deal is not negotiable". This is truly incredible. That is the policy, apparently, but it changes every couple of days. Then we have John Ferguson from Southam News on June 14 who did an analysis of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry's pronouncement, and I highly recommend everyone in the House read this. He says: "But if Canada isn't going to take on the U.S., where else are we going to peddle our wares? Well, it is all laid out in a new trade policy of the Liberals released Wednesday".
We are going to conquer the world, that is what the Liberals are going to do. It says: "The Liberals think we will get clobbered in any head-on competition with the Americans under free trade but we're going to knock them dead in a Pacific Rim, bowl them over in Europe, and have them begging for mercy in Latin America". All we have to do is follow these simple steps. These are the simple Axworthy steps: "Shake up the bureaucracy again to recreate the old department of industry and trade".
You know, the ones the Liberals uncreated in 1982 to move all the trade people over to the Department of External Affairs. That was a jim-dandy. That is going to revolutionize the world. Yes, Sir, we are going to be able to knock them dead in the Pacific Rim when we do that, bowl them over in Europe and have them begging for mercy in Latin America. Funny, in 1982 they told us that making trade part of External would "result in a greater priority in trade objectives, in the conduct of our international relations, give greater emphasis to the international marketing of resources and services, and strengthen Canada's ability to adapt to change in world economic conditions". Where was the Hon. Member in 1982? Why, he was in the Trudeau cabinet that was scrambling up the trade department, putting it into External Affairs, which this year he says he is going to unscramble and put back
because this will enable us to take on and conquer the world. That is some policy.
Then he goes on to analyse. Research and development, that part of the GNP which goes to that, will be increased. They are going to go to Geneva where the negotiations on GATT are taking place and convince the Americans to change their trade laws so that any company losing a countervailing duty case would be required to pay the legal costs of importers who have to defend themselves. How are they going to persuade the Americans to do all these things? Having slapped them in the chops, having torn up the free trade agreement, having told the U.S. we do not care about them, having said we could care less about them, you are going to go GATT where 95 nations are present and tell the Americans what they are going to do, how they are going to change their trade law to allow higher levels of subsidies on imported goods into the U.S.? Has there ever been such a travesty of a trade policy put forward by anyone in any form in such a shape that is so laughable and so ludicrous if it was not so dangerous?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Liberals hope to improve especially the GATT dispute settlement mechanism, and so do we. We started the process two years ago. In mid-December we will be having the mid-term meeting of the 95 GATT countries in Montreal trying to achieve those objectives, having done two years of work getting ready for it. We both have the same objectives there.
We have taken a lead role in the working group which is now seeking to improve the dispute settlement under GATT. Peter Bentley, Chairman of Canfor in B.C., pointed out:
We have no assurance about when the current Uruguay round of GATT will
be completed.
Remember that. No assurance on when it will be completed. It could take years. He says:
In the meantime we could find ourselves in the embarrassing position of being unemployed and bankrupt if U.S. protectionism prevails before this event took place.
That is a perfect answer to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry's so-called trade policy, dependence on GATT. We could all find ourselves in the embarrassing position of being unemployed and bankrupt if U.S. protectionism prevails before this event took place. That is what the honourable gentleman wants Canadians to do, throw aside the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement that would give them some protection and wait and wait and wait for 95 countries to agree at GATT. It is astounding. Premier Bourassa said this:
There is no contradiction between having multilateral trade and having a free trade treaty with the United States.
My comprehension of, my appreciation and admiration for Premier Bourassa goes up day after day. He might be a Liberal but, by God, he has his head screwed on right. Gerry Regan is a Liberal but his head is screwed on right. Donald Macdonald is a Liberal but his head is screwed on right.
August 29, 1988

George Van Roggen is a Liberal but his head is screwed on right. In addition to that, he has a backbone. There are many Liberals that are not going to swallow this stuff. We can and should have the benefits of both bilateral and multilateral trading arrangements.
Now the Liberals say they will seek sectoral free trade agreements with the U.S., not a comprehensive trade agreement as has been negotiated. That is something new. That did not appear in the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry's statement of June 14. It came up since, as 1 explained. The sector-by-sector approach was tried in 1983-1984 and it did not work. I have the reasons here. I won't read them now because of the time I have taken, but at page 10 of the transcript of Gerry Regan's broadcast on CTV, CJOH, April 10, 1988, he explains why the sector-by-sector approach did not work and could not work and will not work now. It will not work because the U.S. wanted to negotiate in sectors in which they believed they had an advantage while Canada wanted to negotiate in sectors in which we thought we had an advantage, and we could get nowhere.
In addition, if you did work out a sectoral agreement you had to have special permission from the other member states in GATT. GATT does not allow sectoral free trade agreements between members. It only allows comprehensive agreements such as we have negotiated with the U.S. Gerry Regan said:
When I was a member of Mr. Trudeau's Government, I recognized the importance of obtaining better guarantees of access to the vital American market... I have come to the conclusion that the present free trade project is a more meaningful, courageous and important undertaking ... more important than our limited negotiations in (1983-84).
The third element of the latest Liberal plan was to emphasize trade with Europe and the Pacific Rim. We did that in 1985. In our national trade strategy we established a major new initiative directed toward the Pacific. Where has the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry been for the last four years? Where was he when the then Minister for International Trade, the Member for Vancouver Centre, was adopting this new national trade policy, this major new initiative directed to the Pacific?
We have established new trade offices in Osaka, Shanghai, Bombay, and Auckland. Where were they when this was going on? They have now adopted this as a brave new policy when we already did this three years ago. Partly as a result, our trade with Japan is surging. It now accounts for $15 billion a year. The recent dramatic rise in our exports to Japan has reestablished our trade surplus with that vita! trading partner. Where was the great trade critic of the Liberal Party when all of this was going on? Why does he only wake up after the fact and discover what is happening in the Pacific Rim and what we have done, which our predecessor Government did not do? What a dynamite policy the hon. gentleman came forward with.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The idea that we can increase trade with other countries to substitute trade with the U.S. runs contrary to the plain facts of commerce and geography. Mr. Diefenbaker wanted to increase our share of trade with Great Britain instead of the United States and it did not work. Mr. Trudeau had a third option in the early seventies. He wanted to direct us away from the U.S. to Europe. It did not work. The sensible goal is a balanced trade strategy, which is what we are pursuing. We are seeking new markets where there is an opportunity to do so. That is called common sense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Liberal alternative to the FTA is not an alternative at all. It ignores the threat of U.S. protectionism. It expresses high hopes for what the MTN may be able to achieve if 95 member states agree, and it ignores the benefits in terms of security of access and dispute achievement settlement achieved under the free trade agreement. About this The Ottawa Citizen said:
The five-point plan the Liberal leader would implement as Prime Minister
would replace the free trade deal with a rehash of tried and failed policies and
motherhood statements about improving the international economy.
Right on, Ottawa Citizen. La Presse was equally harsh. It said:
The Turner alternative is nothing more than an unrealistic mumbo-jumbo of
mercantilism and unthinking optimism.
The key to understanding the Liberal alternative is contained the words which I quoted earlier of the Member for Montreal-Saint-Marie. He said that this was not dreamed up overnight, that it was worked out after a lot of thought and that they relied heavily on findings of various public opinion polls.
Do the people of Canada want to place their trust in a national Party that designs its trade strategy based on opinion polls instead of analysis of what exporters need to get the job done? Do you think that is what they want?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are you sure?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


John Carnell Crosbie: Do they want to place their trust in a national Party that cooks up two alternatives in less than three months?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Are you sure?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


John Carnell Crosbie: In perfect agreement.
I have one last topic I want to address in this debate, that being the conduct of the opposition Parties in Parliament in seeking to block the free trade agreement. The NDP have obstructed the process of this House at every step. Bill C-130

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
was held up for three weeks on specious procedural grounds. Debate in the House was delayed by recorded votes on the first reading of NDP Private Members' Bills on such matters as naming hockey Canada's national sport or marking the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta.
By the way, hockey is quite a pertinent issue because I heard the other day that the Leader of the New Democratic Party wants to make the national sport, not hockey but rowing. He wants Canadians sitting on their backsides going backwards. It is pretty cheap to bring in a Private Members' Bill to make hockey our national sport in order to cover that up.
Those are the kinds of procedural steps the NDP took in order to prevent us from getting to this debate. They have not tried to debate any substance, only unfounded fears. All the time Members of the NDP were proclaiming that they were prevented from serious debate on the free trade agreement, these were their tactics.
When they and the Liberals were asked how much time they wanted for report stage and third reading, they said 350 days, more time than is left in the life of this Parliament. Imagine the two opposition Parties asking for 350 days of debate on report stage and third reading. Then they could not scruff up enough speakers for the days that we did have.
The NDP tampered with and misused the rules of Parliament, although they did stay within them. Unlike the Liberals, the NDP did not resort to corruption of the conventions of our Constitution, corruption of the conventions of Parliament.
The Leader of the Opposition returned to political life in 1984 and offered himself as a man of principle, a man coming out of the wilderness to cleanse Canada. He was going to bring much needed change to the nation by his leadership. He did not agree with the direction in which Mr. Trudeau had led the Party. He had been in Winston's on Bay Street since 1975 meeting with the people who he now excoriates. He was going to sweep away the old gang from the Trudeau years. He was going to bring a fresh new approach to the Liberal Party of Canada.
Where is he today? He is back in the hands of the politicians and back-room boys placed in the Senate at the behest of the Prime Minister he succeeded, the very people appointed to the Senate by then Prime Minister Trudeau or by the Leader of the Opposition in the few days that he was Prime Minister. He has put this whole issue and himself right back in their hands. He has fallen into the same tactics of trading in fear which were used by the Liberals in the 1974 election when they said "Zap, you're frozen" on the campaign trail. When they got into office they instituted wage and price controls. Mr. Turner is following in the exact tradition of the politicians who did that.
Who are those back-room boys who are now in the Senate and how long are they going to be there? Senator Gigantes will be there until 1999. Senator Jerry Grafstein will be there until 2010. Senator Marsden will be there till 2017, Senator
Graham till 2004, Senator Hebert till 1998, and it will be 2018 when Senator Kirby from Mr. Trudeau's office has to retire. Senator Kenny will be there until 2018. Senator MacEachen will be there until 1996, Senator Pitfield until 2012, Senator Frith until 1998, and Senator Fairbairn will be there until 2014. Senator Stollery will be there until 2010, Senator Romeo Leblanc will be there until 2002, and Senator Davey until 2001. It seems as though he has been there an eternity now. Senator Jack Austin will be there until 2007, Senator Cools will be there until 2018, Senator Corbin will be there until the year 2009, and Senator de Bane will be there until 2013.
The situation is that the Liberal Party has told Canadians that it will govern Canada if elected with a majority to the House of Commons. They said that they have governed Canada for most of this long, interminable century because they have been given a majority in the House of Commons. They say that they are going to govern when they have a majority in the House of Commons and that they are going to govern when Canadians give someone else a majority in the House of Commons because they are Liberals, only they can govern the country, only they have the brains, the magnetism, the intelligence, and the arrogance to govern this Canada. They are going to govern it from the Senate where they have a majority of Liberal Senators until the year 2008. If everyone in the Senate today lives to be 75 and stays in their position in the Senate, the Liberals will have a majority in the Senate until the year 2008.
The Leader of the Opposition has told us, and it has been confirmed by Senator MacEachen and the Liberals in the Senate, that they will determine the policy of Canadians as long as they have a majority in the Senate. They say: "We do not care who elects a majority in the House of Commons, we do not care what their policy choices are". If it is the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, and they do not like it, they will change it. They do not care if it is the immigration laws. If they do not like the suggestions of the people for whom the electorate was dumb enough to vote in the majority in 1984, they will change them. They say: "If we do not like anything you propose we, the Liberals in the Senate, will change it".
Now the free trade agreement is coming before the Senate. Although the Liberal majority in the Senate believes in free trade and believes in the free trade agreement, they will say no to free trade. They will tell us that we must have an election. We are not to be governed by the ordinary rules that govern Liberal Prime Ministers. We will be governed by the Liberal Senate.
They say: "We, the Liberal Party of Canada, are going to decide". That is what the Leader of the Opposition is telling Canadians. The slogan is not "let the people decide", it is "let the Liberal Party of Canada decide". Let the Liberal Party of Canada violate all the conventions of the Constitution.
August 29, 1988

Is this country run by a democratic parliamentary system or is there a Liberal tyranny in this country in which a government can never be changed because they will have a majority in the Senate forever? When the Conservatives or someone else comes to power, they will not decide the important issues of the day. That is what the Leader of the Opposition is telling us. The Canadian people will be asked whether they agree with this. What system will we have in this country?
I know what the Canadian people will determine. Do the people of Canada agree that Senator Kirby, of the Machiavelli memorandum, should govern Canada until the year 2016? Was he elected by the people of Canada to govern? Was Senator Kenny elected to govern until the year 2018? Was Allan MacEachen elected to govern until the year 1996?
They were not elected to govern. They were turfed out, turned out, tired out. They were put up in the second house of sober second thought. Where is the sober second thought for the free trade agreement?
The man who came back in 1984 said that he would cleanse the Liberal Party and brush aside all the old gang, the bureaucrats and Trudeaucrats in the smoke-filled rooms. The same group are now governing Canada. The Trudeaucrats who the Leader of the Opposition was going to eliminate from public life in order to cleanse the Liberal Party are those to whom he is now appealing in his final abject surrender to the desire for power. He is now appealing to them for help.
We will see what the Canadian people want. I cannot wait to get this question into the hands of the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Governor General of Canada does not rule Canada only because of the conventions of the Constitution. She has the legal power to dismiss the Government today and rule by fiat. The Queen in England has the same right. Our system is democratic only because of these conventions that have governed us. There have been the conventions since the early 1900s that the Senate does not prevent legislation from going through the Senate when it has been passed by the elected House of Commons of this country. Anything contrary to that is contrary to the democratic system. I would expect the New Democratic Party to agree with that.
The Leader of the Opposition has sunk to the level of calling on Senators to abandon their conventional roles under the Constitution in the pursuit of partisan advantage. Are Liberal Senators giving sober second thought? Are they representing regional interests when they agree to obey the directions of an opposition leader to block an initiative that the House of Commons has approved? Of course not. The arrogance of the Trudeaucrats knows no bounds. After being defeated at the polls, they will rule from the Senate. They can do so for at least another two decades. However, the responsibility is not theirs. It is the Leader of the Opposition who is responsible for falling in with their schemes and making the suggestion to them.
The Opposition has and continues to play on the fears of Canadians. Canadians are more confident and more capable of seeing through the distortions and the misrepresentations spun by the Opposition than the Opposition believes. Canadians are bigger than the scare tactics of the Opposition.
The Government was elected to provide leadership to the nation in the face of changing circumstances and to take advantage of the opportunities that arise. That is what this Government has done. It has provided the leadership in seeking the achievement of a free trade agreement with the United States when the opportunity arose. It arose because our Prime Minister had a good, valid and valuable relationship with the President of the United States. We seized that opportunity and we have this agreement. A group of people who do not want the national interest to interfere with their insatiable lust for power are doing everything they can to prevent that.
This Government has provided the leadership in seeking and achieving a free trade agreement with the United States. We are proud of our record. We are confident that when Canadians are called on to decide in an election, they will support the Government and the free trade agreement. This Government is the free trade agreement. There is no free trade agreement without this Government. In the organized political Parties, we are its only friend. We are the free trade agreement, and Canadians will not forget that.
Free trade can only be achieved with a majority Progressive Conservative Government. It cannot be achieved with a minority. It cannot be achieved any other way. We are the only way to a brighter tomorrow for Canadians. We are confident in Canada, confident in Canadians, confident in ourselves and confident in our leader. We are coming, and we are many millions strong.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in view of the time, I wonder if I might call it one o'clock and resume debate this afternoon?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 1. p.m., I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
August 29, 1988

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: We were sorry and saddened to learn yesterday of the death of Jean Marchand, a committed trade unionist and the most passionate of the "three wise men", a great Liberal.
Allow me, to quote an excerpt from the tribute to him by Alain Leduc in this morning's La Presse.
With Jean Marchand's death, we have lost one of the men who shaped modern Quebec, one of the architects of the Quiet Revolution, without which we would not be what we are today.
But Jean Marchand's major contribution is still little known by more than half of Quebecers.
Since they only know of the federal Minister and then Senator, they do not appreciate the debt they owe someone like Jean Marchand.
As president of the CNTU, he was also a pioneer of the Quiet Revolution and a partner in its reforms, from the creation of the Department of Education to the unionization of public servants.
He showed the same energy and the same passion when he moved to the federal arena in 1965. He fought for a strong Canada and the defence of bilingualism in Canada and, as Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, against regional inequalities.
But it would do an injustice to Mr. Marchand's memory not to mention the sometimes strong reactions he aroused. His conflicts matched his image of a combative, fiery, emotional man, not a politician ready to make concessions to please. Mr. Marchand was a courageous militant, ready to fight for his convictions, even if they went against conventional wisdom.
There are few Quebecers whom one can call without exaggeration the Fathers of modern Quebec. There are barely a handful, and Jean Marchand is one of them. And that is why we owe this pioneer our respect and our gratitude.
So to this passionate wise man and great Liberal, I say thanks!


DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday a truck knocked over a hydro pole in Toronto causing PCB-laced oil to spill from a hydro transformer. Hydro officials said there was no need for alarm because the PCB levels in transformers are low and the oil coolant is pretty well safe.
There are two transformers on the hydro pole across the street from my own home. No doubt, they contain PCBs as well. Although PCBs have been banned in Canada for the past 11 years, there are still lots of them around in hydro transformers.
The National Research Council and Atomic Energy of Canada now say they know how to get rid of PCBs. I trust that
even though the PCB levels in hydro transformers are low, we will get rid of them as well.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the statutory mandate of CBC requires that service be extended to all parts of Canada as public funds become available. The Conservative Government has hacked and slashed CBC's budget, making extensions of service impossible. CBC proposed a plan to the CRTC earlier this year which included the reduction of staff at Prince Rupert from 14 to two persons to allow extensions of service elsewhere in British Columbia. This plan was turned down.
On November 12, 1987, Pierre Juneau and again before the CRTC Michael McEwan, vice-president of CBC, stated that the plan was all or nothing. CBC now plans to reduce Prince Rupert to four staff and sell the assets anyway.
On December 2, 1987, Pierre Juneau, President of CBC, wrote to me stating that there was an undertaking with Treasury Board that "in the period of cuts to capital and operating funds, there would be no extensions of service", and that any funds would be for maintaining existing locations. The Standing Committee of the House concluded that storefronting should not be done at the expense of the existing stations such as CFPR.
The Minister has three choices, first, put forward the necessary funds for service extensions in Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George, while fully maintaining CFPR; second, fire Pierre Juneau and Michael McEwan for lying or, three, resign herself for failing to uphold her statutory mandate and Treasury Board undertakings.


INTERNATIONAL CON FERENCE ON HOSTELLING
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend it was my pleasure to represent the Minister responsible for Youth (Mr. Charest) at the thirty-seventh International Conference on Hostelling which was held at the University of Calgary. Present were 240 delegates from 60 countries and this was the first time in 80 years of hostelling that the conference was held in Canada.
It was a fitting area for the conference because Canadian hostelling was commenced in 1933 at Bragg Creek, Alberta, by two dynamic ladies who erected a tent and charged a 25 cents overnight fee. It was the first hostel in North America.
August 29, 1988

One of the ladies, Miss Mary Barclay, was present at the conference and was honoured by the delegates.
The Canadian Hostelling Association and Canada's fitness and tourism programs are complementary. Besides attracting to Canada hundreds of youths from around the world, it is an instrument of understanding and peace, blended with environmental appreciation. I compliment the Canadian Hostelling Association and urge the Government to continue and increase its financial support to this splendid organization.


ABORTION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has breached another very firm commitment to the people of Canada. He committed himself to introduce legislation on abortion prior to the next general election campaign. Yesterday, seven full months after the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in the Morgentaler case, the Prime Minister said he is going to wait for the results of the Borowski case.
Two months ago the Government went to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking the Supreme Court to postpone the Borowski case until Parliament had an opportunity to deal with the issue. The Prime Minister is now telling us that Parliament needs the guidance of the Court and he is postponing the introduction of legislation pending the results of the Borowski case.
The net effect of the new position of the Prime Minister of Canada is that we will not have legislation introduced until at least two years down the road. The Court is hearing the case in October and it is unlikely to render a decision until at least the following year. This is another example of a broken promise by the Prime Minister of Canada. He has a lot of explaining to do. He has to explain to the people of Canada his about-face on this very crucial issue which faces the country. The reality is that the Prime Minister lacks the courage and conviction to introduce legislation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, since its independence in 1962, the history of Burundi has been marred by one intertribal massacre after another. After the slaughter of 2,000 Tutsis in 1972, 200,000 Hutus were massacred in a period of only six weeks. Racial violence continues today. In the last few weeks over 5,000 people have
been killed and 100,000 have been made homeless. The army has been deeply implicated in the killing.
Mankind ought not to tolerate human rights violations on such a massive scale. Canada should press the United Nations to conduct an independent investigation and to take action to stop the genocide.


ABORTION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in a CBC interview last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) continued in his failure to provide leadership on the subject of abortion. He talked about abortion as being a question of personal decision for Members of Parliament when it comes to voting, but did not recognize the more basic personal decision women must make. What a double standard.
The Prime Minister defends the rights of Members of Parliament to vote on the basis of a personal moral decision, yet he stays silent on the question of the right of a woman to make a personal moral decision as to whether or not she should have an abortion.
No wonder that Ruth Evans of the United Church said last week that Canadians do not trust the Mulroney Government to come up with a workable solution on abortion. She said: "Mulroney, in particular, has not shown any clear leadership". It is not enough to say this is a difficult moral issue. He now wants to postpone any decision on abortion until after the election and hide his Government's position. The Conservative Government must tell the Canadian people what it plans to do on the question of abortion.


THE PRESS
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago a 17-year old male was charged in the shooting of Tara Singh Hayer, the editor of the Indo Canadian Times, the largest Punjabi newspaper in B.C. A few days prior to the assassination attempt, a report from London, England, said that Hayer was one of the men targeted for a $50,000 contract killing because of his political views.
In Canada freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our democracy. Canadians have fought and died in two world wars to preserve this right. The printed and electronic media are free to venture any opinion on any topic without fear of endangering one's physical well-being. Assassination as a

August 29, 1988
means of terminating political dissent is a tactic used by brutally repressive dictatorial regimes, of which we have many.
Any individual who uses violence to suppress freedom of speech must be severely punished. Canadians will not tolerate any attempts to subvert democracy.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, hundreds of inshore fishermen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador continue to receive no positive response whatsoever from the Government of Canada to their request for assistance after having a disastrous season this year in the inshore fishery. Indeed, organizers today in western Newfoundland, in the community of Corner Brook, a city 150 miles south of the northern peninsula, are putting together food to be sent to the northern peninsula to be distributed at the first food bank ever on the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland.
We saw last week that the National Citizens Coalition, a right wing group in this country, awarded a $10,000 prize to the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), a cabinet Minister, for espousing the views of the National Citizens Coalition. The Minister says he wants to put it to work for a good cause. He will give it to the Tory Party-a back-door contribution. If he really wants to contribute it to a good cause, let him give it to the inshore fishermen of Newfoundland whom he is ignoring, and who have had no response, and who are trying to put food on the table. That is a good and worthy cause.
* *
*
[ Translation]


RAILWAYS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, since March 1986, I have been working with CN employees, Denis Lamar-che, the Railway Network Committee of the CRDAT and municipal and economic partners in the Abitibi region, to fight against the abandonment of the Franquet-Chapais subdivision.
I received a copy of a letter dated August 16, 1988, sent by Franqois Gendron, Quebec MNA for Abitibi West, to the Canadian Transport Commission, in which Mr. Gendron opposed CN's application in the following terms: "The
application by CN would jeopardize the mining potential of this part of the region."
In a letter sent on August 27 this year to the federal Minister of Transport, Marc-Yvan Cote maintained that "the abandonment of the Franquet-Chapais subdivision will, in the medium term lead, to a considerable rise in the cost of transportation between the Chapais-Chibougamau mines and the Noranda smelter".
Mr. Speaker, since 1986 I have spoken many times about this matter, both in the House and in the Standing Committee on Transport, and I repeat that Quebec is disavadvanted compared to Western Canada. I would ask the Minister of Transport for a moratorium on all applications for abandoning CN subdivisions in this country and I would ask the Government of Canada to grant CN a subsidy of $5 million for repairs and maintenance on the Franquet-Chapais subdivision in Abitibi.
* *
*


PORT OF CHURCHILL-LACK OF GRAIN SHIPMENTS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, as of today there is no grain being shipped through the Port of Churchill. There are no commitments from the Government to ensure that that will happen.
Last June I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) asking for his personal intervention in this matter. He in turn referred the matter to the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer) who responded to me indicating that he himself would not get involved.
Since the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds is a Manitoba Member of Parliament I believe it is his duty to make sure that there is grain shipped through the Port of Churchill. I call his lack of action a real treason to his own province and to the people in Manitoba of all three political Parties who believe that grain should be shipped through that port. I call upon him to act.
* *
*


NATIONAL DEFENSE
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, at the invitation of the Department of National Defence, I had an opportunity, as so many other Members of this House, to visit one of our Canadian Forces submarines last Thursday. Upon consulting the log, I found, to my surprise, that not a single
August 29, 1988

Liberal or Socialist Member had dared visit the submarine, and this while both the Liberal and Socialist Leaders, in accordance with the respective programs of their Parties, are against nuclear subs.
Mr. Speaker, before speaking out against the submarines, it would perhaps have been better for both Leaders to visit our submarines and see for themselves the competence of our men and, by the same token, realize that our fleet of submarines is in need of immediate modernization, to bring the fleet up to the level of the and skills of men who have been trained to operate the best.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, when the Progressive Conservatives were elected in 1984 one of the expectations that they created at that time was that they would act to do something about the long-standing complaints many CN pensioners have about their pension plan. We know that there was a subcommittee which heard from a great many witnesses and which made some recommendations. The recommendations of that subcommittee were not completely satisfactory to a great many CN pensioners, but they would have been better than nothing if they had been implemented.
The fact of the matter is that we are now on the eve of another election. We have all that many more people out there on CN pensions, and still we have no action from the Government. 1 think something we should all keep in mind is that these kinds of promises were made in 1984. Here we are in the fall of 1988 and not a blessed thing has been done about the CN pension plan, something that has been crying out for action for years.


DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl, is a very dangerous chemical compound used as a coolant, primarily in transformers.
The recent incident at Saint-Basile-le-Grand, where PCB contaminated oil burned and released dangerous chemicals such as dioxin into the environment, is a dangerous and very serious situation. When ingested in small quantities they are fatal.
The Late Jean Marchand
Although PCBs have been banned from use since 1977, many are still in use, and many storage sites exist with used PCB contaminated oil. They can and should be destroyed.
1 call upon the federal Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to take the lead and to convene a meeting of his provincial counterparts, industry users, and scientists, to deal immediately with a plan of action for safer PCB management.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph):: Mr. Speaker, free flowing water is not a part of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. Those who says it is often quote Article 105. Sir, let me quote Article 105 to the House and to the Canadian public. It states:
Each Party shall, to the extent provided in this Agreement, accord national
treatment with respect to investment and to trade in goods and services.
The operative word is "trade". How can you give national treatment in trade, Mr. Speaker, to something you do not trade-I repeat, do not trade? What nonsense their arguments really are.


Mr. Speaker:: There is agreement among all Parties to have certain statements made, and I know that Hon. Members would want to hear first from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


THE LATE JEAN MARCHAND
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Today I wish to pay tribute to a man who made a great contribution to the lives of all Canadians. With the passing of Jean Marchand, we have lost one of the men who made Canada and Quebec what they are today.
Mr. Marchand was not just a remarkable politician, he was also a leading light of trade unionism. He was tireless in his defence of great causes, and he has left Canadians an impressive heritage. We all know that he fought for a strong Canada. We are also to a large extent indebted to him for introducing bilingualism, cast in the image of our country. Mr. Speaker, today we have lost a fighter, a man of exceptional courage, without whom Canada and Quebec would not be what they are now.

August 29, 1988
The Late Jean Marchand
Those who like myself had the privilege of knowing Mr. Marchand were able to appreciate his many qualities as a politician and his dedication to great causes. Within the Liberal Party, Mr. Marchand was well known for his political acumen and his leadership qualities. He was a man of rare eloquence who had the courage of his convictions. In a nutshell, he was a remarkable Quebecer and a great Canadian whom we shall always remember with great pride.
On behalf of the Liberal Party, I wish to offer our sincere condolences to his daughter, Marie Eve. Canada has lost one of its great men.

We are saddened by the untimely death of Jean Marchand. We offer our condolences to his daughter and to his family. With the passing of Jean Marchand Canada has lost one of its great men.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Secretary of State for Canada):: On
behalf of the Government, I would like to join those who today mourn the passing of a man with a great heart and a political leader who put his stamp on Canadian society.
Jean Marchand was involved in every debate of any consequence in the recent history of Quebec and Canada. He was part of a generation that, from the forties onward, struggled to put Quebec on the road to social justice.
As president of one of the most important labour congresses of Quebec, he was at the heart of the battle fought by workers, for recognition of their rights and human dignity from Asbestos to Murdochville.
In the sixties, his thirst for justice made him enter the political arena and without fanfare but with passion and skill, he stood up for the rights of Francophones at the federal level and in Canadian society. In addition he was one of the progressive elements of the Government of which he was a member.
He decided to maintain his allegiance to both Quebec and Canada in the federal Government. With typical courage and honesty, he fought his difficult struggle to the very end, because Jean Marchand was, above all, a man of passion to whom politics was nothing if not commitment. This man, who had known and experienced our political travail, knew that somewhere, over and above political confrontation and party lines, there was a common ground for men and women of good will, whether they were from Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick or elsewhere.
For him, the noise and clamour of social and political struggle have now faded away. May he receive from us this final expression of friendship and may he depart from us a serene and respected man.
[DOT] (M20)


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Jean Marchand was an outstanding Canadian who never did things by halves. He was a man of passion who fought ceaselessly for what he believed in, whether it was the rights of Quebec workers or the Canada to which he dedicated his entire political life.
He did not wait to see whether a cause would be popular. He made up his own mind and plunged into the fray. Everyone in his beloved province of Quebec and elsewhere in this country always knew what Jean Marchand was trying to do.

Sometimes wrong, more often right, this warm, courageous man served his country and his province with great distinction. Canada and Quebec have lost a relentless voice for social justice.
On behalf of all members of my Party I send our deepest condolences to his daughter, Marie Eve.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As one who had the opportunity of working very closely with Mr. Marchand in my capacity as opposition transport critic while he was the Minister of Transport, I would like to join with my colleagues in the House of Commons in expressing my personal sympathy and condolence to members of the Marchand family on his untimely passing.
He was a man for whom my respect and admiration grew with each encounter. He was a tough, skilled, and very articulate debater. As The Gazette observed this morning, he loved a good fight. He was an exceptional orator. He spoke with conviction, and with emotion. He knew what he wanted, and he articulated it in a very precise way.
He fought for a better Canada. He fought for justice and equity. He was welcome in all parts of Canada, and particularly in western Canada. To western Canada he was a friend. He spoke to westerners, as he spoke to other Canadians, with sincerity and with honesty.
We may have not always liked what we heard from him, but we always knew that he was frank and that he spoke with conviction from the heart. He was trusted and, as I said, always welcome.
Jean Marchand was a nation builder. He was a great parliamentarian, a great Quebecer, and a great Canadian. I personally mourn his loss, and I am sure it is shared by all westerners.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be appropriate if Hon. Members stood for one minute's silence.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the House stood in silence.]
August 29, 1988



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of the Environment, or the Deputy Prime Minister, whichever is answering for that portfolio.
In the last four or five days Canadians have been reminded how increasingly dangerous this industrial world of ours has become, and how absolutely crucial it is for Governments to take on the question of public safety with the utmost vigilance. Unfortunately, it has not been an isolated incident.
In my own province of Manitoba it was discovered late last week that on federal Crown land under the jurisdiction of the federal Government, in the CPR marshalling yards a boxcar containing PCBs was left totally unattended and unsecured, with a seal on it that a nine-year old boy with a penknife could have broken into without any apprehension. Inspections had not taken place for a long period of time, and environment officials at both levels of government professed to be surprised at the results.
Considering how serious a problem this is in the federal jurisdiction, can the Minister tell us how many other boxcars are sitting in railway yards across the country unattended and unsecured? Does the Government have a plan to deal with the problem of the serious contamination and vulnerability that exists on Crown land and railway properties across Canada?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this very important situation, I think that we should all check our facts before we make allegations.
I am informed that there is a railcar owned by Canadian Pacific Railway in Winnipeg, that the car is in an isolated area, and located on a track that is fenced and patrolled regularly. The car has been inspected and is secure, with no leakages.


REQUEST FOR REGULATIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister does not say is that the inspection took place after the boxcar was discovered. In the very same railway yard a fire broke out on Saturday night within proximity of the same boxcar. If the Minister thinks that that is adequate safety coverage, there is no wonder the Government and the country are in the trouble they are, and Canadians expect an awful lot more.
In 1985 both levels of government, provincial and federal, came to a meeting and agreed on a series of steps that would be taken, none of which have since been taken. There are no destruction facilities, and there are no regulations. There are only guidelines that cannot be enforced.
Oral Questions
When is the federal Government going to take on its full responsibility and introduce the type of action and initiative that are required to provide proper regulations to guard against the type of event that we saw in Winnipeg this weekend?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, again the Opposition tends to make statements of fact that are unfounded. Since 1977 the use of PCBs has been restricted through regulations under the Environmental Contaminants Act. Since June 30, 1988, all those regulations have been incorporated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that was tabled and passed by this Government. Nothing had been done by the previous Government.


TECHNOLOGY TO NEUTRALIZE PCBS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is guilty of a clear abdication of responsibility and response. There are no regulations in place governing these kinds of events.
I would like to ask the corollary question. Officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the National Research Council have said that they have developed technologies that make it possible to neutralize PCBs, but to quote a federal official of AECL, there has not been the political will to pursue those kinds of treatments. Does the Government have any intention of bringing in a plan of action with the kind of resources and investments that would bring about destruction facilities to deal with PCBs so that we do not have the kinds of circumstances that occurred in Quebec and in Manitoba over the past week?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly surprised that that Hon. Member is talking about abdication. As I have already indicated, we have an Act in force that was passed in June of 1988. Regulations are included, and we will make sure that incidents like the one in Saint-Basile-le-Grand do not occur again, with or without the help of the Opposition.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Since last week, the Minister of the Environment has been assuring us that the federal Government, in cooperation with the Government of Quebec, is providing all possible assistance in taking samples to determine the degree of contamination in Saint-Basile-le-Grand. Given the further evacuation of another 300 people

August 29, 1988
Oral Questions
from the region, as well as the growing fears and frustrations of the 3,000 who have already left their homes, can the Minister tell us today the results of the tests conducted jointly with the Government of Quebec on the contamination in Saint-Basile-le-Grand?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, some results were made public on the weekend and I am not able today to give the results of the further tests now underway. For example, approximately 20 schools and a number of homes will be sampled today in the Saint-Basile-le-Grand area as well as in the region evacuated on the weekend. So, Mr. Speaker, we will of course be able to provide the results when they are known this week.


TREATMENT OF INFORMATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Saint-Basile-le-Grand deplore the lack of information and especially the lack of coordination in providing it. They have the impression that someone may be hiding the truth from them and that the information they receive varies depending on who is speaking.
So can the Minister tell us whether there would not be a way, in cooperation with the provincial Government, to find a spokesperson to coordinate all the information and provide as much information as possible, so that the citizens would be assured that the different levels of government are in control of the situation?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think that under the circumstances, it is clear that all levels of government involved have tried to control the situation and to reassure the Canadian people about what is going on in Saint-Basile-le-Grand and its aftermath. I think it would be appropriate, not to say desirable, not to do anything in this House to increase the public's fears, which are no doubt very justified.
Regarding coordination, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that Gilles Saint-Antoine, assistant director of the Quebec Police Force, has been designated commander of operations at the head of the new organizational structure set up on Saturday, and that Jean Demers of Environment Quebec is responsible for field operations.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, obviously, all federal authorities and the whole federal apparatus concerned are cooperating with the provincial authorities involved, so as to make this situation as livable as possible, under the circumstances.


DESTRUCTION OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: My question is for the
same Minister. As he knows, 3,000 residents from Saint-Basile-le-Grand and surrounding areas had to be evacuated
last week and 300 more during the weekend. Officials are running tests on the people, their houses and the farms in the area. Here is my question: Considering that the technology has been available since 1981, why has the Government not introduced legislation requiring that these substances be destroyed instead of simply being stored?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I think, it was mentioned in the House that a new technology had been developed by the National Research Council and, if I remember correctly, that information was made public in April 1988. This is certainly a revolutionary process; contrary to the present method, it does not involve burning PCBs; it calls for new facilities which will certainly be built, 1 hope, in the near future. It is clear that the Federal Government will cooperate in the implementation of this new technology in order to destroy PCBs safely and thus avoid similar situations to the one which occurred in Saint-Basile-le-Grand.


CRIMINAL CODE-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE LEGISLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refers to technology of the National Research Council. I was informed by a research scientist from AECL in Manitoba today that technology has existed since 1982, other than the technology to which the Minister refers. Mr. Colin Isaacs, President of Pollution Probe, also said on the weekend that such technology has existed for a number of years.
Since quite literally human lives are at stake here, I want to ask the Minister, notwithstanding the failure of past Governments, why the present Government does not build on what it has already done? Why does it not use the Criminal Code to make it mandatory that technology be applied for the destruction of PCBs after they have been used rather than allowing for their storage?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the new technology and the Criminal Code, I think it is obvious that with the new Act passed by this Parliament in June of 1988, there are powers that will permit the Minister of the Environment to make sure that those disasters do not occur again, and if they do, which we certainly hope they do not, those involved will be punished to the full extent of the law. Obviously this Government will do everything in its power to ensure that PCBs are destroyed in a safe manner so that the safety and health of Canadians are not prejudiced.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that in the existing law to which he has referred there is absolutely nothing making it mandatory that PCBs be destroyed. Once a storage facility has broken down,
August 29, 1988

there is a potential disaster like the one with which we are now faced.
We know that there is technology available for the destruction of these dangerous substances. Since the present law brought in this year is inadequate, will the Government recognize the seriousness of the situation and bring in a new measure that will make it compulsory to destroy these substances? That is the issue.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated on Friday, there is a new technology that has been developed by the NRC which apparently is revolutionary in dealing with PCBs, and I am sure that this Government will do whatever is necessary in order that PCBs, when stored, are stored safely, and hopefully destroyed without any danger to the health and security of all Canadians.


STORAGE OF PCBS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, on May 31, 1985, three years and three months ago, the federal Government agreed to "a national system of destruction facilities for PCBs involving a mix of fixed and mobile facilities," and the proposed facility in Quebec would "treat high-level PCBs and other chlorinated organic waste from the rest of eastern Canada and the Atlantic provinces".
Since the technology to destroy PCBs has been available for years, what has happened since the announcement three years ago and since the borders of Alberta and the United States were closed to the transportation of PCBs? Why is there such a location in Saint-Basile-le-Grand? Why are there 71 locations in Nova Scotia, 41 locations in New Brunswick, 14 locations in Prince Edward Island, and dozens of locations in Newfoundland? A potential Saint-Basile exists in every province in Atlantic Canada.
Why has the Government failed in its promise of leadership three years ago to rid this country of this deadly chemical?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated previously in this House, particularly on Friday, the prime responsibility for storage and maintenance of PCBs is a provincial one. The Province of Quebec did proceed and is proceeding with respect to dealing with the substance known as PCBs.
It is obvious that all Governments are concerned about what happened in Saint-Basile-le-Grand. This Government in particular, with the co-operation of all Governments in Canada, will make sure that such instances do not occur again, and deal with the maintenance and destruction of PCBs in a safe way in order that they do not damage or endanger Canadians' health and security.
Oral Questions


NEWFOUNDLAND RAILWAY-TRANSPORTATION OF PCBS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the only way PCBs are transported in Canada today is by rail from each province to the port of Montreal where they are containerized and then sent across the ocean to Pontypool, Wales, in the United Kingdom, for destruction.
It is outrageous enough that we would be shipping our filth to another country and risking the ocean environment while we are doing it, but does the Government not realize that by discontinuing the Newfoundland Railway next month it will be unable to carry PCBs by rail? Is the Government suggesting they be carried by our one and only road across the province? Does the Government not realize that every province in Canada has alternate road routes and a railway on which to carry dangerous chemicals? Newfoundland has neither.
Will the Government of Canada now keep the railway open for the transportation of dangerous goods, or does it care about the health and safety of Newfoundlanders?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted of course to try to be as amusing as the Hon. Member but I think this issue is serious enough that we should perhaps not try to divert attention from this important subject.
I understand that some provinces were very concerned with dealing with PCBs, Quebec in particular, which was working and is still working on a project with respect to the destruction of PCBs. Obviously the population is involved and there is intense consultation that is going on, but I can assure all Hon. Members of this House, and Canadians in general, that the federal Government will continue to co-operate with the provinces in order to come up with a valid solution to this problem with safety for all Canadians.


WINNIPEG-STORAGE OF PCBS IN RAILWAY BOXCAR
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a good example here this afternoon of what is wrong with environmental law. The Minister of the Environment in Manitoba maintained for two days that it was a federal matter, and the Minister here, when he is backed into a corner, says it is a provincial matter. The fact is there is a need for co-ordination at both levels to deal with the problem. It has not been dealt with properly by any level of government.
The Minister has said we ought to pay attention to the facts. I ask him how he has the nerve to get up and say on behalf of the Minister of the Environment that the boxcar, which incidentally is in my riding, has a fence around it? I was there Thursday afternoon. I walked in from Springfield Road. There is no fence. You just walk in, and walk down the track.
I was there for half an hour and I never even bumped into anybody. I went back later under CP Rail supervision to have a look at the car. There was no seal on it but there is now; no lock, only a bolt.

August 29, 1988
Oral Questions
If the Minister is interested in the facts, why did he not get the facts that were available to me through Environment Canada? He appears to be unable to get those same facts.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I obviously do not know what site the Hon. Member inspected but my information is to the effect that the car is in an isolated area, located on a track which is fenced and patrolled regularly. More importantly, the car has been inspected and is secure, with no leakages.


REQUEST FOR STORAGE REGULATIONS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 had hoped we would not have to argue about whether something is fenced or not. The fact of the matter is that on one complete side of the North Transcona yards there is no fence. Anyone with eyes to see can see that. I am surprised the Minister would get up and maintain that. It is beside a track which is the main lead into the CP railyard in North Transcona. The switch leading into it is not locked. There are all kinds of things that could have been done to make that a safer storage site that were not done, and Environment Canada says the guidelines were being adhered to.
Are these guidelines going to be reviewed so that these kinds of cases will not occur again? Are there going to be regulations, because we know there are no federal regulations with respect to the storage of PCBs? The Bill the Minister referred to has only to do with spills after they occur. It has nothing to do with storage. There are no regulations and it is about bloody time there were.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the facts themselves, I am informed again that the information I have been given is what has been seen on the site. Of course if the Hon. Member-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Then you are stupid, because there is no fence.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre H. Cadieux: Of course-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I walked in there myself, you idiot!


Mr. McDermid:: You walk through fences!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It was your ego that walked through.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Of course, Mr. Speaker-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I don't walk through fences. I could if I had to.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I personally did not go there. Therefore I will take the Hon. Member's comments as notice and I will check with the appropriate people who have given me the report with respect to the fact that this car was fenced and was being patrolled. I can assure this House that, if that is not the case, not only will it be done but some people will probably be answering those questions for me.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


Mr. Thacker:: Why didn't you say something about it sooner? You sat on it all weekend!


Mr. Andre:: Why didn't you do something Thursday about it-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I did.


Harvie Andre: -if it was so life threatening?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I didn't say it was life threatening.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker, in a recent judgment the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed a ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that spouses who worked for their mates should not be denied unemployment insurance benefits. Since the Unemployment Insurance Commission may still appeal this judgment to the Supreme Court of Canada, will the Minister state today whether the Government has agreed to accept the judgment of the Federal Court and forgo any appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada? In other words, will the Government accept the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Commission that spouses should have the same right to unemployment insurance as all other Canadians?
Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is early days yet on this decision. The Department of Justice and my Department are reviewing the decision and once we reach a conclusion we will be able to report back to the House.


PARENTAL BENEFITS-FEDERAL COURT HEARING
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly clear-cut matter. I had hoped we would have a decision before the end of this week.
Will the Minister also tell the House whether the Government has decided to accept the Federal Court decision in June that parental benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be available to natural parents in the same way as adoptive parents, that these benefits should be available to both father and mother, and that they should be distinct from
August 29, 1988
[Stage Direction]
pregnancy benefits? Would the Minister inform the House with respect to that judgment today if possible?
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that particular judgment, Mr. Justice Strayer has asked counsel to put forward suggestions to him with respect to the form of judgment. There is, in fact, no judgment as yet as a result of the decision of last June. By the end of this month there will be a formal judgment issued by the court, at which time we will have an opportunity of assessing that with respect to future courses of action.
[ Translation]


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Environment. Last week, my party leader asked for a list of PCB storage sites in Quebec and throughout Canada. Environment Canada promised to provide it by the end of last week. Now we have not received this most important list. Why? Does such a list exist? And when will the Government provide this list of PCB storage sites?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I was in the House last Friday, such a list exists and it will be made public this week.


REQUEST THAT CONSTITUENCY LISTS BE DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister supply each Member of Parliament, who is naturally very concerned about his or her own area, with a list of PCB storage sites there in order to enable Members to take further action? Can each Member of Parliament receive a list of storage sites of PCBs in their constituencies?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware which method the Department of the Environment was to use to make the list public. I will bring that to their attention and insist that a copy of the list be sent to each Member of Parliament.
Oral Questions ABORTION


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER-INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the Prime Minister's new position, his about-face on the abortion issue.
Last month the Government appeared before the Supreme Court and argued that the Supreme Court should postpone the Borowski case until this Parliament had an opportunity to pass legislation. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that this Parliament is postponing legislation until the Supreme Court deals with the Borowski case.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain this contradiction? Can he explain why the Prime Minister lacks the conviction and courage to introduce legislation in this House?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether the Hon. Member has a valid question and whether he speaks on behalf of his Party. I find it passing strange that the Hon. Member would be critical of anyone with respect to positions on abortion when his own Leader said that his own position is irrelevant. He refused, on a number of occasions, to indicate what his point of view was on that issue.
This is not a partisan issue. The fact is that the Borowski case is being heard on October 3. The Prime Minister has stated the obvious. There is the Morgantaler case and the imperatives with respect to it.
As far as the Charter of Rights considerations are concerned, the Prime Minister is simply saying that if there is an election this fall he does not think there would be an opportunity to have Parliament deal with it before the election. That is all he said.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, that's not what he said. He said he was going to wait until the Borowski case before the Government introduces legislation.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is abdicating his responsibility to provide leadership on the issue. For the last seven months the Government has promised legislation on the abortion issue. The Minister said last March that the Cabinet was considering legislation as an urgent priority.
In documentation filed with the Supreme Court of Canada two weeks ago the Government argued that:
-answering the constitutional questions in the abstract, without passing
upon the validity of any subsisting legislation, would involve a serious risk of
encroaching directly upon the legislation function.
That is what the Government is arguing before the Supreme Court. Why is the Government saying one thing before the

August 29, 1988
Oral Questions
Supreme Court of Canada and telling the people of Canada another thing here in the Parliament of Canada?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are not. I am sorry that the Hon. Member attempts to pretend that the matter has not been dealt with by Parliament. We made a commitment as a Government and a Party that Parliament would have an opportunity to vote on this in a free vote. We brought forward a motion which was debated and amended and upon which every Member had an opportunity to vote. I do not know whether the Hon. Member was here for that vote.


Some Hon. Members:: No, he wasn't.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If he was not he should read Hansard to see precisely what transpired. There was no conclusive result from that debate. The Government is considering the matter now in terms of the next steps that could be taken and is reviewing its options.
I do not think that that is abdicating our responsibility. We allowed Parliament to have a free vote on this issue and no consensus was reached as a result. We, as a Government, will resolve this matter at the earliest possible date.


FORESTRY
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In the last round of Forest Renewal Agreements, or FRDAs as they are known, the federal Government put up $609.9 million. The B.C. industry, which produces about one-half of Canada's forest products, received less than one-quarter of the FRDA funds. That agreement runs out in about one year.
Since the Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba agreements run out in six months would the Minister advise the House why Cabinet continues to withhold approval for negotiations in the West and has not even identified a pool of funds for such agreements?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I responded to that question last week or the week before. I said that this matter was under consideration and that there were discussions going on. I am sure that when a decision is made it will be announced.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there are no negotiations and no funds have been identified. I confirmed that with the office of the Minister of State for Forestry this morning.


FEDERAL FUNDING
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there is a growing body of opinion that the combination of the inclusion of the 15 per cent export tax as Article 2009 in the trade deal and the recent B.C. government decision to terminate replanting subsidies for the forest industry in B.C., which was preapproved by Washington, means that there will not be a new sustainable agreement on reforestation for B.C. Would the Minister tell us when there will be negotiations and where the money will come from for those agreements in western Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the NDP is
back at it again. When we announced the earlier Special Grains Program they wanted to know whether it was going to be new money, old money, borrowed money, or just what the case was. The money was found and distributed. The same thing happened with the science and technology program, and with child care.
The fact is that the Government has made a very strong and firm commitment toward regional development with ACOA, western diversification, and various ERDA agreements. We have demonstrated that we are committed to regional development, and we put our money where our mouth is every time.


DISASTERS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour who is representing the Minister of the Environment on the matter of the catastrophe at Saint-Basile-le-Grand. Earlier in the Question Period I understood the Minister to say that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act had been in force since June 30 and that that was evidence of his Government's commitment to action on environmental matters like Saint-Basile-le-Grand.
If it is the case that the Environmental Protection Act was in place since June 30 and the federal Government was vigilantly using that Act to carry out its responsibilities, how is it that the Saint-Basile-le-Grand disaster took place?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, I think his question is a little bit strange. Nevertheless, since I am to answer the question, I will repeat what I have already said. It is no relief, but nevertheless remains the fact, that the prime responsibility for the storage of PCB's at that site at Saint-Basile-le-Grand was under provincial jurisdiction. It is obvious that with our movement with respect to the Act about which we are talking we will probably be in a better position to inform our provincial colleagues of what steps ought to be
August 29, 1988

taken to ensure that in the future no similar circumstances occur anywhere in Canada, irrespective of jurisdiction.


GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in answer to an earlier question the Hon. Minister boasted about the Environmental Protection Act passed by the Government being in force on June 30. Yet he has been unable to explain why it had no impact in preventing the disaster at Saint-Basile-le-Grand. The Minister also said that the storage of PCBs at Saint-Basile-le-Grand was primarily a provincial responsibility.
Why was it that on August 26, in the Ottawa Citizen, the following quote was attributed to the Minister of the Environment:
There's a collective responsibility between the federal government and the provinces to ensure that people's health is secure in the face of this kind of possibility," McMillan said.
He was speaking about the catastrophe at Saint-Basile-le-Grande. Why is the Minister contradicting his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, in not accepting the reality that there is a federal responsibility in these matters as in Saint-Basile-le-Grand and across the country? Why is the Government not accepting that responsibility and taking action, not only to prevent cases like that in Saint-Basile-le-Grand but to prevent future cases across the country since it has supposedly an inventory of PCB storage sites all across this land?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the logic in my hon. friend's trend of thought. But I guess that's obvious to everybody. Nevertheless, I do not think I was boasting about the particular Act that was passed and adopted on June 30, 1988. I was simply indicating that this Government, contrary to the former Government, took action. We finally came in with a Bill that was passed and adopted by the House which gives us the tools to deal with such situations. Those tools did not exist under the previous Government. Not only will we exercise our responsibility in federal jurisdiction but obviously, as we have been able to do since 1984, the Government will continue to work with the provinces in order to protect Canadian health and safety whenever possible.


FINANCE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. He should be aware that one of the best ways to cool off inflationary pressures in the Metro Toronto area without raising interest
Oral Questions
rates would be to institute a residential housing speculation tax.
Will the Minister give us his undertaking that the Government will institute such a tax in order to fight inflation in the Metro Toronto area and in southern Ontario, without discouraging economic growth in other parts of Canada by increasing interest rates?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful to the Hon. Member if I reminded him of the number of steps taken under the tax reform leadership shown by the Minister of Finance with regard to measures that will inhibit speculation on real estate.
The measures involved include the elimination of MURB's, the increase in the inclusion rate for capital gains, the reduction in the capital cost allowance rate for real estate from 5 per cent to 4 per cent, and the introduction of the cumulative net investment loss account to discourage excessive sheltering of ordinary income.
Finally, as the Hon. Member knows, the Government continues to support, as do the majority of Canadians, the exemption of principal residences from capital gains taxation.


PROPOSED LOCATION OF LABORATORY CENTRE FOR DISEASE CONTROL
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister appointed an expert committee with industrial and scientific capacity to make a recommendation with regard to the location of the laboratory centre for disease control in Winnipeg. This committee recommended that the centre be located near the medical school and the Health Sciences Centre.
The Tory MP's from Manitoba got together and unanimously recommended that the centre go to St. Boniface, which is presently held by a Conservative Member of Parliament. Will the Minister respect the recommendation of his committee, play straight with Winnipegers, and locate the centre where it had been recommended by the expert committee, or will he simply play pork-barrel politics with this centre for disease control?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. 1 appreciate that he has changed his view since we first announced the LCDC coming to Winnipeg when he did not think it was all that important. Now he feels that it is important. As I said in Winnipeg and elsewhere in Manitoba, an announcement will be made when there is a decision. I will not tell it to him directly today.

August 29, 1988
Oral Questions


Cyril Keeper: I hope the Minister can back up what he said about my view with regard to the centre being located in Winnipeg. At no time did I downgrade the fact that this centre would be located in Winnipeg.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Cyril Keeper: Mr, Speaker, the people of Winnipeg want to know whether the Minister will place the centre where it should be in order to fulfil its promise or whether he will give into the temptation of playing pork-barrel politics just because his back-bench MP's are telling him to put it in St. Boniface. Put it where it belongs and stop playing pork-barrel politics. Tell us when you will announce that decision.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that he is applauding the federal Government's initiative and putting the LCDC in Winnipeg. It is a very welcome change of tune from what I have heard from the NDP, both provincially and federally-


Mr. McCurdy:: What nonsense.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -saying about this Government's commitment to Winnipeg. While they may get a little irritated about my saying it, it is about time they heard it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: There is nothing unusual about dishonesty from that side.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just relax, our health care costs will go up if you keep going on like that.
Advice has been given to me from the advisory committee. I made that quite public. There is also an environmental study that we have to do under federal regulations for buildings such as this. When that material is complete and I have made a decision, I will announce it.


CHILDREN
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Revenue my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It concerns the Criminal Code of Canada.
The Minister will know that a few weeks ago I publicly called upon the Government to ban the importation into Canada of an offensive product known as Garbage Pail Kids cards. These are bubble gum cards depicting the mutilation, dissection, burning and murdering of small children.
Given that the promoter of this product now says he wants to bring into Canada a movie known as Garbage Pail Kids- The Movie, will the Minister of Justice state in the House that he will not let this kind of offensive movie into our country?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Department of National Revenue that current regulations with respect to importation of obscenity into Canada are being strictly observed. If the Hon. Member has any influence with his caucus colleagues, he might want to draw their attention to very progressive legislation, Bill C-54, which has specifically directed prohibitions against pornography, which might be of assistance to him with respect to the kind of offensive material he describes. He might be able to convince his colleagues to bring this matter into committee so that we can see whether there are better ways to improve the protection at our borders with respect to salacious material.


CRIMINAL CODE-APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps for once I can try to get a non partisan answer from the Government. I will try to be the same myself.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Given the present provisions of the Criminal Code on obscenity and crime comics, has the Attorney General, the Minister of Justice, attempted to receive information from his officials or the officials of the Department of Revenue in order to determine whether all of these products, the movie or the bubble gum cards in question, which offend millions of Canadians in their right mind, should be banned? Will he take that initiative and ban this offensive product that I believe is objectionable to all Members of the House and offensive to right-minded parents?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will give a non partisan response to the question. It is a serious question. I am not attempting to make it a partisan issue.
I am simply saying that it has been long recognized that our present obscenity laws-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Nonsense.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -require strengthening. Nonsense says the Hon. Member.
The fact is that we will be monitoring the situation. I am sure the Department of National Revenue is taking into account the representations made by the Hon. Member. I am not in a position to report to the Hon. Member as to precisely what action has been taken. I will take the question as notice and pass it on to my colleague. I am sure he will get back to the Hon. Member.
August 29, 1988


NATIONAL PARKS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. President of the Treasury Board or to her alternate. Given that excessive rates are charged civil servants and the RCMP who live in government owned houses in Banff, which has the highest rents of any national park in Canada, including Jasper National Park where rents for similar accommodations are some $300 lower, will the Hon. Minister lower the Banff rentals to what is charged in Jasper National Park or, at the very least, send someone with authority to the area to resolve this problem?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will know that housing rental rates vary from community to community. Canada Mortgage and Housing is responsible for setting the rental appraisals on an annual basis on all federal Crown owned land. As it happens in the case of Banff, CMHC has established that there is a viable rental market which in fact is higher than in Jasper and other places in Canada. I point out that the appraisal methodology is approved by the National Joint Council and is part of the collective agreement we have with the 14 union members. However, I would say that I would be pleased to provide a briefing opportunity for my friend to review this with Treasury Board officials.


Mr. Speaker:: These will be the last two questions.


IMMIGRATION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, the report of the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council which was issued last Friday recommends that "The federal Government ensure that access to language training is available to all immigrants". Does the Minister agree with the recommendation? If so, what steps will she and her Government take to change the present rules which restrict official language training according to people's intended occupations?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I would also like to thank the Advisory Council for a very thoughtful and excellent report on immigration in Canada. Certainly language training is a very important element of people being able to settle in Canada and take a full part in Canadian life.
Point of Order-Mr. Cadieux
As the Hon. Member knows, we have extended the language training through the Settlement Language Training Program and, through the Job Entry we have made it easier for immigrant women, for example, to receive language training in connection with their job training.
The chief difficulty is with women who remain at home. That is why we focused on those particular aspects.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Spadina on a short supplementary.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, with respect to women who are supposedly destined to be at home, or women who are supposedly destined for jobs that do not require English, or men destined for such low paid jobs, or school children who receive no federal help for classes in English as the second language or French as the second language in their school, will the Minister continue to withhold official language training from such a large proportion of immigrants? Or will she take steps to change the rules?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, what we have done is attempt to expand language training for those most in need. Let me say that in terms of children, one of the reasons we have such a broad consultation process on immigration matters with the provinces, with employers, with labour groups and with various non-government organizations, is so, whatever immigration laws are determined, provincial educational systems and programs in place are able to deal with the numbers.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that I have, I think, two probably short points of order, one from the Minister of Labour and the other from the Hon. Member for Churchill. 1 also have a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


POINTS OF ORDER
Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), had personal experience with respect to the Winnipeg boxcar, I had the officials, during Question Period, check the information again. It appears that I have been misled on the existence of the fence. Most important, with respect to the situation of the car itself, it is being inspected and it is safe, but with respect to the existence of the fence I have been misled and I am going to ask officials of Environment Canada to explain why I have been misled.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 29, 1988
Point of Order-Mr. Murphy Mr. Murphy: At least that Minister is not fenced in. WITHDRAWAL OF COMMENT


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to withdraw a word I used in Statements earlier today with respect to the Minister for Grains and Oilseeds (Mr. Mayer). I said he was acting in a manner which was treason to Manitoba. I certainly withdraw that word.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which affects all Members of Parliament as well as some 17,000 subscribers to The Globe and Mail in the National Capital Region. For the past several years The Globe and Mail has printed its second national edition here in Ottawa and has distributed that edition to the House of Commons as well as to other people in Ottawa. Political and other events taking place up until 10 p.m. eastern time and 7 p.m. Pacific Time were covered in that edition.
This spring The Globe and Mail changed that practice and began to supply to this House copies of its first national edition which is trucked from Toronto and which has a deadline of only 3 p.m. Pacific Time and 6 p.m. eastern time. That means that when this Parliament sits in the evening, as we did on tax reform and other issues last week, or when a federal leader meets the press in the afternoon in Vancouver, no news of those events appears in copies of Canada's national newspaper that is available to parliamentarians.
I have checked and this applies very specifically in the Parliamentary Reading Room, in the Centre Block, as well as the copies of The Globe and Mail which are reviewed for inclusion in the press digest, which we know as Quorum and which is read by all Members of Parliament. To add insult to injury, that late national edition with the 10 p.m. deadline is still printed in Ottawa but only for distribution in Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, and in the United States. That means that on Pennsylvania Avenue or Wall Street, New York financiers, Mr. Reagan and Members of Congress, receive a better service from Canada's national newspaper in terms of the news it covers than Members of Parliament or other people here in the Ottawa area.
I would hesitate to suggest this is a precursor of free trade, but 1 would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to lend your weight to ensure that The Globe and Mail stops giving second-class service to the people of Ottawa, particularly to Canada's national Parliament, or it should stop calling itself "Canada's national newspaper".


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has raised this as a question of privilege. I have some difficulty in being able to
bring the complaint within that particular forum. However, I am sure The Globe and Mail will be properly impressed with the need of all Hon. Members to be promptly informed of national events. I have no doubt that the Hon. Member's intervention will be noticed by the paper in question and might even get in the first edition.
Continuing debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie (St. John's West) that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your recognition and would say it is an honour for me to open debate on third reading on behalf of my Party. I think Canadians expect from Members of Parliament on this serious and, for many of us, solemn occasion, a level of debate and expression that is commensurate to the subject at hand. For that reason, I am very thankful we had a two-hour break between now and the time the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) spoke so we could clear away the somewhat putrid atmosphere of the House. After listening to the Minister, one of my colleagues noted that following the Minister for International Trade is like trying to track a skunk downwind. All one gets is the odour, not the tracks. I prefer to think of it more as coming into a small kitchen after a grease fire. All that is left is voluminous clouds of black smoke with no real content.
If I may continue the metaphor, the good thing about a grease fire is it just takes one shot of good clean cool water to clear away all the obscurity and all the fog that is created. All that it would take in this debate would be one clean cool shot of logic and common sense to dissipate the smoke and fog left after that quite miserable treatment, which was more reminiscent of a bar room brawl than it was of a serious and important exchange of different points of view.
I have been acting as trade critic for about three years. It has been a strange odyssey, but one that has taken me into the byways and highways of the country to talk to thousands of people, both by way of speech and by way of listening, as well as attending task forces. I have gone through three trade Ministers in my tenure. Watching their antics at times has been similar to watching an old movie of the Marx brothers. 1 can reminisce about the famous statement made by the Prime
August 29, 1988

Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he appointed the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). He said: "I am going to give the Minister the ball and watch her go". We saw where she went. She went over her own goal line and scored a touchdown in her own end zone when she negotiated the softwood lumber agreement that cost the Canadian industry $100 million.
Of course we have the wonderful example of the present Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) who has given new dimension to the meaning of illiteracy. He had the gall to stand up and say with respect to the most important decision facing Canadians in decades that he had not bothered to read the basic document yet. He was going to rely upon his officials to tell him what was in it. I am sure his officials are trustworthy. But I would say that an abdication of responsibility such as the Minister confessed to is one that is singular in the historical annals of the country.
In saying that I want to say that I have had some interesting companions along the way. I pay tribute to my friend, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), who in all my travels has been to every committee, travelled with every task force and been involved in every debate along with me.
I also want to pay some compliment to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) who is not in the House at the moment. I would say that while I totally disagree with everything that he has had to say, and while we have fought hard and in some cases in a tough way, I have also respected the way in which he has conducted himself in this House. I appreciate the fact that over the past two or three years in trying to organize this very important exercise in the House of Commons we have been able to retain a level of respect for one another. I certainly do for him.
I appreciate those kinds of options. I believe that this is a debate that should not be conducted in a fit of vindictiveness, a spirit of meanness. Unfortunately, those are the qualities that the present Minister for International Trade brought to the debate. It should be conducted on the basis of hard, serious exchange of two very different points of view, two very different versions of what the country is about, two very different visions of what is Canada.
If I have any assessment, any feeling after three years of being involved in this matter, it is how much it has divided the country. There was with some great irony last night as I watched the Prime Minister in his 20 minutes of free paid political advertising offered by the CBC. He was asked this question: "What would you consider to be your greatest accomplishment?" He said: "National unity". Immediately my mind flashed back to the intense, sometimes bitter conflict between business and labour, between region and region, between one group and another, between church groups and the chambers of commerce and the way that this debate has divided the country like no other issue ever has. It has been far more intense than have been issues of language, issues of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
regional division. It has gone to our very heart and soul. The country is split right down the middle. For the Prime minister to say that his greatest accomplishment was national unity makes me wonder what planet he came from. What spaceship has he been on if he does not recognize that out there in the country there is an internal roiling of feeling, of emotion and of conflict?
I looked back at a novel written by Benjamin Disraeli entitled Sybil in which he described England in the 19th century. I thought it was reminiscent of Canada in 1988. He wrote:
"Two nations, between them there is no intercourse, no sympathy, who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were dwellers on different planets in different zones, who are formed by different breeding, are fed by different foods, are ordered by different manners, are not governed by the same laws."
When asked of whom he spoke, he said the rich and the poor. It is close to that in Canada now. I am not sure the divisions are totally between rich and poor. Let us look at the differences and the divisions in terms of groups that have appeared before the committee to express their views on the trade agreement.
In favour of the free trade agreement were the Business Council on National Issues, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Petroleum Association of Canada, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association. On the other side of the debate is the Canadian Labour Congress, the Quebec Federation of Labour, Canadian Federation of National Trade Unions, the Quebec Teachers Federation, the Canadian Teachers Federation, the United Church of Canada, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Women Working With Immigrant Women, and the National Anti-poverty Organization. There is the division of our country in front of us. That is what this Government has created.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Members opposite wish to make light of this. The fact of the matter is, as they well know, we have two solitudes. We have these two worlds. The Government has rammed right down the middle and split them apart. We saw it this morning with the Minister for International Trade. There was no sense of understanding or comprehension of the other side. No. He just put his steel jackboots on and tramped over everybody who disagreed with him.


Mr. Robichaud:: Rambo-style.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right. Rambo-style. Put an Uzi submachine gun in the hands of the Minister for International Trade and let him spew all over the country. He does not care who he hits. He just wants to let us have it. That may be okay if one is an adolescent going to a Saturday afternoon movie.

Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
But we are here debating a serious subject which goes to the very heart and core of the country.
As the Minister for International Trade said this morning, it is not a new debate. He made it sound as if the pro-free traders have just been waiting on the precipice of history to come to this divine goal one day, that they are somehow divinely ordained, pre-ordained to bring us this new Valhalla, this new heaven upon earth. What he did not say is that this is a debate that has brought the country into internal conflict generation after generation. I have to say that his reading of history is very strange and unique. He talked about Laurier, King and Pearson as being somehow proponents of free trade with the United States. I would like to remind you, Madam Speaker, and the House that in all the cases he cited free trade was defeated by the Canadian people. Elections were held and they withdrew.
What he did not say is an interesting footnote to history. In 1849 the merchant class of Montreal, Canada's business elite-342 Canadians who were the princes of Canadian industry at that time-signed what? They signed an annexation manifesto to join with the United States. Why? Because they had lost the preferential tariff under the British system. Free of having this country pursue its own independent course, what did that merchant class at that time based on the Conservative Party of Canada decide was the solution to Canada's problems? Annexation by the United States. That has been a train of thought, a philosophy, and a Pavlovian response by the same group ever since. Every time they feel a challenge, every time they feel that there is something out there that will threaten the comfortable cocoon, what is their solution? Annexation by the United States. Unfortunately, the problem is that for the first time in 100 years the so-called Montreal merchant class has a Prime Minister who agrees with them. That is the problem. They finally got a national government in sympathy with those views.
This morning I listened to the Minister for International Trade talk about history as somehow being on the side of the free traders. Yes, there were powerful forces and powerful coalitions promoting this cause since the inception of this country, but fortunately time after time when it came forward it was beaten back and disregarded.
The Minister for International Trade rose and stated that 1911 was a classic example of the value given by history to free trade. What he did not mention is that when the Government went to the polls, the Laurier people were defeated, with a large defection of Liberals on the side, including for one, Edward Blake, the major Grit leader in Ontario. The fact of the matter is that it was a serious debate but it was defeated. When Mackenzie King sat down and had this discussion with the Americans, why did he not go ahead? Because he realized very clearly that it would give the Americans what they want, and that would be final control of this continent. Therefore, the history lesson supplied this morning by the Minister for
August 29, 1988
International Trade was highly selective and distorted, to say the least.
One thing strikes everybody seemingly strange, and I must say I was waiting for an answer when I listened to the Minister for International Trade this morning as he quoted Laurier, King, Gerry Regan, and Donald Macdonald. The person he did not quote was the present Prime Minister of Canada. In 1983, in his last pre-election statement on the issue, he stated: "Free trade with the United States affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it, not during leadership campaigns, or any other time". He went on to state: "Free trade with the United States is like sleeping with an elephant". The Prime Minister further stated: "Canadian plants wouldn't be able to compete with larger scale U.S. firms". The Prime Minister also stated: "Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911, they would do so again in 1983".
It is funny that we did not hear those quotes from the Minister for International Trade this morning. Is it not unusual that he did not quote his leader who had made all those statements?
A previous Prime Minister, who competed in the same leadership campaign, and is now the distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), stated: "Ontario and Quebec would be the hardest hit because of their industries, but we are in a position to benefit earlier from technological measures. When you are moving towards a common market-" for all those Tories who say that harmonization is not a problem, let me cite to them the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He stated: "You must accept some other ties. Our health insurance system is much more sophisticated than theirs, as well as some of our environmental or health standards, and they could be jeopardized. To ignore our interest outside the U.S. would also be in danger".
I did not hear the Minister for International Trade quote the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yet I thought the Secretary of State for External Affairs made some very important statements back in 1983.
The Minister of Trade stated this morning that we have a great Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). He really understands what is going on. Let me quote the Minister of Finance who stated: "Talk of bilateral free trade strikes me as simplistic and naive. The U.S. has its national interest and we should enunciate clearly and pursue vigorously our own. Too much would have to be compromised especially by Canada to make a mutually acceptable broad master plan the best option". "Too much would have to be compromised", says the Minister of Finance.
The distinguished Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees), dean of the House, has stated the same thing. "Free trade is a threat to our sovereignty". I suspect that a large part of the present front bench of the Conservative Party has a similar point of view. Therefore, the question has to be asked, why divide the country when in 1983 all those sages of Canadian
August 29, 1988

political wisdom clearly foresaw the dangers, clearly understood the problems, and clearly saw the vulnerabilities that were being engaged in? What happened? Was it a hoax? Was it a big con job? Was the whole thing born in a lie? Did the present Prime Minister all along know secretly that he was going to do it, and he just was not telling Canadians the truth? I suggest that the results of 1984 would have been very different if the Prime Minister had been forthcoming and honest and stated that this is what he was going to do. I suspect that, in 1984, many Canadians would have looked much differently at the present Prime Minister and the Members he was trying to elect, for example the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister of Finance, if they had stated that now they had changed their minds. Can we then assume that they were keeping it secret?
When I hear the Minister and his colleagues castigate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), or other members of the Opposition, for what they call misrepresentations, what could be a greater misrepresentation than the words I have cited, taken to an election, and then a few months after the exact opposite being done? A change is initiated that is of glacial proportions. It will shift the geology of this country, but nobody is told about it. It is kept a deep, dark secret. What greater example of misrepresentation? What greater example of mistruth is there than that? The whole basic foundation of this agreement started with a lie, with a mistruth.
I would say that perhaps the Prime Minister knew all along what he was going to do. He knew that he could not say it in the election, because he would not be the Prime Minister, so he kept it tucked away. I believe he had different reasons. When the plan was proposed, and the Prime Minister appeared on television, it was interesting to hear the reasons why. When we judge it in the light of the present circumstances, surely Canadians must judge this agreement based upon a very hardnosed calculus of costs and benefits. That is the bottom line for a country. It is not for a corporation, but it is for a country. Therefore, we must examine very carefully the balance between those costs and benefits. We have to ask, what are the great economic bonanzas that will fall upon us?
It is very interesting that, as time goes on, those promises shrink to the point where they are now so miniscule they are hardly talked about any more. Did we hear the Minister for International Trade use any facts and figures this morning in terms of projecting the economic benefits of this agreement? Not once did he ever comment on this type of projected growth rate or employment. He used rhetoric, but no hard facts.
It was interesting to note that, during the course of committee hearings, on several occasions when representatives of the business community appeared, they would say: "We think there will be prosperity. We hope there will be jobs. We believe there will be economic growth". I would say: "Such a statement of faith is okay for a theologian but you are supposed to be a hard-nosed business person. Give us the hard facts". They could not provide them. The reason is because there is no sure
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
guarantee. There is no magic wand that will have Canada all of a sudden move into the promised land.
The Economic Council of Canada, well known to be in favour of Canada-U.S. free trade, tried its best, used every possible good news criteria. Do you know what they come up with? Hold your hat, because this is going to knock you off your seat. It was a quarter of 1 per cent a year growth based on the assumption that there would be a 6 per cent productivity growth in the meantime. I asked Dr. Maxwell, the Director, in front of the committee: "What happens if you do not get the 6 per cent productivity growth and there is no guarantee? Isn't it true that there would be less growth under the Canada-U.S. trade agreement in manufacturing than there would be under the status quoT' Do you know what Dr. Maxwell's answer was? "Yes, that is right". If those enlarged, gargantuan predictions of productivity growth are not there, or are there only in partial terms, then we will have less growth in manufacturing under this agreement than we would have otherwise.
The jobs that they are talking about, primarily in the service sector, are lowly paid clerical jobs, again confirmed by the Economic Council. You will lose somebody in the printing industry and end up having somebody serving hotdogs at McDonald's. I am not sure that that is the right kind of tradeoff that Canadians expect they are buying. I am not sure that that is the kind of economic promise that should be fulfilled.
Projection after projection, whether it is the Department of Finance or the Economic Council or Informetrica, comes up with the same conclusion, that the actual incremental growth in Canada over 10 years is marginal. Informetrica, which is an independent agency, said: "No one can argue any more about the question of whether there is more or less growth, because it is simply not there. It is hard to predict". I am not necessarily saying that there is less growth, but I will tell you that there is not that kind of great cornucopia pouring out thousands of new jobs that the Prime Minister talked about back in 1985.
Of course, what the Government did not talk about are the job losses. We have heard from the then Minister of Employment and Immigration that It could be close to 500,000 dislocated workers. Well, someone got to him and he changed his mind.
The Economic Council talks about 150,000 to 180,000. Let me give you an example of just how untrustworthy these figures are. A brief submitted by the food processors from Mr. McLean of McCain's Food predicted that in the agrifood industry, which is one of Canada's largest employers, there could be upwards of 60,000 job losses, spread right across the country. The reason is that, very clearly, the food processing industry is put in a dilemma. It cannot go ahead and buy the raw materials at the same price that the Americans can supply it. Their answer is very simple. They are going to move south. They will take their capital and move it where they can get a lower price for potatoes, chickens or whatever it may be. That

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
will have an impact on farming, processing and retailing, all the way up the chain.
The Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the federal Government came in front of our committee. I asked him: "Have you studied the impact of this agreement on the agrifood industry?" Do you know what the answer was? He said no. One of Canada's largest industries, one of the most important foundations of this country in terms of self-sufficiency and food, and the Department of Agriculture had not got around to studying what the impact would be. He said: "But I can tell you that the food processing people are wrong because I read the Economic Council report". I said, "How did they arrive at their calculations?" He said, "Oh, by a computer".
There are people in the industry who say that there are going to be job losses. The Deputy Minister of Agriculture said that he relied on somebody else's computer. I put it to this House, who would you rather trust? I heard from the Minister for International Trade that 1 should listen to people in industry. He said to listen to the council of wisdom, the people who create the jobs. Well, I did. What do they say? "We are going to lose jobs". The printing industry said that 6,000 jobs may be at risk. The textile people, the clothing people, the electrical appliance people, they were not kidding. They said: "We have big problems here if you go ahead".
At the same time, we have a Government that refuses to talk about adjustment, that is perpetrating one of the great falsehoods of all time, saying: "We do not need any adjustment programs because there will be so few people affected, or communities affected. We will get by with the Canadian Jobs Strategy", which is that great success story that every committee of this Commons has lacerated as being a total failure. Nor do they say that the Canadian Jobs Strategy has had its budget cut by 30 or 40 per cent.
My colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has stated many times in this House that the Government-how can they make the case and keep a straight face while they are doing it-claims they are going to deal with the thousands of people needing adjustment in food processing or printing when they have already cut back 30 or 40 per cent from their present budget and they cannot even meet the need? There are community colleges across Canada closing their doors because of a lack of money under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. 1 know the reason why they will not have adjustment programs. They are afraid that under the trade agreement any attempt to help workers or industries will be subject to countervail, to trade action.
If anyone wants to see a clear case in point of how we are limiting our freedom of action, there we are. We cannot even mount the means of responding to the problem created by the trade agreement because of the trade agreement. We do not have any adjustment programs, but we know that we are going to have job losses.
I saw in this morning's Toronto Star a report from the Social Council of Metro Toronto. They are not Grits or New
Democrats. They are a respected social agency of independent mind. What did they say? Under the trade agreement older workers will be left behind. They are going to be the real victims, people over 40 years old. People in those manufacturing industries who are going to lose their jobs cannot go to work for McDonald's and serve hamburgers the same way. The Social Council of Metro Toronto said: "Where are the programs to help?" Well, we get a placebo, a pat on the head, or assurances.
Let us talk about some other so-called economic benefits. For example, the consumer benefit. I have read the book of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) very carefully. It talks about approximately $800 in savings. There were some interesting gaps and omissions in that study.


An Hon. Member:: It is not surprising.


Lloyd Axworthy: This vision that is being presented to Canadians whereby that they can rush to Buffalo, Burlington, Grand Forks or Spokane and pick up a VCR at 50 per cent off, rush back across the border, is pure hokum, an absolute hoax. There is a rule of origin which says that anything that has less than 50 per cent North American origin is still subject to the tariff. Who do you think is making the VCRs that the Americans are buying? They are not making them in Michigan; they are making them in Taiwan and in Korea. Even if you find something that is North American in origin, when you cross the border you are still hit with the taxes, the currency controls. All of a sudden those savings begin to evaporate.


John V. Nunziata: The travel limits, they are all part of the big lie.


Lloyd Axworthy: The economist, Mr. Kerton, for the Consumers Association of Canada estimated that the savings for a Canadian family under the trade agreement as it is written might be one-fifth of 1 per cent a year, perhaps a total of 30 or 40 bucks. Mr. Racicot from the Consumer's Association of Quebec estimated $38 a year in savings, perhaps, if you are driving back and forth across the border. Those are the so-called consumer benefits. Is that going to have you dancing in the streets, 38 bucks a year? Maybe. The information that we are not being given today is what we will ultimately end up losing.
Presently, the tariff structure generates about $2 billion worth of revenue for Canada per year. That disappears. It has to be made up somehow. We either increase the deficit or we tax. We saw in the last Budget an extra $500 million raised by a new tax on gasoline to pay for what we are going to lose this year if the trade agreement goes through. You just lost your $38. If you drive a car or you heat your home, it is gone. It is not there any more. That is just the beginning. Wait until you have to pay the full $2 billion. I do not see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs talking about that in his little pamphlets that he spews around the country. It does not mention those kinds of calculations, that somehow there are
August 29, 1988

going to be major tax bites or an increase in deficits. Talk about misrepresentation. I suggest that to accept on blind faith that somehow there will be all kinds of consumer benefits is simply to live in a fool's world.
Let us turn to the final argument that the economists like to use, those evangelical economists, the Jimmy Bakkers of Canada, who are saying that if only you buy free trade, you shall be saved. Their solution for Canada is called the shock therapy system. They say that if only we had access to that big American market of 250 million people, Canadian industry would be forced to get mean and lean, really gear down and get tough and competitive and break into those markets. It sounds good in a textbook, but we have an interesting case history before us.
There are many industries which do have free trade. One of the most important such industries was the farm machinery industry. There was a time when Canada was a leader in the production of farm machinery. Some of the proudest companies in Canada, companies like Cockshutt and Massey-Ferguson, provided not only jobs but real pride. We were the leaders in the technology. We sold all around the world. By the way, we did that when we had a preferential tariff.
Over time, in the 1940s and the 1950s, the Americans eliminated their tariffs so we thought we had to eliminate ours as well. Now the bones of those farm machinery companies are strewn from one end of the country to the other. John Deere priced them out of existence. Massey-Ferguson has been sold off. Versatile, located in my City of Winnipeg, is now a branch plant of Ford. The independent farm machinery industry of Canada which had free trade, which according to economists would make it lean, mean, tough and competitive, is now a dead industry.


Mr. Hopkins:: International Harvester doesn't even have a plant.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, it does not have a plant. The Morris-Rod-Wheelen system in Yorkton is also in trouble. I know because a relative of mine is involved. The fact is that there is no magic wand. To buy the case made by people like Richard Lipsey, John Crispo and people from the Queen's School of Economy is to buy the evangelical protestations of Jimmy and Tammy Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart. It may be fun, but we will not get salvation. We may get burned along the way.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Their revenues are down too.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yeah, they have lost it all. Talk about real free trade. Sometimes we thought it was slave trade.
The point I want to make is simply that the proponents and advocates of this agreement have not been able to successfully make the case that this agreement will provide substantial improvement in jobs and in growth of consumer savings or productivity.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Let us consider the claim that this will help regional development. People tell us to look at the European Economic Community. Let us look at it. Is northern England bouncing into a wild era of prosperity and optimism because of the European Economic Community? No, it is a depressed, dilapidated region of England. The same is true of parts of Italy, Belgium and other places. Belgium has the highest level of youth unemployment and it is part of the Common Market. The problem is these countries are up against some very large economies which are simply dwarfing and swamping them.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Maggie Thatcher wouldn't understand that.


Lloyd Axworthy: My colleague says that Maggie Thatcher would not understand that. She is beginning to understand it. Now, as the Common Market is beginning to move toward some of the same things that are in this agreement, Maggie Thatcher is saying: "No, no, that takes away our sovereignty, that takes away our economic rights". She is pulling away from the precipice. Maggie Thatcher is not prepared to make a leap of faith, even though she has a broomstick to do it on. She is not going to do it.


Sergio Marchi: And she lectures us.


Lloyd Axworthy: That's right. She can come to the House of Commons and tell us that free trade is good for us, but when it comes to Great Britain, Maggie Thatcher is all of a sudden pulling in her skirts and saying: "No sirree, I'm going to defend my people".
I challenge Members on the other side to prove to us with hard facts, not rhetoric, not evangelicalism, but hard facts, that there will be economic benefits. Those facts simply are not there. Committee hearing after committee hearing, report after report, showed clearly that it was simply a smoke-screen.


Mr. Malone:: False.


Lloyd Axworthy: That comes from a Member who never attended one committee meeting and did not know what was being represented.
Let us move on to the other great statement that is made. Now we will talk about the Prime Minister, that great paragon of truth and veracity. When the agreement was introduced, he said that our highest priority is to have an agreement that ends the threat to Canadian industry from U.S. protectionists who harass and restrict our exports through misuse of trade. He said: "Let me leave no doubt that a new regime of trade remedy laws must be part of this agreement".
The Prime Minister was right in one sense. There is a new regime of trade remedy laws, but they are not the kind the Prime Minister was talking about. The end result of two and a half years of negotiations on so-called free trade with the United States to get some kind of salvation from U.S. protectionism is tougher U.S. trade laws. There is a skillful negotiator for you. There is someone who really knows how to get a good deal. After two and a half years and after putting the

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
whole country on the table, we have ended up with tougher laws applied to us.
Last week the American President signed into law the omnibus trade Bill and with it, a brand new series of trade measures. Last March, Ambassador Gotlieb, our ambassador in Washington, wrote a letter to the Members of the Congress stating clearly that this law was contrary to the spirit of the trade agreement, it was damaging to international trade and it was contrary to the principles, rights and obligations of international rules. He cited a new definition of subsidies and new powers, but I will not get into technicalities.
We asked the Minister questions in the House. We asked him what he would do about this. He said: "Oh, boy, we're really going to get tough, can't have that happen". Well, it has happened. The U.S. has introduced a new protectionist trade law with tough new measures, and the only answer we can get from the Parliamentary Secretary is that it has been watered down. When we asked him how, he could not say.
We phoned the Department of External Affairs, the trade office and the embassy in Washington to ask how the new law had been watered down, to give us an example of the changes that have been made. There is no such document. There has been no analysis done. Perhaps it has been done, but it is not going to be made public because the changes have not been made. The fact is that the new powers under the U.S. trade law are much tougher. They redefine subsidies on a much broader basis. They give new powers to the President to retaliate. They give new import relief measures and 95 per cent of the measures that were in Ambassador Gotlieb's letter are still in that Bill.
Every other independent minded country in the world, Japan, France and the European Economic Community, are protesting and are threatening to take the U.S. to GATT. What do we get from the Government of Canada in protecting the Canadian interest? We get a whimper, not even a word.
This Prime Minister said that our highest priority is to have an agreement that ends the threat to Canadian industries. Here is a new U.S. protectionist Bill now in law, and the Prime Minister of Canada did not say a peep about it. The Minister for International Trade, that big, brave, brawling, blustering, blasphemous blow-hard from Newfoundland, what did he say about it? I do not think he said anything. Did you hear him say anything, Madam Speaker? Did you read a statement from the Minister for International Trade about the omnibus trade Bill? No, I guess he was off in Newfoundland talking to all those fishermen or getting rid of railways or something.
Surely we can see how illogical this is. Talk about a joke being perpetrated on the Canadian people. How can we look back on what the Prime Minister said about getting all this new protection while faced with a brand new trade Bill that really puts it to us?
As if that were not enough, the U.S. Congress and administration introduced in their implementing legislation brand new measures to punish us even further and extend their power to harass Canadian industry. They brought in amendments to say that U.S. industry can petition the trade office to undertake studies to determine whether or not Canadian exports have government subsidies. You do not have to do the work any more, just ask us, we will pay all the bills and take those Canadians to task.
This morning the Minister for International Trade was in high dudgeon about the Leader of my Party's comments in Newfoundland about the way in which the implementing legislation creates a real threat to the Canadian fish processing industry. He stamped up and down and swore that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was guilty of the worst kind of calumny. He was not telling the truth. I went back and read the U.S. Bill. This is it right here, passed by the U.S. Congress, and here is the section. It is a long section and I will read it to you: "Canadian Controls on Fish". I am reading from the U.S. legislation: "Within 30 days of the application by Canada of export controls on unprocessed fish exempted per agreement under Article 203, or the application of landing requirements per fish caught in Canadian waters, the President shall take appropriate action to enforce U.S. rights under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In enforcing those rights the President has discretion to bring a challenge to the offending Canadian practices before GATT, retaliate against such offending practices, or seek resolution directly with Canada", et cetera.
That is the East Coast fishery we are talking about. If the Minister can somehow interpret this legislation as being protection against U.S. protectionism, then he had better put windshield wipers on his glasses because there in the Bill itself is the U.S. taking unto itself the right to challenge our ability to require processing of fish in Canada. They will take the raw fish but when we try to provide processing, there is the U.S. legislation saying we cannot do it. I ask you, is that ending the threat of U.S. protectionism which harasses and restricts our exports?
Furthermore, this same Bill carries with it instructions for the U.S. to renegotiate all the measures dealing with investment, culture, energy and resources to get even more than they got, to say nothing of the right of the U.S. to continue to apply steel quotas and implement new provisions on agriculture. Is it any wonder that the farm groups that appeared before the committee, the Western Canadian Pool, the largest farm organization, the advisory group to the Wheat Board, all said they feel we are in real danger for that reason? Yet the Bill itself provides new loopholes for U.S. trade action.
What about our own legislation? There is another great sort of coup d'etat on the part of the Prime Minister. He was such a smart negotiator that he agreed to entrench in the legislation that we passed as part of the agreement the softwood lumber
August 29, 1988

agreement. For time immemorial, if this agreement is ever implemented, we will be unable to challenge the right of the U.S. in effect to impose a 15 per cent penalty against all softwood lumber producers in Canada. In other words, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre's wrong way touchdown scored against her own goal will now be cast in bronze. We will never be able to change it.
In our own legislation, we agree that transportation subsidies for grain, something very central to my part of the world, for the first time in the history of this country, are considered to be an export related subsidy and subject to dispute resolution under the trade laws. That may not sound too profound in this Chamber, but if you are a farmer in Manitoba and you have to move your grain to Prince Albert by train and you are competing with a farmer in Minnesota who moves it down the Mississippi River system at a substantially lower cost, you will realize that by accepting that a transportation subsidy is a disputable offence, you have just given away our export market. That precedent will be established in further negotiations and it is in our own legislation.
Let me now go to the crown jewel of this commitment to obtain secure access. This is the one which in some ways tells the whole story. All the business groups, all the proponents, all the advocates, when asked about the agreement, say it is not perfect but it is an improvement. You ask them why it is an improvement and they say that we have this new dispute settlement mechanism. They make it sound as if it were new, which it is not. A more correct definition is that it is a review mechanism. The one thing that is very clear in the agreement is that U.S. trade law will still apply. We did not get any exemption as the Prime Minister promised. We did not get any special guarantee. We did not get any kind of special concession. The U.S. still retains the right, as we do, to use its own trade laws. The difference is, and I want to make this case to you, that the so-called dispute settlement mechanism is a worse system than what we have now. It will take longer, cost more, and be less protective of Canadian interests.
Let me quickly give you some examples. Under the present system we have the right to challenge the U.S. law. The omnibus Trade Bill has just been passed and it redefines a subsidy in a much broader way. If the U.S. attempts to take action against us based upon that law, we can take them to GATT and challenge it directly, saying that the law itself was not proper. It betrays the rights and obligations of the U.S. under the international trading system. Under this dispute settlement mechanism the law is not reviewed, just whether it was fairly applied. We cannot challenge the law. All we can review is whether or not the trade panel or the courts or the trade commission applied it fairly. That is all.
We got into a kind of gobbledegook with the officials and the Minister about whether you still have recourse to GATT. They say if you read Section 1802 we still have recourse to GATT except that since 1949 GATT has never accepted an appeal from any two countries that have a bilateral system. We do not have recourse to GATT. We have given up one of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the most important avenues of protecting Canadian exporters, one which has been successfully applied in the last four years against the U.S. We have had six cases, we won three, we could have won two of the others except that the Government caved in on softwood lumber, and we lost one. We had a pretty good record of challenging the law. Yet this great agreement, this great achievement, this so-called improvement, takes that option away from us.
Not only that, it will take longer to apply. What is the biggest complaint by many Canadian exporters to the U.S.? It is that U.S. industry harasses them by taking action at the International Trade Commission, goes to the Department of Commerce, and it costs you a million or two to fight your case.
Let me give you another interesting comparison. Under the particular scheme we are debating today you cannot take a review until the whole American procedure is completed. It only kicks in at the end of the procedure. Under GATT you can kick it in after a preliminary decision, almost a year earlier than this one. When you are fighting a trade action a year is a lot of money. I suggest that rather than getting an improvement we have a retardation of our ability to fight our trade wars.
What is more, it was not necessary. The only thing that has been replaced in the whole system is the final review on the grounds that it was "biased". Yet, Ambassador Ritchie, who is recognized by all sides as being an honest man, when asked whether the present system was biased, said no. He said that the International Court of Trade in New York judges impartially. The only thing we replaced was the one thing that was working very well.
Is that what you consider a great accomplishment, Madam Speaker, a system that cuts off one of your major recourses, does not allow you to challenge the law, takes longer, costs more money and replaces something that was working perfectly well? That is a so-called benefit.


John Horton McDermid: That isn't the testimony the manufacturers gave at all, and you know it.


Lloyd Axworthy: In terms of this agreement the Government makes Neville Chamberlain look like a winner. In that great pantheon of winners along with Neville Chamberlain and General Westmoreland will go the name of the Prime Minister. This is a full-scale, absolutely incredible defeat for Canadian interests. The only thing that can be said for it is that they are certainly trying to propagandize it. We are cutting down forests across the country to produce paper on which to print the message that this was a great achievement.
That is why we need an election. It is only through daily word of mouth comments that these facts and this kind of hard-nosed analysis will come out. The business people who support the agreement will be required to read the agreement and learn what it means. If they are going to be honest about it

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
they will see that it is simply not the case that they will get secure, guaranteed access as promised in 1985.
Just last week I talked to some businessmen who said that that is not important, that if they are further harassed by the United States industry they can move their factories to Alabama.


John Horton McDermid: Who said that?


Mr. Kilgour:: Give us the names.


Lloyd Axworthy: We will provide all the information, just like the Government does. We will provide it.


David Kilgour: Put up or shut up.


John Horton McDermid: Why doesn't he move them there now?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, to answer the Parliamentary Secretary, the fact is that it is already happening and many of them have.


John Horton McDermid: At least be honest in your presentation.


Lloyd Axworthy: They want to talk about being honest. Talking about honesty, let me refer back to what the Prime Minister said about free trade with the U.S.


John V. Nunziata: Lyin' Brian.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Two Members of Parliament, one from York whatever and one from Algoma called the Prime Minister a liar just now. I would like both the Hon. Members to stand up and withdraw their remarks.


John V. Nunziata: Take your marbles and go home.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Can't take the heat.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It has been very difficult in the last few seconds for the Speaker to hear what was being said on the floor of the House of Commons as there were exchanges between the two sides of the House. I am sure that if some Hon. Members did use some unparliamentary language, they will have the courage to do the honourable thing and apologize. I have to bow to Hon. Members' honesty. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has the floor.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I sat for an hour and three-quarters this morning through the speech of the Minister for International Trade. On numerous occasions he called the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) a liar and said that he used mistruths. He said the same thing about the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


John Horton McDermid: No he didn't.


Lloyd Axworthy: I did not see the Parliamentary Secretary rise to his feet at that time. If there is any side guilty of purple
probe, of making unbiased allegations, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary read the "blues" of the speech of his Minister this morning and he will see the worst example of the use of debasement in a speech in this House on the most serious topic we have ever heard. I only wish that he would apply the same standard to his Minister as he wants to apply to Members on this side of the House.
The two major counts which the Government has put forward as the rationale for this agreement come up as failures. There are very serious questions about the so-called benefits. If the benefits are so meaningless and limited, why do they persist? It is interesting to note that when the trade negotiator, Mr. Reisman, withdrew from the table saying that he could not get what he thought was a fair deal for the country, or words to that effect, it was the political people who brought him back in.
I think the answer to the question lies in the substantial part of the accord. I think the real reason we have a total flip-flop on the part of the Prime Minister and his colleagues since 1983 lies in other parts of the agreement which do not deal with trade at all but with the basic domestic institutions and practices of the country. What you see is a concerted, coherent attempt to enfeeble the Governments of Canada. It is a clear expression of the neo-Conservative philosophy which says that it is the market-place of North America that will make decisions for Canadians and not Government, the public sector, people speaking through their elected representatives, or people relying upon public initiative. It is purely the marketplace that will decide.
The philosophy expressed by the merchant class of Montreal in 1849 is now coming home to roost in 1989. They do not want to share power. The real issue in this debate is about who governs Canada, who is going to make the decisions, and who the decisions are going to be made for. As you go through the agreement you will see all the non-trade related items. What does investment have to do with trade? That was part of the trade-off with the Reagan administration.
It is instructive to read the words of Mr. Reisman speaking to the Ontario Economic Council in May of 1985 when he said, "A major difficulty in negotiating a bilateral agreement with the United States is that the economic benefits from free trade are likely to be asymmetrical and the Americans will have to seek concrete benefits in other areas".
The same formula applies whether you talk about this comprehensive agreement or another comprehensive agreement. We have to put more chips on the table than we have in trade so we end up having to put energy, investment, services, and the various domestic sectors of our economy on the table because we do not have enough to play with. The United States is 10 times our size. That was the message of Mr. Reisman. Mr. Reisman's conclusion in the speech was that we could get a deal if we put water on the table. He talked about the Grand Trunk Canal and all the rest of it. We know that
August 29, 1988

that in fact became part of the deal. The fact is that we gave an awful lot more, we gave up a whole series of instruments.
For example, there is energy. I ask Members to go back and read a very interesting document produced by the Paley Commission during the Eisenhower administration. It put forward the notion that the United States could only have national security if it had complete control over continental resources. That was a number one priority going back to the 1950s. In 1988, the United States achieved that priority.


John Horton McDermid: They have not got it.


Lloyd Axworthy: They have it in spades. I hear the protests of the apologist for the Government across the way. Let me quote from statements by William Martin, Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of Energy. He was appearing before the subcommittee in the House of Representatives and said: "The free trade agreement will benefit industrial energy consumers ... ", American consumers, " ... by ensuring nondiscriminatory access to Canadian energy resources, increasing the availability of energy supplies such as electricity and gas; improving security of supply by reducing circumstances under which supplies can be interrupted; reducing energy costs by eliminating price discrimination in U.S.-Canada energy trade and increasing the competitiveness of U.S. industries in world markets".
Mr. Martin then went on to point out how U.S. industry, by getting access to cheaper Canadian energy, will be available to virtually put us out of those world markets. The industries he cites include petro-chemicals, pulp and paper, primary metals and so on.
He said: "The agreement can help make Canadian electricity imports cheaper. Under current regulations, Canadian exporters may not charge a price for that electricity that is significantly less than the least cost energy alternative available to their U.S. customers".


John Horton McDermid: That is wrong.


Lloyd Axworthy: Of course, the U.S. Under Secretary of State is wrong. The Government apologist-


John Horton McDermid: Do not be silly.


Lloyd Axworthy: The problem we have in the House with the Government is that it thinks an assertion is evidence. It thinks that by simply saying something is so, makes it so. The fact of the matter is that no one trusts the Government.
We are talking about the way the Americans understand the agreement. You can bet your bottom dollar that when it comes to a question of using the trade agreement to challenge, the Americans will be up there with all their high priced Washington lawyers.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The problem is that we have seen the Government, from the day it came into office, give away on every single count.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Lloyd Axworthy: Pharmaceuticals, softwood lumber, potash, cedar shakes and shingles, you name it. I would like to know when the Government ever had the gumption and guts to stand up and defend Canadian interests. Not once has it had the gumption to do so. Do government Members think Canadians will believe them? Do they think Canadians will accept their bald-faced assertions? They are like these stupid documents which the Government prints up at a cost of $30 million or $40 million in taxpayers' money which do not tell the truth but simply state a selective case and miss the important essentials.
Investment is a great example. We are now at the point where there has been $33 billion worth of foreign investment since the Government came into power, 95 per cent of which has been takeovers and acquisitions. The Government is not simply selling off our resources, it is selling off everything that owns them. Everything is being given away lock, stock and barrel. It is not good enough for the Government that 95 per cent of all foreign investment is in the form of takeovers and acquisitions. It wants to give the rest of it away.
The Petroleum Monitoring Agency, the Government's own agency that measures these matters, points out that Canadian ownership is dropping rapidly. Why is that important to Canadians? If we lost the requirement to have Canadian ownership, we lose research and development, management jobs and we lose all the supplementary jobs that go with it.
Head offices create a lot of jobs in this information age, with people who work on the computers, do the data processing and innovation. The more they buy up Canadian companies, the more they do that work down at the head office. The Government will make it that much easier.
Will that create jobs? Is it in the Canadian economic interest to not only open the doors, but now open the windows without making one performance requirement? We will no longer have the right to require the creation of jobs here or the conduct of research and development. The Government has simply said: "Open Sesame".
This morning the Minister said that Canadians can be competitive. He referred to Northern Telecom as a Canadian company that can be held out as an example of what we can do in the international market-place. 1 agree.
However, the possibility of another Northern Telecom ever occurring in Canada under this agreement is virtually nil. There is a part of the agreement that limits the powers of monopolies. It prohibits preferential purchasing on a monopoly. We know how Northern Telecom began. It was a subsidiary of Bell, which is a monopoly and was granted that power under federal regulation. It was able to give a preferred purchasing arrangement to a small subsidiary to do all its R and D. With that protection, over time it grew and developed. Its engineers

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and scientists became world class. Now it can go into the market.
If one believes that could ever happen again under this agreement, forget it. It is gone.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us where that is not allowed in the agreement. Give us the chapter.


Arnold John Malone: Give the evidence. How can you say that? You make me sick.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) says he is getting sick. It is an example of how one's stomach's stability is related to the inability to consume the truth.
Let us talk about regional development. The Government says that nothing in the agreement touches regional development. Joe Ghiz, Premier of Prince Edward Island, said in a speech:
Last week, the Director of Agriculture Canada in the Maritimes told an audience in Nova Scotia that a new agreement between the Province and the Federal Government must be tailored to avoid complaints from the United States.
Before the agreement is even in place, grants under our regional development programs are being conditioned in order to "avoid the countervails" on the basis of the new definition of subsidy implemented by the American legislation. We are already tailoring our cloth to fit the agreement.
Recently, I read an interesting study of the Canadian mineral industry by Professor Anderson of the Centre for Resource Studies, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario. In his study on mineral resources, Professor Anderson said:
It can be asserted that the forthcoming attempt to develop common rules for countervail and anti-dumping action under the agreement places the Canadian regional development programs at risk. Given the strong U.S. objections to these programs, Canadian negotiators may face significant pressure to curb such activities.
It is the same thing as Premier Ghiz is saying. He went on to
say:
Although the evidence is less tangible, it is also possible to argue that the Canadian minerals and metals industry could suffer in the international marketplace as a result of the free trade agreement. This statement rests on the premise that if Canadians tax and subsidy schemes slowly change or mirror U.S. policy, then Canadian firms may end up being less competitive than they are now in offshore markets.
Professor Anderson is saying that we will no longer be able to provide the kind of support we did to modernize the forest industry or to provide infrastructure support for minerals and mining. That is a key element of our regional development program.
Because of our resource base, we have used those kinds of government investments to aid the regions.
One can say the same thing about agriculture and the cultural industries. A strait-jacket has been put on the ability of the Government of Canada to make decisions on behalf of
its citizens according to its judgment, or to have that judgment based upon the kind of normal democratic activities that take place in a society where there is freedom of action. But if we sign away those freedoms, if we give away that right to make decisions in the international agreement, we do not get them back again. Aside from those parts of the agreement, I think it is important to recognize the argument about harmonization.
The Minister for International Trade took great pains this morning to challenge the assertions made by our Leader with respect to the impact of harmonization, which is a very simple concept. It simply means that by having, over time, to harmonize standards, and also facing competitive pressures, Canadian businesses will put their own pressure on Canadian Governments to start limiting standards, to cut back taxes and programs. If you are faced with competition in the manufacture of furniture from a southern state that has a small minimum wage and no occupational health standards, and its costs are 5 per cent, 10 per cent or 15 per cent less, how do you compete? You start asking the federal and provincial Governments to reduce your costs accordingly.
The Minister for International Trade quoted Laurent Thibault, the President of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, with great authority this morning. He looked across the Chamber at me and said: "The Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) should listen to this gentleman". Well, here we go. Laurent Thibault, the President of CMA, said: "It is simply a fact that as we ask our industries to compete toe to toe with American industries, we in Canada are obviously forced to create the same conditions in Canada that exist in the United States whether it is unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, the cost of Government, the level of taxation or whatever". Tom Stanfield, President of Stanfields, says: "It is the cost of Government, the cost of human resources, which will allow us to compete and therefore we will have to slowly adopt the American way with very few modifications". Why is it that manufacturing is largely located in the southern United States instead of in the northern states, which are more comparable to Canada when it comes to cost structures and way of life? They are going where they have lower costs. That is the answer.
With respect to the question of regional development, I live in a city just north of the states of North and South Dakota which are going through their own depression because they cannot compete with the sunbelt states which have much lower costs, much lower social programs. Does the Government think that pressure for harmonization will not occur over time? It is beginning to appear already. If we throw into the mix the kind of curious, eccentric arrangement called the Maquiladora process, where United States manufacturers can take component parts, send them to a little strip along the Mexican border, have them assembled by labour which is paid 60 cents an hour, bring them back up and stamp them "Made in U.S.A."
August 29, 1988

We asked the question in front of the committee: "How are you going to police against this? How will you stop those "Made in U.S.A." products competing with us?" The answer was that we can go down and inspect those factories. Just imagine for a moment, Mr. Speaker, a Canadian customs officer going into a small town in Georgia or a town on the border of Texas, with all those Texas Rangers and guys walking around with six-guns, saying: "I have come to see if you are cheating"? We may never hear from that customs officer again. It would be the highest risk occupation in the Public Service. I would not even give the job to the Minister for International Trade.
This is not a laughing matter. It represents a very serious pressure for us over time to accept a wholly different way of doing things, and not because the Americans are necessarily going to bludgeon us. It will be our own people who will say they cannot compete, and we will have to change the rules. That will bring about fundamental change in the way we do business in this country. It will again limit the parameters, the horizons, the options of Canadian Governments to understand any kind of investment, programming and support, with its own environmental standards, social programs, or whatever it may be. That is what we mean by "harmonization". It is not a figment of my imagination. It is reinforced by statements made by the Social Council of Canada, the Nurses' Federation, and the Wildlife Federation. Highly respected, serious minded, interest groups in this country have made that same case. When I read the editorials in the Winnipeg Free Press which say there is no problem or threat, I would ask those reporters to read the testimony of people who know. They should listen to the kind of people who can see that kind of problem.
These people are not worried about the bottom line. What they are saying is very simple. Capital can move quickly. One can move a million dollars in a second on a computer. Someone can set up a new factory tomorrow in any part of North America, but the jobs cannot be moved, the farmers cannot be moved, the communities cannot be moved, people cannot be moved very easily. That is part of the problem. This agreement may suit us fine and dandy if we are simply worried about a quick, fast shuffle of capital playing in those markets. But one of the things that has made us different as Canadians is that we have not just listened to the bottom line. We have not just simply followed the dictates of the market-place. We have not simply followed the profit margins of the stock exchange. They are important. They are necessary institutions. But they are not the dominant force. They should not set all our priorities. They should not make all our decisions for us.
We talk about Canadian independence. What has made us independent has been the role of the public sector, the ability to make major public investment when the private sector often would not do it. My part of the country grew because of investments made by the public sector, be it the Wheat Board, transportation or even investment in our communications system. We would not have a country if it were not for that
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
ability of Governments at all levels to make those kinds of decisions. But we are now faced with an agreement that will limit those kinds of decisions and replace them with the market-place. That is why there are millions of concerned Canadians. That is why there is a deep and abiding split in this country. There are Canadians who recognize that this has been part and parcel of our history. It is an essential ingredient in what makes us different, and it is absolutely crucial for our maintenance as a country.
If we put ourselves into a strait-jacket, if we find ourselves no longer with the same kind of freedom of action we had before, then we no longer exist. I listened to the Minister for International Trade carefully. He said "Well, you signed agreements with GATT. You accepted rights and obligations", and that is true. The reason is very simple. There were some shrewd Canadian leaders back in the 1940s and 1950s who had some sense of vision. They understood very well that by joining an international body, we were able to protect that right of decision. When we negotiated reductions in tariffs, which we did, we did not do it at the sacrifice of our right to make decisions about investment. We did not sacrifice our right to make decisions about how we were going to support our energy industry or our mineral industry. We did not sacrifice our right to decide environmental concerns or financial institutions. We found there was a way of getting a balance, of opening up trade, of liberalizing trade, of bringing down trade barriers without putting those other things on the table.
One of the reasons for this was that we were not the "demander". We were able to share a bargaining power in those international organizations. We were able to get concessions from the United States and other big trading partners because other countries were part of the team. There is a good analogy in football. If you are a blocking lineman, and you are across the line from a 190 pound defensive end, and he is going to push you over, you get someone else to block him out. You double-team him. That is what you do with your international organizations. You double-team the Americans. You provide some way of putting proper pressure and balance against them. That is why it is worked well for us. That is why we suggest that that is the best way of bringing down trade barriers without giving away the store and all the rest of the chattel and goods that this agreement gives away.
The Minister for International Trade does not understand that, nor does the Prime Minister. They have forgotten that fundamental lesson we have learned in the last 40 years. It goes back to what I said before, not because it is a lesson they do not want to learn but because the motivating force, the driving impetus of the agreement does not really have as much to do with trade as it does with limiting government, of destroying the political mixed economy of Canada, of making the market-place supreme-of giving the big corporations the right to decide. That is what is really behind this type of agreement. It is that type of philosophy, theology or ideology which is really at the base root of where this agreement comes from.

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I say to you, Madam Speaker, we want an election because we want the chance to give Canadians a choice. We want to give Canadians the right to see that there is a different vision of the country.
The Minister for International Trade got into a high dudgeon today about the use of the Senate. He was abusive in his comments about many of our colleagues in the Upper House. It is not surprising, he is abusive of everybody. He forgot one very simple fundamental fact. It was that he was the Minister of Justice who brought in a Bill concerning Senate reform. We agreed with it. Our Leader said: "You bring any proposal on Senate reform, an elected Senate, and we will pass it. We will go along with it". That was in 1985. Who backed off? Who withdrew?


John V. Nunziata: Crosbie the coward.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is right, the big bad wolf from St. John's West turned out to be Little Red Ridinghood. He simply did not have the guts to follow through. Why? Because he had his own people. He had the Lowell Murrays, the Michel Coggers and all the other guys. He had the Laval team and all the rest of them. They had to be gotten on to the benches too. What hypocrisy to talk about the Trudeau hacks when the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been loading the trenches as fast as they could. Our Senators are prepared for Senate reform. They want an elected Senate. Our Party wants an elected Senate.


Arnold John Malone: You do not.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, we do. Our Party in national convention voted 78 per cent in favour of an elected Senate. I have not seen a similar resolution on behalf of the Conservative Party.
The Senate is not the issue. The instructions are very simple. Canadians have the right to make a choice on something that is fundamental. One does not shift fundamental ingredients, the rights of a people of a country without giving them the right to decide, especially when they were not told the truth in 1984, especially when the Government went around saying that it did not believe in free trade and that it would never happen. Surely to goodness all we are saying now is that the Upper Chamber is doing what it should do, and not say that it is for or against the Bill but: "Let the people decide. Let them choose. Let them show what they are prepared to do". That is all.
In the final part of my remarks I wish to talk about what that choice will be. Tomorrow our Leader will be speaking. He will outline in detail the kind of trade strategy that we will promote. I want to talk about what I felt and heard over the last three years. I want to talk about the sense I got from all those people who oppose this agreement but who want something different. The people who are against the agreement are not in favour of the status quo. They are not in favour of
going back to some kind of little England. That is pure mythology that is being perpetrated.
Do you know what there is, Madam Speaker? There is a new kind of internationalism growing in Canada. There are all kinds of people in business, professions, schools, women's organizations and cultural groups who see Canada as a mature country with an important role to play in the world. They see us being able to help solve the problems in Central America in a way that we could not do before. They see us being able to work out new economic and trade relations in Latin America or in the Middle East. They see us being able to take a different perspective on the great power bi-polarities on nuclear weapons. They really believe that Canada has come of age as Laurier promised-but not as a junior partner to the United States, not as a country which will simply be the tail wagging the dog, a country which has integrated itself so much economically that it has no ability or right to make the types of choices that need to be made in the international arena. They see us, certainly, in an interdependent world.
The way to manage that is not to form a regional block, not to form into some kind of fortress to fight other regions, but to develop new international institutions. I refer to new monetary institutions, new ways of holding corporations accountable, new ways of developing financial fiscal assistance for Third World countries. There is an enormous sense of aspiration and of expectation on the part of Canadians to achieve that. But they know it will be frustrated by this type of agreement.
An interesting group of people is the Lawyers for Social Responsibility. They point out how in God's name this country could in the future ever take on establishing new policies in the Arctic, in Central America or in the United Nations if we become so economically integrated with the United States and when the only program that is allowed under this agreement for regional development is military purchasing. That is really all that is left for us to do. This Government has a White Paper which is probably the most extreme type of example of cold war mongering. I think that Ronald Reagan would blush if he put a document like that. This Government has the capacity sometimes to make Ronald Reagan look good.
We have the ability to do something different, to try to find a new type of internationalism, and we are going to throw it away. We are going to give it away. I was at a conference in Japan this summer. I was having lunch with a young Korean who was part of the Academy of Economics and Science. He is a top economist. He said: "I do not understand this agreement you are going to sign with the Americans. Why are you doing it? Right now, we have to deal with you on investment, trade and tourism. We look to Canada as being a significant and powerful important player. Once you get into this agreement you just come along for the ride with the Americans. We will just have to talk with them from now on".
Down in Central America this spring I was talking with he people there who said: "What about this agreement? We would like you to break the economic embargo in Central
August 29, 1988

America. Open up new trade lines. Replace the United States in terms of machinery and other kinds of parts and goods. Why are you signing this agreement? Why are you cutting yourselves out?"
The world is moving away from this great power bipolarization. This Government is not. It is the one that is stuck in the past. It is the one that has rearview mirrors attached to its policy. It is like a feeder fish that gets on the back of a big shark. This Government wants to become a feeder fish. It wants to latch itself on to the back of a big shark and go along with it.
Canadians do not want that. They want an independent role in the world. They realize that we can do it most effectively through international organizations, through strengthening, developing and enhancing them. That is why we are fighting so hard. We want to open up and retain that capacity for Canada to achieve that sense of a new vision and purpose.
Similarly, the people I talked to feel that we still have a real choice in the country for full employment. They feel that we still have a chance to put in place the right kind of mixtures of things to obtain full employment. We listen to members of the government treasury benches talk with enormous pride that after five or six years of a boom economy our unemployment is still at 8 per cent. That is not good enough. That is not acceptable. The boom started in 1983 when we were in government. It has continued throughout. We still have not been able to get unemployment down below 8 per cent. There is something wrong with that.
I refer the House to an interesting analysis done by a Dutch economist who studied those countries which were able to achieve virtually full employment versus all the other industrial countries that could not. He examined all the kinds of indicators. They were Gross National Product and levels of investment. Yet one of the key factors he considered was the ability to make independent choices about one's own economy. The successful ones were not members of the EEC or free trade groups. They were members of countries that retained the right to make judgments, to tailor and blueprint labour market policy, investment policy and research policy to fit the times and conditions.
The argument they are making is that there can be good international relations as part of multilateral groups, but not to the point where the right to make those choices is given away. That is what we are giving away. When the right to control investment, resources, energy, culture, agriculture, and regional development, plus the questions of harmonization are given away, the opportunity for this country to initiate significant new employment opportunities for many Canadians has also been given away.
Finally, I put this case to you, Madam Speaker. The third part of that new vision, the contrasting vision, is based upon a simple question of what I call democracy. It is a simple
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
institution, but we have spent a lot of time in our society building it up, and slowly finding ways that people without wealth or status are able to have the right to make decisions about their lives, their families, and their neighbourhoods. We are simply the inheritors of an enormous number of battles and fights that have gone on in the past to ensure that that will happen. I believe that this Chamber is one of the prime repositories of that tradition. We have always recognized that there are sources of real power. Concentration of wealth is perhaps the most. Things can be bought, and things can be made to happen. There has to be a balance always. There has to be an alternative access always, a parallel ladder for people to have their interests heard, responded to, and acted upon.
We are in an age where much of that access is being closed off. We live in an age of executive federalism where more and more decisions are made by far-away institutions, by access behind closed doors of Cabinets or regulatory bodies. That is another topic that I will not get into.
Think what happens under this agreement, for example, when we lose our ability to make decisions about what the big corporations will do about tax policies. When decisions are made in a far off board room, outside our own country, where our own law cannot be applied to hold them accountable, what does that do in terms of the right to participate, the right to make a decision, or the rights of people in small, one mineral town communities in northern Quebec, Alberta, or the Territories? If those opportunities are taken away to make those decisions because the power is removed, then an empty shell is left.
One of the real visions that people want is a return or a restoration of some feeling of control over their own lives. They want this institution to be far more effective than it has been in ensuring that we respond and are able to react to their types of concern. How is that to be done if a whole series of decisions have been taken on a whole range of aspects of our life and turned over to another commission, to private hands, to where it cannot be got at, or to where people are faceless? If that whole opportunity for ordinary Canadians to get a hold on the system and make themselves heard has been taken away, then one of the most precious and vital substances of their lives has been taken away. That is what this agreement does.
It is not only the economics. Talking about independence is not only talking about supply management boards, or investment programs. It is also talking about many intangibles, and things that people feel. After a while it will become fairly apparent that if we cannot get a decision from our own National Energy Board on the price of natural gas, and the real decisions are being made by the federal energy regulatory commission in Washington, or one cannot go to his or her Member of Parliament and say that something should be done about foreign investment because that foreign-owned mining company is going to shut down in my town and they are told, "Sorry, we have nothing to say about it", the message will get through that perhaps we had better start electing people in Washington. Perhaps we should go where the power is. Get a

August 29, 1988
Plant Closures
Congressman rather than a Member of Parliament, or get someone in their commission rather than here.
1 do not state that this will happen overnight, but it may do so over time. People are pretty smart and they will figure those things out. They will soon realize that they have to go where power is. If you are going to exercise the power, you have to go where it is. It cannot be said that this will not happen for there are historical precedents. Hawaii first started out with a trade agreement with the United States and ended up as the fiftieth state. In the 19th century the German states started out as independent kingdoms or duchies. Over time as the Zollverein they had a customs agreement and they ended up being dominated by Prussia, and then there was Germany. History has many examples of where those things happening, and people finally decided that they were tired of being denied the rights to make decisions, so they went to where the power is.
Canadians have ambition and the appetite to be a significant and important, but independent, player and to do important things in the world, to open up not only world markets, but to do something constructive in trying to reorganize a crazy, nuclear dominated world. Canadians believe that we can do that. I do not mean to say that we will change things overnight, but we can make a real difference. Canadians want the independence to do that, and they can see that independence being shrunken or limited by this type of agreement.
Canadians want to retain the same opportunity within their own country to make decisions whether it is on ensuring equalization of opportunities, or that we do not have to have everybody move to the southern states to get a job, or move to Toronto, but we have always had the principle that we have tried to move jobs to where the people are. We also want to have the right to make those decisions for ourselves through our own institutions in our own way. That is the type of vision that many Canadians believe in. It is not the market-place vision. It is not the merchant class vision. It is not that type of bottom line vision. However, it is there, it is strong, it wants a focal point, it wants a vehicle, and it wants a government that will give life, substance, and meaning to that vision. Canadians do not find it in this Government. If this agreement comes into force and is entrenched in stone it will close off the doorways for that vision ever being implemented.
That is why we are involved in this fight. That is why we, on behalf of millions of Canadians from coast to coast, are fighting the type of battle we have fought and will continue to fight. We believe surely that, if any appeal makes any sense that we can make to the Prime Minister of this country, that is that he has a responsibility to give people that choice. If you believe in what you are doing, which you obviously do, then simply put it out on the platform at election time. Quit playing games. Quit going on television and saying, "Maybe this week, maybe tomorrow. I'll consult the stars. I'll consult my anniversary date. I'll check with the kids at home". That is not leadership.
The Prime Minister has a clear responsibility, and it is one of the conventions of Parliament within the real conventions of democracy that he has a right to put in front of the people a major change in the life of this country, and the people have the right to make that decision. Quit playing the games. Quit doing the cutesy little interviews. Quit tantalizing the Canadian public. Simply say: "That is an obligation I have as a Prime Minister, for no other reason, and I am prepared to live up to it".
We will be there, and we will do what we have to do. We believe there is a newer world out there. We believe that we can represent that vision. We believe that when the people get the right to make that choice and the Prime Minister gets off the television screens and gets over to Government House, people will give us that opportunity and that mandate to fulfil and live up to a brand new vision for Canada, one that goes way beyond this trade agreement, one that does not see us tied into a continental fortress, but talks about the world as a place where Canadians can do the most good, and where we can also do good for everybody else in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex

Windsor) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent plant closures, which would require any corporation that had received federal funding to make public the books of any plant it proposed to shut down and would require any shutdown to be justified by demonstrating long-term losses.
He said: Madam Speaker, I had expected to be making a different speech this afternoon, but we will have to wait for that. What this motion seeks to do is two things: first, to address the very serious problem of plant closures which exist in considerable quantity right across the country. We do not document them through Statistics Canada at this stage any longer, but they are nevertheless a continuing and prevalent problem.
Second, it attempts to protect the taxpayers' investment in a sense, in these plants, because this particular motion does not deal with plant closures in general; it deals with plant closures which come about in the cases of corporations which have received federal funding. So it is not, as somebody suggested
August 29, 1988
[Stage Direction]
earlier, something that more properly would be looked at in a provincial context, but instead, something which I think is the responsibility of this House of Commons, since we provide the funding to these companies also to set certain conditions with respect to any shutdown which might take place affecting the companies involved.
To give a brief sense of the dimensions of the situation, I will take just the statistics for last year, which indicate that over
14.000	employees in the Province of Ontario alone were affected by such plant closures, 9,200 employees were affected by the complete shutdown of the plant that they worked for, something like 3,800 suffered reduced operations, and another
1.000	or so from partial closures. It is a total which really gives us a significant number of plants in the Province of Ontario to be concerned about.
In the case of my constituency of Essex-Windsor and the surrounding area, we have been particularly hard hit by such closures. I was fascinated this morning, for instance, to hear the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) talk about the full employment conditions which existed in southern Ontario. It is quite possible that there are parts of southern Ontario for which that is true. It is certainly not true for Essex-Windsor and for the Windsor area itself. Within the last few years, for example, we have had the great Atlantic and Pacific corporations shut some of their operations in Windsor, with 145 people laid off. We have had Sheller Globe shut its operations, with 205 people losing their positions. We have had the Industrial Tool Division of ITL shut its operations, with 185 people laid off. We have seen, in places like Kelsey-Hayes, Dominion Forge, General Motors itself, partial lay-offs taking place which have hurt people quite badly.
For the most part, if we talk about these closures it is not something which the federal Government has a great deal of power to do much about. But if we take a case such as ITL Industries, which owned International Tool, the company which shut down last year and cost 185 workers their jobs, that company in the preceding eight years had received totals of close to $1.4 million from this Parliament, from the various Governments that had support in this House of Commons. That money included $550,000 in terms of an IRAP grant for the adaptation of CAD-CAM technology, $230,000 in terms of IRDP modernization grants, $200,000 in the form of ILAP grants, $257,000 in the case of the Enterprise Development program.
With this kind of tremendous contribution to the capital base of this company, I think that it is something that is especially important, because it is an issue which is almost certainly going to become more significant as the trade deal comes into effect, if that happens. I think it is crucial that certain conditions be set on the grants which are provided by this Parliament to such enterprises.
I would suggest that there are two key concerns which, as the very basic minimum, have to be established in the case of a plant like ITL or some of these others that have shut down and
Plant Closures
thrown people out of work. First, I think that it is absolutely basic that a company, when it decides to close a facility within a community, should have to open the books of that facility to the community itself and to the workers who have often put 20 or 30 years of their lives into building this plant. If that were to be established as the first basic requirement, the result would be that the Windsor Development Commission, for example, would be able to look at these books very carefully. It would be able to bring auditors in to review the books and answer the question, which is almost always asked by the workers who are affected by this kind of a situation: Was it in fact justified to shut down this plant, was it justified because the plant itself was losing money and could not be viable and therefore had to face a shutdown, no matter what the community might like?
In the case when a company has, for a considerable period of time suffered losses, I do not think anyone would argue that we should keep the plant operating. However, there is a second point which I think should be very, very carefully considered by the Government.
If the community looks at the books of a plant that is to be shut down and finds that the company appears to be viable, to be able to continue to operate and provide employment and income for the people of the community, it should then be possible for the community, perhaps in conjunction with the workers, as was the case with Lapp Industries of Hamilton, to make a bid for the firm and, as purchasers, have some preference because of the tremendous contribution federal taxpayers have made to the plant. In the case of ITL, for instance, the workers felt very, very strongly that the plant was viable. It had orders which could have been filled and which could have kept it profitable and operating, therefore keeping the workers employed in the community of Windsor. However, those workers had no ability, either through the community or through their union, to bring in outside auditors who could have access to the books of the company. The company was able to say, "No, we are shutting the plant down for purposes which of course make perfect sense. It is strictly a business decision and we have the right to shut this company down".
If we had a government-sponsored Bill which put into effect these two conditions I have talked about, access to the books and the potential for local development commissions in conjunction with workers to buy the plant and keep it going, then the workers of ITL would have been able to make the company a proposition. They would have been able to say: "We will purchase this plant and see to it that it keeps operating, and as a consequence, 185 workers in an important area of machinery manufacturing in the City of Windsor will be kept on the job and the economy will continue to be diversified". The community would have been better off and the taxpayers would have been better off because the various grants which had been made to the operation would have
[Stage Direction]
August 29, 1988
Plant Closures
continued to keep employment and income in the City of Windsor, employment and income which has disappeared.
A detailed study of the auto parts industry was undertaken by our Mayor's Committee on Unemployment. It looked very carefully at many auto parts plants. It heard very frankly from those parts producers that there is a great deal of pressure on them, pressure which comes from restructuring within the auto parts industry itself and from the increasing value of the Canadian dollar over the last year. That pressure has made it very difficult for some of those plants to keep going.
Indeed, it was the conclusion of the special study by our Mayor's Committee on Unemployment that we should set up a system whereby the community would get access through the development commission and the union to the books of the company and would have the ability at that stage to make an offer to purchase and keep open a plant which would be shut down. With such a system, we in Windsor would be in much better shape as we face the uncertainties in the auto parts industry of the years ahead.
I hope that today's debate will have the effect of telling the Minister for International Trade that there is still a great deal of unemployment which exists in southern Ontario. Second, there is a possible solution to parts plants shutting down and to other plant closures when federal money is involved, and that is to see to it that there is access to the books and that there is the possibility of purchases by local development commissions of these plants to see to it that jobs are kept in the communities, not just the community of Windsor or the communities of Ontario but communities right across Canada.
Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on this motion. I do not think there would be much disagreement among Members with the fact that no one likes to see plant closures. That is usually a sad time in any community, and particularly difficult for the individuals who work there. I guess it is a motherhood statement to say we do not like plant closures. Certainly those of us in public life and the private sector like to do anything we can to assist in helping businesses which may be in difficulty.
However, I suggest it is another concept indeed if the federal Government considers passing legislation to prevent plant closures. Yet we have here a motion by a member of the NDP which suggests that the federal Government introduce legislation, among other things, to prevent plant closures. There should be a law on the books and it should require that any shutdown be justified by demonstrating long-term losses. The other part of the motion says the law should say that any corporation receiving federal funding should open its books to the public.
When I first read that I thought it was not surprising that it is from a member of the NDP, and I see it was seconded by a member of the Liberal Party. It suggests a time in Canadian life when perhaps industry and society as a whole were more
static. It suggests the kind of company which apparently existed years ago in Canada where an individual might be employed at the age of 20 and be there until he or she retires at 65. I suggest that those kinds of industries have become very rare. What has happened to Canadian industry and society over the past decades is rapid change. The Canadian economy is not static, it is changing very rapidly.
The Economic Council of Canada recently did a study on the subject of adjustment and said, among other things, "Firms are constantly engaged in a process of adaptation, contracting or expanding production and employment, entering or exiting industries, merging and divesting, building new plants and closing existing plants". The same study found that the Canadian labour market is undergoing constant change. In a typical year, 8 per cent of jobs in the manufacturing sector disappear because of plant closings and contractions, while there is an increase of 9 per cent in the number of jobs created because of plant openings or expansion. Worker behaviour adds another important dimension to labour market turnover. The number of worker-initiated moves is equal in a typical year to at least 10 per cent of the labour force in the manufacturing sector. This excludes temporary movement.
Data would indicate that over the 1970s, which was characterized by multilateral trade liberalization, the main method of adjustment was creation of new establishments. At the end of the 1970s 30 per cent of existing establishments were new entrants, the large majority through the creation of new facilities rather than by acquisition. Conversely, 40 per cent of the establishments which existed in 1970 were no longer in existence by the end of the decade. I would suggest, therefore, that at the very least the suggestion by the NDP that the federal Government should step in and start legislating against plant closings is unworkable.
I would further suggest that those things causing changes in the market-place will be accelerated by the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. I believe there will be expansions, new plant openings, and so on as a result of Canadian industries trying to take advantage of the new open markets and the reduction of trade barriers between ourselves and the U.S. This is all well and good because the reduction of trade barriers is not something new, invented in this Parliament. This has been going on since the 1930s when economists and finally politicians came to realize that duties, tariffs, red tape, barriers to international trade, were very bad for everyone. They did not protect jobs in the long run, but ensured there would be fewer jobs to go around. Trade liberalization policy has been pursued by every Government of Canada since the 1930s. That has in fact helped to expand trade.
The Government, in the sensitive area of worker adjustment, has continued to try to obtain the best advice possible from all individuals in society. We have concluded that it is the private sector that is the engine of growth in society. The private sector and market forces, working in conjunction with trade liberalization policies, will increase the number of jobs and benefit all Canadians as a result.
August 29, 1988

However, the federal Government, aware of its responsibilities to ensure those benefits, announced the formation in January of this year of the Advisory Council on Adjustment. This council will assist the Government in at least three different ways. First, by examining the possibilities for Canadian businesses and workers to position themselves for optimum benefit from the free trade agreement. Second, identifying specific adjustment issues or circumstances, and examining various government programs that support adjustment by firms, workers and communities. Third, recommending any changes to those programs which would improve their effectiveness, efficiency, or equity as instruments to facilitate adjustment to the opportunities or issues arising from free trade and other issues.
However, it is not the intention of the Government to reinvent the wheel. There are in place a number of different programs and initiatives to assist in the difficult area of worker adjustment. However, the messages we have been receiving from the private sector are quite clear and, I believe, quite correct. The proper industrial policy for the Government of Canada is to allow market forces to work. I will repeat that for the benefit of members of the NDP: the best policy is to allow market forces to work.
This is something that 1 think has continuously escaped, and perhaps always will escape, the understanding of the NDP and those committed to socialism. They suggest, and you have heard it many times in this Parliament and those who have been here longer than you or I have also heard it before, that the Government should step in on every money losing operation, not just money losing operations either. The motion says any shutdown would have to be justified by demonstrating long-term losses. Presumably a company that loses $1 million or $2 million in a year is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the real big bucks over a long period of time, and there have been lots of examples. You do not have to look too much further than some of the Crown corporations we have been blessed with in the past. The names of Canadair and de Havilland come to mind. Perhaps they would qualify in the sense of long-term losses.
As you know, those two corporations together lost not just hundreds of millions of dollars, but billions of dollars. Yet when the Government of Canada came forward with a sensible plan to turn them back over to the private sector, the squealing and bleating from members of the NDP could be heard right across the country. Even then I am sure that under any criteria brought forward by the NDP, losses of billions of dollars still would not quite make it because they are committed to a different kind of Canada, one in which the public is always involved in either ownership, financing or control.
If the last four years have taught us anything it should be that when private industry is encouraged it will become the engine of growth in society. It is not public dollars and public
Plant Closures
enterprises which create long-term jobs, it is market forces which create them. I believe this motion should be rejected out of hand.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Madam Speaker, the motion before the House asks the Government to consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent plant closures when those plants belong to corporations which have received federal funding, in other words federal grants or soft loans. The motion says that if a company which has received federal grants wishes to close a plant that was subject to those grants, it would have to make its books public and would have to demonstrate that it suffered a long-term loss before being allowed to close the firm.
I have no trouble supporting the principle behind this motion. It is true that it lacks detail as to how such a measure should be carried out. However, we are, after all, debating a motion and not a Bill. The motion says that the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent plant closures under the conditions to which I referred.
I think that most people sensitive to the plight of workers would support the principle behind this motion. If the motion is passed we would expect the Government to bring forward a Bill setting out procedures and methods for carrying out such a proposal.
There are some vague parts to the motion but they do not interfere with the principle behind it. I presume that the words "prevent plant closures" refer only to the manufacturing sector and not service-type industries which might also receive financial assistance from the Government. The motion does not specify any period of time between when the funding was received and the proposed closure. However, I would expect that any legislation coming forward as a result of this motion would impose a time limit. In other words, if the federal funding had paid off for a period of time to be determined by the Government this type of thing would not apply and the market system would prevail.
1 thought it was rather amusing that when the Conservative Member spoke to this motion he completely forgot that the motion speaks only of corporations which had received federal funding. He said that the market-place should prevail and that if the market-place says a company should close down, it should close down. Of course, he forgot to mention that we are talking about companies which do not operate totally under the market-place system since they have received federal funding.
As you know, federal programs provide funding to corporations which will locate in slow-growth areas of the country. These are often referred to as our regional development programs. We try to stimulate companies to set up in the Atlantic Provinces, the Gaspe, the Eastern Townships, northern Ontario and northern Quebec, areas which do not attract investment as easily as do Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.

August 29, 1988
Plant Closures
The motion speaks only of companies which have received federal funding. I think that most Canadians would agree that if they received funding it is completely wrong for them, after a year or two, to sell the plant to a foreign buyer who will close it down or to close it down in order to put their money into something which they believe will bring them an even greater return.
They may not be suffering losses at all. That is very often the case, but they see an opportunity for getting even greater profit in another investment so they consolidate, close down the plant, and put their money into a higher-profit-making process. That is all right as long as they have not used federal funds to build up the equity in that plant. However, I think Canadians would agree that if they have used federal money they should not be able to close down the plant, put the workers on the street, and put the money into a higher-profitmaking business.
The motion says that they would have to demonstrate longterm losses. That makes sense to me. As I have said, we are discussing a motion and not a Bill. 1 am pretty sure that with some imagination the Government could suggest how this might be done.
Government Members very often refer to what they consider to be a great record in job creation over the last few years. There has been quite a good record in job creation over the last few years but not much attention has been paid to the types of jobs that are being created nor the fact that there has been a lot of job turnover.
As the Hon. Member who introduced the motion pointed out, we have been steadily losing industrial-type jobs for service-types jobs. Everyone knows that industrial-type jobs are usually unionized, receive higher wages, are full-time and receive benefits such as pensions and health plans. Since they are full-time jobs, if you are laid off you get unemployment insurance. The new jobs that have been created since the recession of 1982-83 have, for the most part, been service-type jobs which have been part-time jobs at minimum wage and without benefit. Very often they are less than 15 hours a week so the employees do not get unemployment insurance if laid off.
So while we have been getting a lot of new jobs, a lot of them are of that kind. The job creation which has been going on is net job creation. Jobs are being lost and new jobs are coming on stream but very often the new jobs are not of the same quality as the old jobs.
The adjusted unemployment rate figures for last month were around 7.7 per cent. That is still higher than the unemployment rate before the recession of 1981-82. In 1981 the unemployment rate was 7.5 per cent and in the 15-year period prior to 1980, from 1965 to 1980, the average unemployment rate was 5.6 per cent. In 1981 it was 7.5 per cent. We had a recession in the following two years and the unemployment rate jumped up to around 12 per cent and has only started to come down since 1983. Five and a half years after the
recession we still have a rate of unemployment higher than the rate just prior to the recession.
It is false to suggest that such a rapid turnover, even in a developing economy, from industrial-type jobs to service-type jobs can be adequately dealt with by the Canadian Jobs Strategy because such a turnover requires retraining, upgrading, and often relocating. The Canadian Jobs Strategy in its present form will not do the job. A unanimous report by the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration recommended many changes to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. The other day, the Minister turned down most of them.
It is a step forward to accept a motion of this kind. It is asking that the Government consider the advisability of bringing in legislation to prevent plant closures, where the companies owning those plants have received federal moneys to help the companies in the past. It is saying that in those circumstances they should not be allowed to close unless they can demonstrate long-term losses. That is a good principle that I think we should support in the House.


Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in respect of this motion before the House. The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent plant closures, which would require any corporation that had received federal funding to make public the books of any plant it proposed to shut down and would require any shut down to be justified by demonstrating long-term losses.
That motion raises, by implication, three separate issues. The first issue concerns whether or not there should be federal government funding or assistance at all for private industry. Certainly we have seen over many years of previous Governments and, quite frankly, over the years of the present Government federal financial assistance to Crown corporations as well as private industry.
I suppose in a perfect world we would not have any need for any financial assistance to private industry. After all, private entrepreneurs are supposed to be risk-takers. They engage in business operations for the purpose of making a profit and one would think that they would be doing that on their own individual capital or the collective capital of a group of people who were prepared to take those risks. You may have some examples of this in your riding, Madam Speaker. In my riding I have an example of a private company which feels very bitter about the fact that there has been federal financial assistance to a competitive company. This particular industry, Allanson is in the heavy duty battery business. It has been established in my constituency for many years and believes very strongly that Government should not be giving grants or loans to assist companies or businesses that would be competing with it in the same particular line. However, that is exactly what has happened in the last two or three years.
August 29, 1988

The federal Government has put forward grants and loans to encourage regional economic development in northern Ontario. While this is a noble purpose, it has in fact assisted a foreign company to set up a plant in North Bay and compete with this company in my constituency that has been in business for many years. Allanson has been a profitable and taxpaying company for many years. It sees this as true Government intrusion of the highest order. It sees this as a very limited market for the kind of product it produces and that the Government has decided, in its wisdom, that there is a need for more competitors in this line than already exist, and is actually assisting another business with the tax money paid by Allanson in my constituency to get into business and compete with it.
I am sure you will agree that understandably they feel that this is a great injustice. This company, through its hard work and effort, through taking risks, investing capital and employing people is now paying taxes, and, through those taxes, is actually helping to fund a competitor at the decision of the federal Government. There are many people who would not agree with financial assistance to private industry in any way, shape or form, whether or not it be regional economic development, because they feel it is grossly unfair in light of the fact that they are taxpayers who are funding competitors. However, this is not an ideal world. While I am sympathetic and prepared to fight very strongly for my constituent, Allanson, I realize at the same time that there are other considerations the Government must take into account. I do not particularly agree with the considerations that applied in the Allanson case, but there are other considerations too.
During the great recession to which our friend from the Liberal Party referred a few moments ago, there were a number of instances of companies with many employees that would have gone under if there had not been some sort of government assistance through financing and loans. One example that flashes to my mind is Chrysler Corporation which apparently was on the verge of financial collapse, which would have put thousands of Canadians out of work at a time when the economy had been devastated and there were no job opportunities to compensate for a disaster of that sort. That is a case where, reluctantly, I would have to concede that some financial support would have to be given just to save jobs in a situation like that.
Another example that comes to mind, but where I do not think there has been any government assistance as yet, concerns the manufacturer of aircraft and aircraft parts in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. McDonnell Douglas is engaged in producing major parts of the CF-18, as well as being a major producer and supplier of wings for McDonnell Douglas aircraft. The head office and main plant of McDonnell Douglas is located in California.
The wings for all those aircraft are made here in Canada, in Metro Toronto, by McDonnell Douglas Corporation. It is interesting to point out that the industry does not refer to them as wings but as tanks, since that is where the aircraft are filled with fuel.
Plant Closures
The wings, or tanks, are made in Canada at McDonnell Douglas, and are then shipped by special rail cars to California where the aircraft are assembled in the United States.
As Douglas Aircraft in the United States reaches the end of its orders for its current line of aircraft, it is obviously designing new kinds of aircraft to put into production. McDonnell Douglas wants to make the wings, or tanks, for that aircraft here in Canada as well. Unfortunately, in this imperfect world, other countries are competing with us for the ability to make parts of that aircraft, including the wings. Therefore, McDonnell Douglas has to come to the federal Government for financial assistance in order to help continue to make those wings in Canada and continue to employ 5,000 labourers directly and continue to employ 10,000 who are in the supply industries. It is another case in an imperfect world where apparently government assistance is necessary, whether we like it or not, in order to save jobs. In this case, it is thousands of jobs.
That brings me directly to the second issue raised by the motion. I see I am running out of time. I actually had three points I wanted to raise and I am barely getting to the second point which has, of course, to do with the whole question of opening up the books of a company that has received these grants, then the employees having the right to make a bid or put in an offer in the event there has been financial assistance from the federal Government and in the event there will be a plant closure. I am one who is very sympathetic with this proposition, but just as the Liberal Member who just spoke, I too see some great problems. The greatest problem I see is how one determines a fair price in this situation.
Since you have indicated, Madam Speaker, that my time is up, I am going to have to leave it to some of my colleagues to debate and determine how in fact, in a situation of this sort, we could ever arrive at a price that was fair to those who wanted to buy and that was fair to those who, perhaps, do not want to sell but because they received federal assistance, would be required to do so by this sort of legislation.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), taking rhetorical flight in a detailed analysis, not only of the anatomy of airplanes but of the anatomy of the airplane industry in the region of Toronto. That, of course, is not unusual for a Toronto representative, a city which colours the impression one has of southern Ontario-which my colleague from Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) is trying to dispel-that all parts of southern Ontario are blessed with virtually full employment. However, I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member express some doubt, in contrast to his colleague who spoke earlier, who seemed to go off into a state of religious ecstasy over the purity of market forces, resorting to the Darwinian theory of the 19th century as applied to economics. I think one has to bring both spokesmen for the government side back to ground zero, which is the

August 29, 1988
Plant Closures
notion introduced by my hon. colleague, which I rise to support.
It seems to me to be an eminently supportable resolution. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent plant closures, which would require any corporation that had received federal funding to make public the books of any plant it proposed to shut down and would require any shutdown to be justified by demonstrating long-term losses.
It is not very surprising that my colleague should rise to advocate this resolution because, as he has indicated, Windsor has been the victim of a number of plant closures and office closures as well, which have affected hundreds of Windsor workers. We are concerned about that, particularly in the context of free trade.
Parts manufacturers, which constitute a major portion of our economy, are severely threatened. My colleague has referred to the report of the committee on that subject. It is well substantiated. We are sincerely concerned about the effects of the free trade agreement, the potentially higher value of the dollar, the exchange rate. These are of great concern. Let me cite some examples of closures which have occurred in Windsor which deeply concern our community: Armson Iron, Cross-LaSalle, Controlled Systems, Dominion Forge, Essex Mould, Great Lakes Forgings, Jaloy Manufacturing, Namasco, Sheller-Globe and Summerville Industries. Two of these companies, specifically Sheller-Globe and Cross-LaSalle, were closed because they were bought out by U.S. firms. There was no indication they were in such severe financial straits that they had to be closed down. They may well, on the basis of purchase, have provided the jobs in Windsor that were lost as a consequence of these closures.
On the one hand, we heard the ecstatic appraisal of market forces by the earlier spokesman on the government side, as if there existed free enterprise in a vacuum. The argument my colleague makes is that if there are federal grants-and there are a great many of these-which are provided to industries, that should incur an obligation on the part of those industries to recognize their obligation to the Government, to the workers and to the community which has served them so well. Even without such grants, there would still be a significant contribution made by almost any community to any industry. I think, for example, of the Ford Engine Plant in Windsor. Nearly $400 million in government money was spent in order to provide the base for the construction of that plant. The municipality, the council on which I serve, spent tremendous amounts of capital resources of the city when things were very tight to ensure that the GM Plant in Windsor could operate with a basis of a sound infrastructure, the kind of infrastructure, of course, the Government denies it has any responsibility for whatsoever.
We hear a Member, such as the Member who spoke earlier, talk about market forces in an ecstatic religious fashion. As other Members have pointed out, that underlies the notion of the free trade agreement which is, of course, the Government's
means of releasing the shackles of government involvement in private enterprise at the expense of workers. That explains government Members' opposition to this very mild motion. But it is curious to hear the virtual unanimity with which the Government provides speakers who oppose any effort to protect the interests of workers. Yet, I have in my hand a document just recently released with the unanimous agreement of all Parties. I want to read the justification for a far wider scope of action which respect to plant closures. I quote from the report of the Human Rights Committee. It is entitled "Human Rights and Aging in Canada". I quote from page 30:
It is the view of the committee that, while the enhanced employment
programs recommended above are urgently needed, they are unlikely to be
sufficient, by themselves, to remedy the special predicament of the laid-off
older worker.
They are the ones most affected by these plant closures we are talking about today. It continues:
In the absence of mandatory closures notification, closures can happen overnight, preventing workers from making long-term arrangements to move or acquire different skills. The absence of notification can also prevent workers from making financial arrangements, which may be critically important if severance pay is inadequate. Takeovers can have the same effects, and, as recent cases have shown, can also involve the absorption of pension funds, thus depriving individuals of their pensions. The impact of this on older workers, who may have been employed by the same company for many years and been dependent on a single pension fund, can be devastating.
There may, furthermore, be ways of reducing the incidence of plant closures, without impeding longer-term corporate adjustment.
That can be done with the unanimous agreement of all three Parties in this House. It goes on:
The use of Investment Canada in minimizing any adverse employment impacts of foreign takeovers, and the targeting of regional development spending to assist the growth of new businesses in areas hit by major closures, are possible approaches.
We go on to recommend that the federal Government and the provincial Government act to protect workers, at least in respect to the notification of plant closures and, subsequently, by actions to protect the workers-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Spadina on a point of order.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I wish to withdraw my motion No. 202 concerning Nicaragua, and I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the request of the Hon. Member for Spadina. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Heap) withdrawn.
August 29, 1988



Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the Order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Friday, August 26, 1988 of the motion by Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to the order passed on Thursday, August 25, 1988, the House will now proceed to the deferred division on the motion by the Hon. Minister of Finance for third reading of Bill C-139, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 and certain related Acts.
Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the debate was interrupted at five p.m., the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry had the floor. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think we had reached the point in my presentation to the House where the argument had been sufficiently made. I feel the motion that I would like to move should now receive unanimous support. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word
"That" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be not now read the third time but be referred back to the legislative committee for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 8.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I intended to start out by saying that I had been thinking a lot about this speech, during the long, interminable set of speeches by both the Government and the Official Opposition. I say this seriously, too, because despite the duress of closure having been used by the Government, despite what we might call the dirty tricks of millions of dollars of advertising being spent to try to promote the trade deal, there is still a fundamental choice, a basic debate that faces Canada. I think that it is very much, when we get right down to it, a question of direction and philosophy. On one hand we have belief in basically unrestricted capitalism, a society which is driven by profit, by the fast buck, where those who own our large corporations basically call the shots, and where that is justified by the fact that they are believed to drive the economy forward.
The United States has always been the greatest example in the world of that kind of society of unrestricted capitalism in which the search for profit has driven what has taken place. It is for people who believe this view of the world. It is not a minus in any sense to integrate into the United States. On the contrary, it is a giant plus, because they see themselves as tying into an economy which is itself the model of that unrestricted capitalism.
On the other hand, there is a belief in people before profit, a belief in community, where we can take care of each other, where we share power instead of seeing that power concentrated in large corporations, in large organizations, and in large government. It is not so much a view that unrestricted capitalism does not work, though I think it is pretty clear, looking at the last 100 years, that unrestricted capitalism does not work successfully. Governments have to intervene. They have to smooth out business cycles. They have to provide infrastructure for the large corporate sector to make the money which drives it forward.
As I said, it is not so much a view that this unrestricted capitalism does not work; it is a much more positive view. It is a view that sees human beings fulfilled as people by much, much more than money, by much, much more than profit. It sees them fulfilled in a fair, caring and sharing society. That is the different perspective from which we in our Party approach this trade deal.
The fact is that this deal stops us from being able to build in the future that kind of fair, caring and sharing society for average families for which we as a Party have always fought. That is why we fight so strongly and will continue to do so as long as we possibly can. That is what it is all about.
When we cut through the rhetoric, the false statistics that are thrown out by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), the nonsense which the Minister spoke in much of his speech, that is what it is all about. It is a question of direction: Do we choose the direction of unrestricted capitalism, U.S. style, or do we choose the chance to build a caring, fair society for average families in which they will have power to shape their lives? That is what it is all about.
This deal is in fact the biggest hoax Canadians have experienced in hundreds of years. The Government says that this is a trade deal. If we look through it, we find that there are chapters and chapters which deal with anything but trade. They deal with investment, agriculture, financial services, services themselves, emergency actions, technical standards, wine and distilled spirits. These are issues which are important to the people within those sectors. They are important to us as we try to shape monetary policy for our country. They are far, far more than a trade deal. Yet that is what we find throughout this deal, far, far more than a trade deal.
In fact, in this deal we find an integration with the United States which, over the next 20 years, will tie us so completely into United States society and United States assumptions that we will not have the ability to shape ourselves a Canadian direction for the future. That is what it is all about.
The Government says that it has been successful in signing this deal. When we actually get out on the hustings and face an election, this deal will be seen by the people of Canada not as a successful deal but as the largest failure of this Government, the failure that does not except us from the omnibus trade Bill in the United States with its various taxes on the capacity of Canadian exporters to export into the United States.
The committee on which I was a member said that we should not sign this deal if the omnibus trade Bill goes through. Last week, the omnibus trade Bill was signed by the President of the United States. It is now law. Yet this Government has not been prepared to withdraw this Bill as the committee suggested.
The Government did not get the exemption which it said was crucial, the exemption from countervail laws. We were told again and again by business people that they had to have that exemption in order to make certain that they had guaranteed access to the United States market. Well, they did not get it. There was no exemption from countervail or from anti-dumping. There was a complete failure on that level.
There was also a failure with respect to subsidies. The Government said that there had to be an agreement on subsidies. Looking through this Bill carefully, we do not find an exemption from subsidies, a code which gathers together an agreement with respect to subsidies. The Government failed at that and it concedes its failure.


John Horton McDermid: No, we didn't because-


Steven W. Langdon: You did. That is what the Government said it sought, and it failed to get it.
August 29, 1988


John Horton McDermid: Those negotiations go on.


Steven W. Langdon: Instead, it said that it will take five to seven years to negotiate it, and that five to seven years will leave us in a much weaker position to get any sort of justice with respect to subsidies. Once more, it is a failure, the third failure of this Bill.
There is a fourth failure too. The Government said that culture would be exempted. Yet for the first time, we have explicitly said to the United States that it can retaliate against us with respect to anything we do in the cultural area. There are certain limits on how much it can retaliate, but it has the right to retaliate. We as a country have never before put into words our recognition that the United States could retaliate against us for anything we felt was necessary to protect Canadian culture.
There is no exemption for agriculture. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) chaired a committee which said that there should be an exemption for agriculture. No, the Government failed to get that. There is no exemption for regional development programs. Regional development programs will be part of the five to seven years of negotiations about subsidies, about what is acceptable and what is not. We have already had the Deputy Minister of Finance at the time tell us that we will have to change our regional development programs as a consequence. There is a failure in that area as well.
There is a failure, too, with respect to the Auto Pact. The Auto Pact was not going to be touched. It, too, said the committee chaired by the Minister of State for Finance, was to be exempted from negotiations.


John Horton McDermid: It was strengthened.


Steven W. Langdon: They failed on that one, too. We could take the list of virtually everything they said they were out to get with this trade deal and we would find that they have failed to get what they sought. Now they have the effrontery, through the Minister this morning, to come before the House and say that we on the opposition side are somehow being unCanadian in attacking this lousy deal. Well, everyone who accepts this kind of record of failure in negotiations frankly should be ashamed of themselves. They should come before this House not with the kind of bluster of the Minister for International Trade this morning but with a shameful look on their face and say: "I am sorry for having misled the House of Commons for so many weeks".
We heard the Government earlier say that this agreement is no threat to international trade, no threat to our relations under GATT. Yet that absolute nonsense was rejected by everyone I talked to from other countries at the start of this GATT round of negotiations.


John Horton McDermid: Did you talk to the G-7?
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Steven W. Langdon: The Parliamentary Secretary was not there so he did not happen to hear. Most of the G-7 had people there, as the Parliamentary Secretary would know.


John Horton McDermid: They are supporting it there.


Steven W. Langdon: The point is that regional blocks like the European Common Market, like the kind of regional block this agreement would set up between the U.S. and Canada, will lead to more protectionism in the future. That is what is likely to happen as regional blocks with powerful markets fight each other and then start protecting each other as a consequence. It is not just by chance that we had in the same summer the U.S. Congress accepting the trade deal with Canada and undertaking through the omnibus trade Bill a much more protectionist piece of legislation than anything we have seen from the U.S. before.
We can continue with what this Bill says it deems itself to be, what the Government describes it to be, and what in fact it is. It says that there has been no change with respect to lumber exports. Of course, it has put into writing that shameful, degrading commitment that we accepted under duress by the U.S. with respect to our softwood lumber exports. We accepted that 15 per cent tax which is hurting lumber workers right across this country.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, yes, with record profits, too. Tell me how badly we are doing.


Steven W. Langdon: Health care is not touched, the Government says, yet there are parts of this agreement, as anyone who has read it carefully knows, detailed ways in which health care is very significantly affected.


John Horton McDermid: You are out to lunch.


Steven W. Langdon: I put it to the people of Canada-


John Horton McDermid: You certainly would.


Steven W. Langdon: -that they should reject this agreement and choose instead a new direction, a direction based on fairness, honesty, open leadership, a direction which would take us to something far better than this lousy trade deal the Government has signed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Questions or comments.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have listened for the last 20 minutes to the Hon. Member of the NDP like I listened to the Liberal Party trade critic for about two hours. Both spent their time criticizing, knocking, saying how terrible the free trade agreement was. Not one of them suggested an alternative. For two hours we sat and listened to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and now the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and it was knock, knock, knock. The Canadian people know what you are against. The Canadian people want to know what you are for.

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Therefore, I am going to, just as a favour to my friend from Essex-Windsor, read something out of the householder he sends to his constituents. There are the answers to Canadian's trade problems; this is what the NDP is going to do. This is its policy from its trade critic. "First, we have to get an election and defeat the Mulroney Government".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: That is number one. He is going to get the election but that is not going to be the result, I can assure him of that. "Second, we have to push Premier Peterson of Ontario whose Liberal Government has not fought the deal the way he promised". That is the second plank in the NDP platform. They are going to go to the Liberals to help out in Ontario.
"Third, we have to stress our New Democratic counter policies to replace the deal". Here they are: No. 1 full employment, whatever the hell that means; No. 2, plans to build our industrial economy on a wider high-tech basis- where are the plans; No. 3, making full use of our farm and energy resources for the future. Full use of our energy resources, isn't that interesting?
Here is a good one: "working out our trade disputes with the U.S. directly". Isn't that marvellous? He just stood up and knocked the new dispute mechanism, and he says that it is a terrible thing but "we are going to settle these disputes with the U.S. directly".
Next is finding areas where our two countries can make sector agreements like the Auto Pact with safeguards for Canada. Isn't that great? They tried to reach sectoral agreements and got one sectoral agreement in 23 years. What nonsense. How do you expect the Canadian people to buy that?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, there are several points I would like to make. I appreciate the opportunity, although I would have appreciated it had the Member just asked the question.

There are two points I want to stress here. We have an agreement that will radically change this country but we did not get any of the things the Government felt were necessary. These included, first of all, an exemption from countervail laws. That is something we did not get. Second, an agreement on the matter of support for Canadian industries. There again we did not succeed. Third, we have no guaranteed access to the U.S. market under the agreement. Furthermore, we have lost the freedom to organize our own energy program, to screen takeovers of Canadian companies by U.S. companies and to protect Canada's agriculture.


John Horton McDermid: That is not true.


Steven W. Langdon: It is. We have also lost the freedom to organize our own health care system . That is true as well. And
we have lost the freedom to protect Canada's cultural industries. We have an agreement that is not equitable and that must be rejected.

The alternatives to that accord are quite clearly set out and have been set out for months in the book which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), and I prepared entitled A Time to Choose Canada. We said that it was important to start to look for domestic investment in a way that the Government had not recognized.
We saw, for instance, that it did not make sense for interest rates to go up as rapidly as they were, especially when the spread with the United States was at record highs. We saw, as well, that it was important to have a community development basis from which investment could flow. We saw that it was also important to be able to make use of the energy and resources we have in order to provide a basis on which to build our industries and encourage investment. We saw that it as crucial, as well, to increase research and development, something which the Government promised and never delivered on. It promised to double research and development and has not even come close.
We stressed regional diversification in our document because we must get away from the golden horseshoe as the basis for prosperity in this country. There must be a serious effort to try to diversify investment and that will not happen through free trade. Free trade, in fact, will concentrate investment in Ontario around the golden horseshoe just as there are concentrated investment and serious poverty in many parts of the United States. Skill development is also crucial, especially for older workers and for threatened industries.
As well as sector agreements we need issue agreements. We need, for instance, to get what the Government has failed to get, that is, a joint agreement between Canada and the United States on what constitutes a subsidy.


John Horton McDermid: That's what negotiations are for.


Steven W. Langdon: Yes, but the Government failed to get it.


John Horton McDermid: We haven't even started negotiating yet.


Steven W. Langdon: It failed to get it in this whole long, sorry set of negotiations.


John Horton McDermid: Get serious.


Steven W. Langdon: It is also important that we have better bilateral relations with the United States on a case-by-case basis. I think that if we had spent much less time chasing this pie in the sky, comprehensive free trade deal and concentrated on softwood, pork, stainless steel, and fish, we would have been able to solve those disputes much more effectively. We would not now be facing the damage from each of those disputes which we are facing.
August 29, 1988

We also have to look to GATT with respect to subsidies. We have to look to GATT as the place where we can work out, with other countries, some agreements which see to it-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I remind you that my two colleagues from the other Parties had two hours each, so if I stray just a little bit over-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has elapsed for questions and comments. If he desired more time he should have asked for unanimous consent of the House when he finished his 20-minute speech. We have now gone past that stage. I regret very much that I must continue with debate.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think it is still possible to ask for unanimous consent to finish this answer in the next five minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to have five minutes more to finish his comments?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: I heard a negative. I will call on the Hon. Minister of Labour on debate.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, in 1984, Brian Mulroney stated that his Party was committed to four priorities. One of these was economic renewal. Today, I am proud to inform Canadians that the Government of which 1 am a member has kept its promise. By signing a historic trade agreement with the United States, Canada has obtained the best guarantee for a prosperous economy. The free trade agreement is the culmination of over twenty-five years of hard work by Canadians and Americans aimed at improving and strengthening the framework of their commercial and economic relations. It was high time the Canadian Government adopted a comprehensive view of the economic changes that were taking place. Canada had to get a head start in the race in which countries the world over were competing, and the best way to do this was to gain secure access to the biggest and richest market in the world: the United States. We all know the arguments in favour of signing a trade agreement with the United States. About 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States, representing sales worth around $180 billion annually, while one out of three jobs depend on our ability to export our products.
The growth of our external trade is therefore closely linked to the trade relations we have had and have today with our
Canada-U.S, Free Trade Agreement
neighbours to the south, something our predecessors understood. In 1879, Sir John A. Macdonald shared this comprehensive vision of Canada's economic future, witness his trade policy. In 1911, the desire of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's Liberal Government to establish a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States reflected the economic realities of the time.
These are only a few historic facts, but there are many others. Thanks to the testimony and experience of our predecessors we are able to understand our own economic realities, and we will be able to build a future in the image of this country.
When in September 1985 we decided to negotiate a bilateral trade agreement with the United States, we knew what we were doing. We were not only mindful of our country's growth as a trading nation, we were also acting on a unanimous recommendation by committees and commissions of inquiry, including those of the Senate and the House of Commons and the Macdonald Commission, whose members represented all groups in our society. Need I recall, Mr. Speaker, that there was a Liberal majority in the Senate and that the Hon. Donald Macdonald was a Minister in Mr. Trudeau's Government?
Despite all these recommendations, the Liberals tried to ignore the lessons of history by involving Canada in a multilateral trade policy, while our trade with the United States continued to increase, from about 65 per cent to more than 75 per cent, and it did so despite the liberals' so-called nationalist policies and their rhetoric about their so-called third option.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the same Liberals would have Canadians believe that the same multilateral free trade process would give Canadians the same advantages as a trade agreement with the United States. What they do not tell Canadians, Mr. Speaker, is that the free trade agreement will enable Canada to control protectionist spillovers from the United States caused by domestic reaction to a budget deficit they have trouble keeping under control.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind these free trade detractors that Canadians are not being fooled and understand quite well that the Liberal Party does not offer a valid alternative to the accord.
Here is what Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa said in a press conference last August 16:
With respect to the issue of negotiating on a sectoral basis we have to take into account the various GATT regulations ... We did get the Auto Pact, of course, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to secure GATT approval to negotiate on a sectoral basis with another GATT country.
Canadians understand as well that they will be able to prosper in the 21st century if today they are prepared to look to the future and face the greatest challenges with vigour and determination. They are conscious of the fact that Canada's economic prosperity basically depends on the ability of our industries and our companies to maintain and improve productivity.

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We know that Canadian farmers rank among the world's best traders, and they have demonstrated their skills on many occasions. Not only can we face up to our competitors in this sector, but we are also aware that access to American markets is a guarantee our farmers must have.
The value of Canadian agricultural products shipped to the United States is about $3 billion a year and that, Mr. Speaker, does not include grains and oilseeds. It accounts for over 50 per cent of Canadian food exports. Such figures faithfully reflect the situation, Mr. Speaker.
In addition to securing access to the American market the Free Trade Agreement will protect our agricultural sector against American compensatory anti-dumping duty and salvage measures. Some Canadians may have forgotten that pork and cattle producers have been the target of retaliation, but the people involved certainly did not, Mr. Speaker. With the FTA we can guarantee that they will never again be the hapless victims of American policy. Without the FTA, Mr. Speaker, history is bound to repeat itself.
We have maintained our marketing boards and the import control measures that constitute the very basis of our supply management system. During the 1986 Tokyo Economic Summit, the whole world became aware, thanks to the leadership of our Prime Minister, of the need to undertake a global reform of farm policies. For us, the first step in that process was certainly to agree with our main trade partner. Who could blame us for having brought forward what we have recognized ourselves, along with the international economic community? Need I recall, Mr. Speaker, that agriculture is one of the main pillars of our economy, as is the case with other countries?
As a Government and also and more importantly as Canadians, we had to take the necessary measures to ensure our continuing prosperity in that area as well as in all other sectors of our economy.
Admittedly, some adjustment will be needed following the implementation of this agreement and that is why our Government has set up an advisory council on adjustment in order to react quickly and judiciously to future changes and possible problems. Businesses, unions, consumer groups, teaching institutions are represented on that council and also the Federal Government which is automatically a member, Mr. Speaker. The council has the responsability to assess our programs and to ensure that they are used efficiently so that we are at all times ready to benefit from new opportunities arising in the work market.
Free trade will create new opportunities in the industrial sector. The Government has established a Skills Shortages Program in order to train employees in skills and jobs that will be increasingly in demand.
Companies can also use the Skills Investment component of the program in order to hire and train laid-off workers, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, communities that are particularly hard it
by new technologies or markets can ask for assistance within the framework of the Community Futures Program under which businesses can be created and training assistance given at the local level. Who said, Mr. Speaker, that this Government did not care about giving businesses the means to adjust their production to the new trade dynamics? The same free trade opponents, Mr. Speaker, who tried to ignore that Canada is a large export nation which depends to a large extent on its trade relations with the United States!
The Conservative Government is committed to adjustment programs and it has assured businesses of a secure access to the U.S. market for their products. In the future, Canadian businesses will be able to produce more goods and to diversify services, thereby enhancing regional growth through resource development and economic growth.
Our Government has put forward an industrial and regional development policy which embodies one of the principles we cherish most: a country's prosperity depends on the economic strength of each of its regions. Decentralised decision-making is the basis of this policy. In our opinion, Mr. Speaker, the people of the regions are those most able to make the best decisions to help their region develop its industrial base and its export capacity.
By having greater control over their economic future, the regions will be able to take better advantage of the opportunities offered by the Free Trade Agreement. They will be able to benefit fully from those advantages and consequently, Mr. Speaker, not only the large centres but the country as a whole will benifit from free trade.
Allow me to give you a few examples. British Columbia will be in a better position to market its forestry products; Alberta's oil and gas sector will experience a new boom; the uranium industry in Saskatchewan will be able to expand as a result of the lifting of restrictions on uranium-enrichment processes; the Manitoba manufacturing industry will find new outlets on the American market; service industries, most of them in Ontario, will gain readier access to the American market; and Quebec will boost exports of electricity as well as pulp and paper products, not to mention eventual pork and beef sales, and demand for engineering and consulting services is expected to rise. As to the Atlantic provinces, Mr. Speaker, they will come to realize that a better trade environment is bound to spur the growth of their manufacturing and forestry sectors, their fisheries and their agriculture.
Given decision-making authority, the regions of Canada will be able to take better and quicker advantage of the new outlets of the wide North American market of over 250 million consumers. The regions will also be urged to ensure that industries switch to new technologies as soon as possible, for improved competitiveness rests on revamping the industrial base which leads to higher productivity and lower production costs. Mr. Speaker, the last two elements are essential if we
August 29, 1988

are to gain a foothold in the huge southern market which will become a worthy challenge to our skills and enable us to create a great many new jobs. Mr. Speaker, Canadian workers need these jobs now, and tomorrow younger generations will take over.
Anxious to create these job opportunities for young Canadians, in 1985 the Conservative Government set up a comprehensive employment policy geared to training. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this policy is to meet the challenge of the skilled labour force training necessary to hold specialized positions in a highly technical and competitive Canadian industry. This policy is particularly aimed at our young people coming on the labour market. Mr. Speaker, gone are the days in Canada when without proper training, a young man could find a good and financially rewarding job. The need for unskilled workers is waning because our industrial base is continually developing to meet the harsh competition on world markets.
With or without a free trade agreement, Mr. Speaker, this reality of a greater need for a specialized labour force remains true. That is why the Government has put together an employment policy which is flexible and consistent with local needs.
To prepare a flexible and competent labour force, and prepare young Canadians to hold specialized jobs represent one of the greatest challenges Canada has ever been faced with. An employment planning strategy which already reflects the policy of the Canadian Government is already in motion. All its programs involve an element of manpower training or retraining. Steps will be taken to ensure Canada has the necessary qualified labour force to successfully participate in the new economic order. We need not only provide young Canadians with jobs consistent with their expectations, but we must also rely on them. And our Prime Minister perfectly expressed this deep conviction when he stated in the House of Commons on October 5, 1987, and I quote: "We go forward with confidence in our future, confidence in our country, and, most of all, confidence in the youth of Canada. We have set a course for a stronger, a more united, and a more prosperous Canada. It is not a path-it never was and it never will be- for the faint of heart, but this country was not built by timid souls. This is a pact for the daring, the innovative and the nation-builders who are now called upon to make a firm decision on behalf of a strong, united, and prosperous as Canada."
These are the distinctive qualities of youth and that is why the young people are confident in their ability to take on the new challenges that will confront them.
These young people support the Free Trade Agreement because they are aware that only in a stable and prosperous economy will they be able to fully develop their potential. Surely, they want to be able to choose from a host of interesting jobs, but they also want to test their talents as managers, entrepreneurs and innovators.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Who will have the courage, Mr. Speaker, to deny them a future worthy of their aspirations and their hopes? Precisely those who refuse to see in this agreement our best guarantee of economic success, the free trade detractors, Mr. Speaker, those who play up the fears by spreading false rumours, those who share neither the will and the foresight of their forefathers nor the spirit and the determination of their children, those who cast doubts upon the worthiness of our enterprises and those who believe that we do not have the power to preserve our distinct character and identity and who believe that an essentially trade-oriented agreement is a step towards our assimilation by the United-States!
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind those people today that Canada is and has always been a strong and distinct country and that foreseeing its assimilation amounts to doubting the very stature of those who built this nation. Nothing in this Agreement threatens our sovereignty any more than our social programs. Our Government has always vowed that Canada's sovereignty would not be jeopardized by a trade agreement and it has kept its word.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my allotted time has expired. That is a pity because I do have a lot more to say.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Hon. Member's speech, and perhaps I should say hon. neighbour, since our ridings are next door to each other. First of all, 1 would like to congratulate him on his excellent speech. I noticed, however, that in his speech he said that the free trade agreement contained a guarantee for the sale of Canadian agricultural products in the United States. I would like to ask the Minister, who mentioned agriculture at the beginning of his comments, what specific part of the agreement contains this guarantee that will help us sell our agricultural products to the United States.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his kind remarks-and I must say that doesn't happen very often-in referring to my speech. In fact, Mr. Speaker, and I say this for the benefit of all Canadians, we share a common border which separates our two ridings, mine on the Quebec side and the Hon. Member's on the Ontario side.
As for the free trade agreement, I think that all Canadians who have followed this debate from the very beginning-a debate that did not start recently, since it has been going on for a very long time ... I remember mentioning in a previous speech how many hours of debate we have had and how many committee meetings, including the Legislative Committee and the Senate Committee and the Committee of the House of Commons, all of which considered these issues. Mr. Speaker, everybody realizes that what we obtained through the free trade agreement was guaranteed access to the U.S. market for our products, including agricultural products, and that the main advantage was also that we obtained a mechanism for the settlement of disputes that might arise from time to time.

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and which did arise in the past when we did not have this kind of mechanism.
Mr. Speaker, with this agreement, unlike the situation we had in the past, we now have access to the biggest market in the world with a potential of 250 million consumers, where our farmers will be able to export more and more of their products, and 1 am thinking of our pork and beef producers who obviously endorsed the free trade agreement we have today.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. The Leader of the Official Opposition is going around telling people in Canada that the free trade agreement is the sell-out of Canada. He also says that it is the give away of Canada. He says that we will become the fifty-first state, and so on and so forth. He says that anyone who supports this deal is really giving Canada away or selling Canada to the United States.
I would like to ask the Hon. Minister, who is a resident of the Province of Quebec where there is great support for the free trade agreement, if the people of Quebec feel that Premier Bourassa, because he supports the agreement, is a traitor to Canada, is selling out Canada, is giving Canada away to the United States? Or, does he expect that Quebec will become part of the United States if this agreement goes through?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. No one in the Province of Quebec, and I am sure no one in Canada, thinks that Premier Bourassa is a traitor, to put it in the words of my hon. colleague, with respect to the free trade agreement or any other matter. As a matter of fact, on the contrary, I believe that the Premier of the Province of Quebec, like most premiers of the other provinces, thinks that this agreement is not only good for Canada but good for the provinces and the regions. I am sure that if Mr. Bourassa supports this agreement it is because he feels like so many other Canadians that it is good for the nation. Since my colleague referred to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would like to take this opportunity to read to the House a quotation that I would have given a little later in my speech had I the time in which to do so. It is from a former Minister in the previous Government, Mr. Regan, who stated:
When I was Minister of Trade... in Mr. Trudeau's Government... I sought to move in that direction by initiating free trade talks with the U.S. on a sector by sector basis ... I have come to the conclusion that the present free trade project is a more meaningful... courageous... and important undertaking than our more limited negotiations.
Obviously, we are moving in the right direction. We have obtained an agreement which will favour all Canadians from all areas of the country and which will give an opportunity to all Canadians to participate in the growing economy of Canada and to obtain better jobs either for themselves or for their children in the future. One thing to which the Government has been committed from the outset is to bring back the
economy of Canada the way it should have been before

the way it is now.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask a supplementary question, further to the one I just asked the Hon. Minister who was praising his Prime Minister's free trade agreement.
I wonder if the Minister is aware of the statement made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-and I must remind him that the UPA is a member of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-that: "The CFA believes that Bill C-130, to implement the free trade agreement, threatens many sectors of Canadian agriculture." And further on, "It has a negative impact on the marketing system and the future of the quota systems, the whole marketing system of the Canadian Wheat Board, quality standards for Canadian agricultural products and the horticultural sector."
I wonder if the Minister is familiar with this statement of July 30, 1988 signed by the National Council of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. How does he react to this statement? Is the Canadian Federation of Agriculture completely "out of it", or "fallen in the potatoes" as we say in French? Have these people been completely misled, as the Government Members claim the Members of the Opposition are?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would never claim that the UPA is "out of it", as my hon. colleague would have me say, although of course potatoes are an important crop. I would certainly not claim, as my hon. colleague would have it in his statement, that the UPA is "out of it". On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I think that the UPA in the past has shown its knowledge, and usually great understanding of agricultural issues.
It seems that the UPA has taken a position this time that is not shared by all the associations that have something to do with agriculture. Mr. Speaker, coming from a constituency with many dairy farmers, I am told that despite what the UPA says, the free trade agreement is not only beneficial for these farmers, but they are obviously satisfied with the proposed safeguards in the Free Trade Agreement. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, they are even more pleased to have guaranteed access to the American market of 250 million consumers and they are especially pleased as well to have the threat of unilateral protectionist measures, which the United States used to take, removed by the free trade agreement.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words this evening about Bill C-130 and the free trade agreement which the Bill implements. It is obvious to everyone in the House and in the country that this agreement is of historic importance to Canada. The question is: Will the ultimate impact be positive for the parties to it, namely, Canada and the United States?
August 29, 1988

Will it also be positive for the international trading environment? Of course, promoters of the agreement-obviously, the Government-argue that it will be. 1 must say that I hope that they prove to be correct.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, because of all the emotion surrounding this debate, opinions become polarized. We cannot afford to let that crucial issue, that national challenge turn into a struggle, which, put in simplistic terms would pit free traders against sovereignty advocates.

1 have reviewed the agreement and as many of the arguments that have been brought to my attention both for and against it. I say to my colleagues with, 1 believe, a good deal of objectivity, that there is good news here and there is bad news here. First, the bad news is that the agreement is not as good as the Government and its promoters pretend it to be. The good news is that it is not as bad as its detractors claim.
Some of the declarations with respect to the agreement strike me as being almost ridiculous to the extent that I understand the language which is plainly set forth in the agreement.
It seems to me that the question before this Elouse, in deciding whether or not it should support the agreement, is to consider what I called the bad news and to decide whether the free trade agreement and of course the Bill that implements it, but the free trade agreement for all its problems and disappointments, should be ratified.
We all bring a certain bias to this debate. For some it is pure knee-jerk anti-Americanism. For some it is fear that Canada is swimming into the whale's mouth, which was a turn of phrase recently used by John Ralston Saul in an article in The Spectator. I have somewhat more respect for that position, but I believe that it is born of inferiority and insecurity, suggesting that Canada needs another ninety-odd GATT partners to bargain effectively with the United States.
New Zealand has apparently been quite successful in its free trade arrangement with Australia. Admittedly, the dimensions are somewhat different, but we are looking at something like five times the population. New Zealand clearly has the better part of that bargain. I have always felt that skilful negotiators in Canada, and efficient industry in Canada, would have enormous advantages in a comprehensive agreement with the United States.
For still others who oppose the agreement there is fear of persona! dislocation, job loss, and so on. This fear will legitimately persist no matter how many arguments may be made that Canada and Canadians as a whole will benefit. Adjustment will be very much a part of the implementation of this agreement. It seems to me that the Government has fallen
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
far short in satisfying those constituencies that the necessary adjustments will be made in a timely fashion.
I have my own preference, Madam Speaker, I will not call it a bias, born of my experience as a Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development in the previous Liberal Government, my role as Minister of Science and Technology, and my own personal contacts with GATT and with our major trading partners at the international level. I believe and I would like to think that my preference which has always been for a comprehensive bilateral agreement with the United States is not born of bias but is born and essentially arises from the appraisal of a number of very salient facts. I am not going to repeat them, because many of them have been repeated ad nauseam in the House, and in other places.
We all know the extent of Canada's dependence on international trade. We all know the extent of Canada's dependence on the United States market. Much as many of us may deplore that fact, and we tried to take Canada way from that dependence when I was Minister, that is a hard fact, and also that the United States market is the largest and most significant market for finished goods in the world. I know many who will argue that we should enhance our trade with the newly industrialized countries, the Third World, China, and India. I agree with that, and I see no incompatibility between that posture and a comprehensive agreement with the United States.
I would point out for those who wax enthusiastic about the Peoples' Republic of China that the Gross National Product per head in China, in the range of $600 per year, gives it a total capacity to consume foreign goods of something in the neighbourhood of Canada's, and perhaps a slightly less domestic market. One must always bear that in mind. Sometimes people get carried away with the fact that we are looking at one billion souls. The fact is that it is their purchasing capacity that counts in terms of international trade.
I also have to point out that we have seen the growth of trading blocks. Much has been said about that. It is very significant, the Macdonald Commission told us, and it is an incontrovertible fact that Canada does not have unfettered access to a market of 100 million people, as do members of the free trade area in Europe, the Economic Community, Japan, and the United States.
Finally, another very salient fact has been the growth of U.S. protectionism. We fought it as best we could during the years when we had the stewardship of the Government and of the country. We were relatively successful sometimes, but not successful at others because the Americans have a wide range of non-tariff barriers, regulatory proceedings, and others which prevent Canadian firms from having unfettered access to the United States. It is absolutely obligatory that the access we have for the products we now sell be secured. Another thrust, of course, is to ensure that that market is enhanced to the extent it can be.

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Finally, any arrangement that is entered into with the United States must be compatible with GATT and acceptable to our trading partners. The only arrangement which is acceptable to the GATT and acceptable to our trading partners is a free trade area under Article 24. It could be a custom's union, or it could go further. However, essentially it has to meet the criteria of the GATT. I would like to say a word in that context about the sectoral approach.
I have always been, as I suppose we all should be, a great advocate of the sectoral approach. There is nothing like carving out those niches in someone else's market, penetrating them, and exploiting them. That is what we attempted to do. That is the best of all possible worlds. Unfortunately, in the areas we were interested in penetrating in the U.S. market during our negotiations and meetings with Mr. Brock who was then the U.S. trade ambassador, it became quickly apparent that the Americans were not interested in such sectoral agreements. Going beyond that, as Members of this House probably know, although some may not, sectoral agreements are totally incompatible with the GATT and require waivers from two-thirds of the GATT members in order to enter into them.
These are not areas, and this is not an approach which enhances international trade. It restricts international trade. Hence, that is why the GATT itself sanctions a comprehensive free trade area, which cannot be prejudicial to third parties, which cannot restrict trade, but in the long term is intended to expand and enhance international trade.
Returning to the criteria and assessing this agreement, I pointed out that there were a number of important thrusts. First, the importance of securing access to the U.S. market. Why is this such an issue? Why can this not be resolved through the GATT?
[ Translation]
So I would have this to say to my colleagues. Although tariffs may have been noticeably reduced since the Second World War, members of the GATT, including Canada and the United States, have obviously introduced clever new mechanisms in order to protect their national products against foreign competition. As you know, madam Speaker, this is what we call non tariff barriers and there is a whole range of these barriers as far as the United States are concerned and also other countries, even Canada. These non tariff barriers, although not very visible, are quite real and indeed reach incredible proportions. In fact, hundreds of them have been pointed out in studies conducted by the GATT on this matter. One glaring example of this, and I will come back on it later on, is a non tariff barrier that exists in the United States, that is the preference being given national products by all levels of Government in the United States as far as public procurement is concerned.
Also, madam Speaker, as we know full well here in Canada, there are the so-called trade remedies being used by Americans, antidumping laws, countervailing duties and other special measures aimed at protecting their national products against
foreign competition. The list of Canadian products that have been hit by these measures is long: chemical products, canned clams, salt, cut flowers, potatoes, fish, pork, steel, wood shingles, and of course the most famous case of all, softwood lumber. So there is the problem!
Can we resolve this kind of non-tariff barrier through the agreement? The sad part is that I do not think we have. I do not think that the agreement provides the kind of security of access that we desired and that we anticipated.
The binational dispute settlement mechanism, that is, the provisions of Chapter 19, is a very far cry from a dramatic breakthrough. It is really, in essence, a substitute for the U.S. court system. They do not become relevant, as I presume Members know, until a dispute, whether it be softwood lumber, shingles or whatever, has travelled the same route as it does now, namely, the U.S. Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission.
Going back to our own experience as a Government, the issue was not a distrust of U.S. courts; it was trying to create a surprise-free environment which would inhibit the introduction of these actions destined to harass Canadian industry. The experts can argue that with the creation of this binational dispute settlement mechanism, which will apply to the domestic law of the United States, the process may be shortened.
In most cases that we will be concerned with regarding disputes between our two countries, one would hope that it never reaches that level, because it is the creation of that uncertainty through the International Trade Commission and the Commerce Department that has been the problem. The softwood lumber dispute settled in 1983 never went to the court system; it was settled at the level of the International Trade Commission.
Was there an alternative? I would argue that there was. If this agreement is adopted, I would hope that the process will be examined and that efforts will be made to find a mechanism to create a surprise-free environment.
Let me offer an example. The Hon. Gerald Regan, when he was Minister for International Trade in the previous Government, had proposed such a mechanism and had discussed it with some of his U.S. colleagues. We were told that the Americans would not surrender sovereignty over a dispute mechanism, that they would insist upon the application of their laws or insist upon the ultimate authority of Congress. I believe that the Canadian Parliament should have the same authority.
The mechanism that was suggested was that up front there would be a binational panel of this kind, without travelling the full administrative route in the United States, which would render a binding decision subject only to it being overturned by
August 29, 1988

either an Act of the U.S. Congress or an Act of the Canadian Parliament. The likelihood of that kind of action being taken by the Congress or by the Canadian Parliament is of course very remote, so one would have effectively established a level of certainty far exceeding what one finds in this agreement.
A lesser proposal, not quite as dramatic, is simply that a blue ribbon panel be set up ab initio to deal with the particular complaint of a U.S. domestic industry, and in that fashion a determination would be made by a blue ribbon panel. Then, should the complainant really want to take on that panel and proceed through the administrative mechanisms in the courts of the United States, the complainant would be free to do so. It was felt that over a period of time the stature of such a panel would dominate and, by convention, would probably become effectively the panel of first and last resort on these disputes.
I do believe, if we look at Chapter 18, the creation of a Canada-U.S. Trade Commission, that this lays some groundwork at the cabinet level which I think over a period of time could be developed into an effective agency for the resolution of most international disputes.
There are other areas that are seldom discussed, such as the frequent application of Section 337 of the 1930 U.S. trade law, which is used to harass, especially new wave industries who claim patent protection, and they are basically through a simple petition exercise involved in U.S. court proceedings. This is something which I understand was addressed during the negotiations but was not resolved in Canada's favour. We have here, indeed, the status quo. In any new wave industry, if any of us should develop a product which we feel must have access to the United States market, which effectively all new wave products must have, then the question is: Why would I put my plant in Montreal as opposed to Burlington? Would I not be better off trying to export back to a market of 25 million people and stay in the market of 250 million?
I say again that security of access was not achieved. The situation remains effectively where it is. What about enhanced access, government procurement? Again, I think that we all have reason to be profoundly disappointed. We now have achieved, according to the calculations, an increase cutting into that $700 billion of government procurement of approximately one-half of 1 per cent. Big deal. We have moved to $4 billion. It is a little movement, but certainly a far cry from the expectations that Canadian exporters had with respect to achieving greater inroads into U.S. government procurement at all levels. You may recall that government procurement by America was one of the specific examples that I cited a moment ago.
What about the other side? What about this issue of sovereignty that we hear so much about? Are social programs and subsidy codes and so on going to be affected? I think that one thing that the people who criticize this agreement must recognize-and most refuse to do so-is that the GATT already provides a very high degree of encroachment on Canadian sovereignty. Canadians are not free to subsidize as
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
they like. We may have done it in certain instances, but we are not getting away with it in many instances. That will get worse and worse.
To use the sovereignty argument one has to recognize that every treaty of any kind, in any area, is an encroachment on sovereignty. It is a surrendering of sovereignty to an international forum.
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, and others of this House, especially critics of this accord-because no one knows what the total impact may be-that this agreement is terminable on six months' notice. It seems to me that that is a complete answer to the sovereignty question. If Canadians feel at a given moment in time that yes, indeed, their social programs are going to be affected, are going to be homogenized, are going to be swallowed up by the whale, surely there would be enough national will in Canada to say "Enough is enough, we will terminate the agreement".
I might add as a footnote that I wish that Meech Lake were terminable in such fashion. The free trade agreement is there for six months, but Meech Lake, I fear, is there forever.
I also hear a lot of people lecture Canadian business on the fact that it does not really know what is good for it. I would not presume to do that. The business community has looked at this agreement and by and large has decided that it is in its best interests. 1 am forced to rely upon its opinion. It seems to me that it is somewhat presumptuous to tell the Canadian business community that this agreement is really bad for it and that we know better in this place.
What of the threat to cultural industries? 1 come back to the question of sovereignty. One argument to which I have never received a satisfactory response when I always argued for a comprehensive agreement was this: Does one as a Canadian seriously think that in terms of cultural industries the Italians, the French, the Japanese, the West Germans, and the British are going to step forward and protect the Canadian publishing sector or the Canadian communications sector or the Canadian theatrical sector? It can only be done in one way, and that is by a bilateral negotiation with the United States. It cannot be escaped, because the others have totally different interests. I do not think that the Japanese are especially concerned with their publishing industry in terms of American intrusion.
I understand that I am running out of time. Let me just say that I am satisfied, from my own experience and my own studies, that the GATT is not an alternative. I should say that in cleaning out my office-because, as I have said, I will not be running in the next election-I came upon a speech which I gave to the National Liberal Leadership Convention in 1984. In one paragraph of it I said: "Those who are involved with me in my campaign are tired of the old refrain that the world is a hostile, competitive environment, that we must peer beyond our borders wary and trembling in collective insecurity". I say that the adoption of this agreement will be very much in keeping with that thought, although I have serious reservations about it, as I have pointed out. Much improvement is needed,

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and I like to look at this as a beginning of a process, not the end of a process. The agreement must be improved, but for the reasons which I have outlined, I intend to vote for Bill C-130.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I think everyone in the House would agree that the Hon. Member delivered a very thoughtful talk. I think it was enjoyed and listened to by all who were in the Chamber and, 1 might add, by those who were close to the Chamber as well.
The Hon. Member said that he is not running in the next election. We have sat in this House together for nine or ten years now. I think it is fair to say that he will be missed. I hope that he will come back and play the piano for us the odd time. It is Canada's loss.
The Hon. Member is absolutely right when he says that this is the beginning, that we did not solve all the problems, and that there is much negotiating to be done in the future. He was an economic Minister on the Treasury benches of a Government. What advice would he give to the Government and the negotiators who will, over the next five to seven years, be trying to define a subsidy? When does a subsidy becomes an unfair trade practice and when a regional development program is just that and not an unfair trade practice? What kind of advice would he give to the Government's negotiators for that period of negotiation?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the issue of where a subsidy begins and where it ends is an extremely complicated issue. GATT, of course, already has rules, and I am one of those people who happens to believe that a benefit that may come from this agreement is that there will be some trail-blazing in establishing criteria which is much easier done one on one between Canada and the United States, criteria which then may be extended to our trading partners as a whole.
I cannot deal with all the regional subsidies. It would be a bit complicated to deal with them in a few minutes. It is my own view that national programs which are available without discrimination on a national treatment basis are programs for which Canada should fight strongly.
In terms of regional development, I think Canada should say "if you have national treatment and you are the subsidiary of a United States firm and want to locate in Cape Breton, you will get the Cape Breton development tax credit along with everyone else". The object of these programs is not to discriminate against the United States; it is to promote industrial development and jobs in the regions. That is the kind of effort that should be made, and the United States will have similar objectives as different areas of the country become impoverished from time to time and market forces are not capable of dealing with them. They have them now.
We in Montreal used to read every day that it pays to locate in New York State, and indeed it did. This is not something
that is unique to Canada. It is a problem both countries will have to deal with, but I would like to think it would be dealt with on that kind of basis in order to satisfy the GATT partners as well.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I want to echo the words of my colleague and add to them our best wishes to the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) when he leaves this House. I would like to ask the Hon. Member three questions. First, if this deal were to fail, what would be the ability of a new Government to negotiate a new deal? Does he see that as being possible or realistic?
Second, if this deal were to fail, does he believe that after such a failure there would be any possibility of opening up sector-by-sector negotiations? Third, could he comment on what he would presume to be the expectancy of the Auto Pact if this agreement agreed upon between Canada and the United States were to fail to become ratified?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I think the question is highly hypothetical. How do we know what the reaction will be on either side of the border if the agreement should fail? I think the reasons for its failure would be important, but implicit in the Hon. Member's question is that there would be hostility and lack of trust, that we would essentially revert to where we were, that the protectionist forces might increase, and that Canada would not have the benefit of the so-called side-swipe provision which is in the agreement. I suppose that is a possibility.
Another possibility is that there could be a change of administrations on both sides of the border and another look would be taken at an agreement in a different form. It is a hypothetical question. My own preference would be that it not fail, but that there be a very strong commitment on both sides to improve it in some of the areas I have touched upon.
That ties in with a third question as well, what would be the impact on the Auto Pact if the agreement were to fail. Of course, the Auto Pact is terminable on one year's notice. Again, the question presumes an underlying hostility. I think the real issue is that in business and commerce, by and large, as the Hon. Member knows, if an agreement is operating to the advantage of both parties, it is unlikely to be terminated. On the other hand, if it is operating only to the advantage of one party, then it is very likely to be terminated, irrespective of this particular agreement.
That was the point I made earlier in regard to the sovereignty argument. If this agreement operates dramatically to the benefit of the United States and to the detriment of Canada, a future Canadian Government will be in a position to terminate it and to receive a mandate from the Canadian people to do so.
The Hon. Member asked if we would have any chance of getting sector by sector agreements if the agreement were to fail. I said earlier that I basically favour sector by sector agreements. Who would not favour sector by sector agreements? I suppose it is what one would call cherry picking, if
August 29, 1988

one could get away with it, but it has to be done on a reciprocal basis.
When we sought agreements on urban transport, steel, informatics and agricultural implements, the four areas that we last tried to do sector by sector agreements on, we were quickly told by the United States administration that it was not interested. I am not so sure that the failure of this agreement would have any impact one way or the other. I think the difficulty is that sector by sector is a non-starter, would be frowned upon by GATT, and very likely would not be approved by the requisite two-thirds of the membership.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard).


Lucien Bouchard: Madam Speaker, this occasion fills me with awe and respect, since it is the first time I have had an opportunity to rise in the House to speak in debate. I shall, if I may, address my initial remarks to my constituents in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean, to those who made it possible for me to enter these precincts and who have placed their trust in me. I want to give them the assurance that I will do everything I can to deserve that trust and will always be available to listen to what they have to say.
I am of course delighted that my maiden speech will be in support of a bill that is vital to Canada's future, to our economic development and to the national reconciliation to which this Government has dedicated so much of its energies.
A great deal has been said since the beginning of the debate on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which has given rise to some remarks that were often bitter and spread a great deal of confusion in the minds of our opponents.
We are faced with two points of view. One is apocalyptic, and it is therefore necessary to try and put a more accurate perspective on this debate.
The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is merely an agreement that enshrines an irreversible reality. The facts are stubborn, that we know, and basically, it has been long accepted that our economies are interdependent. Actually, this agreement reflects a world-wide and unescapable trend towards putting an end to tariff barriers between trading nations.
At a time when the Common Market, with a population of 350 million people, is a reality that is increasingly making itself felt, our North American economy must also learn to express its maturity and get rid of artificial barriers on the road to progress.
I referred to Europe, Madam Speaker. We have all heard the arguments that raised the spectre of Canadian sovereignty being undermined as a result of the agreement. We must
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
realize that Europe went through this a long time ago and since then has taken some realistic steps, going beyond the stage of an economic market to a commitment to a continental political entity. We must not forget that in Europe there are several political institutions, including the European Parliament and the Council of Europe, and that we in Canada must become part of the international market, the international club of trading nations, mindful of the fact that a nation that does not have a market of 100 million people is doomed to failure.
We are a big country, we have almost unlimited resources, but we are few in number. One of the difficulties with our country is that we have the will to succeed, we have all it takes, everything needed for what we desire, but we are limited by our numbers. With our population of 26 million, we cannot isolate ourselves, living in a world where interdependence is the rule.
This means that the dynamics of events, history, everything that drives the economy, the whole outlook for this country require an agreement with the large trading partner next to us.
Trade between Canada and the United States has increased steadily since 1935, when we first reduced tariffs. Today, we know how important trade with our southern neighbours is.
In Europe, when 1 was Ambassador in France, 1 often told the French people and Europeans with whom I spoke, to impress upon them the importance of our trade with the United States, that in some years the Province of Ontario alone sold the United States as much as all of Japan, if not more. 1 assure you that compared to the situation in Europe, this makes people realize how dangerous it is for us and for our country not to ensure secure access for such an important trade. Basically, people who tell us about the dangers for sovereignty should themselves recognize that the best way to assure Canadian sovereignty is secure access to the American market. We cannot live every day at the mercy of the U.S. Congress, when our trade is so important. Remember that when President Nixon slapped a levy on all Canadian imports a few years ago we immediately had an economic crisis on our hands. We cannot accept to live with this threat. We must set our sovereignty on a firm base. We must for ever protect our economic security. We must sign the agreement.
Today's new reality is that Canada-U.S. trade is no longer a one-way street. People like Campeau, Bombardier, Seagram and Molson control thousands of jobs south of the border. Canadians and Americans have gradually become partners on the same market of 250 million consumers.
What Canada needs to do now in this context is to make sure that we stand fast against the wave of protectionism in the United States and maintain this vital market for our economy by signing a firm agreement with our American partner.
Madam Speaker, I come from Quebec. 1 represent a riding there and our people have reached a strong consensus concerning the free trade issue. For very sound reasons, politicians as

August 29, 1988
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
well as businessmen, industry, and large and small companies see eye to eye on the need for the Free Trade Agreement.
The Quebec economy simply cannot do without the American market where, I would remind the House, the province sells in excess of 75 per cent of its products, and that works out to roughly $16 billion a year.
Our major companies and our service industries, not to mention hundreds of small- and medium-sized businesses, have long since lived up to the challenge of competitors and they report massive exports to the United States. Our people are not afraid of free trade. They have been asking for it for a long time now because they know that tariff elimination spells lower production costs, higher productivity and guaranteed access to a huge consumer market.
When talking about such a sensitive sector as the forest industry we must keep in mind that Quebec exports to the United States total $3 billion. This is where we can see that for such an important sector-particularly in my riding where a lot of people depend on forestry products-untold benefits will flow from the implementation of the FTA. In recent years Quebec, like other Canadian provinces, was hard hit by American protectionism, especially in connection with softwood. Signing an agreement with the United States will put our producers beyond the reach of these coutervailing trade measures.
Our petrochemical industry, which is also facing high tariffs, will benefit from the elimination of U.S. trade barriers which, in turn, will promote the processing of our products to a larger degree within our boundaries.
For Quebec's outlying regions which have suffered for a long time from being far away from markets, the free trade agreement offers an unprecedented opportunity for economic renewal. The Government has already clearly determined that regional development policies will be implemented so that our regions can benefit from the new climate created by the free trade agreement.
National reconciliation that this Government has tirelessly championed will not be brought about merely by a constitutional agreement, it will also require an increase in a better distribution of collective wealth. This, in turn, will not be brought about by protectionism but rather through openness, a greater awareness of our capabilities and a willingness to tackle difficulties.
This is the way our businesses have set out to capture the American market. The way, Hydro-Quebec, with our huge hydro resource base as well as an expertise which is second to none, has gained faithful customers among New England States and is selling them its power surpluses, so much so that at this time, Hydro-Quebec has already signed for the coming years power delivery contracts totalling more than $32 billion. Now that the Quebec Government wishes to launch Phase II of the James Bay development, the free trade agreement with the United States confirms and clarifies our access to the
American market for this energy resource as well as for other energy sources originating in Canada.
At the same time, with this deal, Quebec electricty becomes much more attractive to U.S. suppliers of energy. Under the provisions of the agreement giving our partners access to energy supplies, it will be easier to finance such ventures as Phase II of the James Bay project.
For Quebec, as for all provinces with energy resources, the free trade agreement will mean new investments in the energy sector and its related industries.
As a Quebecker, I am particularly sensitive to the new horizons this agreement opens for Quebec. The creative enthousiasm of our young people and the calm self-confidence of our older entrepreneurs who have already started to gain access to the U.S. market will now be visible throughout the North American continent.
Of course, opponents of our initiative have implied that, for all practical purposes, this agreement would put an end to the provinces sovereignty over their natural resources. Far from the truth!
In no way will the provinces lose their natural resources because of the free trade deal. The provinces will continue to own, manage and preserve, as is the case now, the various resources located within their boundaries.
Naturally, exporting provinces will have to abide by this Agreement. Nevertheless, they will gain enormous benefits as far as investment, guaranteed access to the market and jobs are concerned. The provincial Governments involved in no way attacked those special provisions in the Canada-United States agreement.
In the area of energy, as in other areas of the trade agreement, Canadian sovereignty never was put into question, nor were the traditional rights of Canadian provinces to manage their resources.
Canadian sovereignty, Madam Speaker, has been at the heart of the free trade debate. And no doubt that aspect of the debate gave rise to the most evident signs of demagogy and assumed outrage.
However, nothing that makes this country politically, socially and culturally different from the United States is affected by the agreement's provisions. Our cultural industries-the publishing industry, the film industry, TV, music and broadcasting are specifically excluded from the free trade agreement.
The century-old commitment of the Canadian Federal entity to fight regional economic disparities also is outside the scope of the Canada-U.S. agreement.
This means that the negotiation of regional development agreements will go on between the Canadian Government and provinces. This involves the essence of this country, its perception of equality, its social justice goals.
August 29, 1988

Over the years, Canada has built up one of the most advanced social system in the world. This to its mind is the sign of a society committed to reducing inequalities, a society where compassion is a major factor.
The American society, for reasons of its own which are not for us to discuss here, chose another road. It would be highly naive to be ignorant of what our Canadian values are, to believe the signing of a trade agreement with the United States implies that Canada would adhere to the Americans social standards.
Our social programs are here to stay. And I challenge anyone among our friends opposite or our friends anywhere to show that the free trade agreement will be the end of any social program.
No provision in the treaty requires Canada to harmonize its economical or social policies with those in United States.
Since 1935, Canada and the United States have been gradually reducing their mutual tariffs by 72 per cent. In the meantime, our social policy has evolved in a way that is quite different from that in the United States. Why should the total elimination of tariffs force us to do away with it?
By the same token, the reduction of tariff barriers did not impede Canada from promoting bilingualism and multicultur-alism.
Our programs in such areas as Medicare, Old Age Security pensions, family allowances and unemployment insurance have never been on the table.
Moreover, American fishermen who felt that the unemployment insurance benefits paid to their Canadian counterparts were concealed subsidies saw their claims turned down by the US Department of Commerce.
The additional wealth resulting from the free trade agreement remains in fact the best assurance for the maintenance and development of our social programs. The economic stagnation and protectionism suggested by free trade oponents would be the best way to jeopardize our social gains.
Our Canadian identity cannot flourish in isolation, Mr. Speaker; it cannot be the result of artificial barriers. It will result from a world oriented stronger economy, to the advantage of regional development.
I strongly urge all Quebecers and other Canadians to be suspicious of all the prophets of doom and gloom who suggest that Canada will be swallowed by its huge neighbour. The Free Trade Agreement is a major step towards the achievement of the Canadian national goal. It is also the affirmation of our country's global role. Our relations with our neighbour to the South should increasingly become more responsible and adult. Fear and unwillingness to face facts would lead us nowhere. The United States are our natural partner. We cannot overlook the benefits which we could and should gain from this free trade agreement.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The surest sign Canadian maturity is the support already given to the Free Trade Agreement, a support which proves Canadians are no longer afraid of competition, that they have gotten rid of their inferiority complex towards the United States and that they are determined to get their share of the North American economy.
Mr. Speaker, more than a trade issue this will have an impact on the very future of this country, something which could motivate people into correcting shortcomings and help Canada achieve the place it deserves among nations.


Mr. James:: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Fac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Bouchard) on his maiden speech and especially on his thoughts on this very important agreement. I want to bring to his attention the area of petro-chemicals which he mentioned and ask his thoughts on it. I would like to refer to a recent speech made by Thomas d'Aquino, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Business Council on National Issues. He talks about myths and reality. He said:
Here the myth becomes even more fantastic, especially when we count the many precise ways in which access to the United States market is either improved or made more secure by the Agreement. Take the case, for example, of where access is improved. Virtually all tariffs on trade will be removed over a 10-year period. Precise rules of origin will help clarify uncertainties at border crossings. Customer user fees will be abandoned by the United States by 1994. Except where the Agreement provides otherwise, the right of national treatment will ensure that the United States will not discriminate against Canadian producers. Steps are taken to reduce or inhibit the establishment of non-tariff barriers such as discriminatory product standards and product approval requirements. Tariffs and quotas on all agricultural goods, except for quotas in support of supply management schemes, will be removed.
Access to government procurement markets will be expanded. Rules of origin offer more protection against offshore parts producers thereby giving increased reciprocal access to Canadian and American producers. A significant number of service industries will benefit because of the provisions dealing with the right of establishment and the principle of national treatment. Temporary entry for Canadian business people and service personnel is facilitated.
I know that the Province of Quebec is interested in furthering its petrochemical industry. With regard to tariff removal in particular, Polysar said:
It is Polysar's considered opinion that the recently negotiated free trade agreement with the U.S. will provide significant benefits and opportunities for all Canadians.
In our case we believe the removal of chemical tariffs over the next five years is a key element. Recently we have been considering reopening a plant to produce styrene that has been shut down since 1981, and the removal of tariffs could have an immediate impact on that project. The elimination of the 7.4 per cent duty on styrene would improve the Company's profit margin on the commodity by 2.5 cents for every pound sold. If the plant is reopened, the 100,000 ton of styrene would all be exported, largely to the U.S., leading to an improvement in profits of $5 to $10 annually.
What have the key executives and workers in the petrochemical industry in the Province of Quebec said to the

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Member about the opportunities there to expand the petrochemical industry in which I know that province is so very interested?


Lucien Bouchard: Madam Speaker, of course, the free trade agreement would provide us with a marvelous opportunity to improve Quebec's chances in the petrochemical industry. I can draw a parallel between this sector and the aluminum sector.
I was elected in a riding where raw aluminum is very important. We have raw aluminum plants in Alma, and there is another large one in Arvida, as well as in La Baie. The paradox is that while raw aluminum goes freely into the United States now, when we try to transform it in the secondary industry, we cannot do so without being exposed to tariffs. This is very bad because regions like mine can only be the exporters of natural resources, like electricity. This agreement will allow us to create secondary industries which are very important and will revitalize our region. It will create new jobs in the small enterprises for our young people. The youth of our region will not leave to live in big cities. While it is a good thing for them to leave sometimes, it is bad for the future when most young people leave their families and the region.
This is also a social project in that it will create jobs and new and great opportunities for young Canadians to build a new society.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, since this third reading debate is the last opportunity for us in the House of Commons to discuss the so-called free trade arrangement, I want to take the opportunity to deal with some of the critical arguments.
At the outset let us make it absolutely clear that what we are discussing in this Parliament is this very specific arrangement between Canada and the United States, signed by the President and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on January 2, 1988. That is what we are discussing. We are discussing whether we are for or against that specific arrangement and nothing else. What we must do is to add up the good points and the bad points in that arrangement and decide whether it is good for Canada or bad for Canada.
I say that because many people believe or make the mistake of discussing theoretical free trade, textbook free trade, or classical free trade. As a matter of fact, they are confusing this arrangement with the Common Market, with the European Free Trade Association, with the Auto Pact, and with GATT. All these things that I just mentioned are, in a sense, a type of free trade. What is evident is that there are many types of free trade arrangements. It is also obvious that one can be in favour of some types of free trade and totally opposed to other types of free trade arrangements. Of course, it depends on the details of each one.
A very excellent example of this is in Europe. In the centre of Europe there is the European Economic Community, better known as the Common Market. That comprises 12 countries. However, there are also in Europe seven countries that are known as the outer seven. They also believe in free trade but do not want anything to do with the Common Market. The fact that they are opposed to joining the Common Market does not mean they are against free trade. They have set up their own association known as the European Free Trade Association. Those countries include Switzerland, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Norway and, I believe, Portugal. Britain was originally a member of that group as well.
They have agreed to a type of free trade arrangement that is different from the Common Market. The European Free Trade Association has an agreement whereby they have eliminated the tariffs on all manufactured products but do not deal at all with agricultural products. They do not deal with resources or with joint economic policy. Since the Common Market deals with agriculture, with resources, and deals with a common economic policy, they did not want to join.
I simply make that point because I want to demonstrate very clearly that one can be against one type of free trade agreement and totally for another type, depending on the conditions.
In this debate, the Member who just spoke, the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard), made a common mistake. He said that because the Common Market is a good thing for some European countries, and they have agreed to that kind of free trade arrangement and it has not hurt them, consequently we should agree to this bilateral free trade arrangement with the United States.
There is no similarity between the type of arrangement that exists in Europe among the Common Market countries and this arrangement. First, in the European arrangement there are 12 countries, a great number of which, including Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, are more or less the same size. Many of the countries can balance each other off economically.
The other major difference besides being a multilateral arrangement with countries more or less the same size is that in most cases they do not threaten each other from a cultural point of view because they have different languages and culture. There is the English language, French language, German language, Italian language, Spanish, Dutch and so on. There is quite a difference between that type of arrangement and a bilateral arrangement between a country of 250 million and a country of 25 million people where two-thirds of the population speak English and all of the United States speaks English. The threat to sovereignty is much more pronounced in this bilateral arrangement with the United States than it is in any way at all with the Common Market. Despite that, I repeat that a number of countries in Europe refused to join the Common Market because such things as agriculture were included.
August 29, 1988

The Liberal Party, which opposes this specific agreement with the United States, has taken a stand and still stands for freer trade. It was under the Liberal Government that Canada joined GATT in 1948. We were one of the first countries to join and set up the GATT arrangement, which is a type of free trade arrangement. The preamble to GATT states: 'These are arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade, and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international agreement".
The Member who spoke before me asked why we should be afraid of this agreement if we are a member of GATT. Again, GATT is a multilateral arrangement with many countries so that they can balance each other off. It is not a one on one situation where a large country like the United States can dominate the smaller country, in this case Canada. Not only is GATT a large multilateral arrangement, it is an arrangement that includes many cultures, many languages and many types of economy.
The Liberal Party supported freer trade since the end of the Second World War. Canada joined GATT under the Liberal Party. In addition, it was under the Liberal Party that tariffs between Canada and the United States were brought down from an average tariff of 30 per cent in the late 1940s to an average tariff of 5 per cent right now, before this agreement is in place. Not only was the general tariff brought down from 30 per cent to 5 per cent, we have a situation now where 80 per cent of all trade between Canada and the United States is without tariff at all. That was done without this special so-called proposed free trade agreement. That was done under the negotiations relating to GATT and sector negotiations.
Much can be done and has been done to bring about freer trade without selling out our sovereignty, our independence, and our identity.
Let me also point out that in 1987, the year before this agreement was signed, Canada had a $20 billion trade surplus with the United States. There is a situation, without this agreement, in which there is no tariff on 80 per cent of the goods and services between the United States and Canada. The average tariff has been brought down from 30 per cent to 5 per cent, and we had a trade balance of $20 billion. Yet the Conservatives are on their knees begging for an arrangement with the United States.
I mentioned that the GATT was, in itself, a type of free trade agreement. I found it amusing this morning as I listened to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) who, in his bumptious and show-boating sort of way, listed off a number of former Liberal cabinet Ministers who supported this agreement. He referred to the Hon. Donald Macdonald and the Hon. Gerald Regan. He did not refer, of course, to the Hon. Eric Kierans or to the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, also former Liberal Ministers who were very active in the trade and economic area and who are very much opposed to this agreement. We just listened to the Secretary of State, a new
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Minister from Quebec. He and others try to give the impression that all of Quebec is in favour of the agreement, that there is a great consensus in Quebec, including the Quebec Government, in favour of this agreement. That is not so. The business associations are favourable to the agreement, La Chambre de Commerce, Le Conseil du patronat, and those who have economic power are in favour, but L'Union des producteurs agricoles, the trade unions in Quebec, the associations of social groups and so on, are opposed. It will be interesting to see what will happen in Quebec at election time. The point is that there is a great division not only in Quebec but throughout the whole country with respect to this agreement.
Having sat on two parliamentary committees, studying this proposed agreement, I have come to the conclusion that, generally, those who support the agreement are the business groups, the chambers of commerce, the boards of trade, the manufacturing associations, and so on, those with economic power. Those who are opposed, and there are a lot who are opposed, are the trade unions, the women's groups, some of the academics, the National Association of Poor People, and the churches. In other words, those who put a higher priority on economics seem to favour the agreement, although I think they are being short-sighted, and those who oppose the agreement are those who put a high priority on social, political and cultural matters including sovereignty, independence and identity. There are exceptions to that assessment, but generally that is the case.
The Minister for International Trade this morning suggested that all free trade agreements are the same. Members of the Government are using various agreements interchangeably. They seem to indicate that if the Common Market is good, if the Australian-New Zealand Agreement is good for those countries, then this must be good for us. I have already dealt with that. It is not at all true.
Members of the Government also have the tendency to suggest, and they do suggest, that if one is against this agreement that they have negotiated, one is a protectionist. The Secretary of State just said that if we are against that agreement, we are protectionists. That is absolute nonsense. To be against this agreement does not mean you are a protectionist any more than that the Austrians, the Swedes and the Finns, who are opposed to the Common Market, are protectionists. They have their own kind of free trade arrangement which is more suitable to them. We feel there is a better way of dealing with the United States than this agreement. Because we are against the agreement does not mean we are protectionists.
In some respects, the agreement falls short of what a true free trade agreement, a classical free trade agreement, should be, because it does not ensure access to the United States. For example, the most serious trade barrier between Canada and the United States is not tariffs. I already mentioned that 80 per cent of all goods and services between Canada and the

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
United States pass without tariff. The most serious trade barrier or harassment between Canada and the United States is countervail and anti-dumping. This agreement does nothing about those two things.
As Canadians, we are all familiar with the shakes and shingles cases, the softwood lumber case, the East Coast fish case, the potash case, and the steel case. Those cases are all cases where the United States added a countervailing duty to the Canadian product going into the United States and thereby raised a barrier, in a sense, against our goods going into the United States. Since 1979 there have been 300 countervail cases launched against Canadian business in the United States and in 70 per cent of those 300 cases, there was a decision to impose countervail duties against the Canadian firms. That is a serious trade barrier to the United States, and this agreement does nothing about that. In that respect, it falls short of a classical free trade agreement.
On the other hand, the agreement goes much beyond what a trade agreement usually contains. A classical free trade agreement eliminates the barriers to trade between one country and the other country. It eliminates the tariff and nontariff barriers, or lowers the tariff and non-tariff barriers, from one country to the other country so one can sell one's goods in the other country without these barriers. But this agreement includes, for example, the non-discriminatory access of Americans to Canadian energy. What does that have to do with the trade agreement? What does that have to do with trade barriers? It has nothing to do with them. We are eliminating the tariff against American energy coming into Canada and they are doing the same for us.
Why are we giving them non-discriminatory access to our energy supplies? It is obvious that the United States is running out of energy. It is running out of coal, gas and oil. It does not have the same hydro power we have. They are looking 50 years, 60 years, 100 years down the road. They see what Canada has and they want access to our resources. So the Americans said to this Conservative Government-which went on its knees to the United States begging for this agreement when we really did not need it-we will eliminate the tariffs on the balance of the 20 per cent of goods that still have a tariff. We will do nothing about countervail and anti-dumping, but to do that we want access to your energy. And they got it. Not only did the Americans get that, but I would like to talk about some other things in this agreement that do not belong in a free trade agreement.
I already mentioned energy. There is also the national treatment of American firms in Canada. Of course, it is vice versa in the United States, but there are 250 million of them and only 25 million of us. This means we have to treat American firms in Canada in exactly the same way we treat Canadian firms. I submit that this sort of thing does not belong in an agreement like this.
In addition, we have eliminated the screening of all foreign investment in this country by Americans. They can come in
and buy out our companies, they can invest where they like and can take over Canadian companies, whether or not these companies are essential for our sovereignty and independence, and they can completely own the country as far as this agreement is concerned. That is in the agreement. We have agreed to eliminate the screening of investment takeovers.
I mentioned that one of the main differences between the European Free Trade Association and the Common Market is agriculture. Those who are not in the Common Market did not agree because agriculture is a very sensitive and touchy area. Between Canada and the United States it is also sensitive and touchy. We have a situation where we have a very short growing season. We have high costs associated with our cold weather. We will now be competing with the southern United States which can produce agricultural products over a much longer growing season at a much cheaper rate.
Cultural industries are involved in this free trade agreement even though it is said that they are not. There is an exception which brings them in through the back door. For the first time service industries are included in a free trade agreement. There is no other free trade agreement that covers service industries. Yet here we are in this bilateral ten to one population situation risking our service industries. Financial services are included, which is not usual. There are also restrictions on our Crown corporations and the right to create new Crown corporations, which is not usual in a free trade agreement.
Finally, this agreement eliminates the safeguards under the Auto Pact, which is not a free trade arrangement but which is a managed trade arrangement between the United States and Canada and which has worked very well in favour of Canada.
I have listed for you, Madam Speaker, 10 matters which are in this trade agreement which have no business being in a trade agreement. If this were a strictly free trade agreement, a commercial arrangement, as some of the government Members have stated that it is, then it would have been restricted to the elimination of barriers to trade between the two countries. It is not limited to barriers to trade between the two countries but sells out our ability to control our own country, our own economic policy, our own energy policy, and our own regional development policy as well as many other matters.
By entering into this agreement with the United States we are tying ourselves very strongly and intimately to the American free market system. As a result of doing that we will submit ourselves to strong competitive pressures that will lead to the harmonization of many of our programs which are not mentioned specifically in the agreement. That is what we mean when we say that our social programs are at risk under this agreement, as well as our regional development programs and our environmental programs.
If there are companies in Canada competing with American companies which have the right to sell into Canada without any tariff, then they will have to be competitive with those
August 29, 1988

American companies. The first thing that will happen after this thing gets under way is that there will be a Canadian firm saying: "Look, I have to compete with these American companies. They have a lower price than I have because they do not have the same social costs. They do not have medicare or marketing boards. They do not have this social program. They do not have the same environmental programs. Therefore, if we are to compete you will have to cut back on those programs so I can compete with the American companies, or I will move to the United States". This is a threat that we heard in committee. It is something which is very easy to do. I think that is why a great many of our Canadian businesses favour this agreement. Capital moves very easily, especially when one is setting up a new firm or when one is modernizing, when one has to do something about an outdated plant or factory.
What does one do if one cannot compete properly in Canada? One moves one's Canadian firm south of the border and then sells into Canada. Warehouse and sales personnel could be left up here in order to sell into Canada.
Madam Speaker, I see that my time has expired. I wish to say this in closing. If this agreement is implemented, as is the plan of the Government to do, it will be the beginning of the end of Canada as we have known it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Are there questions or comments? The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Guelph.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, what the Hon. Member has said is reminiscent of what was said in 1965 about the Auto Pact. At that time people said that the Auto Pact would destroy the country. All those people who wanted to be real protectionists ran for cover and said that the Auto Pact would be the destruction of the country. They said that because companies here in Canada would not be able to compete all automobile production would move south of the border. That has not happened. There is still a good deal of it going on here-a great deal more than before.
Which way does the Hon. Member really want it? He has told us tonight that Canadian firms would have difficulty competing under this new regime and that they will want to get rid of our social programs or move to the south.


Kenneth Albert James: He doesn't believe that.


William C. Winegard: I do not think that he believes that either. I have also heard members of the Party of the Hon. Member say: "You know what will happen? All those big multinational corporations are going to move away". Which way do they want it? Members of his Party also say: "They will come up here. All those big multinational corporations will come up here to buy out all our Canadian industry".
Members of the Hon. Member's Party fear that everyone will come up here to buy us out. They also fear that all the multinationals will move south because it will be cheaper there. I say to my hon. colleague, as I have said to him before
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
on more than one occasion, he really cannot have it both ways. Which way does he want it? Will the Hon. Member tell the Canadian people now one way or the other what he thinks will happen so that 20 years from now when the country is enjoying great prosperity, when all the protectionists have run for cover and forgotten that they ever made such statements we will know what the Hon. Member thought?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the Hon. Member has not read the Auto Pact. It was the Liberal Party that brought in the Auto Pact in 1965. At no time did Liberals say that the Auto Pact threatened Canada.
The point I was trying to make at the beginning of my remarks is that the Auto Pact is not similar in any way whatsoever to this bilateral comprehensive agreement with the United States. The Auto Pact obliges the three American automobile companies-there were four at the time-to invest in jobs and in manufacturing in Canada. Under the agreement they are obliged to invest as much in the manufacturing of automobiles and automobile parts in Canada as they sell in Canada. The purpose of the agreement is to make sure that they do not return all the manufacturing to the United States. As I have said, people who categorize such agreements refer to it as a managed trade agreement, not a free trade agreement.
At no time did Liberals say that it threatened our country. As a matter of fact, we said that it did not do that. The results speak for themselves. There has been a great increase in automobile production in Canada since the Auto Pact was signed in 1965. The agreement obliges the American firms to manufacture in Canada. The agreement before us withdraws the safeguards to that. Under the Auto Pact if American production in Canada drops below a certain level then the tariffs apply, whereas they do not apply as long as the Americans produce over that limit in Canada.
With respect to the harmonization and the Hon. Member saying that we are trying to play it both ways, we are not trying to play it both ways. I submit, and I submit very strongly, that by tying ourselves, a country of 25 million, into the market economy of the United States, which is a more open market economy than is ours, there will be strong competitive pressures. I am not saying that we will kill immediately all our industry. We believe more than the United States in the creation of Crown corporations and in the intervention of the Government to make things work. I said that this system threatens our manufacturing industry and puts it at risk. In the long run it will either be pressuring for lower taxes and lower social programs in order to compete with American firms. If that is not obtained then the way will be open to go to the United States, manufacture just over the border and sell back into Canada because there will be no tariffs.
I wish to quote a statement made by the former head of worldwide loans for the Dresden Bank in Germany. He said: "I know that it is not a friendly argument, but it seems to be the truth. If large European firms are given the option of

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
creating a manufacturing plant in either Canada or the United States, they will almost by definition choose the United States. That is because of such factors as transportation costs, taxation rates, market size and labour laws". This was not said by a Liberal, or by Warren Allmand, the Lion. Member from NDG. This is what an economist from Germany has said. He has stated if they cannot get the competitive factors in Canada which are favourable to them, then they will move to the United States. They would do that more likely in a situation where they are building a new plant, or modernizing an old plant. Obviously, if they have a plant in existence now they will let that continue and not move it. However, the pressures are there. They are dangerous for Canada and for our independence and sovereignty.


Mr. Reimer:: If I may, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) a couple of questions. The Member was speaking about the fact that since shortly after World War II the average tariff between Canada and the United States was approximately 30 per cent, and now it is approximately 5 per cent on average. The Hon. Member was saying how we had moved from 30 per cent down to 5 per cent before we got into the trade negotiation and now the agreement before us. Nowhere did he say, during that phasing from 30 per cent down to 5 per cent that there was any loss of sovereignty, or that Canada was in any way restricted in any of its policy choice. Why is it, when the tariff moved from 30 per cent down to 5 per cent, there was no loss whatsoever, but as soon as the tariff moved from 5 per cent down to zero, all of a sudden all the sovereignty is lost? Could the Hon. Member explain that?
My second question concerns social programs. I am sure the Hon. Member received the booklet entitled Evaluating the Free Trade Deal from the C.D. Howe Institute. On the question dealing with social programs the booklet states:
First, 71 countries-including all the advanced industrial countries except Japan and Canada-are currently in regional trade-liberalizing arrangements. None has complained of lost policy independence. For example, the Netherlands maintains an expensive set of social policies, yet it has been in a free trade area with low-spending Belgium for 50 years. Sweden also has many high-cost social policies-indeed many more than does Canada-yet this little country of 8 million people trades tariff free with such economic heavyweights as West Germany and France. Throughout history, rich countries have traded profitably with poor countries, and high-spending countries have traded profitably with low-spending countries. The evidence from other countries is clear: free trade is not the enemy of diversity in social policy.
I ask the Hon. Member, where is the evidence? If the evidence of 71 countries involved in these arrangements proves to the contrary, where is the evidence?


William Warren Allmand: I will deal with the last question of the Hon. Member first. He is falling into the trap I mentioned at the beginning of my speech in which he compares countries in the Common Market and their arrangement, which is a multilateral arrangement between many countries balancing off each other, with this proposed agreement between Canada and the
United States which is 250 million to 25 million with, for the most part, common language.
There is a considerable difference in the Common Market. As far as cultural matters are concerned, not only does Holland have its own language, but it is able to counterbalance. There is no overwhelming partner in that arrangement. If Germany and France decide to gang up on Holland-


John Horton McDermid: Germany is not overwhelming? What are you telling me?


William Warren Allmand: The Hon. Member has nothing to say when he is on his feet making a speech, yet he continuously shouts from his seat.
There is a serious difference between that arrangement where countries can balance each other off in their negotiations, this arrangement where there is a country which is the strongest economic power in the world, with basically the same language as Canada, except for Quebec and parts of other provinces, but the threat to our sovereignty and independence is much more serious.


John Horton McDermid: What bunk!


William Warren Allmand: The Hon. Member says that is bunk. Whenever someone says something opposed to the point of view of the Hon. Member, it is bunk. In that sense he belongs to the same school of thought as the Minister whom he represents, because that is all the Minister can do. When the Minister has no argument, he calls his opponents names.
I wish to point out to the Hon. Member who seriously asked me that question, the reason the people in the outer seven, Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, and Finland, did not join the Common Market, is that they did not think those arrangements were suitable for their countries. Yet they have set up a free trade arrangement which is different from the Common Market, and they are free traders in a different way.
While we oppose that free trade agreement that has been put forward with the United States, we point out that since the end of the Second World War, on a step by step basis dealing with tariffs only, and not dealing with access to energy, agriculture, cultural industries, service industries, financial services, and the restricted use of Crown corporations, without dealing with all those things, we were able to achieve this type of freer trade with the United States, and we would support that. We are not opposed to the lowering of tariffs with the United States. What we are opposed to are the many other things that are in this agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate with the Hon. the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher).


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to speak today on one of the most important achievements of this
August 29, 1988

Government, the negotiation of a trade agreement that will secure and enhance Canada's trade with our largest trading partner.
As Canada's former Minister for International Trade, and as the Member representing the northern Ontario riding of Sault Ste. Marie, I am particularly pleased that Bill C-130 has now reached third reading stage in the House of Commons.
Today I would like to focus on why Canada must develop a more predictable trading relationship with our friends to the south, and why the trade agreement is a good deal for Canadians, particularly Canadians living in northern Ontario.
The need and the rationale for a new trade agreement with the United States quickly became clear to me in September, 1984, when I assumed my responsibilities as Minister for International Trade.
When our Government took office in the fall of 1984, Canadian exports in several key sectors were under fire in the United States. Our forestry, mining, fishing, and manufacturing exports to the United States were being targeted regularly by American trade actions. Yet there was no mechanism in place to allow us to protect our interests effectively. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) demonstrated both leadership and a national vision when he put on our political agenda the negotiation of a free trade agreement.
In today's world the status quo would not provide the jobs required for Canadians in the 1990s. Our Prime Minister had campaigned in the 1984 election on the theme of "jobs, jobs, jobs". In northern Ontario we understood that clearly those new jobs could not be created without such a comprehensive trade agreement. Simply stated, the status quo was not working, and thousands of Canadian jobs were at stake.
Take for example an industry that is critically important to the well-being of Canada's manufacturing industry, and to my riding of Sault Ste. Marie, the steel industry. In 1984, the U.S. International Trade Commission recommended that protectionist quotas and/or tariffs be allowed and applied to certain products of steel. In the end, voluntary restraint agreements were proposed for all of the steel products exported from countries considered to be trading unfairly through dumping or subsidization. At the time there were strong voices in Congress arguing that Canadian steel exports should also be blocked.
The stakes in this game were high for the residents of Sault Ste. Marie. Algoma Steel is the primary employer in my riding, and Algoma exports approximately one-quarter of its production to the United States. Well over 2,000 jobs directly depend upon steel exports south of the border. Ultimately, we have succeeded in excluding the Canadian steel industry from being side-swiped by these protectionist measures that were aimed primarily at countries like Brazil and Japan. However, our steel producers continued to be targets of various rearguard actions.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I quickly realized that, although Canada and the United States had an institutional mechanism to deal with the administration of the bridge that links our two countries in the Sault, there was no dispute resolution mechanism available to deal with our day-to-day trading relationship. Trade disputes were being dealt with on an ad hoc basis, with varying results.
It would have been irresponsible to continue to try to manage the largest two-way trading relationship in the world on an ad hoc hit-or-miss basis. This is one of the primary reasons that led to our decision to explore the opportunity of securing and enhancing our trade with the United States.
We carefully examined the facts and consulted with Canadians before embarking on negotiations with the Americans. Three of the most noteworthy facts are as follows: First, Canada has an internal market of 25 million people. This market is spread over 4,000 miles and is subject to various interprovincial barriers.
Our domestic market is relatively small when compared to the United States domestic market of over 240 million, or Japan's market of 130 million. Let us not forget that producers in the European Economic Community have access to a single market of 320 million consumers.
Second, given our relatively small domestic market, Canada must trade with other countries if we are to prosper as a nation. About a third of Canada's Gross National Product depends on access to foreign markets.
Among industrialized countries, only West Germany comes close to Canada's degree of dependence on access to foreign markets. However, West Germany has privileged access to a market of over 300 million consumers, whereas Canada's domestic market is less than one-tenth in size.
The importance of trade to Canada can perhaps best be understood in terms of jobs. Three million Canadians depend on trade for their jobs.
Third, the United States is by far Canada's largest trading partner. Over three-quarters of Canadian exports are sold to the United States, and approximately 2 million Canadian jobs depend on this trade. Last year Canada's two-way merchandise trade with the United States totalled approximately $175 billion.
The United States is Canada's most important trading partner for many reasons that relate to geography, history, and economics. Although the Trudeau Government's third policy option attempted to increase Canada's trade with Europe and decrease our trade with the United States during the 1970s, the relative importance of the U.S. market has continued to grow.
Given the fact that Canada must effectively manage its trading relationship with the United States if we are to prosper as a sovereign nation, our Government began a consultation

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
process with Canadians to determine the best option available to us.
Yes, Madam Speaker, there has been extensive consultations with Canadians. Although there are some who pretend that Canadians have not been consulted on this trade agreement, the facts indicate that the consultation process has been moving forward for almost four years. As a front row player, I am proud to have been part of this Government's extensive consultation process with the Canadian people. Never in the history of Canadian trade negotiations were so many people involved in examining Canada's trade options.
In November, 1984, my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) released our agenda for economic renewal. At that time, we clearly stated that:
The Government will examine, as a matter of priority, and in close consultation with the provinces and the private sector, all avenues to secure and enhance market access. This will include a careful analysis of options for bilateral trade liberalization with the United States in the light of various private sector proposals, as well as preparations for and opportunities provided by multilateral trade negotiations.
In January, 1985, I released a discussion paper that was widely circulated throughout the country. The discussion paper set out four main options to deal with our trading relationship with the United States: one, maintain the status quo; two, negotiate sectoral or functional arrangements; three, negotiate a framework agreement; four, negotiate a comprehensive arrangement similar in scope to the agreement we are considering today.
Following the release of our discussion paper, I set out across the country and met with the provinces and many groups and individuals from the private sector, unions, the universities, and elsewhere.
However, we were not content in limiting the consultation process to my travels across the country. In 1985, Cabinet approved my proposal to set up both the International Trade Advisory Committee chaired by Walter Light, as well as 15 sectoral advisory committees. These committees were made up of men and women from virtually all major industries and regions in Canada. Many meetings were held to ensure that this trade agreement was based on the most complete information available, and to ensure that Canadians could provide ongoing input during the negotiating process.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank again all individuals who so generously volunteered their time and their energies to this successful grass roots consultation process.
I am very pleased that this consultation mechanism has not been dismantled following the successful conclusion of our negotiations with the Americans. These committees were recently restructured to ensure that there is also meaningful consultation for the second track of this Government's trade policy-the Uruguay Round of multilateral GATT negotiations.
The Prime Minister has stated on many occasions that "gone are the old days of confrontation"; that our Government will listen and consult before acting. These consultations on Canada-U.S. trade were consistent with our Prime Minister's new approach to consultation rather than confrontation.
Rather than continue discussing the many ways in which Canadians have been consulted over the past four years, I will now turn to the second main point that I wish to discuss tonight-why this trade agreement is a good deal for Canadians, and particularly Canadians living in northern Ontario.
I mentioned earlier that Canada as a whole ships about 75 per cent of its exports to the United States. The importance of secure access to the American market is particularly well understood by Ontario residents, because 90 per cent of Ontario's exports are shipped to the United States.
For example, the forestry, mining, and steel industries are three of the most important employers in northern Ontario. All three of these key industries require secure access to the United States and, therefore, will be among the big winners as a result of the dispute resolution provisions in the agreement.
The forestry industry employs about 150,000 people in Ontario, most of whom work in northern Ontario. Over 20 communities in northern Ontario rely on the forestry industry.
In the Algoma area alone, there are seven major sawmill and forest product plants that employ about 1,500 people. These plants export around 90 per cent of their product to the United States. In addition, St. Mary's Paper in the Sault employs 500 people and exports 95 per cent of its paper products to the U.S.
The primary producers in the forestry industry will benefit from the creation of a dispute settlement mechanism that gives Canadians rights where before they had none. The fact that Canadian firms can now appeal adverse determinations by American trade tribunals to an impartial binational body will greatly assist our producers of lumber, pulp, paper, and newsprint.
Likewise, the producers of high value-added forestry products such as some papers, particle board, and plywood, will benefit from the elimination of existing tariffs because their products will become more competitive in their primary market.
Producers of converted products such as windows, doors, and kitchen cabinets also stand to benefit from free trade access to the United States. Most of Ontario's $5 billion mining industry is located in northern Ontario. Over 20,000 people in over a dozen communities work in the mining industry in the North. Since 75 per cent of its production is exported to the United States, it is easy to understand why the mining industry has responded favourably to the trade agreement.
August 29, 1988

In addition to the benefits flowing from the dispute resolution mechanism, tariff reductions will provide major benefits to the mining industry. Since American tariffs on metals and minerals now escalate when value is added to the raw resource, the removal of these tariffs will stimulate exports at the higher value-added sectors in the mining industry such as smelting and refining.
I would like to conclude with a brief discussion of the steel industry. With the recent share acquisition by Dofasco, Algoma Steel is part of the largest Canadian steel producer and is also one of the top five steel producers in North America. The trade agreement enjoys broad support in the steel industry, and rightly so. Algoma exports 25 per cent of its production to the United States and will greatly benefit from the dispute resolution provisions.
It is interesting to note that although both opposition Parties have vowed to tear up this agreement, no one has offered a viable alternative to our Government's two-track trade strategy. It is ironic that both the opposition Parties have indicated that after tearing up the trade agreement, they will attempt to negotiate a series of more limited agreements that are confined to specific sectors, although the eligible sectors have not been fully identified! Unfortunately, the so-called sectoral approach was attempted earlier this decade by the Liberals and failed. Furthermore, three years ago, the Macdonald Royal Commission on economic union and development prospects carefully considered the sectoral approach and concluded that it was open to "several serious objections."
Likewise, although the sectoral approach was one of the options considered in our 1985 discussion paper, my cross Canada consultations quickly led me to conclude that the sectoral approach was unworkable. I therefore find it highly ironic that both opposition Parties are now attempting to offer the sectoral negotiating approach as a viable alternative to this trade agreement. The sectoral approach was tried less than five years ago and it got nowhere. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this discredited approach would fare any better today.
The comprehensive trade agreement we have negotiated with the United States is the product of extensive consultations with Canadians from every walk of life. As a result of this grass roots consultation process, this trade agreement will provide major benefits to all regions of the Canadian economy. In particular, northern Ontario will be the big winner because its forestry, mining and steel industries stand to gain significantly. I therefore look forward to voting for Bill C-130 later this week.


Kenneth Albert James: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) spoke about the GATT and the Common Market. I would like to ask the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Hon. Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Kelleher), the former Minister for International Trade, to comment on that.
When speaking about the trade agreement, the Member opposite talked about the things we keep hearing about. He did not talk about anything very new, but there are a couple of new things on the horizon. Last week, President Reagan signed the omnibus trade Bill and the competition Act in the United States. A month ago in London, the EEC External Affairs Commissioner, Willy de Clercq, said, and I quote:
-the concept that will be imposed on importing nations after the EC opens its internal market in 1992 is one of "over-all reciprocity." He asserted that this was consistent with the international trade rules under GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). But most nations see the Europeans extending the protectionism they now practice in agriculture to such areas as financial services, merger policies, government procurement, local content rules and so on.
We have a major Bill in the U.S. and the expressed opinion of the Commissioner for External Affairs for the European Economic Community talking about protectionism. The Japanese, Latin Americans, and Southeast Asians are looking at this sort of movement and are not likely to change their barriers to trade. Yet the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East undoubtedly supports his Leader who says that he will tear up the agreement.
From the Minister's experience, what would he see happening if we allowed ourselves to tear up an important agreement with the United States? What kind of signal would that send out to these other important trading blocks that have already expressed some pretty important protectionist sentiments or have already passed some in Bill form?


James Francis Kelleher: Madam Speaker, I can certainly advise the Hon. Member that if one looks at the trade statistics over the years, one will see that 10 or 15 years ago, we exported as much as 20 per cent of our product into the European Community. Today, following the creation of the European Economic Community, we export only 7 per cent or 8 per cent.
I know what happened to Canada when Norway and Sweden came in as associated members. We were denied access to some of our trade in the pulp and paper industry. I know what happened to Canadian trade when Portugal and Spain became members of the European Economic Community. Again, our trade suffered as a result.
It is absolutely vital for us to protect our market in the United States where approximately 75 per cent of our exports go. One of the things the critics have overlooked in condemning our Bill and in telling us that they will tear it up is the very important, careful, methodical studies that have been done by recognized experts on what will happen if we do not have this trade agreement. There is no such thing as the status quo. We cannot stand still. We either go ahead with this agreement or we will be subjected to continued protectionist pressures from the United States. We saw all kinds of that before we negotiated and concluded this agreement, and there is no reason to suspect that if we do not sign this agreement, those pressures will not continue. One only need look at the continuing trade

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
deficit in the United States to realize that those pressures will become unbearable on an administration and will reflect themselves on protectionist measures against Canada. The moment that happens, Canada will lose jobs. We cannot allow that to happen. We care about jobs. The other two Parties obviously do not care about jobs. That is why we are the Government and they are not.


Mr. Darling:: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Minister's comments. He pointed out how important this agreement was to northern Ontario and listed the effects it would have on the forestry and mining sectors. 1 wonder what his comments would be with respect to the second most important industry in Canada today, one which has a great effect on northern Ontario and down into my own riding as well, and that is the tourist industry. I am of the impression that this free trade agreement will greatly enhance the tourist industry and will make it much more viable and even better than it is.
We are all aware, and I know the Minister is as well, that the one province that will gain the most from this, the Province of Ontario, is one of the two provinces opposed to it. Yet, if my memory serves me correctly, the Ontario Government sent trade and industry people to Europe and to the Pacific Rim to point out that it would be to their advantage to come to Ontario to establish industries because they would then have a springboard to the great American market of 250 million people. If that isn't talking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time, I would like to know what is. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on that.
One very prominent speaker, who I will admit was in favour of the free trade agreement, said that prior to the last Ontario general election the campaign was sort of blah and no one was excited. The back-room boys told Premier Peterson that he should get on to something really sexy which the people would jump for, and that was free trade. Ele was rather hesitant at the time so they said: "You don't have to worry, Mr. Premier; go out against free trade because there is no way in God's green earth that the free trade agreement will ever come to pass". As a result, that is what the Ontario Government did.
I think Premier Peterson is finding out that that is backfiring now because a lot of his friends and those who helped him to be elected are putting pressure on him to take it easy as far as the free trade agreement is concerned. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on that.


James Francis Kelleher: Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the Hon. Member and, if I did not, he would certainly tell me about it. However, in this particular case he is absolutely correct. How a province which exports 90 per cent of its exports to one country could possibly be opposed to a trade agreement with that country, when this agreement is going to enhance trade and secure jobs for that province, is beyond me.
The Province of Ontario, more than any other province, knows the benefits of free trade because some 20 years ago we negotiated the Auto Pact which, in effect, is a free trade agreement. No other province in this country benefits more from the Auto Pact than the Province of Ontario and, I may say, the riding of the Leader of the NDP. General Motors has invested $2 billion in that riding because of the Auto Pact which has created thousands of jobs there. I have not yet heard the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) stand up in this House and condemn that agreement.
I cannot understand why the Province of Ontario or the opposition Parties are against an agreement which is going to provide more secure jobs for the people of not only Ontario but the whole country. That is beyond me.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the third reading debate on Bill C-130 which implements the Canada-U.S Free Trade Agreement. I cannot stress enough the importance of this debate and of this Bill as we lead up to the next election, because the trade agreement and Bill C-130 which implements it foreclose on the possibilities for the Canada of the future which we could create after the next election.
Bill C-130 is a radical Bill in the sense that it goes to the roots of what Canada is all about. It is my position and the position of the New Democratic Party that it is destroying those roots. It is radically evil in that way. The trade deal is the Government's way of recognizing new economic forces in our world, forces which we must all recognize. These forces strengthen the power of multinational corporations at the same time as diminishing the power of nation states.


John Horton McDermid: Why is small business supporting it?


James Douglas Manly: Pay attention and you will find out. Bill C-130 not only recognizes these forces but submits to them and places Canada at their service. The rise of multinational corporations and the loss of sovereignty by nations come at the very time when ordinary people throughout many nations in our world were taking control of their own lives by assuming control of their nations. How frustrating this is. The struggle of hundreds of years by common people to control their own lives and their own economic destiny by having a form of social democracy is now being eroded by multinational corporations. Practices such as multiple sourcing, transfer pricing, and electronic currency flows mean that when these nations attempt to regulate their own economies multinational corporations can get around those regulations.
The first nations that felt these new forces were, of course, the developing nations. Immediately after fighting for and winning their independence from European colonial powers, they became the playthings of the new colonialism. Instead of their economies taking off as they had hoped, they found that
August 29, 1988

their economies were faltering and falling along with commodity prices and that commodity prices were being manipulated by the large corporations which were buying and importing them.
This has now been compounded by the debt crisis. The debt crisis has meant that in many countries there is a virtual international monetary fund dictatorship as to the kinds of policies that these different countries can put into place. They have been forced to change the whole direction of their economies. They have been forced to open up their economies to much more rapid exploitation by foreign capital, and now it is our turn.
Canada, of course, has never been immune to external economic forces. Many of us are old enough to remember the depression of the 1930s. We all have some knowledge of the great period of unemployment we had in the seventies and eighties which continues in many parts of Canada today. We know what these economic forces are.
In the past Governments have traditionally taken action which would mitigate the worst effects of these economic forces. At the same time the new economic forces present in our world themselves limit the powers of countries to ease these effects.
In the face of these new forces and this new kind of reality, I want to consider what Canadians should be able to expect from their Government. What kind of policy should a Government bring in which would help Canadian people deal with the new forces facing them? What kind of policies should they be able to expect from a right wing Government such as we have today? What kind of policy should they be able to expect from a more progressive Government?
First, let us consider a right wing Government. The first thing they would expect is that the Government would not simply surrender to those forces but would maintain the national integrity of financial institutions such as banks, that it would maintain the national integrity of our economic institutions, that it would husband our resources and take care of our energy supply because these resources, and particularly energy, are the key to the future economy of our country. We would expect that even a right wing Government would ensure that the social programs which have been put in place over the past 60 years to protect Canadians in time of difficulty would be protected.
We would expect that even a right wing Government would keep the Canadian level of control and ownership in Canadian business rather than having that level disappear. We would expect that even a right wing Government would safeguard our culture, and we would expect that it would work in international fora for trade liberalization which also has safeguards to ensure that Canadian workers are not the victims of trade liberalization.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
In other words, Canadians should have been able to expect the sort of programs that the Progressive Conservatives promised in the 1983 election but have not delivered. They are the kind of promises that were made when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) all indicated that they were opposed to any kind of free trade agreement with the United States, when they were running for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party.


John Horton McDermid: Not any kind.


James Douglas Manly: They were opposed to a free trade agreement with the United States. When they were running for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party, they declared that such a policy was simplistic. They declared that the Canadian people had rejected it in 1911 and rejected it again in 1983. They appealed to the view that Canadians did not want their economy to be totally integrated with that of the United States. The appealed to the view that Canadians had a pride in their own ability to deal with economic problems. While they made those kinds of commitments, they have not followed through on them.
A good example is when the Government, in 1985, came out with its very brave Baie Comeau policy with respect to book publishing. It said that if a Canadian book publisher or distributor was taken over by a foreign firm, the foreign buyer would have to find a Canadian majority owner or control within two years. According to the trade agreement, now the Canadian Government has the onus put upon it to ensure that there will be fair market price paid to the foreign buyer of this Canadian outfit. It does not say how the fair market price will be determined. The Canadian Government becomes the buyer of last resort.
In other words, the whole pressure of enforcing that policy is put on the Canadian Government and the financial pressure is thrown back on the Canadian taxpayer. It is another way in which the Government has betrayed its commitment to protect Canadian culture.
These are some of the minimum expectations we would have even from a right wing Government if that Government cared about Canada. Given the reality of economic forces in Canada in 1988, what could we expect?
I believe that all the positive measures I mentioned earlier that we would expect from a decent Conservative Government we would also be able to expect from a more progressive left wing Government.
In addition, however, we should be able to expect that the Government would be involved in a democratic planning process for the rational use of our resources, our skills, and for the rational use of government power in order to stop the leaks in our economy, to promote a greater self-sufficiency, to prevent unnecessary outflows, and to develop our international

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
strengths, to develop our competitive edge. That would mean the intelligent use of our natural resources of energy, our human skills, and potential. It would mean the intelligent and planned use of public ownership and a recognition of the value of the public sector in and of itself, not just for any incidental contribution it might be able to make to the bottom line of the GNP. In this way, the value of health, education, highways, sewage treatment, parks, recreation and cultural activities in and of themselves would be recognized.
We would expect such a Government to work internationally to raise the standards for working people all over the world, because we cannot live in a fortress Canada any more than we can live in a fortress North America. Perhaps one of the fundamental flaws of the trade agreement is the idea that we can somehow live in a fortress North America. We must work with people all over the world so that the living standards of all peoples are raised. In that regard, I think we must push very actively for a clause in GATT that would tie trade liberalization with the developing countries, to improvements in the wages and working conditions in those countries.
We would expect further development of regional programs and development of decent programs of income redistribution, fair taxes, skill training, and labour adjustment. These are the types of programs we should have been able to expect from the Government, given the kinds of forces that are facing the Canadian economy and economies all over the world. However, that is not what the Conservatives delivered. While they made some of these commitments in 1984, they have not followed through with them.
Instead, Canadians received what the Conservatives did not promise or campaign on. They got a trade agreement with the United States. Rather than trying to protect Canada and Canadians from the effect of economic forces, the Government surrendered to them. We saw that as we were leading up to the agreement, with the gutting of the national energy policy and the dismantling of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. We saw it with programs of privatization and deregulation, both of which meet the demands of large business and further help to harmonize our economy with that of the United States.
We saw it in the supine way in which the Government refused to fight the countervail tariff on softwood. First the Government said that it would fight. Then it said that it would negotiate. Then it was going to fight again. Then it was going to negotiate. It simply caved in and there was a 15 per cent tax imposed upon ourselves.
We saw the surrender with the Government's acceptance of the American pharmaceutical industry's demands that we get rid of the kind of legislation that allowed Canada to produce low cost generic drugs that were of great benefit to many Canadians. We saw the Government push through legislation that resulted in higher cost drugs for Canadians, so that it would be in closer harmony with what they have in the United States.


John Horton McDermid: With the world.


James Douglas Manly: Instead of Canada leading the world in terms of a program which has decent drug prices, we are now right back, lock-step with the United States pharmaceutical corporations.


John Horton McDermid: Ask the European ones what they think of it too.


James Douglas Manly: I am sure that drug companies in multinational corporations from Europe would be just as happy as American companies to fall in with this. There is no debate there.
We have seen the examples of surrender in the trade agreement. The Government did not get what it said it would achieve in the agreement. It did not get the assured access it was seeking. It did not get a proper dispute settlement mechanism.
However, it gave the United States interests a great deal of what they wanted. They got national treatment with respect to American ownership of Canadian banks. They got no review of United States takeovers of Canadian companies under $150 million, whereas there used to be a review of everything over $5 million. We lost the possibility of any kind of preferential pricing for energy or other resources, which meant that we lost a possibility for developing a competitive edge.
We gave Americans open access to the Canadian market for U.S. services. Free trade in services might also benefit some large Canadian corporations that want to do business in the United States. When I asked Donald Macdonald about this, he mentioned the Reichmann's as an example of one company that would profit. We have given the Americans access to Canadian resources. There is a period of five years to seven years when the United States and Canada will try to define what constitutes unfair subsidies. This will be a time when there will be further pressure on Canadian programs, for example, regional programs. In other words, we are buying a pig in a poke.


John Horton McDermid: The Americans have more than we have.


James Douglas Manly: The Americans might have more than we have, but the American programs are protected by the clause that says that security interests are outside the scope of this agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Well, they do it in all kinds of ways. Don't lay that one on us.


James Douglas Manly: In addition to what we have given directly, we know the agreement will have an effect on Canadian culture, although, on the one hand, it says that Canadian cultural industries are exempt. The second part of the agreement says that the Americans can take action of the equivalent commercial effect. In other words, what is given with part of the agreement is taken away with another part.
August 29, 1988


John Horton McDermid: Not true.


James Douglas Manly: It is going to have an impact on our social programs, on our regional programs, because of tax harmonization. It is going to have an impact, and it already has, upon labour standards and wages. I have heard of workers who have been involved in wage negotiations and the argument they have been given is that if they want to protect their jobs, they had better have wages that are comparable to those in the United States.
We are going to be competing with a number of states down in the southern United States which have right to work laws and minimal wages as low as $1.35. We are going to see a result of this agreement in increased militarization of our economy because national security is exempt from the agreement. The failure of Canada to get exemptions from the U.S. omnibus trade Bill is something that has to be of great concern to all Members in this House. It was of concern to all members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade last fall. They said that if those exemptions were not given, we should not go ahead with this agreement.
I see my time is up. I simply want to emphasize the fact that the Canadian people, including some of those who support the agreement, but definitely those who oppose it, want to see an election on this issue before this agreement is implemented. Therefore, I would move:
That the amendment be amended by deleting the period and adding the
following therefor:
"In the context of an imminent general election".


Dave Nickerson: That is not in order. That is not acceptable, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg):: I will wait for the amendment to arrive at the chair before a ruling is made. Questions and comments.


John Horton McDermid: I have listened to my hon. friend, and have for some time, because he sat on the trade committee and listened to the testimony of those people who are going to be most directly involved with the trade agreement, the people who create employment and make the economy tick. It is not the politicians; it is the industries, the small businesses, and so on. I listened to this old canard the New Democratic Party keeps dragging out about the mass movement of industry to the southern United States because there are no minimum salaries down there and no trade unions. What I cannot understand is that if it is so great down there, why have the industries not moved already? Why have they not moved en masse to the southern United States? I will tell the Member why. The productivity is probably the worst anywhere in the United States. The workforce is not a well educated workforce and it is an unproductive workforce.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I watched three of the governors from those states the Member talks about on television the other day. They are almost bankrupt.


Lynn McDonald: And they have free trade. How can it be they are bankrupt with free trade?


John Horton McDermid: Listen to the Member. Her finest speech is from the seat of her pants. She is marvellous.


Lynn McDonald: Explain it. You say they are nearly bankrupt but they have free trade with the United States.


John Horton McDermid: States in the United States have free trade with the United States? How does that work?


Lynn McDonald: They have free trade with all of them already.


John Horton McDermid: What is the Member talking about? Of course they have free trade with United States. They are part of the United States. I am talking about the Governor of Louisiana, the Governor of Alabama, and the Governor of Mississippi, I believe, who were on television. They are having a terrible financial time. No one is investing down there. The evidence they gave is that no one is investing down there. Three of them are banding together to go to Japan to invite foreign investment into their states because they cannot get people to invest. They cannot get people to invest there because the productivity is no good.
Why is foreign investment coming to Canada? Why are they investing in Canada? It is because of a stable financial situation, a stable Government, and a good outlook for the future. They have now got themselves access to an American market.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We are good workers.


John Horton McDermid: Exactly. That is the key to the whole thing. I heard my hon. friend knock Mr. Reichmann. Mr. Reichmann had a choice. He could have established himself in the United States but he established himself in Canada. Why? He said it was because Americans work hard but Canadians work smarter. We do. We have an excellent educated workforce. We have productivity that is growing. The Member should take a look at what our steel industry is doing. It can compete with any steel industry in the world. Our auto industry produces a car less expensive today than the United States. What I am saying is that the Hon. Member and all his socialist friends stand up here and knock the multinationals, yet he loves big Crown corporations; the bigger, the better. The NDP wants to nationalize the banks and another oil company, yet they knock big multinationals. It is all right if the Government of Canada owns them and the NDP runs them. They love that.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Would they nationalize General Motors?

August 29, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member sat in committee, as 1 did. He was a very faithful attendee. He heard testimony from small and medium-sized and large business groups. He heard from service industries which are actively involved. He heard from groups which will be the most affected by the free trade agreement. With very, very few exceptions-and the exemptions, we found out, were a fringe group of perhaps three or four members-they supported the free trade agreement. Did any of that testimony not sink in to the Hon. Member?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked a number of questions and made a number of comments. I would like to begin by replying to his comment about the southern United States. Certainly, it has been the experience of British Columbia where we have the large firm MacMillan Bloedel, which is now, of course, owned by its own multinational-


John Horton McDermid: Is it Canadian or American?


James Douglas Manly: In the long run, it does not matter that much once one reaches that level. I think J. V. Klein, former head of MacMillan Bloedel, pointed out that capital did not have any kind of nationalism, that it was free to move across borders. That is exactly what it did. It took the profits that were earned by the people of British Columbia, with the resources of British Columbia, and moved down to Alabama. Other companies moved down to Georgia and so on, and they invested down there. We went through a very, very difficult time. Our forest industry is still going through a very difficult time because too many of those companies have a cut and cut out attitude with respect to our resources and because we have a Government that is stupid enough to let them get away with it.
As for the fact that the Governments down there are bankrupt, well, that is an inevitable tendency when there are Governments that take almost exactly the same attitude as this Government takes. That is to say: "We are open for business. We want to make a deal. We will make a deal. It does not matter what the price is". That price may be paid 20 years down the line. Down in Louisiana 20 or 30 years ago there were probably some politicians who thought at that time that they were pretty smart because of the deals they were able to make with some of these corporations. They have since found out that they were not getting anything in return. It was give, give, give, while the corporations could only take, take, take. That is exactly the attitude of this Government.


John Horton McDermid: Give us an example.


James Douglas Manly: The Hon. Member wants to point to the fact that the Canadian Government has been stable in the last number of years, that we have an educated workforce, and that we have resources. These are certainly reasons why people will want to come and invest in Canada. However, the point is that once we enter into this trade agreement and we no longer have the kind of sovereign power to manage our own resources-


John Horton McDermid: Show me in the agreement where it is taken
away.


James Douglas Manly: We say that Americans will have national treatment when it comes to ownership of banks. They can come in here and purchase our companies. We cannot have preferential pricing any longer. All that sort of thing takes away our right to manage our own economy. When we lose those rights, we lose the rights to protect the interests of Canadians.


John Horton McDermid: That is not true.


James Douglas Manly: Of course it is true. It is right here in the trade agreement. The Hon. Member knows that it is in the trade agreement.


John Horton McDermid: I do not know it is in there because it is not there.


James Douglas Manly: We favour Crown corporations as opposed to multinationals. Certainly multinational corporations make some very important contributions to our world. I do not deny that. What I am trying to say, and what is important for the Hon. Member and everyone in Canada and in the world to recognize, is that multinationals are developing a power unto themselves, a power which is not subject to the sovereign control of the people.
What I am trying to emphasize is that after a period of several hundred years in which the people of our world- particularly the people that make up the bulk of the Canadian population-have struggled for popular control of their nations, they now find that getting control of their nations does not mean that much because effective control is being sapped from within by the power of multinational corporations which are not answerable to the people. If we are talking about Crown corporations, what we have to do is ensure that they are answerable. Certainly, members of my Party do not dispute the fact that too many Crown corporations have not been answerable to the people of Canada. There is no question about that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time allotted for questions and comments has now expired.
The Chair has been looking at the amendment to the amendment presented by the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands. The Chair has some serious reservations about the relevancy of the amendment to the amendment already before the House. I would like to reserve my decision on this amendment until tomorrow and allow debate to continue at this time.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is now 9.55 p.m. Of course I do not know which Hon. Member the Chair now intends to recognize. However, may I make a suggestion which would perhaps be agreeable to all Hon. Members of the House? It is that instead of having a five-minute speech now, which no doubt would not be satisfactory
August 29, 1988

to whoever it is the Chair wishes to recognize, that we call it ten o'clock.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, he is one of the fellows who wanted the debate. He is one of the fellows who complained. They now want to quit at five minutes to ten. I would ask the Chair to recognize my colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


Don Boudria: That was very nice. I was trying to help one of your guys, stupid.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair is willing to call it ten o'clock but, obviously, there is not unanimous consent. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Crowfoot on debate.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) that this will be five delightful minutes. I am sure that he is quite pleased that he has had the opportunity both to be here tonight and, I am sure, to stay.
It is important that we take a look at the recent history of Canada's economic place in the world. The fact of the matter is that when our Party came to government in 1984 at that time as a nation in a position of rate of growth vis-a-vis the rest of the world Canada was in thirteenth place, just behind Luxembourg. Today, we are ahead of Japan in terms of rate of growth. We are ahead of the United States. We are ahead of West Germany. There is no one in front of us. We have a faster rate of growth than any other nation on earth.
Also important to recognize is that we have cut by almost 50 per cent the disastrous rate of unemployment which was facing our country at the time that we inherited the Government after 16 years of Liberal rule.
It is also a fact that we came into office on the promise of jobs. While we have created more than a million and a half jobs, we are not content. We are not satisfied. We know that we will not reach the potential of our nation, the potential of this land with the greatest base of resources of any nation on earth, until we have secured markets. It is physically impossible for 25 million people to be a market unto itself. We live in a world today in which, to quote the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), there are new economic forces taking place. While he did not say it, one of the most important of the economic forces taking place is
Canada-US. Free Trade Agreement
trading blocks. That is why today, with 92 nations belonging to trading blocks, there are 14 trading blocks around the world.
Members of the Opposition say to the Canadian people: "Remain isolationist and alone with a little secure market of 25 million people. Pretend for some reason that you can be secure". We could not-and we never did-live with such an insular attitude about trade when the Japanese and the Americans, as well as the Europeans and other nations, are reaching into larger and larger markets of efficiency. It is because of that efficiency that they are able to penetrate into markets that otherwise would not be open to them. In 1984 when coming into government we were faced with a situation in which, while our economy was relatively good vis-a-vis the rest of the world, there were in the United States some 400 pieces of legislation in Washington or in state capitals aimed at protectionism, most of which would have had a negative impact on Canada.


James Douglas Manly: How about the omnibus trade Bill?


Arnold John Malone: What about the omnibus trade Bill, the Hon. Member asks. What he does not know is that we now have protection that allows us to penetrate a market. Without a trade agreement the only thing we would have left would be to take the whipping that the American protectionist attitude would have delivered to this country.
Here we are, then, a full 30 per cent of our wealth-


Don Boudria: Time!


Arnold John Malone: -as individual citizens of our country is dependent on trade.
I see, Madam Speaker, that two things have happened. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has stayed and the day is over. May I call it ten o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There will be 15 minutes remaining in which the Hon. Member may complete his intervention tomorrow.
It being 10 p.m., pursuant to Order made Monday, June 20, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, August 30, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers