1988-12-20

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table, the report of the Parliamentary Librarian for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1988.


FEDERAL REGULATORY PLAN
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) and Acting President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the 1989 Federal Regulatory Plan.
While 1 am on my feet, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 100, I do now leave the chair for the Elouse to go into Committee of the Whole.
House in committee on Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America-Mr. Crosbie-Mrs. Champagne in the chair.
On Clause 2-Definitions


Mr. McDermid:: Madam Chairman, I want to put a few opening remarks on the record before we get into the study of Clause 2. Bill C-2 implements the free trade deal by approving the agreement and amending those laws necessary to meet our obligation under the agreement.
The Free Trade Agreement was considered on six opposition days and by the Commons Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, which heard 158 witnesses over 24 days. Those witnesses represented millions of Canadians.
Legislation to implement the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was first introduced in Parliament on May 24, 1988. That legislation, Bill C-130, was given second reading on July 6, having been debated for more than 28 hours.
Bill C-130 was given consideration by legislative committee from July 11 to August 4, during which time 59 witnesses were heard over more than 87 hours. Again, the 59 witnesses represented millions of Canadians.
That legislation was given third reading on August 31, having been debated for more than 14 hours.
Today, Committee of the Whole begins consideration of Bill C-2. This legislation is similar, except for some technical amendments, to Bill C-130. Essentially, detailed clause by clause examination of the legislation was carried out earlier this year. The opposition Parties want to amend the legislation, they say, to protect social programs, regional development, culture and the environment. The Government feels that no such
December 20, 1988

amendments are needed because free trade poses no threat to these.
Social programs are not affected by the agreement. We remain as free as ever to support regional development. Cultural industries are exempted from the agreement. The agreement specifically exempts from its obligations measures to protect the environment.
The Opposition has asserted to the contrary, but this is based on their misreading and distortion of the agreement. They made those assertions in the recent election campaign and alarmed many Canadians. But the alarm that was raised makes the Opposition's assertions no more valid.
In the end, the Canadian people put aside these alarms and returned this Government with a majority. We are now prepared to examine Bill C-2 in Committee of the Whole over the next period of time. I look forward to the questions.
I might say that the Minister for International Trade will participate in the clause by clause discussions at a later time today. We will be spelling one another off during the period of time we are studying this Bill clause by clause. I look forward to the discussions.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Chairman, let me say at the outset that I note one small but significant improvement in the consideration of this legislation over the examination we had last summer. It is that the Hon. Minister for housing suggested that his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, may join us for the proceedings from time to time. That will certainly be a refreshing change from what we had last-


John Horton McDermid: Point of order. I think it should be pointed out to the Hon. Member that I am also Minister of State for International Trade.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Chairman, the woeful performance of the Minister with that duty demonstrates how little people know of the role he plays and the responsibility he carries. It is a sign of just how bad his job is.
Let me repeat that his senior colleague, the Minister for International Trade, is deigning to join us from time to time during these proceedings. It will be most refreshing indeed. In fact, it will probably be refreshing for the Minister for International Trade. He may finally get to know what is in the Bill, after all these months of not having the literacy to perceive it.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
When the Hon. Minister introduced the committee stage, he tried to leave the impression that somehow the exercise we are beginning this morning is just a further sequence in an open, honest, forthright examination that is giving Canadians the opportunity to be heard. The fact is that most Canadians feel frustrated, angry and indignant at the way in which their opportunity for proper examination of this very crucial legislation has been denied over the last several years.
When one considers that the Government's purpose in presenting the trade legislation and its program, as indicated clearly by its own Cabinet paper, was not to inform Canadians but to sell them, we now know why one of the most common complaints heard by every Member of Parliament and candidate in the last election was that Canadians did not know. They had not been informed. That was very much a consequence of the way the Government treated the whole initiative of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
It refused to provide decent research reports as to what the agreement would mean. For example, one of the more ferocious debates during the campaign concerned the impact on the service industries, including health services, financial services and other forms of services. The Government never provided a single piece of paper to analyse what the impact of the agreement would be on health services.
While the Government protested mightily that the Opposition was making false claims, the Government itself refused to provide any evidence, any examination of the impact of the agreement. It tried quite deliberately to hide that information. That information may be locked in the vault of the Minister for National Health and Welfare or some other colleague, but it was never given to Canadians.
Similarly, we were never given any serious research on the impact the agreement will have on such service industries as data processing, telecommunications, banking and financial services. The Macdonald Royal Commission did not provide it. The Economic Council did not provide it. The Government has not provided it.
We are entering into total integration with the United States in an area that provides 70 per cent of the jobs for all Canadians, yet no institution of the Government provided Canadians with the slightest whit of examination or analysis about the meaning, repercussions or impact of the agreement. The Government tries to claim it will share knowledge and information.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Minister tried to leave the impression that Parliament had been given fair opportunity to examine the matter. Let me review the record for the Minister. First, the all-Party joint committee that was struck in 1985 unanimously recommended that before the Government initiated negotiations it should bring the matter to Parliament for debate so that a set of terms and references could be established and Canadians could know what should be negotiated and not negotiated. The Government absolutely refused to follow through on those recommendations from its own Members.
The External Affairs Committee, also composed of Members from both sides, unanimously recommended that if the Government was faced with American omnibus trade legislation passing Congress the Parliament of Canada should reject the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Again, that was a unanimous recommendation by all members of the committee, which the Government totally rejected. It was totally indifferent to those recommendations.
We then got into the farcical, katzenjammer, Keystone Kop operation in which the Government struck a committee to examine the proposed agreement without giving us the final agreement. A committee of the House crossed the country without having in its hands the final document. The Government gave us the comic book version, which described the general principles. People who came before the committee to testify had to say what they thought might be in the agreement because they did not know for sure. Again we went through this fatuous exercise. A committee of Parliament was forced to open itself up for public examination without having a legitimate document in its hands. Is that really a fair and proper way for the senior forum of debate in Canada to conduct its business?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Minister tries to suggest that this has been discussed openly. It was openly discussed but we did not have the document to discuss it with. We did not have the proper information before us.
Then we go to the next claim made by the Minister. When the legislation, Bill C-130, was finally produced in the House last summer, the Government provided this great opportunity for examination, he said, but he failed to mention that the majority on the committee, the Conservative members of the committee, turned down a motion I moved that the committee be allowed to travel
across Canada. As a result, we were required to sit only in Ottawa. Citizens from the Pacific Coast to the Atlantic Coast, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, were denied the opportunity to present their views. We were held in house captivity here in Ottawa, subject only to the representations of major national lobby organizations. We were denied the opportunity to hear individual Canadians.
I recall very well receiving a letter from a farmer in the Okanagan. He said very clearly that he was the first farmer to lose his farm. The bank had turned down his extension of credit because of the trade agreement. He wanted to come before the committee and make his points.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Chairman, do you hear a rumbling in the hall? Do you think we have scratched a sensitive area? The fact is that that farmer was denied the right to a hearing by a majority on the committee. He was denied the right to appear before the committee in his own part of the country and he was denied the right to appear before the committee in Ottawa.
Again, the Minister is trying to claim that somehow Canadians had fair and open access. I do not know what kind of restricted world the Minister lives in, but I can say that Canada consists of an awful lot more than the City of Ottawa. There are an awful lot more people in it than those represented by lobbyists in this city. Canada consists of thousands of Canadians who wanted to be heard and were deliberately denied that opportunity by the Government.
Once again, we are faced with a piece of trade legislation and this time the final Draconian step has been taken, the final insult to Parliament and to Canadians. Canadians do not even have a chance to appear before the committee.
This is the most important legislation facing Canadians in generations. We have gone through a hard fought election. All kinds of groups and individuals have raised serious questions about this issue. The Minister says that it was those nasty people in the Opposition who challenged the Government on social programs. It was the United Church of Canada, the Lutheran Church of Canada, the Roman Catholic Church of Canada and the Presbyterian Church of Canada that challenged the Government. It was the Canadian Council of Social Development that challenged the Government to give those answers. It was 93 environmental groups that
December 20, 1988

challenged the Government on the impact of the Free Trade Agreement. It was also all the womens' organizations in Canada.
Members of the Opposition were simply reflecting the deep concern and anxiety of millions of Canadians. Once again, those very same Canadians who raised those very same questions are being denied the democratic opportunity to appear before a committee of Parliament to make their concerns heard, to have their questions answered, and, most important, to provide to Parliament their best evidence, judgment and wisdom about how the legislation could or should be improved.
We are being forced through closure in this committee to give nothing but short shrift to legislation with hundreds of clauses covering 26 other Acts of Parliament, having an impact on every single sector of our economy. No Canadian is being allowed to appear. The door has been shut on Parliament. We have turned out the lights as far as Canadians are concerned, simply to follow once again the basic maxim of this Government which is to keep Canadians in the dark when it comes to the trade agreement, to deny them the opportunity to know what is going on and to deny them the opportunity to make their voices heard.
There has been a sad history of the rights of this Parliament and of Canadians being usurped. It has been a history of finding a way to simply ramrod and railroad a piece of legislation through without having it subjected to fair, honest and open public examination. We ask the Minister to try to justify the claims he made in his opening remarks when he said that this is simply a trifle, we will just have this legislation passed and get it through before Christmas so that we can all go home in despair simply to meet the Government's timetable. Of course, the irony is that the only change in the legislation the Government made was to change the timetable.
The Parliament of Canada is being put into forced overdrive, is having its rights stripped away, all to meet a timetable which the Government says is no longer important because it has been taken out of the legislation. That to me represents probably the most absurd example of a Government that has simply lost any sensitivity to the House and to the rights of Canadians. It has turned logic on its head. The only amendment that has been made to Bill C-130 is to take away the timetable which the Government now says is the reason why this Parliament is being put into a forced march. Let us think about that for a moment.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I suppose that if there were something sacred and sacrosanct about the January 1 deadline, it would have been stated in the legislation as it was in Bill C-130, but it has been taken out. We can only assume that there is some flexibility there because the Government itself admits to it.
At the same time, we must talk about what happens as a consequence of this legislation. We have put forward a number of suggestions that we believe are both constructive and useful to ensure the proper implementation of the agreement. We do not agree with its implementation, we have fought against it, but we recognize and acknowledge that the Government has a majority and will eventually pass it. Surely the Government should recognize the necessity of a continuing, open examination of how the agreement is working and being implemented.
Let me cite, for example, a statement made when the report was tabled in the U.S. Congress by the American trade representative, Mr. Yeutter, in December. He said that in many instances, conformity with the Free Trade Agreement will require no modification of the law but rather modification of regulation, policy or administrative practice implementing the law. He then goes on to list a whole series of proposed changes in regulations and to such bodies as the CRTC, the Department of Finance and the National Energy Board, many of which are not covered by the legislation. The Americans themselves have now said that there will be an open, continuing demand for changes in Canadian regulation, practices and policies as the consequence of the trade agreement.
I pose this question to you, Madam Chairman, and to Hon. Members: How will Canadians find out about this? How will they know what kind of changes are made to regulations? How will they be able to examine in detail the consequences of a change to the National Energy Board or the fact that some discretionary power has been taken away from the Minister of National Revenue? How will we find out if customs inspectors are applying the rules of origin dealing with goods being manufactured in Mexico but stamped "made in the United States"? How will we find out how that is working?
How will we know if Canadian businesses are being subject to unfair competition because the Americans are manufacturing goods in the Maquiladora strip in Mexico, moving those products into the United States, stamping them made in the U.S.A. and then competing with Canadian goods, even though the wage rate in

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Mexico is 70 cents an hour? That is a very important consideration from a Canadian business point of view.
I make the case that it is absolutely essential that we have the opportunity to monitor that, to have a watchdog over that kind of practice so that we can know when it is happening and understand very clearly what the impact will be. How will we know what is on the table when the Government begins its negotiations for a new form of subsidy? How will we know what kinds of new concessions and giveaways the Government is prepared to offer?
One of the most crucial amendments required in this legislation is the establishment of an on-going committee. It should be given full power to examine the implementation of the trade agreement, to examine changes and regulations so Canadians will know what is happening. It should be able to look at the whole problem of adjustment, dislocation and plant closings to understand whether the argument put forward by the Government that all will be sweetness and light is right or the argument put forward by many groups and industries, such as the printing industry, the food processing industry and the agriculture industry, that disaster is in front of us is right. Surely Canadians have a right to know. Surely there should be a place in this Parliament where Canadians can come forward to make their case. Surely there should be a place for industry to be heard when it finds itself being ravaged by unfair competition or rules under the trade agreement.
I say to the Government, for the sake of decency and fairness one of the amendments that should be and must be accepted by this House before we retire is an amendment establishing an on-going committee. It could be a standing committee or it could be a special committee. There should be a clear reference to that committee with a full mandate to oversee, to watch and to monitor the full implementation of this agreement and all of its consequences.
Similarly, Madam Chairman, I say to you it is also important that a form of sunset clause be built into this legislation. This agreement is a dramatic rupture in the economic and social fabric of this country. It is wrenching the entire economic structure of Canada from an east-west focus to a north-south one. There will be major rationalizations of industries. There will be major alterations in the way we do business. Both sides of the House can see and understand that.
I believe, and our caucus believes, that Canadians must have a chance to choose ultimately whether that has been the right move. Certainly there must be an opportunity for Canadians to judge whether or not this agreement has been in their best interests. We say that that judgment cannot be made unless there is full and open disclosure and full opportunity for the people of Canada to understand what is going on. That is why we have again presented an amendment that would require a full parliamentary review after three years based upon the findings of the committee so that Canadians will fully understand and see for themselves what the full consequence of this agreement should be. Then a judgment can be made by this Parliament whether or not to continue in the agreement. I think that is fair. If government Members believe as strongly as they say they do in the value of this agreement and its benefits, they should be prepared to put it to the test. They should be prepared to say it is right for Canadians to examine.
It would be fair to accept our proposal that there be a three year review by this Parliament.


John Horton McDermid: Where are the amendments?


Lloyd Axworthy: We will be presenting them as soon as we have the opportunity in the proper place. At the next election Canadians will then have the right to decide who has been right about the consequence of this agreement. It will be based upon a full, open and honest disclosure.
Is the Minister prepared to accept the proposal we have just made for a standing committee to examine this agreement and for a three-year review so that Canadians will know ultimately whether it has been in their best interests? Are the Tories prepared to act in a sense of decency and fairness to Canadians by giving them this opportunity? I pose that final question to the Minister.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Chairman, I listened very carefully to the words of my hon. friend. Again, as is his habit he puts words in my mouth by saying that I said a number of things that I did not say at all. He does that quite often and did it again today. It is unfortunate he does so because he distorts what has been said in the House of Commons by individual Members.
I listened to the Member talk about negotiations and trade-distorting subsidies. I found that rather interesting. Those negotiations are going on now in the GATT. The Liberals want to put all their eggs in one basket, the GATT basket. They are great supporters of the GATT.
December 20, 1988


Mrs. Finestone:: Aren't you?


John Horton McDermid: Those negotiations are going on now in GATT in what is a trade-distorting subsidy as we will be negotiating with the United States in the future. I like hearing the Hon. Member provide the examples he does from the United States. He dumps on our American friends all the time but he wants to change our system to the American system. I find that rather interesting in the proposals that he brings forward.
I will take a look at the amendments and see what he has to say. The standing committees of the House of Commons, as the Hon. Member knows full well, are in charge of their own agendas and can make certain decisions as to what they want to look at and what they want to examine. I would say to the Hon. Member at least have the courtesy to send over the proposed amendments so we can take a look at them and give them due consideration.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Chairman, I have a point of order. I want to say to the Minister that we fully intend to present our amendments to the House. He knows that under the rules of the House, those kinds of amendments would not be admissible by the Chair, in Clause 2, which is the interpretations clause.


John Horton McDermid: I said send them over.


Lloyd Axworthy: If the
Government wants to get us to Clause 3 where we can present them, we will be glad to do so.


Mr. Langdon:: Madam Chairman, let me start if I could with a few general comments as we enter this stage of the debate. I think with clause-by-clause analysis of this Bill there are, in fact, a series of very significant problems which the Government could address and, in addressing those problems, could demonstrate some of the so-called spirit of healing which the Prime Minister talked about on election night.


John Horton McDermid: It takes two to engage in that process.


Steven W. Langdon: Instead, the Minister who introduced the debate, and I am pleased to see the Minister-I am not sure whether it is the Minister from Georgia or the Minister for International Trade-


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


Steven W. Langdon: -who is finally in the House but I am pleased to see him here. I would like to make the point that to stand up at the start of a speech, as the Minister of State for International Trade did, and say point blank, without even hearing the amendments which might be posed by the Opposition, and say they do not see the need to accept any amendments is, first, extremely arrogant and, second, is par for the course in the way in which the Government has proceeded with this subject throughout the entire history of the development of the trade agreement with the United States.
Those amendments which we certainly intend to pose will deal with a wide range of concerns. Let us have a bit of realism on the government side. This is a Government which lost a significant number of seats, which does not have a majority of seats from more than two provinces in this country-


An Hon. Member:: What is the matter with Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta?


Steven W. Langdon: A Government like that should listen and consider some of the points that have been put forward in the campaign and some of the points that are put forward on the floor of this House of Commons. The fact is that the opposition Parties in the House won a majority of the seats in eight of the ten provinces. That is something which any sensitive Government-


Mr. Andre:: You do not believe any of this nonsense, do you Steve?


Steven W. Langdon: Count them up, Harvie.
The point is that a Government that had some sensitivity or some concern for some of the widespread fears and uncertainties which were expressed by Canadians throughout this country in the past election would at least listen to the amendments that were put before standing up and saying that there is no need for any amendment whatsoever in this Bill.
I said that this was par for the course with the Government with respect to how it has dealt in the past. For new Members of the House especially it is important that the record be made absolutely clear. In its previous term the Government attempted to keep secret, even from the Commissioner of Information, all of the material which had been prepared for the purposes of these trade negotiations, despite the fact that this information had a great deal of significance for millions of Canadians in communities across the country.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We had to go to court, with the assistance of the Information Access Commissioner, to see to it that the Government finally released many of those secret documents. The Government released them not in whole, but with many sections excised from the reports. That is a first piece of reality.
The second piece of reality is that the Government likes to talk about the committees that have been set up to look at this whole set of questions around the negotiations. I have been a member of each of those committees. The committee in 1985, which was a joint committee of the House and the Senate, was completely ignored by the Government with respect to each detailed recommendation that it put forward. For instance, it suggested that the Auto Pact should not be considered whatsoever in these negotiations. Yet, it was considered.


John Horton McDermid: Not even to improve it?


Steven W. Langdon: It suggested that agriculture should not be considered whatsoever, and yet agriculture was negotiated. I could go on and detail each of the specific recommendations of that committee that were simply ignored by the Government, despite the fact that these were recommendations that came from a majority of the Conservative members on that committee.
Then there was the committee of late 1987 which made certain recommendations. For instance, it made recommendations with respect to the omnibus Trade Bill and what we should do as a country if the omnibus Trade Bill were accepted in the United States. In that case the committee said that we should withdraw from any agreement with the United States, because the omnibus Trade Bill, as it passed, would put us in a much weaker position than we have been in the past as a country vis-a-vis the United States. Despite that recommendation, once again it was ignored by the Government.
Finally, we should talk about the 1988 experience of the committee that was established to review the original version of this legislation. There was a decision made right at the start of that committee's work that it would not be permitted to travel across the country and to hear Canadians. People in each and every individual part of the country were not given a chance to speak about this Bill or about this agreement now that the agreement had actually been published. That reality should be recognized-


An Hon. Member:: Tell us about your action in committee.


Steven W. Langdon: -in order to have the committee see the sense of listening to people. What the committee did not do was to listen to people. What it did not do was even to permit provincial organizations to come to Ottawa and testify with respect to the legislation.
For instance, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture had serious concerns, and it continues to have serious concerns about the deal. It wanted to come and talk, but it was not permitted to do so because it was not a national organization. In my view, that type of closing off of witnesses is simply, in my view, anti-democratic, unacceptable and, as I say, par for the course for this Government in the past.
The election was a tough election for many Members. It was a hard election for the Conservatives, a hard election for us, and a hard election for the Liberal Party. After the election took place I and many others had hoped that the experience of that election would have brought people back to the House with some willingness to take a second look at this legislation, and to see that the problems with the legislation had to be addressed. Yet what does the Parliamentary Secretary, now elevated to a Minister of State for International trade, do? He stands up and right off the bat says: "No amendments whatsoever".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: It is absolute arrogance, and the Conservatives applaud that arrogance. They applaud, and say it is wonderful that we should be able once more to get back to the arrogant habits of the past. I tell this Party across the way that this is a sure recipe to hit 22 per cent once more in the polls.
The point is not that the Government should make the decisions. The point is that Parliament should make the decisions. The right of Parliament is to put amendments forward and to have those amendments considered seriously and to see to it that there is a possibility of a significant, intelligent, and civilized debate in the House, instead of a set of blinkers right from the start, a mask which the Conservatives wear that claims that they and only they are the repositories of wisdom in this country. It is sheer nonsense and a sure recipe for future disaster.
We have prepared a series of amendments, Madam Chairman. We had hoped to be able to put these proposed amendments on the Order Paper but were prevented from doing so by the Government. Had we
December 20, 1988

been able to do so, all Hon. Members would have had the opportunity to review the proposed amendments. Some relate to the protection of Canada's social programs-


An Hon. Member:: How many amendments do you have?


Steven W. Langdon: There are a total of 20-not a total which is incredibly out of line given that we are now embarking upon two days of debate.
These amendments would do three things: First, they would solve some of the major gaps which exist with respect to the agricultural sector.
We in the New Democratic Party-and I am sure the same is true of every Member of this House-have received from the prairie pools a very clear indication that it is their view that this legislation, this Free Trade Agreement, threatens the future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
That is something that has to be addressed by way of an amendment. It is something that has to be addressed to make the free trade legislation in any way acceptable to the wheat producing areas of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Secondly, there has to be a recognition on the part of this Government that a special committee of the House is required to play a watchdog role in relation to the five to seven years of negotiations still to take place.
I point out to members of the Progressive Conservative Party in this place, many of whom have simply read the synopsis of the trade deal as opposed to the deal itself-


An Hon. Member:: You don't know that.


Steven W. Langdon: I know that that was certainly the case in so far as the Progressive Conservative candidate in my constituency is concerned. In fact, that individual lost his deposit.


Mr. Dick:: And he is not here.


Steven W. Langdon: He certainly isn't in this place, and there is good reason for that.
I suggest that there has to be a special parliamentary committee to act as a watchdog in respect of the ongoing negotiations, negotiations that will be dealing with every single aspect of government subsidies, including regional
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
development grants, unemployment insurance assistance to fishermen, transportation assistance, and so forth. All of those aspects of government assistance in this country will be included.
That is clearly set out in Article 1907 of the agreement, and the legislation before us endorses the agreement.
At the very least, we need a committee to oversee the negotiation process; we need such a committee so as to ensure that the interests of Canadians from coast to coast are protected.
And finally, there has to be a series of amendments put forward whose objective would be to protect the key sectors of the economy which will be adversely affected by the Free Trade Agreement. And any serious thinking Member of this House, regardless of his or her Party affiliation, will recognize that there will be sectors of the economy that will be adversely impacted by the Free Trade Agreement.
The Government may in fact be correct that there will be more winners than losers. We on this side may be correct that there will be more losers than winners. But regardless, the fact is that no one in this House would pretend that there will not be victims of the Free Trade Agreement. There may be victims on the West Coast as a result of the fish processing clauses; there may be victims in Atlantic Canada as a consequence of the efforts on the part of the U.S. with respect to assistance to potato growers; there may be victims-and in fact I think we have seen some already-in the industrial sector of Quebec and Ontario.
Amendments must be put forward to protect the victims of the Free Trade Agreement, and certainly this Government has to consider seriously any amendments aimed at addressing the plight of the victims of the agreement.
I would ask the Minister to start this debate off on a different footing, and he can do so by standing in his place and withdrawing his statement that he will not accept any amendments which are put forward by the Opposition in this debate. I would ask him to consider the amendments on their merits. If the Government chooses to turn them down, that will be its decision; but to do so before they are even put is a measure of total intolerance and arrogance, something which cannot be acceptable even to the Minister himself, I hope.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The Hon. Minister of State for International Trade.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to assure the Hon. Member that my statement that I will not accept amendments in this debate has nothing whatsoever to do with arrogance; rather, it has to do with the fact that we have in place a Free Trade Agreement which was signed well over a year ago.
Bill C-2 implements the Free Trade Agreement. That is what the Bill is all about.
Madam Chairman, we went through 100 amendments put forward by the Opposition the last time we examined the Free Trade Agreement enabling legislation. Each one was gone into point by point in terms of why it was not necessary that it be included in the Bill.
The Opposition wants to state explicitly in the agreement everything that is not to be included in the agreement.
When a person disposes of a piece of property, the agreement sets out strictly what is involved in the transaction. One does not state in the agreement that the wife and children are included, or that the family automobile is included. The agreement simply sets out what is included in the transaction, and that is it, and it is precisely that way with the Free Trade Agreement and the legislation that we are talking about today.


An Hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


John Horton McDermid: The amendments that they wish to bring in have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Free Trade Agreement. The Hon. Member knows that.
Throughout last summer we went through the amendments proposed by the Opposition, and we went through them point by point. We, along with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre, worked on the Free Trade Agreement enabling legislation all of last summer, and we went point by point through all of the amendments put forward by the Opposition.
I want to touch for just a moment on his comments on agriculture. Never in the history of this country has the agricultural community been so well taken care of. When there were problems, whether it was drought or unfair pricing in world markets for some agricultural products, this Government was there to help the farmers. That is not going to change. The Hon. Member says we should not have discussed agriculture in a trade agreement. We ship $5 billion worth of agricultural products to the U.S. You do not discuss that in a trade
agreement? What absolute nonsense. What absolute poppycock. It is one of our biggest trading units. Why would you not discuss it in a trade agreement? Why would you not make it better for our farmers to trade? That is exactly what we are doing.
We are also doing it in GATT, as the Minister reminds me. It was at Canada's insistence that agriculture was put on the agenda for the Uruguay round of negotiations. Sure they are having problems. By the way, we missed the Hon. Member in Montreal. He was invited and did not show up. We are sorry he did not make it.


Mr. Crosbie:: Too busy, not interested in the GATT.


John Horton McDermid: That is too bad because he might have learned something down there.


Steven W. Langdon: Point of order, Madam Chairman. The Minister just suggested I received an invitation to attend the GATT meetings in Montreal. That is simply incorrect. I did not receive any such personal invitation and I ask him to withdraw that comment.


John Horton McDermid: I am not sure if the Hon. Member was away on holidays after the election or what, but I can tell you that invitations were offered to both Party critics. His name was on the registration list.


John Carnell Crosbie: It went through his chairman, but his chairman would not approve him.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, through his chairman? He had better check with his caucus on that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Check with Bob White.


John Horton McDermid: It is too bad they did not notify him of what was going on.


John Carnell Crosbie: Maybe Shirley Carr.


Steven W. Langdon: Point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: As president of this committee I think we are getting away from our charted course. We should be discussing the Bill. I will hear the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Chairman, one of the rules of the House, as I understand it, is that the word of a Member of Parliament, especially on as specific a point as this, is accepted-


Harvie Andre: It works the other way, too. You have to accept that an invitation was sent. He said so.
December 20, 1988


Steven W. Langdon: Since I was the person involved, Harvey, it might be-


Harvie Andre: All you can say is that you did not receive it. You cannot say it was not sent.


Steven W. Langdon: I happen to know that the invitation was not sent to myself, nor was it sent to the chairman of our caucus. It was sent to the Leader of our Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -and was not passed on until the conference had begun. I would ask the Minister to simply accept that.


John Horton McDermid: You have problems in your caucus. I understand.


Steven W. Langdon: No, as the Minister knows, I was at the last GATT conference which I do not think the Minister attended, and I have very considerable interest in what takes place in that organization and in this round of trade negotiations which we supported, with some exceptions including agriculture.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Chairman, I feel very badly that the Leader of the NDP did not pass on the invitation to his trade critic. However, he knew the GATT meetings were on. He might have inquired as to whether or not he was welcome.


John Carnell Crosbie: He would have been welcomed with open arms.


John Horton McDermid: With open arms. We were all looking for him down there. I wanted to take him to dinner in Montreal, for heaven's sake, but he did not show up.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please.


Mr. Flis:: Point of order, Madam Chairman. The constituents of Parkdale-High Park sent me here to debate the trade Bill, not whether or not someone got an invitation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South.


Ms. Dobbie:: Thank you, Madam Chairman.


Lloyd Axworthy: Point of order, Madam Chairman. I realize this is a wide open debate, but we have just had the Minister make a comment and you then recognized the Hon. Member for
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Winnipeg South. Would it not be appropriate that someone from the opposition side be recognized rather than having the Minister followed by a Member on the government side? I submit it would be proper to recognize now a Member from the opposition side.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Hon. Member has suggested that the way the chairman of this committee is recognizing Members is not correct. The way I saw the exchange was that the Hon. Minister simply answered a question put forward by the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. I agree that we went into quite a long exchange that was not exactly addressing the Bill or answering the question. However, I think it would be quite correct now for someone from the government side to express his or her view, and then someone from the opposition side can have the floor, which is the normal understanding.
I recognize again the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Chairman, thank you again. I am very proud-


Steven W. Langdon: Point of order. A question was asked and I do not recall the Minister dealing with it.


John Horton McDermid: What, on amendments?


Steven W. Langdon: Yes.


John Horton McDermid: Yes, I did.


Steven W. Langdon: I did not hear it.


John Horton McDermid: You were not listening.


Mr. Nunziata:: Point of order, Madam Chairman. I have been listening to the proceedings this morning and noted that members of the Opposition have been asking questions of the Minister and he not only tried to answer the question but went off on a discussion of his own.
I simply seek some direction from the Chair with respect to what is permitted when questions are put to him. I would simply request that the Chair restrict the Minister's comments to answering the questions put by the Opposition rather than editorializing on every point we make.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you do up the speeches for us from now on? This is a new rule. No freedom of speech in committee.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am sure the Hon. Minister will attempt to be as brief as possible in

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
answering a question so that as many Hon. Members as possible can express their ideas.
Never twice without three times, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Chairman, I am very proud today to rise for the first time in this House to take part in these proceedings and this ultimate discussion about the Free Trade Agreement with he U.S. I am also proud to be here on behalf of my constituents in Winnipeg South, many of whom are vitally interested in the opportunities presented by this agreement. Some of these people are business people whose livelihood depends on trade and on the security of access to markets in the United States. But there are others who are individuals who depend on salaries and wages and who support the free trade initiative because of the employment options that it will open up for them in the future.
All of them have shown a keen interest in the agreement. The fact that I am here today is evidence of their support for free trade. I am very proud of the people of Winnipeg South for their intelligent assessment of the deal. This is in spite of the vociferous attempts by the Opposition to distort repeatedly the real facts about the Free Trade Agreement.
I must say that I am also very proud of all those other Canadians who so enthusiastically endorsed the agreement in the recent election. I have to commend our Prime Minister and his Government for having the vision, the courage and the leadership to pursue the Free Trade Agreement to its conclusion over the past year or two.
The Free Trade Agreement marks an achievement that will go down in history as a turning point for our nation. It will be seen by our children and by our children's children as the day that Canada came of age, the day that Canada reached its maturity. This coming of age, this new maturity is being marked even now by the nations around the world upon whom we depend for additional trade and upon whom we depend to act as our allies from time to time in various causes. I believe that this signal is vitally important to our future in the global community. Its message will help to determine how we Canadians are positioned in future negotiations affecting Canada's prosperity and well-being.
The Free Trade Agreement is a symbol of Canadian strength. It is a symbol of a new confidence in ourselves
as a society with an intrinsic identity. We need not fear competition in a nation of strong, capable and secure men and women who boldly seek out new opportunities. Opportunities are what this agreement is all about- opportunities to sell our hydroelectirc power from Manitoba; opportunities to expand our beef, hog and oilseeds production; and opportunities to increase our exports in aircraft parts, textile and clothing.
For those of us who do business from Manitoba, from Winnipeg, the Free Trade Agreement provides us with a freedom to pursue a prosperous future. We view this freedom, this opportunity, with a great deal of optimism and a great deal of excitement.
In Winnipeg we have a diverse industrial base. We manufacture a tremendous variety of products, all looking for market options that simply cannot be realized in Manitoba's population of just over one million people. We have the potential to produce much, much more.
Currently, about 12 per cent of our labour force is employed in manufacturing. Our local industry is already gearing up to double that number. That is why it is so hard for me to understand the negative and contrary remarks made by members of the Opposition, and that they continue to make about the Free Trade Agreement. Surely, these Hon. Members cannot be serious in opposing an agreement that is filled with so much hope and so much promise for the vast majority of Canadians. I cannot believe they do not care.
In my province there is already a tremendous amount of activity as companies prepare to take advantage of the new opportunities opened up by this Free Trade Agreement. This activity is not confined to Winnipeg. In southern Manitoba, in communities such as Winkler, Steinbach and Altona there are literally dozens of small businesses that see the Free Trade Agreement as their ticket to being big businesses. These people are novices in the world of international trade. Many of them depend right now on exports to the United States to sell their products. They know that the Free Trade Agreement will enhance their opportunities while removing the insecurities presented by a growing protectionist attitude in the United States. These things are true right across western Canada. While Manitoba probably has the largest variety of industries expecting to benefit directly from free trade, the other western provinces have just as much to gain and more.
In the West, we need free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 20, 1988


Dorothy I. Dobbie: In 1986, our exports to the United States totalled $12 billion. That represents one dollar out of every five in our western economy. One can see that the threat of increasing protectionism in the United States presents a terrifying prospect for our 7.5 million people.
On the other hand, liberalized trade opens the door to expanded markets. Think about Alberta and B.C., which are practically next door to California with its population of over 25 million nestled conveniently in a
4,000	square mile radius. I personally have done business in California.
If anyone thinks for one moment that we Canadians cannot compete in that market or that our products and our services cannot find markets there, then they should think again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dorothy I. Dobbie: I have found Californians to be more than receptive to Canadians. In fact, being a Canadian actually gave me an advantage in many cases because my California customers had a very deep-seated respect for Canadian quality and Canadian productivity.
Furthermore, many of them were intrigued by the idea of dealing with a Canadian company. They attached a certain glamour to our foreignness. The same held true for my experience in Washington, D.C., for my experience in Maryland, and for my experiences in New York. Canadian business people have a tremendous opportunity in these markets. Let me tell you, Madam Chairman, our American counterparts are no smarter, no sharper or no tougher than we are in business.
While I am at it, I would like to dispel some of the Opposition's myths about unfair competition from cheaper labour in the United States. In my personal experience it costs as much, and more, to employ people in California as it did in Manitoba, as it did in Ontario, as it did in Alberta or as it did in B.C. Contrary to some of the statements we have heard in this House, American workers are covered by most of the same benefits as are our workers in Canada. Instead of the state subsidizing these costs the burden falls directly on the employer. That means that his bottom line direct labour costs are often higher in Canada than they are in the United States.
The fact is that in the majority of cases, in real terms, labour is not cheaper in the United States. This is not
just my experience. A constituent of mine in Winnipeg South who owns an export business with a large distribution network tells me that the hourly rate that he pays for a warehouse worker in Minneapolis is $26.75. Those are U.S. dollars. Another local company which just bought a branch plant in Georgia to complement its local production-and Georgia is the one we hear so much about-soon discovered that labour costs offered absolutely no advantage to doing business there. When the wages and benefits were added up and compared there was very little difference from what it cost to employ workers in Winnipeg. So much for the myths that we have heard perpetrated in this House.
So what an opportunity being next to California presents for British Columbia, where one out of every four jobs has the potential to be affected positively by the Free Trade Agreement. What a tremendous opportunity for Albertans to sell beef and to secure markets for their oil and gas. For Saskatchewan, free trade provides security for agriculture, for petroleum and mine exports. It creates a future for that province's small but diverse and steadily increasing manufactured output.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I apologize, but I must interrupt the Hon. Member at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: It being 1 p.m., it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the Bill again later this day.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
December 20, 1988


Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the landslides that followed the earthquake of November 25 and that forced the interruption of rail traffic on the Senneterre-La Tuque subdivision, the Abitibi region is isolated.
No passenger train has served communities along the line. CN freight trains have been rerouted to Ontario, resulting in a very long detour of 1,300 kilometres.
Mr. Speaker, why not use the Franquet-Chapais line, which is 700 kilometres long, and thus save 600 kilometres of travelling!
CN is not helping Abitibi and Temiscamingue by continuing to ask for the abandonment of the Franquet-Chapais subdivision.
Mr. Speaker, what is the public interest for Canadian National in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and in Quebec?



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT CONCERNS OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLANDERS

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the people of Egmont for the tremendous demonstration of support and confidence they showed in me November 21.1 want to assure my constituents that I will do my utmost to vindicate their judgment.
The people of Egmont in particular, and indeed of P.E.E in general, showed a very serious mistrust of the Free Trade Agreement and a quite legitimate fear of its impact on them. They demonstrated their concerns by voting solidly Liberal during the campaign.
Local issues were also prominent in the campaign. Residents of Summerside have become extremely upset over the past couple of years by an offensive odour which emanates from the Summerside harbour from decaying seaweed, and it is particularly revolting at low tide.
In a deathbed conversion, the former Minister of the Environment acknowledged his sin of omission and committed the Government to solving the problem. In The Guardian of November 16, my Conservative opponent was quoted as saying that the Minister had committed his Government to finding a solution to Summerside's west end odour problem. Summerside residents fully expect the new Acting Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bouchard) to honour the commitment made by his predecessor, and I hope the Government will not choose to ignore this obligation because the voters of Hillsborough decided to terminate Mr. McMillan.



CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer a solution to a problem currently causing a split in the federal Liberal Party. In the December 16 Ottawa Citizen, it was reported that "Ottawa-area Liberal Members of Parliament have asked the Prime Minister to locate the new Canadian Space Agency near the National Capital, even though their Leader says it belongs in Montreal".
As I know our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) would like to contribute to the resolution of this Liberal embarrassment, may I offer the capital city of Saskatchewan-Regina-the sunshine capital of Canada, the city of lots of space, as the site for the new Canadian Space Agency center.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and have a good Christmas!



THE FRANCHISE


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are strong believers in democracy, and we abhor anything that stands in the way of the right to vote.
During the recent election campaign I became aware of a problem facing some disabled voters in my riding of Winnipeg-St. James. Due to their disabilities, these individuals chose to exercise their right to vote by proxy.
December 20, 1988

However, when these voters attempted to secure a medical certificate, which is a requirement for a proxy vote, they discovered that doctors charged up to $15 for this service. This is not an overwhelming sum, but it is an impediment to the right to vote.
I urge the House to give serious consideration to an amendment to the Canada Elections Act. Voters should not have to consult their bank accounts to determine whether they can afford to vote. Voting is a sacred right in this country, and as parliamentarians we have an obligation to remove any barrier, large or small, that prevents even one Canadian from voting.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations and the congratulations of all the people of Saskatoon to the members of the Canadian on-site rescue effort who returned from earthquake devastated Soviet Armenia yesterday.
Their courage and selflessness are a fine example of the long and proud Canadian legacy of humanitarian service on the international stage. As a nation, we have always tried to be quick to respond to human suffering wherever it might be found, and it gives me great pride to know that Saskatoonians have helped to add another page to that legacy.
But, Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I am deeply disappointed in the shamefully inadequate levels of support provided to these individuals by the Canadian Government. Critical supplies such as water and tents were not made available, and organizers were told to put their rations on their Visa accounts.
I urge the Government to take up the challenge offered by the Canadian volunteers and to set up a crack team that could be put on a disaster site anywhere in the world within hours of a crisis, and to ensure that the experiences and expertise of the rescue veterans of Armenia and Mexico City are properly utilized.



SIMCOE CENTRE


Ms. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise for the first time in my place as the elected representative of the constituents of Simcoe Centre. I stand today in thanks for the privilege of serving them.
The great riding of Simcoe Centre is a collection of farmland, rolling hills, and streams, nestled between two beautiful bodies of water, Georgian Bay and Lake Simcoe. Tourism, agriculture, and a healthy manufacturing sector serve to provide meaningful employment to a majority of our people.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to invite and encourage all Members to enjoy Huronia hospitality and recreational services the residents of Simcoe Centre so willingly provide, particularly now in this season of winter sports.



EMPLOYMENT EQUITY


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the hypocrisy of the Conservative Government which claims to support employment equity and fair employment practices for women, the disabled, native Canadians, and visible minorities, and yet is not willing to apply these same principles in its own workforce. The under representation of these groups in the Public Service, particularly in management and professional positions, is so serious that the Canadian Human Rights Commissioner, Max Yalden, has called on five major government Departments-External Affairs, National Defence, Revenue Canada, Transport Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans, to account for their discriminatory hiring and promotion practices.
How can the Government expect the private sector to take its Employment Equity Act seriously when the Government refuses to include the federal Public Service in this legislation and refuses to enforce fair employment practices in its own workforce?
I urge the Government to amend the badly flawed employment equity legislation to include federal public servants and to include real, meaningful and effective enforcement measures, and I urge the federal Government to set an example for all employers by taking real

December 20, 1988
steps to reverse the traditionally discriminatory hiring practices in the Public Service of Canada.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the ultimate purpose of free trade is to improve the quality of life of Canadians through stable, long-term job creation.
The Canadian people gave us on November 21st a specific mandate to change our producers' thinking and restore their belief in guaranteed access to a consumer market of 255 million people.
As a responsible Government, we understood that as long as that assurance of perpetual access to a large market is not engraved into the minds of our entrepreneurs, as it is in the United States, Japan or Western Europe, they will reason on the basis of a limited market and will not be able to think really big. They will go and expand somewhere else.
Northern Telecom and so many others companies that invested heavily in the United States over these last few years would not have had to make that strategic move had we had free trade. The jobs would have been created here.
Contrary to the Opposition which is attempting to find replacement programs for those who lose their jobs, this Progressive Conservative Government will go on creating new jobs, and this is the reason why we are in office.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents in Restigouche for the confidence they showed me during the last election.
There has been a large number of cases of injustice in my constituency, and a definite commitment from this Government is needed to remedy the situation.

The injustices suffered by the people of Restigouche include the following. Not one part of the riding qualifies for the northern tax allowance benefit; no economic or job replacement strategy was proposed or introduced in my riding to replace job losses due to CN layoffs; the facilities for our fishermen are still not receiving adequate funding from the federal Government; our rural post offices are being threatened by Canada Post's policies.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the small community of Madran has been awaiting for too long already the renovation of its obsolete bridge. The province of New Brunswick and the CN are committed to share the cost of the project with the Canadian Government, which is still beating around the bush.
I urge the federal Government to take appropriate action to help the citizens of the Restigouche riding and others with similar problems.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AUTO PACT PROVISIONS

Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Canada contains an enhanced Auto Pact. Not only have trade irritants been resolved, the Auto Pact now covers replacement parts and tires, and contains a requirement for auto manufacturers to have a 50 per cent Canadian-U.S. content in the cars they produce in order to have duty-free access to the United States.
Auto producers and auto parts manufacturers in the city of St. Catharines are enthusiastic about these provisions in the pact. General Motors and companies such as Hayes-Dana and Thompson Products realize that these items in the Free Trade Agreement will provide them with access to a much larger market and result in stronger companies and more employment in the city of St. Catharines.
The people of St. Catharines and the Niagara Peninsula are very aware of the benefits that will flow to their
December 20, 1988

area as a result of the Free Trade Agreement, and they made this clear on November 21 of this year.



AIRPORTS


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the residents of Hamilton Mountain for electing me as their representative to Parliament. I promise to represent the interests of my constituents with the utmost attention and devotion.
The point I want to make today concerns the traffic congestion and the insufficient number of air traffic controllers at Pearson International Airport.
The Hon. Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) told the House that traffic is being well handled through the holiday season. However, yesterday Pearson International reported at least 14 cancellations and lengthy delays, delays of up to 137 minutes, with an average of between 60 and 70 minutes for Air Canada alone.
Hamilton Airport is open for business, with a full and qualified staff ready to handle the overflow from Pearson International. We hope in the interest of air travellers and their safety, and with the full co-operation of the City of Hamilton, that the Minister will take action to redirect the overflow to Hamilton Airport.



ELECTIONS


Mr. Gilles Loiselle (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Langelier for the trust they showed in me on November 21st and tell them how proud I am to be representing them in this House.
Mr. Speaker, please allow me to pay tribute to the hundreds of volunteers whose hard work and devotion made my victory possible. I would like to stress, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all of my colleagues will agree with me, the vital role played by these Canadian men and women within our electoral system and also
how freely they have given of their time and energy to this key aspect of the democratic process.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay special tribute to one of those workers, Mr. Albert Lemoyne, who passed away at the beginning of the month.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the National Energy Board, so ably chaired by Mr. Roland Priddle. In March, 1985, the signing of the Western Accord marked the beginning of the end of the disastrous Liberal National Energy Program.
This Government deregulated oil in June, 1985, and we started deregulating natural gas in October, 1985.
On December 15 this year, the National Energy Board released its first natural gas market assessment report on the market based procedure for assessing natural gas export applications. I congratulate the board on its excellent study with respect to supply and demand of natural gas but, more important, I reinforce its strong message that limited pipeline capacity may pose the most serious concern in the near term.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, for years and years immigrants and native-born Canadians alike found their jobs on our farms, in our forests, and in our mines. Today, however, both old and new Canadians migrate to our cities because that is where our jobs are now. Our cities have become the new Canadian frontier.
Most Canadians now live on our urban frontier. But, like all frontiers, our cities have their problems, problems with housing, with the environment, transportation, day care, race relations, drugs and the parole system.
The federal Government has a role to play in solving all of these problems, and just as soon as the free trade

December 20, 1988
Oral Questions
legislation has been implemented the Government should get on with it, and get on with it fast.



THE CONSTITUTION


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, former Prime Minister Trudeau's words were prophetic when he wrote in May, 1987:
Those who have never wanted a bilingual Canada-Quebec separatists and western separatists-get their wish right in the first paragraphs of the Accord, with recognition of 'the existence of French-speaking Canada ... and English-speaking Canada.' Those Canadians who fought for a single Canada, bilingual and multicultural, can say good-bye to their dream: We are henceforth to have two Canada's, each defined in terms of its language. And because the Meech Lake Accord states that 'Quebec constitutes, within Canada, a distinct society' and that 'the role of the legislature and government to preserve and promote (this) distinct identity... is affirmed', it is easy to predict what future awaits anglophones living in Quebec and what treatment will continue to be accorded to francophones living in provinces where they are fewer in number than Canadians of Ukrainian or German origin.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) meant what he said in February, 1984, about the rights of Francophones in Manitoba, then he better awaken to the fact that Meech Lake is not the vehicle to ensure minority language rights in Canada. If he will not, then his words are hollow.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to Bill 178, which I see aims to restrict some rights of the Anglophones in Quebec. My question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, he told us that he had not had the time to read the Bill. It is only three pages long; surely he has had the time to read it! Could we know what his position is today?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my position is the same today as it was yesterday. It is exactly the same position as I expressed in the
House following questions from the Hon. Member for Shefford and others. There has been no change.


NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE-POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is playing hide-and-seek. We will try to get some clarification. On one hand, we have the Secretary of State who supports and advocates the use of the notwithstanding clause. Yesterday, if I understood correctly, once again the Prime Minister in his speech here in this House told us that he was against this section, this notwithstanding clause. Could we know who speaks for the Government, the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday that in my opinion, the notwithstanding clause was incompatible with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a position I have always defended. There is no change in that position. The position I announced yesterday is the Government's. It so happens that since 1981-82, since the Constitution of 1981-82, the provinces now have a "notwithstanding" clause that was granted as part of the constitutional process in 1981-82. The Hon. Member mentions it, he decries it, and I think that he is quite right. But the position that I announced	yesterday is the
Government's.


USE OF NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is still playing hide-and-seek. Is this Government for using the notwithstanding clause? This seems to me to be a very simple question. We have a Secretary of State who is responsible for protecting and promoting minority groups in all provinces, francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec. The Secretary of State advocates using the notwithstanding or "opting out" clause. The Prime Minister says no, this clause should not be used. I want to know this from the Government: When the Prime Minister says that this clause should not be used, is he speaking for the Government, is he telling the Canadian people that he is for language rights throughout the whole country, wherever they live, that we have rights as minorities, whether we are francophones outside Quebec or anglophones in Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question is troubling, because
December 20, 1988

according to the answers given yesterday and published in Le Devoir.
"Mrs. Finestone congratulated Brian Mulroney for defending minority rights yesterday. Mr. Allmand concluded by saying that he was satisfied with the Prime Minister's statement that the decision of the Court and the two leaders, federal and provincial, should be respected."
That is the very clear position I announced. I communicated with the Premier of Quebec before the decision was made, to tell him that my position is that of the Government and, 1 thought, of the federal Parliament. The position was ... It is hard for me to answer since I am being interrupted by the Member for Hamilton East. If you want me to continue on a sensitive subject, Mr. Speaker, I shall try.
So the position I announced yesterday is exactly the one I defend today and the position was hailed and applauded, if I am not mistaken, by the Hon. Members for Mount Royal and Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who are Liberals, of course, because the position I defended is exactly the one that I have defended since I first entered the House.
Now I call on my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, to read carefully not the conclusions that may be drawn from some statements of the Secretary of State but the text of his statement, and the text of this statement in no way contradicts the position I had the honour to announce yesterday.
The position of the federal Government is very simple. We hoped that the Government of Quebec could come up with a bill that would respect the two important aspects raised by the Supreme Court in its decision. That is what we wanted and that is what I said to Mr. Bourassa and I presume that is the position of all Hon. Members.


NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to quote to the Prime Minister a statement made in October by his Secretary of State. This is a quotation from La Presse:
This clause . . .
... referring to the "notwithstanding" clause ...
... is one of the powers Quebec has kept and it is essential for its survival.
Oral Questions
Is the Prime Minister saying he does not agree with that and that he is prepared to correct the Secretary of State? "This clause is one of the powers Quebec has kept and it is essential for its survival." Can one reject that?


Martin Brian Mulroney: would have to see the text of my friend. Is it the same text indeed? What I see here-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This text dates back to October.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If you are referring to a text published in October, I did not see it.
If the Hon. Member would let me look at this text of October or September I will do so and respond in due time.


QUEBEC TRADITION OF JUSTICE TO ANGLOPHONE MINORITY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will gladly raise the question tomorrow. Yesterday, however, he spoke with truth of the long and noble tradition of Quebec's justice towards its Anglophone minority. I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether he considers the proposed legislation as being part of that tradition?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I said yesterday, and I repeated today, what I as Prime Minister of Canada would like to see in that legislation. I mentioned that quite clearly. My suggestion, my position has been endorsed or acclaimed by the Liberal Members because it is indeed a position ... So the Hon. Member is asking me a question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That was before!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Apart from commenting on this matter which is a very important matter, the federal Government and Parliament have also taken very important steps in regard to the promotion of English and French minority language rights across the country, which we have done through either the Meech Lake Accord which preserves and enhances very substantially minority rights, or Bill C-72. My hon. friend was a member of the House that dealt with that.
I bring to my hon. friend's attention a comment that we received from Alliance Quebec, and I think it is important because it refers to our responsibility and the commitment of all Hon. Members of the House in regard to the protection of official languages and minorities across Canada. It says:

December 20, 1988
Oral Questions
Bill C-72 is a major achievement for the promotion of a bilingual vision of Canada. On behalf of Alliance Quebec, I would like to congratulate you and your Government for having worked so hard to ensure passage of this legislation.
Alliance Quebec has supported this Bill because we see in it the beginning of a process to secure the vitality of the official language minority communities across Canada ...
Again on behalf of the English speaking community of Quebec I would like to express our gratitude for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Royal Orr,
President, Alliance Quebec


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER SPOKE TO MANITOBA PREMIER
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday at the Legislative Assembly the Premier of Manitoba withdrew his constitutional resolution. As a result of that action we are now facing a constitutional crisis. Did the Prime Minister of Canada speak directly to the Manitoba Premier? If so, what did the two heads of Government talk about? Is there a plan to pursue the constitutional reform process?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I deplore the decision made yesterday by the Premier of Manitoba to act as he did without formal notice. However, I do not agree that the situation can be described as a crisis. There is no crisis in Canada, but we do have serious difficulties caused by linguistic tensions. And such was the situation in the early days following our country's foundation 121 years ago. One hundred years from now, whoever happens to be Prime Minister of Canada will also have to deal with linguistic tensions and difficulties. The stakes and the challenge for all of us is trying to do our utmost to find a fair and honourable way of settling these linguistic tensions and challenges for all Canadians.


FIRST MINISTERS-REQUEST FOR EARLY MEETING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the words that the Prime Minister has used, and I suspect all Hon. Members of the House would agree with him, but to be frank it seems to me that they are beside the point at this moment. I do not want to quibble about the use of the word "crisis". I said that there is a certain crisis. The reality is, as I am sure the Prime Minister understands, that we have what can certainly be called an impasse in the constitutional
reform process that could rapidly become extremely serious. Let me put it that way.
Given the commitment of the Prime Minister and of all Parties in this House to serious constitutional reform being proceeded with on a thoughtful but speedy basis now that we have been involved in it for the past few years, has the Prime Minister, in his conversation with the Premier of the Province of Manitoba, requested, for example an early meeting of the First Ministers so that we would get the very important matter of constitutional reform back on track?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is Canadians who exercise positions of leadership in this area who seek to conclude a constitutional process, and my hon. friend supported the Meech Lake Accord as did the Liberal Party. We know full well that Canada is incomplete as long as Quebec has been left in the role of a bystander. That is why we have all worked so hard to try to find a formula that would bring Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional family so that the family could then grow and prosper together.
It is, therefore, important that leaders resist the temptation outside this House to blame everything on the Meech Lake Accord. What happened in Manitoba yesterday, the suggestion that there is a tie-in between what happened elsewhere on the Meech Lake Accord, is very regrettable and very misleading because there is no tie-in. In point of fact, under the Meech Lake Accord, Canada's linguistic duality will be recognized in the Constitution for the first time.
The existence of French-speaking and Englishspeaking Canadians living together throughout the country will be affirmed as a fundamental characteristic of our federation. As a result, the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, and linguistic and educational rights in particular, will have to be interpreted in light of this fundamental reality.
I remember comments from both sides of the House. One of the reasons it was so strongly endorsed by all Members of the House of Commons was that members of all Parties believed very strongly that by bringing Quebec into the Canadian Confederation we did so in a manner which strengthened the rights of minorities across the country.
There will always be challenges. There will always be attempts to vitiate those rights and that is why this
December 20, 1988

Parliament, the Leaders of all Parties, have been particularly vigilant in this regard, as we ought to be.


Ms. Copps:: That is not what you said in the election campaign, Mulroney.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I come to my friend's question. When I was obliged to roll over the First Ministers' Conference that had been foreseen for Calgary, I wrote to the Premiers on October 7 indicating my intention to convene a meeting of First Ministers early in the mandate. 1 expect that such a meeting of First Ministers will take place in the first quarter, probably in February or March, and clearly this will be a matter of important consideration.


MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS IN NEW YEAR
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Prime Minister's last words, that is an encouraging sign.
Just so we are clear on this, the Premier of the Province of Quebec has made a statement-if he was quoted accurately in the last 24 hours-that he would not be attending a subsequent meeting until the Meech Lake Accord had been approved. On the other hand, we have had the Premier of Manitoba making rather extreme statements.
Given the constructive role that all three federal Parties have played in this constitutional process in the last few years and hoping that that will continue, do I understand the Prime Minister clearly when he says there will be a meeting in the new year and that will be or will have as its central concern constitutional reform process?
Second, has he had an undertaking, for example, from the two Premiers I have just mentioned that they would be willing to attend such a meeting?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No,
Mr. Speaker. I have no undertaking from the Premiers. I wrote to them in October. My expectation is that if they were invited to attend a constitutional conference they would likely attend.
It is very clear for anybody who cares to see that until Quebec is brought back into the constitutional fold there shall be constitutional paralysis in this country. There shall be no justice for our aboriginal peoples. There will be no Senate reform. There is a whole series of events that will be beyond the reach of this Parliament and this country, beginning with the basic justice that ought to be brought, for example, to our aboriginal peoples.
Oral Questions
That is why so many Members of this House worked so diligently to try to build a formula, imperfect though it was, that would heal the wounds of 1981-82 and make Canada whole again. That is exactly what we sought to do. This is exactly what the Meech Lake Accord did, and this is what we hope the philosophy of that Accord will ensure in the future. I know that I will have the support of my hon. friend and the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in pursuing those objectives with the Premiers of Canada.


CANADIAN SPACE AGENCY
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. On December 14, 1987, the Minister of State for Science and Technology said that the Government would create a space agency to act as a co-ordinator of the research and scientific space projects of the line Departments of the Canadian Government. One of these is the David Florida Laboratory in this region.
In the Citizen today we see that, contrary to the Minister's assurances, the Government is planning to break up and uproot the David Florida Laboratory, one of the cornerstones of Canada's space program, at a cost to the taxpayers of $200 million, the entire annual budget of the National Space Program.
Will the Prime Minister explain to the House the contradiction between the Minister's statement and the plan revealed today to move the David Florida Laboratory?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first, if I am not mistaken, it is the Liberal Party's position and the position of its Leader to have the space agency located in Montreal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert René de Cotret: It has been announced by the Leader of the Opposition on a number of occasions, although no decision has been made by the Government.
As to the second issue, I would only advise my hon. friend to search for the facts rather than for fiction. We

December 20, 1988
Oral Questions
never had any intention, we do not have any intention, we never had any plans nor do we have any plans to move any part of the laboratory to Montreal. That is pure fiction created from who knows where, from some report, that was never asked by myself or my colleague in the Department of Science and Technology.
Where the story that appeared in the media this morning came from is really more a the figment of the author's imagination than from any kind of government decision or action contemplated in the past, in the present, or in the future.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, that is not very satisfying to the workers-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the floor.


Marlene Catterall: There may be a legitimate argument- I do not accept it, but there may be-about where the space agency as a co-ordinating body should be located, but there is no debate that uprooting-


Mr. Beatty:: What is Turner's policy? Do you support your Leader?


Sheila Maureen Copps: How is your nuclear submarine program, guys?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been given the floor. I would ask that Hon. Members extend the appropriate courtesies to the Member. The Hon. Member will proceed with her question.


Marlene Catterall: There is no debate that uprooting and dislocating space research could set back the space program in Canada by three to ten years. The Prime Minister said yesterday-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Marlene Catterall: -that there would be no Blenkarn bulldozer ploughing jobs out of this region.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Marlene Catterall: He said that public servants would not be victimized for voting.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Harvie Andre: Section 359 of Beauchesne's, read it.


Marlene Catterall: My constituents want to know if the Government is even considering this senseless and destructive move of families and jobs. How far will it go to punish the people of this region for voting against the Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Marlene Catterall: How many jobs is it prepared to move?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, it is so obvious that the supplementary question was written before the answer to the first question. It is difficult to answer twice.
There is absolutely no question of uprooting. There is no question of moving any facilities from Ottawa to Montreal. I have said that very clearly. There is no question. It was never on the Government's list. It was never even studied. We did not look at it. We did not think about it. It is absolutely not in the cards.
There is no delay in the space program. We have just renegotiated with the European Space Agency for a further ten-year membership in that agency. We are participating in the Hermes program. We have just signed new agreements with NASA to participate in new programs in space.
We are moving ahead rapidly and effectively in this area. We will not uproot you. There has never been any question about uprooting you. Don't worry about it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't be so patronizing.


TORONTO INQUEST FINDINGS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Solicitor General and it concerns the coroner's inquest into the brutal rape and murder of Tema Conter in Toronto.
In his charge to the jury Chief Coroner Ross Bennet criticized the federal Government for ignoring crucial recommendations made at a similar inquest three years ago into the murder of Celia Ruygrok in Ottawa. At the inquest the Chief Coroner said: "Tema Conter could be alive today if the Government acted on those previous recommendations".
December 20, 1988

Would the Acting Solicitor General explain to the House and to the family of Tema Conter why his Ministry failed to adopt and fulfil the recommendations coming out of the Celia Ruygrok inquest three years ago?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do so, because it is a very important issue.
1 can inform the House and the Hon. Member that, of some 39 recommendations that were made in the case of the Ruygrok killing, some 25 of those recommendations have been implemented to date and some 14 are in progress at the present time. As I pointed out, most of the recommendations have been implemented. The remainder are being actively worked on, but are not yet complete because of their complexity, and in some cases we needed to co-ordinate our efforts with provincial Governments and with the private sector.


RELEASE OF PSYCHOPATH ON UNESCORTED PASS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the Chief Coroner said that Tema Conter would be alive today had it not been for the negligence of the Government.
Can the Acting Solicitor General explain to the family of Tema Conter how it was possible for a convicted murderer, a convicted rapist, a diagnosed psychopath, to be on a 48-hour unescorted pass while in the middle of a 25-year sentence for his crimes? Can the Minister explain to the family of Tema Conter how it was possible for that man to be walking the streets?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, the majority of the recommendations that were made by the coroner's jury in the case of the Ruygrok killing have been put in place. The others are in train at the present time. It obviously takes time to do it, because of the importance of co-ordinating those actions with private sector authorities and also with authorities at the provincial level.
We will be studying very closely all of the recommendations from the jury in the Tema Conter case.


John V. Nunziata: We have heard it all before, Perrin.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asked a question and does not give me the courtesy to respond. I
Oral Questions
wonder whether he would show the same courtesy to me as we extend to him.
We will be studying all of the recommendations in the most recent inquest. We will be making a report during the time period prescribed by the jury. We will be taking every appropriate action to ensure that public safety is maintained, at the same time as we try to ensure that the best aspects of the correctional service and the principle of the National Parole Board be maintained.


John V. Nunziata: We heard the same things three years ago. It's all rhetoric.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Northern Telecom has denied that the closure of its highly profitable Aylmer plant reflects a shift of Canadian jobs to its money-losing Atlanta plant, and apparently the Government believes that denial.
We have recently learned that 12 engineers from the Aylmer plant were actively recruited and have since in fact moved to the Atlanta plant and are working there. Is the Minister aware of this fact, and what action does the Government intend to take in response?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International
Trade): Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the piece of information that the hon. gentleman is sharing with the House.
Northern Telecom is a privately owned company. It is not government owned. I do not see that the Government is in any position to order it as to where it should transfer its employees, or where they should operate or work from, or what is best for the productivity or efficiency of the company. I will see that inquiries are made to get the exact plans of the company.


DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY IN CANADA
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister knows, Northern Telecom is not an ordinary company. As a matter of fact, yesterday the Minister stated that it has become one of the foremost companies in the technological future of

December 20, 1988
Oral Questions
Canada, largely because its research and development have been heavily subsidized by Canadian taxpayers and telephone subscribers.
Is this to be the Canadian future under the Free Trade Agreement? Will the technologists and technology developed in Canada at Canadian expense instead of sustaining jobs in Canada produce jobs in the United States, or will the Government act to change these circumstances, such that Canadians will have the jobs in Canada which ought to be produced here by the technology for which Canadians paid?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, Northern Telecom is one of the foremost of our privately-owned Canadian companies. I notice that 11 per cent of its sales goes to research and development, which is a great precedent and example for companies in Canada, either publicly or privately owned, to follow.
This is a country that basically has a free enterprise sector and a privately-owned sector outside the control and operation of the Government. That is the way we want to keep it. Northern Telecom has to decide for itself, just like AT&T or any other company, what it has to do to stay competitive and efficient, and to press forward in order that it can employ more people here in Canada and abroad. These are decisions that it has to make.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Move to the States. That's what the FTA is all about, right?


John Carnell Crosbie: In the meantime our programs to assist with its retraining or whatever might be required for employees will supplement its program. I believe that the company itself is going to spend $2.5 million to retrain in both Canada and in the United States. These effects on Northern Telecom have nothing whatsoever to do with the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, no! Oh, no!


FORESTRY
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Forestry. In March, 1989, the five-year federalprovincial forest resource management development fund will be coming to a conclusion with the Province of Ontario.
Can the Minister tell the House, and those who are involved in the industry, what plans the Government has to sit down with the province to come up with another five-year proposal?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology) and Acting Minister of State (Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, preliminary discussions have been ongoing for some time with the Province of Ontario and five other provinces whose agreements expire at the end of this fiscal year.
Presently we are considering the best and most effective way to deliver on the strong federal commitment to forestry, whether that is through a future generation of FRDAS or in another way. In all cases we would want to insist that any resources that will be generated by the federal Government will be incremental to that of the provinces. We want to ensure that future agreements are consistent with the traditional role of the federal Government in terms of research, and the renewal and protection of our forests. I am certain that with the response we are receiving from the provinces we will achieve our objective.


U.S. MARINE MAMMALS PROTECTION ACT-PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. An important trade injustice for Canada's Inuit people is the United States Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972 which prohibits the importation of sealskin, polar bear skins, ivory, ivory carvings, and whale bone into the United States from Canada.
The Free Trade Agreement has not changed the situation. Northern and native businesses still cannot export such products into the United States. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Canadian negotiators tried to obtain an exemption from this law during the trade negotiations?
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister of Western
December 20, 1988

Economic Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Hon. Member to the House. His question is an important one for those citizens of Canada who have traditionally relied on that resource as a source of their income. It was not within the ability of the negotiators during the free trade discussions with the United States to have an exemption to the Marine Mammals Protection Act.
As the Hon. Member knows, this Government, in cooperation with parliamentarians in both opposition Parties, has strongly, throughout Europe and in the United States, made representations to support that important economic industry for Canadians, both those north and south of 60.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SEEK EXEMPTION
Jack Iyerak Anawak: The Minister will be aware that the native people of Alaska are exempted from this Act, and the Canadian native peoples need a similar exemption.
What steps is the Government prepared to take to remove this injustice to Canada's native peoples? Will it commit itself to raising this issue on an urgent basis with the U.S. Government?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification):: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been raised with the Government of the United States, as it has been before the European Parliament and the Parliament of the U.K.
The matter of trade in those species is not just a question of trade for the native peoples of Canada but for Canadians generally. Canadians are denied access to that market in the U.S.


Sheila Finestone: The Alaskans have it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear the Hon. Member for Mount Royal saying that the Alaskans have it. They also happen to be American citizens.


Sheila Finestone: If they have it, we should have it.
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and has to do with bringing about more equitable treatment under the Unemployment Insurance Act for Newfoundland fishermen, and other fishermen.
Inshore fishermen throughout Newfoundland and Labrador are finding it more and more difficult to accept the rather unique and different manner in which they are treated under the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby they receive unemployment insurance benefits for a specified period and not when they are in fact out of work.
For a specified period starting in mid-November and lasting through until May, they receive unemployment insurance benefits.
They believe, and with good reason, that this is discriminatory.
My question for the Minister is this. Will the Minister pursue the relatively simple matter of amending the existing regulations so as to make fishermen eligible for unemployment insurance at the completion of the normal fishing season, when in fact they are out of work?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question on this very important subject.
Let me say at the outset that we have made a real effort to assist the fishermen of Newfoundland, and in fact that is one of the reasons why there is a differentiation in the entrance requirements for those fishermen from 14 weeks to 10 weeks. We have also come up with a special program for the fisheries sector in that when there has been a problem with the catch, they are eligible for assistance.
We are in constant communication with the Department of Fisheries, the industry and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland in connection with this whole area, and we will continue to engage in that type of consultation.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister to tell the

December 20, 1988
Oral Questions
House when something positive will be done in respect of this particular situation, a situation which the inshore fishermen find terribly irksome, and difficult if not impossible to understand.


Barbara Jean McDougall: This is an area on which we are constantly working. Every year we deal with whatever the difficulties are in the fisheries industry. If difficulties arise, we endeavour to address those difficulties.
It is not something that is simply dropped off the table. It is something that we are constantly working on, and when there is a situation that requires our attention, we immediately act on it.


HOUSING
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault-Ste-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Housing. Despite his statements during the recent election campaign that there are no homeless in Toronto-and I trust he will not add Ontario and Canada to that list-there is a desperate shortage of subsidized housing in Ontario. In some areas there is a two-year waiting list, and that list will grow unless the Government acts immediately.
I would ask the Minister to reaffirm his predecessor's commitment-I repeat, commitment-to increase, by 7,000, subsidized housing units in Ontario immediately.


John Horton McDermid: Let me
say at the outset that my predecessor did not make a commitment to add an additional 7,000 subsidized housing units. That statement is factually incorrect. What my predecessor did do was to set a new budget for social housing in Ontario, calling for expenditures this year of well over $500 million, with almost $250 million of that being spent in the Metropolitan Toronto area.
That money has been taken up by the Province of Ontario, and they are back now asking for more money.
The Government of Ontario made commitments knowing that the money was not there, and now it is blaming the federal Government for the lack of funds.
Once the provincial Minister of Housing begins to feel any heat on this issue, she turns around and blames the federal Government for the lack of funds.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, come on!


An Hon. Member:: She is absolutely right.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steve Butland: I am reminded of a line from a favourite Christmas poem: "I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep."


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: A Christmas poem!


An Hon. Member:: That is not a Christmas poem.


Steve Butland: I suggest that the Minister offers just a half a promise.
The Minister's answer to the homeless, then, is "no". And in the Christmas spirit, shelter for people-this is not a Christmas wish list; it is a necessity. It is housing for those without homes.
My supplementary question for the Minister is this. What specific answer does he have for the homeless in this country, and when will his Draconian attitude toward the homeless change?


John Horton McDermid: First of all, I suggest that the Hon. Member get his facts correct. My statement was that the homeless need permanent homes, not temporary homes. The goal of this Government is to provide the homeless with permanent homes. That is the goal of this Government, the goal of our Prime Minister, and the goal toward which we will be working.
It is a multi-faceted problem, a very serious problem. It is a health problem; it is a family problem. It goes much deeper than just providing temporary shelter, as the Hon. Member knows. Our goal is to find a permanent solution for the homeless.


An Hon. Member:: Meanwhile, let them freeze.
December 20, 1988


AIRPORTS
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport and it relates to the situation at the Pearson International Airport.
In the light of the announcement by the Ministry that flight patterns during peak hours at Pearson International Airport would be changed to effect a dual runway system effective May 8 of this year for a six-month trial period, I would ask the Minister to let us know the outcome of that trial. And further, will the system continue, and for what period of time?


Sheila Maureen Copps: How long will the chaos continue?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: 1 thank the Hon. Member for his concern in respect of this particular matter. I can confirm that the trial system of which he speaks was put in place in order to increase runway capacity at Pearson International Airport. I can also confirm that it has been successful and will remain in place.


DAY CARE
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Thousands of Canadian children have been neglected by the Conservative Government.
During their previous mandate the Conservatives attempted to create a day care system under which a ceiling would be set on funds paid to the provinces by the central Government.
Mr. Speaker, does the Minister intend to introduce day care legislation which would not set a limit on funds earmarked for such services in this country?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, let me first make the point that this Government has not neglected children, and any
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
statement to the effect that it has is an absolutely incorrect statement.
The fact is, government moneys going to families with dependent children have increased over the life of the Progressive Conservative Government in this country.
We have heard the criticism that family allowance payments were partially deindexed in the past. However, the critics do not factor in the child tax credit. Once the child tax credit is taken into consideration, one finds that total benefits in 1986, as a result of budgets brought down by this Government, have increased. To cite some figures, family allowance payments amounted to $780.48, and that, added to the child tax credit, a credit which is fully indexed to inflation, translates into total benefits of $1,578. For 1987, that increased to $1,642.40; and in 1988, it increases to $1,714.16.
So, the argument that this Government has done nothing for Canadian families, for Canadian children, is patently false.
In answer to her question in relation to the bringing in of a child care program that has no limits to it, I say to the Hon. Member, with all respect, that I do not think that any Government will come in with a child care program that does not have some spending requirement and some spending projections. That is absolutely important for proper fiscal planning, whether it be by the municipal, provincial, or federal level of government.
It was an expensive program that we came forward with, and if she and others feel the only way to solve this issue is through unlimited funds, I do not think that is in keeping either with the fiscal framework of the Government or the fiscal ability of Canadian taxpayers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-2, an Act to enact the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act-Mr. Crosbie- Mrs. Champagne in the Chair
Steve Eugene Paproski: When the committee was interrupted at one o'clock p.m., Clause 2 of the

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Bill was under consideration and the Elon. Member for Winnipeg South had the floor.
On Clause 2-Definitions


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Madam Chairman, to continue, this free trade deal is vital for western Canadians. The agreement offers us the opportunity to escape from the limited role we have enjoyed for such a long time as farmers, loggers and miners. It does that while securing our agricultural marketing systems, including our supply-management schemes, for as long as we want them. The Free Trade Agreement allows us to develop our manufacturing base, confident in the access we have secured to the huge American market which is so geographically close and which makes so much sense for us as a place to access new customers.
In Manitoba there are literally dozens of companies who compete internationally and feel free trade will give them the opportunity they need for growth. That opportunity is simply not available right now. I know of a printer of lottery tickets, for example, who has just about reached his maximum potential for sales in Canada. Currently he supplies a small but growing international market, but his largest sales opportunity is south of the border. He claims he could double his size by accessing the Chicago market alone. He knows the sales are there because he has the only installation of its kind in North America and his product has proven absolutely secure and reliable. Yet without the Free Trade Agreement, that opportunity will remain unexploited. His product is currently barred from entering the U.S. This is an old and entirely reliable printing firm and it looks to the Free Trade Agreement for its future in spite of assertions that printing is an "at risk" industry.
There are many other similar stories. In the textile industry, another industry supposedly at risk, the president of a local Winnipeg firm tells me that over 90 per cent of his product is already being exported. Free trade will simply magnify his sales capacity, and his only regret is the lengthy phase-out period of U.S. tariffs on the products he produces. Outside Winnipeg, in the tiny community of Steinback, there is a window manufacturer, the third largest in Canada. He is currently expanding his plant, gearing up for greatly increased production. He, too, looks to Chicago as the natural target for his first sales expansion.
These are comparatively small businesses and we all too frequently hear this agreement is a deal for big
businesses, its benefits will accrue to the giant multinational corporations. This is simply not true as I know from first-hand experience. Last year I served a term as President of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. Over 85 per cent of that organization's 1700-member firms employ fewer than 15 people. Yet the membership is overwhelmingly in favour of the Free Trade Agreement and has been since the idea was first announced. .
Small manufacturers, small business, small service people, all see the opportunities for expansion if only to supply the medium to large-size firms that will access the trade opportunities in the U.S. on a first-hand basis. Everyone, from the fellow who supplies the ink to my printer constituent, to those who service his computers, can grasp the concept that his growth will magnify their own business potential.
I guess that is enough on business because we tend to overlook the consumer, the ultimate winners in this deal, the man in the street, our friend and neighbour, the worker, the everyday people our opponents like to talk about all the time. Those people are what this agreement is all about: a better lifestyle for all Canadians. That will be achieved through more jobs, lower prices, and access to a wider variety of goods of a higher quality as competitive market forces work their magic.
The source opportunity for price reductions will come from the removal of the tariffs themselves. On certain consumer products this can be a very substantial amount, 20 per cent to 25 per cent for clothing and footwear, for example. Yet the real savings will grow out of competition in the market-place. Business, which can readily understand the economies of scale, will find ways of reducing costs in order to meet competitive pricing in the race to increase sales volume. Increased sales volume means more product, which means more people working to produce the product, which means more money to make more purchases, and so on.
I know this is pretty simple stuff for many of my hon. colleagues, but the debate we have listened to over the past few days would indicate there are those among us who do not comprehend that the free market system is the ultimate answer to prosperity for the majority and a better life for all.
In real terms, the consumer, our friends, neighbours and associates, will reap substantial financial benefits from the Free Trade Agreement. For example, the Department of Finance model places real income gains at 2.5 per cent, while the Economic Council of Canada estimates these gains may go as high as 3.3 per cent. In
December 20, 1988

dollars and cents, according to a January 1988 Consumer and Corporate Affairs study, this will mean $450 a year for low income families and as much as $800 a year for middle and higher income families.
These are some of the tangible, quantifiable benefits we can see and touch. Harder to estimate are the secondary benefits resulting from increased purchasing power and higher consumption in a more affluent society. Who can measure the social benefits that will flow from a society capable of shucking the burden of debt we inherited four years ago? Who can predict the cultural advances that will emerge in a new era of economic stability and confidence?
This is an exciting time for Canada, a time of hope and a time of progress. This agreement exemplifies the kind of Canada we will have tomorrow. It will be a Canada where the promises of opportunity and prosperity which brought our immigrant forefathers to this northern land will be fulfilled.
Let us grasp the opportunities provided to us by this agreement and use them to claim the 21st century for Canada and for our children.


Ms. Callbeck:: Madam Chairman, it is with the greatest humility and respect for the traditions of this House that I rise today in the first session of Canada's Thirty-fourth Parliament. I feel truly privileged as a Canadian to have been chosen by the people of the district of Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, to represent them and to bring their concerns to this House.
Parliament is the living heart of our democracy. It is the place where great decisions are made that affect the course of our history as a country. It touches the lives of every individual Canadian.
I am conscious of my responsibility as a parliamentarian to weigh every issue in terms of the effects on my country and in terms of the effects on the lives of the people of Malpeque. Those people are my special responsibility. I see it as my duty to serve their interests.
My district has been blessed by nature. It is bounded by the waters of Northumberland Strait on one side and by the Gulf of St. Lawrence on the other. In between lies some of the finest farmland in Canada, the rolling fields of fertile soil where the potatoes are the prime agricultural crop and dairy farms with herds of purebred cattle. Family farms for the present generation struggle to maintain an existence on landholdings that may go back 200 years.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
On both of Malpeque's coasts fishing villages dot the coastline. The boats go out each day that weather permits in the fishing season. They go for lobster, herring, mackerel and groundfish. Theirs, too, is an uncertain existence in the face of fishing quotas, declining stocks and on-shore markets.
The farm communities and the fishing villages are the sturdy backbone of our rural society in Malpeque. They have a deep and lasting bond with the land and the sea. They depend upon our natural environment to return a living to them year after year.
It is the unspoiled and tranquil nature of our environment that attracts many people working in Summerside and Charlottetown to live in Malpeque. It is the same natural beauty that attracts so many summer visitors to Cavendish and the other magnificent beaches on our north and south shores.
But now the people of Malpeque are threatened. They and all that they hold dear have been threatened by the trade agreement signed by the Government with the United States of America.
On November 21, the people of Malpeque, like the majority of Prince Edward Islanders and the majority of Canadians, said they did not like the trade deal. They said they wanted none of it. They said that their future as Canadians working and living in a sovereign nation was imperilled by the agreement. I am well aware that the Government won enough seats in the election to carry out its trade agreement through this House. So I suppose that is what will happen.
But my concern and the concerns of the people of Malpeque lie not only with what is included in this agreement but also with what is not included, for example, a definition of what constitutes an unfair subsidy. Up to this point that definition seems to have been set by the Americans. It goes this way: "What we do is perfectly acceptable, and what you Canadians do is not". That seems to be the essence of the Mitchell amendment. Actually, the Senator from Maine may have done us a service by signalling what the future will be like if the Americans have their way with us in the coming negotiations over subsidies.
Senator Mitchell has targeted 35 government assistance programs to our farm community which he says constitute unfair subsidy. He wants us to get rid of all of them. He wants our country to become a dumping ground for surplus American farm commodities-never mind that those commodities are produced with assistance from the United States Government, and never

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
mind that it costs our farmers more to produce farm products because they have to contend with much more severe conditions in climate.
The potato farmers of Malpeque are justly proud of the quality of their product. They sell their crops in Canada, in the United States and around the world. Prince Edward Island potatoes are second to none grown anywhere else. But this trade agreement suggests that the present duty that each country imposes will be removed over 10 years. That is fine, but the Americans want more. They are not satisfied with that clause. Now they have issued implementing legislation which authorizes the President to negotiate import quotas on Canadian products and Canadian potatoes. That is a clear signal to me and to the farm people of Malpeque that as soon as we achieve any level of success in exporting potatoes to the United States they are ready to put the clamps on us.
Senator Mitchell's amendments also go after the fishermen. Our fishery and theirs operate from two different philosophies. We manage our fishery; they do not. We assist our fishermen because we manage our fishery. We tell them when they can go fishing. We tell them how much of which kind of fish they can catch. We recognize that in an era of high costs our fishermen are limited to what kind of living they can make by man-made and natural restrictions. But that is not the American way; it is our way of dealing with a Canadian situation.
The fishermen of Malpeque and of the Atlantic provinces are entitled to Canadian solutions to Canadian problems. They will settle for nothing less. They will not accept the American way of doing things in Canada.
The question of what constitutes fair government assistance to agriculture, fishermen and other industries in the Atlantic area is a central issue in this agreement. After two years of negotiations with the Americans the Government was unable to reach an accord, even though it was one of the main objectives of the entire exercise.
We are about to see this trade deal become a reality in Canadian life. We still do not know how this central issue will be decided.
We need regional development programs in the Atlantic region. We need them so that we can help ourselves. We need them so that we can have the opportunity of participating in the prosperity of more favoured regions of the country. We are entitled to those programs because, as Canadians, we are entitled to the benefits of belonging to Canadian society stretching
from east to west from one ocean to the other and northward to the Arctic.
Already there is evidence that the regional development programs are being shaped to fit the American view. Senior civil servants have said so. I have no reason to disbelieve them.
That cannot be allowed to happen in subsidy negotiations. We must preserve the right to shape our society as we see fit. We must be prepared to fight for Canadian solutions to Canadian social and economic problems.
There is every indication that it will be us Canadians who will dance to the American tune in the name of harmonization. It is this prospect that alarms the Leader of my Party, my peers in the opposition benches and Canadians across the country.
It is not just a simple matter of retraining our people. It is not even a matter of compensating them in some way or other. It is a matter of a fundamental right as a Canadian to be able to live, work and enjoy the benefits of the Canadian society we have built over the last 120 years.
The people of Malpeque, like the people in other parts of Atlantic Canada, want no more than what is their right by virtue of being Canadian. This Government has negotiated a trade deal that puts those basic rights in peril.
The performance of the Government in protecting our social programs and defending our right to enact assistance programs as we see fit will be watched by every Canadian. I believe the trade agreement is a bad deal for Canada and for my district. The people of Malpeque said so when they chose me as their representative in this House. I see it as my duty to protect their interests as the full impact of the trade deal becomes apparent.
This is what I intend to do as one individual Member of the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Cooper:: Madam Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter into the debate this afternoon on this very important issue, this issue that has been the focus of attention for Canadians for several months now. As we go into this particular stage of the discussion on this Bill, it is interesting to look back and find where we were before. We sat at committee stage on this subject, the subject of free trade, a total of 16 days in the legislative committee. It was 24 days in the External
December 20, 1988

Affairs Committee. Those committee hearings added up to 300 hours. As a result of that, the issue has been very much the focus of Canadians. We are repeating that process again today. We repeat it simply because we have gone through an election period. We, as a Government, have received a mandate to proceed on this particular piece of legislation, because it was the central issue of this last campaign.
I have been surprised in the debate over the last couple of days to listen to Members from the Opposition who say time and time again that a majority of Canadians said "no" to free trade, that this Government has no mandate. Yet if we as Members in this House are to apply their rules of mandate that they seem to be using in their particular arguments, we would find that very few people in this House of Commons have a mandate to be here to represent their people. There are very few people in this room today who have over 50 per cent of their electorate backing them. Does that mean that they do not have a mandate to speak for their people? Does that mean that they do not have a right to come in here to represent their constituents by way of voting in this institution or speaking in this House of Commons? Of course not. It would be the height of absurdity if we were to accept that kind of an argument.
Then why should the opposition Members expect the Canadian people to swallow that argument hook, line and sinker all of a sudden because we did not receive over 50 per cent of the vote in this last election? This Government does have a mandate. It has a mandate by every fair standard that has been applied in the country and throughout the history of Parliaments that have existed throughout the world.
I want to touch on three or four items that I think are essential to the debate. The perspective that I want to bring to the discussion is that of the Member of Parliament for the riding of Peace River, an Albertan and a western Canadian. I believe that this particular debate is an issue that has been absolutely fundamental to western Canadians for a long time. If I were to stop and ask western Canadians what has been the one issue that has been a frustration, a point of anger, not in recent weeks and months but for years and decades, they would say that one problem that they have lived with all this time has been the question of tariffs. Those tariffs were never seen as being put in place to protect the people of Peace River or the people of Alberta. They were never put in place to protect westerners. They were put in place to protect industries that were not located in that part of our country.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I really do believe that this issue is fundamental to western Canadians. It is fundamental because of those tariffs. We have wanted, since the beginning of Confederation, since the western provinces became a part of this country, to work on a level playing field. We have asked for equal opportunity. Give us equal opportunity. Give us an equal chance. We believe that we can compete successfully with any competition that exists. Instead, as long as those tariffs have remained in place, we have been confined to the role of hewers of wood and drawers of water. Why? Because those tariffs have never been fair to our products. It is very simple reasoning. It is not just the Americans.
It is the Japanese and the Europeans. In fact, it is the Canadians as well. We are quite prepared to let other peoples' raw materials come into our country with a very small tariff if we can process those goods, but if they want to ship us processed goods, then we want a high protection. That is exactly what has been happening in western Canada for decades. It was quite easy for us to sell the raw oil, the raw natural gas, the raw lumber, but when we wanted to start processing those products, then immediately they faced a much higher tariff barrier than the raw material. As a result, there is a frustration that is very deep-rooted within western Canada.
We have wanted to diversify our economy. That is why this Government has developed programs like the Western Diversification Program. Why? Because we want to broaden our base. We want new opportunities for western Canadians. We do not simply want to be producers of raw materials. We want also to be the producers and the manufacturers of those raw materials. We want to create those jobs and that investment, and we want to keep it in the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. We do not want to export those jobs to the United States, to Japan, to the European Common Market. We want to keep them at home. Why? Because we want a future for our young people. I really believe that that is one of the fundamental issues in this debate.
There is another little bit of history that I think western Canadians particularly want to talk a little bit about, and that is the history of being afraid of the Americans. Speaking from the perspective of an Albertan, I think that oil and gas is an important part of our economy. Not only is it an important part of our economy, but it has taught us a good deal about how we can relate to our American neighbours. When we develop that oil and gas, we do it with the co-operation and the help of the American people. It was they who

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
provided us much of the capital that we needed in those early days. It was they who provided us with the equipment. It was they who provided us with the technical knowledge and the understanding that we needed to develop this product that has since become so fundamental to our economy. That taught us that we did not have to be afraid of the Americans. We did not have to run and hide every time we heard the word "American". We did not have to be cowards.
We learned that we could work with them, compete with them and in fact could teach them some things they needed to learn. For example, within the oil and gas sector in western Canada today there are several western Canadians involved in training Americans in the latest technology and techniques. That is why western Canadians have a lot of confidence in our ability to compete with the Americans and other countries throughout the world.
Let me explain some of the benefits I believe the Free Trade Agreement will bring to the West. My riding is essentially a perfect snapshot of western Canada. That area has a strong agricultural base, a strong and developing forestry industry, and a strong energy industry both in oil and gas. We also have the shale tar sands project which involves us in the synthetic oil industry. My riding, which includes all those fundamental resource economies that exist in western Canada, is probably one of the best examples to illustrate what will happen to the region as a result of free trade.
The Canada West Foundation conducted a study of every riding in western Canada to examine the impact of the Free Trade Agreement on each constituency. The study on Peace River resulted in the astonishing statistic that 99.5 per cent of all the jobs within the riding of Peace River would have either a positive or a neutral impact as a result of free trade. I cannot think of a single investment opportunity or program that could give better prospects for the people of the Peace country than that. It is absolutely astounding that such an initiative could result in a positive impact on 99.5 per cent of the jobs in the area.
It is understandable why this initiative is so important to the people in the Peace country and, I believe, to the rest of western Canada. When one considers such an impact on my riding, which I suggest is a snapshot of western Canada, it is obvious why the debate we are engaged in today is so important.
One of the difficulties we face in Canada is that this is a big country with a small and scattered population. Anyone who wants to develop successfully a large industry obviously needs a large market. In Canada, that large market exists primarily in the so-called Golden Triangle of Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto. In order to gain access to a big market one must be able to reach that market. We in the West are isolated because that market is some 4,000 miles away. The cost of servicing that market is incredible.
The Free Trade Agreement provides another opportunity for western Canadians, including Albertans in my area, that did not previously exist to the same degree. That opportunity is the market in California. It comprises roughly the same population as that of all of Canada, some 26 million. That market is only 1,500 miles from my constituency, which is half the distance to the major market in Canada.
One gas pipeline from the Elmworth gas field in my riding to the State of California and Los Angeles would have the same effect as my riding gaining access to the entire Canadian market from coast to coast. It is no wonder that we believe this initiative is so important. It is a market that gives us an opportunity to move away from our traditional role of being hewers of wood and drawers of water. Suddenly we can see the potential to become the processors of our goods and materials. We can begin to develop the secondary industries that we have longed dreamed of.
The Free Trade Agreement will also be of great benefit to consumers in my riding. During the last election I decided to buy a new pair of cowboy boots-a requirement of every Albertan- to replace my worn out pair. Since we were in the middle of an election that involved the free trade debate, I thought perhaps I should wait and buy the boots after free trade is adopted because of the difference in price. In fact, when I learned of the tariffs that applied to goods like those boots, I was tempted to wait until January 2 to buy them.
The gentleman who sold me the boots said that there was a tariff of approximately 40 per cent on boots, saddles and all his leather goods. The agreement will have a major impact on his operation. We can multiply my experience as a consumer thousands of times each day of the week to realize the goods we will have available to us without the restriction of a quota.
A retailer in my constituency once told me that he wanted to increase his quota of cowboy boots because he
December 20, 1988

could easily sell what he had. However, he could not obtain any more because of the restrictions placed on him by the quotas. We as consumers will see those goods available at a cheaper price as well as in greater quantities. That is very important.
In my riding the Free Trade Agreement will have a positive or neutral impact on 99.5 per cent of the jobs. That means those jobs will be secure and will continue to exist. In addition, those of us who are working will have other goods available to us at cheaper costs.
We should also consider just what are the alternatives to the Free Trade Agreement. 1 was surprised that while there is much discussion about this agreement we did not see the Liberals or the New Democrats come forward with well defined alternatives. The Leader of the Opposition said that his solution was to tear up the agreement and proceed on a sector by sector basis. However, the Liberal Minister responsible for that area prior to 1984 said that the sector by sector negotiations did not work. That was not an alternative.
What is the other alternative, to let the tariffs continue to exist? As a western Canadian, I would say that that means our opportunity to succeed, to grow and to develop has been delayed that much longer. It is no alternative to leave the existing tariffs in place. It is no alternative for us to think that we as a country can survive, grow and develop by putting fences around ourselves. That is not the kind of world we are living in today.
The world that we are living in today is a world based on competition, a world based on adjustment and a world based on confidence. I think that is what this agreement is all about. It is our perception of ourselves as Canadians. Are we confident that we can compete with the American and other economies throughout the world? Are we confident that we can adjust and change to the dynamics of a changing, growing, evolving economy? Are we confident in ourselves? Are we confident in our country? Are we confident in our ability to compete with the Americans?
Canada is a very young country, a country with a tremendous future, a country that is prepared to take risks, a country that is full of dreams and visions and a country that has ambitions. I believe that the real bottom line to our success in the last election was that we talked about those visions and we showed Canadians how free trade could give them those opportunities. That, I think, is why this Government has been given the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
mandate it has today to proceed on the question of free trade.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Madam Chairman, it is a great honour and privilege for me to rise in the House of Commons today to deliver my first speech as the Member of Parliament for Nunatsiaq. I will be delivering some of my speech in Inuktitut, and there is an interpreter present ready to translate it.
I would like to thank the people of Nunatsiaq, the beautiful land, for having placed their trust and confidence in me. I want to assure them that I will work on their behalf with sincerity and dedication, in unity and co-operation, toward improving the quality of life in the North, and I hope to represent them in future Parliaments as well.
The Prime Minister's haste to accommodate the President of the United States in passing the free trade legislation prevented me from taking my seat in this House along with the other elected Members on Monday, December 12. In recalling Parliament so soon after the election, the Prime Minister neglected the North, and consequently, my riding of Nunatsiaq, as he has done for the past four years.
I can assure the Government that the time of taking the North for granted, as was done in the Thirty-third Parliament, is over. All too often, the concerns of northerners have been neglected, ignored or overridden, and I intend to remind the Government constantly, in co-operation with my colleague from the Western Arctic, that the people of the North deserve to be treated as Canadians and should be able to access the services southern Canadians take for granted such as medical, dental, travel and banking services.
There are 33 communities in my riding, and some of them receive a dental service visit twice a year if they are lucky, a plane once a week, weather permitting, and a pediatrician once every six months. I am sure you are getting the idea, Madam Chairman, of how isolated the North is. We have just two banks in the entire area and one of them does not even offer computerized services.
Perhaps a short geography lesson would be helpful. Nunatsiaq is the largest constituency in Canada. It covers an area of approximately 1.3 million square miles or 3.3 million square kilometres. It stretches from Tuktoyaktuk, which is almost directly north of Vancouver, British Columbia, to Pangnirtung, almost directly north of Fredericton, New Brunswick. It encompasses three time zones, Eastern, Central and Mountain.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
During the election campaign, I travelled approximately
20,000	miles, give or take a couple of hundred miles.
Nunatsiaq, which means the beautiful land, is not, contrary to popular belief, bleak and barren. Its scenery can compete with any world tourist attraction. If you do not believe me, Madam Chairman, I invite you to come up to Auyuittuq National Park and Pangnirtung, the Kazan Falls at Baker Lake, or to canoe down the Coppermine River.
Northerners do not want hand-outs from the Government. All we want is a chance to compete with southern businesses in our territory and to become self-sufficient.
The Government must understand that the North is very wary of the Free Trade Agreement. We are worried that we will not be able to compete with American firms which, because of their size, can undercut us, and certain tenders that are over $33,000 will be fair game for the Americans.
The economic future of the Northwest Territories should not be approached by focusing on the problems of the area: long distances, harsh climate, limited services and a small population base. The Northwest Territories should not be considered a burden on the rest of Canada.
We in the North focus on the opportunities and the potential of our area, emphasizing the wealth of resources, the beauty of the land and our strategic position in Canada's claim to Arctic sovereignty. We encourage the Government to take the same approach. The Northwest Territories is an asset to Canada, economically, socially and politically. We can make a great contribution to the prosperity of this nation if Canada will invest in us.
Development of policies which address changes in regulatory regimes, tax structures, fiscal policy, grant programs and the provision of appropriate supportive infrastructure will go a long way toward ensuring prosperity for the Northwest Territories and hence for Canada. The North must have access to programs and policies similar to the ones used in the initial development of our provinces. We require incentives, subsidies and rebates that will put us on an equal footing with the rest of Canada.
This requires substantial input, but this must be viewed as an investment, whether it is promoting tax measures and reward incentives, developing a resource base of qualified northerners to satisfy the workforce requirements of our expanding northern economy,
encouraging northern participation in the non-renewable resource base industry via publicly traded companies, or exploring linkages between the mining industries and other industries such as tourism and arts and crafts. (English translation from Inuktitut:)
In the area of tourism, more work should be done in education and training, and this should be public sector driven. In the area of transportation, we need an improved and expanded road system and our airport facilities need to be upgraded.
We need to equalize costs with southern markets for transportation, communications, wages, housing and CMHC mortgages. We have to resolve the ownership of land, streamline and consolidate existing government programs and develop a one-window approach.
The people of Nunatsiaq have a very high unemployment rate. Seal hunting and carving are used to supplement incomes. However, we all know what happened to the sealskin market because of Greenpeace and Brigitte Bardot. The collapse of this market destroyed the economy of many Inuit communities as well as that of Newfoundland.
Less widely known is the effect of the United States Marine Mammals Protection Act on the northern and native economy. Passed in 1972, this Act prohibits Canadian northern and native people from exporting sealskin, ivory, whalebone or polar bear skins into the United States.
An exemption from this Act should have been obtained by the Canadian Government during the Free Trade Agreement negotiations. Such an exemption would have a very beneficial impact on the northern economy. But the exemption was not achieved and it seems the Government was not willing to pursue it. Was it because the North did not have enough influence or economic muscle that this issue was not pushed harder?
The Inuit will not be any better off with the passage of the free trade legislation. Why is it that the Alaskan Inuit are exempt from this Act but the Canadian Inuit are not? It certainly is not because the seals or walrus are endangered. The quotas for polar bear hunting are strictly enforced. So the polar bear is not endangered in the world. What is it that the Government is going to do to help Inuit who rely on hunting to sustain themselves? I am certain that the Government of Canada would want to see the Inuit self-sufficient and not totally
December 20, 1988

dependent on social programs. The Canadian Government must put pressure on the American Government to exempt Canadian native people from the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The Government of Canada and the Inuit are in negotiations toward a land claims agreement which could establish the Inuit as the largest landowners in Canada. Let us hope that the resources upon which their economic prosperity depends are not diminished by the Free Trade Agreement.


Steve Butland: I thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to speak on this issue for the one-hundredth time but for the first time in this House. People in my constituency of Sault-Ste-Marie, 29,000 strong, voted against my predecessor and the only issue of which they spoke was the Free Trade Agreement.
Our major industry suggested that 1,000 jobs would be lost if the Algoma Steel employees did not vote Progressive Conservative. The President of Dofasco said there would be no expansion if the Free Trade Agreement did not come to pass. The Chamber of Commerce and the media openly endorsed the Free Trade Agreement and predicted doom if Sault-Ste-Marie did not support free trade. A whole series of Cabinet Ministers, many of whom are across the aisle, including the Prime Minister, came into Sault-Ste-Marie. These were powerful forces at work, but the people of Sault-Ste-Marie did not listen and said in a democratic way, "We do not believe you. We do not trust you. We are troubled by the Free Trade Agreement".
I campaigned long and hard against the free trade and I believe it in my heart, my head and most of all in my gut that this is a bad deal.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Are you going to read us some more American poetry?


Steve Butland: As I say, I hope against hope that the deal will bring prosperity to my community. I must because I care for my city and its people, I hope that all the promises of prosperity will come to fruition because it will be of little consolation for me to say, "I told you so". I hope this leap of faith will, indeed, be a leap which will land us somewhere and not in to an abyss. I prefer to believe Leo Gerard who said, when addressing the steel industry.
They'll ship on their subsidized barges and their de-regulated
trucks and then over our border on free trade.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
This steel will originate in non-union mini mills in the southern United States. The acceptance and endorsement of this deal is the most dramatic turnaround in political history, and that prompts anyone to ask why. What changed all of these people's minds? Who are these people and which Party do they espouse? I suggest it is a very notable list.
The Prime Minister,who said, "It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it"; the External Affairs Minister, who said, "Unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear"; the Minister of Finance, who said, "Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive"; the former Secretary of State, David Crombie, who said, "Our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak sisters"; ex Veterans' Affairs Minister, George Hees, who said, "A clear indication of a move toward free trade with the United States would not be a good thing for this country"; the Ontario Conservative Leader, Andy Brandt, who said, "Taking a multilateral route in trade negotiations is the best long-term way for Canada"; former Ontario Leader, Larry Grossman, who said, "I contend it would be a mistake for anyone to have excessively high expectations about the results of any trade arrangements with the United States." It goes on. Then there was Tory strategist, Hugh Segal, but the piece de resistance was former Ontario Premier Bill Davis, who said: "You will not get me". Six months later he said: "What a courageous course of action by the federal Government".
Did a bolt of lightning strike in so many places at once as to profoundly affect the way such so-called learned politicians read into such an agreement? It makes anyone wonder about the credibility of people who espouse the deal now but who were vehemently opposed just a few scant years ago.
Have we not precluded ourselves from the international world of business?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Steve Butland: I believe we have. We have tied Canada to a unilateral market, one that will indeed swallow us up, as Mr. Yeutter has said. The Government has cut back on the very budget that could rescue us from economic domination, and that is research and development.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Right Hon. Prime Minister in his book, Where I Stand,-he stands in many places-but where he stood, said:
The starting line for me is the technological dimension. Either we go into the game and become important players in this major league or we become a nation that will, during its entire lifetime, play in the Junior B circuit... Research and development, and the resulting innovations are the lifeblood of a successful economy and country.
So the Prime Minister called for a 20 per cent funding increase for the National Research Council and he promised to double Canada's research and development debt by the end of his first mandate. What did he do? He decreased the amount.


Some Hon. Members:: False.


Steve Butland: It is not false. What of the reconciliation, the healing process of which the Prime Minister speaks? There was no thought to entertaining any amendments to the Free Trade Agreement no matter how innocuous. Specifically, our Amendment No. 14 to Bill C-2 states that the Bill should be amended immediately after line 7 at page 4. For greater certainty the Government will bring immediately trade adjustment legislation for those dislocated as a result of the agreement.
The tribunal that we would form should be made up of representatives from government, business, workers, communities, and other interested groups. The tribunal shall receive and investigate representations from groups of companies and workers who believe that they are or are likely to be adversely affected by subsided U.S. imports, including those provided by the U.S. Defense Department. The tribunal shall report annually to Parliament on the status of adjustment to the agreement and make recommendations for improving the process. None of this will be heard in the appropriate forum.
The wounds are only deeper as a result of this process that we are going through. We are speaking to be heard, but I am sure that no one is listening.
Professor Ross A. Rotstein of the University of Toronto said it perfectly when he stated: "Sometimes I suspect that members of the free trade camp are so intoxicated by the classical free trade rhetoric that they find it hard to come down to earth and look at the specifics of the agreement".
Let me look at the specifics. For example, Article 1602-national treatment of Americans; Article 604- harmonization of laws; Article 1902-either party can
change anti-dumping laws or countervail duties at any time.
The bottom line will be the loss of our unique Canadian identity. This will happen over time. One does not lose one's identity over a short period of time but over a long period of time. I believe that it will happen. If we will not monitor changes as they occur, put on the blinders and ignore what is happening, it surely will happen. In some areas it will be imperceptibly, and in other areas it will be dramatically. We are genuinely fearful. It indeed is a leap of faith rather than a leap of trust. When one takes a leap one ensures that there is a safety net or a cord to keep him or her from straying too far into whatever abyss there is. Neither is provided by the Government.
In conclusion, I hope Members opposite are correct. If they are wrong, they will have committed the ultimate treason. It will be small consolation that history books will condemn them. I pray Members opposite are right for the sake of Canada.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Madam Chairman, I would also like to take part in this debate. For some days we have been hearing the Opposition pretend they are protecting the people, they are protecting Canadians. I would rather call that confusing the people, confusing workers, and this is what I have to say to Opposition Members: If you are serious, get on with the work, because business people are paying taxes and in order to pay taxes they must work.
While politicians are talking, Madam Chairman, business people must pay taxes. In order to pay taxes, they have to do business. If no taxes are paid, we are in for a frightening deficit first as it was under the Liberals.
Corporations, business people have a responsibility to manage well their businesses and make profits. I know Socialists condemn profits. The same thing for everybody, everybody poor, everybody on the same footing. Everyone with a Lada. That is their business! I remember that during the election campaign my former friend and colleague Phil Edmonston was the only one who declared the Lada the car of the year. That was really something. As a garage operator with some 20 years' experience, I can tell you that if there is one car you should stay away from, that is it. We even refused to gas it up, so bad it was. Those people declared it the car of the year. And now they pretend they will to protect Canadians!
December 20, 1988


An Hon. Member:: What are they driving?


Vincent Della Noce: I noticed that some of my colleagues have very beautiful cars.


An Hon. Member:: The Socialists?


Vincent Della Noce: Yes. Others ride bicycles they tie up here on the side. To show they are poor. But I am sure they take the same salary as we capitalists here do, on this side of the House.
Madam Chairman, I would like to say at the start that free trade is something important to us, Quebecers-it is vital for Quebec. It is vital because as we know, more than 75 per cent of our exports go to the United States.


An Hon. Member:: Did Mr. Edmonston know that?


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Edmonston comes from the United States. We have been stuck with him for 20
years.
In 1986, the value of exports reached $16 billion. Quebec's exports are mainly composed of the following. Listen to this, because it is important. Newsprint cars, aluminium, telecommunications equipment, ore, ore concentrates, iron concentrate, timber, softwood pulp, rail equipment, urban transportation, machines, machinery and, of course, hydro-electric power in Quebec.
Now, I would like to quote one of my colleagues who spoke on Friday, as I liked what he had to say: How could it be said that the people have decided? Even now, I hear that we received a greater number of votes, more than . . . Their calculations are so bad that 1 only made a cursory analysis. Let's look at the vote counts for the three party leaders-I chose the three leaders because they are the most widely known and got the most coverage nation-wide. First, the leader of the NDP, who likes to use figures and vote counts. As my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), said the other night, the leader of the unofficial opposition received 18,400 votes. The Liberal candidate got 14,000 votes and the leader of the NDP,
18,000	votes. The other candidates got 14,000 and 8,000 votes respectively. If you add those two figures together, you get 22,000 votes.
So the leader of the New Democratic Party should not be sitting in the House. He should go home.
The leader of the Official Opposition only received 20,400 votes. He was the one who said: Let the people
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
decide! The Conservative candidate running against him received 14,235 votes and the NDP candidate, 10,000. If you add these two figures together- which does not require the assistance of an accountant-you get a total of 24,500, which means that in view of the 20,000 votes he received, the Hon. Leader of the Opposition should not be sitting here.
So I go on to the third example, our leader, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), who had 33,729 votes; the Liberal got only 5,900 and the poor NDP-it is true that they are not strong in Quebec-just 1,800. This means that if there is a leader and if the people have decided, well, we have a leader who got 81 per cent of the vote. That means something.
That is why, Madam Speaker, I would like to refer to the fine words that my colleague said in Latin. I am sure that when you were young, you studied humanities and took courses in which you certainly heard some great Roman sayings. I am originally from that village, that great village which is Rome.
My colleague used a very apt quotation when he said, and I quote page 242 of Hansard, Roma locuta, causa finita. This means that when Rome has spoken, the matter is settled. That used to be applied only to what the Pope said. When the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, speaks in Rome, that's that, it's done.
Well, here in Canada, the final authority is the Canadian people and when they speak, that's that. Why waste time? Why complicate matters? Why tell us
stories?
Madam Speaker, I also want to quote a letter that I received. But pay attention-it is quite something.
It was sent by messenger to me in Montreal, by a great citizen, a businessman from Montreal in the Province of Quebec, a Canadian of Italian origin, a prosperous businessman who can work anywhere in the country because for him, Canada is important, and Canada is not just Quebec City or Vancouver, but the whole country. He wrote to me, "Dear Mr. Della Noce: ..." I would like this to be on record; I want it to be there for my friends opposite to know about it.
I am a Canadian with strong ties to the Liberal Party of Canada and it is not easy for me as a Liberal to write and tell you that I agree fully with one of your party's policies.
I refer to your party's policy on free trade which 1 support heartily for the following reasons:-

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
And he then set out nine reasons. He is a businessman, and not a socialist. He is a businessman. He makes money. He pays taxes and he creates jobs.
When we arrived in Ottawa after the 1984 election, I recall the Opposition saying: "You promised jobs, jobs, jobs."
Well, we have created jobs, jobs, jobs. We have created 1.3 million new jobs. We no longer here the Opposition talking about jobs.
Let me quote the writer's reasons. They are as follows:
1)	Free trade should, in my mind, be universal and thus must begin within one continent.
2)	When two countries like Canada and the United States are so complementary, free trade can only be good for both.
3)	To me, Canadian trade policies have for too long been protective with the result of an artificial economic environment: damaging productivity and creativity. Thus Canadians have been denied the opportunity to compete and succeed better.
4)	As a Canadian 1 look forward to more opportunities and when access to consumers goes from one to ten, so do the opportunities.
5)	Culture is hard to define. Canadian culture is in constant evolution. We must face the fact that survival as a people and as a country would not be attained by isolating ourselves economically.
And those sitting on the other side of this House do not know what the word "economically" means. To those in this country in business, it is an important word.
He goes on:
6)	I have faith in my fellow citizens and in their ability to adapt and succeed. When opportunities are offered, Canadians who are ready to work, learn, compete and prosper will mold the future of this country.
7)	Canadian consumers are now paying a premium on a great number of products. The liberalization of economic activities through free trade can only result in lower product costs and an improved standard of living. The Canadian consumers will profit from free trade.
8)	True, some sectors are doomed and some jobs will be lost in them. Flowever, for one job lost, two will surely be created in new or enlarged sectors.
This person knows what he is talking about.
9)	Canadians of Italian descent appreciate what their fathers have done. Like most Canadians, our ancestors left their country looking for opportunity in a new land where a future could be built for themselves and their children. Let us not lose the guts and the initiative of our ancestors. 1 have not lost them; I am for free trade.
And he signs, "Sincerely yours"-though he should have signed "progressively yours". The writer's name is Luigi Liberatore.
This is an individual who once said to me: "Though I am a Liberal, I like what your Party is doing. This time, 1 think I am going to vote for you." And I said to Luigi: "If you vote for me, you vote for prosperity." And what kind of a car does he drive today?-a Mercedes Benz.
And he is going to keep driving a Mercedes Benz. He will continue to be prosperous. His business will continue to grow.
I told Luigi that a vote for me would mean that the country would go forward and prosper. I told him that my Leader needed all of the seats in Quebec that he could get.
We have seen the "57-43" buttons worn by members of the New Democratic Party. They think that if they add the votes cast for the Liberals to those cast for the NDP, that that somehow constitutes a victory for them. Well, we in the Quebec caucus should all be wearing "63-0" buttons, because you guys got zero in Quebec. And if that is not a majority, what is?

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to point at my socialist colleagues all the time, but they were the ones who came to sow fear in our area. They thought they could gain their first seat in Duvernay. I commend the people in Duvernay for having made the right choice, because it would have been a terrible thing to live with a NDP seat in Quebec. And my comrade Agnaieff or the other one, I can tell you they tried very hard to scare people, to scare businesses. They told them: Vote for me, they are going to tax your profits. What a nice, a smart thing to say! But they did not even get 15 per cent of the votes. They did not finish first, they finished third.
And I would also like to quote another important person in Quebec who is awaiting free trade, someone many of my colleagues know-Mr.	Peladeau,
Quebecor's president. Look at what Mr. Peladeau said-Weaklings will complain that the Americans are coming here, but it is us who must go to the United States. He is not a weakling, he started from scratch. You know how he started, I explained it again here in this House the other night. For the benefit of those who are absent: He was $2 000 short when he wanted to establish his first printing shop. Two thousand dollars was not the end of the world ten years ago. Imagine, while his mother was away on holidays, Mr. Pierre Peladeau sold his mother's piano to get his first cash
December 20, 1988

flow. When his mother came back she asked: Where is the piano, Pierre? He answered, I needed money, Ma, to start my first printing shop and I sold the piano because we are not using it anymore, we are working.
But now, Mr. Peladeau has a $2 billion sales figure. That's right, $2 billion in Quebec! It would be bad if he would close his business because a lot of people work there. And then you would have reason to complain that Peladeau, Quebecor closed down. You would do like Gillette. It is funny you do not mention the good things. You referred to Gillette. You are late, because people have been talking of Gillette's closure for years.
You could look up La Presse of December 9. Alain Dubuc, I think, one of Quebec's major columnists, described it very well when he wrote: It is beyond me that people would still be talking about closures like Gillette's, because we know that Gillette has been closing down plants around the world, including the United States, including France. You should be listening, Opposition Members-the tremor that happened at the other end was caused by free trade once more! Come now! Talk about IBM, talk about the other investments. But you don't take people ... It would appear that you no longer have any respect for the people who elected you because those people said: Go for free trade, no matter what. Go for it. The figures don't matter, even when they are higher. What you need to represent the people of Canada is a seat.
When I look at all that was said during the election campaign, by the leaders and others... I'll just quote a couple of them who were here. They wanted an election, and one was held, but unfortunately, they are no longer here. Lynn McDonald, for example, said: We want an election. Consult the people of Canada right now by calling an election. Well, she got what she wanted and now she's gone, gone somewhere where the air is fresh and clean. The people have decided and she has decided. Her decision has brought some good people to this side of the House. Another member, who is still with us, said: Call an election. Let's go to the people. And that is what we did. Then, there was the former mayor of Ottawa, Mrs. Dewar, who said recently: An election must be called immediately to let the people of Canada decide on this issue.


An Hon. Member:: She had an election.


Vincent Della Noce: She had an election. She got her chance, she had an election, she is no longer here, she is gone. People said to themselves that they wanted prosperity in Ottawa. Canadians are not stupid, they are
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
capable of reaching a decision, they are intelligent enough. It does not matter what happens between elections.
I checked around my constituency when the polls favoured the NDP. People had a mild reaction. The NDP thought it would make a clean sweep of all ridings.
I met one of them during the election campaign and he asked me what I and my Quebec colleagues would do after losing the election. Another one kept repeating that our days were numbered. Yet a third one boasted about winning a majority. Another one was sure he would be a Minister, so he had already re-awarded the frigate contracts. He had taken them away from New Brunswick and given them to Montreal. He too is no longer here, but we all know he wanted an election, he was from Ottawa Centre.
That is what we hear from the other side every day, but they forget to talk about the basic issues, projects to help Quebec or another province. Other provinces stand to benefit, not only Quebec.
I should like to refer to the Economic Council of Canada report released on April 13, 1988 which commented on the various aspects of free trade and featured a regional breakdown of increased employment opportunities. Here are the figures concerning Quebec. For example, they predicted a 1.8 per cent increase in the number of new jobs, up 58,000; 94,900 new jobs in Ontario; 50,900 in the Prairies; 17,700 in the Atlantic Provinces, and 28,900 in British Columbia.
Madam Speaker, I am saying to these people: You wanted an election, you had one! Perhaps it did not quite turn out as you expected, but that is the way it goes! Now that the people have decided, have faith in them and tell them you are here to help them, not to make life tougher for them.
Members opposite are acting as if they were saying: Protect Canadians, but they are holding them back, dragging them 20 years back.
You know, if I were on the other side I would probably not be smiling as my colleague on the other side is doing as he signals to me. He can hardly wait for me to shut up. I understand that hurts! But my hon. colleague should understand one thing: Not only has the Liberal Party prevented the country from moving forward .. . He knows that well because he is of the same origin as I am; he is of Italian origin and his party prevented Italy from selling Italian shoes in Canada. They imposed

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
quotas.. . Now he is leaving-I understand why. It must be embarrassing to do things like that!
We in the Conservative Party said that we like competition and that Canadians can be competitive because Canadians and Quebecers are not afraid. They are eager to do business in the United States. But listening to them, sometimes I look at myself and wonder whether I am really as good as that, because they do not stop defending us by saying that we will be in for trouble and that it will not work. We will come up with a new name for their party. Their party should be called the "Won't Work" Party. Why try? My friend Jean-Marc Chaput always said so! It won't work, we'll stay as we are, say nothing, get hit on the head and say nothing.
But stop saying that it won't work. It will work, we are already the best. We look at ourselves in the mirror every morning and say, "We Quebecers are not afraid of taking on the United States." I have been going to the United States for 20 years. I worked in the States, I was a racing car mechanic and we went as fast with 307 engines as the Americans did with 327's. The Americans would come to see us and ask how we did it. Besides, we did not have money. Well, we tried to get the most out of our production and we did it with our hands and our head. And we told-I know, Madam Speaker, I must conclude-the Americans:
We work harder than you and we try to do better than you because you are very rich and that is the only way in which we can compete, try to get the maximum for our energy.

Madam Speaker, I would like the House to do the impossible, to give a chance to the Canadians who elected us so that we can pass this free trade bill. Let the socialists stop frightening people, because they will always drive Ladas and we want to ride in Mercedes. That is the difference.


Mrs. Gaffney:: Madam Chairman, I stand here today as one of the newly elected Members of Parliament. It is a great honour and privilege to represent my riding of Nepean in this most prestigious House. I would like to thank those constituents who gave me such a strong mandate, and I hope I can also earn the trust of those who did not.
As an elected member of Nepean City Council and also Ottawa-Carleton Regional Government for the past ten years, one of the things I quickly learned is that the concerns, the thoughts, the wishes of the people are the ones that elected officials should never ignore. Through this, my maiden speech, it is appropriate to take advantage of the time allocated to me to convey the concerns of the constituents of Nepean.
Those constituents who elected me did so for many reasons. Their overwhelming opposition to this trade agreement, however, was far and above the major reason. Time and time again at doors across my riding I heard one thing: "I am against this trade deal as it is written".
We all know the trade deal will probably pass this House and be ratified. However, I hope that the newly elected Government of Canada is a compassionate Government and will recognize that the agreement is not perfect, it has weaknesses, that loopholes must be plugged, safeguard measures should be implemented, and that this Government has been elected to serve not only those who voted for it but also those who indicated a great deal of trepidation about this agreement.
This debate should not be considered to be a waste of time. Far from it. This debate is as crucial as ever because the debate and the speeches on this side of the House reflect not only our responsibility towards those who elected us, but are a form of notice to the Government that we are watching and we want it to be sensitive.
The mandate 1 received from the riding of Nepean is all the more remarkable for two reasons. First, because Nepean, or to be more precise the former riding of Nepean-Carleton, is traditionally a Conservative riding. Second, the proponents of the deal have expressed the conception that Nepean is the kind of riding that has the most to benefit from this trade agreement. Yet despite those two facts, the residents of Nepean voted against the Government and against its trade deal.
Why? I believe the overwhelming majority of Nepean residents voted against this deal not because of any particular animosity toward the Government, but because the residents of Nepean-who, by the way, are a most representative group of Canadian constituents- looked at the deal, examined it and the information pertaining to it, and made up their own minds. The residents of Nepean, as did 52 per cent of all Canadians,
December 20, 1988

decided the deal was not good for Canada and not good for Nepean.
That was and is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada. However, Liberals oppose this proposed deal because we believe when you examine it and scrutinize it in detail, you come to the conclusion it is not good enough for Canada. We believed and still believe that the costs outweigh the benefits, as do the residents of my riding.
The majority of senior citizens in my riding oppose this deal. The majority of youth in my riding oppose this deal. The majority of public servants in my riding oppose this deal, as do the majority of small business people. The majority of women in Nepean oppose this deal.
The senior citizens of Nepean oppose it because as much as they like the United States of America, they do not want to become part of it. As much as many of them enjoy spending some of the cold winter months in Florida, they remain and want to remain Canadian, for our pension plans, our medicare, and for our more caring society. The youth of Nepean oppose this deal because they have pride in their country and enough confidence in themselves to decide their own destiny. What they want from the Government of Canada is increased funding for our educational institutions and new job training in skills development areas.
The Public Servants of Nepean oppose this deal because they know that their ability to formulate independent domestic policy is hindered by it. The small business people of Nepean oppose it because at best it detracts the Government from their concerns.
This leads me to the second major fact I wish to discuss-the clear misconception on the part of the Government that the free trade deal is a good deal for Canada's high-tech industry. I am correct in using the term "misconception" because Nepean, as most people know, is Canada's high-tech capital. And Nepean voted against this deal.
I ask for the attention of my colleagues opposite because I know Canadian companies are competitive in world markets. This deal will do more harm to our future international competitiveness than any other piece of government legislation in the history of our proud and growing nation. My hon. colleagues on the opposite side of this House must come to realize that Members on this side of the House oppose this deal
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
precisely because we have faith in Canada's ability to compete.
Canada's corporate success stories have become success stories partially because of government financial assistance, the type of assistance that is now precluded by this trade deal. Many Canadian companies have become successful because of heavy investments in R and D, excellent products, the foresight to take advantage of market opportunities when they arise and belief in Canadian companies by the Government of Canada.
Now that they have made it, these corporate people, it is all well and good for major corporations to be in favour of this trade deal because they have transcended national boundaries. These corporations are now multinationals. For them, anything that removes barriers to the free flow of capital components and workers, anything that gives more flexibility to respond to world markets, is a good thing.
Unfortunately, what this Government fails to recognize is that what is good for Canada's successful multinationals is not necessarily good for Canada or Canadians. What Canada needs is more corporate success stories. Sadly, this deal is going to make this much harder to achieve, not easier.
What I ask my fellow Hon. Members to ponder is how we are going to help to create the corporate successes that we had of yesterday and how we are going to create them tomorrow when we have willingly tied our hands behind our backs. How are we going to become world leaders in fields such as environmental technology when with the other hand we have slashed government R and D and corporate R and D tax incentives, and are then left helpless to designate a Canadian company as a preferred supplier, or give preferential treatment to companies in certain sectors or certain regions of the country? I do not know. What terrifies me is that I do not think that the Government knows either.
I for one am not of the opinion that either my constituency or my country are best served by reliving the election here. Neither am I one who subscribes to the view that this deal is an unmitigated disaster that will destroy Canada tomorrow. I am enough of an optimist to hope that the present Government may realize the folly of its ways and take the measures to correct them.
What I sincerely hope for is that in the second phase of trade negotiations which relate to the definition of subsidies the Government works harder to protect Canadian interests. I hope the Government of Canada realizes that Canada needs a true industrial strategy,

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and that we need to maintain enough of the levers of our own economy to make it possible.
I hope that the Government realizes that, as it stands, the trade deal puts us head-to-head with the U.S. Defense Department's $35 billion annual R and D budget, a budget specifically excluded from the terms of the deal which, to remain competitive, will tend to lead us to an even more militaristic economy. To avoid this we need to ensure that the few R and D incentives that Canada has will not be declared unfair trade subsidies, and also devise a realistic and permissible strategy for boosting research and development in areas of our own choosing.
I hope the Government re-acquires the right to use its purchasing power to foster and give a leg up to selective Canadian industries. I hope the Government reserves the ability to implement programs such as the national stock ownership plan suggested by the Liberals in the election that would increase ownership of Canadian firms by Canadians and not leave us totally at the mercy of foreign investment.
I hope the Government holds firm to its commitment that our social programs and regional development programs remain sacrosanct. Furthermore, I hope that the Government does some of the things it should have done long before even contemplating a comprehensive bilateral trade deal with the U.S.
I hope the Government takes measures to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. I hope the Government negotiates with its provincial counterpart-I am speaking particularly here of Ontario-for the construction of a much needed and long overdue four-lane highway south of Ottawa to Highway 401. The completion of Highway 416 is of great economic importance to the National Capital Region.
I hope the Government simplifies red tape for small businesses ensuring that they can get start-up capital, good employees and good advice.
It has been a great pleasure to speak in this House today. I have appreciated the opportunity to express my hopes as a Liberal and to express my hopes for the federal Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Darling:: Madam Chairman, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the debate today. I am not a new Member of the House. I want to thank the electors of the great riding of Parry Sound-
Muskoka for returning me for a sixth term to the hallowed halls of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: One cannot hide one's age if one is in public life, especially if one lives in a rural area. Of course I have to admit, and am proud to admit, that I am from that very illustrious class of 1911, and still going strong.
I might have had reservations four or five months ago when the election was going to be announced. As my colleagues will know, we were not the highest in the polls at that time. I think we were running third. But a great many of the very influential people in my riding came to me and said: "Well, Stan, we think you can win the riding despite our being low in the polls. We want you to throw your hat in the ring". As a result I am here today.
I have listened with interest to a great many of the speeches. I want to congratulate all those new Members of Parliament, even though I suppose my tongue is in my cheek concerning certain ones who replaced some very dear colleagues of mine who went down to defeat. But that is politics, and that is the way it is.
As I was thinking back I remember in the last election some of the very vociferous members of the Liberal Party, two of whom are no longer here. They were speaking in most derisive tones of the many Progressive Conservative Members from the Province of Quebec. They were saying: "You're surfers. You're here one time and then you're gone". Early in the mandate of this Government I thought of that and I said: "Well, by golly, it is tough in Quebec, and it is unusual". But lo and behold two of those who were most vociferous are gone. Instead of our 57 Members from la belle province we now have 63. Some pretty high-priced help and high-profile Liberals went down to defeat.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I have heard a great many of the new Members saying that they are here for one reason only, and that is to speak on the free trade issue and voice their opposition to it. That is the reason they are here. They are going to do their best to filibuster it. Some have in some ways tried to stop the inevitable. The Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, said day after day after day last July, August and September: "Call an election. Let the people decide". That great exponent from Oshawa who believes in free trade only for Oshawa and not for any of
December 20, 1988

the other parts of the country reiterated the same thing: "Call an election. Let the people decide". In the British parliamentary system, a majority is the way they decide. We have a majority Government here. We have the mandate to bring in free trade and to bring it in by January 1, 1989. We certainly intend to do it despite all the ranting and raving from the Opposition.
Do the new Members want to debate past history in the House? Bill C-130 passed the House of Commons, and it is now before the House in the new form of Bill C-2. In the previous Parliament we debated some very important legislation, including Bill C-51 and Bill C-204 which dealt with smoking restrictions, and I say amen to that. Maybe some of them would like to rehash that. A lot of them may have strong views on immigration, Bill C-55 and Bill C-84. They passed this Parliament, so they are finished. I am wondering about that.
There is also one other issue that some of them may be interested in, and an important resolution which was debated a year ago, the debate on capital punishment. That debate did not go the way I wanted it to, and in that particular case, I might welcome it being brought back into the House, if the new Members are able to do that.
Free trade, despite all that has been said, will benefit more than it will hurt. We have heard the previous speaker from Nepean stating that she had grave reservations for this great riding that she represents. She feels that free trade will be harmful. I have heard other members of the Opposition speaking, including the Hon. Member for Sault-Ste-Marie. Deep in their hearts, they want something that will be good for Canada. I am sure that it will. Deeper in their hearts is the fact that if it does turn out to be a bonanza for Canada, they will end up as one-termers and will go back to their previous jobs, down the pike, whenever the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, decides to call an election. I can assure you it will not be before that.
The Conservative Government has stated that this Free Trade Agreement is best for Canada. What is the alternative to free trade? In 1983, the Prime Minister and other prominent Members of our Government voiced opposition to free trade. It is a different ball game now.
The Americans are in a tough position as far as their trading situation is concerned. I am sure all of my colleagues are aware that they are facing and have faced over the past couple of years a trade deficit of $170
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
billion. That hurts not only their Yankee pride, but sure as hell hurts their pocket-books as well. They will do something about it and are doing something about it, as we have found to our dismay, with certain legislation that they have brought in. I do not have to repeat that with regard to shakes and shingles and softwood lumber. We know, as has been mentioned by many on our side, we have to do something to protect ourselves. Canada is the only major trading country that does not have a special trade agreement with some other country.
We know the European Common Market consists of some 15 countries. I will tell you, they are a tough bunch of nuts to try and compete against with the subsidies that they are providing, especially in their agricultural production. It is tough to crack that market.
Some of my colleagues on the other side are asking why we do not trade with the Pacific Rim or with Japan. Japan is a pretty tough nut to trade with too, unless we want to sell them lumber and coal. Just try to sell an automobile in Japan, and I will bet you can count the American cars and probably other European cars on your fingers and toes. There is no doubt about it. Japan is a pretty tough nut when it comes to trying to crack that market. They are our second best customer, if my memory serves me correctly. I am not belittling how important Japan is. They are also the second most important trading partner to the United States as well.
We must have trading barriers that will come down and let us trade. The idea of us being afraid to trade in the open market, that we have to be a little, protective country, those days are past. We have outstanding firms and multinationals in our own country. We have small firms that are anxious and willing to compete. I hear members of the Opposition saying that everybody is against it. Everybody cannot be against it.
There are a lot of people in my riding who were against free trade for the simple reason that they were scared to death by the Opposition. The NDP went around saying that their old age pensions would be cut, that hospitalization benefits would be reduced considerably, and they believed it. It is absolutely ridiculous for many of those people, many of whom I have known for many years, to believe that. In my own riding, a lot of them did not vote against me, but they stayed home. That happened in all our ridings. That is why some of our majorities were cut.
Four years down the pike, I would like to go back to these senior citizens and say "Are you still getting your old age pensions? Are you still getting the very best of

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
hospitalization? Are all these various subsidized things that senior citizens get, housing and so on, senior citizens' homes, are those available to you?" I am quite sure that the answer will be yes.
My riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka is a rural riding and does not have great up curves and down curves in employment. It is an area which is made up of a high percentage of senior citizens and a lot of small business. Tourism is a very important industry in my area, and the Tourist Industry Association of Canada has stated categorically that the tourist industry is one of the top industries that will gain tremendously if the Free Trade Agreement goes through. There are also many small and larger industries in my area.
The great bogy man opposite has been telling us about industries closing and Canada going to hell in a hand basket. We are facing gloom and doom. Plants have been closing on a regular basis since time immemorial, and it will probably continue. By and large, new plants will step in to take over from them.
For example, there is an article in the Huntsville Herald with the headline: "$65 million expansion is a boon, says Clarke". That is not the illustrious Secretary of State for External Affairs, but the mayor of the great town of Huntsville. Domtar has announced a $65 million expansion in Huntsville, with 129 new jobs.
Another example comes from the Bracebridge Examiner which, I might say, has not been my greatest supporter through the past 16 years. Despite them, however, I have managed to get elected.
The headline in the Bracebridge Examiner states: "Top Magna brass has some good news". Lo and behold Frank Stronach, a very prominent Liberal candidate, has announced a new plant for Bracebridge. I will admit that the land was bought a few years ago and put on hold, but the article states:
Magna International Inc. has big plans for its 820 acres of land in Bracebridge, it was reaffirmed at the auto parts manufacturer's annual Christmas buffet last Thursday in Toronto.
Some 2,000 people were invited, including Mayor Jim Lang, town clerk Ken Vietch and other industrial people in the area. There is certainly great expansion, even in a rural area.
I can think of another small plant in the town of Gravenhurst. This individual is an entrepreneur who worked for a big firm for a number of years. He left and
started a small business in Gravenhurst called Gravenhurst Plastics. He started with some 10 or 12 people and is now running two shifts. He is running two shifts. One of the greatest products he is manufacturing is garden hose. He cannot keep up to the market. He has been to the United States and has received orders which he says he cannot fill at the present time with 50 employees.
I can assure Hon. Members that if an area like Parry Sound-Muskoka, which is not a great industrial area, can produce like this, other areas will certainly do the same.
Colleagues are aware that I have been greatly interested in the environment and acid rain. I had the privilege for the last two or three years to serve as chairman of the parliamentary committee on acid rain. My area of Parry Sound-Muskoka is probably one of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the world. If I thought for a minute that anything in the agreement would damage that most magnificent area, the paradise of all vacation lands in Canada, I would certainly be up and saying in no uncertain terms "no to free trade".
It is stated in the agreement, and has been reiterated by our former Minister of the Environment that the Free Trade Agreement in no way will mean an open door for polluting industries to begin. First and foremost, there are tough regulations in effect now. As most Members know, or should know, regulations and controls on the industry are under the jurisdiction of the provincial ministries of the environment. I will give marks to the Minister of the Environment for the Province of Ontario and his Department as well as to the Minister of the Environment in the Province of Quebec, the Hon. Clifford Lincoln. I only hope he will remain in that position.
These jurisdictions are the watch-dog of the environment. Despite the scare tactics put up by the Opposition, there is no way polluting industries will be allowed to come here. Free trade will make no difference whatever on any additional pollution or other waste.
The committee of which I was a Member for several years experienced a rather tough battle with our American counterparts. When I went there several years ago, acid rain was the best kept secret in the United States. No one knew anything about it except a few very important and environmentally conscious members of Congress such as Senator Patrick Moynihan and George Mitchell.
December 20, 1988

Our colleagues in the United States are waking up to the fact that they are polluting their own nests. Something will certainly be done. 1 will admit that President Reagan was not the great environmentalist in the United States, and God bless him when he goes to his retirement, but President elect George Bush has stated loud and clear that he will bring legislation to cut down on S02 emissions in the United States. There will be controls.
We are fortunate that the majority House Leader in the Senate, Senator George Mitchell, is also greatly in favour of acid rain controls and the reduction of S02 emissions. I predict that within the next year and a half the United States will bring in meaningful legislation that will cut down on acid rain, which of course will benefit Canada. The House can rest assured that with our new Free Trade Agreement there will be no more pollution than there would be without it.


Mr. Rompkey:: Madam Chairman, in a sense this is a maiden speech for me. On the one hand I feel somewhat like the Hon. Member for Parry Sound in the sense that I am starting my sixth term, but in a sense it is a maiden speech for me.
For the first time Labrador has a federal seat of its own and it is my honour to be the first Member to be elected for Labrador. That gives me a great deal of pleasure.
I do not have to explain to Members of the House where Labrador is or what Labrador is all about. It is a northern territory, not as big as Nunatsiaq, but about
112,000	square miles. It extends all the way from the small fishing communities on the coast to the great air base at Goose Bay with its NATO components, to one of the greatest hydroelectric developments in the world at Churchill Falls. In the west the iron mining communities of Labrador City and Wabush City on the Quebec border produce between them about 50 per cent of all the iron ore in Canada. That makes up the totality of Labrador.
It is a very diverse area, with a great deal of promise and possibility, and very many problems. It is an area that spoke out very loud and clear in the last election about this agreement that we are debating today.
I want to put those concerns on the record and advise the Government of how the people of Labrador feel. Their concerns were put in a nutshell by Simon Reisman when he said that we should have got the definition of subsidy but we did not. We ran out of time. We do not
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
have a definition of a subsidy in the Free Trade Agreement.
What is a subsidy? Which programs of the Government of Canada will be targeted by the United States? We know already, for example, that the unemployment insurance program has been challenged. That challenge is dormant, but it is not dead. What about northern benefits?
I have to give the Minister of Finance credit, now that he is in the Chamber, for implementing a very generous program of northern benefits for travel and housing for the people who live north of 60 and other selected sites in northern Canada. These benefits are very important to the people of the North. When the Free Trade Agreement comes in, these people will want to know if northern benefits will be targeted as a subsidy or not.
Let us take the case, for example, of an iron ore company in Canada which gets the northern benefit tax break. If the workers who work for a Canadian iron ore company have special benefits but there are no similar benefits for workers who work for an iron ore company in the United States, what will happen because of that inequality? Will the United States then say that that is an unfair subsidy to an iron ore operation in Canada and we must stop doing that because we are supposed to be competing on a level playing field?
As Ralph Nader said, I doubt that we will see an uplifting of support services in the United States. What will happen on the level playing field? Will there be a diminution of the support services we have had in Canada? That is the question, and we do not know the answer. That is the concern of the people.
As well, the people are concerned about the possibility of the loss of control over resources that are very important to them, resources like energy, for example. In central Labrador, there is now one of the greatest hydroelectric projects in the world going on at Churchill Falls. It delivers energy to a large portion of not only the Province of Quebec but of New York State. There are other hydro sites on that river as well. There are perhaps over 2,000 megawatts of hydroelectricity left on that river. What will happen under the Free Trade Agreement? The concern is that we will not be able to have a made-in-Canada price.
As I understand it, the agreement says that we must sell energy to the Americans at the same price as we sell it to Canadians. We do not receive a lot of national

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
newspapers in Labrador, but during the election campaign, I watched the debate on television and I saw Mr. Ritchie, on behalf of the Government's negotiating team, fail to give an assurance that there would be no countervail. I would like someone to address this question.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am going to address it for you.


Bill Rompkey: Fine. Let me set out the question. After we have developed the lower Churchill-


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Can we give you an answer?


Bill Rompkey: Once you have heard the question. Do you want to hear the question first? This is the question. If, after the lower Churchill was developed, we wanted to establish an aluminum smelter in order to add value and if we wanted to offer that company a special price, like the Government of Newfoundland did at Long Harbour with the Electric Reduction Company of Canada, as an incentive for the industry to be set up, can the Americans not then say that the products from that industry have received a subsidy in the sense that we have charged the industry a lower price for energy than we are selling it to the Americans? Can the Americans not then put a countervail on the products coming from that industry?
I heard that debate and I heard the representative from the government side fail to give an assurance that after this agreement is in place, the Americans will not be able to put that countervail on. I believe that they will be able to do so. I believe if we have a made-in-Canada price, a Canadian price which is lower than the American price, the Americans will be able to say that that is an unfair subsidy and they will put a countervail on it. There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement which stops them from doing that.
Those are the concerns of people who want real jobs, not just hand-outs, as my colleague from Nunatsiaq said. Will we be able to set up those industries under the free trade deal? That is the question that has to be answered.
The irony is that we do not even have free trade within Canada. For four years we have been trying to get a deal to develop the lower Churchill. I asked the Prime Minister four times in the last Parliament if he would be a mediator between the Province of Newfoundland and the Province of Quebec in attempting to establish the lower Churchill project. It is not going yet.
There is an abundant market for energy in the United States. There is all sorts of hydroelectric potential in Labrador. Yet we cannot get a deal. We are talking about a free trade deal with the United States of America, but we do not have free trade in Canada. This Government has not done anything to overcome those road-blocks.
I have to support the arguments put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq, and I congratulate him on his election to the Chamber. I hope to be able to work with him because we have many things in common. We need in Labrador the same sort of things he needs in his riding. That is, we need essential services. If we are to compete, whether we have a free trade deal or not, the North needs special attention. It needs water and sewer infrastructures, for example.
Those communities will be expected to compete on an equal basis without equal facilities. We need the transLabrador Highway to be completed and we need the settlement of land claims so that the native people of the North can compete on an equal footing. The native people are saying they want some control over their lives, that they want to make sure that the resources on the lands they have inhabited for years give them a return and that they have the necessary infrastructure and community facilities to compete on an equal basis.
What is also lacking is a program for training and retraining. This has been addressed in the House over the past week. If there is one startling weakness in all of this, it is the lack of a program for training and retraining, particularly for young people and for people who live in one-industry towns, those who have no alternatives. If their industries are affected under the free trade deal, they will have to fall back on the resources of the Government. I believe it is very important to have training and retraining programs in place for the people of single-industry towns.
As far as my constituents are concerned, the free trade deal as it stands is inadequate. This Party has put forward amendments, and I would hope that the Government would look at those amendments, consider them and accept them. We cannot stop this deal from going ahead. The Hon. Member for Parry Sound- Muskoka is quite right. There was an election and the people have spoken. The Conservative Party has a majority. It is the Government of Canada. They have more votes over there than we have over here. It is impossible to stop the free trade deal. However, we do ask that we be listened to and that the concerns our constituents have expressed be addressed. We do ask
December 20, 1988

that amendments be accepted so that when the deal goes through, it will be a deal with which Canadians can feel confident.
Last, I would like to remind the Government of the need to address the needs of the North and to ensure that the people of the North can compete on an equal basis. That means the provision of the necessary infrastructure, the water and sewer, roads and communication facilities that are needed to allow the people of the North to compete.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Chairman, as a new Member of the House, it gives me a great deal of pride to represent the new constituency of Saskatoon-Dundurn. Those who are familiar with Saskatchewan will realize the two previous seats, Saskatoon East and Saskatoon West were divided by the river. Saskatoon-Dundurn has the beautiful South Saskatchewan River flowing through it and a great diversity within the constituency ranging from farmlands to beautiful residential areas. As well we have a certain amount of industry from potash mines to packing houses.
I would like to thank the voters of Saskatoon- Dundurn. It gives me a great deal of pride to be here on their behalf. I believe the main reason I am here, although it is not the only one, is that the feeling against free trade in that part of Saskatchewan was so strong that people knew there was no one other than the New Democrats who would be able to stand up for their rights in this staid and beautiful place that we call the Parliament of Canada.
Speaking of the Parliament of Canada, it gives me a great honour to stand here as a Member of the New Democratic Party having been represented in the past by such illustrious people as J. S. Woodsworth, M. J. Coldwell, Tommy Douglas and many others who I should probably mention but am unable to because of time restrictions. One of the reasons were are here today, and speaking most vociferously as we are, is as a result of the legacy of the people whom I have just mentioned. There is no doubt whatever that Canada is an entirely different kind of nation than that of the United States.
Because of that Canada represents a threat to the U.S.A. That is one of the main reasons that we have got ourselves into this free trade deal with the Americans. We talk about harmonizing, level playing fields and social programs. But, this nation of ours is a better nation than that south of the border. I did not say it was
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
stronger or more militaristic, I simply said it was a better place and a better society in which to live. The free trade deal covers every aspect of Canadian society, and I would suggest that from the point of view of the opposition to it, in its entirety. If the free trade deal were a human being, you would have to say of it that it has no redeeming social values. We have to ask ourselves some questions about the free trade deal.
We have to ask why on earth we have it in the first place. We have to ask ourselves what effects it will have on our earning capacity and we have to ask ourselves among other things the effects it will have on agriculture. I think also we should ask ourselves what will life be like after free trade.
Why are we in this free trade deal? We can answer in relation to the United States and mostly in relation to the U.S. as we see the American society since the 1980s and the election of President Reagan. We have come back to something we have almost forgotten and that is Reaganomics and monetarism, the theory of doing business that says if you leave business alone, if you leave industry alone, if you deregulate and let industries run on their own, they will prosper beyond all imaginable levels. I suppose their people will be driving Mercedes Benz, as was alluded to earlier. If that were the case, if the society we are trying so hard to emulate had arrived at that level, I would suggest that everyone in the United States should probably be driving Mercedes Benz.


An Hon. Member:: Do you have a bicycle?


Ron Fisher: The United States of America has since the 1980s used a hands-off approach. The whole concept of monetarism has got itself into the mess in which it is now.
Only a moment ago a Member opposite referred to a $170 billion deficit which the United States has and he suggested that was big trouble. I suggest $170 billion is certainly big trouble. Reaganomics is demonstrably at the root of that said trouble.
Once the effects of Reaganomics took full force and the regulation of business became the leading aspect of the day, all kinds of very strange things happened in the U.S. We have for all intents and purposes what amounted to dumping, dumping from countries where wages were very low, of commodities ranging from steel to automobiles to any number of other commodities. These things flowed into the United States-some legal, some illegal. Some found their way into the U.S. through

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada. They came into the U.S. from Taiwan, Brazil and Korea, places where the workers in those countries have been exploited in a way that some people in Canada would like to see happen here.
There is the twofold effect to monetarism. One, the unregulated, unfettered ability to do business which the United States which has led to the inflow of cheap goods devastating the indigenous industries. Second, monetarism takes away the ability of Government to have the proper kinds of influence upon all aspects of business and industry within a nation. We have the example of U.S. Steel which in the scheme of things 15 or 20 years ago was the epitome of everything that represented the United States. U.S. Steel was the good old U.S. of A. In that era of 15 or 20 years ago, you could refer to it in the same context as the good old days in the Li'l Abner cartoon where everything that was good was good for General Bullmoose-that may have been General Motors, but U.S. Steel applies as well-was good also for the U.S.A.
What is good for the General Bullmoose and good for U.S. Steel is not any longer good for the United States of America. U.S. Steel has found that it can take its profits made in the U.S., ship them overseas, get into partnerships with steel companies elsewhere, primarily in Korea, and export that steel back to the U.S. at a cheaper rate than it could be produced in the U.S. That is precisely the kind of situation in which we will find ourselves here in Canada, and is precisely the reason the U.S. is in big trouble.
Subsequent to the United States discovering that it had this tremendous deficit, and not entirely sure of its source, there was the election of 1984. Shortly after that the Prime Minister and the President of the United States got together, buddy-buddy, and sang When Irish Eyes are Smiling. At that time the Prime Minister said that the United States was our greatest neighbour and biggest trading partner.
The common expression when one finds oneself in an awkward position these days is simply to say: "Whoops". The United States realized that Canada existed. Prior to that time it was the Pacific Rim, particularly Japan, that was taking all the heat for the deficit in the United States. Now it is Canada.
The pressure on Canadian goods going into the United States increased at a rate which was unprecedented. Therefore, we find ourselves being pressured on
every level by our closest friend and neighbour. Certainly, from the point of view of business people, they find themselves in the position of single-handedly feeling responsible for the United States deficit and were forced by our good friend and neighbour to attempt to do something about it. If we get into this free trade deal we will be able to counteract this pressure from the United States, return to the days of friendship, and live in an era of prosperity.
I do not know what happened from the time of the Progressive Conservative leadership prior to the last federal election. There were some people who ran for that leadership, and some who are present in the House, who stated such things as: "unrestrained trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such crucial industries as textiles, furniture, and footwear". The Prime Minister rejected free trade saying: "Canadians rejected free trade in 1911. They did so again in 1983. Canada must increase its share of the total world trade which dropped to 33 per cent in two decades". The Minister of Finance stated: "Bilateral trade is simplistic and naive. It would only serve further to diminish our ability to compete internationally".
I am not sure what happened in the intervening years.


Mr. Charest:: They call it elections.


Ron Fisher: In 1984 the Prime Minister suddenly found himself the Prime Minister with 100 free trade ghost riders on the back-benches saying: "We don't care what you said before you became the Leader. We are here. We have this majority. We are free traders, and you get yourself a free trade deal with that nation so that we can have access to the U.S. market". That is fine and dandy. Let us get access to the U.S. market. One of the reasons that we were going to get assured access to the U.S. market was so that we could get investment in Canada. Remember, everybody was investing elsewhere and not in Canada. We attempted to get a deal where there was free access to the United States. We did not get free access. There is not assured access of Canadian products into the United States of America.
What the Government got was assured access of Canadian capital in the United States, which was an even better arrangement than the previous arrangements because there were some limitations on Canadian capital going into the United States. Exactly the opposite of what the Government said it was going to do occurred,
December 20, 1988

and it exacerbated the problems we had before we got into the deal.
Much has been said about the negative effects of free trade. I do not think that anything negative can demonstrably be shown to be untrue. For example, let us talk about wages. This morning someone referred to the fact that the wages in the United States were not lower than they are in Canada. In the third quarter the average wage in Canada was $19,337. Adjusted for the exchange rate the average wage in the United States was $18,500. The average wage in the sunbelt, which would include the grand and glorious peach state of Georgia, rounded out and adjusted for the exchange rate, was $16,000. I would suggest that an average loss of $3,000 a year for someone going into that country will certainly be significant.
I could go through the list of the average wage for all the 20 sunbelt states, but it is rather long and depressing. Nevada is the only state which has consistently been above the U.S. average. Those are the types of states that our businessmen and people are so fond of saying they are going to move their businesses and industries to when free trade comes in. There is no way in the world that we as Canadian people can be threatened with our businesses and industries going there. Of course, prior to them moving there they will say to their employees that they are going to have to take lower wages, benefits and fringes, or else the company will move there.
There is no justification for the Government getting into such a deal with such a nation, certainly if one wants to start on the elementary level of wages. Employers will force their citizens to take lower wages or else those companies will move out. That is an unjustifiable position in which to put our people. It puts Canadian citizens into the intolerable situation of blackmail.
Let us look at education and compare our education to what is available in some of the southern states, the situation that those people who already live in those states find themselves in, and which undoubtedly we would find ourselves pressured into accepting. The expenditure per pupil in the public schools in the sunbelt states is an average of $3,713. In the United States itself it is an average of $4,063. The 1987-88 estimate for Canada is $5,037 expenditure per pupil in our public schools.
I suggest that that is something we have to look at. We cannot accept the lower standard of living that those lower wage standards would force upon us.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ron Fisher: We should take a look at life after-


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have to inform the Hon. Member that his time is up.


Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I rise for the first time in this House.
First, I would like to thank the people of Rosemont for allowing me to represent them and work with the members of this House for the development of Rosemont, Montreal, Quebec and Canada.
It is also a privilege for me, Madam Speaker, to rise for the first time to debate an issue so vitally important to all the men and women of Canada.
We have before us a Bill to implement the Free Trade Agreement that was signed by two sovereign nations. This Agreement is the result of lengthy negotiations with our main partner in trade and our closest ally. It was deliberately entered into by this Government to ensure the long-term prosperity of all Canadians.
The question before us as Members of Parliament is simply this: Do the people of Canada support the will of this Government?
Madam Speaker, I call upon the democratic spirit of the honourable members of the Opposition. All during the election campaign, I heard Liberal and NDP candidates voice concerns about the impact of the Free Trade Agreement.
A minority of them have since been elected to this House, yet they still sing the same song. They have not learned anything, Madam Speaker. They are still worried about our social programs, our regional development programs and our labour programs. They are concerned about everything. They are even concerned about Canada's sovereignty.
Madam Speaker, they have yet to understand that we must come to a decision about a piece of legislation to implement the trade deal. This trade deal is a major and even an essential factor of the Canadian development strategy, advocated by our Government.
But, Madam Speaker, Canadians readily understand that the agreement must be judged in the context of the Government's strategy as a whole, the employment strategy, the regional economic development strategy, the research development strategy, and so on.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Madam Speaker, Canadians are fully aware that our country is experiencing exceptional changes, and the Free Trade Agreement is one of the many aspects of these changes, although it is a major factor. Four years ago, Madam Speaker, Canadians got tired of a regime which had divided their country and had been unable to show economic leadership, so they elected a new Government which advocated a fresh economic approach and genuine national reconciliation.
Four years ago the Progressive Conservative Party chalked up an unprecedented victory and, under the direction of the new Government, Canada was about to undertake an historic change in policy.
Discarding the autocratic and arrogant attitude which was the hallmark of the previous administration, the new Government chose from the outset to play fair with the provinces and show confidence in them. Rather than simply maintaining the centralizing and arrogant economic approach of the previous administration, the new Government tackled the issue of redefining Canada's economic priorities and reconsidering the role the state has to play to promote development.
Banking on the country's economic potential and the ability of all Canadians, the Progressive Conservative Government decided to level with the private sector and show confidence in the entrepreneurship of Canadian men and women. Because Canadians are quite capable of holding their own on international markets, the Government's new economic strategy was to look far beyond our own borders. The free trade deal with our major partner has widened our horizons and will make it a lot easier for us to take our rightful place in the economy of the continent and of the entire world.
In short, the 1984 election has proved to be more than a simple change of Government. It marked, for Canada, the beginning of a new era both politically and economically.
At the political level, our country is now more confident than ever before. At the economic level, our country had the best performance of the seven most developed countries. The change initiated in 1984 was profitable in every respect. That is why Canadian men and women decided on November 21 to renew the mandate of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his team.
Madam Speaker, an issue which our Government feels is most important and which was raised on many occasions by the Opposition during this debate on the
Free Trade Agreement is that of our ability to ensure the development of all the regions.
How about the Montreal region? Over the past four years, Madam Speaker, what was profitable for Canada also proved profitable for the Montreal region.
To be convinced of that, one needs only remind the House of the general climate which existed hardly five years ago. Having just escaped the worst economic recession of the past fifty years, the region was still assessing the extent of the damage and licking its wounds.
Plant closures, job cutbacks, production rationalization, aging of the industrial infrastructures, etc. The structural weakness accumulated over nearly a quarter of a century were revealed during the recession. A fatalist attitude was gaining ground. This sentiment was strenghtened by the clear indifference demonstrated by the Government of Canada towards the region. The federal economic strategies which prevailed at the time, introduced a quarter of a century ago, had been planned in Ottawa and imposed on the region. Whether it was in the field of energy, financial services or air transport, the implicit message the federal Government was giving investors was clear: We know what is good for Canada and the Montreal region will just have to adapt. . .
It is not surprising, Madam Speaker, that in such a context, many Montrealers completely lost confidence in the willingness and even the ability of the Government of Canada to contribute in one way or another to the recovery of their region. For them as for a growing number of Quebecers, the Canadian Government was partly to blame for their economic decline. Instead of helping to find lasting solutions, it had become an integral part of the problem.
Out of this context, a new generation of entrepreneurs started to emerge. A new spirit then took hold of the Montreal community.
For all those who were actively involved in Montreal's recovery, it was obvious that the various social and economic interests and governments had to come up with some solid consensus on the priorities for action. Strong in their new dynamism but mindful of the hardships of the recession, the people of Montreal gradually regained confidence.
But four years ago, an essential ingredient for this new state of mind to lead to real economic recovery was lacking. This ingredient was a new attitude of the federal Government to the region. To break the vicious
December 20, 1988

circle of decline, the Government of Canada absolutely had to learn to trust Montreal's resources, to be open to initiatives based on regional consensus and to see its role as a partner acting in concert with those involved in the region.
The coming into office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his team in 1984 was to set the scene for a climate of dialogue. The Progressive Conservative Government quickly proceeded to implement in Montreal key management principles it proposed for the whole of Canada. Essentially, these principles sought to replace arrogance with openness, systematic confrontation with the search for consensus, fait accompli tactics with new forms of partnership.
The men and women of Montreal, who for years had carefully been kept out of all major decisions concerning them, were somewhat skeptical at first.
Gradually, they began to realize that the principles put forth by Conservative Party candidates during the election campaign were being translated into concrete action, a new approach to Montreal's problems and an in-depth review of the Government's role in regional development.
Thus, in 1985, the Government simultaneously struck a Ministerial Committee and an Advisory Committee on the development of the Montreal area. The Advisory Committee, chaired by Professor Laurent Picard, was given the mandate to consult the local population at length to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the area as well as key directions development should take.
The report of the advisory committee was made public in the fall of 1986. For the first time in the economic history of Montreal it made it possible to set the basis of a genuine mid- and long-term regional development strategy. In its response to the report a few months later the federal Government indicated its decision to establish seven major areas of development for the Montreal region. These seven areas of development are the basis of a strategy aimed at launching the real economic recovery of the region. The strategy is the result of close co-operation by the various partners involved in the economic development of the region. This is definitely not some kind of magic formula imposed from above, but the expressed will of a community which has the full support of the federal Government.
This consensus has now been confirmed in the recent federal-provincial regional development agreement with the Government of Quebec. For the first time, Madam
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Speaker, a development strategy for the Montreal region has been endorsed by socio-economic development agents as well as by municipal, provincial and federal authorities.
Yesterday the Hon. Member for LaSalle-Emard (Mr. Martin) said:
"I will keep watching the Government. I will keep watching on regional development. I will keep watching on sectoral development. I will keep watching on social programs". I can tell you that he will keep watching for the next 20 years because the Liberal Party has no strategy except watching. Watching others doing their best for the development of Montreal, and their best for the development of Canada.

Madam Chairman, Montreal is unique in the world. The moment it was founded-nearly 350 years ago-it became obvious that this exceptional site was bound to have a promising future. This archipelago at the confluence of four major waterways was the natural entrance to the continent and one of the main transit ports for trade between the old and the new world. For over two centuries, as a result of such a privileged situation, the region was the metropolis of Canada and its main window on the rest of the world. Eventually Montreal had to adjust to a period of relative decline which radically changed its development prospects. Today, as this period has just ended and Montrealers turned a page, the major challenge is to adjust to a new economic environment and prepare to enter outright into the 21st Century.
Today, we have already taken a historic turn. The spirit now prevailing has nothing to do with the general defeatism that was rampant hardly five years ago. The open attitude, the commitment to consensus, the promotion of new forms of partnership that characterize this Government's management philosophy have been exceptional stimuli for the region.
The 21st Century is around the corner, Madam Chairman. Let us think about this: The number of years to run until the year 2000 is exactly the same as the number of years since the Montreal Olympic Games in 1976.
The decisions made today will determine the status of our resources in the year 2000. Modernizing our industries, developing high technologies, realizing our
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
full international potential are all challenges for the year 2000. On the first day of the year 2000, the Free Trade Agreement with the United States will have been fully implemented for hardly a few months, and Montreal will be a prosperous area open to the world.
Such is the real stake behind the choice now before us. More than a choice of a party, it is a choice of an attitude, a choice of a society we now have to make.
Between a return to the past that would inescapably lead us back to decline, and economic renewal that alone can lead us outright into the 21st Century, the choice is clear, Madam Chairman. It is my hope that all Members in this House will support the Bill to implement the Free Trade Agreement implementation bill.


Mr. Hawkes:: On a point of order, Madam Chairman. I just want to put on the record that there have been consultations amongst the three Whips. We have agreed that the arrangement we have had for a supper hour between six and seven will be extended tonight to between six and seven-thirty. The House will continue in Committee of the Whole, speeches will continue to be made, but there will be no tactical manoeuvring for an extra half hour this evening.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Manley:: Madam Chairman, it is with great pride that I stand today in this House conscious of the traditions of this place and of the ghosts of great parliamentarians who have stood in their places in this chamber and debated affairs of state. Perhaps no aspect of this first speech more distinctly impresses itself upon me than the fact that I, too, one day will be a ghost in this chamber. My ghostly presence will be made certain by the transcription of these words to be retained in perpetuity for future reference by my descendants.

So, I am very much aware that I am now speaking in this House not only for today, but for the future. I am not only addressing my colleagues, my constituents who have my thanks for the confidence they expressed in me, and the Canadian people, but the children of the future.

If we bear a great responsibility as parliamentarians, and we do, our greatest responsibility is to our descendants. It has been said that we do not inherit this land from our ancestors, rather that we borrow it from our descendants. It is for our descendants that we must
December 20, 1988
endeavour to enact laws whose hallmark is fairness. It is with both eyes focused on the future that we must conduct ourselves with civility, demonstrating respect for one another and for the traditions of this place and our land.
If I enter this House endeavoring to look to the future I do so heeding voices of the past. I wish to take the time to commend to this House the ancient words of the followers of Saint Francis of Assisi who wrote to the rulers of the people in about the year 1220 saying:
We, the followers of Francis of Assisi and your co-workers in struggling for a better society, send greetings and peace and this message. Keep a clear eye toward life's end. Do not forget your purpose and destiny as God's creature. What you are in his sight is what you are and nothing more. Do not let worldly cares and anxieties or the pressures of office blot out the divine life within you or the voice of God's spirit guiding in your great task of leading humanity to wholeness. If you open yourself to God and his plan printed deeply in your heart, God will open himself to you.
Remember that when you leave this earth, you can take with you nothing that you have received-fading symbols of honour, trappings of power-but only what you have given: a full heart, enriched by honest service, love, sacrifice and courage.
Embrace the God of us all and his Word wherever it surfaces. Imitate his preference for the poor and powerless. Enter into his plan of liberating all peoples from everything that oppresses them and obstructs their development as human beings. Do not grow tired of working for peace among all people.
Help remove unjust social structures and patterns of exploitation. Uphold the rights and dignity of the human person. Foster the creation of a society where human life is cherished and where all peoples of the planet can enjoy its gifts, which God created for all in a Spirit of love and justice and equality.
I believe these words to be as relevant today as they were when they were penned in the year 1220 A.D.
I come to this House grateful for having been elected by the voters of Ottawa South, a new constituency encompassing suburban neighbourhoods in the cities of Ottawa and Gloucester. While my constituency is a new one, it largely encompasses neighbourhoods represented not so long ago by my Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I dare say that nowhere in Canada were his coat-tails longer than they were in Ottawa South, for he is still remembered as an able, attentive and effective local Member of Parliament. I can only hope to do as well as he did in service of my constituents.
I look as well for inspiration and example to another mentor. It is now some 12 years since I enjoyed the rare privilege of sitting a few hundred yards from this Chamber in the Supreme Court of Canada as Law Clerk to the Right Hon. Bora Laskin, Chief Justice of

December 20, 1988

Canada. I believe that I can say without fear of contradiction that no more notable example of distinguished public service could be found than the late Chief Justice.
In achieving my election to this House, it was my honour to meet with many thousands of my constituents as I sought them out at over 40,000 doors. Many issues of great importance and concern were raised by them. It is my honour as well as my duty to bring these concerns before this House. There were the concerns of Public Servants. I believe I have within my boundaries a larger number of federal Public Servants than any other riding in Canada. They have major concerns that have led to the erosion of morale in their workplace.
There was the environment. My constituents demand and expect action from all levels of Government about this crucial issue. There was the multi-billion dollars of expenditure proposed on nuclear submarines. My constituents are opposed to it as a senseless and shameful waste of money. There was the issue of the use of patronage by Governments and the perception of corruption in the political system. My constituents were appalled at the endless series of resignations in disgrace that characterized this Government in its first mandate. There were concerns of the elderly, of students, of postsecondary students at two universities and a community college. But there was no concern greater than the concerns expressed by my constituents about the trade agreement proposed with the United States.
My constituents voted against it by a margin of more than two to one. Why? They voted for Canada. They voted against moving into the embrace of the United States. They voted against the surrender of our sovereignty to the U.S. Congress. They voted for the things that make us different from the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Paul Manley: I do not think we can deny the differences. We are a more peaceful and peaceable people. We are a kinder and gentler nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Paul Manley: Our historical alliances are based on links of culture and heritage and not simply on links of convenience. We are a people which has resisted the melting pot in favour of celebrating diversity. We are different.
My margin included many who told me that they had always voted Conservative in the past but they could not do so this time. My margin included many to whom I
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
referred as the Diefenbaker Conservatives. I think that the words of the former Leader of the Party across the way, former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker, in his first volume of his biography are of significance. He wrote about the election of 1911 on reciprocity that:
The election had a profound influence on me, and perhaps more than anything else made me a Conservative. I attended all the meetings in Saskatoon. There was wide-spread feeling that if Reciprocity with the United States was accepted, economic union would result, ultimately leading to political absorption... The Conservatives stood for "one Canada", free from United States domination. The bands at Conservative meetings played, and the faithful sang, "We're soldiers of the King". "Rule Britannia" had its place in those programs as we cleaved to our British heritage in defiance of American manifest destiny and Grit continentalism. The result was a tremendous revelation of Canadian determination to be Canadian. This impressed me greatly.
I did not tell the voters of Ottawa South that I was against free trade because, indeed, I am not against free trade or fairer trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Paul Manley: I am not against lower tariffs. I am not against increasing efficiencies. I oppose this trade agreement with the United States. I told my constituents why I was opposed to it. It is because we entered into this negotiation looking for certain things and we did not get them. We did not get what we were asking for. We did not get secure access to the U.S. market. We did not get exemption from U.S. trade remedy laws. We did not get a binding dispute settlement mechanism that is any use to us. But we gave up significant things.
We gave up important economic levers. We gave up the ability to introduce policies in the interests of Canadians in areas such as investment, energy and regional development. We gave up protection for vital sectors that cannot compete. We lost our ability to determine that foreign investment in Canada is in the best interests of Canada. We impaired Canadian ability to conduct independent policies for energy supply to consumers. We diminished provincial power to establish economic and social policies.

Madam Chairman, although I am not a member of one of those Montreal or Toronto big firms, I am a business lawyer and over these last eleven years I have advised a number of clients on their business contracts.

As a lawyer perhaps what concerns me most is what is missing from this deal and from the Bill that seeks to implement it. I have found with many clients that they

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
can read commercial contracts quite well for themselves, very often they are not so complicated that they are not understandable. What they need good advice for is to point out to them the things that are perhaps missing from an agreement.
I think when one sits down to look at this agreement, as a lawyer one would say: "What is missing here? What do we need that is missing"? Obviously, the definition of subsidy was not arrived at. It is a crucial matter. Clients have often come forward to me and said: "Well, no, we did not agree on this or that important point, but I trust my partner that I am entering into business with. I trust him. We will work it out. We want to get this deal, close it and then we will go on to solve the problems later".
Inevitably that is a prescription for disaster. Once the deal is signed, once the parties begin following a course of conduct that implements a deal, bargaining positions change. The ability to negotiate is eroded. In this deal, by failing to come to terms on the definition of "subsidy" entering into a new relationship with our largest trading partner, we are exposed to making very significant changes to the basis of our economic system which may impose limits on what we are able to negotiate with the United States in five to seven years. I think that is a major concern.
There is the concern that the agreement specifically says that subsidies in the energy sector would not be considered subsidies for the purpose of the creation of a "level playing field". Why are other potential subsidies not mentioned in the agreement? Any lawyer would point out that if regional development programs are not intended to be there, why are they not exempted specifically? Why are they left out? If our social programs are not in danger, why are they not specifically exempted? Put it in. We are being asked to trust the United States, and we can trust them. We can trust them to do what is best for them, not what is best for us.
In a radio interview on CBC before the election, the noted American economist, Robert Reich, said: "If I were a Canadian, I probably would not be terribly supportive of the Free Trade Agreement. As an American, as a citizen of the United States, I think it is quite good for us. Is it good for Canada? Well what do you get? What do you benefit? You get a reduction in tariffs, and that is probably a good thing. But the core issue with which the United States and Canada have to deal with regard to trade frictions is the question of
what is an appropriate subsidy from government to industry, and the United States and Canada are no closer to a meeting of the minds on that issue than they were before the Free Trade Agreement was concocted."
I am not only concerned with what is missing from the agreement, but what is missing from the Bill. We had assurances throughout the campaign that social programs would not be affected. Why not put it in the Bill? If we did not get it in the agreement, why not assure the people of Canada, through the Bill, that these are exempt?
We have received assurances from the other side that the deal would increase employment. New jobs are going to be created, we were told. We also know that jobs are going to be lost. Where are the adjustment programs to see that people who lose their jobs are able to train and retrain for new ones? We are in danger of creating in this country a new class of unemployed. What are we going to do for them? We have received assurances that the cultural industries will not be affected. Put it in the Bill. We have received assurances that the environment will not be endangered despite what many environmental organizations have said. Can we not deal with this in the Bill?
I think that the greatest concern for me is that this trade agreement is all that this Government is putting forward by way of economic policy. It is that bankruptcy of policy that has led to this comprehensive, bilateral trade agreement. Our problem is not access to U.S. markets. Our problem is preparing for a future in which we have to compete in a high-tech world with the Japanese, the Koreans, the Germans, and they are beating us. It is not the Americans we have to worry about it. We have to start spending money on research and development. We have to build ourselves up so that we are more productive, so that our economy can compete with all of the world instead of tying ourselves to a falling star.
Why is the Government pursuing a policy of high interest rates causing an increased dollar that has the effect of reimposing tariffs that are going to be reduced through this agreement, causing a greater loss of jobs through high interest rates than are going to be created through this Free Trade Agreement?
Why has the Government failed in its last mandate to develop a strategy that will increase our R and D spending, increase our productivity and competitiveness? Why? Because this is a Government bankrupt of ideas, of policy, of new initiatives. That bankruptcy
December 20, 1988

cannot be better demonstrated than by the campaign that has just ended, a campaign in which I have heard of fear being spread. I have seen fear in my constituency. It is spread by the other side. It is spread by letters from employers who have nothing to do with affected industries, telling their workers that if free trade is not adopted, they are going to lose their jobs. That is the kind of fear that we saw. We saw a major political Party in Canada running television commercials that for 30 seconds consisted of a series of unflattering photographs of the Leader of the Opposition. That is a Party that is bankrupt of policy, if that is all that they can do.

In conclusion, I would like to thank my constituents of Ottawa South for their great confidence. I am committed to serve them to the best of my abilities and represent them well in the coming years.


Mr. Crosby:: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
We have to begin by explaining the Bill now before the House of Commons, which is Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America. Bill C-2 contains none of the provisions that are being talked about in this House. It is a highly technical Bill, combining the elements necessary to support the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. I do not think we should lose track of that exercise, because the debate is degenerating into a difficult discourse that reminds me of a story.
It was once said that if you put enough gorillas into enough cages with enough typewriters for long enough, they would type out all of the world's great novels. I think that is happening in this debate, because all we are doing here in this House of Commons is considering enabling legislation to implement the Free Trade Agreement already signed, all ready to go into force, all ready to be implemented by the Government of Canada and by the Government of the United States of America. There is no reason for us to be here.
Then someone has the nerve to say: "We are not regarding the democratic process." Parliament has a history. Parliament has a tradition. We must follow that tradition in calling sessions of the legislature. I have said this before in the House of Commons, but it bears repeating, this is clearly considered and stated to be by the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada a very special session. It is a session of the kind that we convened to deal with the railway strike.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Did anybody come to Ottawa when Canadians were crippled by a closedown of the railway service and say: "We must have a Speech from the Throne. We must have a debate. We must have committees"? No, we all gathered together to pass the railway legislation to end the strike, to return Canada and Canadians to normal, transcontinental activity. Nobody objected to that.
We are told this is a very different kind of session, but it is not. It is no different from any other special session of the Parliament of Canada, of the House of Commons, that was convened to deal with a specific issue, and that specific issue is the Free Trade Agreement. So do not worry. There is nothing unusual about what is going on in the House of Commons these past few days. The only thing unusual is that the opposition Members will not accept the verdict of the people.
What do the members of the Opposition do? They still talk about the mandate; we do not have a mandate. All you have to do is sit in the Chamber for an hour and you will hear everybody talking about the mandate. The latest speech on the mandate came from the Member for Nepean. I do not want to pick on a new Member, but she announced that she had a mandate, and she was here to stop the Free Trade Agreement, have it amended, have it changed, or have some other action taken. So I have taken the trouble to look up the mandate for the new Member for Nepean. The new Member for Nepean got 26,501 votes. The Progressive Conservative candidate got 23,399 votes. The Member of the New Democratic Party got 6,122 votes. There were 291 votes to another candidate.
If you add that up correctly it will come to 56,213 votes. Fifty per cent is 28,106. The Member from Nepean was 1,595 votes short of a mandate, or 47 per cent of the votes. She has no more mandate to come here and represent the people of Nepean and say that when they supported her they demanded that she end or obstruct the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement than the Government has to pass it.
In fact, as I have explained on other occasions, the Government has an even clearer mandate because 4.3 million Canadians, 25 per cent of all Canadians who did not vote in the federal election, accepted the verdict by not voting. They had no authority to call a new election. They accepted the verdict of the rest of the people and we have a very clear mandate. It is a mandate supported by 60 per cent of the Canadian voters, not 43 per cent, 44 per cent or 45.5 per cent.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Sixty per cent of the voters of Canada either directly supported the Progressive Conservative Party or supported the verdict of all the electorate by not voting in the general election. There is no great majority out there saying the Free Trade Agreement should be stopped. It is a figment of the imagination of the Opposition Parties.
Where are the supporters of the Opposition Parties? Where is Maud Barlow, who went on national television and said: "I and my organization will fight the Free Trade Agreement until we beat it to death, till we wrestle it to the ground". Where is Maud Barlow? She is at home watching television, doing her thing. She is not worried about what we are doing in the House of Commons, nor is her great friend, the ultimate opponent of free trade in Canada, Mel Hurtig. Where is Mel Hurtig?


An Hon. Member:: Selling encyclopaedias.


Howard Edward Crosby: Selling encyclopaedias for young children. He flogged it all he could with the seniors of Canada, now he is off to the children. He is certainly not outside the Chamber or anywhere else in Ottawa fighting the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement. Thanks a lot Mel Hurtig. Thanks a lot Maud Barlow. But you are not here when your friends in the Liberal Party and your friends in the New Democratic Party need your moral support.
Where are the pickets that used to appear at every discussion of free trade? I walked into the House of Commons several times in the last days but saw no pickets. They have all gone home with their signs. You do not have anyone left, just a few rumpled Liberals and a few rumpled members of the New Democratic Party carrying out the mandate of the Mel Hurtig's, the Maud Barlow's and the Bob White's.
Where is Bob White tonight? I would like to see him in the gallery of the House of Commons monitoring the free trade debate, seeing if all the Members of the New Democratic Party are saying what Bob White thinks they should say. He gave them great advice after the election. Is he giving the NDP any advice on free trade now and how to fight the issue? I suspect that Bob White is where most sensible Canadians are tonight, preparing for the Christmas season in the spirit that should be common to all of us. Instead we are here beating a dead horse, battling an issue that has already been resolved. We are doing that because Members of Parliament continue the election campaign into this
Chamber. They continue to pursue the myths that evolved in the election campaign.
Let us talk about some of those myths. The first myth is that the election was on free trade alone, that everybody who voted in the federal election of November 21, 1988, only had free trade in mind when they went to the polls. I have already said that many people in this country are concerned about abortion. Many people voted on that issue.
Even if they did not, there were many people trying to encourage Canadians to vote on other issues. I received a pamphlet in my mailbox from the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. They were kind enough to provide me and everyone else in Halifax West as well as many other constituents in Canada their views of the federal election. Of course, they did not want anyone to vote Progressive Conservative. They wanted the Mulroney Government thrown out because they did not like the way it was dealing with the postal service.
It cost over $6,000 to distribute a piece of material to all the homes in Halifax West to try to influence them to read the material and decide how they would vote. They were not concerned about free trade, they were concerned about the postal service. I guess their friends in the New Democratic Party should tell the members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers that they wasted their time and money because everyone who voted NDP voted on the basis of free trade and that everyone who voted Liberal voted on the basis of free trade. Who cares about the postal service?
The fact is that many Canadians care about the postal service and probably were influenced by that piece of election propaganda prepared by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. That union said in advance of the election that they would attack certain Progressive Conservative Party members and oppose them in the election.
It is almost laughable that the Member for Ottawa South, along with the Member for Nepean should come into this Chamber and say that their electors voted for free trade while, in the next sentence, they say their electors are members of the Public Service of Canada.
We know where the Public Service of Canada, through the Public Service Alliance, stood on the matter of electing Progressive Conservatives. They fought all of us tooth and nail and used their money to do so.
December 20, 1988

In Halifax the members of the Public Service Alliance who work at the dockyard felt obliged to publish lengthy advertisements at the cost of thousands of dollars, urging their members and their families as well as others to vote against the Progressive Conservative candidates. If that was not bad enough, after the election they said they were successful in getting people to vote against the Progressive Conservatives. They said: "We are members of the ship repair unit, Halifax East and we got members of our union and their families and friends to vote against the Progressive Conservative Government".
Are Members of the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party coming to the House of Commons and saying that everyone in Canada voted on the basis of free trade?
I suggest they tell that to the promoters of the Peace Pledge who issued materials to all electors, took out newspaper advertisements, urging people to vote on the basis of the stand on a number of issues, including nuclear weapons free zones, nuclear powered submarines and cruise missile testing.
They regarded these as issues on which Canadians should vote. Are Members of the Opposition saying that no one paid any attention to all the propaganda they produced, especially when those same Members stand in the House and say, as the Leader of the Liberal Party said during the election campaign, that advertising and promotion by Canadian big business has turned the election around.
How do they come to the conclusion that no one paid attention to the Public Service Alliance, which is perhaps a good idea, that no one paid any attention to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, which is an excellent idea, and that no one paid attention to the Peace Pledge? Certainly Canadians voted on the basis of what they perceived to be the issues. While free trade was a very important issue, we have to explode the myth that the federal election was based entirely on free trade. Let us hear no more talk about mandates from Members of Parliament elected with 47 per cent of the vote and saying they have a mandate but we do not.
Let us talk about some of the myths that relate to the Free Trade Agreement. The most hateful myth of all was medical care and the fact that the signing and implementation of the Free Trade Agreement will destroy, damage or otherwise adversely affect medical care in Canada. Canada happens to have a much better medical care system than they do in the United States.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I think every American, certainly every elected member of the United States Congress is very conscious of that fact. I am sure their knowledge extends to all offices of the U.S. Government.
They know that we have a medicare system in Canada which is less costly, more efficient, which reaches more people at less government expense. They admire our medical care system because they know the statistics that relate to medicare in Canada. They know that we in Canada spend only 8 per cent of our GNP on medical care while in the United States they spend 11 per cent of the GNP on medical care.
Members of the New Democratic Party say that the Americans want a level playing field which will eliminate medicare because they want us to abandon medicare in order to be level with them. I find that strange, since they already spend more on medical care than we do.
In fact, in the whole social program area, the Americans and Canadians spend approximately the same amount of their GNPs on social programs. I have the statistics here, and I would be glad to read them to Members. Approximately 21 per cent of Canada's GNP is spent on social programs, and in the United States it is approximately 24 per cent. How could anyone manufacture the argument that social programs would disappear so that our programs would be equal to those of the United States? How could anyone argue that we would be equally bad instead of equally good?
Members of the Opposition will not face up to these kinds of facts. They want to protract the debate and continue the myths that were portrayed during the election campaign. They want to bring these to the floor of the House of Commons, and they will not face the fact that there are substantial statistical and economic arguments against all the issues they have used to convince some Canadians that the Free Trade Agreement will not be a positive initiative for Canada.
When will they give up? When will they stop trying to convince people, through the medium of debate in the House of Commons, that the Free Trade Agreement should not be implemented? It is time to stop. It is time for members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties to face up to the fact that the Free Trade Agreement does not adversely affect medical care because the costs of medical care in Canada and in the United States are approximately the same. It has no economic impact. It

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
does not affect the price of goods. It does not distort trade, nor do the variety of social programs we have.
Let us talk about pensions. Are members of the Opposition under the impression that there are no pension programs in the United States of America? Have they not heard of social security? Do they not realize that seniors in the United States receive pensions as do seniors in Canada? Perhaps our program is better. I hope it is. It should be and, if it is not, we will try to make it better. However, those programs are in place and the percentage of Gross National Product that is spent on these programs is approximately the same. In the interests of fairness and of properly informing Canadians, please drop these nonsensical arguments.
I would not mind if members of the Opposition started talking about the environment. At least there is an element of uncertainty with respect to the environment. The Free Trade Agreement makes very clear that in no way, shape, or form does Canada give up its right or authority to legislate and implement policies with respect to the environment. However, at least members of the Opposition would argue that we might back off. At least they would be dealing with a subject that might change rather than with facts, figures, and programs that are already in place.
If we are to continue what I have already characterized as an nonsensical argument, at least let us deal with the parts of it that might give rise to some concerns. Let us not deal with those elements that have already been clearly disposed of again and again. Let us not deal with the question of who has the mandate and who has been elected with what percentage. That decision has already been taken by the people of Canada. The play is over, the curtain is down, and now we have to move on to the next performance.
I do not want to make light of those who protest the Free Trade Agreement. I believe there are legitimate concerns arising from a dramatic initiative like the implementation of free trade. I understand why people in the textile industry are concerned. They want to guard their ability to produce and market their goods. I understand the concerns of people in various parts of Canada. However, what I do not understand is the rhetoric that is preached about free trade. I do not understand the people who have entered into the discussion but who do not have any real role to play in the dialogue. I would like to end my remarks with a
description of some of the nonsense that I have seen played out.
I was a member of a standing committee that studied the Free Trade Agreement. We had the great opportunity to hear from some of the opponents of free trade. We heard from Mel Hurtig and from Mordecai Richler. Let me tell Hon. Members what Mordecai Richler said to that committee. We are concerned about the wine industry in Niagara and we want to help out. We want to make sure it is not adversely affected. Mordecai Richler, the great opponent of free trade, said:
-but if free trade meant the dubious wines of Niagara would be displaced by the far more palatable stuff distilled in California, 1 would not be displeased. There is only so much plonk I am prepared to drink for my country. In fact, the louder I hear Ontario squeal, the stronger my support for free trade.
Let us get the opponents of free trade all in one place, and they will tear each other to pieces. They do not agree with each other. They are dealing only in rhetoric, not in facts. Let us get down to the facts. Let us pass Bill C-2. Let us get on with the business of making Canada economically strong.


Mr. Ferguson:: Madam Chairman, I wish tonight to draw to the attention of the House the deep and grave concern that I have, returning as a Member. During the early stages of this debate, Hon. Members opposite threw caution to the winds and accused Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition of obstructing. I wish to remind them of what this House is all about.
It is not my intention to lecture Hon. Members, but because many Hon. Members have been in the House for only a short time, it would be useful to remind them of what others have said in moments of national importance. Let there be no mistake about it. The present situation the Government has got itself and Canadian citizens into is of grave national importance.
It is obvious that closure sits too lightly on the shoulders of the Deputy House Leader and many Members opposite. Let me quote from Hansard for the Twenty-second Parliament, third session, page 4512:
To begin with, I say that never in all British history under a parliamentary system have the rules been juggled as they have in this case or have the rules been changed as it were between innings.
The issue at hand is the attempt to ram this trade deal through the House without giving all Hon. Members of the Thirty-fourth Parliament an opportunity to improve an old Bill from a previous Parliament which had an entirely different make-up of Members.
December 20, 1988

Obviously the Government has not understood that the electorate sent a clear message to the new Parliament that the trade deal could and should have improvements made to it. The tactics being used mean that we are being asked to abrogate our position as the dominant forum for discussions in the legislature and, in turn, leave the decision-making process to the executive. All of this is to meet some preconceived date that was decided before debate began. Because of that preimposed date, closure was applied, even though a majority of Canadians voted against the deal.
We have heard a great deal about sovereignty during the past year, but in our parliamentary system the sovereignty of the people is expressed through Parliament. When I say"parliament", I mean the minority or the Opposition, as well as the majority. Let us not have any more statements from the government benches and particularly from the Minister for International Trade who was quoted in the December 26 edition of Maclean's magazine as saying that there is nothing more to be said. I beg to differ.
Surely the Hon. Member for St. John's West does not have a monopoly on what is good for Canadians. Surely he cannot deprive the 125 new Members of the House who have not had the opportunity to express their views and those of their constituents who can no doubt contribute to improving a flawed deal.
Again, I would like to quote from Hansard of the Twenty-second Parliament, page 4513:
I do make an appeal to the Prime Minister. This Parliament, this institution should be a temple of freedom, not a place where frustration becomes the means whereby the rights are swept aside and whereby the rules are misinterpreted in order to achieve a temporary advantage.
I have to suggest, Madam Chairman, that perhaps one of the reasons this debate is being brought to an end is that the Government wants to silence those Members who are speaking out against this deal before we have more plant closings and lay-offs of Canadian workers by parent U.S. companies.
Although we are starting the festive season I am speaking here with a heavy heart. When we consider this Bill, it clearly contains basic principles rejected by 53 per cent of Canadians at the polls. It will, in fact, mean the end of so many of the organizations and systems that we have in Canada which are the envy of the world.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I am shocked and angry about the heavy-handed way this Government has neutered our agricultural marketing systems in Canada in exchange for continued access to markets that we already have and markets that we may or may not be able to continue to supply or have access to, either at home or abroad.
We still have the countervail duty on our Canadian hogs going into the United States. We still have the tax on shakes and shingles. The U.S. trade remedy laws are still intact and, despite all the assurances for the former Minister of International Trade and the Prime Minister in 1987 that the whole object of the exercise was to exempt Canada from the U.S. trade remedy laws. We are not exempt. In fact, the co-chairman of the U.S. Senate Ways and Means Committee last summer pointed out to his colleagues that in the event of a dispute between the Free Trade Agreement and the U.S. law, U.S. law shall prevail.
I am particularly upset that this Government has assured us that our marketing boards and agencies were not on the table when, the powers of these agencies and boards were being removed or circumvented. First, I will address myself to the powers of the Import-Export Permits Act being removed from wheat and grains. Furthermore, under the terms of the agreement, wheat is to be traded freely when support levels in both countries are deemed to be at par, but we have already lost our two-price wheat policy which is costing our Ontario farmers $1 a bushel this year. In view of forecasts of a 70 per cent increase in plantings next year in an attempt by individual farmers in Canada to stay competitive, prices will drop and losses will be much higher unless of course Mother Nature intervenes again this year.
Canada is regarded as having the best agricultural product marketing systems of any nation in the world. Ron Stoddard, Executive Director of the Nebraska Wheat Board stated in London, Ontario on Monday, December 5, that growers in his state are strong supporters of a two-price system for wheat. He predicted that the free trade agreement would be a disaster for Canada.
This grain trade expert went on to say that the international grain trade is the real winner, and as our grain prices reach record low levels we see these international grain companies buy company after company.


John Horton McDermid: Who said this?

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Ralph Ferguson: This is already happening in southwestern Ontario. A large U.S. based multinational corporation bought Maple Leaf Mills last year and is now buying some smaller operations. This is occurring at a time when this huge U.S. based company already has a preponderant position in Canadian agricultural supply and purchasing markets. This company is the largest privately-owned company in the United States.
As a farmer from southwestern Ontario, I suggest this is not a coincidence. Prior to the ending of the two-price wheat system by the Government, the Government brought the Vice-President of this company's Canadian operation into the office of the Deputy Minister of Agriculture here in Ottawa for a two-year period, beginning August 1, 1985 and ending July 31, 1987. It is also interesting that Mr. Amstets, the U.S. Chief Negotiator at GATT, is a former Vice-President of that same U.S. grain company. Just think of it, a VicePresident of the Canadian operation in the office of our Deputy Minister of Agriculture here in Ottawa at the same time as the executive Vice-President of the same U.S. based company was the U.S. negotiator in GATT, and was involved in these negotiations.
I was shocked to see a document prepared by this person in the Deputy Minister's office in late 1987 that was extremely critical of Canada's supply management systems, particularly in the poultry sector. Of course, as usual, the people who contributed to that document were not farmers, except for one from Buffalo, Alberta, but rather academics and big business people who showed their greed and could think only of their own market shares and corporate profits. Why did they not invite the poultry people and those whose livelihood depend on a stable and heavy poultry industry?
I submit that the Government is only interested in big business. When I look around me at the numbers of farms being foreclosed or taken over by the Farm Credit Corporation through powers of sale since the election on November 21, let me tell you that Scrooge himself could not be more callous or heavy-handed during this festive season.


John Horton McDermid: You were there when there were 22 per cent interest rates for the farmers.


Ralph Ferguson: Perhaps I should read a little excerpt from The Globe and Mail for December 16. It is entitled "Farmers' net worth plunges since 1984". The article also reports that in a comprehensive survey of the industry, the Federal Farm Credit Corporation found that the average net worth of Canadian farmers declined
by 11 per cent since 1984 while there had been substantial increases in the amount of long-term debt, the number of high risk borrowers, and the number of farmers in arrears.
I should go on to point out that in general the Farm Credit Corporation found that farmers belong to marketing boards. Whether they raise poultry, eggs, or are involved in the dairy, they tend to have more stable, more profitable, and better investments than cash crops farmers. Members of the marketing boards are protected from market fluctuations-


John Horton McDermid: Exactly.


Ralph Ferguson: -by established prices. What happened to our marketing boards and agencies in the poultry sector, marketing boards that we were assured were not even on the bargaining table during the negotiations? On page 4 of the Free Trade Agreement we see increases in the global import levels.


John Horton McDermid: Based on what?


Ralph Ferguson: On chicken, turkey, and eggs. It is an increase of more than 40 million eggs a year-


John Horton McDermid: Based on what?


Ralph Ferguson: -at a time when our Canadian producers are being asked to cut back to balance supply and demand.


John Horton McDermid: Based on what?


Ralph Ferguson: As just a point of interest, Madam Chairman, the U.S. company that I mentioned a few moments ago has 13 million laying hens in the United States. In all Ontario we have 7.5 million laying hens and in all Canada we have about 20 million. That one company has 13 million in the U.S. Imagine a company having two-thirds the amount that we have in all Canada. Here in Canada we have not paid any subsidies or provided any financial assistance to the poultry industry for at least the last 13 years.
I ask the Minister of Agriculture when he returns to show his support for the Canadian marketing systems and to honour his commitment to Canada's hatching egg producers and to place hatching eggs on the import control list as was requested and as he promised. I would personally ask the Minister for International Trade to take the initiative in this matter and make their Christmas a happy Christmas for the Canada hatching eggs producers.
December 20, 1988

Why did the Government not insist during this free trade negotiations and the GATT meetings that the U.S. adopt our system of marketing as the envy of the world rather than the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, that we see to the south?


John Horton McDermid: Why do you not tell that to your European friends?


Ralph Ferguson: What else did this administration do to our marketing systems that was not supposed to be on the table during negotiations?
Page 119 of the agreement indicates that for the purposes of Article 706 the definitions in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b) are definitions of chicken and turkey respectively. I do not disagree with those definitions. I think the first two definitions are correct, but then I go on to look at subsection 2 of Article 706 which lists 13 different types of further processed chicken. Under this definition, chicken is certainly not considered to be chicken. There are 13 different types of further processed chicken that are not considered to be chicken: chicken cordon bleu, breaded chicken cordon bleu, Chicken Kiev, breaded chicken Kiev, and chicken TV dinners, and the list goes on.
Under subsection 3 there are nine different types of further processed turkey that are not considered to be turkey. Those further processed products will enter Canada free, outside the import quotas.
If this is not chicken or turkey, what is it? Is this a clear, above-board, honest manner in which to negotiate a trade agreement, or is this the latest method that the Tory administration is using to destroy these producer organizations established under an Act of Parliament? These further processed poultry products will account for more than 50 per cent of production here in Canada within the next few years. Not only will we lose the jobs of the people processing these birds, but the farmers currently supplying these boards will be forced to cut back or forced out of business, along with the other allied industries supplying producers of these products on the farms and on up through the system.
We were promised that our Canadian systems were not on the bargaining table. Now we find that they have been gutted and the Canadian people will be the losers.
When I look into the section on agriculture, curiously I came to page 88 and the definition under Article 711. I was shocked to see that the goods listed in tariff item
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
22.01 include natural water, snow, and ice. Yet there is no explanation as to whether Articles 7(1) and (2) of the Act supersede Article 711 of the agreement.
The Minister for International Trade should come clean with the people of Canada and admit what he has done, stop the deal, and apologize to the people of this nation. The Tories started out trading horses and ended up losing the farm. Now closure has been imposed upon this institution because the Government did not want to talk about being taken to the cleaners.
In closing, I ask the House either to reject the trade deal or amend it, to ensure that the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and the powers of our national marketing agencies are left intact and that we retain the powers of the Import Permits Act in order that continued stability is provided for the producers of Canada and that ample supplies of high quality Canadian food are available to Canadian consumers at reasonable prices.


John Horton McDermid: I wish to raise a couple of points. The Hon. Member went part way when he started quoting from the Free Trade Agreement, but he did not tell the whole story.
First, the Hon. Member talked about increased levels of imports that are allowed for chicken, eggs, and powdered eggs under the agreement, but he did not say where the number came from. That number came from the actual average imports over the last five years. It was not a number picked out of the sky or a phoney number. It works out to be a 1 per cent increase. That number was arrived at by using actual importations in this country over the last five years. The Hon. Member failed to mention that when he talked about the various products.
The other thing the Hon. Member failed to mention was that we had reserved the right to establish new marketing boards where producers wanted them and where the Government saw that it was the proper thing to do.
The Hon. Member is a former Minister of Agriculture, albeit that he held his portfolio for only a couple of months, as long as I have had mine, but he did not tell the whole story. Those products to which he referred can be placed on an import control list. As a matter of fact the Government placed yoghurt and ice cream on the import control list after the Free Trade Agreement was signed.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
To boot, I am not sure where the Hon. Member comes up with the fact that we have ruined the marketing boards under the Free Trade Agreement. Article 11 applies in the GATT, has been preserved, and will continue to apply under the Free Trade Agreement. The Hon. Member only goes part way in his explanations, as the Liberals will when they do their explaining on the Free Trade Agreement. That is one of the injustices that the Canadian public had to put up with during the campaign because of the half-truths and just going so far.
For example, his Leader reads the first paragraph in a section but does not go on to read the whereases and whatfors after that. If one only reads part of a paragraph or section of the Free Trade Agreement, it may sound absolutely horrifying to the public.
When one goes on to read what in fact it means and the clarifications that go with it, it makes absolute sense. The dairy industry supported the Free Trade Agreement because it knows that our marketing systems are protected. The poultry associations have also been supportive. They know that the marketing system is preserved. What is happening to destroy the marketing system is that farmers are allowing processors to pay them a premium on chicken they produce. Certain Canadian processors are paying premiums and are destroying the marketing system that they themselves set up and asked for.
If the Hon. Member wanted to do something useful, then he might talk to the producers in this country and attempt to bring some sanity back to what is going on in the Canadian market-place, and not blame the Free Trade Agreement for what is happening. The Hon. Member is nodding his head. He knows what is going on with the producers. I have known the Hon. Member for many years. It is nice to see him returned to the House, although it is obvious that he did not learn much in the four years that he was gone. He has not been fair in the manner in which he has been giving his assessment of the Free Trade Agreement and the marketing board situation.


Ralph Ferguson: I wish to take issue with some of the statements made by the Hon. Minister. In the first place, I never mentioned the dairy industry whatsoever. On page 84, and I refer to this as the global quota, I acknowledged that there would be a global quota. I went on to point out that this would be circumvented by further processed chicken and turkey products that are
not considered to be chicken. That is what is going to destroy the industries.


John Horton McDermid: Can they be placed on the import control list?


Ralph Ferguson: Chicken and turkey as defined are already on the import control list, as are eggs.


John Horton McDermid: Can you add to the import control list, according to the agreement?


Ralph Ferguson: I would think that we could. However, if we cannot add then let us have the broiler chicken hatching eggs also added.
I would also like to point out that when the import restrictions are removed on wheat there simply cannot be a two-price wheat system. I wish to go on record as pointing out that the advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board does not support this deal for that very reason.


Mrs. Landry:: Madam Chairman, I am indeed extremely pleased to rise and participate in this debate on second reading of Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States.
This Free Trade Agreement was certainly a major issue during the last election campaign. In my own riding of Blainville-Deux Montagnes, like everywhere else in Quebec and Canada, the debate on this dramatic initiative was marked by fiery and passionate speeches, but unfortunately hardly based on facts.
Both as a Minister and as a Member of this House, Madam Chairman, I was very happy to witness the extensive interest which the free trade issue had raised among Canadians everywhere in Canada.
The free trade issue emphasized not only the importance of trade for our prosperity, but also the importance which Canadians give too all aspects of our lives which make our society unique.
Madam Chairman, I should like to recall briefly the circumstances which convinced us of the need to negotiate a free trade agreement with our most important trading partner. As a matter of fact, it is in the early 1980s that the notion of a comprehensive free trade bilateral agreement with the United States came to light. It was in 1982 that the Canadian Senate, which
December 20, 1988

was made up at the time of a majority of Liberals just as it is today, issued its report on free trade with the United States. The said report stated:
Negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement with the United States remains the best means to achieve the hoped-for objectives of restructuration, growth and competitiveness for the Canadian industry.
Madam Chairman, you will remember that in 1982, the Hon. Donald MacDonald, the former Liberal Minister of Finance, and his commissioners had received from Prime Minister Trudeau a mandate to carry out the most thorough and exhaustive review of our economy and to recommend guidelines for the future. For three years, this commission held public hearings throughout Canada.
Its findings were simple and unequivocal, and I quote:
Free trade will increase our wealth and, at the same time,
reinforce the structure of our country and increase our self-reliance.
Madam Chairman, why did these studies, Royal Commissions and other groups and individuals recommend negotiating a free trade agreement? And why did the present Progressive Conservative Government also accept this advice? Our reasons are exactly the same as those for which small countries today are turning to free trade. The rise in protectionism is a threat to Canada's economy. With the Free Trade Agreement, Canada is doing what it must to ensure better access to its largest export market.
The Government and the supporters of free trade believe that this can only provide better economic opportunities for Canadians in all regions of this great country.
Indeed, Madam Chairman, the Free Trade Agreement opens possibilities for all Canadians, from St. John's to Victoria.
Since negotiations on this Agreement began, the need to serve all of Canada adequately has remained a priority. That is why the Free Trade Agreement is widely recognized as an essential element of this country's regional policy.
Just think, Madam Chairman, of the energy sector in Quebec, forestry in the West or fisheries in the Maritime provinces. They will all benefit from this trade agreement.
I also think of the market of 250 million people, the many export opportunities, the development of our resources and so many other possibilities the Free Trade
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Agreement affords us. And that, Madam Chairman, is what will develop our regions.
Nevertheless, the opponents of free trade continue to maintain that it will lead to the disappearance of Canada as we know it and that we will lose opportunities because of it.
On what do they base their opposition? Certainly not on the history of the last fifty years which is one of a continuous progression towards the freeing of trade and the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers between the two countries.
I think we must seriously ask ourselves the following questions. Are we any less Canadian after half a century of increasing trade with the United States? Are we any less independent following the reduction of tariffs? Are we less prosperous? Madam Chairman, I think the vast majority of Canadians will say our identity has never been stronger. I can say that we have never seen such an abundant production in literature, music, art or Canadian films than today. Each of those areas of creativity is solidly protected by the Free Trade Agreement and, as promised, we have maintained all forms of assistance for the cultural industry as well as our capacity of introducing new ones.
Nothing in the agreement prevents the Government from continuing to fund the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada and the Canada Council. I think free trade can only strengthen our sense of identity rather that weaken it, because it is precisely when a country's economy is strong that it can afford to support its art and cultural institutions.
The same argument applies to our social policies. Free trade opponents, the two opposition Parties, of course, say that the agreement threatens those policies as well as our health insurance and unemployment insurance systems. We know, Madam Chairman, how, during the last election campaign, in a way I would call shameful, they spread fear especially among older people. The agreement does not jeopardize in any way the integrity of Canadian social security systems, and any risk would rather come from a stagnant economy, protectionism or the status quo. Under international as well as American and Canadian law, social programs such as health insurance and unemployment insurance, pensions, maternity and other fringe benefits are not considered a subsidy if they apply to the whole population. And, to make sure that those programs are viable, we must be

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
able to afford them. Madam Chairman, only a flourishing economy can guarantee an adequate health system for all Canadians.
And what about the manufacturing industry, particularly the small and medium-sized businesses, where over
12,000	of my constituents of Blainville-Deux-Mon-tagnes work? That group of energetic entrepreneurs represents one of the most dynamic and growing economic forces in the country and in the constituency I am proud to represent. Since I started dealing with those businesspeople many months ago, I have always been impressed by their enthousiasm. I am proud to hear them say how much they will benefit from the opportunities created by free trade. Those small businesses are ready to take advantage of the tremendous benefits resulting from better access to the vast American market. The Agreement will offer new trade opportunities to those Canadian entrepreneurs. It will stimulate the growth of small businesses ready to invade the American market and, just as important, secure access for those already there.
The elimination of duties on manufactured products exported to the United States will give a competitive advantage to Canadian products sold on the American market.
So far, our producers have had a market of 25 million. They will now be able to produce for a market of 260 million.
Madam Chairman, I would also like to talk about the industrial sector. In my riding, like everywhere in Canada, this sector will become more and more competitive internationally as production costs decrease with the elimination of customs duties. Under free trade, the industries of Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, namely chemicals and automobiles, as well as plastics, furniture, fabricated metals and electronics, will be in a better position to compete on international markets.
Finally, these producers will have innumerable opportunities to find and exploit other niches, other production processes, new management skills and new investment possibilities here and in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, that is why national small business associations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Small Business Council and the Retail Council of Canada also strongly support the Agreement.
I would like to turn for a moment to my role as Minister of External Relations. As Minister responsible for Canada's international aid programs, I am particularly pleased to see how free trade with the U.S. will improve Canada's aid programs to the Third World.
This important trade initiative is part of this Government's two part approach to international trade. Canada is committed to pursuing the gradual reduction of trade barriers, both bilaterally with our most important trading partner and multilaterally through negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
The FT A has been hailed by all major industrialized nations as an important check against the rise of protectionist forces in international trade. Such forces present a direct and growing threat to global economic growth, and most particularly to economic development in the Third World.
Co-operation in trade with developing countries has been a focal point in Canada's external relations, and this will be enhanced under the FTA. The economic growth generated by the FTA will strengthen Canada's capacity to support economic development assistance initiatives in the Third World.

The Agreement will enable Canada to continue to reach and exceed this remarkable level of development assistance, which in 1986-87 was $2.26 billion. Such objectives are reached by creating a stronger, more dynamic economic infrastructure right here in Canada. Mr. Speaker, that is how industrialized nations like ours can afford the kind of generous, innovative programs that symbolize the reputation Canada has acquired in the developing world.
The Third World can only benefit considerably from the economic growth that will result from the enhanced trade arising from the Agreement. The growth in our economy brought on by free trade will lead to strong demand for Third World products. Free trade will thus contribute to significant economic growth that will enable Canada to keep its leading role in encouraging and promoting the expansion and growth of the economies of developing nations.
And so, Mr. Chairman, it is clear that those who say that the Agreement bespeaks Canadians at siege in a North American fortress are sorely mistaken. Our
December 20, 1988

opponents can find nothing in the Agreement that might threaten our assistance programs. And the reason for that is very simple. Our assistance policies have nothing to do with our trade relations with the United States. Decisions in the area of assistance will always be made by Canadians and in the best interests of Canada, independently of the Agreement.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say how proud I am to have been granted the privilege of participating in this historic debate. The Free Trade Agreement gives Canadians the chance to show the whole world how hard-working, productive, innovative and competitive they can be. In short, to show that they are ready to meet the challenges of the future.
Mr. Chairman, the people of my constituency, like those in the majority of constituencies across Canada, clearly indicated on November 21st that they wanted the Conservative Government to continue to work to make Canada grow. I am proud to be a member of this Government, which negotiated free trade with the United States to ensure greater prosperity for all Canadians in the years to come.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to speak in Committee of the Whole today on Bill C-2.
I represent a very diversified riding. We have three national parks, so the environmental aspects of this legislation are of very deep concern to the people living in my riding. We also have a very beautiful fruit growing and farming community in the Creston area. We are involved in mining through our coal, silver, lead and zinc mines in the Kimberley area. We have the service sector in Cranbrook which services the valley. We have a system of workers in the transportation field as well.
Throughout this campaign we found a very, very deep concern among those people. Yet when I came back to this House, as I have done and am very pleased to do, I heard this rhetoric from the other side. I heard the Minister responsible for housing speak last night in a very violent way with respect to how the Opposition is criticizing the Government.


John Horton McDermid: Violent?


Sidney James Parker: Yes, very violent.


John Horton McDermid: Do you know what the word means?
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Sidney James Parker: That same violence came out during the campaign when we were called liars. We stood on our platform and tried to express the concern we had for our people in those areas I mentioned who saw the greed of the large multinational corporations going for free trade while they were being trampled on. That concern came from across the political spectrum. It came not only from New Democrats, but from Liberals and many, many Conservatives. They left the Conservative spectrum and started to support us because of these deep concerns.
We saw the Prime Minister come into Vernon, not Kelowna or Penticton but Vernon, and offer $20 million to grape growers because of their concerns for their industry. There are no grapes grown in Vernon. The grape industry is located in Kelowna, Penticton, and Osoyoos, but he would not dare show up in those areas with his $27 million. No, he went to Vernon, safe territory, and talked about it. He did not give the grape growers an opportunity to express their concerns.
In Creston where fruit, dairy products, and grain are produced the people are concerned. They are concerned about the fact that their growing season does not compare with that in the United States. They are concerned that the competition they will be facing will be very real. The dairy industry is very concerned about what will happen to dairy products if there are no processing plants to process products. If there are no processing plants, there is nothing else to do but get out of business.
I want to talk for a moment about railway workers. They are saying to us: "What is going to happen when we start going north and south?" That is what the Minister said yesterday. What is going to happen when Alberta builds a four-lane highway to export products to the States and Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba start running north and south instead of east and west? What will happen to our railway jobs? What will happen to the railway workers? What will happen to the Ports of Vancouver, Thunder Bay, and Churchill? We in this Party want to set up a mechanism to respond to the problems with which these people will be faced.
I was at one time Mayor of Revelstoke. I remember when the Columbia Treaty was signed and what a great deal it was going to be for the province and people of British Columbia. Thousands of acres of land were flooded, not for Canadians, not for the production of power, but to store water for the Americans. We saw

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
them draw down that water to such a level that dust storms occurred. No one could even live in the area. We had to appeal to them to do something, to put in place some type of regulations.
That was a small agreement compared with what we are talking about now. When land was expropriated in this case there was only one Party which stood up to fight. That was the New Democratic Party.
All we are asking for in the Free Trade Agreement is to have some type of mechanism put into place by which we can monitor what will take place. If the Government feels that this is such a wonderful deal, why is it so determined not to give us such a mechanism to protect our people?
I wish to deal with the survey conducted by the Bank of Nova Scotia. The bank calls it an update of an economic development study.


John Horton McDermid: It was done before the agreement was signed.


Sidney James Parker: I do not care when it was done. The fact remains that the issues were studied. We have seen what has happened since the agreement was signed.


John Horton McDermid: I love that, a socialist quoting the Bank of Nova Scotia.


Sidney James Parker: The bank said that these were the high risk areas that could be affected. Many of them in my riding will be affected: Automotive, heavy truck assemblies, small parts producers, food processing, poultry, fruits, and vegetables. The people in my riding are very concerned when they find out that the banks are starting to identify these areas as high risk areas. When they need capital to participate and to compete, the bank will say: "You are in a high risk area and we are not prepared to lend money to you".
Rail freight car assemblies are also identified as a high risk area. We have a major rail car assembly plant in Golden which has hired many workers. The community has built much of its structure around this plant. If we start to see that these freight cars are going to go south for repairs and so on, into the lower markets where there is cheaper labour we will find that this railway shop will not be able to maintain and create the jobs that our communities expect from it.
Shipbuilding, ship repairs, chemicals, organic specialties, box board and container boards, agriculture, poultry, trucking services, cable television programs, and footwear are areas which have been shown as high risk.
When these people try to get money to compete in what has been called a level playing field, they will find that the banks will not give them the opportunity to participate in those programs.
I have worked for many years on a program to sell western Canadian coal to central Canadian markets. We have started to break through in that market. Several million tonnes of western Canadian coal from the Sparwood-Elkford area have been sold to supply plants in central Canada. This has created jobs and kept the money in Canada. Money has been flowing to pay the workers in British Columbia.
This is the type of program that we should be working on. There should be east-west co-operation to buy western national resources to supply central Canadian markets. In turn, we would buy the manufactured goods.


John Horton McDermid: You want to keep westerners hewers of wood and drawers of water and provide central Canada with all the manufacturing. Is that what you said?


Sidney James Parker: Let us have them buy our raw materials. We will buy their finished products. We will create thousands of jobs across Canada. We will create thousands of jobs in my riding. People will be taken off the unemployment insurance rolls.
In 1984, during the national election campaign, the big saying in my riding was "jobs, jobs, jobs". The jobs were not there. We lost jobs. We lost a fertilizer plant in Kimberley; 150 people lost their jobs. We are one of the richest agricultural countries in the world, and we cannot keep a fertilizer plant going.
The Conservative Member whom I replaced allowed that to happen. Members opposite talk about east-west alienation. That was created by this Government which has allowed these types of things to take place.
I would like to talk about a few other promises that were made. The Conservative Government cannot be trusted. The Prime Minister and the Conservatives cannot be trusted. They have increased taxes on the average family by over $1,300, and they said that they would not increase our personal taxes. They tried to deindex the pensions of our senior citizens.


John Horton McDermid: No, we did not.


Sidney James Parker: That is what the former Member said during the election campaign. Tie also said: "Sid Parker is not telling the truth. We did not try to cut pensions, we only tried to deindex them". Is that not something?
December 20, 1988

The Conservatives passed legislation which drastically increased the cost of prescription drugs.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: No. We brought in research and development.


Sidney James Parker: Show me the jobs that were created by the program. Show me the jobs in Kootenay East. Jobs have been lost in Kootenay East. Our pensioners are now paying three and four times more for their drugs than they have paid at any other time. This is as a result of the Free Trade Agreement, whether or not Hon. Members opposite agree. It was done as a gesture to the Americans. The Conservatives have given thousands of profitable corporations-


An Hon. Member:: You are a total stranger to the truth.


Sidney James Parker: He says that I am a stranger to the truth. I can remember when the great debate took place in the 1984 election and the Liberals were criticized for patronage appointments. We saw what happened after the Conservatives were elected.


John Horton McDermid: We took care of your House Leader. His name was Ian Deans. We took care of Stephen Lewis. We took care of all your friends. All your friends got good jobs. You are just sore because you did not get one.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Chairman, they are getting a little rattled.


The Chairman:: Order, please. After we have some quiet, the Member may continue.


Sidney James Parker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


John Horton McDermid: What has this got to do with the Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Chairman?


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Chairman, they talk about
"honesty" and they talk about "trust us". Let us talk about whether we can trust them. Let us talk about whether we can trust them with the Free Trade Agreement. I can remember the Hon. Member for York- Peel in this House, who was found guilty on 14 different counts of conflict of interest, not one, not two, and $600,000 of the taxpayers' money was used to try to defend him.
I say to small businessmen out there who are supporting the Conservative Government: "If you got yourself
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
into a situation where you would be charged, and you were found guilty on 14 different charges, would the Government come and pay your legal fees?" I do not think so.
Before I close, I wan to discuss water. I think water is what this agreement is all about; this is taken from Wildlife International. As I said before, with regard to the Columbia River Treaty and how it affected our water, I remember that we as a municipality decided it was too costly for us to run a city water main to irrigate our golf courses. We wanted to pump water out of the Columbia River reservoir to irrigate our golf course. Do you know that we could not do that in Canada? We had to get permission from the International Joint Water Commission and the Americans to take water from our own rivers and our own country to irrigate a golf course within our own country.


John Horton McDermid: Who sat on the joint commission? Why did they set up a joint commission?


Sidney James Parker: It does not matter who sat on it. I am saying that we better clarify what we have. I have an article here. There is a loophole in the controversial Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which could have an unwanted impact on Canada's most essential natural resource, water. It reads:
U.S. politicians have already voiced the possibility of future needs for Canadian water, says Donna Leith, Director of the Education and Information Program at the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science.
As the agreement stands now, says Leith, our American neighbours, who face worsening H20 shortages, have equal access rights to all precious Canadian waters.
That is what it says. Here is what she says is the solution to it:
The only solution to strengthen Canada's position, she says, is to implement a joint Canada-U.S. Declaration of Meaning which clearly excludes water from the trade agreement.
This was not done.


John Horton McDermid: Who said that?


Sidney James Parker: I told you who it was. It comes from Wildlife International of November and December, 1988, and her name is Donna Leith, Director of the Education and Information Program at the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science.
So note that and let us do something.


John Horton McDermid: I have met with them before.


Sidney James Parker: You have met with them.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: I know where they are coming from, and you are wrong.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. Fee:: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to echo the comments made by my predecessors on both sides of the House. They stated what an honour it was to dedicate their maiden speeches in this House to such an important topic as the free trade debate. I doubt whether Parliament has faced such an important issue since the Second World War.
I would like to offer my congratulations to you and to your colleagues in the chair on your appointments. It is very apparent, even to a newcomer like myself, that you and your colleagues are all held in very high esteem by the House. I wish you very good fortune as you face the challenges ahead.
It is also a privilege for me to stand in this House as the representative for Red Deer. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation and gratitude to the voters of Red Deer for placing their faith and confidence in me. It is with a great deal of humility that I take up this role, standing as I do in the shadow of such a fine and able servant of the people as was my predecessor, the Hon. Gordon Towers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Fee: Mr. Towers is very well respected in Red Deer, as evidenced by his regular large majorities with every election that he faced. There is no doubt that he had the confidence of a majority of the people in Red Deer. I have been impressed, even in Ottawa, as I wandered the halls talking to my colleagues on both sides of the House with the respect of which they talk about my predecessor. Probably more important than that, when staff members in the Commons, the security guards, even the bus drivers, find out where I am from, they ask and inquire after Mr. Towers and tell me that I have very big shoes to fill. 1 realize that I have big shoes to fill, and I am going to do my best to fill them.
I have also been told that there is only one proper way that I could officially recognize my predecessor, who in addition to providing total commitment to the people of Red Deer, was noted for his poetry. With the indulgence of the House and the Chair and with respect for the poet of Dromore, I would like to offer the following:
There's tough work ahead for Douglas Fee If I'm to serve as well as he Who, with lively verse before me came Into this House of national fame.
Alas no more will this House hear
From Dromore's Bard now in Red Deer
But I am here and though not a bard,
I am prepared to work just as hard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Fee: Mr. Chairman, through you to the House, I would have to state that I am not a poet, and that will probably be the last effort you will hear from me.
My riding is a reflection of the very best that the Province of Alberta has to offer. From the majestic Rockies in Banff National Park in the West, through to the bustling City of Red Deer in the East, our riding boasts beautiful scenery, sprawling farms and ranch land, rich resources and, most important, friendly, hard working people.
Agriculture is the basis of our economy, but we also rely very heavily on the energy sector, oil, gas, and petrochemicals. The Free Trade Agreement is going to have a profoundly positive impact on the energy sector as a whole and on my riding in particular. In the short time available, I would like to explain why we see benefits and why a clear majority of the voters in Red Deer supports the Free Trade Agreement.
First, let me deal with tariffs.
The eventual elimination of tariffs will allow the free exchange of goods across the Canadian-American border. Most of our natural resources already cross that border duty-free, but tariffs are still quite high on value-added goods. As a result of the Free Trade Agreement, not only will Canadians be able to increase their exports, particularly in further processed goods, but Canadian consumers and manufacturers will have access to lower priced goods. As has been expressed earlier in the House, the Canadian consumer will be the ultimate winner from the free trade arrangement.
Under this agreement both Governments agree not to discriminate against foreign purchasers of energy by using export taxes. In other words, price will be determined in the market-place where it should be determined. All provincial and federal rights to develop our energy resources in Canada remain intact. The Free Trade Agreement is a logical, consistent step toward a freer market in energy. It meets all our prior obligations to the International Energy Agency.
This Government began the liberalization process when it abolished the National Energy Program and the Petroleum Gas Revenue Tax. I was somewhat shocked
December 20, 1988

yesterday when I heard Members on the opposite side of the Elouse say that this agreement would prevent the institution of another national energy program. For the people of my riding that is a very good reason for supporting the Free Trade Agreement. We do not want another national energy program.
The National Energy Program and the PGRT absolutely devastated small Canadian-owned oil companies in my constituency. Several Canadians lost a lot of money and a lot of faith in government with those two programs. They are getting that faith and confidence back. The entrepreneurs in the Alberta oil patch have started over again. I talked to several of these people throughout the election campaign, and they told me emphatically that they do not need nor do they want Governments telling them how to run their business. They want the opportunity to compete fairly. They want the market that will be secured by the Free Trade Agreement.
The Free Trade Agreement confirms each country's commitment to move toward a liberalized investment climate. Canada will retain important rights to monitor foreign investment. In energy, takeovers of healthy Canadian companies by foreigners are prohibited.
Both Governments have agreed to apply the respective rules and regulations to everyone, regardless of their country of origin. In other words, the Americans will not discriminate against Canadian companies doing business in the United States simply because they are Canadian and vice versa.
Each Government, however, retains the right to establish whatever safety standards or environmental regulations it wishes. Those who want to do business in Canada will have to play by Canadian rules. Provisions for national treatment do not and will not apply to social programs or medical services, regardless of what the Opposition would try to have us believe.
The Free Trade Agreement confirms our commitment to the principles of GATT and the International Energy Agency. This means only that when we cut back production we will allow the Americans a chance to bid on a proportion of remaining production. We do not have to give our energy away, but in times of international shortage we will not turn our back on our neighbour and our best customer, either.
We still retain the right to provide government incentives for exploration and development of our energy resources, but perhaps the greatest achievement of our Free Trade Agreement is its creation of a secure
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
trading environment. With the elimination of tariffs and a commitment to national treatment, cross border trade will undoubtedly increase. Since 85 per cent of our energy exports go to the United States, it is essential that we secure access to that market.
Secure access will lead to more investment. This will result in the development of large scale energy projects like the one announced last week by the Caroline Area Gas Producing Group in my riding. It plans to invest $600 million to build a natural gas refinery, employing over 1,400 construction workers and ultimate employment for 150 people. There was the announcement by the Minister for International Trade yesterday that the Joffre plant just outside my constituency will be expanded with a third phase by Novacor. It is another investment of a half billion dollars. It will have very positive and long lasting effects on my constituency.
These projects require a staggering amount of capital in order to be built, in fact more capital than Canada alone can provide. A stable trading environment will encourage investors to plan for a longer term. This will mean more money spent in Canada, more jobs, and greater prosperity for Canadians.
I find it amazing that in my constituency there are so many examples of positive reactions to the re-election of the Conservative Government and the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, and that people sitting in the Opposition can only find doom and gloom about it.
This agreement offers Canadians an opportunity to become more than hewers of wood and drawers of water. Lower tariffs, secure access to large markets, and more investment will promote diversification. We will be able to refine our natural resources right here in Canada and sell the refined products abroad, rather than ship out raw materials. This means more jobs and better jobs for Canadians.
Another example from my constituency is Sun Pine Forest Products. It is planning a huge expansion of its timber processing business, in anticipation of an increased market in the United States. It is building an 80 million board foot sawmill near Rocky Mountain House. It will include a chipper, planer mill, dry kilns, a CCA treatment plant, and a fibre board plant. Some $32.5 million will be invested to create 267 long-term jobs. Estimates are that over 600 construction jobs will be created and 530 indirect jobs. Sun Pine's payroll will be over $17 million a year. This kind of investment will have a profound impact on our local economy. It is a

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
prime example of the benefits secure access to a large market can bring.
There is still a huge, untapped potential in Alberta's energy resources. This agreement will enhance our security of supply. Security of supply depends on a strong domestic energy industry, capable of developing new energy resources to meet future requirements. Free trade will strengthen Canada's energy industry, both through new investment and through an increase in exploration and development activity. In turn, this will enable the industry to find and develop the energy resources necessary to ensure that Canada's requirements are met.
Finally, the Free Trade Agreement is important for the long-term viability of the energy sector because it provides, for the first time, a means by which Canada and the United States can settle trade disputes when they arise.
The binational dispute settlement mechanism, and the commitment to prior consultation concerning trade legislation affecting the other country, will ensure that trade between Canada and the United States operates fairly and reasonably. With this arrangement in place we no longer need to talk about mice and elephants. Canadians and Americans will meet as equals.
The people of my constituency and I believe that as long as the rules of the game are followed we can compete with the best in the world. We will still have to work long and hard, because even though the Free Trade Agreement creates an opportunity we must go out there and take advantage of it.
My Province of Alberta is a province of pioneers. Our parents and grandparents settled the land. They passed down to us a solid rural work ethic. We still believe that the good Lord helps those who help themselves, that hard work should be rewarded, and that there is a place in our world for creative and free enterprise.
Albertans are bold and independent. They do not want government to intervene in areas where they can take better care of themselves. We are not afraid of competition. We have met challenges before. We look forward to the challenge of maximizing the benefits of the Free Trade Agreement.
I conclude by saying that the Free Trade Agreement is a golden opportunity not just for Red Deer, not just for Alberta, but for all the regions of Canada. By further opening up and securing access to American markets, the Free Trade Agreement will promote
regional development and therefore stronger regions and a stronger Canada.
This agreement will be successful not because it weakens central Canada but because it strengthens the regions. Regions of Canada do not want to rely on handouts, nor do we want to remove ourselves somehow from Confederation. We only want a chance to live up to our potential. This agreement will help us do that.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Chairman, it is an honour for me to rise in my place tonight representing the great riding of Egmont in the House of Commons. Egmont has had many distinguished representatives over the years, including Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King when he first became Prime Minister in 1919, Colonel James Ralston, Minister of War during World War II, and the Hon. J. Watson MacNaught who served as Solicitor General of Canada, to name just a few.
I pledge to my constituents of Egmont that I will represent their views to the best of my ability and in the best tradition of my predecessors. The riding of Egmont in western Prince Edward Island is a district whose wealth is based on agriculture, fishing, and tourism. Egmont is an urban-rural riding whose population is fairly evenly distributed between the urban areas of Summerside, St. Eleanor's, and Wilmot, and the rural area which stretches from St. Eleanor's to the northwestern tip of Prince Edward Island.
The riding of Egmont voted decisively against the Government's Free Trade Agreement. This agreement was described to me by a fisherman in my riding as being like an iceberg which is approximately one-tenth above water and approximately nine-tenths below water. Indeed that was and still is an apt description of the Free Trade Agreement.
Because there is no definition of what is a subsidy, because regional development programs are not guaranteed, because there is no assurance that marketing boards will survive this agreement, and because the support programs for our fishermen will likely be discontinued, the iceberg analogy is very applicable. There is far too much that we do not know or understand about this agreement. The Canadian people are not being told and will not be told what is likely to happen to them, except that there will be winners and losers.
December 20, 1988

The farmers in my riding feel that they will be losers. The fishermen in my riding feel that they will be losers, and the youth and senior citizens feel that they will be losers.
Our forefathers came to this country to escape the harsh rule and greed of the class society in Europe. The Scotsmen came here after it was discovered that sheep were more valuable than people and they were evicted from their ancestral lands and told to fend for themselves. The Irish came here to escape oppression and famine in a country where they were not allowed to own their own land or to raise meat to feed themselves. Other Europeans came here to escape tyranny and war, and in Canada, they joined with the French Canadians to build a different, more caring society for themselves and their children.
They wanted to build a country in which there were no lords of the manor. They wanted a country based on rights and freedoms that they could only dream about in Europe at that time. They came here and built such a nation, a nation in which free and caring people were the basic building blocks and in which greed was never a national characteristic.
There are new lords of the manor who are taking over the direction of this country. The American multinational corporations and the Canadian conglomerates with their insatiable appetite for optimum profit margins and who recognize no national boundaries are now orchestrating our society to suit their own ends.
During the recent election campaign, the large corporations spent millions and millions of dollars on advertising which was designed to influence the people of Canada, to threaten their workers, and to scare them with their doomsday predictions to the extent that their point of view won the day. Now they have a Government that will do their bidding for the next four years.
There were election activities of the most undemocratic sort imaginable. These corporations made a mockery of the Election Expenses Act. Now they will have their way in this country. They are the new lords of the manor.
The small farmers, the small inshore fishermen, senior citizens, and the truck drivers of Egmont, how can these ordinary Canadians hope to compete against the corporate might of Canada and the United States? The Economic Council of Canada predicted that there would be approximately 890 jobs created in Prince Edward Island over the next ten years as a result of the Free Trade Agreement. That is an average of 89 jobs a year.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
What will be the price we will have to pay for these 89 jobs per year? How many dairy farmers will go out of business to create these 89 office jobs? How many hog farmers will survive once the subsidies to the industry are eliminated? How many potato farmers will suffer when the President of the United States invokes the Mitchell amendment and limits the importation of Canadian potatoes?
Potatoes are Prince Edward Island's major export. Under GATT, Canada succeeded in lifting import quotas ten years ago. Now we will have import quotas again. The economy of Prince Edward Island could be brutalized if our potato and fish exports are subject to limited entry to the United States market.
What will happen to the rural communities of Prince Edward Island when the farmers and fishermen go out of business? What will happen to the small businesses in these small communities? They will disappear and they will not be replaced. There will be no headlines in The Globe and Mail as there were when the tragedy of the Gillette Company was announced.
No one will notice the creeping devastation of the agricultural sector in Prince Edward Island. Time will pass and no one will notice as one farmer here and another one there falls by the wayside. The rural areas will slowly but surely become a waste land.
The Free Trade Agreement will finish the family farm in Prince Edward Island. That is why Prince Edward Islanders voted against the Tories in the recent election. They chose to believe the four island Liberal candidates and our esteemed Premier, the Hon. Joseph Ghiz, who said that this deal was a bad deal for P.E.I. and was a bad deal for Canada.
Prince Edward Islanders know their history. They know that the Atlantic area suffered economically when it joined Confederation. We joined in with a great experiment called Canada and redirected our trade east-west rather than south and east. As I said, we suffered economically because of this decision. However, over the years, economic opportunity has been more equalized across the nation. Transportation subsidies, regional development programs, and social programs like workers' compensation, the Canada Pension Plan, and the unemployment insurance program have been put in place. These great advances in the redistribution of our national wealth have given all our citizens an opportunity to share in the prosperity of this great nation.
The people in the Atlantic provinces, the people in the North and the people in the West have the gut feeling

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
that we will return to the bad old days of dog eat dog: If one happens to live in an area that is regionally disadvantaged, then tough, one can always move. People in the Atlantic provinces will again be forced to move to the United States to find employment, as they had to do at the turn of the century. This time, Canadians in other parts of the country will find themselves in the same predicament.
In conclusion, I believe that the Government has a responsibility to assure the people of Prince Edward Island, and indeed all the people of Atlantic Canada, that their interests, concerns, and way of life will not be dismissed in the cavalier manner that they were by former civil servant and now corporate executive, Mickey Cohen, when he stated: "Atlantic Canadians you are on your own".


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight. I want to state in this my first speech in this magnificent Chamber that I am proud to be a Canadian I am proud to be a New Democrat, but I am even prouder to be a representative of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, a constituency in northwest Saskatchewan.
I am very happy, also, to be able to make a few remarks on what is probably the most important piece of legislation that has ever been talked about in this Chamber. It is described here on the Order Paper as: "Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America". It is legislation of a considerable number of pages, legislation not unlike the agreement itself.
Before I talk about this legislation, I want to make a few remarks about The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency and to thank the voters who gave me the opportunity to be here, the voters who placed their trust and confidence in me to carry their message to this Chamber, and to the other Members of Parliament herein.
The message I was sent here to discuss was one very much against this free trade legislation. In The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency the free trade legislation or the free trade deal was very much a single issue. I will speak tonight on behalf of the people who oppose this deal, and I will bring some of opposition to your attention, Madam Chairman, in a moment.
Throughout the riding and throughout the campaign I was told time and time again that the free trade deal
was bad for Saskatchewan and bad for the people of Canada. I was told too many times to count that this deal was being sold to an uninformed electorate by a Government without a single guarantee that what our grandparents and parents had worked for, in many cases fought for, would be protected for our future and for our children's future.
Elere we go again with new legislation, not much different from that introduced prior to the election. Still, after all of that discussion, argument, and expressed concern, there is no protection or guarantees despite hundreds of words from a very concerned population. Has this Government not listened to anything? Has this Government not listened to the people it claims to represent? Seniors, farmers, wage earners, Indian people, pensioners, small business people, service club representatives, members of church groups, the handicapped, and students in my riding, all Canadians, all intelligent, all concerned that the Government has ignored their concerns about the future of this great country.
The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency is an area made up of farmers, city and native people. It is a diverse economy with agriculture being the predominant nature of that constituency. These are very down to earth people, very intelligent, very caring individuals, all of whom have a great deal of concern for their friends, their neighbours, their family, their province, and their country.
Earlier this day the Minister, the Hon. Member for Brampton, talked about what the Government had done for farmers in Canada. I want to mention a couple of things in that regard. First, I want to bring to the attention of the House a letter that I received today from one of my constituents, a fellow who lives in Borden, Saskatchewan, right near the very eastern edge of the constituency of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. He writes:
Dear Mr. Taylor;
First 1 would like to congratulate you for winning your seat in
Parliament. It is unfortunate in my opinion that the PCs won a
majority because I feel that this so-called free trade deal is going to
be detrimental to Canada.
This is an ordinary farm person speaking from his heart. I hope, Mr. Chairman, I do not have to listen to this noise. I did not go for supper tonight and get fed up like these people. I am getting fed up here in the House.
My constituent continues:
December 20, 1988

1 am certainly not against trade with the United States but 1 feel that this deal may have gone too far.
Members can cheer that because that is my feeling as well.
As a farmer I feel that our marketing boards are in danger because no matter how adequately the PCs claim to defend them, the Americans make no bones about wishing to dismantle them. This I believe began to become apparent in the recent GATT talks.
This is a good letter from one of my constituents. He goes on to say:
However even worse than the danger to certain segments of our economy is the over all danger of associating ourselves so closely with a country that is 10 times our size. We will be swallowed like a cat swallows a mouse.
The election campaign brought to my attention many things to which my friends and colleagues from the Alberta area should pay some attention. The leader of my party in Saskatchewan spent a lot of time in my constituency and spoke to many different groups. One of the stories he was relating to the people in my constituency referred to Alberta farmers, Alberta ranchers. This is the story: One rancher has 100 head of cattle on his ranch and another rancher has 10 head of cattle. The farmer with 100 head of cattle leans over the fence and says to his neighbour with 10 head of cattle: "Why don't we take down this fence and let our cattle share all this land?" I do not think there is a single Alberta rancher, if he had 10 head of cattle, that would tear down that fence and allow his neighbour with 100 head of cattle to go through his pasture and let the cows eat up all the grass that was there for his cattle. That is what this free trade is about. That is the sort of thing Americans are asking Canadians, with the 10 head of cattle, to do.
I would like to read some more from my constituent's letter. He writes:
I wish this free trade deal could be stopped. 1 don't think that it can, but at least I believe that it is going to have to be watched very closely to protect ourselves as Canadians.
Thank you for attention and good luck in your deliberations in Ottawa.
This letter comes from a person who I have never met before. It arrived in my mail today. It gives me the courage and stamina to stay here and talk to my friends across the way.
I also want to bring to the attention of the House an article that appeared in the newspaper this morning. Many Members will have read it already. It deals with a Canadian study that says that Canada lags far behind other countries in the export of items such as bread, cookies, and beer. This study was done by the Grains
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
2000 group. I do not know too much about it, but I believe that as long as we have free trade we will never be able to develop and continue those processing industries which use agricultural products to improve our agricultural industry and exports of agricultural products in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I thought there was a tradition in this House that new members were given the courtesy of the House to complete their speeches. I would ask Hon. Members, including Ministers, to respect that tradition.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: I appreciate the interjection of my colleague, Mr. Chairman, unlike the interjection of Members opposite. I want to get back to the comments made this morning, because they were made in the context of this debate by the Member from Brampton who said that his Party had done so much for agriculture over the last four years.
First, our farm community, according to the 1986 census, is getting older, farms are getting bigger, and land is not worth as much as it was in 1984. Quite a number of things should be brought to the attention of this House, particularly as we look at the Province of Saskatchewan. We are talking about an increase of 35 per cent just in the last year in farm bankruptcies in the Province of Saskatchewan, the highest percentage in the Canadian context. We have farm income that although it is higher than ever is supported mostly by government payments because the price that is paid for the commodities on the international market, not supported by this Government, is down. The total net income of farmers right across the country has declined. In Saskatchewan it is some 47 per cent over the last few years. These things indicate that the farming sector, particularly in Saskatchewan, is not supported by this Government.
Between May 1987 and May 1988 the Canadian farm sector lost 24,000 jobs on the Prairies alone. The recent drought, the worst since the 1930s, scorched millions of acres of crop land and cattle range. This Government in the election campaign promised a drought relief program for the drought stricken farmers of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta. They forgot to talk to their partners in cost sharing of this program, the provinces, and now the provinces are backing out and the program is in jeopardy. It did not consult with provincial counterparts before making a cost-shared promise during the election campaign.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The total farm debt in Canada has now reached a staggering $22 billion. The farming situation is so bad that most farmers now earn more off-farm income than on-farm income. One-third of all farm income is made from off-farm jobs as a consequence of the poor income situation on the farm.
On the other hand the New Democratic Party has provided a tremendous amount of encouragement to the farmers in Saskatchewan. That was evidenced by the recent election campaign. Certainly, the people of Saskatchewan indicated that the New Democratic Party was more trustworthy than the Government in place.
The New Democratic Party did support agriculture, and we do support the farm groups that oppose the free trade deal that we are discussing in this legislation.


John Horton McDermid: You do not support the Cattlemen's Association.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: The family farm stabilization program that the New Democratic Party discussed during the election campaign is a program to assure farmers of a basic income for their production. It was a program designed to take the place of the current haphazard and ad hoc programs of the Government. This program ties the price to the U.S. target price so that the Canadian farmer is getting the same benefit on the world and international market as American counterparts, those same American counterparts whose organizations are threatening to destroy the marketing system that is selling that product on the international market.
According to an article in October the United States Wheat Board talked about the U.S. Government desiring to make the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board one of its demands in the negotiations on agricultural reform.
The New Democratic Party also calls for a revamping of the Farm Credit Corporation, an overhaul that makes it a true farmers' bank and not a lending institution of last resort, as the Government has set it up. We also talked about tax fairness for farmers to ensure the restoration of Five year block averaging in recognition of fluctuating incomes on the farms.
We were also talking about funding to be provided for farm water, soil conservation research, and financial assistance for farmers to explore new conservation techniques or retire farmland for conservation purposes. A major problem in the near future will be the depletion
of the land in western Canada. That land which supports and nurtures the economy of western Canada is slowly being depleted. Something has to be done in conservation terms in order to protect it.
The free trade deal has been criticized in numerous editorials in western Canadian newspapers, by western Canadian editorial writers, and by people who have been heavily involved in the agriculture sector.


Harvie Andre: The Edmonton Journal was the only western newspaper.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: I have quite a few here and I am prepared to read every one, if the House will indulge me. For example, the Canadian Wheat Board has an elected advisory committee. It is meant to provide advice to the Canadian Wheat Board to help its operations. That committee met and clearly discussed the implications of the Free Trade Agreement and the legislation on agriculture and on the Wheat Board. That committee strongly recommended that the Government not proceed with the agriculture sections of the free trade legislation, and that the Canadian Wheat Board was definitely in jeopardy as a result of the provisions included in this legislation. As a result, we strongly urge that changes be made in that one context alone.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Board delegates put forward a motion to support the proposed Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement, but in August withdrew that support because they had no assurances from the Government that the integrity of the Wheat Board as a sole marketing agent for Canadian wheat, oats, and barley would be protected.
We have lost the two-price system of wheat as a result of the deal. We have lost the freight rate on canola moving West. One plant has been lost in the City of Lloydminster. A canola crushing plant in the City of Lloydminster has announced that it will be closing. That is a direct result of the free trade deal. We in western Canada are finding that the implications of this deal on agriculture and on our economy are too great to support.
I urge that the House think strongly about the implications of this legislation, and about the implications of what it means to the future of the strongest economy that we have in western Canada. I urge Members to defeat the Bill in front of us. Let us return to the drawing board and put together some reasonable alternatives to trade fairly with the United States.


Mr. Soetens:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House. I wish to thank the
December 20, 1988

people of the riding of Ontario who have given me the honour and privilege of being here to represent them, particularly on two points. First, they have sent me here to follow along on the fine tradition of the former Member for Ontario, Mr. Scott Fennell, the Government Whip. Now that I am here, I have often thought that the Government Whip is using the whip on the wrong side of the House. Perhaps in the future we can change that pattern.
Second, and the most important the reason I am excited about being here is that the people of the riding of Ontario granted me enough support that I can say that I stand here with support that almost equalled in total the vote received by the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, and the Right Hon. Member for Oshawa, combined.


John Horton McDermid: You have a mandate.


René John Soetens: The riding of Ontario contains approximately 150,000 people. It is a very exciting riding. I would like to make sure that Members of the House are aware of the community I represent. There are three municipalities, Whitby, Ajax, and Pickering. Each is similar in size with approximately 50,000 population. It is a very young riding. There are many first-time home buyers. The population has doubled in the last seven years. Undoubtedly, with the growth that is taking place it will continue to grow and double in roughly seven to ten years.
It has a diverse economy, which is functioning very well, perhaps because of the economic policies established by the Government of the last four years. It is functioning so well that we are facing a shortage of serviced industrial land in the riding.
For example, unemployment is at such a low level that there are numerous jobs advertised for skilled and unskilled employees available in the riding of Ontario. Over the last year unemployment dropped to such a level that on several occasions it was not possible to record the level of activity.
Residential construction in the riding is at record levels with more than 4,000 housing starts per year during the last three years, and a projected similar ratio for the next two or three.
Housing is expensive, with prices starting at $130,000 for a 1,000 square foot home on a 30 by 100 foot lot.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Because of the number of people moving into the riding, there is tremendous upward pressure on house prices.
There is tremendous activity in the riding of Ontario in the commercial and industrial sectors, with both large plants and industries expanding. Industrial/commercial buildings of 4,000 to 40,000 and up to 400,000 square feet are being constructed. It is an exciting area in which to live, and an exciting area to represent here in Parliament.
There were numerous issues debated in the last election campaign. In fact, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra in his opening comments raised a couple of those issues and I should like to take a couple of moments to deal with them now.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra, at page 122 of Hansard, is reported as having said:
We are granting American industry what is called under the agreement national treatment-national treatment in Canada for American institutions and American citizens, national treatment in goods and services and investments.
He went on to say:
That means Americans will be treated the same as Canadians when those Americans operate in Canada.
I do not know what is wrong with that. I would merely say: Thank goodness we didn't elect a Liberal Government, given the way past Liberal Governments have treated the business community. In the light of that record, Americans wouldn't want to be treated in the way in which Canadian industry was treated.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra went on to pose the question: What happens to our bright Canadian citizens, those who establish an industry, those who have incentives, those who have ideas and create an industry that is worth $10 million?
Yes, such an industry might be sold to an American firm. But, the difference is that, under a Progressive Conservative Government, that $10 million would probably be reinvested in Canada to create even more jobs. While the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition doesn't appear to like that idea, I can tell you that it would be just great for Canada.
The election campaign did result in the return of a Progressive Conservative majority Government. In the riding of Ontario, the campaign was waged on several issues.
Many of the Liberal and NDP Members of this House have said that they were elected on the basis of their opposition to free trade. I can tell you that the

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
people of the riding of Ontario voted for fiscal responsibility, for leadership, for environmental policies, for the local candidate, for free trade, and other issues. More important, the people of the riding of Ontario voted for a future; they voted for a vision. It is because of that vote, and my personal convictions, that I rise today in support of the Bill to implement the Free Trade Agreement.
In the riding of Ontario, the impact of our currently operating trade agreement is evident everywhere. There are numerous large and small business reaping the benefits of the Auto Pact. And now with the FTA, all businesses will have the same opportunity-but not just in the riding of Ontario, and not just in the Province of Ontario, but in all of Canada.
In Ajax-Pickering, we have the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade, representing in excess of 250 businesses, most of which are small and independently owned, and all of which have come out solidly in support of the Free Trade Agreement. Throughout my riding there are numerous businesses from many areas of endeavour which have taken a very public position in support of free trade.
To give Hon. Members an idea of the diversity of the industries operating in the riding of Ontario that support the Free Trade Agreement, let me provide you with a brief listing: plastic injection moulding companies; tool and die companies; paint manufacturers; chemical manufacturers; pharmaceutical manufacturers; steel companies, both primary producers and secondary fabricators; furniture manufacturers; polymer-resin companies; telecommunications antenna manufacturers; high frequency radio communications manufacturers; aircraft parts manufacturers; textile dyers and finishers; engineering firms that specialize in road and bridge construction; laboratory research equipment service companies; biotechnology engineering firms; printers; construction companies; lamp and lighting manufacturers; automotive manufacturers; automotive parts manufacturers; and home builders.
The foregoing list represents only a few of the many industries in the riding of Ontario which have publicly come out in support of the Free Trade Agreement. Suffice to say that the vast majority of the companies in the riding of Ontario, companies employing 2, or 20, or 200, or 2,000 people, and collectively employing over
20,000	people, support the FTA.
In my previous employment, I had occasion to travel throughout the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,
Louisiana, and the Carolinas-all of those states about which the opposition Members in this place seem to be concerned. I have also had occasion to travel throughout Virginia, New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and other states of the United States. I have travelled throughout all of those states on business, selling goods produced by Canadian manufacturers, and I was able to do so successfully.
I have no hesitation in saying that we can compete successfully against U.S. manufacturers. There is nothing that the Americans have that we cannot deal with.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René John Soetens: While the preceding is sufficient reason for me to support the Free Trade Agreement, I also support it for what it can do for the rest of Canada. The riding of Ontario is but one of 295 ridings in Canada, just as the Province of Ontario is only one of 12 main parts of Canada when one includes the Territories.
When my parents brought the Soetens family to Canada from Holland, we started out in Nova Scotia. That was some 34, 35 years ago. It did not take very long for my parents to discover that there were no jobs available in Nova Scotia in my father's field of endeavour, in his area of expertise. As a result, we packed our bags and moved to Ontario. That was 33 years go.
It is that very tragedy of Canada that causes me to support the Free Trade Agreement. Today, many young men and women who wish to further their careers-or, in many instances, start their careers-are moving from the West or from the East to Ontario, leaving their homes, their families and their friends behind. Government support programs, many supported by the vibrant economy of the Province of Ontario, have not stopped that flow.
With eight of the ten provincial Premiers supporting this deal, with their collective hope that it will encourage more jobs at home, I am absolutely convinced that the old ways are simply not good enough any longer. The Canadian fabric and family are under great stress and strain, and the Free Trade Agreement will provide some relief. More important, it provides a future.
I should like to conclude by quoting the words of the Hon. Member from the riding adjacent to mine, the riding of Oshawa. I think it apropos the discussion we are having in this place. This is a quote from Hansard, and I direct it to the Members in opposition:
December 20, 1988

You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, 1 say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go-
I invite Hon. Members to vote for this Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.


Mr. Boudria:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased this evening to have the opportunity to speak on the Free Trade Agreement. I want to give this Government a final opportunity to change its mind, to repent and spare the people of Canada-


An Hon. Member:: Let's vote now and find out.


Don Boudria: It is not too late. There is still time for this Government to do the right thing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: Let me try to convince the Members opposite of the merit of changing their minds. I will start by reading to them a statement made by a very famous Canadian, as follows:
This country could not survive with a policy of unfettered free trade. I'm all in favour of eliminating unfair protectionism where it exists. This is a separate country. We'd be swamped. We have in many ways a branch-plant economy, in many ways, in certain important sectors.
The words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister as reported in The Globe and Mail of June 1, 1983, at the time that he was Leader of the Opposition.


An Hon. Member:: What a change of heart.


Don Boudria: I quote again:
I've never used the words "free trade". I don't think any of your colleagues have heard me ever use that.
Once again the words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister as quoted in The Toronto Star of November 28, 1985.
It is quite evident to most of us on this side of the House, and if we say it long enough it will be evident to government Members as well, that the Government tried to fool the Canadian people in getting this deal approved. Some people across the way may say that is only a partisan remark. I know you would not think that, Mr. Chairman, you are far too objective and non-
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
partisan so you would understand the following quote from a government document which said: "Benign neglect from a majority of Canadians may be the realistic outcome of a well executed communications program. The best strategy for the Government is to adopt a low profile approach to the general public".
In other words, what the Tories were telling each other in this secret document I am quoting from is that we will hide the information, feed them just a little bit of propaganda, hope they keep quiet, and we will get the free trade deal through. That was the Tory plan. Because of the vigilance of my colleagues on this side of the House the strategy did not work.


Jean J. Charest: Is there a recount going on?


Don Boudria: I want to read to you from a press release of July 26, 1984.


Jean J. Charest: That was the second last election, Don.


Don Boudria: Wait a minute.


Jean J. Charest: You are one election late.


Don Boudria: I tell the Hon. Minister it is important because this statement was made-


Jean J. Charest: In Sherbrooke.


Don Boudria: Yes, exactly, in Sherbrooke, Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Thank you. I am glad to have such applause from the Tories.


John Horton McDermid: Just ignore it and keep going.


Don Boudria: I will read this document slowly for the Tories: "The PC objectives in the textile and apparel industries are to ensure the short-term stability of the industry through fair and balanced trade measures and, in the long term, to facilitate adjustments by supporting measures that promote and reinforce the strength of the industry". It says point number one is fair trade but not free trade.


Jean J. Charest: What was it about?


Don Boudria: The Minister will surely understand that. I am sure he would. It was released in his own riding.


Jean J. Charest: What was it about?


Don Boudria: What happened in between-

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Jean J. Charest: It was about the textile policy.


Don Boudria: That is what I just read, yes. I know I read it kind of quick, but-


John Horton McDermid: And he has been elected twice since then.


Don Boudria: I am sure the Elon. Minister would have picked that up, that it was about the textile industry.


Jean J. Charest: Yes, because they support us.


Don Boudria: The Government said fair trade but not free trade. We would be swamped, said the Prime Minister.


Jean J. Charest: There is no free trade in textiles.


Don Boudria: Let me read to you another document and see if the Conservative Members recognize this one.


Marcel Danis: The Minister of State on a point of order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Minister of State for Youth and Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest) on a point of order.


Jean J. Charest: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I will not intervene at length in the remarks of my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). Presumably this document was published or released in July 1984 during the previous election campaign. It relates to an issue which is of great interest to the residents of the riding of Sherbrooke, namely the textile, clothing and footwear industry. I would have thought the Hon. Member would make that clear. But since we are talking about the campaign of 1984, I take this opportunity to set the record straight concerning his statement, and I can tell you right now that the Sherbrooke textile industry supported the Government in the 1988 election, as did all textile workers who denounced the Liberals-


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, that was not a point of order. It was not even a good point.
Let me continue reading from these important documents. Let us see if the Conservative Members recognize this one: "It would render Canada a field for American capital into which it would enter as freely for the prosecution of public works and private enterprise as into any of the present states. It would equalize the
value of real estate on both sides of the boundary, thereby probably doubling at once the entire present value of property in Canada. Whilst giving stability to our institutions and introducing prosperity, it would raise up public, corporate and private credit. It would increase our commerce, both with the U.S. and foreign countries, and would necessarily diminish to any great extent our intercourse with Great Britain into which our products would for the most part enter on the same terms as at the present. It would render our rivers and canals as highways for immigration to and export from the West and to incalculable benefits for our country".


Jean J. Charest: Would you repeat the last phrase?


Don Boudria: "It would also introduce manufacturers into Canada as rapidly as they have been introduced into the northern states".


Jean J. Charest: He can read.


Don Boudria: Pardon me?


Jean J. Charest: I said you can read.


Don Boudria: I know Members across the way are very curious about this document which speaks so highly about how a certain measure would increase trade between Canada and the U.S. Perhaps I should tell them what I have been reading. I have been reading to Conservative Members the Annexation Manifesto of 1849. That really describes well the kind of attitude we see across the way now that existed in 1849.


Jean J. Charest: Really up to date in your research. We thought you were only one election late, looks like you are a century and a half late.

Mr. Chairman, the more things change, the more they remain the same!

I want to talk about the effects of this free trade deal. We have heard about the closure of the Gillette plant on November 24, at a cost of 590 jobs. We have heard about the closure of the Ortho plant on November 25, 16 jobs lost. There is the closure of the PPG Canada Incorporated plant on November 26, 139 jobs lost. Then there is the closure of British Footwear on November 28, 50 jobs lost. The closure of Northern Telecom on December 7, 870 jobs lost. Those are all closures since the Government was re-elected on November 21.


Jean J. Charest: What about the openings?
December 20, 1988


Don Boudria: The Minister will claim they are all mere coincidences.


Jean J. Charest: What about the openings?


Don Boudria: This is all coincidence that they are shutting down and moving to the U.S. in preparation for free trade. Mere coincidence, say the Tories.


Jean J. Charest: Point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in the name of logic, if he is going to attribute loss of jobs to the FTA, would also attribute to the FTA all the jobs created since November 21?


Marcel Danis: The Chair thinks that is a matter of debate.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to the Minister's speech so we can interrupt him as frequently as possible. I hope my colleagues will give him the kind of reciprocal treatment he so richly deserves.
I want to talk about the Prime Minister's trade deal and its effect on Canadian farmers. As my distinguished colleague just pointed out very astutely, it will have disastrous effects on Canadian agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Nonsense!


Don Boudria: The Tories say "nonsense".


Harvie Andre: It is going to cause drought and plague.


Don Boudria: We know the deal is bad for Canadian agriculture. Members across the way are saying there is nothing wrong with the deal. I say to them: If there is nothing wrong with the deal, then why on July 30, 1988, did the Canadian Federation of Agriculture send a letter to all Hon. Members saying that they have grave reservations about Bill C-130? Why did they say they want to see it amended before it is passed in the House? They rejected it in its present form. That Bill was identical to the one moved earlier last week, Bill C-2. This letter dated July 30 was sent to us by the National Council of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I say to Members across the way: If the deal is so good for agriculture, why is it that an umbrella organization representing most if not all of the agricultural producers in Canada is against the deal?


John Horton McDermid: They are not.


Jean J. Charest: Why did the farmers vote for us?
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Don Boudria: The Minister asks why the farmers voted for the Government. I cannot complain personally about the vote of farmers in my riding because I was elected with 74 per cent of the vote. I think I have a mandate to speak on their behalf. The Conservatives say that under this deal we have guaranteed access to U.S. markets.


Jean J. Charest: No, it was not.


Don Boudria: Oh, yes, it was said in the House in speeches yesterday. It has been said repeatedly in the House of Commons that we have this guaranteed access to the U.S. markets and that from now on things are going to be great.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. In the name of accuracy I think that it would only be fair, if the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell is making allegations about things that were apparently said by some Members on this side of the House, that he cite what was said. I challenge him now right here to get up to cite my words. I would like him to read me my words which I allegedly said in this House or elsewhere.


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to abuse the rules of the House. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that Members should not be rising in their places pretending to raise points of order. I say to the Minister that if he cannot play within the rules of this place, why does he not go outside and talk to someone, if anyone is willing to listen to the stupidities he has to say?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I was quoting a document-or I was attempting to-when his arrogancy interrupted me. I want to say to the Minister-actually, I want to say this to other Members because they can probably understand it while he cannot.
The statement of administrative action of the President of the United States which was tabled with the United States Congress states under Article 1902 that each party retains the right to apply its national antidumping and countervailing duty laws to goods of the other party, and also reserves the right to amend those laws. The rights of amendment to the anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws with respect to goods of the other party is subject to requirements to notify, consult and so on. In other words, not only can the United States still apply countervailing duties, and any other

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
protective measure it wants, against Canada, it can even make new countervailing duty laws that it does not have now and apply them.


Some Hon. Members:: So can we.


Don Boudria: That is an interesting point. Members opposite say: "So can we".
One country is 10 times the size of the other. Members across the way are saying that they want to penetrate the large U.S. market in order to gain access to it; we want that guarantee because it will be good for our country.


Mr. Fontaine:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Levis on a point of order.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Chairman, I heard the Hon. Member compare the two populations-Americans and Canadians-but he forgot to point out that now we have a tribunal to settle disputes and at least two Canadians and two Americans sit on that tribunal, so it does restore some balance between the two states. Before there were two Americans who could challenge the allegations made by Canadians. My colleague ought to mention that.


Don Boudria: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell on a point of order.


Don Boudria: I did not hear a word that he said, but that does not matter anyway.
I want to read an article from the Toronto Star of August 2. It is entitled: "More trade surprises". With regard to President Reagan it states in part: "Nor did he forget those Canadian farmers who may take solace in the trade exemption for marketing boards. Reagan warned that as soon as the deal is in place the U.S. plans to go after Canadian import restrictions on poultry and eggs".
For farmers under supply-management, it is quite clear that the Government of the United States intends to damage those structures that we have now even further than they are already damaged under the Prime Minister's trade deal. Under this trade deal they are damaged a number of ways.
First, Article 710 states that supply-management is protected. On the surface that may be convincing to some. However, Article 703, which precedes of course Article 710, states:
In order to facilitate trade in agricultural goods, the Parties shall
work together to improve access to each other's markets through the
elimination or reduction of import barriers.
It could be interpreted by courts of law in the future that this article is in direct contradiction to Article 710. How will it be interpreted in the future? I know that some of the legal whiz-kids across the way are saying: "We have nothing to fear". But I am not convinced at all.
[ Translation]
Mr. Chairman, first of all, we know that most of the farming in my riding is subject to quotas-dairy farming. Now I know that farm issues like milk production might not interest the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), but for those here who are interested in it, I am convinced that the dairy industry is threatened by this Free Trade Agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that this Agreement threatens the agricultural sector.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Chairman, point of order.


Marcel Danis: The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) on a point of order.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Chairman, I was on the Legislative Committee that heard representations from the farming community on free trade, when the Hon. Member did not come last summer. They came to testify in favour of free trade; the Cooperative laitiere du Quebec is in favour of free trade; the red-meat producers of Canada are in favour of free trade; the grain growers are in favour of free trade. Did no French-speaking Quebecers come to this Committee last year, Mr. Chairman?


Marcel Danis: Debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, you are very patient with those Conservatives. They do not deserve all that patience, and I congratulate you.
First, the Hon. Member opposite, who came to debate free trade in my riding, knows very well that the farmers of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell at a public debate in which he participated in our riding were opposed to the Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 20, 1988


Don Boudria: "Oh, oh!" say the Eton. Members on that side of the House. A fact that the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) across the way forgot!
Finally, Mr. Chairman, as I was saying before I was interrupted by the Conservative Members opposite, the Agreement threatens the dairy sector and milk production in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and elsewhere in Canada. First, there is the whole subject of ice cream: 4.5 million hectolitres of milk are used to make it.
I see that the the Minister of State for Agriculture (Mr. Blais) has just arrived.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I am happy, extremely happy, to see that the Minister has arrived to lend an ear so that he may later convince his Conservative colleagues of the error of their ways. I see that the arrogance born of power has already overtaken the Minister of State for Agriculture. May I remind him that in a democracy, all positions, even that of Minister of State for Agriculture, are temporary. Time will tell what is to become of the Minister of State for Agriculture.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleagues opposite one last time to think. I know that they are not often called upon to do so and that thinking is hard for them, but I am sure they can learn. With practice, even a Conservative can learn to think.
I ask the Members opposite to think. Mr. Chairman, there is still time for them to withdraw this bill, forget the whole thing and come to their senses. How about it, Mr. Chairman?


Marcel Danis: On a point of Order, I give the floor to the Minister of State for Youth and Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest).


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
I would not want this speech to go by and at the end, hear the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russel (Mr. Boudria) refer to an alleged arrogance on this side of the House, when at the end, only a few days before the electoral campaign got under way-
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Marcel Danis: Order! I do not consider that to be a point of order. We shall now continue the debate with the Hon. Member for Wild Rose (Mrs. Feltham).


Ms. Feltham:: Mr. Chairman, as a new Member in a riding in Alberta, it gives me great pleasure that my first speech in Parliament will address the important issue of free trade. I would also like to take this opportunity to again thank the people of Wild Rose for placing their faith in me and for electing another Conservative to the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louise Feltham: The constituency of Wild Rose is appropriately named. The shrub is a hardy flower that grows extensively across the prairies and the foothills of the Canadian Rockies. It flourishes in some of the most adverse conditions, just as the people of Wild Rose have managed to prosper despite the economic ups and downs of the past 15 years.
In the western part of this large riding, the people of Banff, Lake Louise and Canmore have developed a world class tourist centre that attracts not only those who come to view the magnificent physical setting, but also those who come to partake of the varied cultural activities of the Banff School of Fine Arts.
The towns of Bowden, Olds and Didsbury in the north part of the riding service a major grain producing area. In Olds, there is an agriculture college that focuses on teaching young people how to become better farmers and how to compete in a very competitive world.
The eastern part of the sprawling riding contains the wide open ranges necessary for cattle and livestock production, with Strathmore being the largest centre east of Calgary.
Airdrie is a city of 11,000 people and is the central point of our constituency. It is a growing city, but well-planned and forward-looking. Both Airdrie in the north and Cochrane to the west are within 10 miles of Calgary. Yet they could not be called bedroom communities since they not only service the rural agricultural community, but they are also home to the many executives and professionals involved in the petroleum industry. The whole riding, for that matter, has a stake in the petroleum industry, as attested to by the hundreds of oil pumpers covering the landscape.
The people in my riding have always been Conservative when it comes to politics, but when it comes to

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
business, they are always eager to try new ideas. They are entrepreneurs. They are business people.
When given a choice on November 21, the people of Wild Rose voted "Yes" to free trade. They know that ratification of the agreement means they can look forward to a booming economy, to challenge the economic greatness of the United States and to be exceptional in their own fields, whether it is agriculture, tourism, or business. The people of Alberta still have that pioneer spirit, but they do have long memories. They remember that a Liberal Government crippled a booming oil industry with the National Energy Program. They remember the PGRT. They remember the years when the Liberal Government forgot the western farmer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louise Feltham: Albertans know how to avoid a boom or bust economy in the future. It is to diversify. We must stabilize our economy. We must be less dependent on an economy that is cyclical in nature, where world prices for petroleum and agricultural products fluctuate while costs remain high. We must establish stability. We must diversify. To diversify, we need markets for our products. That market is just south of our border. The Free Trade Agreement will open that border to Alberta and we will take advantage of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Louise Feltham: The removal of the tariff walls will allow Alberta industries to become important on both the national scene and the international scene. Businessmen know that the Free Trade Agreement will expand opportunities for them to open new markets in the United States. The young people of our country can now look forward to a possible future in business when this agreement is ratified. Would anyone deny that future for our youth? The opposition has said that we cannot compete in the U.S., but we do compete, and we will continue to compete. Those whose primary market is the American market will find that their expansion potential will increase.
Businessmen trying to do business in the United States have had to cope with differing technical standards and a myriad set of requirements for licensing and registration. This has slowed their expansion, but already, because of the Free Trade Agreement, talks have begun to make it an easier operation to expand into the American market.
With expansion potential increased, investors' confidence will make it easier for small businessmen to secure investment funds for modernization and for new ventures.
With expansion potential, increased industrial confidence will make it easier for small businessmen to secure investment funds for modernization and new ventures. Entrepreneurial initiative will take over and Alberta small businessmen will be able to achieve their full potential.
The Alberta agricultural sector will have access to the fastest growing market in the world. Removal of U.S. tariffs on red meats will mean that Alberta beef will be more competitive in the U.S. market. Cattle producers know what is good for them. Support for free trade is strong from Alberta cattlemen. They understand the importance of free trade to their sector of the economy. It is interesting to note that for the past 100 years The Cattlemens' Association has been promoting free trade.
For years people in the agriculture sector have had to put up with a time consuming and costly procedure to protect themselves in trade disputes. A settlement process that will be efficient and fast is what farmers have needed and will now get.
For the first time there will be a process for settling trade disputes and a means to protect our farm exports from annoyances like the countervailing duties that the U.S. throws up to protect their own farm and manufactured products.
Just imagine what the removal of trade barriers will mean to those who want to enter the agri-food industry. They will find that the removal of tariffs on packaging materials, food ingredients and machinery will encourage this sector to expand. The additional jobs that will be created and the additional profits to be made will encourage growth and productivity.
Now let us think about the depressed petroleum industry. Presently there are such high duties on petrochemical by-products that some cannot compete in the U.S. market. An 18 per cent U.S. duty on Canadian methanol and 12.5 per cent on polyethylene make it difficult to compete and to give impetus to expand our present capacity and to process our raw products in Canada, and to increase the profitability of existing exports. The U.S. market will be opened to a whole range of oil derived products made in Alberta.
December 20, 1988

Investment prospects for additional facilities needed to increase production in the petrochemical industries will mean a more secure future for the petrochemical sector, a future for our young people. We will no longer just pump our oil and ship it elsewhere, we will build plants, we will create jobs, we will ship quality finished goods at competitive prices to the markets in the south.
Albertans know what they want. They want to maintain their right to ownership, their right to levy royalties and their right to determine the rate of production. This is important to Albertans. With the Free Trade Agreement, these rights are guaranteed.
Today, in an article in The Ottawa Citizen the President of Novacor Chemicals of Calgary, one of Alberta's natural gas producers, states that his company stands to save $30 million in tariffs. What will he do with those savings? It has already been decided. He will open a third ethylene plant. This means more jobs, in fact 200 permanent positions. Without free trade this project could not have gone forward. Competition does not phase him. His company is willing to compete with the U.S. producers.
Expansion in all areas of the economy will mean a broader based economy, with more jobs going to all Canadians. Under the Free Trade Agreement the Canadian Government can continue to provide funds for economic growth and development, if the objective is to eliminate social, economic and industrial disadvantages.
Government structures like the Western Diversification Office can still provide creative assistance to develop markets in areas where Albertans may have a competitive edge. Tariff-free access to the U.S. market can only enhance export opportunities for the Alberta petrochemical and livestock industries. Small businessmen will be able to achieve their full potential and our mining operators will have access to a larger market.
Albertans recognized these opportunities when they voted for free trade. That is why I am here today. Albertans have already said yes and I now say yes to this very important agreement.


Mr. MacWilliam:: Mr. Chairman, this is my first opportunity to speak in the House and thank my constituents back home in Okanagan-Shuswap for placing their confidence in me as their representative here in Ottawa. I want to send my best wishes for a very joyous holiday season to those at home who are viewing tonight.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I was sent to Ottawa for a very specific reason. It was to provide a voice of concern from the West, from British Columbia in particular and the Okanagan- Shuswap area. It is a voice of concern that would stand up and be counted with regard to the trade deal that is facing us today.
1 am delighted to take my stand here tonight and oppose the implementation of Bill C-2 and oppose this trade deal because it is not a deal on free trade. It is not even fair trade. It is a sell-out of Canada's resources. It is a sell-out of Canada's future.
Let me go into a brief history of this trade deal. It is not the first time that the subject of free trade has been before the Chamber. I want to quote some voices of history who have talked on this most important topic before:
The American title, by right of our manifest destiny, is to overspread and possess the whole of this continent which providence hath provided us. Texas is secure and so now, who is our next customer? Shall it be California or shall it be Canada?
Those were the words of John O'Sullivan who, in 1891, set the stage for the first debate on free trade. As we all know, that debate ended when Sir John A. Macdonald won a Canadian election on this very issue and turned back the American free traders at the 49th parallel. Macdonald said that free trade with the U.S. would inevitably lead to annexation and asked how Canada could keep its political independence when it had thrown away its economic independence.
We all have a feeling for history in this House. As we all know, the trade issue arose again in 1911 when the Laurier Government negotiated a free trade deal with President Taft to reduce tariffs on a broad range of natural products and manufactured items. The agreement sailed through the U.S. House of Representatives, supported by the Speaker of the Assembly who said at that time:
I am for it, this reciprocity agreement, because I hope to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of British North America clear to the North Pole.
Former Liberal Leader Edward Blake broke with the Laurier Government over that issue and stated that free trade was the same as commercial union and would lead to political union with the United States.
Once again the issue was raised and fought, and this time, for those Hon. Members who are so verbose on the other side of the House, the issue-

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. A new Member of the House is trying to deliver his maiden address. We are having trouble with the clocks and that is what the uproar is about. I wonder if there is something that can be done to stop the clocks from running the way they are in order to give the Hon. Member a chance to deliver his maiden address.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point of order. I appreciate the generosity of my hon. friend for drawing our attention to the problem with the clocks. Having watched the clocks and noticing how quickly their hands are moving, I would say that if we were to wait for another 15 minutes, it would be time for the next general election. I think we should hold off for awhile.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the other side of the House. It does get a trifle difficult with the uproar that is going on, but we try to do our best.
As I was saying regarding the history of free trade debates in Canada throughout the last 100 years, as it was in 1911 it remains today the most important issue that has ever faced the Canadian people. Its outcome will unalterably define the future of this land.
This trade deal is about more than cheaper widgets. It goes much further than a simple reduction in tariff barriers. If it were simply about a reduction of tariff barriers alone, I do not think we would have too much problem with it.
However, in the words of U.S. President Reagan, this deal is a new economic constitution for North America. The Macdonald Commission calls it a leap of faith. The Concerned Citizens for Free Trade call it an attack on the very survival of Canada as a nation. The prophets of free trade promise long-term prosperity and economic growth. Critics warn that Canada in an integrated economy will suffer a period of uneven expansion followed by long-term economic decline.
U.S. Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter summed in up best when he said:
The Canadians don't understand what they have signed. In 20
years they'll be sucked into the U.S. economy.
How can I be more explicit? Those are not my words but the words of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Let us look at what happened in the Maritimes. In the 1860s, Maritimes businessmen who supported the concept of an integrated economy made a gamble in an
attempt to expand profits by harmonizing with a larger market. The collapse of the mass consumer industry in the Maritimes followed, most Maritime businesses failed and almost all the workers were thrown out of their jobs. Branch plants were closed as they became controlled by new, Montreal based corporations.
As a result, the Maritime Provinces were thrown back on their remaining resource industries and a huge wave of emigration and destabilization followed. As Canada prepares to enter a similar economic union with the United States today, it is important and imperative to keep in mind the earlier fate of provinces like Nova Scotia and to remember that the Bank of Nova Scotia does not live there any more.
The Prime Minister has said that free trade will provide lower tariffs and market opportunities. He said that it will protect Canada against future U.S. protectionist measures. He said that it will give Canadian industries increased opportunities to bid on U.S. government projects. These were the Prime Minister's three principal reasons for going into the free trade deal, so let us have a look at these reasons.
The first reason was to secure access. Tariffs will be reduced, but let us recall that 80 per cent of goods already come across the U.S-Canada border tariff-free. Reductions will only apply to a portion of the remaining 20 per cent. The 15 per cent duty on Canadian softwoods and the remaining tariff on shakes will still apply, so what benefit is it to the lumber industry? Tariff reductions essentially pale beside what could be negotiated through continued negotiations at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
This comprehensive trade deal was not even necessary in order to reduce those tariffs. U.S. President Reagan has had the constitutional authority since April, 1987 to reduce tariffs with Canada on a bilateral basis without the need for a comprehensive trade deal. If we do not need the trade deal to reduce tariffs, why did we go into this agreement in the first place? Perhaps it was to remove those non-tariff barriers, the U.S. trade remedy laws, which penalize the export of Canadian products. Let us look at that area.
The Prime Minister again promised Canadians that in negotiating the deal these punitive U.S. trade measures would be eliminated. Canadian Trade Ambassador, Simon Reisman, said that the deal would not be worth the powder to blow it to hell if it failed to protect Canadian exporters from future U.S. protectionist measures. The Hon. Minister for International Trade,
December 20, 1988

who admittedly had not read the deal at the time, argues that the agreement has accomplished this important objective. In fact, it has not.
Instead of a binding dispute mechanism, Canada has settled, has capitulated, for a bilateral panel that will serve only as a court of last resort after those trade embargoes have been imposed. The panel will not be able to challenge the laws, only the application of those laws. We have relinquished the right to appeal under the International Trade Tribunal, and we have even less protection under this trade deal that we enjoyed under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
What about government procurement? That was the third reason for going into this deal. Under the agreement, Canadian companies can apparently bid on $3 billion in U.S. government contracts. That sounds good until it is compared with the $18 billion the U.S. Government put on the negotiating table in the last round of GATT negotiations. Again we have come out second best.
On the three critical components of the trade agreement-secure access, protection from future U.S. countervail and increased access to government procurement-on the three pinnacles, in each case the Government has failed to negotiate those three critical components.
What about economic considerations? Informetrica, an Ottawa based research house, reports that free trade will eventually provide an over-all benefit to Canada with increased output, employment, and income in the very long term. Just how long that is is anyone's guess.
The initial gains will be concentrated in selective provinces such as Quebec and Ontario but will be offset by economic dislocations in other areas. An economic dislocation is an economist's way of saying that people are going to lose their jobs.
Here is the crunch. The analysis by Informetrica states that increased tax revenues, as a result of the free trade deal, will be insufficient to offset the loss of customs revenue from the reductions of tariffs in the trade deal. That is an economist's way of saying that free trade will increase the federal deficit. The analysis further argues that any attempts to reduce the deficit that will accumulate through the free trade deal by increased taxation will in fact reduce or possibly nullify the economic impact of the Free Trade Agreement. Increase taxes and the benefits of the Free Trade
Canada-XJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
Agreement disappear. What we have is an economic catch-22. Free trade increases the deficit. If we try to buy down the deficit by increasing taxation any advantages go up in smoke.
In fact, the Prime Minister intends to do just that. His national sales tax scheme will impose a minimum sales tax on all goods and services. It will tax virtually everything that moves and a lot that does not. Most tax experts believe that when you add increased national sales tax being imposed to pay for free trade to provincial taxes, we could be looking at a tax rate of between 15 per cent and 17 per cent.
The Canadian Homebuilders' Association estimates that such a tax on homes will disqualify at least 60,000 families from getting a mortgage. That means a downturn in the housing market and all areas of the economy that are sensitive to consumer demand.
The Prime Minister and this Government are grabbing the taxpayer's pocketbook to pay for the free trade deal. By so doing it will lower disposable incomes and negate any economic advantage of the Free Trade Agreement. In the final analysis, if one supports free trade then one must also support either an increase in the federal deficit or an increase in taxation. It is as simple as that.
Believe it or not, I have tried to outline the benefits of free trade. There are many costs associated with it. Even the strongest opponents of free trade have said that it will impose massive readjustments to the Canadian economy and the Canadian workforce. Some will end up winners, but many will end up losers.
Bruce Wilkinson, Professor of Economics at the University of Alberta, argues that the Mulroney trade deal amounts to an economic constitution between Canada and the United States which will place us on an irreversible path toward political integration. This trade agreement surrenders our right to make our decisions and to pursue our own national destiny. It gives Washington the powers that are the prerogative of provincial capitals.


John Horton McDermid: Give me one example.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: It promises to change dramatically the economic, social and cultural landscape of this country.
Just as there is no free lunch-and we have heard that saying many times from people on the other side of the House-there is also no free trade. Everything has its

December 20, 1988
Canada-XJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
price. What the Members of this House must do in these negotiations is ask themselves whether the price of this trade deal is really worth it.


Mr. Pagtakhan:: Mr. Chairman, I rise with a Damocles' sword of closure over my head. Should it happen it will be the equivalent of parliamentary slavery. We have heard reflections on the part of government of arrogance in attitude, unfairness in approach and discrimination to the new Members of Parliament.
In the spirit of this holiday season first let me greet you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General, all our colleagues in the House and Senate, all Canadians, all families across the country and, more particularly, the constituents of Winnipeg North with the twin messages of peace and prosperity and in the language of my original tongue, Maligayang Pasko at Manigong Bagong Taon. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
It is also in this festive spirit that I would like to speak to the subject of the free trade deal and the implementing legislation. Allow me, Hon. Members, to reflect also during this festive season a sadness with you.
A few months ago a member of my Filipino community, a Canadian immigrant, was hastily deported to the Philippines. Her name is Sally Espinelli. I question the fairness of this Government. It is fundamental rule of fairness that a person is given avenues for redress, including appealing a case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In fact, the Canadian Human Rights Commission recommended that Sally Espinelli's case be placed before that body. That was not to happen because the Government failed to exercise the virtue of moral fairness and denied a Canadian immigrant the due process of judicial review.
Now back to the subject of tonight, the free trade deal. I seek the understanding of government to allow amendments to this deal, to make clarifications and thereby prevent uncertainties in the future. Is there a basis to believe that there are uncertainties in the future?
The Minister for International Trade, if I may paraphrase, said that it would take four to five years to see whether this deal was good or bad. That, to me, is an admission that the deal could be bad, and we believe it is bad. We believe it is bad for the people of our country. Sure, statistics have also been mentioned of jobs being created. Statistics have been mentioned of jobs that will be lost. What is clear, and I think it has been denied by government, is that jobs will be lost.
To that problem we have to have a mechanism- common sense dictates-to help the displaced workers of our country as a consequence of this deal. Let me say to the Government that even Supreme Courts of nations allow reconsideration of original decisions. Why cannot the Government, during this season of understanding, allow amendments so that the total sentiments of the Canadian people across the country can be reflected truly in this deal? It is indeed a big challenge to the Government. It needs a big heart to answer the challenge.
I am referring to a declaration entitled "A Canada- U.S. Church Declaration on Justice for Farmers and Food for People", adopted in September, 1988. This group is committed to justice and to supporting the selfsufficiency of peoples in producing their own food and developing their own economic and social institutions to enhance the quality of life. It is a group deeply committed to security to tenure for those who work the land, a group deeply committed to wide distribution of land among people, a group deeply committed to the right of people to eat healthy and nutritious food, a group committed to a system of pricing that returns to the producer of food the cost of production plus a fair return that provides a reasonable standard of living, a group deeply committed to countering the concentration of control and ownership of land by the few and the domination of food production and distribution by corporations. I submit that these principles of morality and of commitment to people are sound and laudable.
I submit to the Government that this group is deeply opposed to this deal because it feels that the deal is detrimental to those principles.
Article 409, "Other Export Measures", asks us to guarantee supply to the United States of our total resources. It states:
1. Either Party may maintain or introduce a restriction otherwise justified under the provisions of Articles XI:2(a) and XX(g), (i) and (j) of the GATT with respect to the export of a good of the Party to the territory of the other Party, only if:
a) the restriction does not reduce the proportion of the total export shipments of the specific good-
I would like to call to the attention of the Government that this article does not only refer to energy. It continues:
-made available to the other Party relative to the total supply of that good of the Party maintaining the restriction as compared to the proportion prevailing in the most recent 36-
December 20, 1988

month period for which data are available prior to the imposition of the measure-
What does that mean? It means that, the United States having set the level of consumption, we must maintain it or reduce our own supply. This particular provision in the agreement would in future disallow us to make a Canada-first policy on our energy resources.
Article 409, "Other Export Measures", refers specifically to the energy good as a resource and states our obligation to supply the United States, or we do not supply ourselves.
Article 906, "Government Incentives for Energy Resource Development", states:
Both Parties have agreed to allow existing or future incentives for oil and gas exploration, development and related activities in order to maintain the reserve base for these energy resources.
I ask the Government: Why not also have the other programs, our health care and social programs specifically mentioned in the agreement, in order that there will be no uncertainty in future?
The last time I spoke I discussed the weakness and feebleness of the binding settlement mechanism. I will not elaborate on it further. However, I do feel that we should accept amendments to address some of the limitations of this proposed agreement.
Bruce H. Fisher of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Halifax stated:
The United States probably agreed to the inclusion of such a weak dispute settlement mechanism precisely because it would be ineffective in forcing the U.S. to accept unpopular judgments. However, as Canada's exports are largely dependent on the U.S. market, the latter might be able to use such a system to force concessions out of Canada on difficult bilateral disputes.
Indeed, there are other potential considerations as a consequence of this trade deal. We have already mentioned the weakness to allow regional expansion. There is another interesting feature, namely, that regional expansion may be exempted if the industries to be developed involve military equipment.
The Canadian Peace Pledge Campaign stated:
A Canada/U.S. free trade deal could also make military production more central to the Canadian industrial strategy. While the agreement in general views government subsidies to industry ... as unfair and thus prohibited competition, support to military industries would be exempt. This could mean the only regional industrial incentives available will be to military industries.
I tell the Government that if for the reason of peace only Canadians have a strong interest in rejecting the Reagan-Mulroney deal.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I would like to call to the attention of the Government Article 1801. In effect, it prohibits Canada from requesting the GATT to examine complaints related to the United States countervailing and dumping duties.
Mr. Mel Clark, Deputy Head of the Canadian Delegation for the GATT Tokyo Round, stated:
In 1949 . . . the determination of rights and obligations between Governments arising under a bilateral agreement is not a matter within the competence of the contracting parties-
This means that the subsequent Article 1801, subsection 2, becomes meaningless under this proposed agreement.
Let me come to the issue that I truly feel can be threatened-our social and health care programs. Article 1401 mentions the services covered under this agreement. Part of the services include the management of the health care services. I would like to put on record the belief that non-profit public administration of our health care system would indeed be jeopardized and therefore our medicare system, which is the best in the world, could be in jeopardy.
In medicine, we first make a diagnosis and then provide treatment. Before we make a diagnosis we would like to get all the information and do the essential medical examination of the patient. Mr. Chairman, you have heard submissions, information, from all of us from the government side and the opposition side. It is only fair and right that we conclude that there are defects in the current Mulroney-Reagan deal. It is in fact only half a free trade agreement.
I quote the words of Mr. Godsoe, past Executive Director of the Macdonald Commission on the Economy:
Implementing the agreement would not only be contrary to the Macdonald Commission's recommendations, it would set off intensive negotiations over the real agenda. Canadian negotiators have stated there was no time to conclude any agreement on the definition of "unfair trade" and what regional development or other economic or social support programs would be in jeopardy.
Mr. Godsoe went on to say:
In short, what else is there to offer the Americans except agreement that at least some of our government-support programs are to be classified as unfair trade subsidies? Surely the most ardent advocate of the current agreement must concede that. The focus will then shift to what regional-development and other support programs will have to be discontinued at least for export industries. This is the measure of (the) failure of the free-trade deal.

December 20, 1988
Canada-LJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
for export industries. This is the measure of (the) failure of the free-trade deal.
The American concerns have been addressed in the Free Trade Agreement: Access to our financial markets, access to our resources, and access to our service sector. Our Canadian concerns in respect of lower barriers have been addressed in part, but continue to be somewhat elusive. Other concerns have not been addressed at all. I have in mind potential harassment of Canadian exporters by the U.S. and the lack of stable and secure access to American markets.
Indeed, there are two key issues that have gone undelivered by the Free Trade Agreement: The binding arbitration of disputes and the lack of a common book of rules defining unfair trade practices.
I am in favour of freer trade, as are all Liberals; but, I am vehemently opposed to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.
In the same way that I would not drink a glass of water filled with impurities, I would not accept a trade deal filled with impurities-


Mr. Turner (Flalton-Peel):: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
The Hon. Member should know better than to refer to the "Mulroney-Reagan" trade deal; rather, he should refer to the Right Hon. Prime Minister either by his riding or by his-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rey D. Pagtakhan: No one would drink a glass of water filled with impurities. No one should accept a free trade deal filled with impurities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Let us not fear amendments, let us fear arrogance; let us not fear debate, let us fear its absence.
I am asking that there be a clarification in respect of some of the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement.
I can believe that this Government is sincere in believing that there are no weaknesses in the FTA. But, the Government must believe that we on this side are also sincere in believing that there are in fact weaknesses in this deal.
Where there is an honest difference in opinion, the reasonable person will ask a good lawyer to provide a
clarification in black and white. In that way there is no possibility of a misunderstanding in the future.
It has been said often that if something is not specifically dealt with in the agreement, there is no reason to worry. Let me remind Hon. Members opposite of a universal truism: Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.
In closing I would ask again, in the spirit of Christmas, that this Government take cognizance of the concerns of Canadians across the country, take cognizance of the concerns of the constituents of Winnipeg North. I say to the Government that an ounce of clarification today is worth more than a pound of conflict in the future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Chairman, as I rise to speak before this august assembly, I must admit to you that I have two concerns.
The first is that we are in Committee of the Whole for clause-by-clause consideration in principle of Bill C-2 on the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. I note that we are only at clause 2. I am really extremely concerned: Will we continue our deliberations here until July or August? Will we be singing "Santa Claus" here on New Year's Day or Christmas Day? I am really worried that we are only at clause 2. But people do not seem to be worried; it seems that parliamentary procedure is flexible enough that we can talk about anything and nothing in this free trade debate.
My second preliminary remark, which is part of my introduction, Mr. Chairman, concerns the look on the faces of our friends opposite. The other day, I quoted a Latin saying that delighted my colleague here from Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) and this evening, I feel like giving you another Latin quotation that is very appropriate for the situation. There is an old Latin proverb that the ancients liked to quote and it goes like this, Afflictio afflieto non addenda est. It means that one should not add to someone's woes.
Mr. Chairman, looking at my friends opposite and their woeful expression, I almost feel like keeping quiet and saying that one should not further afflict those who are already afflicted. And I am afraid that my speech tonight will only confirm this wise old adage, Afflictio afflieto non addenda est.
December 20, 1988

But my constituents have given me a mandate and 1 will take courage and forge ahead.
My message tonight is meant to be above all a testimony. I note that my neighbours opposite, my friends opposite, as they are called in the parliamentary tradition, take great pleasure in philosophizing on free trade. They read texts, they theorize, they philosophize. I bring you the real life experiences of people with whom I spoke during the election campaign, not theoretical speeches but concrete facts.
In the riding of Montmorency-Orleans, I based my campaign on the business community, among others. I visited lots and lots of people and many companies. I shook almost 15,000 hands in the riding of Montmorency-Orleans. I went to places where people work and live, to golden age clubs, restaurants, car dealers, small and medium-sized businesses and big factories. Everywhere, the workers, the owner, the boss, anyone-
I went to various workplaces and every time I visited a small or medium-sized business or a large concern I would get to meet the head of the company and ask him: Listen, what do you think of free trade? And surprised I was: 100 per cent of those I questioned in the riding of Montmorency-Orleans were supportive of free trade and the agreement negotiated by our leader and his representatives.
So much so that 1 will tell you something. The highlight of my election campaign was when 1 went on television and asked my Liberal opponent and my socialist NDP opponent, Mr. Gourdeau, a nationally-know personality: Name one single business in the riding, one single small or medium-sized business which is against free trade. I did that on the radio and twice on television. I never did get an answer. Are we here to make philosophical statements or to represent our constituents? Are we here to show off or to perform, or are we here to represent the people, the men and women who elected us?
It was rather amusing in my riding of Montmorency-Orleans because the national NPD leader, Broad-bent, the champion or ordinary people... When I talked to my constituents of Montmorency-Orleans, my people, many of whom suffer from the high unemployment rate or end up on social welfare, I would say to them: Are you aware of the hourly wage rates in Oshawa, you know, the city of the ordinary candidate over there who always keeps his cool and peppers his speeches with the word "ordinary"'? I said to them: Do you know what the hourly rate, the unemployment rate
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
is? It is nil in the constituency of Oshawa and 10 to 15 per cent in Montmorency-Orleans. It is easy to say you're fighting for ordinary Canadians and be against free trade in Oshawa and Windsor. There, the people are already "tuned in" to the United States under the Auto Pact. Things are going well there, but will they share the wealth with Quebec and the rest of Canada? No way! That's what I told the people in my constituency and they replied: Shame! Mr. DeBlois, when you are elected, you will go to the House and tell your colleagues opposite that we, too, would like to share in the economic prosperity enjoyed by Ontario and Oshawa in particular.
Let me tell you what two industries had to say. In my constituency of Montmorency-Orleans, Abitibi Price runs a plant that employs 400 people. That's a lot of people! They work day and night. I visited the plant twice, once during the day shift and once during the night shift. I did not inform the Telejournal camera crews so that my visit could be seen on the news that night. No one saw me, but I was there during the day and at night. Some party leaders alert news teams so that they can be seen on the Telejournal. . . My visit did not make the news, but I was there, even at night, in a small room with union leaders and the ordinary people. Afterwards, I went to see the boss on the third floor and talked about free trade.
I also went to see Leo Cauchon at a saw mill called Chateau Richer. He said: Listen, Charles, the tax on timber really hit me hard this year. It was so sad. And let me tell you what the president of Abitibi Price had to say. He said that without free trade, Canadians would lose. Canada would be the only Western country without access to a market of more than 100 million people. Mark my words and take heed. Throughout history, every time a smaller country signed a bilateral trade agreement with a larger country, the smaller country always came out ahead, and never at the expense of its culture or its independence. Those of you who talked about being dwarfed, about it being a case of the elephant and the mouse, you were out to lunch! I know what I am talking about.
When I am with my people . .. The leaders of the Liberal and New Democratic parties wanted to scare people: You will lose your pensions. The former Social Welfare minister said that free trade would give us AIDS. U.S. blood is tainted with AIDS. The people of Montmorency-Orleans said: Come on, we're not going to swallow that!

December 20, 1988
Canada-JJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
I am sorry if I sound a bit demagogic, Mr. Chairman. But the people in my riding were outraged when they watched the national news in the evening and heard Mr. Turner say it was the end of the Canadian dream. Come on! I asked the people in my riding if they had ever been in Jasper or if they had visited Alberta. The answer was no. I asked them if they had ever been to Old Orchard. The answer was yes. Our people in Quebec are used to travelling to the United States. They will not lose their culture nor their language. Do not try to make us believe Americans are bad boys who only think of manipulating us. Our people are proud to be able to do more business with the Americans. So big industries and small industries, those of ordinary people, to borrow a phrase from the NDP, our socialists, our avant-garde, those champions of ordinary citizens ... I visited small businesses. I have in mind Consulab that specializes in advanced technology and Moulures Begin. Elere is what I heard from them: "Do not tell anybody I am for free trade, I want to get ready before other small businesses in the same field. Wait before you talk about it." I renege on my word tonight, but I do so in the interest of the country and that of Hon. Members. It is important that you know about it.
I must say I had much fun discussing free trade. I thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), the Leader of the Liberal Party, for waking us up. I spent the past three weeks discussing free trade everywhere, and I feel that the popularity-seeking arguments put forward by the Opposition have scared our people stiff. You will notice that everybody who can see straight in Quebec, including Premier Bourassa, the PQ Leader, the Desjardins Movement, such great journalists as Alain Dubuc, the Mayor of Beauport, the largest city in my riding, Jacques Langlois-none of them belonging to the Conservative Party-are all for free trade.
It is imporant to mention that two weeks before the election, in the Quebec region, all open-line radio hosts invited objective guests such as Bernard Landry, Claude Masson, an economist with Laval University .. . We felt that the more we were going to explain free trade, the more people would understand it. You may have noticed that since the November 21 election, the various polls indicate that we would have won more seats, and the proportion of people who are now for the Free Trade Agreement is constantly rising. In other words, if the election was held today, three-quarters of all Canadians would support free trade and we would have between 225 and 250 seats.
As you may have guessed, Mr. Chairman, I want to be consistent with my original statement. I will not insist further. I suggest that we should not add to the pain of the people who are down. Afflictio afflicto non addenda est... That is enough. I just want to repeat again that when we listen to the people concerned-when I see a guy in the Quebec region-in addition to being the Member for Montmorency-Orleans, I am a member of the regional caucus which is brilliantly chaired by the Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Tremblay), when I see a guy like Louis Garneau who supplies the praiseworthy Canadian cycling team with clothing for cycling and has to pay 30 per cent of custom duties to the United States. He said: With the free trade agreement, tomorrow I could pay $100,000 per year less in custom duties, and I would be able to open a plant in Saint-Augustin. When I say that to the people, they say:"It is great, Mr. DeBlois!" I am not the one who is saying that, but an ordinary guy back home who is the president of a company which is far from being a multinational.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I think that we do not need to look into the Bill before us. I realize why we are still dealing with Clause 2. It is not necessary to study every clause, because the demonstration I have just made will certainly reassure Members opposite and I am sure that tomorrow at the latest we will be able to leave and spend Christmas at home, knowing that our friends will change their minds and finally support this dramatic and important initiative for the future of Canada, namely, the adoption of a bilateral agreement with the United States.


Mr. Volpe:: Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to contribute and to participate in the debate that is designed to introduce some amendments to the trade deal. My Party and I feel a great need to amend the trade Bill that we find deficient both in process and in content. I dare say that the Government has recognized many of those deficiencies, many of the shortcomings, both in the House in the course of the last couple of days and also during the election campaign.
The people of the riding of Eglinton-Lawrence have been most generous in demonstrating to me and to my Party the type of trust, faith and encouragement they have in us. They did that with their votes. That demonstrated their complete trust in our position that they
December 20, 1988

would be following a debate on this historic document tonight.
I say that it is historic because of all the reasons we have heard over the course of the last couple of days. These reasons mark a new thrust, a new direction, a new sense of a vision for Canada. Unfortunately, it is a sense of vision that ignores some of the very real material realities that the country has experienced over the course of the last 20 years. I am happy to say that I am part and parcel of those new realities in the country that we all share and in which we all take pride.
I would like to take a moment to thank the people of Eglinton-Lawrence, people who are very representative of the new dynamics of Canada. They are people who represent all spectrums of the economic, social and cultural mosaic of Canada. There are people in my riding who range from the extremely wealthy, the very established, to the very poor, as well as the very new. We have a very vigorous entrepreneurial sector which numbers a great manufacturing district of well over 600 enterprises.
When I rise to say that I am going to speak and want to address very specifically some of the amendments that my Party will make to this trade Bill, I do so because the people of my riding, who have a sense of a dimension and perspective for the country, which includes social peace, social well-being as well as entrepreneurial dynamics, want their interests both protected and promoted. We can do that if we accept that amendments to this particular deal which bring us to that kind of purpose.
The Government has recognized that amendments need to be made. Through statements during the course of the election campaign as well as through statements in the House we have heard all types of reassurances. We will move amendments to ensure that those reassurances are there on paper for us to examine and to refer to.
It is going to be a commercial deal, a deal that will include the new economic order for us in Canada, that my Party does not share and that we would like to amend in order to put it on the appropriate path. That appropriate path includes a direction that a Minister of the Crown in the previous Parliament acknowledged reflected the true dimensions of Canada, when he said in a business conference in Toronto: "over the course of the last five years 65 per cent of all the businesses started in this country were begun by entrepreneurs from that
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
sector of our population that we call the newer Canadians, the multicultural, the multi-ethnic community". Some 65 per cent of all new businesses were generated by people who were new, people who had something to contribute to the country. That contribution came not only from their individual talent and desire to succeed but from their sense of ownership in the destiny of a country that had become theirs, a country which they would like to take into the 21st century as a free, independent, sovereign, industrial and commercial example to the rest of the world.
Those people also fall into the category that the Government has acknowledged is the greatest creator of jobs. Some 85 per cent of all jobs in Canada are created by small and medium-sized businesses. When we talk about a new economic order, we have to consider where the dynamics for the entrepreneurial spirit will be generated. If this deal will generate that kind of spirit, then we should support it, but let us not support the deal if we do not find the kinds of guarantees that promote the entrepreneurial spirit.
In the riding of Eglinton-Lawrence there are people who are major players in the financial world. There are people who are in the professional fields, entrepreneurs and labourers as well. None of them need lessons about courage or risk-taking. They do not need lessons about the opportunities that an increased market-place can provide. Some 80 per cent of these people come from a background which is neither French nor English. Yet they are proud to be part of our country. That 80 per cent needs no admonitions about encouragement. They have left countries in which they were aware and familiar with the legal system, the cultural and social values. They came here because it welcomed them with open arms, the entrepreneurial spirit, the desire to create and to contribute. They did not come here because they were afraid to take risks. They did not come here because they were afraid about a new market-place. They did not come here because they were afraid of competition, nor did they come here because they wanted to be dependent upon others. They came here to create a new wealth, a wealth in which others could share. They did that with a sense of great pride and social accomplishment.
Those are the types of people from Eglinton- Lawrence who said to me and to my Party: "Go to Ottawa. Protect and promote our interests. Be aggressive. Be dynamic. Express our views in the House and make sure that Canada and our interests are defended".

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I stand and speak on behalf of those people from Eglinton-Lawrence who are now in the midst of their Christmas season. Others have just finished the Hanuk-kah season. To all of them I wish them the best for the season and for a happy new year as well. I wish you, Mr. Chairman, and all my colleagues in this place the same. For all of them, I am here with my Party to move amendments that will ensure that their interests and vision of Canada that is continually evolving are protected. We must move amendments because the negotiation process is faulty. The context is faulty. We need to be able to produce a different type of environment if we are going to go through with this deal.
Let us take a look at what happened. It is not that long ago that the Prime Minister, the Trade Minister, the Finance Minister, and several other members of the Cabinet indicated that this Free Trade Agreement, as they called it, would be an anathema to Canada, to the Canadian vision, economy and society as we knew it a mere three years ago and as we still recognize it today.
What happened? Over the course of a few years we found that former and current Governments dismantled immediately some of the basic pillars of our Canadian economy. First, they removed the reigns on investment, removed FIRA, and removed the controls on foreign investment in Canada. Second, we saw the removal of the pillars that we had seen as the strength of Canada in the National Energy Program. We opened up our capital markets to foreign investors without due regard, without putting any constraints on them to consider the needs of Canada, our historical dimensions, and the special considerations of the way we have evolved socially and culturally.
What happens when we remove the levers we had at our disposal in negotiation? We end up negotiating in the supine position. It is no irony. It is no coincidence that the major negotiator in those talks, Mr. Simon Reisman, indicated that a deal could not be struck on the basis of commitments that the Prime Minister had made to various Premiers of the provinces, including the Premier of the Province of Ontario.
Some of those guarantees for protection of our agriculture, which some of my colleagues have expressed in a most eloquent and very definitive manner, are at a disadvantage by virtue of our climate and by virtue of our own geographic and geophysical terrain. Second, there would be guarantees with respect to protection of our investment market and our capital market. There
would be guarantees for the maintenance of social programs. Canadians have fought hard over the course of the last decade to maintain social programs that have become the envy of modern societies throughout the western world and have served as models for the emerging societies of the eastern world.
We saw some of the guarantees that the Prime Minister gave to our Premiers. I refer to the guarantees for the Auto Pact in my province and the dynamics that they produced for a particular sector of the country which we wish could be distributed throughout the rest of the country. We were given guarantees that we would have access into the American market and that there would be protection from unfair competition from the United States. We saw guarantees given for a binding dispute settlement mechanism. We saw guarantees given to the provinces that there would not be any compromise on energy.
All of those were poor guarantees. They were not worth much. They were given in a free spirit. They were given very eloquently. They appear to have been given very trustingly and very vociferously, but it proved in the end to be worth nothing more than the warm words that they indicated. We see that this trade agreement lacks all of those. It is no coincidence that we see a major province like Ontario indicate that the Free Trade Agreement is not in the interests of our province, and we dare say, not for the rest of Canada.
Let us take a look for a moment at the kind of access that has been provided for us under this particular deal. Let us look at the reasons why we will have to move amendments, why it is incumbent upon us as the party which represents those people who have interests in the development of the economy and in maintaining the social and cultural dynamics therein, to move the kinds of amendments that we will move. First of all, we do not have guaranteed access. Nowhere in the deal is there an indication that we have guaranteed access to an American market. When we hear the great words about a very large market-place for our goods, we ask ourselves, where does it say we move in? Where does it say that that market is open to us and not to anybody else? We keep in mind that this is a nation of people who have built greatness on adversity, who have been unafraid of challenges. It has been people who have taken the bull by the horns and have done what they needed to do to create success where none could be seen.
Where is this great opportunity? Is it with the great buyers in the United States? I refer to the federal, state
December 20, 1988

and municipal legislatures, which through their procurement policies develop a great clientele and market-place. No, we do not have access to that. Do we have access to any specific sector of their economy that other states do not yet have? No, we do not have that either.
What we have is an opportunity over the course of the next 10 years to diminish tariffs so that we can make it easier for American and multinational corporations to increase competition in Canada. Yes, competition will be good. Perhaps it might even lead to lower prices. I say "perhaps" because there is no study which indicates that the benefits to consumers will be anything but marginal.
What will we have? Will we have an opportunity to create a greater entrepreneurial class? Perhaps, if we ignore the fact that 55 per cent of all manufacture and trade being conducted between the United States and Canada is done between a branch plant and a home office, if there is to be rationalization, then we in the branch plants will be the first victims of such rationalization. Is there going to be greater opportunity for us to increase our development of industrial capacities here when American corporations will increase as well their production capacity here?


John Horton McDermid: Here?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Perhaps not. One question that we have to ask ourselves is what will happen? We acknowledge what the Government has said over the course of the last few days. There will be winners and losers. If those losers are many of our employees, what will happen as our Government is pressured to meet either the needs of those businesses which find themselves in difficulties or the workers that find themselves dislocated? Will we make a decision to support industry? Will we make a decision to support our workers and our families?
We find ourselves entering into a deal that turns out to be little more than a continental energy pact, a continental energy pact that might make some sense to producers. It makes a lot of sense to the government side, but it does not make a lot of sense to the manufacturers in my riding. The manufacturers in my riding ask why would I give my competitor to the south the same price that I have to pay for my energy costs? When my overhead stays at x dollars and is compared to a competitor to the south, what do we do with the cost of our products when we go into a common market-place?


John Horton McDermid: They pay twice for electricity, twice the price.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: The entrepreneurs in my riding want to know that if there is going to be a level playing field it shall be level and it shall be balanced, and that we take into consideration the special needs of all Canadians.
What I want to do is explore some of the other dynamics that the people in my riding suggest that we ought to look to. Some of those dynamics have been ignored by a Government that has put all its eggs into one particular economic policy, one do-or-die economic strategy for this country. That is the tragedy of this trade deal.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: The Minister is accustomed to saying those kinds of words because he does not have anything positive to say. That is fine. The people in my riding have asked for and insist that what should happen is that an economic strategy take into consideration the potential of small businesses, that we increase opportunities to maintain the flexibility, the adaptability and the aggressiveness toward specialization that will be required as we enter the 21st century.


John Horton McDermid: That is what this is all about.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: The Hon. Member had better read it again. That is not what is in there.
Why do we not take a look at turnkey industries, promote sunrise industries, develop specialization, develop secondary and tertiary industries and promote them through the resources that we have available, not only in the natural and in the human sector, but also through whatever government assistance we can provide? As we move toward a more global economy, let us not forget that the 250-odd million people who live to the south of us do not represent the sole market potential in this world. If we are to be truly global citizens, we should explore every market potential around us.
In closing, let me add that the chief negotiators from Mexico say they would never enter into such a deal in a hundred years. The chief negotiator from Israel said that Canada gave up 100 times more than it got. Our Prime Minister said that he was against free trade but supports it now because only donkeys do not change their minds. I hope he really meant that so when he looks at the braying bunch behind him he may have a change of heart.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I noted with interest the comments of my hon. friend with respect to his premier. As a citizen of Ontario, I watched with interest during the last campaign the all-out exhaustive, unrelenting campaigning by the Premier of Ontario against the Free Trade Agreement. In fact, he was so exhausted that during the last two weeks of the campaign he went to the Far East to recuperate.
I hereby give notice pursuant to Standing Order 57 that at the next sitting of Committee of the Whole House on Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, I will move that further consideration of Clauses 1 through 150, the preamble, title and schedules and any amendments proposed thereto shall be the first business of the committee and shall not further be postponed.


Mr. Milliken:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I wish to give notice that if the Minister chooses to move the motion of which he has given notice at the next sitting of the committee, I would like to raise a point of order before the motion is put to the Committee because it would be my submission that such a motion would be out of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, this is a rather historic occasion. If the Hon. Member actually does move closure at the Committee of the Whole stage at the next sitting of the House, it would be the first time this has happened in 32 years. I just want to draw to your attention that the last time this happened was during the infamous pipeline debate. Once again I just want to say that this is an historic day but a rather black mark in terms of Canada's history.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Chairman, 1 think we are all dismayed by the action taken by the Minister, but we have become accustomed to these kinds of tactics. I want to raise a question with the Minister relating to procedure. This morning the junior Minister for Trade made a direct request on behalf of the Government that amendments be presented so they could be given consideration and we would be able to organize the business in a way that would allow us to make sure those amendments are there.
If the Government intends to cut off debate, is it also prepared to have the presentation of the amendments relating to the different clauses of the Bill proceed in such a way that would allow us to make sure that those amendments are there? I am simply repeating the words
used by the Minister this morning. Is the Deputy Government House Leader prepared to end debate tomorrow under those circumstances on these very important matters, before there has been an opportunity to comply with the request of the Minister and ensure that we have an opportunity to specifically look at the amendments the Opposition wants to present?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, that offer was naturally on the table last week, given in good faith, and we were prepared to do that as we were prepared to debate through last weekend in order to give all colleagues in the House an opportunity to debate.
Unfortunately, the offer was not taken up by the Opposition Parties. I understand from my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, that he has not had an opportunity to even review the amendments, although that might have been made possible by my hon. friend. Under those circumstances I certainly hope we will get to the clauses to which my hon. friend wishes to make his amendments, and also allow other colleagues to make their amendments. But those offers were on the table last week, given in good faith by the Government, not taken up by the Opposition Parties.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 just want to clarify something with the Hon. Minister. He only stated half the proposition. He said those offers were on the table, but they were conditional on the time allocation. Of course, no one who has any respect for the rights of this Parliament would agree to under those conditions.
I want to repeat to the Chair, because I think it would be part of the judgment of the Chair itself, that it was not an offer made last week but one made this morning, where the Minister requested the submission of those amendments. We would like to have the opportunity to present them so that the debate can target particularly the kind of concerns our Members have raised during the day. We want to have the offer to put these forward. I think it would be a judgment by the Deputy Government House Leader and the Government during the one day we have left, to allow us to proceed to some of the pertinent clauses in the Bill so that amendments can be properly presented in their proper form.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the offers were on the table last week, made in good faith. The offers were on the table this morning, made in good faith. The offers were on the table this afternoon, made in good faith. They have not been taken up by the Opposition Parties.
December 20, 1988


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I thought I should rise on a question of privilege. If the Government intends to invoke closure, it will be a betrayal of democracy and a reflection of the pusillanimity of the will of the people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I want to seek clarification from the Deputy Government House Leader. He indicates that there were some packages or some offers that were made. I have been in the House of Commons all day. When not here, I have been watching on the monitors in the lobby. I do not recall hearing a presentation put to the House of Commons. Perhaps I am wrong. 1 would ask the Deputy Government House Leader, if he did make an offer to the House of Commons, what that offer was?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, during the meetings that I had with my hon. friend we reached agreement on certain terms. Those terms were drafted, copies were made available to my hon. friend and were made available to the Liberal Party. My hon. friend knows very well that his Party was unable to agree to those terms. They are here and they are available.
I do not think we have to negotiate on the floor of the House. Those negotiations took place with my hon. colleagues opposite. I say without equivocation that the offers were made, the offers were drafted. We believe the offers would have been acceptable to allow for exactly what my hon. friends wanted, that is the tabling of the amendments, the putting of the amendments, the divisions on a recorded basis so that everyone would know who stood for what. Unfortunately, they were not taken up.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I must say that if there are going to be further negotiations in regard to this matter, I wish it would be done behind the curtain. There are other Members who would like to speak on Clause 2. If there are to be further negotiations I would hope it would be done behind the curtain.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear there will not be any further negotiations. I want to say that I take some offence. We have had some discussions. I thought these discussions were in confidence. Obviously they were not.
I guess what I am saying is that any suggestion that there might be some overtures made by the Government to the Opposition, after the Deputy House Leader stood in the House and indicated that there were attempts made earlier when in fact we had some discussions but I
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
was not aware these were public discussions-I guess they are now-


John Horton McDermid: You asked.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He stood up in his place and said these offers had been made.


John Horton McDermid: Had they?


Nelson Andrew Riis: In the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. I would hope that further negotiations, if there are going to be negotiations, would take place behind the curtain.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There will not be any further negotiations.


Mr. Clark ((Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Chairman-


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I would simply like to direct a question to the Deputy House Leader. There are a total of 21 amendments which we would like to be able to present to the House and have voted-


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: I am afraid that that is debate. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to present his case later.


Steven W. Langdon: Let me finish my point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is simply to inquire of the House Leader if he is in fact saying it is not possible for us to put such amendments because he intends for the debate to remain on Clause 2 throughout the entire time.


Mr. Deputy  Chairman@: I recognize the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris on debate.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to have an opportunity to address the issue of free trade once again, and I do so primarily as a western Canadian with a special interest in agriculture.
I had a chance to speak on this matter before the election, but there have of course been changes in circumstances since the election. It has been a most unusual election and in fact a very historic election. There is probably one other election in Canadian history that has been fought on a single issue to the extent that this one has, and that was the election of 1917.
The fact that this election was fought on a single issue to the extent it was and the fact that the majority is as

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
significant as it is, a majority that is greater than I for one would have anticipated, means that the Government, as a result of having won the election, very clearly has a mandate to an unusual degree. It has more of a mandate, perhaps, than governments had coming out of previous elections.
I am also conscious of the fact that there have been other elections in Canadian history in which free trade was a principal issue. That of course was true of the election of 1891 and it was also true of the election of 1911. In those election campaigns, the Party advocating free trade was defeated. One might well ask what is different this time, why is it the Party advocating free trade has been successful. The answer to that will probably be determined in the future by historians and economists, but I would suggest that the reason is primarily that our economies have matured significantly since 1891 and 1911.
There is indeed a new confidence in Canada that was not there earlier. The new confidence is as a result of some changes that have taken place in the world. The example set by the European community, the fact that small nations can work and trade with larger nations without losing their identity, sovereignty or culture, has given confidence going into this campaign, confidence on the eve of the Free Trade Agreement.
I would also suggest that the fact that we as Canadians have demonstrated our ability to compete with Americans these last few years has been significant. As we entered into this campaign and during the course of the debate in the last few months, many Canadians, though perhaps not all, have been mindful of the fact that we have been competing in trade with the Americans and that we have been doing so successfully. The fact that the balance of trade has been some $16 billion in our favour during the course of the last two or three fiscal years is proof of our ability to compete, and I think that gave Canadians the confidence they needed as they wrestled with this question.
The confidence Canadians have in the administration of the Government over these last four years has also been very operative in the decision they reached during the course of the last election campaign. I speak particularly as a western Canadian, and I say with a considerable amount of pride and satisfaction that never in the history of Canada have western Canadians played such a significant role in the leadership of this nation as they have in the last four years. Many Canadians accepted that as being part of the decision-making process.
I would certainly not pretend for a moment that all Canadians who voted for the Progressive Conservatives on November 21 voted with a deep understanding of free trade. They did not. However, I think many who voted for our Party did so with the realization that they have confidence in those who were providing leadership to this Party. Having faith in the leadership of the Party, they were prepared to accept the management skills for the direction they have seen followed these last four years and have believed that those who are leading this Party and who have lead the Government for the last four years had the good interests of all of Canada at heart. They have confidence in them as they look ahead to the next four years.
However, a great deal remains to be done. I think of my riding of Brandon-Souris, and I would like to note in passing how appreciative I am to the voters of Brandon-Souris for having confidence in me and for providing me the opportunity to serve for the third time in this House of Commons. However, I would not pretend for a moment that all the residents of Brandon-Souris feel confident about free trade. In fact, they do not. Many have some real reservations about free trade. We as a Government must accept some responsibility for that. Quite frankly, I do not think we explained free trade as adequately as we should have these last few months, and that is one of the reasons for some of the difficulties we had during the course of the election campaign.
Perhaps we as a Government depended too much on the print media. Perhaps we forgot that we are in the age of television. I think we should look at that in retrospect. Perhaps we forgot for a moment that it is easy to frighten people in 30 seconds over television but it is difficult to reassure them in 30 seconds. As a candidate in the last election campaign, I am very mindful of the difficulties we encountered at about the time the Opposition advertising campaign began.
What troubles me about the last election campaign is the fact that there was so much fear generated by politicians. We have a responsibility as politicians, regardless of what Party we represent, to indicate to the voters what we stand for, the policies that we advocate and the plans we have in mind. What we saw too much of in the last election campaign was an emphasis on the part of some opposition Parties on what they were against rather than what they were for. This unfortunately contributed to some of the fear and uneasiness that existed.
December 20, 1988

I speak with confidence when I say that I believe that during the course of the next four years, those fears which may exist now or may have existed during the course of the election campaign will be dispelled as free trade evolves. I am confident that when we come to this evaluation period which the next four years will provide that many people will be reassured by what will have transpired.
I would like to take this opportunity to talk about what the Free Trade Agreement is and what it is not. I hope to address some of the concerns of my constituents and of others who as yet remain unconvinced.
The Free Trade Agreement is a commercial agreement between two nations. It is an agreement not unlike that which the European communities entered into several years ago. It is an agreement not unlike that which Australia and New Zealand are currently participating in. It is a commercial agreement under which there will be, over a period of some 10 years, a gradual reduction in tariffs. It is also an agreement that will reduce the likelihood of non-tariff barriers interrupting trade between our two countries.
It is not a proposal for an economic union. It is not a proposal for a political union. One of the advertisements which distressed me the most and which I found to be the most intellectually dishonest was the one which suggested that the border between Canada and the United States was being erased. I cannot believe that those who created that advertisement or those who provided that it be shown believe that that was an honest thing to do. It may have been effective for a period of time and in the end, it may have been effective for some Canadians who really believe that somehow or other, Canadian sovereignty is at stake.
Each of us who stand in this House are proud of the fact that we are Canadian. We would not be part of the political process if we were not. I think it becomes meaningless to become engaged in a debate about who has been or will be the greatest of the Canadian nationals. We do know that there is no threat to Canadian political sovereignty in the Free Trade Agreement. We are sometimes criticized by those who say that American law remains in place, and indeed it does, as Canadian law remains in place.
The very fact that the law is there for me disproves the suggestion that there is any loss in sovereignty. We retain the right to make our own laws. We retain the right to sit and deal with countervail if necessary, as do
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the Americans. If that were not the case, then it may well be that some could criticize us for surrendering our sovereignty. We have not done so.
What we are seeking in the Free Trade Agreement and what I believe we have secured is the right to access to larger markets and enhanced access to markets. There are no guarantees. I do not think there are guarantees about many things in this world. There are no guarantees that we will have total, unfettered access to American markets because we will not. What we have is the opportunity to trade, the opportunity to compete. We have the opportunity to have greater access to a market which is 10 times our size. The size of that market is exceedingly important to us.
In relative terms throughout the world we are a small nation. In fact, there are really only two industrial nations in the western world which do not have guaranteed access to a market of 100 million, ourselves and Australia. If we seek, because we meet the economies of scale which are a characteristic of an industrial society, then we must have that type of access to that market.
I do not pretend to be an economist, but the little economics I studied at University reminds me of the fact that in order to have an industrial society there are some necessary characteristics. There are some necessary attributes which a nation must have. You must have the natural resources, which we have. You must have the entrepreneurial skills, which we have demonstrated we have. You must have access to capital. You must have the labour supply and you must have the transportation system. We have all of those. You can have all of those and have nothing if you do not have access to market.
We in Western Canada historically have grown a good quality agricultural product and we have grown it in surplus. We know throughout our history that without access to international markets we in Western Canada do not have an economic future. That is why we as a region have advocated free trade. That is why we as a region have historically believed we were the victim of a national policy of protective tariffs.
We know we must sell outside our country. We in the West know very clearly that one-third of the jobs in Canada come as a result of exports. We know that 50 per cent of agricultural income comes as a result of exports. We know that if we do not trade, we die in economic terms. Having said that, I am amazed how often some of us seem to forget.
Sometimes in the phone-in programs farmers call and ask why we worry about markets outside of our country.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Why do we not have supply management for all of agriculture and concentrate solely on the domestic market? The answer to that is very simple, Mr. Chairman. It lies in the fact that 50 per cent of our agricultural income comes from exports. If we did not have access to those markets, we would lose, it would seem logical, 50 per cent of our agricultural community. We depend on that market, and the Free Trade Agreement gives us access to that market. That is why the cattle producers of Western Canada and cattle producers throughout Canada for the large part are so keen on the Free Trade Agreement.
In fact, the Canadian Cattleman's Association has been very impatient with us, even though as a Government we were committed to free trade, by the fact that we have not moved more quickly in that direction. That is why the Canadian pork producers are so supportive. They know we sell 30 per cent of our hogs into the U.S. If we do not have access to that market, then our own hog industry is in jeopardy.
As I travelled throughout this last campaign, I visited my Hutterite Colonies. Even the Hutterites do not always vote or as often as they should. Even though traditionally they do not take a great deal of interest in federal politics, this time they did because they are hog producers. They know in Manitoba how much they are dependent upon the American market. I think to a greater degree than ever before they voted as a result of that and they voted in favour of free trade because they voted for their own economic livelihood.
During the course of the campaign I heard many people express fears about the Free Trade Agreement. It is important to try to dispel those fears. People were afraid that somehow or other the deal was a threat to our social programs. Yet, when you asked our opposition where in the agreement is there a reference to social programs, they conceded there was none.
People were afraid, as we all know, that there was a threat to medicare. Yet when you asked the opposition where in the agreement is there a reference to medicare, they conceded there was none. People were afraid that there was some sort of threat to our cultural identity. Yet when you asked the opposition to refer to where in the agreement our cultural identity was threatened by the Free Trade Agreement, they conceded that there was no evidence. The opposition talked about a threat to our energy and to our livelihood and our ability to obtain control of energy. There was much confusion about pricing. Some of my opponents said that we could not sell energy to our customers for more than we sold it
in Canada. That is not true, Mr. Chairman. In fact, Quebec Hydro has demonstrated that it can sell hydroelectricity to the State of New York at three times the price it sells to the Province of Quebec.
We, in the Province of Manitoba, have a massive development project in the North. The limestone does not make any sense to us unless we have access to American markets. There is no sense whatever. We produce hydroelectricity at a surplus. Under the Free Trade Agreement we will have a greater likelihood of developing long-term, vital long-term markets, for hydroelectricity in the U.S. The Free Trade Agreement will prevent the coal industry in North Dakota from setting import tariffs against that hydroelectricity going into the U.S.
What about the fear expressed so often that in times of shortage we would have to sell our resources to the United States and could not look after our own interests? Unfortunately, sometimes we have short memories sometimes. Many of us have forgotten that Canada and other nations entered into agreements early in the 1970s specifying that in times of shortage there will be a sharing according to existing contracts in proportion with existing contracts. For example, if we in Manitoba sell 20 per cent of our electricity into the United States and consume 80 per cent of it ourselves and there is, for some reason, a shortfall in Manitoba we have agreed, and it seems to me morally logical as well as the law of the land at the moment to share that shortfall for the duration of that contract. The Americans would not have it any other way and we would not sell energy if it were any other way. If we were the customer, we would not have it any other way either.
The Free Trade Agreement is complex. Any document written by lawyers is inevitably complex.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I am afraid that is true. It is a make-work project by lawyers. If we could all understand what lawyers wrote, perhaps we would not need lawyers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I say that facetiously, of course. It is difficult to read legalese and it is not exciting to read. It reminds me of some of the history texts which I read and even some of the material which I have written, none of which is exciting to read. It is still
December 20, 1988

exceedingly important to understand. Unfortunately, in this age of television we have this tremendous tendency to reduce the complex to simplicity which makes it easier for us but it can also be very misleading.
I see the Free Trade Agreement as an opportunity. We in Western Canada have always believed in opportunity. There are no guarantees but there were no guarantees when the pioneers came to Western Canada. When our forefathers came to Western Canada there were no guarantees of success. There was no guarantee the region would be productive and there was no guarantee that there would be markets for what was produced. There was a willingness to take a risk. First because the people who came believed in themselves.
I believe that we as Canadians must continue to believe in ourselves. I say with some sadness that sometimes I believe we are our own worst enemies. For whatever reason, Canadians have a certain inclination to develop an inferiority complex. As a result of that inferiority complex, we cannot compete with others because they are larger but I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that we throughout our history have demonstrated that it is not the size of the nation that is important, it is the quality of the people who constitute the nation.
I believe our history demonstrates that we have the capacity to be a world leader. We have the capacity to trade with our American friends to the south. I believe, given the opportunity we as a nation are about to take that opportunity and we will prove that we can in the future do as we have done in the past. We can do with it in such a fashion that we will build a future. We should take that opportunity, grow with it, and build a future that is important, not only for ourselves, but for our children and generations that will come after us.
The pioneers who settled western Canada did not think only of themselves, but of other generations. They thought of their children and grandchildren. We as a nation have a responsibility to also think of our children and grandchildren. The Free Trade Agreement represents for our children and grandchildren a future on which all of us can build.


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the staff of the House of Commons for making me feel at home on this the night of my maiden speech by turning the clocks to Pacific Standard Time, the time in my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt. I would also like to take this opportunity to
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
thank all of the people in that riding for their faith in me and returning a member of the New Democratic Party to the House of Commons for the first time in more than 30 years.
The last member of the New Democratic Party to sit in the House was Owen Lewis Jones who sat in the House between 1948 and 1958. At that time he had a number of concerns about the area that are still shared today, concerns about agriculture, and productivity of the farmers. Those are still some of the concerns of the Okanagan and certainly concerns that I share with the farmers of that area.
The riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt is an interesting riding with four major regions. The Merritt area is heavy in mining, ranching, and forestry. The Similkameen area shares in common with the Okanagan region the major thrust of tourism and agriculture. The area of the boundary country is also agriculture and forestry, along with mining. It is a diverse area taking in many things of interest. In particular, Grand Forks is an area that has an interesting culture with a Doukhobor background. It also has a history that goes back into the early days of British Columbia.
One of the problems in our area, particularly in the Merritt area, but shared by the whole Okanagan- Similkameen region, is that in British Columbia the unemployment rate is approximately 2 per cent higher than the average for the rest of Canada. The Okanagan region is 2 per cent above that. In the City of Merritt the unemployment rate adjusted is 24.4 per cent, and unadjusted of those employable over 15 years of age and under 65 is pushing 37 per cent. This is something that we as Members of the House have to work toward solving. I as a Member of that region intend not to sit in the corner and say nothing, but to speak up in the House on matters such as this, and point out to the House that that is unacceptable anywhere in Canada, and certainly is unacceptable in the region that I represent.
Another large factor is that a major portion of the population of the Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt area is the seniors population. Recently I read that the population of seniors over 65 is 11 per cent in Canada. In the area of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt there is more than double that. The town of Osoyoos where I come from and reside has a seniors level over 65 of some 28 per cent. The neighbouring small community of Oliver has a seniors population of 35 per cent. The average over-all is somewhat double the national

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
average. More has to be done in my area particularly to ensure that seniors are looked after.
In talking to seniors and going through facilities throughout the past couple of years, I find that there is a definite lack of geriatric research. There are problems for seniors because there are not ample facilities for those seniors. If the facilities are present, there are other factors that they find difficult. Transportation in the area is difficult in small areas, and that is something that we as Members of this House have to deal with.
Seniors are also frightened by the unexpected and the unknown. In this particular case, the unknown that frightens seniors is the particular Bill that is before the House now. Seniors do not know and cannot receive an assurance from the Government that social programs are not part of the deal.


John Carnell Crosbie: They have had the assurance a thousand times.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Besides the assurance they need more than loud words from the Minister for International Trade from St. John's. They need something in writing, an amendment. The very fact that social programs have not been put in that agreement leaves the matter open to interpretation.


John Horton McDermid: Name the article, name the chapter that it is under.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: That is exactly what I am saying, Sir. If you read it, you would know-


Mr.. McDermid:: I've read it more times than you ever have.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: -that in fact they were not in the agreement, and should have been put in the agreement. The Minister has admitted that there were certain things that could not be dealt with in that agreement such as subsidies. They should have been dealt with by the Minister. They should have been dealt with by our negotiator. It is unacceptable that they are not and have not been in that agreement.
Our seniors deserve better than that in their golden years. They deserve the assurance. They should have that assurance, not only from the Minister, but from both sides in this deal, both Canada and the United States, that their futures will be looked after; that they do not have to worry about medicare or their social programs. It is unacceptable that those have not been put in the agreement.
In the preamble to Bill C-2 it states that the Free Trade Agreement is:
to promote productivity, employment, financial stability and the improvement of living standards,
to establish a climate of greater predictability for Canadians to plan and invest with confidence and to compete more effectively in the United States and global markets,
I would like to give an example of the type of confidence that we have in the Government. In my area there was a small utility company called West Kootenay Power and Light. In that area we were very proud of that small utility. It provided power to some five regional districts. In those regional districts Canadians at least had control of that utility. Two years ago, after the dismantling of the Foreign Investment Review Agency by the Government, over the objections of my constituents, the Government sold West Kootenay Power and Light to UtiliCorp of the United States. That company could not even purchase another utility in many of the states of the United States, but we in Canada sold that utility to the United States. We have been assured by the Members that, if we do not want to sell anything, we don't have to sell it.
That was a case, Mr. Chairman, where we did not want to sell West Kootenay Power and Light. Where is it? It is in the hands of the Americans. At the present time, the same Americans are in the Okanagan trying to push through a gas and oil turbine plant, a plant which would threaten the environment in that area, an environment to which this Government has paid only lip service. We in the New Democratic Party are going to fight for a safe environment for future generations.
That, I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, is only the start of what is to come under this Free Trade Agreement-* the sale of our utilities, the sale of our future. We are having a sale on our resources.
In my region of the country, the wine industry and the soft fruit industry are now down the tube. That is not something that is going to happen in the future. It is something that is happening now, in anticipation of the Free Trade Agreement coming into force and effect. I have friends and acquaintances who are pulling up their soft fruit trees-their peach trees, their cherry trees. This is all in anticipation of the coming into force of the Free Trade Agreement.
Our fruit growers need more than lip service from this Government. What they need is the assurance that they will be able to compete effectively. They do not want to
December 20, 1988

be sold down the river by this Government, with no program of compensation put in place for them.
In the Okanagan, there are 210 farms involved in grape growing, comprising some 1,400 acres and accounting for gross receipts in excess of $10 million a year. It is a fledgling industry. When the California wine industry was at the same stage of development, the U.S. Government saw fit to provide protection for it against competition from Europe. We in this country have decided that our fledgling wine industry is to be sacrificed on the altar of free trade. That is unacceptable.
The B.C. wine industry is a part of the future of the Okanagan. It plays a major role in terms of both tourism and agriculture. It is a necessary part of the romance of the Okanagan Valley. It is something that those travelling through the Okanagan can enjoy. In my riding alone, there are eight wineries, all of which are threatened by the Free Trade Agreement. We produce good wines. They are wines that should be available here in Parliament, in preference to French wines. We should be selling our B.C. wines here in the halls of Parliament.


John Horton McDermid: I can tell the Hon. Member that Canadian wines are available in the parliamentary dining room, and at the various social functions held by the Parliament of Canada. I invite him to go to the parliamentary dining room to see the number of good Canadian wines that are available.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: I would like to see more of our good Canadian wines available within these hallowed halls.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Surely not in the halls of Parliament.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Chairman, I have here in my hand a letter from a grape grower in Summerland, British Columbia, the owner of El Racimo Vineyards. In his letter, this person states:
The problem is quite simple to delineate. Once I have to puli out the grape vines on my land I am stuck! I will have 10 acres with a mortgage and family to support. No income. No job. No retraining program. No viable means of relocating to find employment with the debt load that I will have to sustain. No alternate crop. No means of disposing of my property (there being little demand for farm property in the Okanagan Valley nowadays). No money (since the bank wants the compensation package to protect its equity in the property).
This individual is not the only one who has this type of concern. Reference was made earlier this evening to a gentleman in the Summerland area who could not get funding, a gentleman by the name of Bill Summers. In fact his plight was raised in the House during the last
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Parliament. Because of the shortened process, he was not allowed to appear before the legislative committee.
Mr. Summers telephoned me before I left for Ottawa, requesting that he be permitted to appear before the parliamentary committee studying the Bill. He wants to tell Members of Parliament how unfair the Free Trade Agreement is, and of the uncertainty it holds for the grape growers in the Okanagan Valley.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about the GATT decision.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: I would be pleased to tell you about the GATT decision. The Free Trade Agreement was signed in October; the GATT decision came down in December.


John Horton McDermid: When was the GATT panel struck?


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: That is the situation with respect to GATT. Under the present structured compensation package, this gentleman will receive substantially less than he would normally make. The compensation package that has been put together by this Government doesn't do the job for farmers. Certainly the fact that the compensation package is what it is reflects the fact this Government has not done a proper research job.
The compensation package provides that farmers will be paid approximately $1,100 to pull out their vines, with $7,000 being provided to plant new vines. They are told that they have to upgrade, and they know that they have to upgrade. But, in order to get the upgraded grapes into their orchards, they will have to incur a cost of $11,500 an acre. Right off the bat, they are into a negative position.
That is not the crowning point. It takes approximately five years to get those vines into full production. What do these people do for a living while they are awaiting a yield from the upgraded crop? Do they simply sit on their thumbs? Will this Government provide them with financial assistance? Our grape growers are placed in an untenable position.
I had occasion to speak to one farmer recently, an individual who was over 50 years of age, and he said to me: "What am I going to do? I have put every penny I have into this farm. I have equipment that isn't good for anything but growing grapes. Some of my land isn't viable for anything but grapes. What do I do? If I switch to apples, I lose the investment I have in my equipment."
That is the effect the Free Trade Agreement has on the grape growers in my region. The soft fruit growers

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
are placed in the same situation. When is a proper compensation package going to be put together for them, such that they can take comfort from the fact that they have some means of support in their retirement years?
Many of the soft fruit growers in my region are looking to a means of supporting themselves in their retirement years. They have put everything they have into their farms, and they now need some assurance from this Government that they will have something to look forward to in their golden years.
Bill C-2 is not defensible. It is legislation that my constituents cannot live with. It is legislation which my constituents have asked me to speak out strongly against.
If amendments were allowed, I would propose an amendment to the following effect: For greater certainty, nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted so as to adversely affect Canada's social, cultural, environmental, agricultural, and regional development programs, nor impair any future federal or provincial Government in designing new policies and new programs in these fields.
Without an amendment along those lines, Bill C-2 is unacceptable to my constituents, unacceptable to British Columbians, and unacceptable to all Canadians.


Mrs. Jacques:: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for recognizing me. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to my constituents in Mercier for their support during the last election. I would like to assure them of my renewed, complete commitment and co-operation on matters of concern to them. I am very proud to represent them for another term.

I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Vancouver South on his election as Speaker of this place. As well, given that I will be, this evening, putting forward my views on the Free Trade Agreement, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate our former colleague, Pat Carney, and the Hon. Member for St. John's West on the work that they have done in connection with the Free Trade Agreement.
[ Translation]
On November 21st, the people gave us a mandate to implement the Free Trade Agreement. "Let the people decide" stated the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Chairman, we now realize that during the elections the people decided. The Leader of the Opposition wanted to tear up the agreement. But the people decided on November 21st, and on a majority basis. They proudly and enthusiastically welcomed the Free Trade Agreement. The people know full well that new initiatives are needed to ensure significant economic growth.
Mr. Chairman, this agreement is in Canada's best interests. Through trade negotiations, we will make our trade secure, give it more scope. Some 20 per cent of Quebec's products are exported abroad, 75 per cent of which to the United States. Further, 250,000 jobs are directly or indirectly linked to Quebec's external trade. It is therefore of prime importance, Mr. Chairman, to open up borders between nations, and more particularly between Canada and the United States.
The elimination of tarifs and non-tarifs barriers imposed by the United States will benefit the Canadian and Quebec economies. Improved and enlarged access and the security provided by a long-term trade agreement, will create a climate under which the private sector will invest in Quebec. Those investments will involve very modern, world-scale facilities directed to the over-all North American market. This wiil resuit in an efficient and dynamic economy.
Let me take as an example the petrochemical industry, mainly based East of Montreal's limits, in my constituency of Mercier which harbours 49.8 per cent of that industry's jobs. The petrochemical industry also is active in the constituency of my colleague for Anjou- Riviere-des-Prairies (Mr. Corbeil) and the constituency of the Hon. Member for Vercheres (Mr. Danis). That industry will see a significant difference when the reduction of tarifs leads to increased exports and the industry's profitability. Canada is the major supplier of petroleum and refined petroleum products to the United States, with deliveries upwards of 750,000 barrels a day.
Mr. Chairman, several industries in my constituency will undoubtedly benefit from the Free Trade Agreement: Union Carbide, Petromont, Kemtec and Soligaz. Soligaz is planning to export over 75 per cent of its production to the eastern United States. When the Free Trade Agreement is implemented, 15 to 20 per cent of the tariffs will fall. That will be very good.
Free trade means better jobs, better opportunities and better prices for thousands of Canadians. The Agreement opens the door to new challenges and new opportunities.
December 20, 1988

Mr. Chairman, those who stand to gain the most from the Free Trade Agreement are our children. For them, Canada will truly be a land of opportunity, growth and prosperity. They will use their many skills and talent, but more importantly, they will have all the tools they need to succeed. They will have access to the largest market in the world, the U.S. market.
The bilateral trade agreement will provide Quebec entrepreneurs with many opportunities. They will distribute their products to over 250 million American consumers. The Agreement will also open the door to world markets, because the American market is a world market.
Canada's prosperity depends largely on trade and millions of jobs depend on our ability to export our products.
The small part of the country which I have the honour and privilege to represent in the House of Commons has experienced economic difficulty during the past few years. Job losses associated with the shutdown of factories and companies created this situation. It was when the Liberals were in power, Mr. Chairman, that they closed four refineries. We worked hard to get the east end of Montreal back on its feet and we succeeded.
A refinery closed its doors at the time, in 1984, and we invested $10 million to save it.
Also, Mr. Speaker, since 1984, 2,500 jobs have been created in Mercier riding. I am proud to run as a Conservative.
I would also tell you, Mr. Speaker, that many companies have expanded and modernized in anticipation of free trade.
Indeed, the petro-chemical industry and others will enjoy increased productivity and return on investment. We will even see a very significant industrial redeployment.
Quebecers see the trade negotiations as a way to achieve five main objectives, namely to make Quebec a productive, competitive society, to develop and encourage investment, to create a substantial number of jobs, to reinforce its technological base and finally, Mr. Chairman, to fight rising protectionism.
In short, Quebec hopes to develop a dynamic economy that can adapt to its environment with more flexibility and to better seize the opportunities for change afforded by the prospect of internationalizing its markets.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that during the election campaign, the Liberals and the NDP used dishonest and unfair tactics and they continue to do so in the House today; they amuse themselves by frightening old people, women and all those who benefit from social programs. You should be ashamed to do something like that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the Liberal candidate in my riding during the campaign went around saying, "Don't vote for her. She's pregnant and she won't look after you!" What a disgrace! And what a misogynist! Look where he is today! He stayed in Montreal. He did not come here to Ottawa.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to reassure the Canadian people, all seniors, women, everyone who benefits from social programs, by telling them that their social programs will never, ever be cut. That is not part of the free trade negotiations, as my colleague from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt (Mr. Whittaker) said so well just now. He should be ashamed to say things like that and to frighten old people, to tell them that with the Free Trade Treaty, their old age security pensions will be cut. I find that ridiculous.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote Mr. Broadbent: "The Prime Minister received a clear mandate. The Agreement with all its flaws received the people's approval. It would not be appropriate to oppose it now. I believe that we have exhausted every recourse."
But today, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who is not even here tonight, tells us that and continues to delay passage of the Free Trade Bill. 1 find that shameful. It costs Canadians money- their taxes. How much do you think it costs to sit this evening?
So I would like to ask them to approve ... I think that the people gave us a clear mandate. They want free trade and I hope that you will support it.


Mr. Fontana:: Mr. Chairman, I feel proud and privileged to represent the people of London East and I thank them very much for their confidence.
First let me say that the announcement by the Deputy House Leader that he intends to invoke closure again tomorrow is totally unacceptable and irresponsible. What it means, again, is that the majority of people in Canada is denied the opportunity of putting forward its

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
position to this Government. Members on this side of the EIouse have a legitimate right to be here and have a mandate. They want to put forward their position to the Government. I agree that the Government has a mandate to govern, but it must govern responsibly. I suggest that the frequent use of closure motions essentially deny the rights of members on this side of the Elouse to put forward the concerns of the majority of Canadians who are still very uncomfortable with this deal.
It is clear that we cannot stop this bad deal, but we can try to make it better. We propose to put forward some 26 amendments, if given the opportunity to do so.
As I said before, the Government has a mandate to govern. We have a mandate to put forward our position in a responsible fashion in order to convince the Government not to implement the agreement in its present form. This assertion is in question. It is also a fact that we on this side of the House have a mandate. We were elected to represent those frustrations, those concerns, and those fears of the majority of Canadians who still feel that this deal is a bad deal.
It is fair to say, even after spending close to $30 million of taxpayers' money, that the Government has failed to convince the vast majority of Canadians that this deal is good for them. However, the Government still tries to blame us for its inability to reassure the country.
As for the NDP, I might say that it is nice to see that its Members have finally decided to help us out in opposing the deal. I feel obliged to point out that if they had focused their attention on fighting the deal during the election, rather than on the ineffective and futile campaign that they waged, maybe we would not find ourselves in this unfortunate position. Mr. Bob White also said that.
During the Leaders' debate the Prime Minister called this deal a commercial document-no big deal and cancelable on six months' notice. That did not surprise me, considering that this is the same Prime Minister who was against free trade in 1983, perhaps because of similar concerns to those that I now have. The Prime Minister also asked Canadians to take a leap of faith. However, I suggest that that leap of faith is into a pool which has no water. We as Liberals want to put some water in that pool by proposing some very constructive and positive amendments, if given the opportunity to do so.
Perhaps the Prime Minister should have referred to the positions taken by his predecessors Sir John A. Macdonald, Robert Borden, and John Diefenbaker. These wise men all understood that a comprehensive bilateral agreement with the United States, one that does not adequately protect our fundamental social, cultural, and regional differences, would be dangerous. They were right then and we are right now.
This trade deal is more than a commercial document. It is more than an agreement on tariffs. It does not provide the safeguards to protect our unique Canadian way of life and our values.
These values are reflected in the best social programs in the world, in our regional development programs, and in our cultural and environmental policies. We have always been a much more caring and generous people toward each other.
Unlike our American friends, our great social programs such as UIC, pensions, and health care have happened because Canadian Governments have made them happen, not because of market forces or the good will of big business. This is why over 37 million people in the United States live without adequate medical coverage and more than one million were turned away from hospitals last year. Our country is more than a corporate balance sheet and its people are far more important than that.
My home town of London is a major medical centre. Does the trade deal mean that the rich U.S. hospital corporations can come here and buy Canadian hospitals? While the deal only covers health management services, and we know that hospitals are within provincial jurisdiction, that does not end this concern.
Article 2011 allows either country to claim compensation if the other one takes any action that "causes nullification or impairment of any benefit reasonably expected to accrue to that Party, directly or indirectly, under the terms of the agreement". This is a critical clause. It means that the U.S. can claim compensation if Canada takes some action, even if it is not mentioned in the agreement. Article 2011 could allow the U.S. to demand compensation should its hospital corporations be prevented from expanding their services in Canada. An amendment limiting the scope of Article 2011 should be entertained.
London also has many small manufacturing plants. I am a little concerned that goods, partially manufactured in America but finished in Mexico under the Maquiladora program, could flood this country with
December 20, 1988

goods that we cannot compete with. Goods produced under Maquilidora should not be considered as U.S. origin products for the purposes of the FTA. This loophole is a killer for Ontario manufacturers. It will affect hundreds of jobs. We need safeguards and adjustment programs prepared to protect our Canadian workers before the fact, not after the fact.
Yes, the Americans are our friends and our allies. Yes, they are our greatest trading partner. But that does not mean that we have to give up our standards in the name of free trade. In fact, Mr. Ralph Nader really warned us that free trade means moving to a lower standard for our social and other programs.
Some people say that the Mulroney trade sell-out actually protects Canada. To these people I ask: If this were true, why then did we not achieve guaranteed access to the American market? Why were we not given exemption from their omnibus trade Bill? Why did we have to postpone the discussions on the crucial issue of what constitutes a subsidy?
I ask you, Mr. Chairman, who in their right mind would sign any document with a crucial definition that will remain unresolved for seven years? Is that not a classic case of putting the cart before the horse?
We already have 80 per cent free trade with the United States. We did not have to sell our souls for the other 20 per cent. We should have continued with sectoral agreements through GATT without compromise to achieve the same end.
This Government is determined to rush this agreement through at any cost and to use all tactics available to it, including closure, closure, closure, to achieve its goal.
I ask the Prime Minister in the spirit of reconciliation and healing that he himself admitted was needed after the election, whether he will he stop this parliamentary roller-coaster ride and allow for more public comment on the deal? Will he allow the House of Commons to deal with constructive and positive amendments to what he guaranteed Canadians during the election?
I am sure that the Minister for International Trade feels the same way as I do about this country. This country is a special country. It is our home and it provides our livelihood. Let me point out to Conservative Members that in the last century Sir John A. Macdonald acknowledged this when he said:
There are national considerations that rise far higher than the mere accumulation of wealth, than the mere question of trade
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
advantage: there is prestige, national status, and national dominion-
In preparation for the 21st century, and to be able to compete globally and not only with the United States, we must begin to invest more in education, more in research and development, more in training and retraining programs. In short, we have to start investing in our people to become leaders, not followers, and surely not a shadow of the United States in the North American continent.
It is an honour to be given a chance to stand up in this House to fight for my country's future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Valcourt:: If I may, Mr. Chairman, as I rise for the first time in this new Parliament, I should like to thank the people in my Madawaska-Victoria riding who have trusted me and asked me to represent them again in this Parliament.
Someone said: "Let us hear from Main Street. Main Street has spoken. The people have decided". Since we have been in this place the last few days, I thought this was all over.

I thought that we had heard enough from the prophets of gloom and doom. I thought that the campaign of fear was over. Apparently it is not. They have not come to their senses, Mr. Chairman. One must wonder if those people who were elected and had called for an election . . . After all it was the leader of the Opposition who asked for an election where the Canadian people would decide. Well, back home, in my Madawaska- Victoria riding, the people decided for Canada. They decided for the future of Canada. They voted for us because they realized what was needed to succeed. You know, during the November 21 election, the Liberal Party made the mistake of trying to represent some people they did not believe in. They did not believe in them. They thought that Canadian businessmen, that men and women, young and old, were like them. They thought that these people lacked the necessary energy, enthusiasm and resources to attack new markets. That is what the Liberals think of Canadians.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

I was proud to be a Canadian the day after the election. After the campaign of fear that I witnessed, the people collectively pulled together and said: "We do not believe that crap. We are capable Canadians. We shall succeed". I was proud to be a Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bernard Valcourt: That is what being a Canadian is all about.
On Sunday I was inadvertently watching Question Period and I saw the Right Hon. Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in a nice interview with Pam. There he was in his splendour telling us that he had caught the minds and the hearts of Canadians.
I do not have much experience in this House. I was a Member of Parliament for the first time in the last Parliament, but during this election campaign I had the occasion to visit a senior citizens' home in my riding of Grand Falls. I will never forget what I saw there. I never thought in my life as a young, naive politician, that people would sink so low as to scare poor, insecure people in a senior citizens' home. If, in order to get a vote, you have to get into a senior citizens' home, you have to go see a poor, old lady who is sick and tell her that she is going to lose her pension cheque, you are getting pretty low. That is a new high at being low. The NDP and the Liberals did that. That is what they did.

Mr. Chairman, I heard earlier a necktied Socialist refer to the Canadian identity. A necktied socialist is something dangerous! He referred to the Canadian identity we were going to be swallowed by those wicked Americans, they were going to strangle us Canadians. I am an Acadian from New Brunswick. I am from Northern New Brunswick, not an area where GM has big plants. The unemployment rate is high. We have fishermen. We have lumbermen. We have plenty of guts. We have farmers. We are Acadians, Francophones, a supposedly minority group in New Brunswick. You see, we Acadians in 1755, were the first to land in America. We came from France. Let me say to my colleagues from Quebec that Champlain, before going to their area, established Port-Royal in our area!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bernard Valcourt: Looking into the Acadian people's history, a working people, a people who had to fight for their most basic rights, we had to fight for our schools,
we had to fight for our hospital system. We had to fight to keep our language, our religion. And to hear a necktied socialist tell us that because we Acadians finally will be able to prosper, have a little money in our pockets, create jobs, we are going to become Americans? No, thank you. No way! We are not Americans. We are and will remain Acadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Chairman,. ..

You hear some of the Grits or the socialists talk about the Sale of Canada Act. We have sold Canada.

We sold the country down the river, so they say. I would like to ask him to come down in the Madawaska area. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, how I explained this to people at home? Let me tell you about the great city of Edmundston, the capital city of the Republic of Madawaska. The Republic of Madawaska is our area. In our area, we are next to the American border. Those wicked Americans, we see them every day. We visit. We go and have a beer on their side, they come and have a beer on our side. We fraternize.
In our area, Mr. Chairman, there is a large paper mill. It is now owned by Noranda, those wicked capitalists who create jobs, you know. They employ people.
In our area, there is a large paper mill, and I told everybody-there is a paper mill in our area and there is another one on the other side of the river. Some 800 feet across the river. There are two mills-one on the American side and one on the Canadian side. During the campaign, the socialist candidate and the Liberal candidate were saying: "Free trade is horrible! We are going to lose jobs. This will sell the country down the river."
Well I am telling you that they have been selling off the country for too long, much too long!
Back home I would say to them: Have you ever asked yourselves why in Edmundston ... You, shut up!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bernard Valcourt: Why do we have a paper mill in Edmundston, a huge paper mill which does not produce any paper? We do not make paper, we make pulp. We harvest our natural resources, our lumber, we take our big beautiful logs on the Verte River, we bring them to the mill, we stir a bit, we make paste and then we ship
December 20, 1988

that to the United States and they make the paper. Do you know why? Because of the tariffs. Because if we make the paper in Canada they slap on a tariff when it gets to the border. So the mill is built in the United States and the paper is made in the United States. We have been shipping our natural resources down south for a good many years.
The people in the Atlantic ... I see the former mayor of Moncton, the Member for Moncton, a man from the Atlantic who should know better and who spoke against the Free Trade Agreement. What did our fishing industry produce? We take a big cod. Back home we fish for cod, then what do we do with it? What? Do you know what we do with it? We freeze it and ship it whole to the border. And do you know what the Americans do when they see our big beautiful cod? They kiss it. Welcome! They take our cod to New England. They have their own people work on it.
Do you know what we would like to be able to do? We would like to take that same cod, cut it up ourselves in nice little filets, wrap them in attractive packages labeled "Made in New Brunswick" and then sell them to the Americans.
Mr. Chairman, when we are ... You too shut up! When you think of the speeches we hear in the House . . . and this afternoon some Members were still talking about water. They still think we are going to divert the St. Lawrence River and reroute it through the United States. These projects do not make any sense! But those people, Mr. Chairman, they seem to think that the apocalyptic message they sent out during 51 days . . . But Canadians gave you a clear answer. You wanted Main Street to speak, Main Street has spoken!
Mr. Chairman, Christmas eve is drawing close. A moment ago I was listening to the previous speaker who was upset because we imposed closure. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, we ought to use the guillotine, and I am not too sure where, but certainly in the debates because Canadians have heard everything Members opposite had to say to scare them. They heard all the threats.
Older Canadians. I have a suggestion for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When the next cheques are sent out, why not include a notice to the effect that, despite the free trade deal, they will get their cheques in February, they will get them in March, they will get them in April. Let's tell them!


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear, Real Caouette! The bogey men!
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Bernard Valcourt: Yes, the bogey men and the scarecrows, but this is Christmas time. Go and decorate your Christmas trees in peace! Stop scaring people. Accept the will of the Canadian people. Because the night of the election, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) were saying to Canadians they accepted the verdict. In a boxing ring, when the referee counts to ten and declares you out, you shut up and go home. That is all you can do.
The people have decided. They have legitimate concerns, of course, but if they want to know what the Free Trade Agreement really means, I tell them to go to the office of my colleague, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) who will be delighted to explain it to whoever is able to understand.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River has the floor.


Mr. Nault:: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to have to follow a bit of comic relief. I know that it is a difficult time and a difficult night, with long hours. It is always nice to have someone be a bit of a clown.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Daniel Nault: Unfortunately, this is a serious issue.
I would like to begin by taking this opportunity to thank the people from Kenora-Rainy River who have again gone back to the Party that got this country this far in so long.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Remember Trudeau.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Order, please. I would appreciate a little civility. The Hon. Member is making his maiden speech.


Robert Daniel Nault: I want to take this opportunity to thank the people of Kenora-Rainy River for the honour of representing them in Parliament. I have been given the task of representing their collective views in this House.
Kenora-Rainy River is the fifth largest riding in Canada. It consists of a hardy breed of northerners who are very independent thinking and very proud of their part of the country.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Kenora-Rainy River is a very beautiful part of Canada, one which has potential not only in the natural resource sector but in tourism and the service industries. Agriculture is also a very significant aspect of the southern portion of the riding.
The Kenora-Rainy River riding has tremendous potential, potential that as yet has not begun to be tapped. That potential will be severely handicapped if this Free Trade Agreement goes through.
In an area like northwestern Ontario the need for the Government to take an active role is essential to achieving growth and prosperity. From the mid-1930s to the election of the Government in 1984, the strategic objective of successive Canadian Governments in trade negotiations has been to increase the standard of living of Canadians by obtaining improved and more secure access to foreign markets at reasonable costs which do not put our independence at risk and provide some flexibility to continue protecting a few industries that have difficulty competing with imports.
Why this Government has thrown those objectives out the window only God and their corporate friends can answer.
Because of the Government's need to pursue its political objectives, my riding stands to be a big loser under this agreement, as does all of northern Ontario. I guess the Tories already know this because all they have to do is look around and across the aisle to notice that only one of their Members out of twelve are left. The Hon. Member for Timiskaming must feel awfully lonely.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: No, I feel great.


Robert Daniel Nault: Due to the 1987 softwood lumber understanding and its grandfathering by Article 1910 of the agreement, the Government has in effect killed the softwood lumber industry in northern Ontario. Adam Zimmerman, chief executive office and chairman of Noranda Forests Incorporated, recently stated that the lumber agreement cost Canada's forest products industry more than $1 billion in 1987. Does that not seem to be an odd way to reduce costs, raise real incomes, and create new jobs?
On behalf of those men and women who have lost their jobs because of the Government's lack of intestinal fortitude or guts, I would like to say thanks for nothing.
I will not apologize for the people of Kenora-Rainy River who have voted against the Free Trade Agreement. As the Liberal Party has continuously said over and over, we are in favour of trade. We are free enterprisers, but we believe our country has been sold down the river by this Government.
What is it that we as Liberals have against this particular Free Trade Agreement? Is it, as the Conservatives would lead us to believe, for political reasons, or is it truly because this is the most poorly negotiated deal in history?
We have given away our forestry industry and our agricultural sector. We have given away our energy resources, and more specifically control over these resources, to the point that policy in this sector will be controlled in Washington, not in the halls of the Legislatures of our great country.
Due to its hidden agenda which is to tie the hands of future Governments and to limit the role of the Government of Canada, the Government has entered into a harmonization of economic policy. What does this harmonization mean? To me, it means the same wages for workers in this country as for those in the U.S. It means less contribution by business for the benefits of workers. It means less unemployment insurance for Canadians in the long term. It means that pension moneys given by business will be eroded because of the pressure to compete with comparable American businesses to achieve a so-called level playing field.
I am very ashamed that this Government will be allowed to widen even further the gap between the rich and the poor.
The Tory Government is in the process of creating a fragmented society, a society which will not nurture the areas of the country which are vulnerable to boom and bust cycles, areas like northern Ontario which rely so heavily on natural resources and the industries that go along with these resources.
Under the Free Trade Agreement, subsidizing industry during these difficult times will be prohibited. So much for regional development in regions of Canada like Kenora-Rainy River. I suggest that if members on the government side really care about the regions of the country which need government assistance, they should join with me in recommending an amendment to the FTA which would allow maintenance of regional development.
December 20, 1988

Similar to the pressures to harmonize our economic and social policies with those of the U.S., there will also be eventual pressure by business to standardize Canadian and U.S. environmental protection. This is a very obvious conclusion.
In order for companies in Canada to compete with companies on the other side of the border, their production costs must be of an equal nature. Canadians cannot allow this to happen, because if they do-and the record of past American Governments proves how small a priority the environment is to them-future generations of Canadians will never forgive us for our insensitive and uncaring policies of the 1980s. The environment and the protection of our environment are our gifts to future generations. Let us as parliamentarians never lose sight of this objective.
During the election campaign, the citizens of Keno-ra-Rainy River continually indicated to me their disgust of the American style of politics used by the Tory Party. One particular advertisement which the Tories used on the radio went like this: "A vote against the Free Trade Agreement is like shooting yourself in the foot, but a vote for the NDP and John Turner and the Liberal Party is like shooting yourself in the head". Is this any way to set an example to the young people of Canada who are listening to this type of garbage?
The last election campaign was like a nightmare. It got so bad that I had people tell me at the door that they were no longer watching the news at night. Seniors in particular could not believe how downright slimy this Party had stooped to become. I am sure this election campaign will go down in history as being the most distasteful the electorate of Canada has ever seen.
What I disliked most, if it is possible to dislike something the most considering the number of flaws in the deal, was the virtual giveaway of our ability to regulate American foreign investment in Canada. We in the Liberal Party have always believed that foreign investment is good for Canada, but simply to open the doors to foreign investment without insisting on some performance rules, job creation or screening, is just plain suicide.
It is essential that the Conservative Party exercises its right as the ruling Party to allow amendments which will restrict the complete takeover of Canada by American interests. If these amendments are not forthcoming, the fragile economy of northern Ontario will be in jeopardy. I respectfully ask government Members and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
all Members of the House to consider the implications as I have outlined them.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I rise more in sorrow than in anger. I have been here pretty well all day waiting to hear one original thought, one new argument, one new point that any member of the Official Opposition or the unofficial opposition could bring up in connection with the Free Trade Agreement, and there was not one new point. There were no new points. We have been subjected all day today and all day yesterday to a series of repetitious points, the same hackneyed, false points that were made during the election campaign by the same false, hackneyed people, some of whom got elected to the House.
The best illustration of the kind of campaign that was waged against the Free Trade Agreement I can think of was when a Liberal candidate in Newfoundland, who turned out to be successful, met a young woman walking down the road in a rural area. She was eight months pregnant and he went up to her and said: "You know, that is the last free one you will be having". That is the kind of campaign that was waged against the Free Trade Agreement by Liberal candidates, and they should be ashamed of themselves for waging such a campaign.
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I prophesize that in a year's time, in two years' time, in three years' time, in four years' time, we will not hear another word from members of the Opposition about the Free Trade Agreement because they will be afraid to utter a word against it when the next election comes. We are hearing the last kick at the cat by this mangy collection opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It was Mark Twain-


Don Boudria: He is a well-known Canadian.


John Carnell Crosbie: He was an American. There are some well-known Canadians, but it was Mark Twain who said that if you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not fight you. That is the principal difference between a dog and a man. That is also the principal difference between a man and a Liberal or a man and an NDPer. We will make them prosperous against their own will, against the struggle they have put up against the Free Trade Agreement. The difference between them and the dog is that they will be biting us in four years' time instead of thanking us.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I came across another statement today that reminded me of many of the Hon. Members opposite. Someone, though I do not know who, said that it was unfortunate that a mere 90 per cent of politicians give the other 10 per cent a bad name. There is an hon. gentleman back there from some district in Vancouver. He had to scoot all over B.C. to find a district that would accept him. I am glad to see he snook back in. It is nice to see him back here because he is not a bad chap for a socialist.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to deal for a couple of moments with something which the Member from Malpeque said today about regional development. How long, oh Lord, do we have to go on with this talk about regional development and how the Free Trade Agreement is somehow going to put a stop to regional development policies in Canada? How could we put a stop to them when they are in the very Constitution itself? That this country is dedicated to overcoming regional disparity is in the very Constitution.
Many hon. persons opposite are supporters of GATT. The critic for the NDP would not come to our GATT meeting in Montreal last week because his Leader would not pass on the invitation to him. I personally wanted to see him at the GATT to see how he would perform when he saw there was a GATT, when he got himself torn away from his fixation with the U.S. Free Trade Agreement. I was hoping to see him and the Hon. Member from "Winnipeg Soft Centre" at the GATT as well but, no, he did not turn up at the GATT.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not know where the Member from "Winnipeg Soft Centre" was when the GATT meeting was on. I am glad to see the Hon. Member for Sudbury is back in the House. I have never heard him make sense, but he is often amusing and that makes up for it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I would like to suggest that the Minister stick to the subject, though I know it is difficult since he has not read the deal. I very much hope that he will come across with some comments about this trade deal rather than about extraneous subjects.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, we can all be thankful at what we are saving his students from.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member from "Windsor- Woeful" should just sit back and relax.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us look at the Free Trade Agreement and regional development. There happens to be a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that was entered into by the Liberal Government of the day in 1947, I believe it was. Ever since 1947 there has been a subsidies code of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I know that this is news to the Hon. Member from "Winnipeg Soft Centre" who has never looked at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trades. I do not know what he has ever looked at frankly, except the mirror.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Article 8 and Article 11 of the Subsidies Code of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade read like this: "Subisidies are used by Governments to promote important objectives of social and economic policy. Among such objectives are the elimination of industrial economic and social disadvantages of specific regions.
In other words, ever since 1947, Governments have been given the imprimatur. They have been given permission. They have been given consent. They have been given the go ahead. They have been given the okay. They have been given the nod to go ahead and subsidize within their own countries for certain purposes, to promote important objectives of social and economic policy, including the elimination of industrial, economic and social disadvantages of specific regions. I am from a region that has suffered from industrial, economic and social disadvantages for 400 years, and I am the living proof of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Do you think for one moment that I am going to support a Free Trade Agreement that does away with the possibility of assistance from my own region which suffers from industrial, economic and social disadvantages? Do you think that the Premier of Newfoundland-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 20, 1988


John Carnell Crosbie: That is why you got 2,000 votes in my district and I got 25,000 votes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am too modest to mention this but I happened to get 60.5 per cent of the vote, and I have a mandate and I have a "womandate" as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I want you to go down to Branch-92 per cent of the vote, 92 per cent! When I find that other miserable 8 per cent, God help them.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: As I was saying, the Free Trade Agreement was negotiated under the terms of the GATT and incorporates certain provisions of the GATT, including the GATT subsidies code. This means that Governments in Canada can continue to provide for economic growth and development. Why then did the opposition Parties go around this country, particularly in Atlantic Canada, with the vicious untruth that somehow this agreement was to interfere with regional development in this country? All that is in the Free Trade Agreement is a commitment for us to negotiate with the Americans to see if we can agree on a common definition of trade distorting subsidies, but 96 nations in the GATT have not as yet been able to agree on what these are. We want to see whether we can agree with the Americans. If they suggest a definition that we disagree with, we say no, n-o, no.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is not an American in the world that I am afraid of. There is not a member of the NDP or a member of the Liberal Party that I am afraid of. There is no one I am afraid of, Mr. Chairman. I can say no to anyone, except my wife.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is nothing in this Free Trade Agreement that endangers Canadian regional development policies of general application across this country.
We heard, of course, the myth and the exaggerations about social policies. We have already had a social policy that was challenged in the United States of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
America. The two opposition Parties knew of it. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition knew all about it. This famous lawyer headed up McMillan Binch in a pinch. You could find him at McMillan Binch for a number of years. He had to know all about this, because if he did not know all about it himself he had to the high-powered help to tell him about it. They used to take him by the hand and lead him down to Winston's every day for lunch and lead him back after lunch.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: In 1985 one of our social programs was challenged, Mr. Chairman. You are certainly well qualified to be Mr. Speaker. In fact, I hope some day to be looking at you and seeing you in an upper place wherever that might be.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: One of our social programs, unemployment insurance for fishermen, was challenged in 1985 by a group of American fish importers or somebody down there who did not like competition from Canada in the fishing industry. They challenged the unemployment insurance program for fishermen and claimed it was a subsidy.
Who threw it out? Who overturned the case? Who gave it the boot? Who took it by the slack of the drawers and put it right out through the door? The Americans took it by the slack of the drawers, not Canadians, not Ukranians, not Uruguayans, not Peruvians. Americans took this stupid case by the slack of the pants and threw it out through the door because they said that it was a social program of general application, and therefore it could not be challenged.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I regret that I have to interrupt the Hon. Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


John Carnell Crosbie: We have another nine hours tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Danis: It being twelve o'clock midnight, pursuant to Order made Friday, December 16, 1988, it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to consider the Bill again at the next sitting of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.

December 20, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation] The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): Pursuant to Order made on Friday, December 16, 1988, the House	stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today, pursuant to Stand ing Order 24(1). The House adjourned at 12 midnight.

Wednesday, December 21, 1988