1988-08-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition No. 332-5095.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-147, an Act to establish the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Hon. Harvie Andre (on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-148, An Act to establish the Canadian Centre for Management Development and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to give the Minister leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this Bill be read for the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POSTAL SERVICES REVIEW ACT


Harvie Andre: for leave to introduce Bill C-149, an Act to provide for the review of postal rates and services and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
August 15, 1988
[DOT] (mo)
Introduction of Bills
[DOT] (M40)


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-315, an Act respecting Magna Carta Day.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


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 (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation that later today the Government will likely indicate its intention to invoke closure and muzzle Parliament, I thought this would be an appropriate Bill to introduce.
The purpose of the Bill is to afford Canadians, as beneficiaries of the gradual development of representative parliamentary democracy, the opportunity to commemorate, with the appropriate ceremonies in schools and other public places, the signing of the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215, an act which marked the beginning of the decline of arbitrary power and the emergence in Britain of responsible government from which the entire democratic world has benefited.


Nelson Andrew Riis: that the Bill be read the first time and printed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. I have been awake here all morning. As far as the House of Commons is concerned and the work it has done, it might as well be in a sleep walk. I was here with a tie, still with my open-toed sandals, but that is the compromise and that is not the point. I did not vote, although I was here, and I do not intend to vote on any more of these facetious delaying tactics.
I abstained because I believe a Member has the right to bring in a Bill, but obviously what is being done is being done for many other reasons than to introduce a Private Member's Bill. It is a perversion of the parliamentary process.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I was present in the House when the vote was taken. I did not vote because I refuse to take part in this foolish waste of time.


Ms. Copps:: Mr. Speaker, I voted against the motion, not because I am against the Magna Carta but because the New Democratic Party is using this process as a delaying tactic. New Democrats do not want to discuss the substance of the trade Bill.


Mr. Marchi:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on the same point of order. I am not against the principle of introducing motions. 1 am against the principle of the New Democratic Party that with closure will be unable to-



AN ACT TO AMEND THE FOOD AND DRUGS ACT

Nelson Andrew Riis: for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act (cautionary label on alcoholic beverage containers).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Introduction of Bills


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


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


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I was present during the vote but again refused to take part in this foolish waste of time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Food and Drugs Act to require sellers and importers of alcoholic beverages to place a cautionary label on the containers of these beverages stating that excessive drinking impairs driving ability.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is after one o'clock. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.07 p.m. the House took recess.

August 15, 1988


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the pesticide 2,4-D prompted two studies in the United States, each suggesting that there is a link between a form of lymphatic cancer and this common weed killer. A recent Canadian study has shown that the frequency of this type of cancer and the number of deaths it causes have doubled, claiming 1,500 lives in 1986. Yet most other types of cancer have been declining in Canada.
Because the effects of 2,4-D occur over a long time, it is unlikely that we can accurately determine how many Canadians are at risk today. But evidence is mounting that the pesticide 2,4-D is a threat to public health. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), who has a clear responsibility to protect the health of Canadians, must fulfil his mandate and ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to suspend the use of 2,4-D in Canada until we know for certain that public health is not threatened.



NATIVE PEOPLES


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan has the second highest proportion of its residents which are of native ancestry. Unfortunately, as a recent study points out, Indian and Metis elderly are experiencing a great deal of hardship in obtaining quality housing. There are problems with inadequate sanitation and other amenities which seniors require on a day-to-day basis. This situation will require that the needs and concerns of the Metis and Indian elderly are dealt with urgently.
These are only several examples of the problems facing Indians and Metis senior citizens. It is apparent that CMHC and Indian Affairs must respond to improve the quality of housing and social services that are made available to this group of Canadians.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) has managed to enrage commercial fishermen, native fishermen, sports fishermen, community groups and even the general public in British Columbia.
The fisheries resource-in particular salmon-is highly prized for food as a source of income and for recreation. The Minister does nothing when his friend, Bob Wright, publishes false and misleading ads in the Vancouver Sun, encouraging people to come to the Queen Charlottes for "unlimited salmon fishing". The Minister in fact supports this by suggesting that when the commercial sports catch increases, there will be a reduction in the quota for the commercial troll fleet, and obviously further closures for native and sport fisheries.
At a time when there needs to be a serious and clear-headed approach to negotiating and settling the issue of aboriginal rights to fish, the Minister supports litigation to halt all negotiations.
At a time when there needs to be a serious development of user group watershed management boards, to assist in developing plans to protect our endangered runs, the Minister doles $6 million to study why pollution is killing the belugas in the St. Lawrence but does nothing to stop the pollution or to protect our B.C. salmon and steelhead. Canada needs a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who finds solutions, not one who creates problems.



FREE TRADE


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to report to this House today that 131 people have already lost from free trade. Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, the Simonds Company of Granby announced that it was laying off 131 workers and told the local press that it was moving all its operations back to the United States in order to serve the North American market from its base in Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, Simonds has just given the people of Granby, Quebec and Canada a bitter foretaste of free trade. And unfortunately, at this time, there is no adjustment or early retirement program for these workers, who are already in their fifties, and even if Canadian interests wanted to take back this factory, there is no industry adjustment program for businesses.
August 15, 1988



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
So in the coming days and weeks, we will ask the Government to assume its responsibilities and to act on this free trade issue for which 131 families have already paid the price.
Mr. Speaker, Quebecers and Canadians care about this issue and I am convinced that the Simonds example shows us how the Government intends to treat Canadian workers in future.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the senseless war between Iran and Iraq had gone on for too long, and the world welcomes the cease-fire arranged through the auspices of the United Nations.
Canada, with its expertise in peacekeeping operations, has been asked by the United Nations to help monitor the ceasefire and re-establish peace in this beleaguered region.
Our good wishes go with the 500 Canadian troops who will be involved with this difficult and dangerous work. May their efforts be crowned with success.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, for decades westerners have known that they have not received their fair share of attention from the federal Government. Whether it was regional development programs, industrial grants, CIDA contracts, or orders from Supply and Services, the West never received its fair share.
Have things improved with the Mulroney Government? No. In 1985, 6.5 per cent of federal Supply and Services spending was in British Columbia. In 1986 that figure fell to 5.3 per cent; and in 1987 Supply and Services spending plummeted to account for only 4.1 per cent of federal spending. B.C.'s share of Supply and Services contracts has fallen by 37 per cent since the Mulroney Government assumed office.
B.C. has 11.4 per cent of Canada's population, yet last year received only 4.1 per cent of Supply and Services contracts for various goods and services. This is a disgrace. It is high time that British Columbia and the West got their fair share of the federal Government's support. Westerners are not prepared any longer to accept being second-class citizens of Canada.



GREAT LAKES-POLLUTION OF SEVERN SOUND

Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, Severn Sound, a shallow bay which is the entrance to the Trent Severn Waterway, has been classified by the International Joint Commission as one of 17 toxic hot spots on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes.
The study has found that this area, noted for its fine sports fishing, is experiencing a decline in such species as bass and pickerel. Mercury contamination has been found in large pickerel.
It is clear that this area, one of the province's best both visually and economically, is facing a crisis if action is not taken soon. Regulations must be brought forward which will control the amount of phosphates presently entering the water from boats, farms, and towns. Phosphates, like acid rain, are threatening to take away Canada's beautiful environment. I urge federal and provincial agencies to take action before it is too late.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-NIAGARA GRAPE GROWERS

Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, farmers in the Niagara Peninsula are literally dying on the vine while the Government does nothing about an alleged promise to buy them out on the basis of the sell-out of the free trade deal. Last week I met with grape growers in my riding and they will be forced to come to Ottawa to dump sour grapes on the desk of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) if they are going to get any action. They do not want the grape buy-out to be simply another election promise. They need action now.
There are farmers who cannot get operating loans. There are farmers who want to move into other commodities. They are unable to do so because the Government has failed again in its promise to help those grape growers who were sold out as a result of this trade deal.
There are seven seats in the Niagara Peninsula. There is not a single Conservative who will be re-elected in that area because they have not spoken out to fight for their people. They have forced the farmers on to the streets of Ottawa to fight for justice.
I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to follow through on his promise at least to provide financial compensation for the Niagara grape growers.

August 15, 1988



S'. O. 21 TRADE CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-NORTHERN ONTARIO BUSINESSES

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity over the last number of weeks to sit as the representative from northern Ontario on Bill C-130 in the legislative committee on trade, may I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to those in the House who have a tendency not to believe in the trade deal and how important it is for regions of the country such as northern Ontario, that the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Roger Hamel, came out strongly in support of the free trade agreement which will benefit small and medium-sized businesses in northern Ontario, as has the Canadian steel industry which is vital to northern Ontario, my riding, and the mining community.
The C.D. Howe Institute has stated that Canada should establish and maintain the attitude that we should have a free trade agreement with the United States.
When one listens to members of the Opposition and the negative approach that they have, one cannot help but conclude they are not interested in building a strong future for Canada and Canadians. They are more interested in destroying something that will be good for each and every one of us.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has been very generous to the people of his home riding of Manicouagan. Over $288 million has been spent in that riding, confirming what we already know about the Conservatives' tactics. When a region matters in terms of electoral politics, it can be assured of financial attention from the Prime Minister. This was true of Lac-Saint-Jean, and it is true of Manicouagan.
But what about the rest of the country? Some areas are not as well served. In Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia, and in the interior of British Columbia, people are struggling with high rates of unemployment and few job opportunities. Where are the hand-outs there? In my riding of Hamilton Mountain many older workers were laid off last January and they are still waiting for a federal government program to help them cope until they can collect their pensions. But they do not live in an important riding for the Conservatives, so they will have to continue waiting.
The Conservatives have made regional disparities in this country worse, because they can only see where their interests lie, and not the importance of all Canadians' interests.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jim Caldwell (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, while some parts of Ontario have received adequate rainfall over the past few weeks-and it rains here in Ottawa today-the drought and its effects continue in my riding of Essex-Kent. Above normal temperatures and lack of rain have devastated many of the earlier processing crops, many of which have had to be bypassed or ploughed down because of poor quality.
Corn and soybean crops have not matured properly, and yields are expected to be reduced dramatically. Fruit crops, such as apples and tomatoes, have not fared well from the extreme heat and lack of rainfall.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) indicated earlier that assistance would be forthcoming for Ontario farmers.
The farmers in my riding have been thankful for the assistance the Government has provided in the past, but they do not want to be forgotten as conditions improve in other areas of the province. The drought is still a reality in the deep south of Ontario, and its effects continue to take their toll on crops and on the financial position of farmers.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Mul-roney-Reagan trade deal is currently at report stage in the House of Commons. Because the agreement seriously compromises the integrity and sovereignty of our nation, it is absolutely vital that Members are permitted the opportunity to debate a host of important amendments proposed by our Party's trade critic which seek to correct a piece of legislation that will drastically alter the fabric of Canada.
Yet, for the last several days, between the Government's threat of imposing closure, which would prematurely choke off any debate, and the daily, useless delay tactics of the NDP, which prevent the debate from continuing, the principle of conducting a mature and frank discussion is being sabotaged.
While the Liberal Party is firmly opposed to this deal, it is not afraid and indeed wishes to discuss the issues freely and fully. By threatening to close debate, the Tories are revealing their undemocratic streak, while the NDP's delay tactics are clearly non-democratic.
We Liberals not only demand that the Government should let the people decide, but we are also asking, for the peoples' benefit, that the Conservatives and members of the NDP should let the Members speak.
August 15, 1988



FREE TRADE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on July 30, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture issued a press release expressing its concern about Bill C-130, the Bill to implement the Prime Minister's trade agreement.
According to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Bill contains harmful measures for many agricultural sectors. For example, this group mentions that the marketing system and the future of quotas are in danger; that the whole Canadian Wheat Board marketing system is threatened; that the quality standards for Canadian agricultural products are seriously affected and finally that Canada's horticultural industry is in danger.
Considering this alarming situation, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must ask Canadians for their consent before final passage of this Bill.
The Prime Minister received a mandate against free trade. If he changed his mind in favour of such an agreement, he certainly did not consult the public and above all, he does not have the right to impose this agreement without the approval of the Canadian people. The final decision belongs to the people.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to state just for the record that what the New Democratic Party is doing is to try to use this democratic House to see to it that there is sufficient opposition placed before the Government in its attempt to push through a trade deal for which this country has not given it a mandate. For the Liberal Party to criticize us for trying to use this democratic House is absolute idiocy of the highest order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I think this weekend all Canadians were encouraged by the sight of troops of our Armed Forces going to join a UN peacekeeping mission in the Middle East. We all applaud the
Oral Questions
reinvigoration of the United Nations as a way of resolving conflict.
I hope this initiative will not deflect our attention from major conflicts in our own hemisphere. The situation in Central America is deteriorating rapidly. There have been new calls by the Reagan administration for support for military aid for the Contras. President Arias in Costa Rica is once again appealing for outside countries to provide some support.
Six weeks ago a Commons committee unanimously put forward a series of recommendations as to how the Government of Canada could provide important and constructive recommendations, proposals and initiatives to help the peace initiative along. We have heard nothing from the Government since then. This is where Canada could provide a major contribution to an area of conflict in our own hemisphere and demonstrate our capacity and maturity as a country to help resolve conflicts.
I hope this House will call upon the Government to take some action and show the kind of initiative for peacekeeping that we can provide in Central America.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the disastrous failure of the inshore fishery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador this year. Indeed, the fishery has suffered through all of Atlantic Canada. The fishing season has been under way now for 13 weeks and many fishermen, particularly those on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, during that 13 week period have only been able to earn an income for a maximum of two or three weeks. Incomes are so low that fishermen and their families are no longer just frustrated or angry. For the first time ever, they are hungry. They are simply not earning enough to feed their families.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Fishermen are primary producers just as the farmers of Canada are primary producers. They deserve assistance from their Government in times of natural disaster.
My question is a straightforward one. Is the Government prepared, given the natural disaster that is happening and the human tragedy that is unfolding, to provide direct financial compensation to fishermen and their families throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, those fishermen and their families who are affected throughout Atlantic Canada?

August 15, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, this Government, whenever it has been shown that an additional program is needed to assist inshore fishermen, has instituted such programs.
I noticed, listening to the hon. gentleman with care, that he did not cite any facts whatever to establish the point that he is attempting to suggest, namely, that there has been a disastrous failure in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador this year. He cited no facts because the facts do not support that statement.
There is no evidence, Mr. Speaker, of a disastrous inshore fishery about the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador this year. In certain locations fish may or may not have come in, as happens from time to time. Generally and by and large, the inshore fishery in Newfoundland has been a good and reasonable fishery this year. If there are areas where fishing disasters occur locally, where special assistance might be needed, certainly we would consider that.
I might point out to the hon. gentleman that we have invigorated and added funds to the Small Craft Harbours Program. For example, I announced last week the awarding of a contract in Bauline for a S2.2 million breakwater for the fishermen of Bauline, as well as a $2 million contract in Flat Rock for the same purpose, all of which assists our inshore fishery.


PROPOSED MEETING OF FISHERMEN
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of Parliament going on nine years now, and in those nine years I have met fishermen many times. I have often seen them angry. I have sometimes seen them frustrated and sometimes seen them happy, but I have never seen fishermen whose spirits were broken and who had tears in their eyes. If the Hon. Member for St. John's West were in his riding, he would know what the evidence is. It is human tragedy right on the wharf. That is the evidence.
There is also the evidence of a telegram from the President of the Fishermen's Union of Newfoundland and Labrador which says that there is mounting evidence of a failure of disastrous proportions of the inshore fishery in the Straits of Belle Isle and along the West Coast of Newfoundland. If the Hon. Member for St. John's West were less concerned about pork-barrelling in St. John's West and more concerned about-


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


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Fishermen and their families, wives and children, cannot wait for an election campaign for assistance.
If the Hon. Member for St. John's West wants evidence of what is happening out there in the inshore fishery, will he
accompany me, or will he have one of his colleagues accompany me to a public meeting to be held in St. Anthony, Newfoundland, Saturday night, where many hundreds of inshore fishermen who are hungry and whose families are hungry will turn out in the hope that someone is listening and someone will give them the same kind of consideration rightly given to the farmers of Canada when they needed help?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, we have yet to hear one solid fact, any fact, that shows, in the hon. gentleman's words, that there has been a disastrous failure of the inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador this year. I can vouch for the fact that in the areas that I have visited which are in my own district, Peter's River, St. Mary's Bay and other places on the Avalon Peninsula, there has been quite a good inshore fishery this year.
There are some spots where the fishery is bad, like Lawn and the St. Lawrence area. There may be some areas in White Bay where the fishery has been bad, but the spirits of the fishermen are not broken. There has not been a disastrous inshore fishery in Newfoundland.
As a matter of fact, the cod fishery on the Labrador coast, particularly in the Black Tickle-Batteau area, has improved tremendously in the recent several weeks. The complaint there is that there is glut that cannot be handled. There is so much fish being caught that they cannot all be properly disposed of.
With reference to the mention of St. Anthony, I know that St. Anthony has recently come within the boundaries of the hon. gentleman's district, because this is the first time I have ever heard him mention St. Anthony in this House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we just heard from the Minister representing Newfoundland in the House of Commons that, providing there is no problem in St. John's West, there is no problem in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is exactly the problem with that kind of parochial, pompous mentality of this Minister.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SEND REPRESENTATIVE TO MEETING
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister obviously takes his cue from the Prime Minister who said: "I gave you $261 million". What kind of morality has a Government that has a quarter of a billion dollars to help the re-election of a single Member, even the Hon. Member for Manicouagan, and no money for inshore fishermen who are hungry right now?
I ask the Minister again, if he cannot make it because he cannot find his way outside St. John's West, will he send representatives to St. Anthony to talk to real inshore fishermen in real difficulty who want real help, not more cliches in the run up to an election campaign, and who want help now?


August 15, 1988


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to travel to St. Anthony. If St. Anthony had a credible representative in this House he could report to this House on the situation in St. Anthony, not this ridiculous posturing that there has been a disastrous inshore fishery in Newfoundland this year. That is not a true statement and no facts are given to back it up.
With reference to Newfoundland, this Government is trying to spend $1 billion in Newfoundland and the other four Atlantic provinces under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and it was voted against in this House by the hon. gentleman, and stopped in the Senate by the Liberal Party of Canada. Despite that, there have been 132 projects and an expenditure of something like $40-odd million under that program in Newfoundland and Labrador alone this year. It is the Liberal Party that is the enemy of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Why does the hon. gentleman not announce what district he is going to run in? He does not even have the guts to say he is going to run in his own district. He is getting ready to make a strategic move.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Stick to cucumbers, Crosbie.


FREE TRADE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade, who challenged my colleague to find a genuine case of human suffering.
Mr. Speaker, last Friday 131 workers at Simonds in Grandby were advised that their plant would be closing because Simonds was transferring all its operations to the United States-all in the spirit of free trade-to take advantage of the economies of scale, and that North America would be covered from Pittsburgh, Massachusetts.
I want to ask the Minister for International Trade what kind of program and what kind of reply he has in mind for these 131 workers who are the first 131 victims of free trade.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there are no victims of free trade, nor are there likely to be any, particularly if the free trade agreement is passed by this Parliament and goes into effect. There will be
Oral Questions
no victims. There will be 26 million Canadian beneficiaries if this agreement goes through.
How can the hon. gentleman get up and ask me a question about victims of free trade when the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement is not even in effect, and when the hon. gentlemen opposite say they are going to see that it is not passed, that they are calling on the Senate to forestall the legislation being passed? They are going to forget the conventions of the Constitution. Next they will call on the Governor General to dismiss the Government and act in the Government's place. That is just as democratic a procedure. Perhaps they will ask the United Kingdom to have the Queen take over there as well.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Just imagine, you are a man with a family who just got his lay-off notice and you are listening to the Minister's asinine statements . . .
Mr. Speaker, even supporters of free trade ...


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Jean-C. Lapierre: My supplementary to the Minister for International Trade is this: What kind of answer does he have for 131 heads of families who, as of November, will no longer have their jobs because their U.S. company has decided to close its branch, in line with the principles of free trade, to take advantage of the economies of scale, the economies of greater volume, and centralize its operations at a simple plant in the United States? What does he have to say to these men who are in their fifties and who have mouths to feed?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look at, and it would be interesting to establish, the exact facts with respect to the establishment to which the hon. gentleman is referring. A plant is not closing in Granby or anywhere else because of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. There is no agreement in effect. There might be some employer attempting to use this as an excuse, because blaming somebody else for your own actions, of course, when you are being criticized is always very easy.
I imagine this is a situation comparable to a letter we had from Robert White of the Canadian Auto Workers alleging that a plant in Lindsay, Ontario, was being closed because of the free trade agreement. It turns out that it had nothing at all to do with the free trade agreement and that all 86 employees were being transferred to another plant in Ontario by the same company. That is the kind of despicable tactic that the hon. gentlemen opposite and the NDP are too fond of using.

August 15, 1988
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will be well aware that at this moment tens of thousands of young Canadian families are struggling to achieve what used to be an attainable dream in Canada, that is, home ownership. The Minister will remember that two years ago he eliminated the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan.
The Canadian Homebuilders Association indicates that Part II of tax reform, which the Minister does not take much time to mention to Canadians these days, means that the new national sales tax, which is stage 2 of tax reform, will add on average 9 per cent to the cost of a new home in Canada. In Metro Toronto that means, of course, that the average price of a house will be increased by at least $20,000.
At a time when an increasing number of Canadians are finding it difficult to qualify for a mortgage and afford their first home, why is it that the Minister's tax reform proposal will result in at least $20,000 added to the price of a home in Metro Toronto as suggested by the Canadian Homebuilders Association?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first, I should point out to the Hon. Member that we have had an extended period of housing starts. There have been over
200,000	annually with the rate sustained practically on a monthly basis for the last year and a half or two years. There are clearly a lot of homes being built and those homes are being sold to end purchasers.
I do not deny for a minute that we have had a significant increase in the price of housing in the Metropolitan Toronto area. That is obviously of concern. I have commented on that in the House prior to this.
With regard to the specific question the Hon. Member has raised, I think it is too early to draw the conclusion which the Homebuilders Association has drawn. We are working closely with that Association in order to assess its view of the impacts of Phase 2 tax reform.
We must also recognize that there is a significant amount of tax in the price of a home now, whether federal sales tax or retail sales tax. That must be taken into account because in any new sales tax reform existing sales taxes will be replaced.


LEVEL OF PROPOSED TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance respond to the suggestion by the Canadian Homebuilders Association that the 9 per cent which they predict will be the actual federal sales tax which will be introduced, likely next year, will make it impossible for about
60,000	young families to own their own homes? The Minister of Finance may deny that figure.
However, since Phase 2 of tax reform is coming in, likely next year, what percentage will the national sales tax be? Will it be 5 per cent, 8 per cent or, as the Canadian Homebuilders Association has suggested, about 9 per cent? Will he at least come clean and tell us what the percentage will be?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in the White Paper on Tax Reform brought out a little over a year ago we were pretty clear on a number of elements of tax reform as we knew them at that time and were able to assess them at that time. Since then we have had considerable consultations with provinces and industries including, as I said, the homebuilding industry, in order to assess how Phase 2 of tax reform should be implemented in the fairest possible way. Those discussions are continuing.
We have had a number of meetings with the Homebuilders Association, as I said, and a number of meetings with provincial government representatives. Those consultations are continuing. Once we have had a chance to pull all of this together there will be further statements on behalf of the Government setting out the answers to some of the questions the Hon. Member may have in his mind.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance prepared to accept the fact that when the national sales tax is introduced next year it will result in a massive tax grab by the Government and that the average family will be losing hundreds of dollars through new taxes that the federal Government will be imposing on the average Canadian family? That will result in a significant increase in the rate of inflation which will obviously drive interest rates up.
The Minister of Finance ought to come clean on this whole scenario before the general election. However, if he does not respond to those questions, perhaps he could at least give us a commitment now that the new national sales tax will be no more than 10 per cent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, any new sales tax proposal will not be the massive tax grab that the Hon. Member said it will be. That might be the case should the New Democratic Party, God help us, form the Government. That is not going to be the case with tax reform.
Canadians will remember that I said, in the lead-up to the personal income tax changes, that 85 per cent of Canadians would see an increase in their take-home pay as a result of tax reform. That is happening. If Canadians reflect on what happened in July they will see that what I said before was correct. They will see that their take-home pay has gone up.
Tax reform is a tax-neutral exercise. We are not attempting to gain new revenues as a part of tax reform. We did not in
August 15, 1988

Phase 1, we have said we will not in Phase 2, and we are going to hold ourselves to that commitment.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. This weekend the Prime Minister announced the federal Government's endorsement of a proposed aluminum smelter plant in Sept-Iles in his riding in Quebec.
Is the Government aware that Alumax, another consortium, is presently examining the possibility of an aluminum smelter in the Province of Manitoba? The Prime Minister's announcement this weekend will severely prejudice the decision being made on that aluminum smelter, by indicating support for one region of the country and not for another.
Why did the Prime Minister make this announcement before the Government has had a chance to undertake the proper feasibility studies, to announce a policy related to the support for aluminum smelters, and to ensure that there was a proper regional balance of support and resources for those kinds of initiatives all across Canada?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the proposal for setting up an aluminum smelter plant in Sept-Iles, of course the Government is quite favourable to having this plant in Sept-Iles, a region that was severely affected during the last recession. However, this does not mean we will not consider other regions in Canada. It does not mean a decision has been made. It means that the Government looks very favourably on the proposal made by members of an international consortium that wants to set up operations in Sept-Iles. If they want to go ahead, the Government will support such action, but we intend to support other proposals along the same lines in many other regions in this country.


MANITOBA PROJECT-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL SUPPORT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am asking a serious question about whether the Government is prepared to support two massive aluminum smelters in Canada for an export market which has already virtually reached capacity.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Conservative Government of Manitoba has already asked the federal Government for support and endorsement for the project in Manitoba but has
Oral Questions
yet to receive any kind of acknowledgement, support, or promise of any resources for that project. Therefore, in order to ensure a proper balance, fairness, and equity, is the Government prepared to support the project in Manitoba as equal to that in Sept-Iles?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why the Hon. Member is apparently opposed to job creation and economic development across Canada. The Government has always said it was in favour of creating jobs. And that is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to create jobs where there is genuine potential for doing so, and we intend to support projects as they are submitted, in all regions across the country, as we have been doing for the last four years.


THE ECONOMY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. An analysis by the Economic Council shows that a 1 per cent drop in interest rates in the U.S. and Canada would increase jobs in Canada by 84,000 jobs by 1990. Could the Minister tell us the job losses that Canada will suffer from last week's large interest rate increases in the United States and Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is honest with himself and the people of Canada, he will read much more from that study by the Economic Council where they point out to the Hon. Member a number of aspects of such a study that they probably sensed the Hon. Member would ignore.
If the Hon. Member wanted to put the total question to the House he would also say that if we do not address the problem of inflation now we will see interest rates rise on a much more permanent basis, with a far more deleterious effect on pricing levels in this country, on the competitiveness of this country, and therefore on our job creating capacity.
I have said in the House on many occasions that we are trying to avoid that with the interest rate policy that the Bank of Canada is following today.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, this is a case of interest rate increases in both Canada and the United States. How much will that cost across Canada in

August 15, 1988
Oral Questions
terms of lost jobs, compared to what we would otherwise have? Elow many jobs is his policy costing this country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this line of questioning takes me back to November, 1984, and May and June of 1985, when his Leader said the policies being proposed by this Government through the economic statement and the Budgets would cost this country 100,000 to 200,000 jobs. Since that time we have created somewhere between 1.2 million and 1.3 million jobs.
That is the fundamental point that I am making.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Look what kind of jobs they are.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They are permanent jobs. The Hon. Member asks what kind of jobs they are. They are permanent jobs, 85 per cent full-time jobs, unlike the previous four years under the Liberal Government when they were 85 per cent part-time jobs.
Let me get back to the point raised by the Hon. Member. You cannot isolate one element from economic policy and ask the simplistic question that the Hon. Member just asked. You have to look at the full range of economic policy, including controlling inflation. It was back in the 1970s and early 1980s that we let inflation get out of control in this country, beginning under the regime of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister of Finance, when they allowed inflation to get out of control. That led to interest rates in excess of 20 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the shameful performance of his boss over the weekend. During the weekend the Prime Minister bragged about pouring millions of taxpayers' dollars into his own riding. The largess of these hundreds of millions of dollars is reported to be somewhere between $261 million and $500 million.
How can the Prime Minister justify favouring his own constituency while ignoring the needs of millions of other Canadians? How can he justify the use of government jets to do what he himself qualified as campaigning?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member might be more specific. I would like to know precisely what he is against. He talks about the $200 million, but in that
figure is included $110 million to clean up the St. Lawrence River. Is the Hon. Member against that? If that is the position of his Party, let him so state.


Don Boudria: I am for equity, that is what I am for.


QUERY WHY PRIME MINISTER DOES NOT FAVOUR OTHER CONSTITUENCIES AS MUCH AS HIS OWN
Don Boudria: I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, and I may remind him that it was his Government that put an end to regional development programs and made it harder for people on unemployment insurance to receive their benefits, to explain the Prime Minister's largesse in his own backyard and the fact that by the same token he is neglecting other Canadians.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that his constituents had sent their taxes to Ottawa for forty or fifty years, but if that is a prerequisite for receiving federal funding, why doesn't the Prime Minister make the same funding available to the 281 other ridings in this country? And why is the Prime Minister showing favouritism to his own riding instead of trying to help all Canadians from coast to coast?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Hon. Member had his question written out before he heard the answer provided by the Minister of Finance to another Member with regard to the economic performance of this Government, particularly in the area of job creation throughout Canada. Some 1.267 million jobs have been created across the country because of sound economic policy, with sound regional development policy.
If the Hon. Member is arguing against a $65 million program for regional development in that particular area which has had significant amounts of high unemployment there, if he is against the fact that this Government zeroes in on pockets of high unemployment, let him so state.
The fact is that the performance of this Government in terms of job creation, economic growth, and in terms of addressing regional development problems has been 1,000 per cent better than the administration of which he was a member.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to a previous question in which the Minister who responded said that he did not understand the nature of the question and the concern that Manitobans had about the Prime Minister's promises respecting an aluminum smelter in Quebec. That tells me that the Minister and his colleague still
August 15, 1988

do not understand the sensitivity of Manitobans about how they have been treated by the Government on the CF-18 decision and a host of other matters.
Perhaps the Minister in charge of Manitoba, the Member for Provencher, can state why Manitoba had to be treated to this spectacle of hearing over the news that the Prime Minister was responding with respect to an aluminum smelter in Quebec, when the Government and people of Manitoba have yet to have their request in that respect even acknowledged?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a valid question that deserves an answer. I believe that in Quebec there is a concrete proposal that has been discussed by companies, which has been put forward, and which received support in the initial form. In Manitoba there is not a proposal. There are two companies in Manitoba that are presently discussing with the Government of Manitoba the opportunities that can be provided there. The Government of Canada is familiar with that, and when something concrete comes forward the Government of Canada will react.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is ironic that the Conservative Government is always talking against the notion of a planned economy but it seems it has nothing against an economy that is planned according to the election agenda of the Government.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to whomever is responding for the Government next on this issue. What is the Government's plan with respect to aluminum smelter development in Canada? When will the people and the Government of Manitoba know what is the policy, or is there only a policy that relates to the electoral agenda of the Prime Minister as he sees fit from weekend to weekend?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member should know, back in 1982-83 there was a proposal for an aluminum smelter in Manitoba when the NDP Government happened to be in power at that time. There was a concrete proposal at that time in 1982-83, and nothing came forward in Manitoba on an aluminum smelter in 1982-83.


Lloyd Axworthy: The offer was made.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: There was not an offer made.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes there was.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It was rejected if there had been one, because it did not take place. There is not an aluminum smelter in Manitoba.
Oral Questions
There are two companies discussing opportunities with the Government of Manitoba. When those opportunities are further developed, the Government will explore them with the Province of Manitoba, as we would with any other Government.


PESTICIDE ALLEGEDLY USED BY CALIFORNIA GRAPE GROWERS
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The United Farm Workers of America have accused California grape producers of using a pesticide which may cause cancer and birth defects. A nerve gas type agent is being used which has not undergone any testing at all with regard to longterm health effects.
Will the Minister investigate these allegations? If indeed the grapes have been sprayed with this pesticide which may affect an individual's health, will he ban the importation of grapes from California?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture, as the Hon. Member will know, conduct regular examinations and tests of fruit imports, in this case California grapes, for pesticide residue on those grapes.
It is interesting to note that members of the California Department of Food and Agriculture have also spoken on this issue claiming that the grapes are safe. The CLC has stated that one of the pesticides, dinoseb, is a residue on the grapes. Dinoseb has not been used since 1986, but it still claims that they were using it. Perhaps it is an old briefing note that it had.
From National Health and Welfare's point of view, our officials are continuing to test. Obviously, if there is any pesticide residue, those grapes would not be allowed in under regulations that are in place.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Employment and Immigration). The people in southern New

August 15, 1988
Oral Questions
Brunswick are still unsure of their status with respect to the period of eligibility for unemployment insurance. The changeover from ten to sixteen weeks applies to all rural areas, which are bearing the brunt of a change that was meant for urban centres. In July, the Minister allowed for separate treatment for the Outaouais area, because the urban area of Hull did not reflect the situation of the rural population. The situation is exactly the same in New Brunswick. Furthermore, the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration stated in its unanimous report, right at the beginning, and I quote:
Your Committee believes that there should be no tightening of entrance
requirements nor reductions in either the level or duration of benefits in high
unemployment regions. At the same time, your Committee supports the
principle that the same treatment should be afforded claimants in all regions.
My question is this: Can the people of New Brunswick expect to receive the same treatment as the people in the Outaouais, and will the fair treatment the Prime Minister demanded for the people in his riding and for people in disadvantaged areas also apply to the people of New Brunswick?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the situation in our so-called disadvantaged areas because I come from a region where as far as I am concerned, the unemployment rate is still far too high. So I can assure the Hon. Member that I am concerned about these regions.
The House is also aware that regional unemployment is used to determine the number of weeks required to meet the criteria: between ten and fourteen weeks. It is also true that when the economy improves, which happened, because we are an excellent Government, in certain regions, the criteria must be changed as well. So I can say that I am concerned. I have ordered a study, and in the weeks to come, I should be delighted to provide the requisite response.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the floor to ask a very short supplementary question, please.


SITUATION IN NEW BRUNSWICK-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the answer is completely unacceptable. For people in some regions, they act right away. For New Brunswickers, they take the time to conduct studies. The Minister has all the information at hand, namely the unemployment rate for all regions of New Brunswick. So will the Minister act now to give New Brunswickers justice?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, this Government treats Canadians of whatever region fairly. We worked hard with an employment strategy and a healthy economy. Economic conditions are excellent and as I was saying, we are putting in place mechanisms tailored to workers in New Brunswick as elsewhere.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Since the dramatization of the blob in the St. Clair River by my colleague from Essex-Windsor the communities of Wallaceburg and Walpole Island Indian Reserve have experienced 247 spills and five water cut-offs. The Province of Ontario has promised 75 per cent of the funding for a pipeline from Lake Huron.
My question to the Government is this. When will the Government respond to the requests of the Hon. Member for Kent and the people of Walpole Island and Wallaceburg and kick in its share so that that pipeline can be completed?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member that members from the Government side have already brought this matter to our attention. There have been meetings held by the regional office in Ontario to discuss with the Walpole Band and other concerned citizens the opportunities that can be realized by joining together with the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada to provide the service. The Hon. Member must recognize, and so should the Province of Ontario, that Indian people who happen to live on Walpole Island also have an opportunity to secure drinking water from that pipeline without additional costs being provided.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the Minister was trying to say. The question is very simple. Some $288 million was provided for the Prime Minister's riding. Only a couple of million are necessary here to provide clean water for Walpole Island, which is a federal responsibility, and Wallaceburg. You have a Member there who is being hung out to dry.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is not being hung out to dry. He has been very active in acquiring an opportunity that has been provided because of an expenditure by the Government of Ontario so that we can join with the Government of Ontario to provide access to drinking water to Walpole Island. There are discussions going forward now between the regional district in Ontario and Walpole Island.
The Hon. Member talks about spills and clean water and refers to the Prime Minister's riding. Some $110 million were spent on the St. Lawrence, which goes beyond the Prime Minister's riding. If the NDP and the Hon. Member are against the clean-up of the St. Lawrence, then please say so.
August 15, 1988


HERBICIDES
[Stage Direction]
2,4-D-REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION OF USE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who undoubtedly knows that a study has been completed in his Department by Dr. Morrison showing that there is a steady increase in the occurrence of a form of lymphatic cancer linked to the common weed-killer 2,4-D.
The study by Dr. Morrison also establishes that the frequency and the number of deaths have doubled at a time when most other types of cancer have been declining. He suggested that there is a link with the 2,4-D weed-killer.
My question is simply this. Will the Minister ask the Minister of Agriculture to suspend the use of this weed-killer until there is a clear demonstration that such a weed-killer is not a threat to human health?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this question or a similar one was asked of the Minister of Agriculture last week. The Hon. Member knows what the reply was.
I should indicate to the Hon. Member that there is an ongoing study of the issue, as well as a working committee. I will check with them again in terms of that work and in terms of any recommendations. The answer that the Hon. Member and the House received last week on 2,4-D is still the same this week.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Davenport on a short supplementary, please.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL COMMITMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, because the answer was inconclusive it is important for the sake of public health to ask this question of the Minister himself. He has a mandate to protect Canadians from a threat to their health.
Therefore, I need to know from the Minister whether he will take it upon himself not to launch another study and put at risk the health of Canadians, but urge the Minister of Agriculture to suspend the use of 2,4-D until it is proven that there is no such threat as demonstrated by the study by Dr. Morrison. Will he give us that commitment today?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in my first answer I was not suggesting another study. I was outlining for the Hon. Member and the House the work that is ongoing and that is being done with respect to 2,4-D.
Additionally, the Hon. Member should know that information and very strong recommendations in terms of the application of 2,4-D and how those who apply 2,4-D can protect
Oral Questions
themselves have also been part of the ongoing work of the Department of Agriculture and of my Department. For example, much of the damage was done by people who were not taking proper precautions in the application of 2,4-D. That work has been done.
In the remainder of that answer, Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting another study.


FORESTRY
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. During the 1984 election campaign the Prime Minister promised time and again that there would be a full Ministry of Forests and a full Minister appointed at the federal level, and that was restated in the PC Campaign Handbook on page 105.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if, before the next election is called, there will be a full Minister of Forestry and a full Department at the federal level.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think that everyone in the House would realize that the current incumbent who is responsible for forestry is doing an excellent job and has made a tremendous impact upon the forestry industry.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Success is what we are after here, and there has been a tremendous amount of success in terms of promoting the forestry industry in Canada, and particularly recognizing the jurisdictional responsibility in the hands of the provinces.
Clearly the federal Government has accepted its role and responsibility in this regard, and will continue to do so.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FORESTRY AGREEMENTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the answer is no, that there will not be a full Minister of Forestry in Canada under a Conservative Government.
My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister or to the Minister of Finance. Has the Government decided in principle whether or not to sign new five-year forest renewal agreements with the provinces?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, those agreements are currently under consideration by Cabinet colleagues. When a decision is reached with regard to them, and the other ERDA agreements are completed, an announcement will probably be made.

August 15, 1988
Vacancy


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise that there will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, and a single question from the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I am sure all Canadians are praying for the safety of the 500 person contingent that is being sent over on the peacekeeping mission.
I would like to ask the Government, why Canada, without any advice or suggestion from the United Nations, has unilaterally decided to send a contingent which excludes women, excludes people of Jewish and Arabic origin, and which is contrary to the Canadian Human Rights code.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer that question as Acting Minister of Defence and indicate that I am not able to provide an answer to the question of the Hon. Member at this time. I will have to seek to establish whether those are the facts of the situation.
I am sure that the Hon. Member will appreciate that this is a dangerous situation into which Canadian troops are being sent. There is a great deal of evident danger that might be more perilous for certain persons than for others, and that may well be part of the consideration in taking this into account.
Nevertheless, I will determine the facts and make sure the Hon. Member receives a complete answer.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. A few days ago his boss was in his riding of Manicouagan, Quebec, and he announced that some $288 million was being spent in that riding. In addition, some $40 to $50 million was committed during the Lac-Saint-Jean by-election to build a road from Lac-Saint-Jean to Baie James.
In the name of regional fairness, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has cut back on northern highway spending by $25 million in the last three years, and why it has cut back spending on the Alaska Highway by some $13 million between 1983 and 1987. In the name of regional fairness, why is that happening?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only draw from the criticism of the New Democratic Party the fact that it is against the clean up of the St. Lawrence River, because $110 million of the funds the Hon. Member has referred to is included in that.
If the position of members of the New Democratic Party is that we should not support the clean up of the St. Lawrence River, let them so state. If it is also the position of the members of the New Democratic Party that we should not be extending regional development programs in areas of high unemployment, let them so state. This is precisely what is being done.
We are attacking the problems of high unemployment in certain areas of the country where the rate of unemployment is unduly high. We are attacking pollution. This Government has one of the best environmental records in the history of any Government in Canada. If Hon. Members are not supporting that, let them so state.


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, George R. Henderson, Esquire, Member for the electoral district of Egmont, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election to the said electoral district.
The Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege which was initiated on Friday in my absence by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). The Hon. Member for Skeena suggested that a press release put out by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was not accurate. In reading that press release it could lead one to believe that legislation had already been passed.
I would like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the discussions that had taken place in the standing committee in

August 15, 1988

March, May, and June where it was my understanding, in looking at Hansard, that all Parties supported a change in the death rule.
I had forwarded to the clerk of the committee on aboriginal affairs, and the two spokesmen from the opposition Parties, draft comments on the legislation regarding the remedial action needed to correct this inadequacy in Bill C-31. I received support from the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner). I believe that the actions we have taken and will take will correct the problem.
In referring to the press release, Mr. Speaker, if it is read in pieces, it does lead one to infer that action has already been taken. I am sorry if that is the way the press release was presented, but in no way has the ability of the standing committee on aboriginal affairs been impinged to reply on Bill C-31.
If the Hon. Member for Skeena suggests that there is not all-Party support for the changing of the death rule as it applies to Bill C-31,1 can correct that and state that I believe I have the support of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior and his Party and of the Government to change that.


Mr. Speaker:: This matter refers to a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Skeena several days ago. The Chair has not decided whether or not it is a question of privilege. Listening carefully to the Hon. Minister's remarks, I take it he concedes that at least part of the press release was inaccurate; am I correct in understanding that?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It could be viewed as misleading.


Mr. Speaker:: From what the Hon. Minister has said, I take it that he is expressing his regret, and that may well end the issue. However, naturally there may be some debate between the Hon. Member for Skeena and the Minister about what may or may not flow from that. However, I will hear the Hon. Member for Skeena in response.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister. I think his remarks were kind, useful, and helpful to those people who did misunderstand the intent of the press release. It was widely carried in the media, quite often as a letter to the editor, and a great deal of confusion was caused in many areas of the country where the death rule has been a problem.
With respect to all-Party support in the way it was worded there is no doubt in principle that all three Parties want the death rule amended. When I raised the matter on Friday the way I did, I wanted to make it clear to the Minister that I had contacted his office and was refused the opportunity of being provided with what I thought might be another draft.
There is an earlier draft of some months ago which I think the Minister, a member of the Liberal Party, and myself have seen, but following the press release I thought some other
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
action might have been taken and I wanted to peruse the new amendment. If it is the same amendment as before, perhaps the Minister could indicate that that is still the case.
I thank the Minister for having cleared on the record the problem with the misunderstanding right across the country.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated, there may be some question that both the Hon. Member and the Hon. Minister may want to discuss and that might be a very convenient thing to do.
First, I want to say that the complaint brought to the House by the Hon. Member for Skeena was clearly a justifiable complaint. It may not have been a question of privilege but it was certainly a complaint.
I want to thank the Hon. Minister for coming into the House at the first opportunity and very clearly acknowledging that perhaps at least in some particulars the press release was not as carefully drafted as it should have been. I think that ends the issue.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, August 12, consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 21 at page 2 the following:
"Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources;"
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 60 by adding immediately after line 28 at page 52 the following:
"Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources;"
Motion No. 65
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 76 by adding immediately after line 3 at page 62 the following:
"and "Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources."
[Stage Direction]
August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Speaker:: Before trespassing into the difficult ground of this ruling on amendments, I am informed, and I hope that this is so, that copies of my ruling, in both official languages, have been distributed. This may well be because we had a few extra days to task the translators with what has been for them a difficult time, which I know all Hon. Members understand. I am sure Members would want me to indicate to our translators that we do sympathize with their difficulties and appreciate what they do for us so much of the time.
I am now ready to give a final ruling on the motions in amendment to Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America.
There are 102 motions in amendment set down on the Notice Paper in relation to Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America. As Hon. Members know, I gave a preliminary ruling Friday last on the first three groupings. Members will thus bear with me, I am sure, as I go over all the motions in this final ruling as I wish them to be as complete as is possible.

Motions Nos. 1,61 and 65 are in order and will be debated together and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 61 and 65.
On Motion No. 2, I have serious reservations because the intent of the amendment is to add a definition of cultural industries to the Bill. This is a substantive amendement as there is no mention at all of cultural industries in the Bill.
I would refer the Hon. Member to Paragraph (10) of Citation 773 of Beauchesne's 5th edition, on page 233:
A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification
to the interpretation clause of a bill.
The reference is to the Journals of May 21, 1970, page 835. Consequently the motion is out of order.

I have misgivings with respect to Motion No. 3. The Member's intention is to amend the agreement as published in the Canada Treaty Series under subsection 2 to exclude explicitly the large scale export of fresh water. I wish to remind the Member that treaty-making power is within the prerogative of the Crown and, therefore, the agreement itself cannot be amended. In Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 778, it is stated:
When a Bill is introduced to give effect to an Agreement and the Agreement is scheduled to the Bill as a completed document, amendments cannot be made to the schedule. An amendment to the clauses of the Bill for the purposes of withholding legislative effect from the document contained in the schedule is in order; also as are amendments to those clauses which deal with matters not determined by the document contained in the schedule.
Consequently, I have to rule the amendment out of order.

I also have misgiving with respect to the admissibility of Motion No. 4. This motion seeks to amend Clause 3 which stipulates the purpose of the Bill and sets out the objectives of the Agreement in terms identical to those found in Article 102 of the Agreement. The Chair is of the opinion that this motion changes the intent of the objectives as stated in the Agreement and, therefore, rules it out of order.
Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 8 are in order and will be grouped for debate but will be voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 7, 18, 26, 27, and 34 were moved in committee. Motions Nos. 26 and 27 were ruled out of order and Motions Nos. 7, 18, and 34 were moved, debated, and negatived in committee. Slight variation in the wording does not affect the intent of the motions. Therefore, according to Standing Order 114(10), I will not select them for debate.
I also have misgivings with regard to Motions Nos. 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14. There is nothing mentioned in the Bill or the agreement concerning aboriginal claims and the various programs referred in these motions. However, the intent of these motions is to limit the operation of this Act with respect to these matters. I would, therefore, give the benefit of the doubt to the Hon. Member and allow these motions to be put to the House. In addition, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry after consultation has convinced me that Motion No. 11, which was debated and negatived in committee, is of enough importance that it warrants further consideration.

Thus Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 will be grouped together for debate and a vote on Motion No. 9 will apply to Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Motion No. 7A which is similar to Motion No. 10 will not be selected.

I also have reservations with regard to Motions Nos. 15 and 35. These Motions seek to ensure that the provincial Governments are free to exercise certain powers notwithstanding the provisions of the agreement. There is, however, no reference in the Bill to any restrictions or obligations on the provinces in the matters stated in the motions. Both the Bill and the agreement place the responsibility for implementation on the Government of Canada. These motions go beyond the scope of the Bill and are thus out of order.
Motion No. 16 causes me concern because the intent is to restrict the powers granted to the federal Government to proceed with legislation in the future with regard to this agreement as set out in Clause 6. This, in my opinion, goes beyond the scope of the Bill because it is introducing a new concept which is inconsistent with Clause 6. Therefore, I must rule it out of order.
August 15, 1988



Motions Nos. 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 25 will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 20, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Citation 773 of Beauchesne's Fifth edition, is out of order.
Motions Nos. 24, 33, 42 and 82 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 24 will also apply to Motions Nos. 33, 42 and 82.
Motions Nos. 28 and 29 infringe upon the financial prerogative of the Crown since the creation of such a commission or an inquiry board would require the expenditure or disbursement of public funds, and I refer Hon. Members to Citations 540 and 773(7) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Thus, these motions in amendment are out of order.
Motion No. 31 is in order and will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 30, 32, 38, 41, 43, 44, 50, 56, and 58 are in order and will be grouped together for debate. A vote on Motion No. 30 will also apply to Motions Nos. 30 to 38, 41, 43, 44, 50, 56, and 58.
Motion No. 36 causes the Chair concern because of its notwithstanding provision which regard to the right to require performance commitments from auto makers. It appears that the purpose of this motion is to ensure that Canada can set its own rules, regardless of any commitment under the agreement. Since the purpose of this Bill is to implement the agreement and Chapter Ten incorporates trade in automotive goods, I must rule the motion out of order.

I have serious reservations with respect to Motions Nos. 37 and 49A for two reasons. Motion No. 37 does not fit under part II, "Procurement Review Board", and the intent is to amend the Agreement. I would also refer Hon. Members to the reasons given in earlier Motion No. 3 out of order. Motion No. 49A is also an attempt to amend the Agreement. For the above reasons, I must rule the Motions out of order.
Motions Nos. 39 and 93 are in order and will be grouped for debate and a vote on 39 will apply to Motion No. 93.

I have reservations with regard to Motion No. 40. The Hon. Member is attempting to change the definition of a panel as set out in Annex 1901.2 in the agreement. All such panels are clearly stated to be binational. Therefore, Motion No. 40 is out of order.
Motions Nos. 45, 46, 47 and 48 under Part III, amendments to the Special Import Measures Act, will be grouped together for debate. A vote on Motion No. 45 will also apply to Motions Nos. 46, 47, and 48.
Motion No. 49 is in order. It will be debated and voted upon separately.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation]
Motions Nos. 51, 80, 90 and 91 are in order and will be grouped together for debate. A vote on Motion No. 51 will also apply to Motion No. 80 and a vote on Motion No. 90 will apply to Motion No. 91.
Motions Nos. 52 and 70 are in order and will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 52 will also apply to Motion No. 70.
Motions Nos. 53, 54 and 55 under Part IV, "Related and Consequential Amendments to Implement the Agreement ", are in order and will be grouped together for debate but voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 57, 59 and 60 are in order and will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 62 and 63 are in order and will be grouped for debate and voted upon separately. Motion No. 64 is out of order because it attempts to amend the agreement. I refer Hon. Members to the many citations I have quoted earlier in this regard.
The Chair has some misgivings with respect to Motion No. 66. The intent of this motion is to reserve to the Governor in Council the power to make certain orders more than once within a stipulated period. However, the agreement specifies that each party shall exercise such powers no more than once within that period. Since the Hon. Member is being permissive in his motion, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and allow the motion. It will be debated and voted upon separately.

Motions Nos. 67 and 68 will be grouped together for debate and will be voted upon separately.
Motion No. 69 causes the Chair concern because of its notwithstanding provision with regard to Canada's right to exercise certain powers. It appears that the purpose of this motion is to ensure that Canada can continue to set its own rules in these matters regardless of any commitment under the Agreement. Since the purpose of the Bill is to implement the Agreement, I must rule the motion out of order.
Motions Nos. 71 and 72 are in order and will be debated separately and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79 will be grouped together for debate and will be voted upon separately. Motions Nos. 81, 83, and 84 are in order and will be grouped together for debate. A vote on Motion No. 81 will apply to Motion No. 83, but Motion No. 84 will be voted upon separately.
Motions Nos. 85, 86, and 87 will be grouped together for debate. A vote on Motion No. 86 will also apply to Motion No. 87. An affirmative vote on Motions Nos. 86 and 87 will obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 85, but a negative

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
vote on Motions Nos. 86 and 87 requires that the question be put on Motion No. 85.

Motions Nos. 88 and 89 will be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 88 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 89. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 88 necessitates the question being put on Motion No. 89.
Motions Nos. 92, 95 and 96 are in order and will be debated separately and voted upon separately.
Motion No. 94 is beyond the scope of the clause and is thus ruled out of order. The clause deals with the Western Grain Transportation Act and West Coast ports and this amendment attempts to introduce East Coast ports. This is not in order.

Motions Nos. 97 and 98 are ruled out of order because they seek to make the coming into force provisions of this Bill subject to conditions outside the legislative process. In this connection, I would refer Hon. Members to Erskine May, Twentieth Edition, paragraph 10, on page 557.
Motion No. 99 is out of order because it seeks directly to amend the agreement. Again I refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 778.
Motion No. 100 is in order and will be debated and voted upon separately.
To recapitulate briefly, the following motions have been ruled out of order: 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 20, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 40, 49(a), 64, 69, 94, 97, 98, and 99. The following motions were not selected: 7, 7(a), 18, 26, 27 and 34.
I think I might add, for the benefit of Hon. Members and the public watching, as I have said, the Bill we have before us is a Bill the object of which is to implement the agreement between Canada and the United States and, as a consequence, much of it is taken up with amending existing public laws, but there are additional paragraphs as well which of course are of some importance.
Hon. Members will realize that under the rules amendments aimed at altering the actual terms of the agreement are not acceptable, but other amendments aimed at the provisions of the Bill itself, under certain circumstances, have been acceptable and are of course set out in this ruling. I might just indicate to Hon. Members and the public that as of the end of Thursday, the Chair had received 102 amendments and 77 of those have been accepted for debate. I think Members will find that they are presently in 26 groupings.
I want to thank all Hon. Members who submitted amendments for their co-operation with the table officers. This, as all Hon. Members will know, was no easy task given the number of amendments, and I hope Hon. Members will feel that they have been carefully and properly dealt with.


Lloyd Axworthy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First let me say that I echo your words in closing. I want to compliment the Chair and table officers for a monumental and effective task and to say that I for one, who was responsible for some of your late evenings last week, appreciate the judgment and the fairness with which it was completed. I think it points out how realistic and relevant the amendments were which have been accepted.
I am not challenging the ruling, but I wonder if you would be in a position to provide some elaboration. During the course of the hearings the committee chairman cited a ruling by Erskine May which indicated that those items included in the annex could be amended through the legislation. That would include in this case both the agreement itself and the tariff schedules. I have noticed again in several of the rulings made by the Chair that those particular matters were ruled out of order.
I think it is an important matter and for that reason we submitted amendments that would seek to alter the agreement, particularly on crucial matters like water, because of that Erskine May citation. I wonder if the Speaker would be kind enough to elaborate on the reasoning behind that because that was the understanding we drew from the ruling made in committee.


Mr. Speaker:: First, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his courteous and kind remarks. Any Speaker, I think, ventures with some trepidation into explanations of a ruling and I am not so sure I am going to do that to any great extent.
I do want to clarify one thing. I think the Hon. Member said that the chairman of the committee, apparently following the citation from Erskine May, indicated that the annex could be included in the legislation. That seems as though it would be in error, and I can say to the Hon. Member I assume he meant "could be included in an amendment".


Lloyd Axworthy: Amendment, yes.


Mr. Speaker:: All right, I have that straightened out.
I, of course, have not considered the remarks of the chairman of the committee. I know the Hon. Member would not mind if I took a moment or two to do that. The basic principle upon which I have been operating and upon which I am compelled to operate under the rules is that, strictly speaking, the terms of the agreement cannot be amended. It may be that by the ingenious use of superior intellect the Chair can be persuaded to allow amendments which to some degree may clarify or give some certainty to parts of the legislation, but they have to be aimed at amending one of the clauses of the statute itself.
However, I will take under consideration the comment that the Hon. Member has very properly brought before the Chair, and report back as quickly as possible, perhaps having one of the officers of the table discuss the matter with him.

August 15, 1988

In any event, I think that gives sufficient information to the House for the debate to continue.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would first very much like to add my voice to that of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I think to try and work one's way through 102 amendments is an extremely daunting task.
As with all Speaker's rulings, there will be some that one will feel surprised about and some that one will feel pleased about. I do not want to get into those kinds of questions at all, but I did want to raise with you a matter which I wondered if you could perhaps interpret for me a little more fully.
I am especially concerned with Motions Nos. 26 and 18. With respect to Motion No. 26, as you note in your ruling, this was ruled out of order in committee because of where it was put in the Bill. Therefore, the motion I brought to the floor of the House put it in a general part of the Bill which, from the ruling made in committee, seemed to be the place it belonged.
I would appreciate some sense of whether such a shift of that sort to take account of a ruling made in committee is proper and acceptable, or whether once ruled out of order one cannot bring the same subject matter back, even if the reason for ruling it out of order was the place that one had originally moved it in the Bill.
With respect to Motion No. 18, your judgment quite correctly notes that quite a similar motion was moved, debated, and negatived in committee. At that time the debate revolved to a significant degree around the fact that this motion dealt with the concerns of Canadian wine growers and whether they could be subject to government action as the clause in question makes clear. People who voted against the motion suggested that its formulation would allow action to be taken despite the fact that both major provinces in which grape growing and wine production takes place would be opposed. It was for that reason that there was what I thought was a significant change made from 50 per cent to 65 per cent in the proportion of population which would have to be involved in those provinces approving of action with respect to this clause. Again, I wondered, with respect to your comments, whether slight variations in the wording does not affect the intent of the motions.
My concern, as the person drafting the amendment, was that I did not see this as slight but instead as responding to the concerns which had been expressed in the committee. I wondered if, for that reason, there might not be some logic to giving at least the benefit of the doubt to that particular motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor for his kind remarks which I know will be appreciated by all of those who have worked hard on this matter.
We have had a practice for some time now which is working very well, that is, because of extensive consultations at the time
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
amendments are tabled, the Chair has felt that for the most part it has not been necessary to hear further discussion on them. However, I am aware, as are other Hon. Members in this Chamber, that this is a matter of some importance. All matters here are important, but this is one of some magnitude in the number of amendments that the Chair had to consider. I have, therefore, extended to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry and the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor the courtesy of listening carefully to what they have said. I appreciate their additional assistance to the Chair.
With respect to the two motions which the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor has raised with me, I will look again at Motion No. 26 and discuss it with the table officers who will communicate with the Hon. Member. However, I think I can dispose of Motion No. 18 at this time. 1 remember this very distinctly and have asked the Clerk to bring me Motion No. 18.
While I understand perfectly the Hon. Member's substantive reason for putting this forward, I am bound by the procedural law. Even the change to which the Hon. Member refers does not get around the fact that, at least in the opinion of the Chair, it is out of order. Although I do understand the reasons behind the amendment, I regret that I cannot assist the Hon. Member further.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with my colleagues in thanking you and the table officers for your effort and the speed with which your ruling has been brought down in this matter. The Government moved ahead with report stage using the 48-hour time limit, and I appreciate that this puts an extra burden on the Table. We do appreciate the effort.
I wish to advise the House that earlier today I approached the House Leaders of the Official Opposition and New Democratic Parties in a bona fide effort to determine the amount of time required by the two Parties at report stage and third reading. This request was made in good faith to my colleagues. I received in reply the following letter addressed to myself:
Dear Mr. Lewis,
Pursuant to your inquiries earlier today regarding an allocation of time to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-130, we wish to inform you that our respective parties are prepared to agree to an allocation of a further 150 days to the report stage and 200 days to the third reading stage of this bill.
Should your party agree to this allocation, the requirements of Standing Order 115 will have been met. If, however, your party cannot accept this proposed allocation, it remains that the majority of the parties have agreed, pursuant to Standing Order 116, to the allocation of a further 150 days to the report stage and 200 days to the third reading stage of the bill.
That letter is not on what one might call coalition letterhead but is signed by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party and the House Leader of the Liberal Party.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this makes a mockery of negotiations in good faith. I regret that we could not have had some sort of reasonable suggestion from the other side. This is also confusing because we understood that the Liberal Party

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
had rejected a coalition with the New Democratic Party but now find that the coalition is back on.
Therefore, I wish to advise that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 or 116 with respect to an allocation of time to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America and, under the provisions of Standing Order 117, I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allocating a specified number of days for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at those stages of the Bill.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West rises on a point of order. If the Hon. Member is going to enter into a long argument, I have some doubt whether this is the appropriate time to do so. The Hon. Minister of State has given notice but what will happen after this is still, of course, speculation. I will hear the Hon. Member subject to my caveats.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. I think I understand what you have in mind. You may feel that a point of order is more timely if and when a motion is actually moved. However, since what I have to say deals with the whole procedure for the use of Standing Order 117, I hope you will allow me at least to put briefly some points on the record. At any time that you feel I am going beyond what you think is acceptable, in at least a preliminary way, I know you will call me to order.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly do not want to restrict the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition from raising a point of order if he so wishes. At the moment, however, all the Chair has before it is a notice. If the Hon. Member for Windsor West feels there is some error in having heard the Minister or some error in the way the Minister has given the notice, I will hear him. However, I am anxious not to have arguments before the Chair which may well be premature. We have been through this before. I think that in at least one instance, if I can put this very gently, it may be that the wisdom of the Chair proved to be right in delaying an argument which ultimately did not have to take place.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I first want to say something about the notice itself which has supposedly just been given with respect to Standing Order 117. I understand that previously notice has always specified the precise number of days to which debate is to be limited. As I heard the Hon. Deputy Government House Leader, he simply indicated that pursuant to Standing Order 117 he was giving notice that a motion would be made to allocate time within which the remaining stage or stages of debate must take place. Therefore, I respectfully submit that the notice just given is defective and not what is required under Standing Order 117 because it
does not specify the precise number of days within which the Government wishes to limit debate.
Finally, it is my view on behalf of the Official Opposition that since it was possible for a majority of Parties in this House to reach an agreement with respect to allocation of time under Standing Order 116, the Government cannot proceed with a motion pursuant to Standing Order 117. I will reserve further comments on that point if and when the motion is argued.
I also want to point out that since some 77 amendments offered by the Official Opposition have been ruled by yourself to be in order, it cannot be said that the number of days referred to in the letter signed by myself and the New Democratic Party House Leader is an excessive number for the debate of 77 amendments.
Furthermore, contrary to the insinuation or innuendo of the Deputy Government House Leader, the letter itself bearing the signatures of myself and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party has been presented as it has to meet our understanding of the requirements of Standing Order 116. I find it deplorable that the Deputy Government House Leader, who has a mandate to uphold and take seriously the rules of this House, is reflecting in this way on a serious attempt to make use of Standing Order 116.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my comments to those of the House Leader of the Official Opposition. He indicated that the Deputy Government House Leader stated in his notice that he was referring to Standing Order 117, which states that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 or 116.
Standing Order 116 refers to a majority of the representatives of the several Parties coming to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public Bill. That is exactly what we have done. There has been considerable consultation between the Opposition Parties. The feeling was that considering this is the most important trade deal in world history, if I recall the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), it would not be inappropriate to set aside a further 150 days at report stage to deal effectively with all the concerns raised by the opposition amendments. Of course, another 200 days at third reading stage would enable us properly to flesh out the most important trade deal in world history.
After consultation between the two Opposition Parties, we have come to an agreement in terms of the appropriate allocated time to complete this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened carefully to Hon. Members. I just want to point out that at the moment the Chair's reading of Standing Order 116 is very clear:
When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties-
August 15, 1988

It is not a majority of the Parties. However, I have the other points.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the arguments of the coalition Party. Let me point out that Standing Order 117, as I read it, contains no specification that the notice itself specify the number of days. There are some comments with respect to how little time has to be given in the actual motion that is moved. I submit that I have met the requirements of Standing Order 117 by way of negotiation and notice.
I listened with interest to the coalition Party's comments that a majority of the Parties has come to an agreement on what is appropriate. I will leave it to the people of Canada to decide whether they are actually serious about 150 days at report stage and 200 days at third reading. I would point out that a majority of the Parties represents 25 per cent of the Members of the House. I am not denigrating the efforts of that 25 per cent but pointing out that the use of the word "majority" is not correct on that point.
I return to Standing Order 117 to indicate to the Chair that it only requires that the point be made that an agreement could not be reached and therefore the Government is moving under that Standing Order. It is our intention to do so tomorrow.
I regret this very much. We wanted a debate on the substance of the amendments and the substance at third reading. The delaying tactics of the Opposition which wasted all of last Wednesday and two hours this morning, without any effort to debate the substance, is the reason, along with the fact that we could not reach any agreement, the Government is taking this position.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify a point made by the Deputy Government House Leader. Earlier today the two Opposition Parties negotiated, discussed, and through consultation came forward with what we thought was a reasoned approach. If the polls of the day are to reflect the standings, then the two Opposition Parties have reflected the view of 65 per cent of the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap is an experienced procedural advocate and knows that it is not the place of the Chair to get into debate on what the polls mean or what they do not mean.
In any event, I have the point raised and I will give it some careful consideration and return to the Chamber shortly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in order to assist you in your deliberations, I want to clarify a factual point. The consultations in question did in fact involve the representatives of the three Parties in this House. When I spoke of a majority of the Parties, I should have made it clear that I was talking about a majority of the representatives of the Parties in the sense that the agreement in the letter read out by the Deputy Government House Leader was made between myself as
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
representative of the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition, and the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) as representative of the New Democratic Party.
Contrary to what my hon. friend, the Deputy Government House Leader, has been saying about coalitions, let me stress that we are simply carrying out what we understand to be the requirements to put into place the operations of Standing Order 116, which has nothing to do with coalitions or lack of coalitions.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member for Windsor West. Of course I will consider his comments.
I think that is sufficient discussion on that point. I will return as quickly as possible to give the House the benefit of my considerations.


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I just want to thank you and those of the table for the work that you have done over the last couple of days. It has been a very difficult task for you. I might say that a number of the amendments that have been introduced in the House were either introduced or voted down at committee stage. They have been changed somewhat so that they can be reintroduced at the report stage. We understand the reasoning behind these amendments from the opposition Parties. It is interesting to note that both of them are going to tear up the agreement, yet they have all these amendments that they want to introduce to Bill C-130. If you would pass on our word of thanks to all those who were involved in putting in those extra hours, I would appreciate it on behalf of the Government.
The Government has examined the amendments proposed by Hon. Members opposite, and it has found them to be unacceptable for a variety of reasons. Indeed, many of these amendments are an affront to Parliament and show just how irresponsibly the Opposition has approached this whole debate.
When he appeared before the legislative committee on August 2, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) stated that he could not accept amendments proposed by the Opposition at that time, for three reasons.
First, a number of them conflicted directly with the free trade agreement itself, an international agreement entered into by Canada. It is not the role of Parliament to pick and choose among the pieces. Many in fact were ruled out of order.
Second, a number of amendments purported to exempt from the legislation and agreement matters which are already covered.
Finally, a number were downright silly and frivolous. That was on August 2. Now, we have before us today much the

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
same assortment of inappropriate, unnecessary and even frivolous amendments. They were not made in an attempt to improve the legislation, but rather to score political points.
Recognizing that there were amendments tabled in committee that would be buried in the obscurity that they so richly deserve, my hon. friends opposite chose not to move many of them in that forum but instead sought to inflict them upon this House. Of course, the difference between committee and this House is that they have television, so they can play to the crowds.
You will have noticed that what has been taken here is a destructive-not a constructive-approach. The Liberal Party, for example, has proposed a number of amendments that would simply delete large chunks of the legislation-without proposing substitute language-thus rendering it a meaningless patchwork. They have repeated the same baseless and tired old arguments about the alleged impact of the free trade agreement on native land claims, the environment, social programs and so on. Why do they not propose an amendment saying that nothing in this Act shall affect the flow of air between Canada and the United States? That would make about as much sense as most of the amendments that we have before us today.
I find it sad-but not surprising-that the best that my friends opposite could come up with in this package of obstructionist, irrelevant and even silly amendments has been ruled out of order in large numbers. I am looking forward to debating these amendments on the floor of the House of Commons, because I believe that we can conclusively show why these amendments should be defeated.
The first group of amendments that you have put together, Nos. 1, 65 and 66, was debated at some length on Friday afternoon by the two opposition Parties. They went on and on and waxed eloquently all afternoon about why the boundaries of Canada are not under the interpretation of the Act. We heard great claims that the Government has forgotten Canada and that we do not care about Canada. Then we had my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) stand up. Let me quote what he said in the House of Commons. I think that this shows the type of misleading information that is presented to the House of Commons. At page 18276 of Hansard he said:
We spoke to officials of the trade negotiating office which put the Bill
together. They said: "Everyone knows what Canada is anyway".


An Hon. Member:: That is right. That is what they said.


John Horton McDermid: That is a total untruth. That is factually incorrect. Totally.


Lloyd Axworthy: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry on a point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just said that he is calling me a liar, and he knows that it is against the rules of the House. If he wants to get the evidence, we are prepared to call the official whom we spoke to and who in fact made that kind of utterance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not believe the Hon. Member said that. I think that he said there were some untruths, but I may be wrong. I was trying to read the free trade Bill and if the Hon. Member has said it, I know that he will retract the statement.


Lloyd Axworthy: We will call the official. We have his name. We will call him in front of the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like the Hon. Member-I cannot very well address the Hon. Member if he is not going to allow me to address him.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am listening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not accuse him. I said that the statement was wrong. I have read the statement and have said that the statement was wrong.


Lloyd Axworthy: You said that it was untrue.


John Horton McDermid: Now, if he feels, by inference, that I am calling him a liar, I did not say that at all. I said that that statement was incorrect. I will tell you why it is incorrect.


Lloyd Axworthy: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is part of the rules of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Member for Brampton has said that what we have said in the speech was untrue. Now he is changing his tune. If he wants to challenge it, that is fine. But he said it was untrue, and now he is changing his tune. I think that that is against the rules of the House.


Harvie Andre: He can say it is untrue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will decide whether the person should withdraw or not. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the floor.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may proceed, the statement is untrue. I have checked with the officials of the TNO, and none of them have claimed to say that. Had the Hon. Member called TNO and asked their opinion on that particular thing, he would have got these facts.


Lloyd Axworthy: We did call him.
August 15, 1988


John Horton McDermid: First of all, the reason for defining the United States in this particular part of the Act, in the second section under "interpretation", is because we had to define their customs territory. That was very important, because we are dealing in customs matters. That is why they are defined in there. Under the free trade agreement, we amend many different Acts that pertain to United States goods and services, and to those of other countries. So, the United States is mentioned in those amendments, and we had to define their customs territory, and that is what we have done here. That is very important to understand why that definition is here.
As far as Canada is concerned, Canada and its areas beyond the territorial seas are already defined. This may come as a surprise to the Hon. Member, but they are already defined for the purpose of laws relating to customs as follows. There are three areas that he should be aware of.


Lloyd Axworthy: Where is it defined in the agreement?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Show us in the Bill.


John Horton McDermid: In the Customs Act, Canada is defined to include the land mass of Canada. That shows the ignorance of the Hon. Member in not understanding the free trade agreement. There is somebody that has not even opened the first page. He does not even know what he is talking about. I would advise him just to sit still.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We will wait for five minutes and then you can sit down.


John Horton McDermid: Canada is defined in the Customs Act to include the land mass of Canada, the internal waters and the territorial sea. Definitions in the Customs Act-a surprise for the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy)-apply to the Customs Tariff. Therefore, Canada is defined for the purpose of the Act. As well, the Customs and Excise Offshore Application Act, which applies Canadian laws relating to customs and excise to designated goods within the limits of the Continental Shelf, defines the Continental Shelf to mean the seabed and sub-soil beyond the territorial seas of Canada. Canada is totally covered under the free trade agreement and defined under the Customs Act.
Clearly, that is what we are talking about. We are talking about customs' areas. If the Hon. Member had called the Trade Negotiations Office and asked, that would have been the explanation he would have received. For him to say that negotiators from the Trade Negotiations Office said that everybody knows where Canada is and it is not necessary is totally wrong. It is a totally false statement.
Therefore Motions Nos. 1,61 and 65 are totally unnecessary and should be defeated.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should be questioned
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
as to why he began his remarks reflecting on the Chair. I can say nothing else but that he reflected on the Chair in a totally mean-spirited and unnecessary fashion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Shameful.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Parliamentary Secretary, after going through some compliments addressed to the people who worked on the Speaker's ruling, in effect through his language verbally trashed the ruling. He said that the amendments which the Speaker ruled in order were trivial and unnecessary amendments which had already been rejected at committee. I think this is quite improper. If the Speaker uses the authority given him by this House to say that amendments are in order and acceptable for debate in this House then it is not for the Parliamentary Secretary, in spite of his arrogance and that of the Government's, to tell the Speaker that he was wrong, and because the Government considers the amendments in question to be trivial and unnecessary they are not to be accepted and not to be debated in this House.


John Horton McDermid: There you go telling untruths again.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I also want to say that I think that it was quite wrong for the Parliamentary Secretary to reflect on the actions of Members of this House in putting down moved in committee. This is something provided for by the rules, the rules adopted by all Members of this House. The Members of this House have a perfect right to put down amendments which were not moved in committee. I think it is wrong for the Parliamentary Secretary to reflect as he did on the intentions and motives of those Members of the House who tabled amendments which had not first been put forward in committee.
What the Parliamentary Secretary was saying is illustrative of the whole approach of the Government to this matter. The approach of members of the Government is: "We know what we are doing. We are right. Everyone else should yield to us without question or debate because if they do not do that we will steamroller them out of the way. We will push them aside". They may be able to use their majority in this House for that purpose up to a point. However, it is not yet clear how far they can go. I say this. They are not yet in a position to tell the Speaker, much less Members of the House, that the Speaker was wrong in accepting amendments and it was his authority to do so and that Members of the House were going beyond their right and their duty in tabling amendments which they thought appropriate to put before the House.
I also say this to you, Mr. Speaker. The public is increasingly aware of the blind arrogance of the Government and they will make their judgment on that arrogance when they vote in an election. I say that no matter what use is made, what abuse is made by the Government of its majority on this matter in the House it will still not prevail before the will of the people of this country who do not want to see this deal imposed on them because they think it is an absolute sell-out of what they

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
have accomplished now and what they have yet to accomplish as a country.
In his vain efforts to cast aside the rights of Members to present and debate amendments, the Parliamentary Secretary was even unable to put forward an argument that was not contradictory and conflicting within the very words that were used. First, he complained that all the amendments offered by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) simply struck language from the Bill. He then rose to speak about an amendment which specifically wanted to add language to repair one of the very serious omissions in the Bill. I refer to a definition of "Canada" for the purpose of this Bill.
I want to say that I have just been informed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry that Maurice Rosenberg at the Trade Negotiations Office was the person with whom the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry spoke on the matter-


Lloyd Axworthy: The research bureau.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Rosenberg was not spoken to by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-For Garry but a representative of the Liberal Research Bureau as to why there was not a definition in Bill C-130 of "Canada".


James Eber Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am becoming somewhat confused as to who said what to whom. I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has said he talked directly to the person who gave him that message. Now we understand that it was the Liberal Party Research Office who spoke. Who spoke to whom? The Hon. Member told the Parliamentary Secretary that he spoke directly to the person.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a point of debate and not a point of order. Once Hon. Members get their messages straight, I would appreciate knowing about it. The Hon. Member for Windsor West has the floor.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This matter can be settled very easily. Our rules provide for the summoning of a witness to the bar of the House to answer questions. I would be quite prepared to move the appropriate motion so that Mr. Rosenberg can be summoned to the bar of the House and questioned about the conversation he had on this matter.
I want to conclude by saying it is illustrative of what is wrong with the approach of the Conservative Government to this whole matter of our dealings with the United States when the Parliamentary Secretary attempts rather vainly to argue that it is more important in this Bill to define "United States" and not to define "Canada" for the purpose of the trade deal. As far as the Parliamentary Secretary is concerned the Customs Act and the definition in it is sufficient even though it is very clear from the terms of the Bill that it and the trade deal to which it refers supersedes and prevails over any legislation that may have anything to do with this trade deal.
If this matter is important to the Government, and the Parliamentary Secretary was rather weakly trying to get that across, then one could ask why as a matter of certainty the Government did not put a definition of Canada in the Act in the first place and why for the purposes of certainty it is not willing to accept the amendment now before the House offered by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry.
There are all sorts of definitions in the Bill, and there are all sorts of definitions in the trade deal; all sorts of things are put in there for reasons of certainty. For example, there is an exclusion from the deal of beer and logs, and a number of other things that I could come up with. If it is made clear that logs and beer are not supposed to be covered by the deal, surely it would be a very limited and minor concession by way of certainty to agree to this amendment and have in Bill C-130 a definition of Canada, in order that if this deal ever comes into effect the lack of a definition of Canada in this legislation would not give the United States the opportunity to have more Polar Sea incidents, to take over the resources of our sea bed, and do all sorts of things which the administrative statements-


John Horton McDermid: It gives teenagers acne, too.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I say to my hon. friend if there is any problem with teenage acne it must be on the inside of his head.
I am sorry that the Canadian people have to see a matter of this seriousness treated in this manner by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am making serious arguments. It shows what is wrong with the whole approach of the Conservative Government that it is not willing to accept, as a matter of good faith and good will, that we who do not agree with this measure do so out of deep conviction and deep seriousness. This amendment is a serious amendment. The Government is showing what is wrong with its approach to this deal, and what is wrong with its approach to the future of this country in not being willing to accept this amendment which simply wants to put into the deal a definition of Canada.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important amendment that we are debating at the moment regarding the trade deal with the United States. To put it in some context, one could simply raise the question: "Was this left out inadvertently?" Did the Government consciously decide that it did not want to define what Canada was in the trade deal? Why should this come as a surprise?
When our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was a little boy he took a great deal of pride when the big American corporate leaders would come to Baie Comeau. He would play the piano and sing songs for quarters, and they would cheer and say what a nice boy he was. A little time passed and the Prime Minister decided to work for an American subsidiary in Canada, the Iron Ore Company of Canada. Part of the work
August 15, 1988

that he was asked to do was to shut down Schefferville, which he did with a great deal of satisfaction. This was his job and he had no hesitation. Then he was arm in arm with Ronald Reagan in Quebec City singing When Irish Eyes are Smiling.
Then it came to negotiate the trade deal, which some people have called the sell-out of Canada. It is not the sell-out of Canada. When someone sells something they receive something in return. This is a giveaway of Canada. There was no selling. We got nothing. We have lost it all.
When one looks at the trade deal it carefully describes at some length what the United States is. It states:
"United States" means
(a)	the customs territory of the United States, including the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
(b)	the foreign trade zones located in the United States and Puerto Rico, and
(c)	any areas beyond the territorial sea of the United States within which, in accordance with international law and domestic laws, the United States may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and the natural resources thereof.
That is a very precise definition of what the United States is. When one looks through the pages and pages of the deal, there is no definition of Canada. There are two equal players in this negotiation, the Americans and the Canadians. The United States went through a great deal-


John Horton McDermid: Read the Customs Act, that's exactly where it is.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, why was the definition of Canada left out of this document? Perhaps the Government did not care about Canada. I do not think that it cares about Canada-


John Horton McDermid: It is in the Customs Act, and you know it.


Steven W. Langdon: It is not part of this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that there would be some courtesy on both sides of the House. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has the floor.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I find it odd, and the people of Canada will find it surprising that in the Canada-U.S. trade deal the Government went to a great deal of pains to describe what is meant by the United States, but forgot to describe and define Canada. The Parliamentary Secretary probably says that the Americans know where Canada is and know what our boundaries are. They do not know where our boundaries are on the west coast.
Time and time again the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has raised the question of the A-B line where the Americans want to get critical fishing and resource grounds off our west coast. They do not accept the definition of the boundary between Canada and the United States on the west coast.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We all remember Georges Bank on the east coast where year after year American and Canadian fishermen were arguing what part of the fishing grounds is part of the United States and what is part of Canada. There is no recognition by the United States there. As a matter of fact, when the Americans look under the polar ice cap, which is obviously part of Canada, they state that these are international waters and it is not part of Canada.
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Americans were issuing drilling licences in the Beaufort Sea they stated that that was part of the United States. Whether it is the North, the East, or the West, the Americans have proven time and again that they do not understand where Canada is. Therefore, I find it absolutely incredible that the Government did not include a definition of Canada after going to so many pains to establish a precise definition of what the United States was all about.
This is simply one of the many reasons why Canadians from coast to coast, as they learn more about this deal and what it does to their country, are rejecting it. Seven out of ten Canadians have said time and again that they want an election on this issue. The Government is jamming and rushing this issue through. Earlier today it gave notice that it was going to announce closure to muzzle the debate and jam and rush this legislation through before an election. Seven out of ten Canadians will be offended and feel affronted if they do not have an opportunity to register whether or not they support this deal. The Government ignores them and ignores the parliamentary process and the process of democracy.
I do not understand how Hon. Members on the government side can sit there day after day, hunkered down, not say anything, and accept this incredible abuse of the democratic parliamentary system. Yet they do. They are mute as they sit in their seats hour after hour.
I see the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) is present. I hope he will stand up and explain to the House why he feels we do not need a definition of Canada in the trade deal. I also hope that others will. The Government went to a great deal of pain to get the definition of the United States of America, but Canada, forget it. We do not need a definition of Canada, the Americans understand it. The Americans do not accept our west coast borders, our east coast borders, or our northern borders of Canada.
This Government stated that it did not want to travel across Canada and hold hearings so that the people of Canada can express their views. It curtailed what is obviously the most democratic thing to do when talking about such an important trade deal. It should be taken to the people and let the people have an opportunity to decide. At least let the people have an opportunity to express their views. Members of the Government said absolutely not. They did not want to hear from Canadians. They were not going to tour. We suggested televising the hearings so at least people could sit in their livingrooms and listen to the debate and the witnesses, but no

August 15, 1988
Canada-JJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
the Government was not going to televise the debate. It did not want the people of Canada to learn any more than they already know about this deal, because government Members know that every day as Canadians learn more and more about what this does in terms of the ultimate sell-out and give away of this country that they are rejecting it.
My constituency butts against the grapegrowing areas of British Columbia. Hundreds and hundreds of growers who have struggled for years, some have struggled for decades, to develop the vineyards and the small wineries of the Okanagan Valley have all of a sudden had the rug pulled out from under them as this Government says: "We don't care about you. We don't care about your industry. We are going to finish you in a number of months". Those are the first obvious victims of this trade deal. The vineyards are gone. The cottage wineries are gone. The small, medium-sized wineries are gone.


John Horton McDermid: You are totally wrong.


Nelson Andrew Riis: When the Prime Minister was in the Okanagan Valley trying to explain the trade deal he was laughed out of the Valley. People said: "You have guts to come here and tell us that this is good for us. Look at our hillsides in Vernon and Kelowna. The vineyards are withering because we cannot go to the banks to get operating loans, and you are telling us this is good for us?" The Prime Minister was the laughing stock of the entire central valleys of British Columbia. I do not think he has the courage to go back there again. With the kind of response that he got, I know I would not be going back if I were the Prime Minister trying to pull this fast one on Canadians.
What we are saying in this very serious motion is that Canada be defined as meaning the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources. Is that an unreasonable request to define in Clause 1 of the agreement what Canada is all about? This particular motion before us is an appropriate motion that ought to be debated. I will be listening carefully this afternoon as Government Members explain to Canadians why they do not want to define what Canada means in this trade deal.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on Motions Nos. 1, 61 and 65 which are definition clauses of Canada. It might be interesting to analyse why a definition clause is not in the Bill to start with. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister suggested that the definition is in another Act. Maybe the definition is not in this Bill because the definition that we have of Canada is not acceptable to the United States. Because the Americans would not accept it Canada acquiesced and said: "We will not put in a definition. You make your own." When the panel deals with issues brought before it, it will put into the
agreement its own definition. Still it is necessary to see why this particular definition is not there. Maybe we have been missing the point.
Every area and industry will be affected by this Bill, not just areas which we have a tendency to think of as being the borders of Canada, nor those industries that we feel are the most common ones. Every area and every industry will be affected by this definition and Bill. We are not opposed to the liberalization of trade. Maybe I should not use that word because President Reagan suggested that the word liberalization is a dirty word and therefore should not be used. Maybe that is another reason that liberalization of trade is a little bit of a problem. We are not opposed to more liberal trade laws. We are opposed to the agreement where all the generosity and liberal treatment is on the Canadian side and we get nothing in return. We are against the particular Reagan-Mulroney trade deal put before the House and that we are in the process of implementing through Bill C-130.
We got very little from this agreement, but we gave away a lot. The Government is spending $30 million to $50 million, depending upon who you are talking to, to brainwash the people of Canada about how good a deal this is. If this deal were as good as the Government says it is, the Government would not have to sell it. It would sell itself. The Government would not have to waste $30 million to $50 million of the taxpayers hard-earned money, trying to buy people with their own money. The Government is having a hard time selling the deal and we could go on for a long time saying why. Let me touch on a couple of reasons.
First are the foreign investment possibilities that are established. Foreign investment is unlimited after this deal is put into place. Any American company can buy any Canadian company with no limitations, no monetary structure and no way of looking it over. Most people consider that we already have too much foreign ownership. Fifty per cent of the profits made in Canada go out of the country already. Those profits are being used to buy other companies and corporations in Canada. In other words, not only is this Government using the taxpayers money to sell a deal that is bad for Canada and bad for the Canadian taxpayers, but the Government is saying with this unlimited, unmonitored investment policy eventually every penny of profit in Canada will be used to buy further corporations in Canada until our ownership level is less than today, and it is bad enough now.
Sweden has approximately 7 per cent foreign ownership. When that foreign ownership went up to 7.75 per cent or 8 per cent, Sweden looked very hard at the possibility of using legislation to limit the amount of foreign investment. Sweden has foreign investments all over the world and depends to a great extent on its own investments in other parts of the world. But Sweden recognized, as do most countries in the western world, that if you give away the ownership of your industries, you are giving away control of your economy.
August 15, 1988

That is exactly what is being done in this case. This is only one of the objectionable clauses to the people of Canada which is being used to make this deal more palatable to Canadians.
I have another example. We are giving away in this Bill-


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point has to do with relevancy. The Hon. Member is delivering a prepared speech, I believe, from the NDP fact sheets. He is not referring in any way, shape or form to Motions Nos. 1, 61 or 65.1 wish he would get to addressing the motions.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point or order. This is astounding. Here we have a Member rising in his place who just took the floor a few moments ago and took about seven minutes to put a diatribe to the House which had nothing to do with Motions Nos. 1,61 or 65, and who then has the gall to call another Member to order on relevancy. This is a fraud.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know the Hon. Member will be getting on in the debate and explaining Motions Nos. 1, 61 and 65. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert has the floor.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, if you are defining the boundaries of Canada, you are defining the areas which this free trade deal affects. The elements in the free trade-and I do not have any notes here except the ones I wrote a few moments ago-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And what is wrong with notes?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: If this trade deal is made for Canada, it is made for every part of Canada. Therefore, we should define what Canada means.
I suggest there is a second area in which we are selling out Canada. We are giving away our natural advantage of resources, the natural advantage that has made it possible for us to develop industries all across Canada. Those resources have been used to help our economy, to pay for social services and to make Canada the country it is. Now, through this Bill, we will be selling those natural resources to the United States at the same price at which they will be sold to Canadian industries. Under this Bill, we cannot sell resources at a price higher than that at which we sell them to our own industries.
We can stop doing that. We do not have to sell our resources to the States, but if the U.S. uses 50 per cent of our gas now and we get short of gas in a couple of years, we will still have to give the Americans 50 per cent of our short supply. We cannot sell that gas to our industries at a price which would give them an advantage over the United States industries.
Those are the kinds of decisions in this Bill that affect all Canadians. There has been a great neglect in the whole approach to this Bill. At every stage, we have given the United States the little advantage for which it asked and without
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
which it would not sign the agreement. Whenever United States politicians talk about this Bill, they say: "We really gave it to Canada that time". The Americans are getting all the best advantages-


John Horton McDermid: What about the wheat farmers?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The Wheat Board is something I want to talk about but I will not talk about it at this time. The Wheat Board will be in trouble. It is already in trouble because of the free trade Bill and it will be in further trouble. We need to look at all of these things in the context of the boundaries of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to comment briefly on motions numbered 1, 61 and 65, moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The purpose of these motions is to amend Bill C-130 at Clauses 2, 60 and 76 by adding the following:
"Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources;".
Mr. Speaker, I think it stands to reason we should define our terms and the purpose of this agreement.
Bill C-130 includes a definition of the United States under the section "Interpretation"on page 2, which reads as follows:
Interpretation
"United States" means
(a)	the customs territory of the United States, including the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,
(b)	the foreign trade zones located in the United States and Puerto Rico, and
(c)	any areas beyond the territorial sea of the United States within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, the United States may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and the natural resources thereof.
Mr. Speaker, why does the Government refuse to define Canada, when it provides a clear and specific definition of the United States?
Mr. Speaker, Canada's experience with the United States has not been all sweetness and light with respect to our Canadian territory in the North. I am reminded of the Polar Sea incident. Did the Americans agree that the Arctic-our Canadian water, let's face it,-where this big ship wanted to go for a cruise, was within our territorial waters? No, they did not. It took a lot of pushing and persuading on the part of the Official Opposition to make the Government take a clear and definite position. And today we are not sure whether this response was sufficient. Since the Government is going to build

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
a super ice-breaker to patrol Canada's territorial waters in the North, why not define our territorial limits, once and for all?
In the debate we had with the United States-and I can name several incidents in the past few years when it was necessary to state in no uncertain terms exactly what Canada is, and I think this is particularly necessary when we are negotiating a trade agreement that will change Canada's way of trading with the world for many years to come .. . and yet, the Government refuses to tell us exactly what Canada is. They refuse to provide a clear and precise definition, but they have no trouble including a definition of the United States, including Puerto Rico, and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that if the Government is prepared to define the territory, rights and powers of the United States, we should be just as willing and just as convinced of the need to define what the territory, rights and powers of Canadians are.
Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of amendments 1, 61 and 65, and that should be the focus of this debate.
Mr. Speaker, in the Polar Sea incident and the dispute about coastal fishing between Newfoundland and the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, the Americans and the French refused to go along with Canadian demands. We must therefore provide a clear definition of what constitutes our Canadian territory. In a treaty of this magnitude, I think it is extremely important to clearly define our position with respect to our territory.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the history of the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement is somewhat perplexing to the Official Opposition, because as you know, this Government has been negotiating with the Americans since 1985. And I hardly think I would be divulging a State secret if I said that today, we have a situation where 80 per cent of the goods that cross our borders do so duty-free, and that while 25 per cent of U.S. foreign trade depends on the Canadian consumer, here in Canada 75 per cent of our trade is dependent on the Americans. I do not think that I am saying anything new there. Everyone knows that in this country. They know that 25 cents of every dollar we spend comes from our skill as traders; we want to trade with the world and we want to increase trade by lowering barriers and customs duties imposed as protectionist measures.
Like many people, we have recognized that the United States have trade problems. We know that. Their deficit is increasing every year. If my figures are correct, the trade deficit went from $9.1 billion in 1982 to $140.6 billion in 1986, Mr. Speaker. So the Americans are becoming protectionist! They say that they have to protect their interests.
And that is why they want an agreement that will bind Canada forever. But that is no reason to accept blindly an agreement that was negotiated very often in secret, very often
out of public view and which finally resulted in a bad agreement, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to say so, but the agreement is bad for Canada.
I am not against free trade, Mr. Speaker; I am for free trade, but not the kind of free trade negotiated by this Government with the Americans. What does this whole business of giving away our natural resources have to do with free trade? What does it have to do with giving away our oil, our natural resources, our water, control of our financial institutions? What does this have to do with a free trade agreement? Nothing! Except that the Americans asked for it and Canada gave in.
But they did not have the courage to define what Canada is in the Bill, but the United States are defined, for example. Mr. Speaker, I tell you that it is not right to proceed this way. We should at least define our terms, define our territory, define our rights and what powers we want to keep and then proceed to negotiate seriously, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, this free trade debate began with a commission. I think Canadians sometimes do not understand that we are at about the six year mark in a process. Six years ago the then Prime Minister started the process because the Canadian economy was in trouble as a result of too many consecutive years of Liberal-NDP policy which had ruined the economy of the country. In four short years, after some 17 years of bad policy, we have been able piece by piece to put good policy in place. Canadians are employed, our standard of living is starting to rise again, yet at the end what do we run into? A filibuster.
Earlier this day the coalition of the NDP and Liberal Party suggested that the report stage debate on this specific legislation go on for 150 sitting days, followed by 200 sitting days for third reading debate. Two more years of debate during which Parliament could do nothing else about pensions, nothing about widows, nothing about children, nothing about pornography. Just stay on the free trade debate for two more years. That is absurd.
We moved from that absurdity to the absurdity of the proposition in this amendment, that we have to define in this Bill what Canada is. This House passed some 225 pieces of legislation and sent them to the Senate, and did we feel compelled to take the word "Canada" out of those Bills? No, it is in every single one of them. In fact, on many pages in every single one of them. Yet do we have a definition of Canada in any of that legislation? No.
Did the Opposition lay these amendments down for members of the committee and the witnesses to consider? Was there wisdom in this definition? Is this the best definition of Canada for the Broadcasting Act? Is it the best definition of
August 15, 1988

Canada for the Companies Act? Is it the best definition of Canada for the Customs Act? All those Acts are amended by this Bill. In fact, some 27 different Acts of Parliament are amended by this Bill. Is this definition of Canada, laid out here at the eleventh hour, the best? No, it is a filibuster tactic, not a serious suggestion.
My hon. friend, the Whip for the Liberal Party, laughs. I served with him for hours and hours in committee on the importance to this country of a new language Bill and respect for English and French. I have helped provide budgetary money to the opposition Parties for researchers and staff and translators. Yet they brought in 102 amendments, every single one of them in

... in one official language only. All the amendments put forward by the Opposition on this legislation were in only one language, English, in English only.

Is that the Liberal view of Canada? Is that part of their definition, that Canada is a country of one language? Or is it two languages?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is a fair-minded individual. The Standing Orders require that any document circulated to Members be in both official languages. Any Member of this House, be it a unilingual Anglophone or a unilingual Francophone, can table a document in his or her language. Before it is circulated it has to be translated. That is the rule. If the hon. gentleman is trying to promote disunity by saying all Members must work in both official languages, he is full of nonsense.


Mr. Hopkins:: So there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is only Monday, the beginning of the week. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has the floor, and he has a minute before Private Members' Hour.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I am acquainted with the rules but as Members of this chamber and citizens of this country we know what Canada is. It is not a limited proposition like the one the Opposition is putting forward in this amendment. That is a very narrow definition of Canada. That is a definition for the Customs Act because for custom purposes you need to have a geographic definition. However, do we need a geographic sense of Canada for company policy and our laws dealing with companies? Do we need a geographic sense of Canada for our laws dealing with broadcasting policy or our cultural industries? Is a customs definition of Canada the definition we want to live with across those 27 Acts? I suggest it is not.
The only reason we have this amendment before us is to filibuster. It is nonsense and would be damaging to the country.
Blue Water Bridge Authority Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have three minutes in his debate when we recommence.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   BLUE WATER BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
John Martin Oostrom: that Bill C-210, an Act to amend the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Martin Oostrom: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill this afternoon. As my hon. colleagues are aware, I introduced Bill C-210 in this House in October of 1986. The Bill was drawn and brought forward for second reading in April of this year.
Coincidentally, a few hours before the time scheduled for debate on second reading of this Bill I had been sworn in as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services. Due to this position I had discussions with my colleague, the Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey), whose constituency is right down the road from mine who agreed to take over sponsorship of this very important Bill. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member has pressing business in his constituency today, and he has asked me to speak on his behalf on this Bill.
I would like to take a moment to thank the many people who have contributed to this very important Bill. First, I would like to thank the Blue Water Bridge Authority for calling this problem to my attention and assisting me in detailing for my colleagues in the House the need for this amendment.
I want to thank my hon. colleague, the Member from Kent, for his efforts on behalf of this Bill. It goes without saying that we would not be debating it at third reading without his assistance and co-operation. As well, my colleagues who sat and heard testimony at the legislative committee hearing on

August 15, 1988
Blue Water Bridge Authority Act
this Bill get my thanks for their interest, input, and assistance. An amendment to the Bill was passed in legislative committee which clarified the intent of the legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Thacker) has been of invaluable help on this Bill, both in his advice and in the time he has spent liaising with the Transport Department.
Last, but certainly not least, I want to thank all Members opposite for their co-operation and interest in this Bill. I want especially to thank Members opposite for their support for the motion to move this Bill ahead to third reading. I would now like to thank them in advance for their support at the final vote.
Over the past few months I have had some experience with Private Members' Bills. I had the privilege of being appointed chairman of the legislative committee studying Bill C-204. All Members of that committee were very aware that we were entering new and uncharted waters. We have had Private Members' Bills passed in the House of Commons in the past, but they were few and far between.
In the past private Members were given one hour to debate their Bills. A Bill of any substance could not be handled properly in one hour and consequently Bills were virtually always talked out. On occasion a very persistent private Member could have a Bill passed dealing with a pet project if he or she were extremely persistent and re-introduced the Bill year after year.
There are many Hon. Members in this House who are more familiar with this subject than I. Members are aware that in recent Parliaments the only Private Members' Bills which were passed dealt in the main with the changing of the name of a Member's constituency. There were no Members in past Parliaments who attempted, as did my colleague, the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), to introduce legislation as important and necessary as Bill C-204. In the past any Member who attempted this would be virtually wasting his or her time.
As well, Bill C-210 would probably never have been passed in a previous Parliament. Bill C-210 needed to go to a legislative committee and be amended to provide the essential protection to members of the Bridge Authority who are trying to provide their services free. I have little doubt that Bill C-210 would not have passed without the reform of the House of Commons.
That I am standing here today speaking at third reading of this Bill is proof that House reform is working, concrete evidence that private Members are somebodies and that we can have an impact and make a difference in the Government of Canada. It is proof that a private Member can recognize a fault or a wrinkle, if you will, and address it through a Private Members' Bill. We now have optimism that Private Members' Bills can be fully debated and accepted by a majority of Members of this House.
I have no doubt that all Hon. Members will join me in recognizing the efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to make this possible for private Members. I would like to applaud and thank our Prime Minister on behalf of all Members of this House for his commitment to House reform and his continuing efforts to give all Members the opportunity to make important and timely decisions in the House of Commons.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Blue Water Bridge is a very important international crossing. On behalf of the Official Opposition I would like to say that we are pleased to support the adoption of Bill C-210. We have facilitated the consideration and progress of this Bill in earlier stages.
There is no doubt that the current rules, which were adopted not as an initiative of one Party but as a joint effort of all Parties, do facilitate somewhat the consideration and disposition of Private Members' Business. However, the adoption of Private Members' Bills and resolutions is not quite as rare as my hon. friend suggested in his remarks. I can recall, for example, that a Private Members' Bill of a Liberal Member of Parliament in the early sixties brought about the adoption of the current name of our national airline. It was changed from Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada. The Member of Parliament who introduced the Bill went on to have a very distinguished career in public life. He was none other than the Hon. Jean Chretien.
I repeat that there is no doubt that it is easier for Private Members' Business to be considered and disposed of under the current rules, but the acceptance of a Bill offered by a private Member is not quite as rare as my hon. friend has suggested. Praise for this move forward should be shared equally by all Members of this House. Parliamentary reform should not be a partisan issue as it has not been in the past. To the extent that our present rules are working the praise, or for that matter the blame if there are problems, must be shared by all Members.
I would like to conclude by saying once again that on behalf of the Official Opposition I am pleased to accept the request of the commissioners of the Blue Water Bridge for the extra protection that this Bill will give them and to support third reading of this Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democrats in the House of Commons I, too, want to lend my voice in support for Bill C-210. As we all know, this is an extremely important crossing in Canada. There are a number of individuals who unselfishly devote their time, talents, and energies to this crossing. This Bill would remove any liability from these individuals. This is an appropriate initiative and it is encouraging, as my hon. friend has indicated, that a private Member was able to initiate this legislative change to provide this element of security to the people who devote their time to making our country a better place.
August 15, 1988

One of the highlights of this Parliament has been the fact that we have been experimenting with the variety of forms of parliamentary reform. The role given to back-benchers through the private Members' initiatives has been one of the major initiatives. We have a long way to go.
We have made progress with an important initiative in terms of recognizing the rights, obligations and responsibilities of those on the back-benches. We have provided an opportunity for private Members to initiate such actions as this. It will provide an element of security to those commissioners which they do not believe exists at this time. I believe they are probably protected legislatively, but if it provides them with more protection, security and encouragement to continue serving Canadians as they do, this is an appropriate private Members' initiative.
On behalf of New Democrats I am pleased to lend our enthusiastic support.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-210, the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act. I served on the legislative committee on this Bill and listened to the presentations made by the board members who came forward to endorse what the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James) has asked us to do. I was impressed with these people who have been asked to serve on the board, without renumeration as has been mentioned already.
I want to compliment the Member for Sarnia-Lambton for sponsoring this Bill and bringing it to this point today. I want to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) and his officials for allowing us to put this piece of important legislation before the House this afternoon.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Blue Water Bridge Authority carries liability insurance coverage. Given the frequent use of this bridge to transport hazardous materials and the large liability judgments given by courts, the members of that authority were concerned that with a serious accident there was some possibility they could be held personally liable. That was never the intention of Parliament in passing that originally, but there was the possibility with the wording of the Bill.
Second, let me commend the Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. James). As a new Member in 1984, it is amazing that already in his short career he has had a Bill passed by this Parliament. The last major Bill was passed in the early 1960s, over 20 years ago. Not many Bills were accepted over the years until the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) accepted the recommendation of all Parties.
The Prime Minister wanted to have parliamentary reform so that private Members could bring forward Bills irrespective of the fact that they might be highly embarrassing to a Prime
Blue Water Bridge Authority Act
Minister or the Cabinet of the day. Private Members in the House can have Bills come forward for a forced vote at least six times in each session. That is tremendous parliamentary reform and all Parties should preserve that power with a passion. Indeed, it should be expanded.
I want to thank the Member for Sarnia-Lambton for carrying on with this Bill. It is not easy to become a new Member of Parliament and learn all of these processes, in light of the demands we all have from our ridings with such matters as passport problems, immigration problems, income tax problems. There are many demands on our time, without arranging to have a Bill drafted, or even figure out the Notice Paper. With the able help of the Clerks, who do admirable service to all of us, we are able to do so.
The credit goes to the Member for Sarnia-Lambton. He had to be here for up to five hours. He had to arrange for Members to speak in support of the Bill and arrange for Members to show up at committee to ensure there was a quorum. That is a problem in itself, given the demands on Members' time to appear at other committees. He had to arrange for witnesses to be here and for the Bill to be returned to the House and have Members available to speak. It takes dedicated effort by Members to make that happen.
I am sure the electorate of my friend and colleague, the Member for Sarnia-Lambton, will realize the major legislative accomplishment he has achieved here today. I am glad the House will give it third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. From the Government's perspective, the remaining time could be profitably spent on continuation of report stage of Bill C-130. There are some 102 amendments to be dealt with.
Under ordinary circumstances we might indeed suspend the sitting until six o'clock, but given the pressure in the Chamber for additional time and the Government's notice today that we will be moving time allocation, perhaps there could be unanimous consent to continue with report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.

August 15, 1988
Sitting Suspended


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not hear unanimous consent.
* *
*


SITTING SUSPENDED
Mr. Speaker:: It being 5.17 p.m., the House will suspend sitting until 6 p.m.
At 5.17 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 6 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, August 12, consideration of Bill C-264, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (instruments and literature for illicit drug use), as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Horner:
That Bill C-264 be amended in Clause 1 by striking out lines 11 to 15 at page 1 and lines 1 to 5 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"ited pursuant to the Narcotic Control Act, controlled pursuant to Part 111 of the Food and Drugs Act or restricted pursuant to Part IV of the Food and Drugs Act;
"illicit drug use" means the importation, exportation, cultivation, sale or possession of a narcotic, drug or other substance contrary to the Narcotic Control Act or Part III or IV of the Food and Drugs Act or a regulation made thereunder;
"instrument for illicit drug use" means anything designed primarily or intended under the circumstances for consuming or to facilitate the consumption of an illicit drug, but does not include a "device" as that term is defined in section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act";
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of Bill C-264.
Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Once again I should like to remind Hon. Members that the voting will begin with those Members who are in favour of the motion in the rows to my right rising by row and then Members in the rows to my left rising. Later, I will ask those Members who are opposed to the motion in the rows to my right to rise, and end with Members opposed to the motion in the rows to my left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
And the division bells having rung:


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I recommend that, in the spirit of reform once again, now that we are dealing with a Private Member's item here and contrary to our usual practice when we have a deferred division and a vote by Party lines, that on this matter we take a vote row by row instead of by Party lines.


Mr. Horner moved: that the Bill as amended be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.
August 15, 1988


Robert Nesbitt Horner: In view of the unanimous vote on this motion, would it be possible to move, without debate, to third reading at this time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to our moving to third reading, but I would hope that there would be no debate and that we will proceed to the vote right now.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hate to bring up this point, but had I known that there would be a request to move directly to third reading debate, we would have been pleased to. However, our critic is not with us today and would like to participate in third reading debate. I am afraid that we will have to wait until the next opportunity to participate in the third reading debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At the next sitting of the House.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy (p. 18275).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister has three minutes left in his debate.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Merci, Monsieur le President, trois minutes, fa suffit.
Prior to breaking for Private Members' hour I had seven minutes left and one final point that I wished to make. In the arguments that we have heard from the other side in support of the amendment to define Canada in three places in the Bill, the Opposition has failed to tell Canadians, and Members of the House, when they draw the analogy of the need for defining the United States in the Bill, what we are defining is the customs territory of the United States. What the members of the NDP ignore is that the Canadian Customs Act today and in the future must define Canada's customs territory.
In terms of the implementation of the free trade agreement, what we are dealing with in this Bill is the need to define what we mean by the United States. Surely in each of our individual Acts where we feel it is necessary in some way to define Canada or the Canadian interest that is done Act by Act.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I wonder if those who are such strong proponents of these amendments have thought through the reality that any definition provides clarity, but it provides clarity through limitation. In proposing this amendment at this place in this particular piece of legislation there is a very limited view of Canada. It is a limited view that is appropriate because it has a geographic base, therefore it is appropriate to customs issues. However, is that view the appropriate view for broadcast issues? Is that view the appropriate view for cultural issues? Is that point of view and that definition appropriate for the 27 existing Acts of Parliament which are being amended by this piece of legislation?
I suggest to Members opposite that, upon a little more consideration of this issue, and if they had brought that forward to committee where it could have been thoroughly examined by Members whose task it was over several weeks to look at it, and by witnesses who came to testify, they might find that they are less happy with what they are proposing than might appear to them on the surface. Let us deal with the Customs Act and the necessary definition in the Customs Act, but let us not impose a Customs Act definition on all the other statutes that are involved in this.
I would urge Members simply to reject those amendments and quickly and, hopefully, on a voice vote, move on to others.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain on debate.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has defined some of the things about which we have great concerns. When we are talking about not defining Canada and hearing that the United States is defined within the territory of the Customs Act, we believe that surely it would not have been too difficult for Canada to be defined in the same way within this Act that, as the Hon. Member has so clearly stated, amends 27 existing Acts of Parliament. It seems to me we should at least be explicit about what Canada is.
Certainly the Government has a very limited view of Canada. That is the very reason we are participating in this type of debate. When we are looking at amending 27 Acts that affect not only the economy but the whole sovereignty and identity of Canada, it seems to me that we should not be talking about closure, but that is what we have been talking about today. I heard a lot of criticism that the opposition Parties are asking for an extraordinary amount of time to discuss this Bill. If this is the Holy Grail which the Government keeps talking about with the future of Canada in sight, the Government should not begrudge the amount of time this House takes. The Government should have been willing to go to the Canadian people across the country to hear what they have to say.


John Horton McDermid: We did, three times.

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Marion Dewar: Instead of that, we got a limited amount of hearings. The Government went across the country before we had the Bill. We were talking in abstracts. The Government was saying that this is what might be there. But we did not have the specifics. We were told, "Don't worry. Trust us". That is a great way for a government to operate when this will be a totally new direction for neon years.
It gives me great concern when I see the Government is not only objecting totally to the amendments but to the kind of debate we want. We should be taking time in the House of Commons to look at the substantive issue of what the deal is all about. We need to take the Bill section by section and look very clearly at it. We want Canadians to understand what we are getting into. It would be a good exercise for Members of this House to get a good sense of what we are getting into.
When we talk about defining Canada, we are defining in this agreement the whole erosion of the Canadian identity. What will the Canadian economy be all about? We recognize that within this agreement now there are no limits to the kind of foreign investment we are getting into. People can holus-bolus buy our economy.
We know we have a branch plant economy, but we know that parent companies adjust prices and decide what kind of manufacturing takes place for their subsidiaries. Parent companies call the shots. Exports of branch plants go mainly to parent companies which control what kind of imports the subsidiaries have the ability to purchase. That is occurring in Canada now without this agreement. We are tying ourselves more deeply into that foreign-owned kind of economy where we will become totally dependent as far as our economy is concerned.
I hear Hon. Members telling me every day that 75 per cent of our trade takes place with the United States now. If we are doing so well, why do we have to give away any of the leverage we already have? But the Government is saying, "Welcome to Canada. We are open for business. Take our resources. Take any of our economy and have a ball with it. We are open and we do not care what you do with us." That is what we have been hearing consistently from the Government.
I think Canadians want to know more about this deal and understand it. As they start to understand this deal, questions come and they realize that this is not such a good deal. You hear government Members saying, "If you are not with us, you must be narrow-minded nationalists who want the status quo." If being a nationalist is saying you want to have some control over your own trade and you want to know in what directions your own economy will take, I do not apologize for being a nationalist. I think that is just fine. That is what being a citizen of a country is.
Look at what we had been doing before. We had so much foreign ownership that many times when Canadians could be adventurous and take risks, they could not always do it because the parent company would not allow it. Look at the number of deals that were struck at the World Bank. We know
that we got very few contracts, not because we were not capable of getting contracts or competing with what was coming out of Third World countries and what the World Bank was financing, but because very often we were not able to bid on some of the contracts that were put forward because a parent company was not allowing it.


Mr. Kilgour:: That is absolute nonsense.


Marion Dewar: That is not nonsense. The statistics are there and you can look at them.


John Horton McDermid: Name one.


Marion Dewar: You can see the amount of bidding that Japan did to get the bids it wanted.


John Horton McDermid: Name one.


Marion Dewar: On the bids we made we got about 80 per cent on what we bid and we bid on about 5 per cent of the contracts. I have described that in detail.
If you look at what is happening in other countries, and I use Japan as an example because it is always being quoted, Japan might bid on 80 per cent or 90 per cent of contracts and might win about 25 per cent of that. Japan's share is greater than ours because Japan is constantly putting in bids and being adventurous. Canadian manufacturers and workers are quite capable of doing the same because any time they have been able to bid they have been successful.


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


Marion Dewar: We are looking at this agreement. It says that we want to have more and more foreign control over our economy, that we want to make sure Canadians in the future, our sons, daughters and grandchildren, will no longer be able to take a direction in the economy that might be good for the Canada of the future. The Government says that there are two different visions of Canada. I hope there are. There is a vision of Canada that I have and I know my Party has where people count more than just the bottom line. People are not treated as commodities but with dignity as human beings. They are allowed to develop in their culture and environment in their own communities with a value system that is one of their choice and not one imposed upon them where they are not allowed to work because the jobs are not there and the economy is foreign owned, where the direction of the economy is not necessarily one they would choose but one that is directed south of the border.
I think Canada at this point, as we are maturing and growing up, is beginning to get its roots, is comfortable with its identity of two languages, and is comfortable with where we come from and who we are. It is not a time for us to fix ourselves so firmly economically only to one partner. I think it is time to branch out. It is time to be part of the actors who are going to the Pacific Rim. We can be part of that whole international liberalization of trade among countries. This kind
August 15, 1988

of agreement does not do itself any good in the eyes of the Third World, and certainly ties us firmly to the foreign policies of the United States.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who has just spoken knows that I have a great deal of respect for her. When she argued that Canada was not getting its share of the World Bank contracts because somehow foreign-owned companies were preventing Lavalin, Montreal engineers or engineering companies across Canada or other consultants from bidding on them, in my respectful submission she was giving us NDP whimsy rather than fact.


John Horton McDermid: She cannot even name one contact.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, some of the great engineering companies in Canada have done business all over the world. In my experience, I have found that there are not enough companies bidding, and I agree with the Hon. Member that there should be more. But somehow to tie that to free trade is not serious debate. In my view, she is not dealing candidly with Canadians, unless she has better evidence than that which she offered today.
The reason that eight out of 10 provincial Governments, the Consumers' Association of Canada, medium-sized, small and large business people and young people, including the Quebec Young Liberals who just voted for the agreement yesterday, are in favour of the agreement is not that they want to see Canada downtrodden or lose its identity. The reason is that we know we are strong, capable and intelligent. We know that we can compete and create jobs and a better future for our children and our grandchildren.
Both opposition Parties are taking the view that somehow we are giving away our national soul. That is simply nonsense. A friend of mine recently came back from Ireland. He told me that the airwaves are full of talk about 1992 when Europe will have a fully integrated market. This deal does not provide for a fully integrated market. Opposition Members should know that. It simply tries to put some discipline into the trading relationship which is bigger than that between any two countries in history.
Let me take an example from my region. When a petrochemical product goes across the border at Coutts, Alberta, a 15 per cent or 16 per cent tariff is paid. We are trying to get rid of that tariff so that we can have the value-added jobs in Edmonton, Calgary or Windsor. Now those jobs tend to be in the United States because of that tariff. We are simply trying to recognize that we need to have some protection from the protectionism which is always present in the United States. I believe it was Congressman La Falce who said the other day that if this agreement does not get through, there will be a trade war such as we have not seen since the 1930s.
How can we put a bag over our heads and pretend that the world does not have regional trading blocs? Something like 40
________________________________________18325
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
or 50 countries are now involved in trading blocs, the Common Market of course being the best known. How can we pretend that 25 million Canadians, a population slightly smaller than that of California, need no protection or discipline in trading relationships? We can do that if we believe in a fully socialized economy, an economy with someone sitting in a building in Ottawa saying how many widgets will be produced in Windsor, how many chemicals will be produced in Edmonton. However,
I believe that the vast majority of Canadians do not share that vision of Canada. That is a vision that would create the kind of unemployment that we have had in parts of Canada and one that we are now trying to get away from. I give the Government enormous credit for creating jobs across Canada, though I wish there were more jobs in my part of the country. I wish that fewer Albertans had to move to Toronto or Hamilton to find employment.
Two NDP Members from the Windsor area are here today.
I suppose they will say that that is managed trade. Since 1968, the production minimums under the Auto Pact have never been applied, as I understand it, except for a few months in 1980 or 1981 when Chrysler was in trouble.


Steven W. Langdon: That's false.


David Kilgour: Let the Hon. Member give us the facts and figures on that because I have never seen it contradicted anywhere. We have had, for all intents and purposes, free trade in the auto industry since 1968 except for a brief period in 1981.
The Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) is from Oshawa. I believe Oshawa has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in Canada. We in western Canada, Atlantic Canada and northern Canada are simply saying that we want to have a little bit of the misery that the people of Oshawa are suffering from. We want to have a few of the advantages that the good people of Oshawa have been enjoying for many years, as have the people from Toronto, St. Catharines and parts of Quebec. Let us see if we cannot have a trading relationship which will create more jobs.
The Canada West Foundation has studied industries in western Canada on an industry-by-industry basis. It has said that these industries will benefit from free trade. It will be overwhelmingly favourable to people in our region. It is true that some will suffer. There will have to be adjustment and transition programs. No one will support those more strongly than you or I, Mr. Speaker.
We have to recognize that we are not living in the 1920s any longer. I remind NDP Members that back in the 1920s, Argentina and Canada had economies and standards of living that were roughly comparable. Argentina turned inward with protectionism and all kinds of regulations and controls. Now, as I am sure Hon. Members know, Argentina has something less than economic prosperity.
Canada has to look outward. Western Canada has always looked outward because our region was founded on trade with

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Europe. We cannot pretend that the world that exists in some textbook that the Hon. Members from Windsor have read still exists. It does not.
Those who prosper in the world are the Japanese, the Swiss, the West Germans-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Real free trade economy is in Japan.


David Kilgour: These are the people who know that producing high-quality goods with service to customers and intelligence is the way of the future. I remind Hon. Members that the average people in those countries are doing very well. As I think Canadians will show in the next election, Canadians know that that is the route we have to take.
The Hon. Member said a moment ago that Japan is not in a trade group. That is true, but which of the other OECD countries is not in a trade group except for Japan, Canada and the United States?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: How much foreign ownership is there in Japan?


David Kilgour: If we complete this agreement, as I very much hope we will, then Canada will be part of the largest, most prosperous trading community on earth, though some could argue that the Common Market is stronger. At least we will then be able to tell the people of Windsor, Edmonton, Toronto and St. Catharines to tool up because they can now sell to the entire North American market.
I will give an example of this. Unfortunately it is not an example from Edmonton but from Montreal. A man who makes children's winter garments in Montreal has to pay a 42 per cent tariff on costumes with ornaments on them when he ships them South. He is in favour of this agreement.


Steven W. Langdon: He still will.


David Kilgour: He will not. It will be phased out over 10 years, as the Hon. Member knows.


Steven W. Langdon: Not for clothing.


David Kilgour: If we can get rid of those tariffs and the nontariff barriers, Canadians, whether they live in Newfoundland, northern Nova Scotia, northern Ontario, northern Quebec or western Canada, will have the same sort of benefits the people of southern Ontario have had, deserve to have and, I hope, will continue to have. That is why I very much hope that this agreement will go ahead.
I personally am looking forward to fighting an election on this issue. I think the Members who are asking us to look back 30 years will find that Canadians are not backward looking people. They believe in the future. They believe we can compete in North America. Once we have started to do that, they believe that we will be able to compete better in the Pacific Rim, in Europe and in other parts of the world.
I trust that allocation of time will be applied shortly and that before very long we will all be out looking our voters in the eyes, telling them, as The Globe and Mail has said, that if the deal is scuttled, the grass may not grow in Windsor but there are a lot of places where the grass will grow. I remind Hon. Members from Windsor that the agreement will enshrine the Auto Pact in it, and if the Americans want to rescind the Auto Pact, which they can do now very readily and quickly, they will have to rescind the entire trade agreement.
I appeal to the people of Canada who have benefited most from free trade in automobiles to let the rest of the Canadian people enjoy some of the things they have enjoyed.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the amazing thing about this debate this evening is that very few Members opposite are speaking to the amendment. We just heard a speech that was so totally off the amendment that the Hon. Member should have been called to order.
We heard the Parliamentary Secretary telling the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) that he should have moved his amendment in committee and discussed it there. What is the sense in moving amendments in a parliamentary committee where the Government, in the form of Members opposite, is totally dedicated to voting down those amendments?


John Horton McDermid: Not true.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Members opposite are talking in circles. They are trying to mislead the Canadian public into thinking that the committee was very meaningful. It was a good discussion but they certainly did not accept amendments.


John Horton McDermid: That is wrong.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You can look at any other piece of legislation that has gone through this House and you will see that the amendments which have been made would compare very favourably to the way this legislation, involving the greatest issue which has faced Parliament in decades, was handled. It was handled badly by the Government of Canada and its members who sat on that committee.


John Horton McDermid: You were not there, how would you know?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from Brampton always has his say, but I am used to that when I am up here speaking because I know that things I say get him very upset.
Let us get back to the amendments and the real issue here, which is the fact that in this Bill the geographic boundaries of the U.S. are outlined clearly-


John Horton McDermid: Why?
August 15, 1988


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -but the boundaries of Canada are not.


John Horton McDermid: Why?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: So the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry simply brings in the following amendment:
That Bill C-130 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 21 at page 2 the following:
"Canada" means the territory to which Canadian customs laws apply, including areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources".
What is wrong with a government that would deny an amendment like this which adds clarity to a Bill? Is it afraid that something is going to happen down the road that will irritate Washington? Does it not have enough confidence in the future of Canada to put in its boundaries? The Government should be ashamed of itself.
What is it really thinking about here? It is so anxious to get a deal that it does not want to go back and clarify anything. It wants a deal at any price.


David Kilgour: It cannot be changed.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You did not speak on the amendment so you do not really have a right to shout over here. I am on the business of today, you were not.
This is one simple amendment to Bill C-130.


John Horton McDermid: "Simple" is a good word.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Parliamentary Secretary stood up and said Bill C-130 amends 27 pieces of legislation. If you are going to amend 27 pieces of legislation why can you not allow a simple amendment that speaks about the territorial boundaries of Canada?


John Horton McDermid: Because it is already there.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I know what is bothering Members opposite. The U.S. sent the Polar Sea through the North and they said they were doing it because it was international waters. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) visited Washington and had a meeting with the State Department and they simply told him he might as well go back home and forget it, they were going to go through anyway.


John Horton McDermid: Do you think your amendment would have stopped the Polar Sea from going through?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Government did not raise the issue until it was raised by the Official Opposition. Then Canadians woke up suddenly to find the Americans were passing through waters we claimed to be our own and there was nothing done to inhibit them. The Government, with the largest majority in Canada's history, did not stand up and speak for Canada. Today it is not standing up and speaking for Canada because it will not put the boundaries of Canada in the most major piece of legislation that has passed through this House in decades.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: It is already there.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, let us go back to another day here that relates to this. Canada argued in 1903 that we owned the headlands on the West Coast. The U.S. was claiming we did not. Britain was brought into the picture and it supported the U.S. in its case and we lost. That is why today you have the American Panhandle down Canada's West Coast. What is going to happen in the future if the Americans claim certain waters in the Arctic to be international waters, send their ships through on that basis, and we say they are not international waters? If this amendment goes on to outline the clear-cut boundaries of Canada for the future-


John Horton McDermid: It stops that?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -it gives strength to our position when it comes to international law and future court cases dealing with the boundaries of Canada because it is there.


John Horton McDermid: It is already there.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It is already there? Why did you not put it in and clarify it?


John Horton McDermid: It is in the Customs Act, that is what we are talking about.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He says it is in the Customs Act. Why not put it directly into Bill C-130, because Bill C-130 takes precedence over many pieces of Canadian legislation. He knows that.


John Horton McDermid: That is wrong, too. That section was taken out of the Bill.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I talked about Britain and the U.S. ganging up on Canada in 1903, and it is happening in 1988. Here we have a trade Bill that is slanted towards the U.S. The boundaries of the U.S. are outlined in the Bill, the Government will not outline the boundaries of Canada because it is afraid of irritating Washington and it might lose its trade Bill. You know, you must not interfere with poor Uncle Sam. Yet we have the British Prime Minister, not sitting down at a table in this case, but walking into the Canadian House of Commons and supporting this trade agreement. It was totally out of order, but she did it anyway. Here you have Britain moving into this debate between Canada and the U.S., taking the part of the Tory Government in Canada, which already has an overwhelming majority in this House, and trying to convince Canadians that this is indeed the route to go.
We heard the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) saying that Switzerland and Japan were successful by themselves in the world market simply because of high quality products.


John Horton McDermid: And protectionism.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He also mentioned intelligence. Is the Hon. Member saying that Canadian goods are not of high quality?

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Is he saying that Canadian manufacturers do not go about things in an intelligent manner? He is not saying that his Government has been so intent on getting this trade agreement with the U.S.-and I refuse to call it a free trade agreement- that it has put all its eggs in one basket, and our international trade percentages with other countries have been going down drastically since the Government started these negotiations with the U.S. The facts will show it.
I do not trust the Government to carry Canadian concerns. I do not trust the Government to say that Canadian boundaries should not be in Bill C-130, the trade deal. I say they should be in there in explicit form. If the Government of Canada had confidence in its own legislation and in the agreement it made, it would put that amendment in and clarify it once and for all. I do not trust the Government because it is refusing to do so.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I cannot describe my entry into this debate as a particular pleasure, particularly considering the substance of the debate which strikes me as being nearly trivial. It is fairly obvious to me that this long harangue could be reduced to a few minutes simply by the Government conceding what seems to me to be an obvious point. Unfortunately, we have had what has been described by my colleague from Windsor as a reduction of the debate to a level of plain meanness. Moments ago we listened to the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) reduce the debate to a level of what must be described as intellectual dishonesty in the interests of regional bigotry.
First, as has so often happened in this debate, the Auto Pact has been referred to as one example of free trade by which southern Ontario, in an exploitative way-which is the implication of all that has been said-has benefited at the expense of the rest of the country. They ask why free trade should not be extended to the entire country.
First, the Auto Pact did not involve giving away the country. That is a minor observation at this stage of the debate. However, the Auto Pact is not a free trade deal of the sort that this deal between Mulroney and Reagan represents. It is not free trade, and anyone who suggests that it is is, as I said before, intellectually dishonest or absolutely committed to regional divisions in an unnecessary and exploitative way. The Auto Pact is an agreement by which ensured levels of production commensurate with sales in Canada were reached with the help of tariffs which represented the barrier that had to be overcome on the basis of which the Auto Pact was made to function.
It is true that the Auto Pact did provide jobs in southern Ontario. We are thankful for that. However, let us pause for a moment to consider what kinds of jobs were produced in southern Ontario. Yes, Windsor has benefited from a great many people working on the assembly lines in the plants there. However, with the Auto Pact, engineering went south. With the Auto Pact, management went south. To suggest that this
negotiated trade agreement between Reagan and Mulroney does not at all affect the Auto Pact is just plain nonsense.


John Horton McDermid: Are you against the Auto Pact?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I find it really offensive that ignorance or mean-spiritedness continues to operate in this debate.


John Horton McDermid: Are you for it or against it?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: The Auto Pact, even to the Parliamentary Secretary, should be recognized as a managed trade agreement and not a free trade agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Are you for it or against it?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Of course we are for it.


John Horton McDermid: What are you complaining about?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: We are complaining about the attack on the Auto Pact in the interests of an agreement that has no relationship to the Auto Pact at all.
Second, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona upbraided my colleague, the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), on the issue of Canadian contracts to the World Bank. She pointed out that we bid on about 3 per cent of such opportunities. The Member for Edmonton-Strathcona contested this suggesting that this was not in any way an argument that would portray Canada as being in a situation where its inability to bid is determined by foreign ownership.
I will give you one fact that my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain was unable to give, that is, that all of that 3 per cent represented companies that were Canadian-owned. None of them represented American-owned or foreign-owned companies. That may not send a clear message to the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, but he is so totally committed to defending this deal on the basis of regional differences that he is completely unable to understand the argument in which we are supposed to be engaged right now, that being the question of whether or not this legislation should include a territorial definition of Canada.
We have heard a great deal of talk and nonsense, but the only thing we have heard in opposition to the acceptance of this amendment is that it already exists in the Customs Act. I cannot understand why that is a sufficient argument to involve us in two hours of debate when it would be very easy to include that definition in the legislation. If it is such a big deal and is so offensive, why does the Government include a definition of the territory of Canada in the agreement itself? There is a definition of United States territory and Canadian territory in the agreement. Why then do we have only a definition of that of the United States in the Act itself?


John Horton McDermid: To describe the customs area.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Well then why not also Canada?
August 15, 1988


John Horton McDermid: We have it in our Customs Act.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: But why not in the legislation itself? That is not a sufficient argument to reject this amendment and to waste the time of the Elouse in this fashion. One has to become just a little suspicious of all this haranguing, this pettiness, this meanness, and this intellectual dishonesty over a trivial amendment which, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, would change not a thing. One must get suspicious. Is it that there is a danger that providing a definition of Canada might somehow offend the Americans? Certainly this deal has been contrived in most ways not to offend the Americans.
This definition is not really what is at issue here. The definition suggested in the amendment comes essentially from the agreement which says: "-Canada, the territory to which its customs laws apply, including any areas beyond the territorial seas of Canada within which, in accordance with international law and its domestic laws, Canada may exercise rights with respect to the seabed and subsoil and their natural resources-".
This definition of Canada is not what is at issue here. There is a definition of Canada which, it seems to me, we ought to attend. Even this territorial definition draws attention to the fact that this agreement is an attack on the very definition of Canada as the people of this country understand. At issue here is not this customs definition of Canada but a definition of Canada as the most civilized, humane, and generous country in the world, a country that is not devoted to the market forces as the motivator of what we are and what we shall be but a country that recognizes that social justice is the very meat of our existence.
Nobody ever said that violence in Canada is as Canadian as maple sugar. We are a different country. We have vast resources that this deal would sell off. We have the highest percentage of foreign ownership which we would expand. We have considerable comparable advantages which we could exploit, but by this deal will not be able to. We are a country that can mobilize its financial resources to build a new future but we give even the control of our financial resources away.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would love to listen to the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next grouping is on Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 8.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the 10 minutes which we are allowed at report stage is not sufficient time to do justice to these very important amendments on critical clauses of the Bill. I will use the 10 minutes to make two very crucial points.
The first concerns the stated purpose of the Bill.
The purpose we see in the legislation and the reason we are asking for its deletion has nothing to do with the Bill itself. The purpose outlined in Bill C-130 is not the reason why the Bill was introduced or why the trade agreement was started, and certainly has nothing to do with the kind of legislation before us.
This afternoon, the Member from Calgary said that this got started with a royal commission. Of course, that is not true. When one looks at the record, the proposal for the free trade agreement began in 1983 with some private meetings with the Ambassador from the United States in Ottawa, Mr. Robinson, and key members of the business community. They began to discuss why Canada should no longer be allowed to introduce such things as a National Energy Program or provide for policies that would conserve our own resources for our own purposes.
The real purpose of this Bill has very little to do with trade and is much more concerned with the economic agenda of the coalition of neo-conservative forces in this country who do not like the idea that Government itself can be a constructive contributor to making policies on behalf of Canadians.
What we are debating is the agenda of the republican party of the north. We are seeing the swan song of President Reagan

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
tonight in New Orleans. We are seeing the swan song of the neo-conservatives around the world. However, they want to leave a legacy of prohibition for any future progressive forces to introduce initiatives or policies on behalf of government that would overtake the kind of mean-spirited actions that we have seen so much of in the last five or six years.
When we recognize that this legislation limits the right of Canadians to make choices about the kind of investment they will have in Canada, we see that it has nothing to do with trade. It concerns the free flow of capital of the large companies and large corporations that do not want to recognize nationality or citizenship of Canadians. They simply want free rein to invest where and how they wish.
That is the real purpose of the Bill. It is to ensure that there will be this kind of open door investment policy. We have seen what will happen as a result. Last week, the Petroleum Monitoring Agency, an agency of the Government itself, indicated that the level of ownership in the energy field is falling drastically. Canadians are far less able to own their own energy resources this year than they were the year before or the year before that. The reason is the immense number of takeovers and acquisitions, $33 billion worth in the last four years under the Tory Government. There were 433 applications, not one of which was turned down. Yet the Government will loosen the rules even further. That is the purpose of the legislation.
It is stated that the purpose is somehow to try to use this agreement and the legislation as a way of encouraging more multilateral trade. That is bunkum. This legislation is creating a preferential North American discriminatory trade bloc that breaks every precedent and historical rule this country has attempted to follow in order to establish an international trading system that treats all nations the same and does not discriminate against nations, large or small. We have fought for that since 1948 and the inception of GATT. Various Liberal Governments have seen that the real interest of Canada lies in a system that is fair and equitable. This agreement does the opposite. It implements an agreement that discriminates against other countries.


Mr. Crofton:: What about the Auto Pact?


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us talk about the Auto Pact. According to the Auto Pact that we signed, other countries can join in. Under the agreement, they keep other countries out. A Korean or Japanese automobile manufacturer is grandfathered out of this agreement. They cannot get in under these tariff rearrangements. They are locking it up to preserve the status quo.
Members of the Conservative Party say that this represents great, open competition, except that an automobile manufacturer from Asia will not be allowed to have the same rules as those that apply to an automobile manufacturer owned by an American company.
This kind of discriminatory system is being created in North America in energy. We are giving the Americans full access to
our resources, which is what they want. If we refer back to 1952 in President Eisenhower's days, and the Paley Commission report, the No. 1 strategic objective of the United States was to get secure access to Canadian resources. It took until 1988 and the Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to get that. They had to wait until the election of 1984 of a republican Party in Canada to get that security of access. That is the hidden agenda and underlying objective of the Bill. It has nothing to do with opening up markets.
The fact is that it closes down markets in areas and allows that kind of discrimination. It will certainly be one of the most serious roadblocks on the way to important international development in making Canada an effective international trader. That is one reason for my amendment.
The second reason deals with the important Clause 6. It concerns the unilateral assertion by the Government to take over powers in provincial jurisdiction as a consequence of the trade agreement. We know that the Americans have made conditional on accepting the agreement with the letters they want to exchange on December 15, that the Government of Canada ensure that it can provide compliance with all parts of the agreement. In order to do that the Government needs a clause in the Bill that will give it a big stick against the provinces. That is the reason for Clause 6.
Clause 6 runs against the nature of federal-provincial relations as they have evolved since the mid 1930s. At that time there was an important decision in an international labour case whereby the judicial council decided that in any international agreement that affects a provincial jurisdiction, the provincial government has the right to ratify in those jurisdictions. That decision has been followed since that time. There have been countless Acts of the United Nations, charters, covenants on women's rights and labour rights in which provincial rights were affected and the provinces had the right to ratify. They did not become agreements until the provinces did so.
The present Government is asserting that that is no longer necessary. It is changing the fundamental premise of federal-provincial relations unilaterally. If that is what the Government wants to do, that is its business. Perhaps we could evolve constitutionally. But it should not be done as a consequence of a trade agreement with the United States. It should not be done simply by asserting so in federal legislation. It should be done by the proper Canadian means of consultation and discussion and negotiation with the province. In fact, what Clause 6 does is to provide a third partner at the constitutional table; the provinces, the federal Government of Canada, and the Government of the United States. That is what it really does.


An Hon. Member:: What nonsense.
August 15, 1988


Lloyd Axworthy: All of a sudden we are now being required, under Clause 6, to ensure compliance. As a result, we break those precedents.
That is why we believe that this is a clause which fundamentally undermines the basic kind of Canadian identity and integrity. When we argue that this is a debate about Canadian independence, Canadian integrity, Canadian rights-to-choose-for-themselves, there is no clearer case of this Government kowtowing, getting on its knees to the sacrifice of this agreement, than Clause 6, because they are prepared to overturn 50 years of precedent, to go against all the sacred precedents that the Prime Minister talked about, that we are going to have better relations with the provinces, that it is going to be cordial conciliation, time and to make this kind of assertion. That is why we think it is wrong.
We do not believe that the federal Government has the right, in legislation such as this, to make that kind of unilateral assertion of new power. If they want to make the case, fine. Go to a federal-provincial meeting, put your case out. Let us have it debated and discussed. Let us see what kind of reaction we get. Let us get an open kind of examination of these requirements. But let us not do it on the basis that simply because the federal Government says so, it is right. That is the full arrogance of the majority, the full arrogance of the abuse of power. It is the reason why we have a federal system, to provide some checks and balances in Canada.
This Government has compromised, appeased, in so many ways, at so many times, in so many essential ingredients of Canada, for the sake of getting this God-forsaken Bill through, it is impossible to count how many times. What it adds up to is once again the kind of fundamental surrender of Canadians' rights of ways of doing things the way we want to do them.
We are allowing ourselves to be taken over, to be guided by a whole new set of principles that may be acceptable to Americans-and that is their business-to make those choices, but they should not be incorporated, insinuated into Canada by this kind of legislation.
When Hon. Members say, "Well, this is just a little trade agreement, commercial arrangement", we point to Clauses 6 and 7. That is not a commercial arrangement. That is a whole new declaration of federal-provincial relations. It has no place in this Bill. If it is going to be done, it should be done in the proper, honourable, respectable, responsible way, and that is to do it in concert, in communion with provinces. That is the Canadian way of doing things, not the republican Party way of doing things. But unfortunately, we have the republican Party of the north in power for a short time. They do not understand the difference.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to say first to this House that these are useful amendments which have been put before us, because they permit us to debate what the purpose of this whole exercise actually is. The first motion, Motion No. 5, would attempt to delete the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
clause in which the purpose of this Bill is outlined. It is exactly the same purpose which is in the free trade agreement itself. It is an outline of purposes which includes within it the falsehoods and statements which take us in a direction which this Government, before its election, never committed itself to, which this Government, in its own legislation, never committed this country to, and yet, these are the purposes for which this Bill is moved, that this agreement is entered into.
The first purpose is an easy one; it is to eliminate barriers to trade and goods and services between Canada and the United States, to get rid of tariffs, non-tariff barriers, if possible. But notice that it deals with services for the first time that any significant trade agreement has dealt with services. Notice, too, that the United States is far and away the most dominant and powerful exporter and monopolizer of the service sector in the world, so much so that in fact within GATT many Third World countries have very strongly resisted the United States push to make services part of the GATT arrangements among trade in the countries. But not us. We do not hesitate, despite a massive deficit with respect to services, despite the fact that the United States does far, far better exporting services to us than we do exporting services to them. We say, "No, open sesame, we are going to provide you free entry to the service sector of our country".
The second purpose is to believe that we are not facilitating conditions of fair competition within the free trade area established by the agreement, fair competition between a country which, on the one side, has committed itself to a social safety net which will protect its people, has committed itself to a broadening of that social safety net, as recently as the announcements made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), with respect to day care, and yet, on the other side, we have a country where things that we take completely for granted, like medicare, are considered by the present President of the United States to be so out of bounds that they make the advocacy of medicare by Michael Dukakis a danger to the future of the United States.
At the same time, this country with which we are entering into fair competition has dozens of states with right-to-work laws, laws that, under that label, effectively make it almost impossible for trade unions to operate effectively; a country in which it is possible to import goods duty free, from the Maquiladora free trade zone in Mexico in which people receive as wages under a dollar a day, and to have those included as part of the American product which is sold throughout the United States, that is the fair competition which we will face. Minimum wages, far, far lower than the minimum wages that we have here in our country, that is the fair competition that we will face.
It is no wonder that the workers, the companies, the communities in my constituency look at this trade deal and say: "We will be hosed in that kind of unfair competition".

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Thus in fact the purpose of this measure is not to establish conditions of fair competition.
At least the next clause is honest. It states that we will liberalize significantly conditions for investment in that free trade area. I say to Hon. Members, watch here, too, that we are not talking just about trade. We are not talking just about tariffs, as the Government likes to pretend. We are talking here about investment, investment which not we but the Conservative Government felt in its Investment Canada Act had to be protected from takeover by American companies. Any Canadian company which has assets over $5 million has to go through a review process. In that review process it can be asked to make a commitment to the community in which it is taking over a company.
I warn Conservative back-benchers what they will face. What will happen under this trade deal is what has begun to happen already in various towns and cities which are starting to gear up for the trade deal. Canadian companies will be taken over. They will be shut down. Jobs will be lost. We in Canada will be served as a market by the United States parent company which will buy out the Canadian firm and shut it down. It has begun to happen already. It will happen on a far broader basis in the future. The consequence for Canadians will be catastrophic.
Finally, there is the suggestion that this measure will lay the foundation for multilateral co-operation to expand and enhance the benefits of the agreement. I have to say to Members of the House that those people to whom I talked at the start of this GATT round in Punta del Este, Uruguay, in 1986 were, without exception when they could speak off the record, terrified of what was happening in North America. They were terrified by the fact that we are leading ourselves in the direction of yet another powerful trade bloc which would discriminate against the rest of the world.
I think that the motion on purposes should be rejected. I think, too, that the motion with respect to the unilateral right of the federal Government to take action to enforce its commitment to the agreement on the provinces should be eliminated, otherwise we will not have a federal system. We will have a system in which the provinces and the federal Government will have a fair share in this country of ours.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Motion No. 6 which would delete Clause 4 one is guided by a number of observations and conclusions that have been made in the course of the last few months, particularly those made in committee. In choosing between the wealth of analyses and studies that have been conducted, very few documents have struck me so much for their relevance and precision as well as their objective source as the document which I will use in the next few minutes. I refer to the one produced by the Attorney General for Ontario dated May, 1988. It is entitled: "The Impact of the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement, a Legal Analysis". This is the kind of document which will require a thorough study also on the part of the
Tory back-benchers as they approach the next election because they will have to do some pretty hard homework to defend this agreement when they are on the hustings throughout Ontario.
This is what in essence and in very short terms the analysis states. I read from this paper. This paper was not prepared by a member of the Opposition. It was prepared by one of the 10 provincial Governments of Canada, evidently one that has its industrial and economic future at heart, as it should.
It states that under the agreement the United States becomes a third party at the constitutional bargaining table empowered to influence a wide range of vital public policies. This point was made earlier by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) when he said that there is a third party, a comment which was ridiculed by a member opposite. This is a very important observation that comes from a government body. Thus we will have now a third party at the constitutional table from the moment this agreement comes into effect.
Second, the analysis goes on to state that the new role of the United States in the making of Canadian public policy threatens the traditional patterns of compromise that have characterized Canadian federalism. This point does not need to be elaborated upon. We all know what has been the nature until now of federal-provincial relations and how it will be affected from now on after this agreement comes into effect. We will see its impact in future federal-provincial gatherings.
Third, the analysis concludes that the agreement will significantly alter the ability of the provinces to shape their economic and social policies. This is a corner-stone point because it affects not just Ontario but every province in the country. It is central to the nature and the evolution of the country until now. After the agreement comes into effect this alteration and the ability of the provinces to shape their economic and social policies will be felt. We do not know yet to what extent and in what way but we certainly know that it is coming.
Fourth, the analysis observes that the impairment of the policy flexibility of the provinces is so profound that it gives the agreement a constitutional dimension. This is the assessment that was made by the Attorney General for Ontario in May of this year.
Fifth, this analysis observes that provincial matters can be subjected to review and ultimately to United States retaliation without any certain right under the agreement for provinces or private sector interests to be heard or to participate in any way. This also explains why in recent weeks and months we have heard what was originally a very weak and feeble voice. We have heard more and more the voice of small business. This explains why we have heard that voice becoming stronger. It is because somehow the word has gone around. Somehow small business has realized that the agreement has a potential impact on their capacity to continue to survive.
August 15, 1988

The next point that is being made is to the effect that the agreement impairs provincial policy-making through the undertaking of the federal Government to ensure that all necessary measures are taken to ensure the observance of the agreement, including by the provinces and the municipalities. Enough has been said on that point by colleagues in my Party who have stressed this very point in an eloquent manner.
Following that point, reference is made to the national treatment rule. In general, that rule requires that American business interests be accorded treatment equivalent to that granted to Canadians. Many things are likely to change under this national treatment rule. When there is such a difference in the proportion and relation of strength and size between the United States and Canada, evidently the national treatment rule will go to the advantage of the economy that can muster the largest economic units and the largest economic corporations and, therefore, will be able to enter the neighbouring market with a much greater impact and success than we will be able. We all know of this relationship of roughly one to ten.
The analysis by the Attorney General of Ontario is also interesting because it also goes into the study of the most severe effects on provincial activity. It concludes that provincial activities-and I submit that this will not only be the case for Ontario-will ultimately be felt in a number of areas. The first one raised here is energy. The point is made very briefly. The scope of two-price energy policies as a provincial tool for economic development will be restricted.
We have been saying this, we have heard this from witnesses in committee, and here we see it confirmed through an analysis by the office of the provincial Attorney General. It means the restriction of advantages that we have enjoyed until now as a nation to use the edge that we have through energy prices whereby in the 1970s and until recently we used lower prices for our own domestic purposes. Therefore, we will lose this advantage which was understandably one that we had to use considering the geographic disadvantages in trying to keep an economy such as ours together over such a large geographic area, and also climatically. Sooner or later we were bound to initiate a policy of price differentials on energy. All of a sudden as a result of the weak, short-sighted attitude of the Government we are giving up the natural, highly desirable, and almost essential tool that we have been able to utilize until now.
Second, the impact on provincial activities will be felt on natural resources which, under the agreement, are subject to compulsory sharing. I repeat the word "compulsory" sharing. This is something that has somehow become lost in the perception on the part of the public. They are subject to compulsory sharing with the United States in times of shortage and for which licensing for commercial use and access must be accorded equally to Canadians and Americans. No comment is needed since this is self-explanatory. The fact is that now we are going to share. We will be forced to share regardless of our
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
long-term interests and regardless of our environmental approach to our natural resources which we may want to have, keeping in mind not only the next generation, but the second or third generation. This will be a very serious restriction on our ability to move.
I notice that you are becoming impatient with my time allocation, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am never impatient with the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, this is the most abhorrent piece of legislation that I have ever had the misfortune to have to speak on in the House. The three amendments before us are very fundamental ones. If these amendments were passed, they would take out the guts of Bill C-130, the Act to implement the free trade deal with the United States. I have no hope whatsoever that Members of the Government who are supporting the trade deal will accept these very reasonable amendments. They are reasonable in the sense of the life of our country and in the sense of what we need to be doing. I do not have much optimism, and I am directing my remarks through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Canadian people.
Here we are in August. We are debating late at night at a time when the House is normally suspended in order that we can spend time in our constituencies. We are debating an issue which the Government has no mandate to be dealing with, an issue which is complex, which is disturbing Canadians, which Canadians want to have an election on, and which Canadians want to understand. Some Canadians are very open to the idea. They are very open to the principles of the trade deal because they want to see lower tariffs and what they consider to be economic rationality.
However, the actual details of the Bill and the substance of the agreement are not well known because the Government has deceived the people of Canada by putting out a glossy PR approach on the subject and by making it look a purely economic matter when in fact it is a constitutional change that will change the life of our country forever if it is allowed to go through. It is a constitutional amendment because it is binding on future Governments. Some of the very clauses that are up for amendment are binding on the future.
First, I wish to deal with Clause 3. The purpose of the amendment is that the whole clause be deleted. It is the general purpose clause of the Bill and it states:
3. The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of
which are to
(a) eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States;
Precious little study was done of services before the deal was hastily rushed through by a government with no mandate whatsoever. We have not seen any Conservative bolting on this issue. People who, before the last election, were against trade, people who never said a word against their Prime Minister

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
(Mr. Mulroney) when he was against trade, are suddenly standing up in the House and defending a deal on which they never talked to the voters of Canada and for which they did not get elected themselves.
Clause 3(b) states:
(b) facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free-trade area established by the Agreement;
What is fair competition? This is absolutely central to the whole issue. What is fair and what is unfair, and to what extent will Canada be exempt? We know that Canada will not be exempt from unfair trade practice complaints in the United States. What is fair in terms of our social programs? Constantly we have been told that social programs were not on the bargaining table, and yet there is a section in the deal that states that subsidies are one thing that will be negotiated in the next five to seven years. We could then find out, far too late, that our social programs have been negotiated away because they are going to be treated as unfair subsidies.
This clause talks about "fair competition". What about our programs to promote regional development and create jobs in any particular region? We talk about facilitating conditions of fair competition, but we do not have definitions as to what is fair competition. It is not clear whether or not regional programs will be included. That has been left for negotiations later.
The Government is selling out the country, and some of the worst aspects of the deal are the unknown aspects. It is being left up to a process in which we have very little chance to be successful, and leaving it up to a process where two countries will be negotiating, one ten times the size of the other. At a later stage it would be very hard to pull out of it if there is going to be retaliation after we get well into this deal.
We have these crucial decisions left until later. There is talk about fair competition, Mr. Speaker. But there is no definition as to what constitutes fair competition. The question as to what competition will be fair is begged entirely in this deal. What is fair when you have a system with large multinational corporations in the United States that are well established, for whom it would be a very simple matter to extend their production to fill the entire Canadian market? They already have established brand names and dealerships. It will be very easy for them to add a night shift on Tuesday night through which they could fill the entire Canadian market. Our Conservative colleagues say, "Canadians can do the same thing. Canadian corporations will have fair competition and can enter the United States". But you have a company that is very much smaller that does not have a well known international brand name, that does not have a system of dealerships, that would require enormous capital to begin to advertise and do the kind of research and development necessary to hit that new market. This is totally naive.


John Horton McDermid: What a wimpish attitude. You are knocking Canadian entrepreneurs.


Lynn McDonald: This is a Government that does not look at how these decisions are made. Canadian entrepreneurship is not being knocked here. What is being knocked is a deal that is a sell-out. If the Hon. Member were a real believer in the trade deal, why didn't he say so in the last election? Why wasn't he honest about all the aspects of this deal? Why didn't he admit to Canadians that water was in the deal?


John Horton McDermid: It is not in the deal, that is why.


Lynn McDonald: What about our cultural independence? We all know that water is in the deal by virtue of being a good under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The Government itself is beginning to admit that it has deceived Canadians by raising this totally false statement that it is only bottled water that is in the deal and not our fresh water. We are committed in this deal to share our most precious natural resource, water.


John Horton McDermid: That is not true. Tell the truth.


Lynn McDonald: It is indeed true.


Mrs. Sparrow:: It is not true.


Lynn McDonald: It is very clear in the agreement that water is a good under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and all goods are included in the requirement to export.


John Horton McDermid: Totally wrong.


Lynn McDonald: This is a totally new kind of agreement. Nothing in the world gives away that much in any kind of arrangement which is sold as being a trading arrangement.


John Horton McDermid: Your credibility is falling.


Lynn McDonald: This is not a trading arrangement but a sellout of our most precious natural resources, including water and our non-renewable resources of oil and gas. This is a shameful sell out of Canadian sovereignty and Canadian natural resources by a Government and a Party that is looking at the cheapest of short-term advantages, advantages from corporations that are making money off the top but are not interested in the long-term development of the country and not interested in long-term job creation or stewardship of the environment or in keeping any of these resources for ongoing use for other people.
In clause 3(d), we read:
establish effective procedures for the joint administration of the Agreement and the resolution of disputes
What a laugh those effective procedures are! There will be a dispute settlement mechanism. Ultimately a dispute will go to a commission which is made up of the United States and Canada trade ministers. They will work on the basis of consensus. What kind of consensus will it be when there are
August 15, 1988

two partners, one of which is ten times the size of the other? What a preposterous suggestion that we will have any kind of fair or effective dispute settlement mechanism.
I have one minute in which to finish dealing with the substance of an extremely important matter, a matter on which Canadians want the Government to level with them, want to understand and want to know what is happening.
Let me refer to clause 3(e) which reads:
lay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral co-operation to
expand and enhance the benefits of the Agreement
The benefits for whom? This is a one-sided agreement. It is a sell-out agreement. The Government wants further cooperation to sell out the few areas which have so far not been exempted, the cultural area, the investment area and so forth. This is a travesty, Mr. Speaker. The Government ought to be ashamed of itself. I can assure you that we will continue to be speaking to these amendments to this trade deal which is a sell-out of our country.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak on these three amendments, Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 8. I want to concentrate especially on Motion No. 8 which proposes to eliminate Clause 6 in the Bill.
The Tories when they were in opposition always talked about the importance of respecting the rights and responsibility of provincial Governments. They waxed eloquent about it in the 1980 and 1984 elections and about how the resources belonged to the provinces. Yet clause 6 in the Bill is designed for the federal Government to override all kinds of provincial jurisdiction. The Government will have a chance to do this with legislation which has been brought into the Ontario Legislature which will be passed and which provides for adjustment for the wine industry over a twelve-year period. We will see if this Bill is ever implemented, and I do not believe it will be-but if it were to be implemented at some time in the future, the Government of Canada will have to write regulations to override the power of the provincial Government to implement its schedules, costs and pricing of provincial wines. We will see Clause 6 eventually before the Supreme Court of Canada if this Bill ever becomes the law of the land.
If we look at what the Government has done to the grape and wine industry, it is so typical of the whole trade deal because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in 1983 that he was not in favour of free trade, that you would hear no more from him about it, yet here we have the most massive sell-out of our country in this trade deal in 100 years. It is interesting that about three weeks before the deal was signed in early October, 1987, the then Minister of International Trade-we have been through about three of them and I understand we are getting ready for another one fairly soon because the current Minister is not impressing anybody with his lack of knowledge of the deal-sent a letter to the grape producers in British Columbia saying that the Government
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
realized the grape and wine industry, if it were ever to be brought under the purview of this Prime Minister's trade deal, would require a 10 or 12 year adjustment period. Yet three weeks after that letter was sent, a deal was signed. Essentially the industry is put out of business because 50 per cent of the advantageous pricing is wiped out in the first 12 months of the deal, that is, January 1, 1989 to January 1, 1990.
This comes only three or four months after the Minister had given us a pledge and signed a letter that she realized there would have to be a 10 or 12 year adjustment period. The Ontario Government is providing an adjustment period. However, the B.C. Government has jumped on the bandwagon. Its Premier loves to jump on any bandwagon that is going through town, and B.C. is wiping out the advantages to B.C. wine growers almost immediately.
We have Clause 6 which will eventually, if this agreement is ever implemented, result in regulations being written against the Province of Ontario and against any other province. We hear some of the western Tory Premiers saying, "It is okay. We want the deal in". It is interesting to hear the Premier of Saskatchewan say that. Most of his province does not want the deal. He has spent millions of dollars running around the Province saying what a wonderful deal this is and holding public information meetings. Yet the recent Environics poll showed that Saskatchewan has the strongest opposition of any province in the country to the deal.
Some 50 per cent are opposed and very strongly opposed to it. Less than 30 per cent are in favour of the deal. I predict that if Clause 6 were ever implemented and regulations were written to override provincial jurisdictions, whether in the service sector, the energy sector or any other sector the Government would negotiate during the five or six-year negotiation period, then we would hear the screams, yells and catcalls from people like the Premier of Saskatchewan and the Premier of Alberta.
This is a very Draconian measure. The Government wanted to go ahead with this. Obviously it was a deal made at the Quebec summit between the Prime Minister and the President. The President of the United States had made a deal with the grape growers and wine producers of California to allow their low priced grapes into Canada.
The Prime Minister seems to delight in pleasing the President of the United States, whether by sacrificing the grape growers and wine producers or by satisfying rich bagmen in the drug industry. He says: "If you want our energy, come and get it. We will guarantee it to you for all times, in perpetuity, and at our prices. We will guarantee you the share you have had for the last three years, so get your share up to 50 per cent. Regardless of what happens, if we have shortages, we will tough it out because that is what the deal says". It is a deal made in heaven for the United States. It has been trying to get our resources for years and years.

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We believe in selling resources on a trade basis. We have lumber to sell, although we have to put an export tax on it. That is another cave-in the Government agreed to. That one almost slipped my mind. Why can we not do this on a trade basis? We will process resources to their highest limit and then sell them at an agreed on price. Elowever, under this deal, we do not agree to sell electricity to New York at New York prices. We agree to sell electricity to New York at the Canadian price. It is an incredible arrangement.
I hope there will be an election so that we can talk to the Canadian people. There has been no opportunity for public hearings. I had the opportunity to go across the country for five days and to visit five provinces last December before the deal was signed, and I do not think Canadians will buy it. As a matter of fact, the most recent Environics poll showed that some 40 per cent were opposed to it and only 38 per cent in favour. Of those who are in favour of it, only 8 per cent or 10 per cent are strongly in favour of it, whereas those who are opposed are strongly opposed to it because it is a bad deal.
I do not think anyone in the House is opposed to reducing tariffs. That has been happening for the last 40 years. That is what will happen during the Uruguay Round in Geneva or through other arrangements. It is the giving away of resources and of control over foreign investment that is so repulsive about this deal.
Clause 6 provides the hammer that will make sure that provincial Governments comply with the deal and with the federal Government's wishes, whether they want to or not. That is why we propose to eliminate it.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, these amendments go to the heart of what this agreement is all about. These amendments, if passed, would give us some control over what will happen in the future.
National treatment and its implications could be the real sleeper in this agreement. If we read the agreement carefully, we will recognize that it has gone further than the European Common Market has been able to go in the past 28 years. From now on, Canadians will have to treat Americans the same way they treat each other, and vice versa. In many ways, that can be a positive thing and I would like to take a moment to see what is positive about it and what is negative about it.
It is good to attempt to treat each other in the same way we would like to be treated, but I do not think it is good that another country would force its value system on us. That is where my concerns lie.
For many years, we have made major investments to attempt to focus on an east-west country. Certainly most of our population resides in a strip along the southern part of Canada. We have worked against natural forces to develop our trade and our two founding cultures. We have struggled hard in a geographically northern society to make a country that I would like to think we are all proud of.
If we limit our ability to have provincial and national economic strategies, as this agreement does, we would weaken our ability to strengthen ourselves from the East to the West. I have been involved in economic development committees over the years that have looked at increasing Canadian content with conditions we felt were good for the communities in which we were working. We did this with some success right across Canada. This Bill is now giving the federal Government the power to override many of the things the provinces would choose to do, things that the provinces, with their knowledge of their own communities, will not be able to do any longer. I think that is a real tragedy.
Going into the 21st century, we should not attempt to do things individually. I do not think that Government, labour or business should attempt to go it alone. We need to have a collective of co-operation if we really want to strengthen the economy and the future of Canada.
I do not think we have done a particularly good job in economic planning, but more and more, as we have matured, we have recognized that there are certain things we do well on which we want to build and there are certain skills we want to develop. As the Hon. Member who spoke previously said, we have these riches which are God-given riches. We have done nothing to obtain them, they happen to be part of the country in which we live. We should use those resources with respect to ecology and without using them as a trading element. Our resources are not things another country can help itself to.
Something many people have not said in the debate on the trade agreement is that the stronger we become as a country, the stronger our friendship with the United States will be. The resentments will not grow. With Clause 8, we will be able to pass laws that will tell the provinces what they cannot do if it is not in concert with the trade agreement with the United States. What you do is build up an awful lot of resentment.
A lot of people feel if only they had some power to take control over their own economy, their own future, they would be able to do things differently. This is not necessarily always right. Sometimes it is perception rather than reality. However, as soon as you take from people the ability to make their own decisions, then their creativity and productivity, all those things that bring people together to make for a strong community, are diminished. I have not heard people discussing that but it is very real.
We have heard about the polarization of the East and West and the centre of Canada. If you want to see polarization in the future, get this agreement on its way. I think some of the Premiers are swallowing hard as they say we have to do this to get the agreement. It seems to me that agreements made on these terms are not good agreements. If we want a good agreement, it has to be discussed, not rushed through. We need to have a sense of confidence in our nationhood, where we are
August 15, 1988

going and what we are doing. Certainly that is not happening here.
People on the street are saying they would like to know more about it. Certainly the politicians have diverse views about it. They have very different concepts of what it will do to this country. Most of all, there is a lack of trust out there. 1 think it is a real disgrace that the American people have had an opportunity to discuss and go through this agreement in its final form but we have not. I do not think that is the kind of agreement that we want to enter into.
The amendments in front of us now would help get rid of many of the things in this agreement which make us subservient to another nation.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this amendment because it is a very crucial one with respect to federal-provincial relations. Motion No. 8 would eliminate Clause 6 in the Bill which says:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act, by specific mention or omission,
limits in any manner the right of Parliament to enact legislation to implement
any provision of the Agreement or fulfil any of the obligations of the
Government of Canada under the Agreement.
What this really means is that the Conservative Government is attempting to grab all present and future federal authority necessary to carry out this agreement. That would upset, and this is the key, the traditional federal-provincial government balance deliberately developed in Canada.
I want to put a little bit of history on the record tonight because I think it is important at this time that Members opposite understand what happened prior to the 1926 election. There was a great debate at that time because the King Government brought in a Bill which would have put in place the first old age pension. The Bill passed this House under the Liberal Government and went to the Senate. It is rather interesting to learn what happened to it in the Senate in view of the great cries and screams from Conservative Members of Parliament across this country about the Senate and its interference with Bill C-130.
Do you know what happened to that Bill after passing this House of elected Members representing people across the country? The Conservative dominated Senate of the day defeated the first old age pension Bill ever introduced in Parliament. Today they are saying what a horrendous thing it is that the Senate should interfere with the trade Bill. The Senate is not interfering with it. It is not going to defeat it as the Tory dominated Senate defeated the first old age pension Bill prior to the 1926 election. The Senate will pass it on to the people of Canada and let them decide in a national election.
There is a big difference, but all we heard is this bleating and crying from the government benches about what a horrendous thing it is that the Senate is even thinking about not passing this Bill. They should remember history. It was a Tory dominated Senate at that time and they did not let it go
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
to the people to decide. They defeated the first old age pension Bill ever introduced and passed by this House.


John Horton McDermid: What scoundrels.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Let the Tory Members opposite remember that as they travel around the country bleating and crying about what may very well happen to their trade Bill.
Just imagine, isn't it terrible that the people of Canada are going to have a say in the future of their country? Isn't it terrible to think that this trade Bill should go to the people of Canada where they can decide because they have lost confidence in the Government to decide for them?
At the time that old age pension Bill was introduced the cry in the Senate was, number one, the country could not afford it. Interesting enough, they also said it interfered with provincial jurisdiction. What we are doing here in eliminating Clause 6 is eliminating the interference with provincial jurisdiction. I say to my Tory friends across the way, if it was right for your Tory friends to say that about federal-provincial jurisdiction in 1926, how come you are denying the Senate that right today? How come you are denying the provinces their jurisdiction today by passing this Bill?


John Horton McDermid: We are not.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: You are doing it in tax measures with respect to the wine growers in various provinces.


John Horton McDermid: That is wrong, too.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: In addition, the U.S. wants our resources. There is no question about that. The Government is willing to give away anything to get an agreement, but everyone in this House and across the country fully realizes that many of our resources are under the jurisdiction of the provinces. That does not bother the Government. It will trample over federal-provincial relations. As the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) said a few minutes ago, we well remember when we were sitting in government listening to the screaming and shouting from the opposition benches, from the very Members who are sitting over in the Government today, saying that the Government of the day was interfering with provincial jurisdiction. Well, people change their minds when they cross the floor.
They are not only interested in giving away our resources. They are giving away our sovereignty through this legislation. They are giving away our energy, a major resource of this country, and giving away foreign investment. There is no question that the Government is giving away foreign investment rights. In fact, it gave them away before it even introduced this legislation because it destroyed the foreign investment review legislation.
The Government is not worrying about provincial jurisdiction. It is going to try to buy off the provinces in the best way

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
it can, but many of the provinces are not going to go along with that. Tory Governments are more interested in dollars than they are in Canadians.
It is very revealing that the Government wants to ram this legislation through both Houses of Parliament. It will make every effort possible to do so but never wants this trade package to go to the Canadian people for a vote. What is wrong with the Government? Is it afraid of democracy? Why all the crying and worrying about the Senate not passing the Bill? If the Senate does not pass it, it will go the country and we will have an election on it.
Government Members ask how we can do that when dealing with provincial jurisdiction. That is very easy for Tory mentality. Do you know what happened after Mackenzie King won the 1926 election?


John Horton McDermid: Remind us.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I am not reminding the Member, I am teaching him because he obviously does not know what he is talking about. The fact is that for some strange reason it suddenly did not become provincial jurisdiction and the Tory-dominated Senate voted in favour of the old age pension Bill after 1926. It was introduced again by Mackenzie King and went through the House of Commons and the Senate. If that was a constitutional inaccuracy in 1925 why was it not so in 1926? That is so because we have Tory governments that are only interested in their interests of the moment. They do not look at the long-term interests of the country. As my friend, the Hon. Member for Algoma said, they are interested in giving the country away.
They do not want to do anything to make any disturbance in Washington. My goodness, that would be terrible, that would ruin the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) record. His friend is about to leave the American scene and he is about to leave the Canadian scene, so what is the difference? We will then be back to a state of sanity. In that situation the true democracy of this country will come forward and the Canadian people will have an opportunity to vote on issues. Let the people decide.


Herbert O. Sparrow: How much voting did we do on the energy Bill?


John Horton McDermid: Remember wage and price controls.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I love this, Mr. Speaker. I am getting my message across. The Prime Minister was so much against this deal in 1983. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) laughed at the present Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) because the Minister for International Trade was in favour of this in 1983. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance laughed at him during the leadership race, but he was the only one who was telling the truth. The only thing is that not only Tories but every Canadian in the country is now laughing at the Minister for International Trade. He never read the agreement to start with.
Let us start protecting the Constitution of Canada and recognizing that this legislation does in fact affect provincial jurisdiction. Let the old age pension Bill prior to the 1926 election and after be a history lesson to my hon. friends opposite. They defeated the first old age pension Bill in Canada. They are now saying that they were elected to do this. They were not elected to bring in a trade deal such as this because it was not in their platform during the last election campaign. They do not have a mandate from the Canadian people to do this.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to participate at this stage of the debate. We are now debating Motion No. 5 which identifies a number of clauses in the trade deal which we believe ought to be abandoned. At the top of the list is the fact that this trade deal allows almost unrestricted foreign investment from the United States in Canada.
I want to begin by posing a couple of questions. Do Members realize that the western industrialized nation with more foreign ownership and more foreign control of its economy than virtually any other is Canada? Canada has more foreign ownership and more foreign control of its economy than any western industrialized nation with the exception of Belgium.
To what extent does that foreign ownership exist? Fifty per cent of the industrial sector of our economy is foreign controlled or foreign owned. If you take out the financial sector, Canadian banks, you find that 35 per cent of our economy is foreign owned and foreign controlled. Should that cause us any concern?
We know that the Japanese are worried about the amount of foreign ownership of their economy. Three per cent of the Japanese economy is foreign owned and that causes them concern in a number of sectors. They believe that it is bad to have too much foreign investment because there are then people outside the country making decisions about their future.
More and more decisions regarding the future of our children and our children's children are being made not in Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, or Montreal, but in Tokyo, Dallas, Amarillo, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Hamburg. That must cause Canadians some concern.
What about our friends in the United States on the other side of the trade equation we are debating tonight? Four per cent of the American economy is foreign owned. The United States Congress had a special debate a few weeks ago about the serious concerns in the United States because foreign ownership has reached 4 per cent. If there was 35 per cent foreign ownership of the economy of the United States there would be a major revolt in the country.
Yet the response of the Government of Canada, realizing that 50 per cent of our industrial sector is foreign owned and 35 per cent of our entire economy is foreign owned, is to ask for more foreign ownership. In fact, the Government wants to open the floodgates and tell the United States that Canada is
August 15, 1988

open season, that Americans can come into Canada and buy anything they want. As a matter of fact, the Government will only ask questions when the deal is worth more than $150 million.
Investment Canada is supposed to be keeping an eye on foreign investment coming into Canada. Yet, the Government has not turned down a single request for investment. People say that a country needs foreign investment. However, what has foreign investment done in the four years that this Government has been in power? Has it developed new plants, new factories, new mines, or new mills? No, 95 per cent of all the foreign investment that has come into Canada in the last four years has been to take over existing Canadian companies. Over 3,000 companies that were Canadian companies before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) came into office are now owned and operated by foreigners.
That must be of concern to us. Yet the Conservatives want even more foreign ownership of our economy and more foreign ownership of Canadian companies. Ninety-five per cent of the takeovers were not for new plant or new jobs. Let us talk about new jobs.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about Oshawa.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A recent study by Statistics Canada asked how many jobs are created from a billion dollars in profits by Canadian companies versus American companies. The results are absolutely staggering. After a billion dollars in profits from Canadian corporations, the number of jobs created on average are 5,700. How about American companies? With a billion dollars in profits generated by American companies, 17 jobs are created. That is 17 jobs versus 5,700, and we wonder why there are still problems with unemployment in our country.
The Government wants more foreign control and foreign ownership. It wants more and more of the decisions about our future in Canada to be made in Dallas, Texas. I say that is wrong for the best interests of our country.
It has also been stated that this agreement will be good for consumers. According to the Canadian Consumer magazine, the price of a Plymouth Caravel four-door basic car in Canada is $13,740. In the United States, that same car is priced at $10,659. If the exchange rate of $1.20 is added, it adds $2,132 to the price. When one adds the 12 per cent federal sales tax, it comes to $1,535. The U.S. car now costs $14,326 in Canadian funds. That same car, north of the border compared to south of the border, is actually more expensive when one factors in the exchange rate and 12 per cent federal tax. Yet I have heard cabinet Ministers state that consumers will benefit from this deal. There is the evidence, and anyone can stand up to refute it, if they want, but it is plain that in terms of benefits coming to consumers, the Government is again in error.
This is a good motion because we must provide some limitation to the amount of foreign control of our economy.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Our country, with the exception of Belgium, has more foreign control and ownership of its economy than any other in the industrialized world. We should be doing something about that.
We should be doing something to build in more Canadian ownership so that Canadians make the decisions about our country's future, not foreigners. But the Government's answer to the amount of foreign ownership is to open the floodgates and tell American investors that they can come into Canada to buy any Canadian business they want with no questions asked, no expectations, no requirements, nothing. That is not what we want in Canada's future. That is not we want in this trade deal. That is why we have offered Motion No. 5 as a way to deal with the situation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with debate on Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 8, which will be all the object of separate votes.
Motion No. 5 seeks to delete Clause 3, which states the purpose of the Bill. That is particularly interesting because it misstates the purpose of the Bill completely. I will deal with clause 3(a)(b)(c)(d) and (e) separately, but 3(d) and 3(e) are especially inaccurate and misleading. The agreement would not establish effective bilateral dispute resolution and administrative procedures and does not lay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral co-operation. Instead, it will perpetuate the creation of regional trading blocs around the world, which will only reduce over-all world trade.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take each of these arguments in turn. Starting with clause 3 of the Bill, I read:
The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of
which are to
(a)	eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and
the United States;
Mr. Speaker, we know that we gave a lot to get very little. The dual objective that the Mulroney Government set of facilitating Canadian access to the American market in future will be reached, if at all, at the cost of Canada's sovereignty over its own institutions. I have in front of me a quote from former Finance and External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp, who said, and I quote, "By signing this bilateral agreement, we would be telling the whole world that we no longer intend to resist this continental attraction and we would thereby bring about the Americanization of Canada."
Mr. Speaker, paragraph (a) says
eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services ...
Mr. Speaker, for both goods and services, I tell you that it is misleading to claim that the purpose of the Bill is to eliminate barriers, because nothing in it guarantees that they will be eliminated. As for services, I did a little research and this may be one of the biggest concessions that could have been made, the long-term consequences of which may have been the most overlooked in this debate. No studies were ever done on this

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
aspect, either by the Macdonald Commission on the Canadian Economy or by the present Government, at least studies that it would have made public and that we could have gone over. And since the service sector is the most important in our economy-70 per cent of jobs and two thirds of our gross national product come from Canadian services sold abroad- leaving our services in this Agreement is disastrous, as I said before, because it is inconceivable that the Government went ahead without knowing what might happen, without knowing the consequences of this.
The whole data processing sector, for example, is involved. According to the Independent Computer Services Association of Canada, this major Canadian organization, 360,000 jobs in data processing could be affected and maybe even eliminated by American competition which, as it knows, will have a free hand here in Canada. So in the service sectors, Mr. Speaker, we will lose, and in trade in goods, we will also lose.
I come back to paragraph (b):
facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free-trade area established by the Agreement;
Mr. Speaker, that presupposes that appropriate dispute-settlement mechanisms will be in place. No, U.S. law will still be ever-present to prevent us from being able to compete in that market and the only purpose of the dispute-settlement mechanism is to see that American law has been properly applied. There is nothing there to benefit us. Americans will still have the right to impose excessive tariffs on goods exported to the U.S. market and they will also see to it that tariff provisions are in place to encourage their own industries and discourage ours.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see how we can convince Canadians that the purpose of this agreement is to:
b) facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free-trade area
established by the Agreement;
Liberalize significantly conditions for investment within that free-trade area.
I read carefully what they say about investment. We are told there will be a free flow of investment. Furthermore, Canada has agreed not to introduce policies requiring companies that are the subject of foreign takeovers to remain Canadian-owned. We spoke earlier about the screening mechanism we have in this country to control foreign takeovers in our industry, trade and services.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the Tories got rid of FIRA, the Foreign Investment Review Agency. We have no more room to manoeuvre, we have no more control, and on top of that, this Government welcomes foreign takeovers in the financial sector. Foreigners can buy whatever they want in this country, including our advanced energy sectors, like any other industry in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the same rights and privileges enjoyed by Canadian companies will therefore be available or more readily available to American companies. American banks will
have full access to Canada, while Canadian banks will be subject to State banking laws, and as we know, Mr. Speaker, all fifty States have their own legislation in this area. It will be practically impossible or at least very difficult for our banks to break into the U.S. market, while Americans will be able to come to Canada with no difficulty whatsoever and do as they please in the banking sector. A double standard if there ever was one! We will be hard pressed to break into the American market, and meanwhile, they get the red carpet treatment!
Mr. Speaker, the clause goes on:
d)	establish effective procedures for the joint administration of the
Agreement and the resolution of disputes;
Mr. Speaker, I referred to this earlier, and I don't think we can take this seriously. As far as I can see, the dispute settlement procedure will not consider or protect our Canadian interests.
Mr. Speaker, finally, Clause 3 says, and I quote:
e)	lay the foundations for further bilateral and multilateral cooperation to
expand and enhance the benefits of the Agreement;
Mr. Speaker, what did we get? Not much, as I said before. Just that from now on, Americans may find it easier to come here than they did under the previous Government, to take advantage of our immense resources, our financial sector and our industries ... When all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, we caved in, and we are about to pass legislation that will literally sell out this country for a pittance. If we analyse the situation, it is clear that very little in the way of trade is involved. Today, only 20 per cent of our goods are not traded freely. Today, 80 per cent of the goods between our two countries are duty free. To reduce the duty on the remaining 20 per cent, and we agree with the decision to reduce customs duty on these goods, this Government has sold out our industry, our energy sector, our mines, our resources and it may have compromised what constitutes the foundation of this country, the future of Canadians and handed over our sovereignty to another country. To me, Mr. Speaker, that is not a good thing.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this series of amendments is very important to those people who have concerns about the authority and the ability which they have to control their own destiny in Canada. Clause 3 states the objectives of the agreement, and I will speak about those a little later. Clause 4 makes the legislation binding on Her Majesty's Government. Clause 6 gives the federal Government authority to pass legislation that it thinks is required to implement this Bill, legislation very much like Bill C-130.
It is amazing that the same provincial Premiers who supported and applauded the Meech Lake Accord, because it gave them more autonomy and more provincial power, are in many cases from provinces like Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Quebec. Those who applauded and supported
August 15, 1988

the Meech Lake approach are from the same provinces which are supporting the free trade deal.
It is ironic, because what they do in this particular case is give up some of the sovereignty which they had before, as well as any possible sovereignty that they might have gained in the Meech Lake Accord. I am talking about provincial sovereignty this time. I know that, federally, the sovereignty is being given up as well. It is being given up to the panel that is going to make the decisions as far as trade problems are concerned between Canada and the United States, if this agreement is accepted and this law is passed.
The federal Government gives up sovereignty to U.S. laws. What this agreement does is guarantee that the U.S. laws will be the laws which govern trade as far as they are concerned. We cannot be sure that the Canadian laws are going to govern trade as far as we are concerned. That is not part of the deal. U.S. laws are guaranteed, but ours are not. The federal Government gives up a certain amount of sovereignty just by signing this agreement, by saying that they will do the things which they have committed themselves to do in this agreement. That is the sovereignty that the federal Government is giving up in this Bill. Provincial Governments as well are giving up a considerable amount of sovereignty. They are giving it up in every way that the federal Government gives it up, and they are giving it up in other ways as well.
Many years ago-1934, I think it was-the provincial Governments in the West, Alberta and Saskatchewan, were given control over their resources. That was when the gas and oil and other resources in the western provinces-in the two prairie provinces anyway-became the responsibility of the provincial Government. Now, under this agreement, these provinces, as well as the other provinces which had those mineral and natural resources controls before that time, are being asked or being told or being required to give that control back. At this time, it is not necessarily back to the federal Government where it came from originally, but back to a panel that is going to make decisions, back to an agreement which is going to decide how much you can charge for these natural resources.
These natural resources are oil and gas and water. They make up the basic strength and power of the economy of the western provinces. Under this agreement, partially under Clause 6 in particular, we are being told that we must give up that authority because when we sell our resources we cannot establish a price provincially that is higher than the price at which we would sell those resources to other people. That is the type of sovereignty that the provinces are giving up. They are not only giving up the rights they had under their control of natural resources but they are giving up rights with respect to the amount that they can expect to get back from those natural resources.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Part of that particular clause and a couple of others which we will be coming to later will have a tremendous effect on the type of control that the provincial Governments have on their own economies, the control which some of them were so happy to get under the Meech Lake Accord. That of course is Motion No. 8 which would delete Clause 6.
Besides that there is a general clause, Clause 3, some parts of which I will read. It is very important that we know exactly what this agreement is supposed to do and then recognize what it does and what it does not do. It states:
The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement, the objectives of which are to
(a)	eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States;
Over the years we have eliminated 80 per cent of these barriers. I suppose in another seven years with or without the trade deal we would probably eliminate another 17 per cent or so. But that is one of the directions of the Bill. The barriers were put into place for a particular reason. In many cases they were put in place to protect jobs in Canada. What we might possibly do by eliminating these barriers-although if we look at many of the effects of the trade agreement we cannot see a great deal of saving for consumers-is we might save a little bit in consumer goods, we are told. However, the barriers will move those jobs to the places where those goods can be produced the cheapest, which is not always in Canada. In fact, not very often are those jobs in Canada because through our social structure we provide services which the United States does not accept or recognize as services. I refer to services such as medicare, old age pensions and UIC. Those are services which we have in Canada which increase the cost of our products to some extent.
Therefore those barriers were put in place to allow us to have the type of social services that we need. Once we eliminate those social services we become a country very much like the United States where 36 million people do not have any medical coverage at all.
The clause goes on to state:
(b)	facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free-trade area established by the Agreement;
(c)	liberalize significantly conditions for investment within that free-trade area;
(d)	establish effective procedures for the joint administration of the Agreement and the resolution of disputes; and
(e)	lay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral co-operation to expand and enhance the benefits of the Agreement.
I could spend a bit of time on each of these but I will make just one comment about the last one. Our other trading partners in the world have a great concern that this bilateral agreement will make us fortress North America and that they will not be able to be a part of our trading economy as they have been in the past.

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to address the three motions which are presently before the House which would attempt to show Canadians exactly what this so-called free trade deal is all about. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 5 would strike out the stated purpose in the Bill, which is in Clause 3. It would strike out that clause because it is patently misleading. It states that the objectives of the agreement are to eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States.
Anybody who makes a close reading of the agreement will see that it does not do that. To begin with you should know, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time without this agreement 80 per cent of all goods and services between Canada and the United States are without tariff. That situation has been brought about as a result of liberal policies for freer trade in the multilateral arena under GATT and under other arrangements since the end of the Second World War. By pursuing those types of policies, we have been able to bring Canada to a situation in which 80 per cent of all trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States is without tariff.
In addition, through those types of policies, the remaining tariff on the balance of 20 per cent is about 5 per cent whereas it was in the range of 30 per cent to 40 per cent when the multilateral process started in the 1940s.
Clause 3 of the Bill states that the purpose of the agreement is to eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States. Some 80 per cent of that had been accomplished already with respect to tariffs. With respect to the rate of tariff, that had declined substantially as well. Why this clause is misleading is because it gives the impression that the agreement assures access for Canadian businesses to the U.S. market. That is not the case.
The principal barriers to trade between the United States and Canada are countervail and anti-dumping. These are the procedures used by Americans against our softwood lumber, or east coast fish, our potash, our steel and our shakes and shingles, cases with which all Canadians are familiar. This agreement between the United States and Canada does not deal with those barriers at all. That is despite the fact that when the Conservative Government started its negotiations with the United States its principal goal was to get an agreement on countervail and anti-dumping. It was not able to do that. The only accomplishment that it had as a result of these negotiations as enshrined in this agreement was to eliminate the small tariffs which are left on 20 per cent of the goods and services which are still subject to any kind of tariff with the United States.
It achieved that, but in return it sold out Canadian independence and sovereignty with respect to energy, investment policy, financial institutions, services, agriculture, regional development policy and a large number of other things. This is the price that the Conservative Government paid to eliminate the tariffs on 20 per cent of goods and services between
Canada and the United States but with nothing done whatsoever with respect to anti-dumping and countervail.
We would argue as Liberals that we have an alternative. The alternative is to pursue freer trade through the same processes that we have been pursuing since the Second World War. Anyone who is honest and examines the record of that period will see that we had prosperous times during that period. Trade increased between Canada and the United States without sacrificing our independence, sovereignty, and identity. When it states in this Bill that "the purpose of this Act is to ... eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States", that is not true. The agreement does not eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services: to wit it accepts the barriers that I have just mentioned, barriers that are a result of anti-dumping and countervail, the biggest type of harassment that presently exists for Canadian businesses attempting to carry on commerce in the United States. We have moved to eliminate that article because it is misleading and it gives a false impression of what the so-called free trade agreement is attempting to accomplish.
Clause 3 of the Bill also states:
(c) liberalize significantly conditions for investment within that free-trade
area;
The agreement eliminates all possibility of Canada screening investments from the United States and screening takeovers of Canadian cultural, manufacturing, and service industries. As a result of the agreement between Canada and the United States Americans will be free to come in and buy out any industry that pleases them. American businesses will be given national status in Canada. That means that they will be treated just like Canadian businesses.
Here we are a country of 25 million people concluding a bilateral trade agreement with the United States, a country of 250 million people, a country ten times larger than Canada, the most powerful economic nation in the world, and one of the most powerful industrialized nations in the world. We are putting ourselves into a bilateral trade agreement and giving national status to American businesses in Canada. That means that they should be treated in Canada just like a Canadian business.
It means that we cannot give any advantage to Canadian business, we cannot have a "buy Canada" policy, we cannot favour small Canadian businesses, and for all intents and purposes it means our programs of regional development are through because under those programs we try to assist and encourage small Canadian businesses in those parts of the country that were slow-growth regions, for example, Atlantic Canada, parts of the North, the north and east of Quebec, and so on. This agreement will prevent us from favouring those Canadian businesses at the expense of American businesses. We say that that should be eliminated and that it is not a proper purpose for a trade agreement between Canada and the
August 15, 1988

United States. We are moving to eliminate that and provide for a more honest situation with respect to this agreement.
Motion No. 8 has been grouped with Motions Nos. 5 and 6. Those motions would eliminate Clause 6 of the Bill which allows the federal Government to intervene into provincial areas of jurisdiction in order that the federal Government can implement this agreement and this Bill despite the feelings of provincial Governments.
The Conservative Government came to power boasting that it was going to improve federal-provincial relations. As a matter of fact, in some areas it has made some headway. It has put a clause in this Bill which will allow the federal Government to run rough-shod over provincial jurisdiction to implement the terms of this agreement and the terms of this Bill.
Unfortunately, not enough provincial Governments have given serious enough attention to this issue, particularly the long-term effect of a clause such as this. When the Bill was first tabled several provincial Governments, including those provincial Governments in favour of the agreement, were extremely upset with this clause and indicated that they were going to attack it in the courts.
We are moving that this clause be struck from the Bill. We hope that good sense will prevail and the Government will finally take this clause out of the Bill as it finally took out Clause 8. For weeks we stated that the original Clause 8 was wrong and that it gave powers that should never be given in Canada. Finally, the Minister, after denying those accusations for weeks withdrew that clause. Let us hope that he sees good sense and also withdraws Clause 6.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Motions Nos. 5, 6, and 8 which have been grouped for debate this evening. As some Members know, Motion No. 5 aims to delete Clause 3 which sets out the broad purpose of the Bill. Motion No. 6 will delete Clause 4 which makes the Bill binding on Canada. Motion No. 8 will delete Clause 6 which is the clause that gives the federal Government the right to pass laws implementing various parts of the agreement.
In dealing with these rather broad motions and the clauses to which they apply, one cannot overlook recent Canadian history and how we got to where we are today. We cannot forget that, a scant four years ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took the opportunity to tell Canadians that he was flatly opposed to a free trade agreement with the United States and would never-


John Horton McDermid: It's over five years ago.


James Ross Fulton: I am corrected from across the floor, between four and five years ago he was flatly opposed, and there was no attempt by the Prime Minister, or by anyone sitting on the front benches, to push for a so-called free trade agreement with the United States during the last election campaign.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We must ask where this thing came from. I represent a constituency that is more than one-quarter of British Columbia. I campaigned when there was a Conservative running in that seat, there was the PC Campaign Handbook, all types of information was available, and journalists came through the constituency. No one in my constituency from Prince Rupert, the Queen Charlottes, Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Hazelton, Atlin, or Telegraph Creek came to me, the Tory candidate, the Liberal candidate, or the media and said: "We need some type of broad, far-reaching trade agreement with the United States".
I have asked my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon), the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), and Members from around the House, and I have not been able to find any Member in the House who was promoting a free trade agreement with the United States during the 1984 campaign. We must ask ourselves: "Where did this come from?" I look up to the gallery. Did anyone in the gallery hear of a free trade agreement while the campaign was going on? One person in the whole gallery heard about the free trade agreement during the 1984 election campaign. Therefore, we must ask ourselves: "Where did it come from?" We find our first clue when we look and see who Mr. Mulroney asked to be the negotiator.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that it is the Prime Minister, or the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and he should call him the Right Hon. Prime Minister.


James Ross Fulton: Where has the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) been in this debate? This is the most fundamental and most important part of an election campaign and the Prime Minister is nowhere to be seen. As we were reminded only last Friday, the Prime Minister gave his maiden speech on a Bill in Parliament, four years into a Parliament. That is a preposterous state of affairs.
Let us do a little more investigation. Who is selling the free trade deal? The Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). Let us scamper back into history. When Newfoundland was joining Canada, although this happened just before I was born, but I studied it in school, the Crosbie family was trying to lead Newfoundlanders into joining the United States rather than Canada. They all wore black arm bands on the day Newfoundland joined Canada rather than joining the United States. Here we have a little piece of history pulling itself together. We have the same person, the Minister for International Trade, flying across Canada. This is the fellow who has not read the deal. Everyone in the gallery knows that. He used to sell encyclopaedias. He didn't read them either. He used to sell vacuum cleaners and couldn't make them run. He was trying to read the instructions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


James Ross Fulton: Let us look for more clues. This is a game of Clue to find out where the FTA came from. And what do we find? We find Simon Reisman. What was Simon doing just prior to being asked to be the negotiator? Mr. Reisman was working to flog the Grand Canal to build this mud dam across the bottom of Hudson Bay. You know what Hudson Bay looks like, Mr. Speaker. It is a big hoop with James Bay at the bottom. They were going to build this mud dam across the bottom of James Bay and make that a big pond, then put a bunch of nuclear reactors in to pump the water into the United States. I am coming to Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 8, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would appreciate that.


James Ross Fulton: I knew you had a feeling, Mr. Speaker. I know you enjoy my speeches. And you wanted to know how my remarks related to Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 8. I am just about to tell you. Motions Nos. 5, 6 and 8 are the secret Reisman clauses. I spent a week with Mr. Reisman in his lovely condominium down in Miami.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: I knew that would get your attention, Mr. Speaker. He thought he could convert me into selling Canadian water to the United States, but I would have none of it so I moved out quickly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: The secret ingredient to this whole deal is water. Water on golf courses, I hear someone say. There will be none left. Water is the secret ingredient in this deal. Many Members in this House are aware of that. As a fellow who met with us and who is very knowledgeable in these affairs pointed out, it is the covert underpinnings that are in the deal that are the problem. Everyone was told the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, "Don't let water out of the bag. Don't let Canadians know that water is the secret deal."
I was interested. I thought to myself it was not too long ago that the head of the Department of the Interior of Water Management in the United States went public and pointed out that the United States has lots of water. Some of the aquifers are down, the Mississippi is low, but they have lots of water. The problem is rivers like the Hudson catch fire, they are so polluted. Did you know that, Mr. Speaker? From Edmonton, you probably didn't know that. If someone drives across the Hudson and flips a cigarette butt-he or she shouldn't have been smoking-out of the side of the car which lands in the river, the river catches fire because there is so much toxic butyl material, petroleum waste, on the surface of the river.
The Americans have long wanted water. They are looking at B.C. We have not forgotten the NAWAPA scheme and all of the other ones. We know that is the hidden agenda.
Let me tell you how this pathetic Government got dragged into something it was opposed to before and during the election. No Canadians were pushing for it but we had the gang of 500, Alcan, American Express and all these corporations saying, "Come on, John. Come on, Brian. We have to have this deal". What is the deal? Let us take a look inside. Let us not forget wood. I am a little biased because I come from the great western kingdom of British Columbia where we grow a lot of good wood, cedar and spruce.


An Hon. Member:: There is a lot of wood between the ears of the Premier.


James Ross Fulton: There is a lot of wood between the ears of the Premier, that is true, but let us not forget that a scant five years ago, count them, there was a diminimus finding from the United States. The Americans wanted to bring a countervail against Canada based on the same forest laws we have right now. All of a sudden we have the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, now the President of the Treasury Board (Miss Carney), scampering to Washington saying, "I will make you a 10 per cent one-time only offer. Penalize us. Give us a $600 million a year fine." This is the big, tough Tory Government with the biggest majority in Canadian history saying to the biggest industry, "Penalize us, penalize us." We could have won the case, and we should have. On water there are the covert underpinnings to the deal. That is what it is secretly all about, giving over our social services and medicare.


Some Hon. Members:: Not true!


James Ross Fulton: Oh, oh, oh! Members over there say that cannot be true. But 36 million Americans have no medical coverage. Who here wants to take out their medicare card and tear it up tonight? Under the FTA you have to tear it up.


John Horton McDermid: So I suppose free trade will cause haemorrhoids as well!


James Ross Fulton: What about fish? What kind of negotiators did we have? There is a little bit of wording supposedly to protect Newfoundland, supposedly to protect P.E.I., supposedly to protect Nova Scotia, supposedly to protect New Brunswick. You would not cut me off, Mr. Speaker, I am just getting rolling.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: And Quebec, supposedly. What about British Columbia? It was taken to the cleaners on wood and taken to the cleaners on fish.
Let me tell you about GATT. I have to tell you how GATT figures in the fish ruling. It is very important for Canadians to understand why when B.C. falls on fish the other five provinces tumble one after the other. I think there is unanimous consent for me to carry on.
August 15, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I don't see unanimous consent, neither do I hear unanimous consent. The Hon. Member is a great debater and we appreciate him very much. I must, however, recognize the Hon. Member for Humber- Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on debate.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that I was enjoying the speech as much as I know particular Conservative Members have, and if colleagues are willing to give unanimous consent, I will surely allow my colleague from Skeena to continue his comments and finish them with respect to the fishery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is there unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker?


John Horton McDermid: No. I want to hear you.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: You see what happens, Mr. Speaker. Even to discuss the economic union agreement, we already have the Hon. Member for Brampton (Mr. McDermid) doing a pale imitation of Uncle Sam by saying, "I want to hear you".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Give him a stovepipe hat, the stars and stripes and let him grow a set of whiskers and we would have a real Yankee Doodle Dandy.
I hope as Members sit here this evening discussing this historic Bill, and those few Canadians who have managed to sit long enough to watch this important debate on television networks across the country will stop and remind themselves where this whole process began. It really began just about four years ago when a brand new Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), with the biggest majority in the history of Canadian politics, brand new to the job, stood up and spoke of the American protectionist sentiment that was beginning to boil and fester in Washington and of the new angry mood that was directed primarily at Japan. I can remember his words, "You can bet your bottom dollar that when the winds of protectionism blow out of Congress they won't be blowing at Canada because we have a special relationship with the United States".
That was the profound, marked in stone, etched for all time, for all Canadians to see and the beginning of our modern day discussion of our trading relationship with the United States. A brand of cocky assurance that we had no problem because we had a Prime Minister with a big majority.


Lynn McDonald: What about Bourassa?


Brian Vincent Tobin: "We are good friends," he said. What happened? We woke up to cedar shakes and shingles because of that special relationship attitude built on the role of Butch and Spike rather than two mature nations with respect for each
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
other's boundaries. We woke up to trade action on B.C. lumber, Atlantic fish, pork, steel and other products. All of the time that trade action was being taken, Canada was giving, giving and giving some more.


Mr. Benjamin:: Even on raspberries.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, even on raspberries. Canada was giving on investment policy long in advance of any discussion of trade. We were giving on film policy and in a dozen other areas long before any discussions on trade.
Uncle Sam understood that there was a very pliant, placid, passive Government north of the border in the Conservative administration. So the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said, "Well, I made a mistake, so the protectionist winds are blowing at us and being Mr. Nice Guy doesn't help, but don't worry, I've got a solution. We're going to negotiate free trade. When I'm finished negotiating free trade, we're going to have an exemption. U.S. trade law won't apply to Canada".
In fact, the Prime Minister told The New York Times, when the negotiations began, that U.S. trade law cannot apply to Canada, period. No problem. The Prime Minister set the bottom line. We have to remind ourselves of that as we look at this document tonight.
The bottom line was that we would have a relationship in which they would be free to come to our country with their products and we in Canada would be guaranteed access to their country's market with our products. That is what free trade means, is it not?
Tonight we are contemplating a Bill that enshrines in a treaty the right of the U.S. Congress forever to make existing trade law, past trade law and future trade law including retaliation measures and negative, harmful trade action against Canada apply. We have co-signed the right of the United States to take that kind of action.
The Prime Minister's bottom line, not our bottom line, not the New Democratic Party's bottom line, but the Prime Minister's bottom line was guaranteed access. What we have guaranteed in writing and have put our signature to is the right of the United States, with whatever future trade law that might be conjured up in Congress in whatever mood exists on whatever day in whatever political environment, to continue forever to take trade action against Canada. That is the bottom line.
That is the bottom line of the trade deal we have signed in exchange for a dispute mechanism. It almost sounds like "sacred trust". We have a dispute tribunal that will look at U.S. trade actions to see if they are consistent with U.S. law. The Americans can pass a new law tomorrow that is contrary to the spirit of the so-called free trade agreement.
This is not free trade, this is an economic union. The President of the United States said that we now have an

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
economic constitution for North America and that this is the first step in binding our nations together.
I am a democrat. I believe in democratic institutions and I believe in democracy. If we put in place an economic union agreement between Canada and the United States, it is as sure as night follows day that in time, the people who live in this part of North America will say that if decisions will be made that affect their lives, they want to vote for the people who make those decisions. In this agreement, the decisions being made that will affect Canada in future will be made in Washington.


John Horton McDermid: What a crock.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is not a crock, my friend. It may be enough for the Tory mentality to sell your soul, your sovereignty, your right to set your own course and your right to captain your own ship to the United States, but it is not enough for a democrat. It is not enough for someone who believes in democratic institutions or for someone who believes in Canada and in the right of self-determination.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: There is a philosophy opposite that is so driven and blinded by the notion of the market-place and the free movement of capital, no matter for what purpose, that it sees the northern half of this continent, that part we call Canada and that part that is a reflection of the collective wisdom, blood, sweat, tears and history of Canada, that sense of Canadian sovereignty, that fabric that has been woven together into the country we call Canada, as nothing more than an irritant to free market forces. Suddenly we have an agreement that sets up, from the point of view of those who are the biggest players in the North American market-place, those who occupy the boardrooms in the glass, steel and concrete towers of the major financial centres south of the border, something called free trade.
There is no free trade here. What we have is economic union, a sell-out of Canada.
What does Clause 6, the clause we want deleted, do? Clause 6 provides that the treaty we have signed with the United States, forever and a day, will take precedence over any act of a provincial legislature anywhere in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: No, that's wrong.


Brian Vincent Tobin: No provincial Government in Canada will ever again be able to take measures within its own jurisdiction and within its own right as defined under the British North America Act, the Constitution of Canada, to set priorities, policies or programs for that province if, in any way, shape or form, Washington determines that the programs are inconsistent with the treaty signed between the United States and the Government of Canada.


John Horton McDermid: That's a lie.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That isn't a lie, that's the truth. Obviously it bites right to the Hon. Member's marrow.
As I stand here in the Parliament of Canada, that Chamber that represents the voice and the views of all of the people of Canada who are concerned about the national interest and not just the narrow interests of any one of our constituencies, I find it passing strange that all those great champions of provincial rights, those Premiers who have talked so often about the rights of provinces to independence, about this being a Confederation, an association of various jurisdictions, have been muted. The Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Brian Peckford, the fighting Newfoundlander, has found himself muted and swallowed up under the weight of the patronage and pork-barrelling tactics of the Hon. Member for St. John's West. His nose is so deep in the spout that he cannot see that the fundamental interests of Newfoundland, the newest Province of Canada, the proudest Province of Canada, are being sold out by a piece of legislation and by a Government that would sacrifice nationhood on the altar of unbridled capitalism. This Bill is a shame.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, much has been said tonight about the origins of the free trade agreement. Quite rightly, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) pointed out the biographical detail that a great many Canadians perhaps do not know but that is pertinent to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). He pointed out the fact that the Minister and his family, going all the way back to 1949, have sought to become a part of the United States. Our only wish is that the Crosbie family would have found a way to become a part of the United States without taking the rest of Canada with them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Perhaps it has something to do with the rather selective nature of American immigration laws that the Minister for International Trade has never been admitted to what he obviously regards as the promised land.
The Hon. Member also spoke of the origins of the clauses in the agreement which have to do with what the Hon. Member said were the secret underpinnings of the agreement. That, of course, is the whole question of Canadian water, something which the trade negotiator, Mr. Reisman himself, referred to once as Canada's ace in the hole with respect to any agreement with the United States of the sort that he then went on to negotiate. It would be a mistake to imagine that Mr. Reisman either exists now or existed then in a political vacuum.
The fact is, and this is something that some Liberals may find uncomfortable, that the Grand Canal project has its origins amidst a group of very high-powered Liberals in Canada. I speak, for example, of the Desmarais brothers. I know that when Lou Desmarais was a Member of Parliament prior to the election of 1984 he actively lobbied Members of
August 15, 1988

Parliament to give their support to the Grand Canal project. That project involved the export of Canadian water to the U.S. As the Hon. Member for Skeena pointed out, it was a ridiculous and environmentally disastrous megaproject that would have James Bay dammed and turned into a freshwater lake from which water would be pumped to the American Midwest using something in the neighbourhood of 11 nuclear reactors.
This is not something that exists only in the mind of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). We know he was also a backer of the project at one point until he learned the value of silence with respect to these things. It was backed by the Liberal Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa. We have no reason to believe he ever repudiated his support of that project. He is an active supporter of the free trade agreement, again an embarrassment, I am sure, to many Liberals.
For those reasons, we need to see this water issue and the rhetorical extravaganza that we are sometimes treated to by certain Liberal Members with respect to the export of Canadian water as ambiguous on their part because we know there were a number of very high powered Liberals behind this project long before the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was negotiated. That is something Canadians should know about because they might have the impression, if they were to take words at their face value, that the Liberal Party was united in its opposition to massive water exports and diversions to the U.S. when in fact they are not. Some of the biggest movers and shakers in the Liberal Party of Canada have actually been active backers of the scheme. Let that be on the record for those Canadians who may be listening tonight and who may have a genuine concern about exporting Canadian water to the U.S. Let them know that they cannot rely on the Liberal Party of Canada to oppose that kind of diversion of Canadian water to the U.S.
With respect to the origins, the momentum, shall we say, for free trade and its counterpart deregulation, we must look to the Liberal Party of Canada and a Liberal Government. It was begun in fact by a Liberal Government. Early conversations about negotiating some kind of free trade agreement with the U.S., albeit sometimes the talk had to do with sectoral arrangements, go back to the presence here in Canada of the former American ambassador, Mr. Robinson. This is where these kinds of talks had their origin.
It is no coincidence that we then had a royal commission on economic development in Canada chaired by the now High Commissioner to London, Donald Macdonald, a high profile Liberal who went on to recommend free trade as a leap of faith with the U.S. I would say a leap of blind faith. To be fair to Mr. Macdonald, he did not recommend all the things now in this agreement. In fact, one of the things he did not recommend at all was the section with respect to services. The Macdonald Commission did not even do a study on services, so when it comes to services it is not just a leap of faith, it is a leap of blind faith. No work has been done on this at all and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada is asked to be a guinea pig in a completely asymmetric relationship that will make us, when we look back, the laughing stock of the world with respect to what this Government has led us into on free trade in services.
There has been a lot of what I would call anxious reflection on the part of Canadians who are against this agreement. They are asking themselves how they should vote. Who should they trust with respect to actually getting rid of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement? I submit to them that, in spite of the sincerity of some members of the Liberal caucus with respect to the agreement, Canadians who are opposed to this agreement, who see it as a threat to the kind of Canada we have already built and to the kind of Canada we could build in the future, the only choice in this respect, the only Party that has been on record from day one as being against this kind of arrangement, has been the New Democratic Party. That is the message we will be taking out to the people of Canada in the election when the Prime Minister gets up his nerve and calls it.
If there is one thing that all Canadians are unanimous about, I think even some who are for this agreement, it is that this kind of thing can only be done by a government which has sought a mandate to make such a significant historical change in the destiny of Canada. So we hope at some point the Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid), will have an attack of democratic ethics and call an election. They will say, "This is not the kind of thing we can do in the fourth year of our mandate, especially given the fact that when we sought that mandate we never even mentioned the fact we were about to negotiate such an agreement. In fact, we gave the impression we would not negotiate such a thing at all."


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this has been a rather interesting and amusing evening sitting listening to the political rhetoric and the clown-like method with which it was presented by some Hon. Members opposite. There were many points raised tonight too numerous to talk about in the ten minutes allotted me in this particular period, but I would like to touch on a few of the subjects raised.
First, my friend, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), stood up and talked about how terrible foreign investment is. He went on at some length about what a terrible thing foreign investment in Canada is. Yet at the same time, the Leader of his Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), is sitting on the platform of General Motors when they invest billions of dollars in his riding. He welcomes that kind of investment.
Bob White, the national Vice-President of the NDP and President of the Canadian Auto Workers, where was he recently? In Japan, welcoming and encouraging Japanese investment in Canada. Bob White, President of the Canadian Auto Workers, but more importantly Vice-President of the NDP, was in Japan encouraging Japanese investment in

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada. Isn't that something? The socialists love to stand up here and knock foreign investment out of one side of their mouths, and on the other side they are over there begging for it in their ridings. Invest here, create employment, create economic activity here.
I tell you, when American Motors decided to build their new plant in Brampton, I did not say, "That is terrible, take your foreign money somewhere else. Do not put it in Brampton. For heaven's sake, that is terrible". No. It created some 1500 jobs, and that will probably be 3,000 jobs eventually. That is what is important to the community and the economic growth of this country.
Then 1 listened to my hon. friend from Prince Albert. He talked about social programs. He said our social programs cost our manufacturers just a little more money. They increased the cost of our goods. They make them a little more expensive because we have these social services. That is out of one side of his mouth. Then, out of the other side of his mouth he says that the Americans will be saying that our social programs are an unfair trade practice and they cannot compete with Canadians. How can you have it both ways? That is the NDP's argument. That is the debate they are having.
Then I listened to the Liberals, the moaning, the weeping, and the gnashing of teeth going on over there. As one example, 1 listened to my friend, the Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who I think is still their agricultural critic. Sometimes one must wonder, but I think he is. He talks about the wine industry, the grape growing industry of the country. For the record, I would like to refer to an article on one winery in Ontario with which I am familiar, Hillebrand. The article reads:
Hillebrand's president.. . John Swan, puts the case succinctly, "Without GATT and the FTA, the industry would have died a lingering death. This has been a useful jolt. We can produce world-class grapes here".
World-class grapes are the key to success, but it takes five years on average to produce a mature vine. Currently, Hillebrand produces two main kinds of wine: house wines, which are a blend of grapes, and varietals, which are made exclusively from one kind of grape from one grower's farm ...
Only 30 per cent of Hillebrand's production is varietal, but the plan is to increase production as new vines mature. Varietals such as Chardonnay and Riesling command a higher price commensurate with their higher quality.
Hillebrand gets its grapes from 80 independent growers in the Niagara region who annually produce 3,300 tons of grapes on 600 acres to yield 230,000 cases of wine ... Two years ago Hillebrand began a program of signing 10-year contracts with the producers of their best varietals in exchange for control over the way in which the growers tend their vines.
Clearly, there is a lesson here for the other grape growers of Niagara. If they switch growing high-quality European varietals and can survive the five-year maturing period for the vines, they have a great future in the brave new world of free trade.
There are signs that the growers are getting the message. In the past two months, 200,000 new vines have been planted in Niagara.
The message, very clearly, is that they can survive under free trade, that they want to survive under free trade, and that they are working toward that end rather than the doom and gloom that my friend from Algoma is always crying the blues
about and moaning and groaning about here in the House. He says that everything is so terrible in this country and we are going to hell in a hand-basket. Hemorrhoids and all the social ills are caused by free trade. This free trade is a terrible thing, my God, look out, here it comes.
Let us talk about the proposed amendments for a few moments. The first amendment that the Opposition has brought forward is to delete Article 102 of the free trade agreement which contains the objectives of the agreement. I find it amazing that the Opposition wants to eliminate the objectives of the agreement. Opposition members always talk about supporting the elimination of barriers to goods and services. The agreement facilitates conditions of fair competition within a free trade area which is what we want, fair trade.
No one will question that we want fair trade. That is what it is all about. We want liberalized conditions for investment within the free trade area. It is amazing to note that more Canadian investment went into the United States last year than American investment came into Canada. Imagine, Canadians investing offshore. Holy smokes, what is the world coming to? Well, that is happening and we want to ensure that our investors are treated as fairly as are any other investors. That is exactly what is happening.
Through Motion No. 6 our friends would eliminate Clause 4 from Bill C-130. This is a legal matter. At common law the Crown was bound by statute either if the statute so stated expressly or if, on a fair reading of the statute, the intention to have it applied to the Crown was necessarily implied. However, Section 16 of the federal Interpretation Act provides that Her Majesty is not bound by a statute unless therein mentioned or referred to. Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions raise serious doubts as to whether a clear implication that the statute is intended to bind the Crown is insufficient in light of the wording of Section 16. Therefore, we had to put Clause 4 into the Act to ensure that we were following the rules.
The Opposition wants to eliminate Clause 6 from the Free Trade Agreement. I get a big charge out of this because they say that the provincial Governments have nothing to do now. They say that through Clause 6 we have taken away all their powers. Can you imagine? The federal Government has taken away all the powers of the provinces.
Let us get one thing very clear. Clause 6 makes very clear that the federal Government has the right to implement an international treaty signed by two sovereign nations, and that is exactly what we are doing through this clause. The clause is an important interpretative aid but it does not, as my hon. friends would try to have you believe, change the existing division of powers in Canada. It is impossible for Parliament to give itself constitutional authority that it does not already possess. Hon. Members know that, yet they put up all these bogeymen that the provinces are having their powers taken away from them.
August 15, 1988

Alberta and Quebec protect their rights very strongly and probably talk about provincial rights more than any others. Both of those provinces support the free trade agreement very strongly. If they thought provincial rights were at all diminished by this free trade agreement they would be the first knocking on our doors worried about this clause. Yet, they are not.
On May 4, 1988, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs in its wisdom reported on the constitutional jurisdiction pertaining to the free trade agreement. It said that it was perfectly within the power of the federal Government to implement the free trade agreement. All Clause 6 says is that we can implement the free trade agreement. That is exactly what we are doing and that is what we will be doing when the free trade agreement is passed by the House of Commons.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate in support of Motion Nos. 5, 6, and 8. I hope you will note that I have mentioned them and I will try to get to them again.
Motion No. 5 is to strike out certain clauses. Clause 5 says it is to facilitate conditions of fair competition. Well, we have been running into these conditions of fair competition ever since the legislation to deregulate transportation which was started by the Liberals, as my colleague reminds me. Let us not be under any illusions. Deregulation, privatization, and the trade deal are all part and parcel of the same operation. They are the three essential parts.
We find that the so-called fair competition under the new National Transportation Act and the free trade agreement is a farce. In fact, it increases unfair competition from the American side. Let me illustrate. The National Transportation Act provided for competitive line rates. That means that a railroad or a trucking company, but particularly a railroad in the United States, could negotiate a rate with International Nickel in Sudbury or a forest product company in Thunder Bay or British Columbia. The Canadian railroad has to haul that commodity only for its share of the competitive line rate, from its origin to the U.S. border. That would be acceptable if the free trade agreement allowed us to do the same in the United States, but it does not. Competitive line rates are prohibited in the United States so that what American railroads can do to us here, we cannot do to American railroads there. There should be a clause in the agreement stating: "We shall do unto you what you do unto us".
When we proposed such an amendment to the National Transportation Act, the Tories turned it down. They state that they have an agreement to facilitate conditions of fair competition. I want any Conservative to tell me what is fair about competitive line rates that are allowed in Canada but disallowed in the United States. While I am not noted as a great fan of the CPR, they are correct, for once, that $300 million of their revenue in transborder traffic is jeopardized under the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
National Transportation Act and the free trade agreement. Canadian National states that up to $500 million of its revenue is jeopardized.
I have a copy of a freight waybill in my office that was sent to me in a plain brown envelope. It is a confidential contract with a competitive line rate. It concerns a carload of plywood manufactured just outside New Westminster that is to travel some 25 miles south, across the U.S. border to the Burlington Northern line. It travels on the Burlington Northern line from about Seattle to Minneapolis, then travels on Conrail from Minneapolis to Port Huron. The last 30 miles is to Kitchener, Ontario, on the CNR. There is no weight of the carload lot on the waybill. There are no freight charges, just a note saying, "Destination railway, weigh the car for your own revenue". Canadian National had to weigh the car itself to get its freight charges for the last 30 miles. The belt line railroad for the originating 25 miles is jointly owned by Burlington Northern and a collection of railroads.
Historically, such a load would travel CN or CP east-west across Canada. Instead, it went south, then east, then back into Canada. The Tories want to tell me about fair competition. They do not know what they are talking about.
I regret to say that our good neighbours to the south do not have a very good record, if not one of the worst, of living up to agreements. The history of our contracts, deals and treaties with them since 1812 is replete with violations. The same thing applies to this present Government. I always understood that when a treaty is signed or an agreement is made, one's word is one's bond. I cannot help but remark on how the Government has broken the agreement between the Government of Saskatchewan and the federal Government and the native people of our province reached in 1976. It has refused to implement it. It is not only the Americans, the Government's word is no good. The Conservatives will not live up to the bond of the federal Government in power prior to their coming into existence. I was always under the impression that governments honoured the agreements and treaties of predecessor governments.
The Government talks about deliberalizing significantly conditions of investment. I had a long phone conversation with the Canadian Truckers Association last week. As a result of the free trade agreement and the new National Transportation Act, and deregulation, trucking companies will now establish profit centres in the United States because of taxation laws that will allow them to write off a tractor and trailer in three years rather than the 10 years it takes up here.
We do not come anywhere near the tax breaks that exist there. The competition is not fair and, therefore, Canadian investment is leaving Canada for the United States as a result of the policies of the Government. It calls it free trade, but I call it unfair trade. I call it a decimation of Canadian sovereignty and Canadian independence.

August 15, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I was amazed that the Members who made representations from Atlantic Canada found it so difficult to accept the present trade agreement. The history and museums of Atlantic Canada will prove that Atlantic Canada prospered when it could trade by water both eastward and southward.
We have reached a point of great prosperity along the eastern seaboard, with greater and cheaper transportation access, contrary to the assertion of our friend, the stubble-jumper from the West. The assertion we heard by those Atlantic Canadian Members is not in agreement with the needs of the forest industry, the fishing industry, the mining industry or the potential steel industry in that part of Canada. The trade in these industries must go either eastward across
water or southward by land or water into the New England market.
I have said in the House previously that one can stand on the Empire State building and see an area that contains a population greater than all of Canada.
May I call it 10 o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 10 p.m., pursuant to Order made June 20, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


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

Tuesday, August 16, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers