1988-12-16

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) and Acting President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That the debate on Government Business No. 1 and on any
amendments proposed thereto shall not be further adjourned.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Resuming debate. The Eton. Member for Kamloops


MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING The House resumed from Thursday, December 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House, from the day of adoption of this motion the House will meet on the days and at the times specified in Standing Order 24, but not on December 26, 1988.
That, during such period, the Speaker shall adjourn the House on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at midnight and on Fridays at 3.00 o'clock p.m., and that the provisions of Standing Order 38 in relation to the adjournment proceedings shall be suspended.
That, during such period, the Standing Order respecting the daily mid-day interruption of business on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays shall not be suspended;
That, at 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, or at the conclusion of Private Members' Business, the House shall proceed to "Government Orders" pursuant to Standing Order 40(1);
That, for the duration of this session or until otherwise ordered, the provisions of Standing Order 73(1) and (2) respecting committee stage of Public Bills be suspended, and all such Bills be ordered for referral to committee of the Whole; and
That immediately upon the House returning from the Senate after the first Royal Assent of this session, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice or debate, a motion to rescind this Order.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: This is a very sad day for the Parliament of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) at the adjournment had the floor, and he has been given the floor again. I would ask Hon. Members to give him the courtesy of listening to his comments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the parliamentary demolition crew on the Conservative benches at work in the last little while. Step by step Members on that side of the House have dismantled the parliamentary tradition that we have come to know in this country.
Let us just think back on the historical scenario. This was the Conservative group that held Parliament to ransom for 17 days not so long ago with the bell-ringing incident when they decided that it was in their political interest to close down Parliament, to stop debate in the one place where Canadians can hear both sides of an argument. But they decided that they wanted to close down the Parliament of Canada, which they did for day after day after day. We remember those dark days of that bell-ringing incident. That was the beginning.
Then, during parliamentary debate, we also remember that they did not like what was going on in the Commons so they stormed the chair. I remember that dark day when there was a group of Conservatives in front of the chair shaking their fists and screaming, saying that this was not the way that they wanted Parliament to proceed so they wanted to stop it.
Then, last summer, we saw the Conservatives do something that we have not seen in this House for over 100 years. They decided because of their political agenda-not because of any emergency, not because of any serious issue facing the country, but because of their agenda-that they wanted to take the rule book, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and tear it up. They threw it out the window. They said: "We have used this for 100 years. We developed this through allParty discussion, and so on. We hold this as the way to
December 16, 1988

conduct the business of the House of Commons properly. But we do not like it and we have the majority." So the Conservative Government of the day decided to throw this away and impose their own set of rules that would suit their own political agenda. They said at that time: "Do not be alarmed, opposition Members, because we are only going to do this once. This is very important and we are not going to do this again. Trust us, this is a once-in-a-lifetime situation".
The last time this was done was in 1883. Since 1883, until this summer they said: "We are going to have to do this but do not be alarmed because we will never do it again." They are now doing it again. Once again they broke their word. They said: "Trust us, we will never do it again". They are now doing it again. They are now taking the Standing Orders, those rules that govern the way we do business in this place, throwing them out the window and imposing their own set of rules to suit their political agenda. As 1 say, it is their political agenda because the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) himself just yesterday indicated that this January 1 deadline for this trade legislation is an arbitrary deadline. It can be changed. If it happened in January or February of 1989, that would be fine, he said.
Why are members of the Conservative Government ramming, jamming, bashing this legislation through the House of Commons? They say it is in the nation's interest, it is a national emergency. Mr. Speaker, you have the right as the Speaker of the House of Commons to recall Parliament. If the Government really did need to sit extra hours and into the Christmas recess, and if you agree, Mr. Speaker, that indeed it was in the nation's interest to do that, then you have the right under the Standing Orders as we know them today to recall Parliament at any time. You have done that in the past, Mr. Speaker. Rather than listen to you, Mr. Speaker, the person who is the servant of the House of Commons, they said that they have a majority, they know best and they are going to forget the rules, traditions, practices and so on of the House of Commons and they will impose their Conservative agenda.
I think we have to ask ourselves what is this Conservative agenda. They now bring in a motion which states that we are going to sit late into the night, we are going to be here on Christmas Eve to debate this motion, and perhaps on the day after Boxing Day, and so on. We
are going to throw out the idea of a legislative committee so that we cannot hear witnesses. We are going to bar any experts from reacting to this legislation.
What is next? I ask Members opposite to think about this. Will the next motion the Government will bring forward be to do away with Question Period because it does not like Question Period? Will the next motion be to do away with having Standing Committees of the House of Commons because they can be embarrassing at times? I think of the Chairman of the Finance Committee and how on a number of occasions his comments have brought some embarrassment to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). So we will do away with committees.
Are we going to do away with the sittings of Parliament? It is required that Parliament must sit at least once a year. Why not change that to once every 20 years? That is how totalitarian governments begin.
I say let us be cautious. When we look at this situation step by step, there is no question that this demolition team is clearly at work in what their long-term agenda is in terms of demolishing this Parliament, something which I think we have yet to see.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Conservative Government entered into an agreement with the United States to impose a 15 per cent export tax on Canadian softwood lumber being sold in the United States. This was the first time in history that any country imposed such a massive penalty of over $500 million on its largest industry, the forest products industry.
In the last two years the Canadian dollar has appreciated in value from 71 cents to 83 cents to the U.S. dollar, costing the Canadian forest industry another 15 per cent on the value of its exports to the United States.

December 16, 1988
The market for softwood lumber has weakened in the past several months and Canadian inventories of softwood lumber have increased dramatically. If current trends continue, we are facing lay-offs and shutdowns of many sawmills throughout northern Ontario this winter and the loss of thousands of jobs.
I call upon the Canadian Government to initiate negotiations immediately with the United States Government to eliminate this devastating tax on our softwood lumber exports to the United States which is going to cost us thousands and thousands of jobs throughout northern Ontario.


NINTH WORLD CUP CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING CHAMPIONSHIP-TRIBUTE TO ORGANIZERS
Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for the first time as the new Member for Montmorency-Orleans about a sporting event of international stature, that is the ninth Master's World Cup of Cross-Country Skiing which will be held in my riding at Mont Sainte-Anne from February 26 to March 4, 1989.
A team of volunteers is finalizing arrangements for this prestigious event which is being held for the very first time in North America, thanks to our Government's financial support.
I want to pay special tribute to the principal organizers of the event, namely Yvan Couillard, Claude Brunelle, Romeo Mailloux and, of course, Honorary Chairman, athlete Pierre Harvey.
I wish them the best of luck in staging the World Cup which should improve Quebec's standing as a tourist destination which hosts prestigious international winter sporting events!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the lives of the peoples of the far North are at risk. Uncontrolled use of pesticides, chemicals, and toxic substances in the Soviet Union and Europe has brought pollution to the Arctic which threatens the food supply of the Inuit. Action is needed now. Canada must show leadership.
In the Canada and Polar Science Report of May, 1987, it was stressed that Canadian participation in the International polar research had suffered badly from a want of consistency, preparation, and a sense of purpose. Not only do we not have a sense of purpose, we now have a crisis on our hands.
The source of pollution must be determined and removed. I call upon the Government to fulfil its commitment immediately to constitute the Canadian Polar Research Commission and to commence circumpolar negotiations for an Arctic pollution treaty.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the great ground swell of support for the return of democracy in the Socialist Republic of Burma and of the need for national reconciliation, I call upon all members of this place and all Canadians to voice their support for the people of Burma and their efforts to restore human rights and democracy in that country, to condemn the killings and mass arrests in Burma, and to call upon the Burmese army and police to exercise restraint and respect for human rights.
I urge the Government of Canada to continue to publicly condemn the killings and mass arrests by the Burmese army, to further encourage the restoration of democracy in Burma and an end to one-party rule, and to persist in raising the issue of human rights and national reconciliation in its meetings with Burmese officials and in international organizations.
December 16, 1988

[ Translation]


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. J. Ronald Duhamel (Saint-Boniface):: The cutting of this seniors' program will signal the end of a very important initiative, a highly successful pilot project that had importance for seniors across Canada and contributed significantly to their quality of life.
1 am led to believe that the Conservative candidate in Winnipeg South, now a Member of Parliament (Mr. Dobbie) had supported the program during the election campaign, had given it at least qualified support. As well, 1 am informed that the provincial Conservatives had also supported it. If my memory serves me correctly, the federal Government had previously cancelled support for this program in 1985.
I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to find support for the seniors' busing project, to work with the province, the city, and the various volunteer groups, to find a base for the continuation of this worth-while seniors' busing program.

Senior citizens, the men and women who built-


Mr. Speaker:: I'm sorry to have to interrupt the Honourable Member.


S. O. 31 TOURISM IMPORTANCE OF CANADA'S ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. William Rowe, Chairman of the Tourism Industry, better known as TIAC, has expressed concerns that although Tourism Canada's advertising campaign is exceptional, the amount of dollars allocated to advertising is not sufficient to compete with many other tourist destinations.
Australia has done an exceptional job of tourism promotion in the past two years because that country has worked hard to co-ordinate its advertising campaign with its exporters.
As Canada's tourist industry is one of its most important in terms of jobs, I ask that the Government look closely at the importance of tourism advertising as it affects our economy, our jobs, and our relationships throughout the world.
* *
*


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on July 15 last, the Federal Court of Appeal struck down the section of the Public Service Employment Act prohibiting public servants from campaigning on behalf of or against a candidate or party. On November 21 last, public servants were able to do as they wished, despite attempts at intimidation on the part of the Public Service Commission. To my knowledge, the earth did not shake, war did not break out and the sky is still blue, even if the Ottawa region voted red.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the experience of November 21 shows the government that it must take immediate action and table a bill which will protect public servants who want to participate fully, or however they wish, in the democratic process of electing the Members of the House of Commons.

December 16, 1988


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be making my first statement to the House after my re-election. First of all, I want to thank the residents of Beauharnois-Salaberry for entrusting me with a second mandate. Let me assure them that I will work hard to prove myself worthy of their trust.
I also want to thank the City of Ottawa for finally repairing the Queensway. It's the first time since 1984.
Mr. Speaker, free trade was obviously a very popular topic of discussion in my riding and the central theme of the election campaign. However, very little was said about the environment. When we talk about the environment, Mr. Speaker, we talk only about water and the air and about the threat posed by different pollutants. One subject, however, that is very important to us is rail transportation. Of course, railroads were once on the cutting edge of economic development in Canada. Today, however, we would like to see railroads rerouted around the cities and town which they helped found. In the Armand-Frappier neighbourhood of Valleyfield and along Saint-Charles Street in Huntingdon, there are many instances where the large rail companies, especially Conrail and Canadian National, make a great deal of noise and are active in the middle of the night. This situation adversely affects the quality of life of the area's residents. I simply want to assure them that I am actively working on this problem and will take steps to ensure that these companies respect the environment.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT DE GRANDPRE COMMISSION-ABSENCE OF INTERIM REPORT
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign the New Democrats and scores of other Canadians all across the country who analyzed the trade deal pointed out that hundreds of thousands of Canadians would lose their jobs as a result of the trade deal. During the campaign and even
more vigorously since the election, and as recently as the day before yesterday in the House of Commons, the Government pointed out that Canadians had nothing to fear in relation to jobs because of the free trade deal.
At the same time it was pointing this out, the Government was discussing the de Grandpre Commission which was going to be making a report. As recently as the day before yesterday it stated that there would be an interim report of that committee tomorrow.
Jay Alam of the committee has confirmed that there never was any intention to have an interim report by that commission. This confirms what we have been saying all along, during the election campaign and as recently as this morning, that the Government does not have the interests of Canada at heart. Just pointing out the concerns of the trade deal-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has exceeded the time.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek- Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we all know that by-elections traditionally go against the Party in power. This was not the case yesterday in the Saskatchewan provincial riding of Assiniboia-Gravelbourg where, for the first time ever, a P.C. Member was elected in the person of Jack Wolfe.
Because this by-election came at mid-term it was seen by the entire province as a crucial test, and all Parties put everything they had into the campaign.
The voters said yes to the P.C. Government and the able leadership of Grant Devine. They said: "We like your policies in support of the family, free trade, economic diversification and agriculture".
The voters said no to Roy Romanow and the policies of fear. They said: "We do not like the negative health scare, medi- scare, gloom and doom tactics of the NDP".
The electors of Assiniboia-Gravelbourg decided in favour of a positive commonsense P.C. Government, a Government that believes in the future of Saskatchewan and its young people.
December 16, 1988


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the House will know that I have been attempting for over a year now to have the importation into Canada of a product known as Garbage Pail Kids to be stopped. As you know, these are cartoons depicting children being mutilated, murdered, and dissected. It is my opinion that this product should never have been allowed to enter this country.
Later today I will be introducing into Parliament a Bill to amend the Criminal Code. This Bill will change the definition of hate propaganda under the Criminal Code.
It is my hope that this Bill will be adopted and Parliament will move immediately to stop the importation of this kind of trash into our country. We certainly do not need our children being influenced by this kind of human degradation that is depicted in Garbage Pail Kids.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the people of the riding of Saint-Maurice, who expressed their confidence in me on November 21. For the first time since 1891, the voters of Saint-Maurice have elected a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament. This is a historic gesture on their part, and I am determined to meet worthily the challenges that await me.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I was startled yesterday to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) speak of the inheritance we would be leaving young Canadians after the signing of the Free Trade Agreement, because we in the riding of Saint-Maurice already bear the burden of a heavy inheritance: the Liberals left us the loss of 12,000 manufacturing jobs over the past 20 years they were in power-12,000 jobs lost, Mr. Speaker, an unemployment rate of 16 per cent, the economic decline of a region that was economically very promising!
Today, Mr. Speaker, I commit myself to defending the economy of my riding, to fixing up the mess the
Oral Questions
Liberals made, which has done so much damage to the future of my region.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT SUPPORT FROM RESIDENTS OF TIMISKAMING
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, first may I say thanks to the voters of Timiskaming for once again placing their trust in me and supporting our Party's progressive policies on November 21.
Well, the more things change the more they stay the same. Again yesterday we heard campaign speeches from the Leaders of the Oppositions. Once again we heard their scare tactics concerning our social programs and regional development policies.
Timiskaming residents have sent a message to Ottawa. They do not believe in NDP policies and they do not support the Liberal trade alternatives. They have voted for a far-seeing Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
I think it is a shame that the public who have supported this legislation are being held ransom by our irresponsible colleagues across the way.
I will say one thing, Mr. Speaker, I do look forward to being able to prove over the next four years, to both northern Ontarians and to the opposition benches, the many benefits Canadians will enjoy with this Free Trade Agreement.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question with the Deputy Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. Once again, even in this early session, we find the Prime Minister raising false expectations and playing loosely with the honest straightforward facts that Canadian people require.

December 16, 1988
Oral Questions
He had promised that by today the de Grandpre Commission would be giving a report on how to deal with the numbers of lay-offs that will be caused by the trade agreement to be signed with the United States. We learned today from officials that there never was any intention to table a plan or provide recommendations, and the de Grandpre Commission will not be reporting until next June. In the meantime thousands of workers will be affected.
What specific plans does the Government have in the next six months to provide direct aid and assistance to the thousands of workers who will be affected by the trade agreement, who will lose their jobs and their livelihoods in their communities? Is the Government prepared to offer any plans, now that the phantom of the de Grandpre Commission has been dispelled?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place the hon. gentleman's question is inaccurate factually. There will not be thousands of jobs affected as a result of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. There will be thousands of jobs created, tens of thousands of jobs created. Of course it will be just as easy to claim that they will all be due to the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.
As the Prime Minister said, this morning we had a meeting with the de Grandpre committee to review with them their progress. We had an interim report from them to us about their progress, what they find to be the situation, and what their plans are in connection with making a final report. That report will be made as soon as possible, certainly long before the month of June.
Their report to the Ministers who met with them was very positive. There are a lot of positive advantages to the Free Trade Agreement of which we should be ready to take advantage.
There was no suggestion by them that there was any emergency situation that had to be dealt with in any way, shape or form.
I can give you a list of companies that are expanding, including Swift Textiles, R and M Nickel-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the Minister that, rather than listening to the de Grandpre Commission, perhaps he and the Government would be advised to listen to the
workers who have already lost their jobs as a result of the agreement.


REQUEST FOR TRI-PARTITE CONSULTATION ON POSSIBLE JOB LOSSES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in introducing Bill C-2, the Minister indicated that he expected that there would be job losses and the Government would be prepared to bring in plans.
Now that the de Grandpre Commission has failed to come up with any specific plan of action, will the Minister and his colleagues be prepared to sit down with the industry and the unions, in industries like food processing, printing, clothing, and all other industries identified by the Economic Council and the Bank of Nova Scotia as sectors where jobs will be lost, to deal with a plan of action to cover the kinds of losses and dislocations they will be facing? Will the Government act now? To follow the old slogan: "Don't wait for spring, do it now".


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that slogan uttered by the hon. gentleman certainly shows his originality of mind. With respect to the meeting that was held with the de Grandpre committee, there already is a plan in force. There are already many adjustment programs in the Department of Employment and Immigration, Department of Labour and other government Departments.
[DOT] (M20)
We already have in Canada a very dynamic economy in which hundreds of thousands of people, and in fact millions, change jobs every year, and those who need to be assisted in that process are assisted. That will continue.
The de Grandpre committee will be recommending as soon as possible, and we urge it to do so as soon as possible, certainly long before June, whether or not it thinks there are any additions needed to those programs. There is no emergency situation.
The Hon. Member referred to the Economic Council of Canada. Its forecast was and is that over the 10-year period there would be 439,000 jobs created, 187,000 jobs lost, for a net gain of 251,000 jobs over 10 years. The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement has not yet commenced, and the hon. gentleman does nothing but cry wolf.
December 16, 1988


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should read the statements of his colleague, the Minister of Finance, who said yesterday that the Government is following a high interest policy to cut job creation and job growth in Canada over the next year.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Last summer, the provincial premiers called for consultative mechanisms between the two levels of government, to deal with the many lay-offs and other effects of free trade. Will the Government be responding to its provincial counterparts and calling a federal-provincial conference as soon as possible, to help workers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government is following an anti-inflationary policy which has been most successful in inducing economic growth with the result that
1.303.000	jobs were created in the last four years. The youth unemployment rate was brought down, and
738.000	more women are working today than were working four years ago. We intend to continue with that kind of successful economic policy under the direction of the Minister of Finance and of the Prime Minister.
With respect to unemployment, the question is not whether someone is unemployed as a result of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement which is not even yet in effect; the question is how to assist persons who become unemployed from no matter what the cause, and we have in effect now a broad range of programs and we are prepared to improve those programs wherever it is seen that improvements are needed. We do not need any joint consultation with the provinces to continue with that. In the meantime, the premiers will be meeting with the Prime Minister in due course to discuss the economy, as they have every year.


CLOTHING INDUSTRY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Thanks to the Free Trade Agreement, the needle trade, the clothing trade, is already looking at massive closings, and with them the laying off of hundreds of workers both in my riding and across Canada. The Free Trade Agreement does not consider the particular interests and needs of the needle industry, given its materials, energy and labour costs, and the intensive, competitive nature of the business. The pinch
Oral Questions
of the Free Trade Agreement is already being felt by Canadian-operated businesses.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: This may not be of interest to the Party across-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I think the Hon. Member has set the basis for his question. I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I want to know if the Minister for International Trade has specific strategies to assist the enterprises in the clothing industry and the workers who are dependent upon that industry for employment, workers who are about to lose their jobs thanks to the FTA.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think either the country or the hon. gentleman's constituents gain anything from this kind of wild scare talk about the needle trade. There has been a SAGIT, an advisory group for that industry, which advised us during the course of the U.S.-Canada free trade negotiations. The SAGIT advises us during the course of GATT negotiations. That will be continuing.
The apparel industry and the industry generally have been assisted by the programs that were announced by the Minister of Finance at the end of last March. There may be some adjustment over the next few years in that industry and if there are adjustments that require government assistance, then the government assistance will be forthcoming.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: It will be interesting to see how the priorities of the Government shake down as the pressures for assistance come from both the industry and-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member who has a matter of some concern, and it is a serious matter, would want to use his preamble to set the basis for the question, and I ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


SITUATION OF IMMIGRANT WOMEN WORKERS
Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Since the workers in the needle trade are primarily middle-aged immigrant women, among the most vulnerable in the labour force given their lack of education and language skills, what specifically is the Minister's Department proposing to do by way of assisting these women with limited employment opportunities outside the industry but who wish to continue to be gainfully employed?

December 16, 1988
Oral Questions


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, this Government has done more for immigrant women than any Government in the history of Canada. We have done it through-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: That includes both language training and training programs that are specifically targeted toward immigrant women who have a particular employment need and who have problems that other people in the working community do not have. That is why we established those programs. They apply to people in the garment industry as they apply to people in other industries. However, let me say that the Hon. Member is taking the most vulnerable sector in our society and telling it that it has no future. That is wrong, and he should not be saying that.


DE GRANDPRE COMMISSION-INTERIM REPORT QUERY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister whose office told me he would be here not 15 minutes ago, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. On Wednesday when I raised questions in the House about the effects of the trade deal on workers who are being laid off right now, not in the future, the Prime Minister said to me with reference to his blue ribbon committee that it would be most valuable for workers and that it would be discussing an interim report today, thus attempting to deflect any criticism in the House on Wednesday.
I would ask my question of the Minister since the Prime Minister is not here.
A member of the committee, Mr. James McCambly, whom the Prime Minister himself mentioned in the House on Wednesday, said there is no interim report and that such an interim report had never even been discussed by the committee, and the senior economist for the committee is quoted today in The Globe and Mail as saying that there is no plan to issue an interim report. Who is telling the truth, the Prime Minister or members of the committee?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the answer, of course, is that both the Prime Minister and the members of the committee
are telling the truth. If I might refer to Hansard of December 14, the Prime Minister said this:
"Nobody is talking about waiting until June and the fact is that Mr. de Grandpre is scheduled to meet with the Ministers responsible as early as Friday of this week to discuss an interim report."
We discussed this morning an interim report, and we concluded with the committee that there was no need for it to bring in an interim report because it made its interim report to us at this meeting. They reported that there was no emergency situation in effect. They reported they will be in a position to bring in their final report in a very reasonable period of time.
There is nothing that the Prime Minister has said or any member of the committee that is incorrect. That is the position. Their report will be a final report and that will be brought in as soon as possible. Their interim report was made to us this morning and we agree they do not need to put in a written interim report.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious to every Member of the House and to any person in Canada watching this that we on this side of the House were misled on Wednesday. The Cabinet is trying to bail itself out. That is the truth. The Cabinet has come back into the House to try to undo on Friday what it screwed up, to put it bluntly, on Wednesday. That is what it has tried to do.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Be honest, Ed.


PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister suggested on Wednesday to the workers of Canada-


An Hon. Member:: Bob White has you spooked.


John Edward Broadbent: -that there would be an interim report and that it was going to be discussed today, thus conveying a message that their concerns would be addressed now. Is the Minister not only contradicting what the committee members have said but contradicting what the Prime Minister said on Wednesday when he was trying to tell workers that, rest assured, there would be an interim report and the Government would do something? Come clean with the people of Canada.
December 16, 1988


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one understands that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is in a state of hysteria lately as a result of the attacks upon him by the official labour movement. That explains his ridiculous behaviour today.
If I might refer again to what the Prime Minister said as reported on page 49 of Hansard:
"Nobody is talking about waiting until June ..."
That is absolutely right.
"-the fact is that Mr. de Grandpre is scheduled to meet with the Ministers responsible as early as Friday of this week-"
That happened this morning.
"-to discuss an interim report."
We have concluded an interim report is not necessary. There will be a final report within a very short period of time. There is no emergency situation. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition wants to cry wolf together with the Liberal Party, does not make an emergency situation exist. The suggestion that there has been any misrepresentation-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: 1 think it is wonderful, Mr. Speaker, to hear members of the Conservative Party telling people on this side of the House to be honest. That is the joke of the times.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Government it was right after the 1984 election that it began systematically to mislead the people of Canada, and now the Government is doing it all over again.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Order, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: It is all right, Joe. We have not won all the seats in Alberta yet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Mr. Dick:: Be honest this time, Ed.
Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POSITION


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Government has now reversed itself. On Wednesday the Government was promising an interim report and now the Government is saying there will not be an interim report.
Is the Minister saying to the working people-there have been some 2,400 who have been laid off since the election-that this Government of Canada does not plan to do anything in a special way either for them, their families, or communities affected? Is that what the Government is saying?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable to see the Leader of the New Democratic Party slip into these kinds of tactics so early in the session. But when one looks at who is sitting behind him, one understands the pressure that he is under.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The firm of Roseworks is increasing its staff from 15 to 50 over the next two years. Du Pont is investing $240 million over the next two years. Canadian Thermos Products Limited of Toronto is expanding its plant, with 102 new jobs. Bachan Aerospace plant in Windsor is going to operate while the Detroit plant closes, for another 20 jobs. Saskatchewan Intercontinental Packers has 148 direct jobs, and the Crestbrook Forest Industries has 4,000 new jobs-4,000-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Carnell Crosbie: And the Cargill-


Some Hon. Members:: More, more.


Ms. Copps:: Sit down, you dummy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Labrador.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in a civil House at Christmas time!

December 16, 1988
Oral Questions
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries who has said no to the Labrador Fishermen's Union Co-op for a supply of offshore fish. He allows the multinationals and even foreign countries, including France, to fish northern cod, yet he has said no to the Labrador Fishermen's Union Co-op.
Why has the Minister forced the Union Co-op to buy a Canadian vessel and not allowed it to fish Canadian fish? How can he as Minister of Fisheries, the protector of fisherman, turn down this request by the Labrador Fishermen's Union Co-op?
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I was tempted to welcome a civilized question from a civilized colleague but after hearing the question, I am not so sure.
We established a new enterprise allocation system two years ago for the northern shrimp fishery in which the Labrador Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company has participated with two licences, each being worth over $2 million a year. It has done very well and we commend the company on its success. But the Hon. Member knows that the enterprise allocation system under which offshore cod, or northern cod more specifically, has made available-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh ?


Mr. Siddon:: These folks over here did not ask the question, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure they are interested in the answer. They will learn.
The Hon. Member knows that enterprise allocations are not surplus to the needs of the established offshore users because that was clearly enunciated by industry at a meeting on the northern cod in St. John's two weeks ago. The Member knows there is no additional allocation for any one group, including the Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company.


FAMILY COMPACT ALLEGED-REQUEST THAT SYSTEM BE CHANGED
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I know there is no additional allocation, but there is virtually a Family Compact now fishing northern cod. The only people in there are the big players, the multinationals. There is no way for anybody new to break in. I am saying it is unfair to deny those people who live closest to the resource and who depend on it for their livelihood permission to fish northern cod.
You have to change the system. Will you? Will you break that Family Compact? Will you allow the Labrador Fishermen's Union Co-op in to fish, those people who live closest to the resource and who depend on it? Will you do that?


Ms. Campbell (South West Nova):: Think of the fishermen first; do not think of the companies.
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member is very concerned about the Fishermen's Union Shrimp Company and that is obvious as he is a representative of that area. When he speaks of a Family Compact, however, he should recall that he was a member of the Cabinet of the Government that created that Family Compact, which decided who the members would be who got quotas. That is a policy of the Canadian Government that flows from the Kirby Task Force Report which his Government approved.


Coline M. Campbell: Change it then.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The Member had better look back in history before he starts asking us to start changing long established policies.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Minister of the Environment. The Prime Minister told us repeatedly during the last election that he was committed to the environment. Just prior to the election the Prime Minister announced $150 million to clean up the hot spots in the Great Lakes. The worst of these hot spots is the Don River.
Would the Acting Minister of the Environment make a commitment today to begin an action plan on this?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Secretary of State for Canada and Acting Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to renew and confirm the commitment made by the Prime Minister on this subject.
December 16, 1988


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET AREA MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, on June 3, in Montreal, the Government committed $110 million to begin cleaning up the St. Lawrence River. That action has already begun. At the very least, would the Minister agree to meet with the Members whose ridings surround the Don River in order that we can get this project going there as well?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, of course we are devoted with equity to the depollution of every river in Canada, and there will be no discrimination, whatever the river is.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his address to the United Nations Mr. Arafat made a clear call for peace in the Middle East and a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli impasse. He also amplified the Palestine National Council's November 15 acceptance of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, and the PNC's renunciation of terrorism, which met the two conditions which successive Canadian Governments have set for higher level diplomatic contacts with the PLO.
Canada's American and European allies have all responded publicly and favourably.
Does Canada plan to raise the level of its diplomatic contacts with the PLO to that of our American and European allies?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we already have contacts with the PLO and with other Palestinians. Naturally, those contacts are of particular importance given the developments in the Middle East now.
We are intending no immediate change in the level or nature of those contacts, but we are naturally encouraged by developments which we think are important and positive in the Middle East, and intend to continue to look for opportunities for Canada to contribute in a constructive way to a durable and acceptable peace in that region.
Oral Questions


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT DE GRANDPRE COMMISSION-INTERIM REPORT ISSUE
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, on page 51 of this week's Hansard there is a response from the Prime Minister to a question put by me concerning the committee reviewing the programs necessary for displaced workers as a consequence of the free trade deal.
As reported at page 51 of Hansard in response to my question about that committee, the Prime Minister admonished me to do the following:
"So if the Hon. Member would kindly wait until Friday and then
for the final report..."
When the Prime Minister suggested to wait for Friday he was specifically referring to the interim report promised by this Government on this Friday from this committee.
Mr. Speaker, they misled the House about this interim report.
I ask the Minister of Trade is he aware that Mr. McCambly, a member of the committee, not only said that there is no interim report, but he went further and said if this report is going to be useful, it is needed right away. Did Mr. McCambly this morning say that he was mistaken, or did he insist that there is no need now for an interim report?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member who comes here with such a reputation engages simply in repetition and has not got an original thought of his own. The question was already asked this morning, and the answer is exactly as was given a few moments ago.
This morning we discussed with the de Grandpre committee whether or not an interim report was needed. We had an interim report from them given to the four or five Ministers who were present. It was decided that, in view of the situation as they found it, it would be better to wait for their final report, which will be coming along as soon as possible. It will not be very long before a final report is available, certainly well ahead of June. That is the way that we are going to proceed.

December 16, 1988
Oral Questions
By the way, Mr. Speaker, that committee is going to examine the possibilities for Canadian businesses and workers to position themselves to benefit from the agreement. It is not only involved in examining government programs that support adjustment. The committee has very important business to do. There are positive aspects to the Free Trade Agreement that they will be following.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think that the Hon. Minister is getting well away from the question. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


POSITION OF COMMISSION MEMBER
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, in response to my good friend the Minister, I perhaps may be subject to the accusation of not having an original idea, but I have no difficulty in recognizing water when I see it, even after a 20-year absence.
If this report is going to be useful, Mr. McCambly said that the report is needed immediately. Did Mr. McCambly change his opinion of his own free will, or was he ordered to change his opinion by the Minister this morning?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the last time I had an altercation with the hon. gentleman he had an open line show, and he is now a refugee from that open line show. This is not an open line show. This is a foot-in-the-mouth show for some people.


Mr. Speaker:: It is appropriate to move on. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
One of the most appalling disclosures in the Auditor General's Report is that food that Canadians eat every day is not healthy. According to the Report, there are pesticides on the market that 55 years from now will still not have been tested.
I would therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture what he intends to do to remedy this dangerous situation, starting today.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, we are putting in place a full-fledged inquiry into the whole pesticide review process. That has been a recommendation brought down by a Standing Committee and by others. The terms of reference and the people who will be conducting this review will be appointed very soon. There is widespread consultation going on with interested groups and indeed the provinces.
I might say that most of the observations that have been brought to the attention of the public by the Auditor General were brought to the attention of ourselves by the systems that we have put in place. We have established a number of systems to do that. As the Hon. Member knows, we have one of the best systems in the world and we want to continue to ensure that it remains that way. We obviously welcome the Auditor General's constructive observations in this matter.


ABILITY TO CONDUCT TESTS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am unclear why the Minister would be bragging about a system which puts pesticides that have known cancer causing capacities on the market-place, and where permanent testing is not done until 55 years after they have been brought into the market-place. I cannot understand why he calls that a good system.
Last August a study by the United Farm Workers in the city of Toronto showed that 86 per cent of California table grapes were dusted with pesticides of a cancer causing variety.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health what he intends to do immediately to improve the testing capacity, together with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture, and to assure consumers today that the table grapes that we are now buying are not dusted with potentially cancer causing pesticides as we saw in the city of Toronto last August?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question I simply say that for dairy, fruit, and vegetables the risk assessment will be completed by March, 1989.
December 16, 1988


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This was detected by the Food Advisory Board and the Agricultural Food Safety Division. As a matter of fact, the systematic process for re-evaluation is in place.
In terms of the whole pesticide registration process, it certainly did not develop over the last three or four years, but it represents some years of neglect before we came into office. We had to put into place the type of systems, checks and balances, which we did, and which have identified these weaknesses, and, Mr. Speaker, we are acting.

[ Translation]


FREE TRADE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, during the recent election campaign, the Prime Minister said there would be winners and losers after the Free Trade Agreement was in place. The Prime Minister never misses an opportunity to tell us who the winners will be. But he has never spelled out clearly who the losers will be.
We know there will be victims. The Government knows there will be victims.
My question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Is the Government ready to admit there will be victims? Is the Government ready to announce now, today, its assistance plan for the thousands of workers throughout Canada who have already lost their jobs, and those who will lose them, because of the Free Trade Agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member on his election to this House.
In answer to his question, the Canadian people, as a whole, are going to be winners as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the results of the election indicate that the Canadian people agree with the Progressive Conservative Party that, overall, we are
_____________________________149
Oral Questions
going to win as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
It has been admitted from the start that there will be some industries that will suffer from adjustments. All of the gains cannot be on one side. This is an agreement between two parties.
One area in which there will be the need for adjustment, as we already know, is that of grape production, and with that in mind this Government, in conjunction with the provinces in which there is grape production, instituted certain assistance programs.
While there may be other industries which will suffer adverse effects, overall we are gainers, as the figures of the Economic Council of Canada that I mentioned had indicated.
We are talking about an adjustment period of 10 years. I have in my hand a list of companies which have just announced expansion programs-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Opposition is going to bring up the case of every person in Canada who they allege has suffered a job loss as a result of this agreement, an agreement not yet in force and effect, surely we can put forth the figures in respect of job gains.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment insurance program is not enough for the families of the 600 workers who are losing their jobs at Gillette. The unemployment insurance system is not enough for the 900 workers at Northern Telecom. The unemployment insurance program is not enough for the 140 workers at Pittsburgh Paint.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister: is this absence of a commitment by the Government all the answer Canadians are going to get?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the answers being given to Canadians are satisfying those who are taking a reasoned approach to this question. Canadians know that there will be some losers, and they know that we are dedicated to ensuring that those who will be losers temporarily are assisted.

December 16, 1988
Oral Questions
Canadians also know that there are job gains in industry after industry: the mining industry, the forestry industry, the agricultural sector, the petro-chemical industry, the energy industry. Canadians are gainers, and more jobs are going to be created. We have the proof of that. To cite just one example, we have the announcement by Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. of Alberta of a $1.3 billion plant investment near Athabasca, Alberta, leading to the creation of 4,000 jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we also have an economy which, under the brilliant direction of the Minister of Finance, has already adjusted to the terrific increase in the value of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis foreign currencies.
So, we can adjust to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We can make whatever adjustments are needed. We have confidence in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Immigration.
Yesterday an immigration inquiry concluded that Mahmoud Issa Mohammad deliberately misled Canadian officials on his immigration application, and the adjudicator further concluded, and I quote:
"Had he not claimed to be a refugee, a deportation order would have been made today."
While I appreciate the adjudicator's decision to honour this individual's refugee claim, I would ask the Minister, given the national interest and the security implications of this case, to ask the refugee board to set this case down for hearing immediately, rather than allowing it to languish at the bottom of a refugee backlog that now numbers approximately 80,000 applications.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is a case
which we in the Government have followed very closely and with considerable interest.
I am neither in a position to make the request asked of me by the Hon. Member, nor would I interfere with what the immigration and refugee authorities will determine in their own processes.
We shall continue to follow this case and we will, to the extent possible, ensure that due process is followed in a way that serves Canadians.


REQUEST FOR FAST-TRACK APPROACH
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify the question. No one on this side of the House is asking the Minister to interfere in the process or to diminish the rights of Mr. Mohammad.
My Party, last January, pushed the Government to expedite the immigration inquiry, and what we are asking today is that she expedite the refugee hearing.
Given that the Government's credibility and integrity are at stake in this case, we would request that the Minister recommend that the refugee hearing, a hearing in respect of which Mr. Mohammad will have full rights under the law, be fast-tracked, so that the interests of the system and of Canadians can be served.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, whatever one's personal views of this particular case may be, the interests of Canadians are only served when due process is followed, and the refugee board is in the better position to determine the timing in respect of this case, as with other cases.


CIGARETTE PACKAGE WARNINGS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Cigarette smoking endangers the life of the unborn during pregnancy. It causes lung cancer, heart disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease. As well, it is highly addictive, aggravates virtually all other respiratory illnesses, reduces the life expectancy of smokers, and causes lung disease even among non-smokers.
December 16, 1988

Given that the Canadian Lung Association has urged the Department of National Health and Welfare to include all of the health risks of smoking in the labelling of cigarette packages, I would ask the Minister to inform the House as to the reasons why all of these major known health hazards are not displayed; why it is that only one of the numerous health risks involved in cigarette smoking will be displayed at a time, on a rotational basis, on each cigarette package.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset 1 want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his election to the House. As a result of his election to this House, we can now bring to the floor of this House the debates in which we engaged in Manitoba.
The changes that have been requested by the Canadian Lung Association, the Canadian Heart Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, and others, have been examined by my office, and some changes have been made. As a result, the information that he includes in his question is somewhat dated in terms of the kind of message that we intend to bring forward.


REQUEST THAT MAJOR HEALTH HAZARDS BE INCLUDED ON LABELS
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, given the serious implications for all Canadians of not knowing all of the major known health hazards, given that the Canadian Lung Association is an authority on this subject, and given that the Department of National Health and Welfare anticipates the implementation of this regulation shortly after the New Year, I would ask the Minister to instruct his Department immediately to require that all of the major known health hazards be displayed on each cigarette package, and displayed not on a rotational basis, one at a time, but all of the time, for the safety of all Canadians.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member might want to re-examine that suggestion. If all these warnings were placed on the same cigarette package, given his age and mine we might need even more help to read them all because of their size.
This Government brought in Bill C-51, which has been recognized as legislation leading the world with respect to both the message and also the space for the message on packages and cartons, as well as billboards which presently do not have warnings. These warnings
Oral Questions
have been stiffened compared to the ones originally considered. As well, there are two tranches to those warnings, which must be considered in light of our trying to get them into the marketplace for January 1, 1989.
I believe when he sees the warnings he will see they are not only in keeping with the health objectives of the Government, but specifically with the commitments we made under Bill C-51.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
According to Dan Burns, Vice-President of Squibb, in an effort to meet the promise to double research in response to the imposition of the new drug patent legislation on Canadians, Squibb and Company are offering a $2,000 personal computer to each doctor who prescribes Capoten, its expensive anti-hypertension drug, to ten or more patients.
What is the Minister's view of this transparent bribery, and what action does he intend to take?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member that Bill C-22, which he opposed so vigorously and which he said the industry would not respond to, has been responded to through expansion of research and development exceeding $1 billion. We needed that money in this country and we needed to put ourselves on the leading edge of drug research. That has happened across the country and I am very pleased that the Bill is working so well.
With respect to the gentleman's specific question, he knows that the medical associations are self-policing professional associations. As I understand it, a letter has been sent from the OMA to various physicians involved in the program. From my Department's point of view, obviously we do not encourage any process that would be seen as inducement. We believe professionalism should be the hallmark of any action taken by physicians.

December 16, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Lewis


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that we have some questions of privilege to deal with. I will hear the Minister first.


PRIVILEGE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of Question Period. I gave you a letter indicating that we are going to review the "blues" and the comments of the Hon. Leader of the NDP in his first question to see whether he used the word "deliberate", or if there were words used which convey the allegation of a deliberate misleading of the House, which would constitute a question of privilege.
I would add that the Hon. Member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) used the same type of language.
The Leader of the NDP was often in the grey area of privilege and was in fact once thrown out of the House for using the term "liar". We want to eliminate that from the debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in some difficulty here. The Hon. Minister rose on a question of privilege. As I understood what he said, he is going to review the "blues". That may well be. He sent me a note to that effect, as he told the House. However, until I have an allegation in front of me, which I do not have at the moment, I find it difficult to proceed with the question of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. friend who has just raised the point that I recall vividly the incident he refers to. According to the rules, having said what I said and the Prime Minister having done what he did, everyone in the country knew, but because of the quaintness of our rules we are prohibited from saying so in blunt words from time to time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: You are above the rules, then?


Mr. Speaker:: I want to say to the Hon. Member for Oshawa that I am much indebted to him for refraining from saying so.


John Edward Broadbent: As always, Your Honour, your observations are pertinent and appropriate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Double-standard Broadbent.


John Edward Broadbent: The Secretary of State for External Affairs is vibrating again.


Mr. Nystrom:: Take a valium, Joe.



John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege that I want to raise. It is quite serious. I gave the Prime Minister's Office notice this morning.


Charles Joseph Clark: Another double standard?


John Edward Broadbent: In response to a question from myself about his blue ribbon committee, in which all Canadian workers are supposed to have so much confidence, indicating that the information we had was that this committee was not to report until June, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said at page 49 of Hansard'.
Nobody is talking about waiting until June and the fact is that
Mr. de Grandpre is scheduled to meet with the Ministers responsible
as early as Friday of this week to discuss an interim report.
He said that to me, and he also said in reply to a similar question from the Hon. Member for Esquimalt

Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett):
"So if the Hon. Member would kindly wait until Friday and then
for the final report-"
The clear implication was there was an interim report coming today-


John Carnell Crosbie: There was no such implication.


John Edward Broadbent: -that was going to be discussed and the workers did not have to wait until June. Action was going to be taken on Friday. That is the truth.
It is not simply our interpretation because the senior economist of the committee responded, and presumably he was responding to ordinary language as used by the
December 16, 1988

Prime Minister as well, and 1 quoted him earlier in my question, that there is no plan to issue an interim report.
Another member of the Commission, Mr. James McCambly, said there was no interim report and that such a report had not even been discussed previously.
My question of privilege is quite straightforward. In order to do my work as a Member of the House, I have to rely not on judgments or matters of opinion but on alleged contentions of fact coming from Ministers of the Crown, principally in this case the Prime Minister. One should be able to assume that what the Prime Minister says, not in a debating context but in a claim of facts, is the case.
What he told us was there would be an interim report. There would be a meeting about an interim report today. We all assumed on Friday that that would be the case. In contradiction of that, we have a senior staff member of the committee as well as a member of the committee who say that is not the case.
My question of privilege is simply this. The Prime Minister, inadvertently or deliberately, has misled the House. We have to have this important matter resolved in order to do our job correctly as Members of Parliament.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to my Hon. friend's comments.
There is no question when one reads the actual words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and interprets them the way any normal individual would, rather than trying to draw inferences for partisan purposes which are not in the words, what they mean. What I want to do is read the words in the House so that this one time my hon. friend will be able to understand what the Prime Minister said very clearly. He said:
""Nobody is talking about waiting until June and the fact is that
Mr. de Grandpre is scheduled to meet with the Ministers responsible
as early as Friday of this week to discuss an interim report."
To "discuss", d-i-s-c-u-s-s, an interim report. There is no suggestion that there was going to be an interim report. There is no suggestion there was going to be a report in writing. It was a discussion about an interim report.


John Edward Broadbent: He did not say discuss the possibility of one, either.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Fortunately, when my hon. friend, in a state of-well, I will not use the word "ignorance", but perhaps in a state of confusion raised the matter in question here again today, the Hon. Minister for
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) gave it another shot to try and explain to the Hon. Member that there was discussion with Mr. de Grandpre of an interim report. Not an interim report discussed, discussion of an interim report.
Then my hon. friend goes to the word "June" and says: "We are not going to wait until June". The Hon. Minister indicated that because of the discussions this morning there was no need for an interim report. That is what was discussed. The possibility of an interim report was discussed. The Hon. Minister made it very clear that in fact the final report will be presented within a reasonable length of time. Therefore there was no need for an interim report which may have flowed from the discussion.
We are talking about debate. We are talking about my hon. friend trying to twist the words that were used to get some political mileage out of them. He did not get any mileage. He did not get a foot. He did not get an inch. He did not get a millimetre.
I submit that this is obviously not a question of privilege. It is a matter for debate.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, since I too was the recipient of an answer in question here in the House, I wish to point out to the Chair that the wording in response to a similar question from me leaves no doubt of the intention of the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). It states:
"So if the Hon. Member would kindly wait until Friday and then
for the final report-"
I was being admonished for raising this issue because, as the Prime Minister had informed the Leader of the New Democratic Party, (Mr. Broadbent) there would be an interim report this Friday. I was reminded of it by his answer to me.
I find it curious that the Prime Minister is not here to answer these questions and to clarify them, even though he told the Leader of the New Democratic Party that he would be here.
It is my presumption, and I would ask the Chair to correct me if I am wrong, that upon hearing the word of the Prime Minister, one should be assured that that word is indeed fact. I find now that it has become a question in my mind. The people of the country are interested in the answer because their jobs were the subject of discussion in the House. Now, today, we are being a given a construction of an interpretation that was obviously not meant in the initial answer.

December 16, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
That is what the Leader of the New Democratic Party and I are raising with you, Mr. Speaker. We expect- nay, Sir, we demand-honest answers to honest questions. We have a right to hear those.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, for my own edification I would like to know, if there are rules in the House that do not require honest answers, whether the Chair would please allow me the privilege of reading that information.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get in the middle of this NDP leadership campaign. I want to point out to my hon. friend the actual words of the Prime Minister. They are:
"So if the Hon. Member would kindly wait until Friday-"


David Barrett: "-and then for the final report-"


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. friend waited until Friday, asked the Hon. Minister about the meeting that was held today, got his answer from the Minister that there was no need for an interim report, that there was no emergency, and in fact that the final report will be presented in a reasonable length of time. Obviously, there is no misleading of the House, either intentional or by accident. All my hon. friend is doing is twisting the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for political, partisan purposes.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to pay attention to this because it is important. I let go a couple of comments earlier that might be considered imputing motives or otherwise. I do not want to be unduly harsh with the Minister. However, it does not help the Chair at all in a discussion such as this as to whether or not there is a question of privilege to be imputing motives of either side.
I am quite prepared to listen to further argument on this if other Members are rising.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, one of the questions which comes up with respect to this is that the answers which were provided by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) were provided in French. The answers as are given in French are even less ambiguous than the translation suggests in English. In fact, if we look at the French Hansard we see that the statement which was made to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) was:
Alors, si le depute veut bien attendre a vendredi prochain et ensuite au rapport definitif, je pense qu'il verra le fruit d'un travail au niveau national-
In short, there was a specific commitment that we would see "le fruit d'un travail au niveau national" in the final report, au rapport definitif.
It seems to me that there is no possible construction that can be put on those statements in French except that the Prime Minister was saying to this House that there would be a statement of the results, at least of an interim sort, of this committee on Friday, and that there would be a final definitive report later. The French phrasing makes it absolutely clear. I do not think that the Government should be permitted to start misleading the House at this stage.


Paul Wyatt Dick: They have not. That is a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest of respect to the Hon. Member, as I remember the exchange it was in the English language. I know enough about Hansard to sometimes wonder whether in English or in French there is an exact replication of all the words.
What we are facing here is-


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order? If I made an error, I will hear the Hon. Member.


Steven W. Langdon: I am quoting from the French Hansard. 1 could do so also from the English.
The question was put in English. It states: [Traduction] and the answer was stated in French, en frangais.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for pointing that out to the Chair. I appreciate very much the fact that he did.
What we have here is an allegation from the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and another Member that they were led to expect that there would be a report, some sort of an interim report today from the de Grandpre Committee. I listened to the exchanges, as did other Hon. Members. I am not for one minute going to say that the interpretation that the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) puts on that exchange might not have led to the idea that there would be some sort of interim report today. I think that is clear. However, the Hon. Minister has been on his feet today and has said there was a meeting, the committee reported, but there is not an interim report in writing. What we are getting into now is a debate as to what kind of report or how substantive that report should be, or should it be published or should it be in writing. That is a legitimate item for debate and it is a legitimate item for comment.
December 16, 1988

Tabling of Documents



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
My difficulty as your Speaker is that while it is an important matter, it is an important matter because it concerns the well-being of fellow Canadians. That is why it is an important matter. It is also an important matter because it could have been taken from that exchange which I heard, as did other Hon. Members, that there might have been some sort of interim report today, some kind of written report that could have been published or could have been submitted to the House or could have been commented upon or could have been handed to the press.
That might have happened. If it had happened, then certainly the exchange we heard would have been suggestive of that happening. It did not happen. But, as the Hon. Minister has said, there was a report of some sort. It seems to have been verbal. There was a report back to the Government. There is not now an "interim report" in written terms that can be handed to the House or be handed to the press or handed to Hon. Members.
What we are getting into-and it is an understandable thing-is a debate as to what was intended at that time as opposed to what happened today. I repeat to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) and to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) that the Chair is not quarreling with the legitimacy of the issue. The Chair is saying, though, that under these circumstances, we have a dispute as to the interpretation of something that was said, an interpretation as some people have said, of facts, but it does not go to the point where it has affected either of the two Hon. Members from carrying out their duties as Members of Parliament.
There is a dispute, it is a legitimate dispute, it is a matter of debate, but it is not a matter of privilege. I thank both Hon. Members and the Hon. Member for Essex Windsor (Mr. Langdon) for reporting the points, and I apologize to the Hon. Member for Essex Windsor because I clearly had not appreciated fully the point the Hon. Member brought to my attention. That does not change the ruling, but I do appreciate his point and I do want him to accept my apologies. Again, I thank all Hon. Members for their submissions. The matter is for now closed.

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in this House, in both official languages, the annual report for the year 1987-88 of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
Mr. Speaker, I have a message from Her Excellency the Governor General signed by her deputy.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1988-89
[Stage Direction]
A message from Her Excellency the Governor General, signed by her deputy, transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989, was presented by Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) and Acting President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I may just point out to the House, and perhaps you may wish to add to it, the tradition is that when the message is from Her Excellency and signed in her own hand, all Members of the House rise. I tried to emphasize the word "deputy" because I checked with the Table and found that when it is signed by her deputy, there is no necessity for all Members to rise.


REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 81(6) I move:
That Supplementary Estimates (B), 1988-89, tabled earlier this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:

December 16, 1988
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
Because the list is rather long, and there is a detailed allocation of the Supplementary Estimates to the committee, if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that this list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows;]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 35b and 50b.
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture, Votes 1 b, 5b, 1 Ob, 15b, 35b, 45b and 65b.
To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture
Communications, Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 25b, 40b, 45b, 55b, 60b, 65b, 75b and 80b.
To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes lb, 5b, 17b and 23b.
To the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources
Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 25b, 30b and 45b.
To the Standing Committee on Environment and Forestry Agriculture, Vote 20b, 25b and 30b.
Environment, Votes, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b and 25b.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade
External Affairs, Votes lb, 5b, 10b, LI lb, LI2b, 25b, 30b and 55b.
To the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs Finance Vote, lb and 32b.
National Revenue, Votes 10b and 15b.
To the Standing Committee on Government Operations Governor General, Vote lb.
Public Works, Votes 25b and 26b.
Supply and Services, Votes lb and 5b.
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General Justice, Votes 25b and 40b.
Solicitor General, Votes lb and 5b.
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration
Employment and Immigration, Votes 5b, 15b, 20b and 30b.
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services
Parliament, Vote 10b.
To the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism
Secretary of State, Votes lb and 5b (portions dealing with Multiculturalism)
To the Standing Committee on National Defence National Defence, Votes lb, 5b and 10b.
To the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare
National Health and Welfare, Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 35b, 40b, 45b, 55b, 60b, 65b and 70b.
To the Standing Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion Regional Industrial Expansion, Votes lb, 3b, 10b and 41b.
To the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology Science and Technology, Votes lb, 5b, 10b and 15b.
To the Standing Committee on Secretary of State
Secretary of State, Votes lb and 5b (except Multiculturalism portions) and Votes 20b and 25b.
To the Standing Committee on Transport Transport, Votes 10b, 26b and 27b.
To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs, Vote lb.
That the Privy Council Vote 15b be referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Pursuant to Standing Order 101,1 have the honour to present to the House the thirty-fifth report, in both official languages, of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CENTENNIAL FLAME RESEARCH AWARD ACT
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-202, an Act respecting the Establishment of the Centennial Flame Research Award to publicize the contributions to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities.
December 16, 1988


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a brief word of explanation to Members of the House. In front of the Parliament Buildings is a centennial flame which was first lighted by Prime Minister Pearson at the beginning of our Centennial Year. Since that time many visitors to the Parliament Buildings throw coins into that fountain. I learned some months ago that the money gathered there is going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I have found it to be in excess of $1,000 a year.
The purpose of this Bill is to establish a centennial flame research award or fellowship that would be used each year under the direction of the Speaker and the House, and awarded to a Canadian with disabilities to do research on the contribution to the Parliament of Canada and the public life of Canada of Canadians with disabilities.


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

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-203, an Act to provide interim measures respecting abortion and to amend the Criminal Code.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, the Bill I have presented to the House is entitled "Abortion Law Interim Measures Act". The purpose is twofold: First, to enact a law restricting abortion to the extent permitted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, second, to require a constitutional conference to consider a Charter amendment to protect the unborn.
Following the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada invalidating Canada's abortion law, Parliament could not reach a consensus on legislative action. Nonetheless, it is clear that most Canadians support a law restricting abortion. This Bill responds to that concern by proposing an interim measure on abortion.
Petitions


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

Don Boudria: for leave to introduce Bill C-204, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda-age group).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill I am offering to the House today would be to provide the application of the Criminal Code to hate propaganda that advocates or promotes physical destruction of persons of an identifiable age group. The object of the Bill is to stop the importation into Canada of a product known as Garbage Pail Kids.


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

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to present this petition today in the Thirty-fourth Parliament pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition has been certified by the Clerk of Petitions. It relates to saving the Rouge Valley in Scarborough. It states that the Rouge Valley in Scarborough is a unique and precious natural area, that protecting the endangered wildlife and wilderness areas is in the national interest.
This property of the Rouge Valley is owned by the provincial government. Recently the federal Government committed $10 million for the preservation of this valley. The mayor of Scarborough, the federal Minister of the Environment, the Save the Rouge Valley System and the Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations have expressed support for this, as well as petitioners from Scarborough, Ajax, Markham, Etobicoke, Nobleton and Richmond Hill. They call upon Parliament to work with the Government of Ontario to establish the Rouge River Valley as a Canadian heritage land or a provincial park.

December 16, 1988
Questions on the Order Paper


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured to present a petition, duly certified, signed by 101 of my constituents in Scarborough East and the senior alumni participants in the lecture series "Canadian Perspectives" recently held at the University of Toronto Scarborough campus.
We are all deeply concerned about the adverse effects on Canada's environment due to the use of carbon-based fossil fuels which results in the continuing escalation of acid rain and the greenhouse effect. These Canadians and myself call upon Parliament to implement the recommendations in the report of the Canadian Advisory Group on Hydrogen Opportunities entitled "Hydrogen-National Mission for Canada".


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, they say that the more things change, the more they stay the same. This time, it gives me great pleasure to table a petition.

It is a pleasure but I hope something is done about it. I am presenting a petition from the undersigned residents on the issue of food labelling. I am pleased that the new Member for Kent (Mr. Crawford) is also taking up this issue.
The petition is signed by 4,000 people from across Canada who are calling upon the Government of Canada to require proper labelling of ingredients in restaurants so that people can realize that when they have a meal outside their home they do not have to play Russian roulette with their lives as in the case of the Chinnick family, Christian Taylor and others. I hope this time the Tories do something about it.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the item under Routine Proceedings entitled "Questions on the Order Paper", I notice that there are no questions on the Order Paper. Is it the bad record of the Government in answering questions that has made MPs decide not to ask any more
questions or is the Government trying to tell us that there are no questions to be answered at all?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in fact it is the contrary. We are doing so well that there can be no question as to how we are governing. People said that on November 21.


Mr. Speaker:: I know that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will realize that the Chair has to put the item in any event.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 52 to ask leave to move a motion for an emergency debate. You will recall I moved a similar motion on Wednesday. The reason is that there have been some 2,400 announced lay-offs since election day that have been attributed in people's judgment to the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement as of January 1, 1989, or shortly thereafter. At the same time the Government has not announced its intention to bring in programs which will be designed to aid the workers and the communities affected. Therefore, there is what can only be called from our point of view an emergency or crisis situation. Men and women are being laid off. The Government has no specific programs and intends to recess the House for a couple of months. We were told that the chairman of the committee allegedly dealing with such a problem would not have anything ready until June.
When Your Honour ruled against this on Wednesday, you did so after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had said in the House during Question Period that there would be an interim report by the committee on Friday of this week. We now know that we have no such interim report and we believe we drew the right conclusion. The Prime Minister was telling us that there would be an interim report. The Government is now contending that it was just going to discuss the report.
December 16, 1988

The bottom line is that there is no interim report and workers are being laid off. We are going to be recessing shortly for a couple of months and there are no programs in place to help the workers affected. Therefore, Your Honour, I would suggest to you that the circumstances have changed since you offered your ruling on Wednesday and that we still have a serious and urgent situation. I appeal to you to allow the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has brought this motion twice this week, and I can say to him and to his colleagues that the Speaker is quite aware of why he has done so and there has been considerable discussion, only a few minutes ago, which related to the concerns of the Hon. Member for Oshawa and, I am sure, other Hon. Members. 1 know that the reform committee said that the Speaker ought not to give reasons for ruling one way or the other on an application of this nature, but I think under the circumstances, it is appropriate that the Speaker say something.
I say this to the Hon. Member for Oshawa because the Speaker is as concerned as is the Hon. Member for Oshawa about the matters which he raises, because the Speaker is also a Member of Parliament. The concerns of the people who may be affected by whatever measure is being taken are concerns also of the Speaker. I want the Hon. Member for Oshawa to accept that as a Member of Parliament, I am deeply concerned about this issue. However, on Monday there will be extensive debate. I think that that debate will enable the Hon. Member and others to address these matters. If that turns out not to be so, 1 will hear the Hon. Member for Oshawa again.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) is in the House. I wonder if he could indicate when he will be introducing some legislation on this very important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may not get an answer, but 1 think the Hon. Member has made his point.
Extension of Sittings



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
MOTION TO EXTEND HOURS OF SITTING The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or practice of the House, from the day of adoption of this motion the House will meet on the days and at the times specified in Standing Order 24, but not on December 26, 1988.
That, during such period, the Speaker shall adjourn the House on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays at midnight and on Fridays at 3.00 o'clock p.m., and that the provisions of Standing Order 38 in relation to the adjournment proceedings shall be suspended.
That, during such period, the Standing Order respecting the daily mid-day interruption of business on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays shall not be suspended;
That, at 6.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, or at the conclusion of Private Members' Business, the House shall proceed to "Government Orders" pursuant to Standing Order 40( I);
That, for the duration of this session or until otherwise ordered, the provisions of Standing Order 73(1) and (2) respecting committee stage of Public Bills be suspended, and all such Bills be ordered for referral to committee of the Whole; and
That immediately upon the House returning from the Senate after the first Royal Assent of this session, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice or debate, a motion to rescind this order.
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this Thirty-fourth Parliament for the first time. Rising in this House is a familiar position after nine and a half years, but it is a particular pleasure to welcome you back to the chair with the confidence of the House. I would also like to pay tribute to the three people who serve with you in the chair at various times on our behalf. We are in good hands. It has probably not been the easiest week in a Speaker's life, this first week of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, but we hope that with the passage of time it might get somewhat better.
I think it is unfortunate and 1 feel badly that we are having this debate today and that there is a necessity for it. When we left this Chamber in September, we had debated in a formal way, either in committee or in the House, the trade legislation to implement the international trade agreement for a total of 64 days. It is an agreement between two countries which our law allows us to sign. This Chamber, in its wisdom, passed that enabling legislation. An unelected part of our Parliament indicated clearly that it would not give Royal Assent to the legislation. The Opposition called for an election to let the people decide and the people have decided.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
An agreement had been entered into by two nations to try to bring this agreement into effect by January 1, 1989, and we have every right and Canadian voters have every right to anticipate that all elected Members of all Parties will act in the national interest, co-operatively, to put it in place by January 1. That is what Canadians have the right to expect, and the Government has an obligation to provide the opportunity to do so.
By starting this Parliament last Monday, 21 days after the election, we have set an historic precedent. No Parliament has been convened so quickly after an election in all of Canada's history. The previous parliamentary record was 41 days. The Government had the obligation to call Parliament as quickly as possible, and 21 days was it.
The Canadian people have made some agonizing decisions about whether or not the Opposition was right in the fears that it raised. When I went door to door, I knocked on the door of a young woman who was about 20 years of age. It was nine o'clock on a Friday night. I introduced myself, and she broke into tears. She had a child in her arms and she started to bawl because she had been reading information that meant to her that if we passed the free trade deal, the very next morning there would be no ambulance coming to her door if there was an emergency in her home. That is the kind of fear that was out on the streets. For that young woman to have to decide who to vote for in that kind of an emotional situation was a trauma, and that trauma was repeated as well in senior citizens' homes again and again.
I recall seeing a cartoon pamphlet done by some group. I do not know where the funding for it came from, but it was full of misinformation designed to create fear. It was an ugly election campaign, but it is over. On November 21, it was over, and the obligation shifts from campaigning and all of the shenanigans that go on. The nasty parts of it and the deceptive tactics are behind us. The obligation shifts to us as individuals in this Chamber to act in the national interest on behalf of Canadians. We should be doing that co-operatively.
We are here today on the Friday of the first week of this Parliament and we have heard three speeches on the legislation to implement the Free Trade Agreement. On Monday, with unanimous consent, we could have begun the debate. We could have tabled the Bill, we could have done all kinds of things together, because this place can always do what it wants to do by unanimous consent. We could have debated the free trade initiative all this
week. Every Member of the Flouse could have had an opportunity to speak more than once and we could still have met the timetable. But no, we have had bell ringing about nonsense.
Yesterday we had to suspend the House temporarily, though the House Deader said right from the start that the timetable and the motion that are in place supersede the normal situation and technically everything we want to happen can come to pass. However, confusion was created and the House sitting had to be suspended. A little later today, I will move an amendment to provide greater clarity for those who are new to the House and perhaps want that clarity. One of the things we discovered is that people were not clear on this so we will give them clarity. It is not necessary to do so, but we will.
Why am I not on my feet right at this moment talking about the legislation to implement free trade? It is because I cannot, because I have to debate a motion which will have the consequence of giving us 12 days of normal parliamentary debating time crammed into five days next week. We believe that there should be 12 days of debating time. Co-operatively we could have created 20 days of debating time in the two weeks.
The Opposition's use of dilatory tactics led to the return of our Government. In some way I should thank the Opposition for wasting the time of this House over the last four years because it helped us get re-elected. Ours was the only Party viewed by the voters of this nation as capable of governing, of having the will to do what the country needed. People perceive the opposition Parties as having wasted time and of not being serious about their concerns. That will be the consequence of the kind of tactic that has been going on in this House all this week.
On average it costs $1 million a day to run this place. We have been forced into a position of spending today's $1 million debating procedural motions. We have spent $5 million for three speeches on free trade this week. Took at those three speeches. Are they worth $1.75 million a piece? Were they that well crafted and delivered? I suggest not. In the private sector you could not sell those speeches for $1.5 million or $1.75 million.


Mr. Darling:: Perhaps $50 each.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I hear someone say $50 each.
December 16, 1988

What should we be doing today, Mr. Speaker? I suggest that in the next 10, 15, 20 or 30 minutes or the next hour we should vote on the motion to set our timetable in place for next week. That is an option. We can do it in an hour. We can do it at 1 a.m. We can debate this motion for the next 12 hours or we can vote and we can work co-operatively. The minute we vote we could agree-and the Government is quite willing to agree-that we get on with the debate on free trade. We can set aside our quorum rules. We can set aside the possibility of votes. We can simply not see the clock until 1 a.m. and get our free trade speeches started today. Let us go to 1 a.m. If people want to go until 2 a.m., Government Members are agreeable to that. Why not start debating free trade today?
What is the logic of spending 12 more hours and $1 million debating the procedural motion? Surely Canadians are tired of our procedural motions, the little internal games. This is an issue of substance on which we have strong feelings. My feelings are probably different from a number of people on the other side.


An Hon. Member:: And just as strong.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: And just as strongly held. We should be using this Chamber in the finest democratic tradition to get our feelings and our thoughts out on the table. Why 12 hours? That is the equivalent of three parliamentary days of debating time. It is the equivalent of $3 million that we can spend on procedural speeches or we could agree co-operatively to spend that time on substantive speeches about the issue of concern to Canadians.
What choice will be made, Mr. Speaker? Our choice is clear. Members on this side of the House would prefer to talk about substance. We will probably talk about opportunity. Almost all our Members would have that characteristic. I suspect the Opposition will talk about their perception of what the problems might be. If we are going to spend $3 million worth of taxpayers money today, surely we should spend it on that debate.
According to the rules of the House the only way we can get there now is to vote as quickly as possible, set in place our timetable for next week and reach an agreement co-operatively to set aside our rules and get to the debate. So that we can make sure we do it in an orderly manner, I would like to move an amendment to the motion and, once that amendment is in place, the first vote would be on the amendment. It is in line with the agreement that we reached co-operatively yesterday afternoon.
Extension of Sittings
There should be no need for a standing vote. We could pass this with a voice vote. Then we could have our standing vote, agree not to see the clock, agree not to call quorum and have no votes for the rest of the day. We could have a lot of speeches on free trade between now and 1 a.m. We could quit a little sooner if people wanted and commence on Monday morning with more speeches on second reading. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis (Mr. Layton):
That the motion be amended by deleting in the penultimate
paragraph the words "all such Bills" and inserting in lieu thereof the
words "That Bill C-2


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want first to acknowledge your presence in the chair and say that once again it is a pleasure to have your smiling visage and, even though you are not conditioned by Bill 101, it is nice to have you back in the House looking after these affairs.
I want to acknowledge that the amendment just introduced is an amendment that was proposed by our House Leader as a way of bailing the Government out of a situation of total and complete chaos in which it found itself. Obviously our willingness to support it would be more than apparent.


An Hon. Member:: Why not vote?


Lloyd Axworthy: I found the remarks that introduced the amendment to be most illuminating about the density by which the Parliamentary Secretary thinks about Parliament. I have here the questions he posed. Why are we here, he said? Why are we debating this motion? Why are we looking at questions of procedure as if Parliament were some kind of a sausage machine where the Hon. Member and his Ministers simply turn on the crank and churn out the legislation according to some kind of mechanical, automatic computer-like dictate without the full requirement of the Canadian people through their elected representatives to be heard.
It was an interesting commentary on the way in which Parliament is viewed by Members on the other side. This is not a place, in their view, where Members of Parliament duly elected by their constituents will have an opportunity to present their case, to have an exchange, a dialogue, to try to influence legislation or to make sure that the public can be heard in open committee hearings.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
This is simply a place where you put the plug in and turn on the machine in order to get the tyranny of the majority answered as quickly and as efficiently as possible. It is the type of thing that Mussolini used to say: "Let's get the trains running on time". Now we have the Parliamentary Secretary saying: "Let's have Parliament work according to our timetable".
The Parliamentary Secretary and his cohorts, colleagues, and masters did not say that the reason we are having this debate has nothing to do with the Opposition trying to defend the rights of Parliament. It has to do with a Government that is insisting that the trade legislation, the most important Bill in the history of this country, be passed by January 1, the Government's deadline. As a result Government Members were the ones who set the timetable, set the motions to say that we will not allow Parliament to function in its normal and proper way. They are the ones who say that there will not be committee hearings so that all those industries that are presently being closed down and shut down as a result of the impending Free Trade Agreement will have an opportunity to be heard by this House and by this Parliament.
That comes as no surprise to those of us who were here for the last four years, because we realize that the whole formula of the Conservative Party is to make sure that people not be heard. Going back to 1985 the whole thesis of the trade agreement was: "Don't tell the people what is going on. Keep it hidden, keep it under wraps, and keep it under a blanket, so in that way we will be able to fool them".
They almost succeeded, until we got to the election and people all of a sudden began to understand that the agreement was more than a commercial agreement and that it would affect us in many ways. There is not one Conservative Member of Parliament who was not bruised when going door to door by questions from individual constituents who said: "You did not tell me what it was about. You did not tell me that it was going to change the way foreign investment comes in. You did not tell me that it was going to affect the way in which regional development programs can be applied".
All of a sudden Tory candidates were faced with a barrage of questions. For the first time Canadians were stating that this thing was a time bomb and that it was going to change the country. The only way government Members overcame that was to return to the old tactics and swamp the country with a tidal wave of propaganda,
paid for by their friends in big business, to ensure that they could hang on by their fingernails for another week or two until the election was over. That is the way that they succeeded. They have learned nothing.
An election is not simply an exercise of raw power and how many seats the Government has. An election is also an exercise of listening. An election is being at the street corner, around the kitchen table, and at the doorstep listening to what people have to say. Canadians were clearly stating that they saw serious flaws in this agreement and that they had serious concerns about it. Yet, did the Minister of Trade in introducing this Bill or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in setting the timetable give one, single concession to those concerns? Were they listening at all? Did we hear anything from the Minister of Trade, the Prime Minister, or the rest of that phalanx that the Canadian people have some deep-seated anxieties that deserve to be listened to? Let us bring in a Bill that responds to that. Let us change the Bill from the old C-130 to respond to those concerns. They only changed one thing. That was the date of implementation.
The Deputy House Leader, the House Leader, the Parliamentary Secretary, and all the others are now introducing into the House the most Draconian usurpation of the parliamentary rules in the history of Canada in order to meet a January 1 timetable that the Government has stated is not important. What an incredible contradiction.
The one thing that was changed in the entire Bill was the taking out of the January 1 deadline. If it was so important, why was it not left in? If it was absolutely essential to the agreement, why was it not left there? No, the Government took it out. Now we have the hijacking of Parliament in order to meet a timetable that is no longer important to the Government. Something is wrong there. Somehow the logic escapes me. Perhaps Government Members have a basic sense of masochism. They like twisting and turning the rules of Parliament for the sake of doing it. Perhaps this type of parliamentary terrorism is something that appeals to their basic psyche. Perhaps that is the basic character of members of the modern Conservative Party. Perhaps they do not like Parliament working by its normal rules. Perhaps they do not like rules, because after all it is a little awkward to have to come here and answer questions and deal with debate. Maybe we should just turn off the lights forever and turn on the computer, or have the Deputy House Leader do his high jinks.
December 16, 1988


Mrs. Dobbie:: Let us talk about trade.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are
going to talk about trade. We have lots of time to talk about it. The problem is that government Members do not even want to debate their own motion. "Get on to another topic," they are pleading. There is the new Member for Winnipeg South down on her knees pleading: "Please, don't talk about this motion, talk about something else, will you, because I can't stand the recognition that a duly elected Member of Parliament is now part of the conspiracy to erode and destroy the rules of this House". That is what is going on.
The fact of the matter is that these rules are absolutely irrelevant to what the Government wants to do. Furthermore, by imposing these rules it is going to prohibit Canadians from having a full opportunity to be heard on this legislation. By taking it into Committee of the Whole-


An Hon. Member:: Since November 21, we have been heard.


Lloyd Axworthy: Why do you
not get to your feet and talk? What are you afraid of?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am
pleased that the House realizes that there are still some rules of debate liable to be followed so that the rabble simply cannot take over this Chamber whenever it wants.
One of the most important issues facing us is the one that was raised in the House of Commons today. One thing most strongly felt by Canadians during the past election was the question of jobs and the recognition, as it was exposed by various groups and various industries, that there was going to be serious dislocation. In the printing industry 10,000 jobs would be lost; the food processing industry itself said that 100,000 jobs would be lost; 24,000 women in the garment industry are having their jobs put at a risk.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They do not care. They do not care about women.


Lloyd Axworthy: Now we see
the same type of disruption taking place in softwood lumber, in shakes and shingles. Before the agreement is even signed those companies are beginning to rationalize. It is wonderful to see the new explanation. Three months before the election all the business commentators, the editorial writers, and the ministerial spokesmen
Extension of Sittings
said that the reason for the trade agreement was to rationalize our industries. Now that our industries are rationalizing they say: "It has nothing to do with free trade". It is somehow happening by magic. "This is something we have been planning to do for years". We know how much hog-wash that is.
What is absolutely essential now and what our Members have been saying since we arrived back on the Hill is that it is a responsibility of the Government to put in place the type of programs to deal with the dislocation of workers and communities across the country.
Instead we have reason number one from the Minister of Employment who states that he does not have to do anything because there is already a jobs strategy, even though the jobs strategy has been criticized by every independent, reputable organization saying that it is not working and that the Minister has cut back expenditures by 32 per cent. College classrooms are being shut down today as a result of that jobs strategy program. One enormous con job of the election was when the Prime Minister went to a community college outside Toronto and had a photo-op with students, showing him talking about the new world of high technology. As soon as the camera shut down the classroom was shut down. Why? It was because the federal Government had cut off funding for that program. As soon as the photo-op is over, why keep the program going? It is no longer important. The jobs training strategy is not the answer.
How does the Progressive Conservative Government resolve the situation under the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby older workers who have a right to severance are not eligible for unemployment insurance assistance and training until their final severance payment is in hand, something which may take a year or a year and a half following job loss? How does the older worker get back into the job stream when he or she is not even eligible for training grants under the Unemployment Insurance Program as a result of the amendments brought in by this Government?
Why is the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) not answering that kind of question?
The reason that we on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, want a proper parliamentary examination of this legislation is that, through that process, answers to those questions could be had.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Once we got off that little fallacy, that little fable about the Canadian Jobs Strategy, we had a new big fable put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada, who is the biggest fable-maker in the history of this country-


An Hon. Member:: It is a big fib.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) makes Aesop look like a piker in comparison. Some day in the future there will be a new book for children entitled Mulroney's Fairy-tales.
What we heard today is another fairy-tale. We were told that the de Grandpre Commission will solve all of our problems. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister asked us to wait until Friday, when the answers would be forthcoming. Well, we are now at Friday, and still there are no answers.


An Hon. Member:: Where are the answers?


Lloyd Axworthy: Where are the answers? Well, one answer was in a newspaper report which quoted the members of the commission as saying that they had no answers. The article quotes the commissioners as saying that they were not expected to report this soon; that they had made no commitment to table an interim report. It went on to quote them as saying that they may get around to presenting a report next June.
How many workers, Mr. Speaker, how many factories, how many communities are going to be adversely affected before the de Grandpre Commission gets around to reporting?
The only conclusion that our far-sighted Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) could come up with is: "Well, I met with the de Grandpre Commission this morning, and there is no problem out there. Nothing is happening out there".
Once again, like the giant Goodyear Blimp, the Minister for International Trade is floating high in the atmosphere, totally removed from the reality down here in the real world, where workers are today losing their jobs as a result of the Free Trade Agreement.
The Minister has a nice kitschy little breakfast with Mr. de Grandpre, with little china teacups and little petit fours, and they conclude that there is no problem out there.


An Hon. Member:: The public trough.


Lloyd Axworthy: And after breakfast, they all get into their chauffeur-driven
limousines and are returned to the House of Commons, or Bell Canada, or wherever, and we hear: "Oh, no, there is no problem out there. No, no; no problem out there", except that the workers at Northern Telecom are being laid off, as are the workers at Canada Packers. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those individuals do not have a chauffeur-driven limousine to take them to the UI counter, which is where they are going to be come Monday morning.
Because Mr. de Grandpre and the Minister for International Trade are unable to see a problem, there is no problem.


An Hon. Member:: We were asked to let the people decide, and the people decided.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, Parliament must have the opportunity to exercise its right to examine these issues properly. The obdurate, dense Parliamentary Secretary opposite asks why Parliament should be given the opportunity to debate the issue fully. Well, that is the reason. It is only through Parliament that ordinary Canadians can exercise their right to be heard. It is only in this forum that ordinary Canadians can have their problems addressed.


An Hon. Member:: Tories do not care.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that is why this Government is moving closure; that is why this Government is proposing that the rules be suspended; that is why this Government is trying to shut this place down. It is a Government that is not interested in listening to ordinary Canadians. The great paranoia of Hon. Members opposite is that ordinary Canadians might in fact have the opportunity to be heard.
It is for that reason that we on this side are engaging in this debate. We are fighting for the right of Parliament to continue its work, to operate as a forum in which there can be an open, honest and clear dialogue on the issues facing Canadians.
In defending the rights of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, for that type of debate, we are defending the rights of all Canadians. Ordinary Canadians do not have access to the boardrooms of the nation. They do not have million dollar propaganda budgets. They do not have fancy high-powered friends. All they have is a democratically elected forum where their views can be put forth.
December 16, 1988

The real victim of the Free Trade Agreement will be this place, this Chamber. While there are people being thrown on scrap-heaps and communities closed down, ultimately the most serious casualty of the FTA will be this place, inasmuch as this Government has treated this Parliament, this Flouse of Commons, with great disdain and arrogance-and it does so because it fears this place. It fears what will be heard in this place.
We have had four years of efforts to bring down the curtain totally and completely, to close the doors, to try to conceal and hide the real facts, and we are starting a new round.
We on this side concede that the majority opposite will exercise its will. This Government no longer has a conscience such that it is moved to respond to the kind of balance of interests of which I have spoken.
I heard one of my colleagues earlier today commenting on the privilege of having the opportunity to stand up in a civil society and debate issues. The problem we face today is that we no longer have a Government that recognizes civility. It does not recognize that Parliament works through a proper and appropriate balancing of the rules, conventions, practices, and understandings on the part of all Members. Parliament does not work on the basis of the raw, naked exercise of power. Rather, it works on the basis that political Parties will serve, in turn, in government and opposition, with the recognition that the rights of Parliament have to be protected by all in order that it can function properly on behalf of the people.
That is a lesson that went unlearned during the first term of this Government, and it is one that continues to go unlearned today.
It is for all of those reasons that we on this side are going to fight as strongly and as mightily as we can against the hijacking of this place. The Tories treat Parliament in the way that they treat ordinary Canadians; that is to say, with arrogance and with indifference. We are now going right back to where we were immediately before the election? This is a government for those of privilege and power and one which is not prepared to serve the interests of the majority of Canadians, the same majority which voted against this Government in the last election.
We will do all that we can to ensure that the rules of this House are preserved. In that way, when the day comes that there is in place a government that is
Extension of Sittings
prepared to act in the interests of ordinary Canadians, this Parliament will have the opportunity to serve those interests in the appropriate fashion.
We will support this amendment, and we do so because we can do nothing but have pity for the poor organization of this Government, a government which failed in its ability to manage this House yesterday and had to be bailed out. Never let it be said that Liberals are not charitable and generous, even to Tories. We will help the poor Deputy House Leader (Mr. Lewis) out of his misery and show him how to make the House work in a proper way. However I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the motion that caused all of this was totally unnecessary. Had the Government permitted Parliament to take its natural course, leading to a full parliamentary debate, including committee hearings, in respect of the FTA, it would not have had to resort to the kind of parliamentary terrorism inherent in its motion.
We on this side want to have the opportunity to put on the record one more time exactly what this Government is doing to distort and destroy this Chamber, a Chamber which is so essential to all Canadians.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to be able to stand in my place today and participate in this debate, this being the second time I have had the opportunity to participate in the debates of this House.
As a new Member, I have the greatest respect for this House. I have always considered it to be a forum for open debate and thoughtful reflection, resulting in well formed and well thought out legislation. As well, it is an institution that takes into account the rights and opinions of minority groups.
While I continue to have respect for this Parliament, I must say that, having completed my first week, I am disappointed with some of the Members, and particularly some of the Members opposite. Certainly I continue to have the greatest respect for those Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the democratic process, who are interested in engaging in open debate. I am, however, disappointed in the senior members of the Government who are ramming Bill C-2 down our throats, to use an oft-quoted phrase.
Having sat in this House for one week, I have seen the Government acting as a street bully, and this is a view of government to which I have not been privy heretofore.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
1 wish every Canadian had the opportunity, as I have, to sit in this House for a week and see it from this view. It is a different view from the one you see on television. I know if every Canadian had a chance to sit in this House for a period of time, they would have a different view of the Conservative Party. Certainly the Conservatives would be having a different view of this House because they would not be on the government side but on the opposition side and in much fewer numbers.
1 have watched the games and the charades being played in this House and it is disappointing. It is disappointing to see Standing Orders being changed seemingly on a moment's notice. This action being taken by the Government not only tramples on the rights of Members on this side of the House, but on the rights of Members on all sides.
We have in this House, I believe, 127 new Members from all Parties. They wish to speak on this issue. Certainly the trade issue was the key issue in the last election. This is the earliest time, 21 days after the election, that a House has been called back. It is very difficult for new Members. First, it is difficult to get used to the rules and procedures of the House. There are new offices to set up, staff to hire, and constituency problems to address. Not only myself and other Members on this side are having difficulty; I know of new Members on the Government side who are having the same difficulty. They have not had an opportunity as in past Parliaments to establish themselves, to get their constituencies set up, and to start dealing with the problems every Member has to deal with.


Mr. McDermid:: On the job training.


Rodney Edward Laporte: It is a new and difficult experience. During the last campaign the trade issue was the most dominant issue. Certainly people in my riding have a number of concerns. They are concerned about the Wheat Board. They are concerned about the future of agriculture and what is going to happen to rural Saskatchewan in the years that lie ahead. Moose Jaw itself, a small city of approximately 36,000 people, is in danger of losing one of its manufacturing plants, that of CanaDay's. That plant employs some 150 people making dress slacks, one of only two in western Canada. Certainly when the tariffs come off textiles, when the trade Bill goes through, and our dollar at some point will very likely reach a par with the American dollar, our advantage is going to be lost. If that happens, CanaDay's is very likely to close. That is something
Moose Jaw cannot afford and something which the people in Moose Jaw do not wish to happen.
We are having a difficult time with the Devine provincial Government in attracting business to Moose Jaw, and we can certainly not afford to lose an industry of that kind. I hope that during the trade debate itself I will have an opportunity to go into detail on that matter.
There seems to me to be no need to be rushing through this legislation, to be forcing this Bill through in such a short period of time. The Americans have said that there is no magic in the January 1 deadline. The deadline can be extended a reasonable amount of time. Certainly it would seem logical to me as a new Member to follow the Standing Orders of the House, to follow the normal procedures, and to allow for an open debate, especially with almost half the House being composed of brand new Members. They would have the opportunity to deal with this debate in the House and with their new constituencies. It seems very unfortunate and I am very disappointed over the manner in which the Government chooses to proceed in this matter.
I would also like to state that I am very proud to be a member of this Party, the New Democratic Party, especially after seeing the way the Conservatives have acted this week in the House. I am very proud to be a member of a Party that had as its Members people like M. J. Coldwell, J. S. Woodsworth, Tommy Douglas, and Stanley Knowles. They believed in and stood up for the fundamental principles of democracy. They believed in fair play and open debate. They also stood up for the right of others to express different points of view. I am also very proud to be a member of a Party with a Leader like the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) who has been following those footsteps and traditions.
In closing, I do hope that in future the Government will take a page from our Party's history book and when Members opposite look at Mr. Knowles sitting in the House, they will remember that tradition of democracy and apply it to this House in the days and months and years to come.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak for the first time in this new Parliament. I want to begin by congratulating you and your colleagues who serve us so ably and so well in the chair. It is a difficult job and we as Members traditionally have appreciated it, and certainly this case is no exception.
December 16, 1988

I also want to take a couple of moments to welcome to the House of Commons our new colleagues like the Hon. Member who just spoke. We are glad to see them with us and we look forward to working with them and against them over the next four years.
I would also like very quickly to say thank you to the people of the Peace country for returning me to this august institution for another term. I appreciate their vote of confidence in me.
1 find the debate we are involved in just a bit unusual, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about you, but I watched the television on the night of the election and for the next couple of days and it was very apparent to me, as 1 think it was to all Canadians, that both opposition Parties indicated that the people had spoken. The Canadian people had expressed their confidence in this Government, but in addition they had expressed their opinion on the issue of free trade.
As a result, I think it was a fair assumption on the part of Canadians, as well as Members of Parliament, that we were going to proceed with the free trade debate, that things would go quite rapidly, and that we would all be home in time for Christmas, a time which is always so special for each and every one of us, a time we want to spend with our families and friends.
In reality, with a little bit of hindsight and a couple of letters that accidentally ended up in the papers, we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where we are forced to have almost a new hearing, a whole new process, on the question of free trade.
We heard comments this morning that the motion we are dealing with at this particular moment is Draconian, that we as a Government are terrible, and that we do not like the rules of Parliament. It has been said that we manipulate, twist and turn, that we do all these terrible things, and that we are hijacking Parliament. That is what the Hon. Member from Winnipeg said a little while ago.
However, Mr. Speaker, you know very well that in fact we are doing no such thing. That is nothing more than a bunch of rhetoric designed to stir up Canadians, just as much as the rhetoric we heard during the campaign was in no way based on fact but simply on emotion, which was the whole design of those particular remarks.
What about the motion that we are debating at this very instant? Is it really Draconian? Is it such a terrible document that we should all be living in fear that this
Extension of Sittings
great democratic institution is in some way harmed and that democracy is suffering? Not at all. In fact, I think it was in the month of June in the previous Parliament that we had the almost identical motion before us. It is a motion that has become acceptable for a Government which has an agenda that it wishes to accomplish within a certain timeframe. It is a perfectly legitimate tool for a Government such as our own to use in these circumstances.
Let us for a couple of moments look at this particular motion. If we look at the first paragraph we see that what it really states is that this House, this Government, is prepared to debate the issue of free trade between now and Friday of next week. We are also prepared to come back and debate this issue the first day back after Boxing Day. In other words, we are prepared to make sure that the House sits and allows time for this issue to go through the process which the rules of Parliament make clear that this particular Bill has to go through.
What does the second paragraph of the motion do? It is very simple. All it does is extend the hours so that we no longer adjourn in the early evening but continue on until midnight of every night. What for? It is to allow the new Members to express themselves on the issue of free trade. We are not cutting off debate; we are expanding it. We are giving more time.


John Horton McDermid: Twenty-four hours.


Albert Glen Cooper: My colleague reminds me that it is a total of 24 extra hours. Does that sound like a Government that is trying to cut off debate? To the contrary, it sounds like a government that has an agenda, a government that has a goal and a purpose. That is why the Government was re-elected. It was because Canadians saw in this Government a government which knew the kind of leadership and direction that it wanted to give to this country. That is why Canadians expressed their confidence in us. That is why we are once again back on this side of the Chamber, rather than on the other side from where we hear some of this complaining.
The second paragraph allows for an extension of time to make sure that all those Members who wish to speak on the issue of free trade have that opportunity.
What does the third paragraph do? Is it Draconian? Is it a terrible paragraph that limits the rights of Members of Parliament? Does it somehow destroy and undermine our democracy? No. All it really does is state that we will continue with our regular midday breaks. Is that a terrible thing for the Government to do? How

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
terrible we are that we would allow this kind of behaviour in an institution such as this? It is a mockery. The kind of rhetoric that we heard just a few minutes ago is silly. It was said that we were ramming all these things through Parliament, that we were not giving Members of Parliament a chance to be heard. If Members want to take the time to read the motion, to look at what it says, they will see that we are giving them every opportunity to speak on this Bill at this time.
What about the fifth paragraph? Is it another terrible paragraph? As you know, Mr. Speaker, the standard way of dealing with any particular piece of legislation is to send it to a legislative committee. What happens in a legislative committee? A legislative committee has a restricted number of members. As a result of that, at the committee stage only a certain number of people will have the opportunity to participate in those hearings and in that work at that particular time.
What have we allowed in this particular motion? We have asked that the Bill be referred to Committee of the Whole. In other words, every Member of Parliament who wishes to take his or her seat in this place can participate in the committee stage of this particular Bill. Is that not a terrible thing for us to do? Plow terrible is it that we would treat the Opposition this way, that we would give all of them the same opportunity as would be afforded to the few if we had a legislative committee?
No, Mr. Speaker, it is not at all some Draconian measure. It is a very reasonable, responsible way of dealing with the legislation that we have before us and making sure that the legislation is passed in due time so that we can get on with the agenda that we as a Government want to present for the Canadian people.
The last paragraph deals with the question of Royal Assent and what will happen with this particular motion. Is it left wide open so that things will go on forever? Not at all. In fact, with the amendment that was just tabled by my colleague from Calgary, this particular motion will die the very moment that Bill C-2, the Bill relating to free trade, receives Royal Assent. Then, we can come back and begin once again to operate under the rules of the Elouse of Commons. These are rules which this Government took so much time and energy reforming to ensure that Members of Parliament on all sides of the House, Members of Parliament who were not necessarily members of the Cabinet, would have an opportunity to have some real force, some power, some influence in this institution. It was this Government that brought in those reforms. It was this Government that cared enough for the backbench MPs in this House to bring forward those reforms.
This is not a government that discards the rules. This is not a government that acts in a Draconian fashion. This is not a government which hates democracy. This is a government which has demonstrated by its actions over the last four years, and will continue to demonstrate over the next four years, that it is a Government that not only cares about the people of Canada. It wants to provide an opportunity for Members of Parliament to function in this institution and to be valuable and viable workers within it.
There is another point that has to be made on this particular situation we find ourselves in today. This is not normal type of legislation. It was not introduced a few days ago for the first time. This legislation was before this House on a previous occasion just prior to the last election. In fact, it was not that the Bill was just introduced and then totally forgotten. No, that is not the case. We took that legislation through stage after stage as is required by parliamentary tradition. That Bill went through all of the stages, I believe with the exception of Royal Assent, giving members of this institution a chance to speak to the Bill, to participate in committee hearings, and to participate in several votes. It is not a new piece of legislation. We are not going into new territory. We are not opening up new ground. We are simply repeating what has happened already.
This is a government which has an agenda, a government which has some goals for the Canadian people, a Government which wants to lead this country to a strong economy, to opportunity for our young people in areas of research and development. That is what we want to get on with. There is no need for us to go through a long, drawn out exercise just simply to satisfy the needs of the Opposition. Those are needs that exist internally, not needs that have anything to do with the subject, but of political partisan needs to which I want to refer in a couple of moments.
In fact, the reason we are involved in this particular debate today is simply because of what is happening on the other side of the House. It has nothing to do with the question of free trade. If it did, those Members would recognize very quickly that the motion we are debating right now gives them every opportunity to express their concerns and make their points. No, that is not the real reason, it is not on the question of free trade.
December 16, 1988

You will recall what happened on the night of the election, Mr. Speaker. We had members of the Opposition, representatives of both Parties, telling the Canadian people that they accepted the decision of the Canadian electorate. Something happened between then and now that has made them all excited. It has made them say: "We have to debate this deal. What is the rush? Let's take our time. Let's drag this out". It all has to do with Bob White.
Bob White, as we have since discovered, likes to write letters. Not only does he like to write letters, he likes to put them in the mail. We have discovered that not only does he put them in the mail to the people to whom he addresses them, the person whose name is at the beginning of that letter, but he sends them to the public through the newspapers and the media. We know what happened then.
All of a sudden this secret communication, this important discussion between the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and Mr. White, was all over the front pages of the newspapers. What was Mr. White saying? He was saying that the NDP had rolled over and played dead in the election and that the Liberals had been able to co-opt them. As a result, the Liberals have more seats than the New Democratic Party, and that will never do.
Here we have this public criticism out there where everyone can see it and suddenly the lights go on. Those Members could not come into the House and stick to what they had said the night of the election, that the Canadian people had decided.
Suddenly after this letter there was a change of heart. Suddenly we found that members of the New Democratic Party had to stand up to their full height-and it is an expression I am well familiar with, Mr. Speaker-and fight. They had to prove that Bob White was wrong, even though Mr. White was part of their campaign team and even though he sat in on all of their meetings. The New Democratic Party did not like Bob White criticizing its Leader and its Party. Now we know what has happened with the New Democratic Party.
What about our colleagues, the Liberals? What is the situation with the Liberals? Those of us who have been here for a while know that during the election they fight one another. When the election is over the Liberals and the New Democratic Party still fight each other. Would it not look terrible to see the NDP fighting tooth and nail for its constituents and its voters and the Liberals sitting on their hands? Of course it would. They could
Extension of Sittings
not let that happen. That could not possibly be allowed to take place. In fact we have a catch-22 situation. The NDP is going to make sure it proves Bob White wrong, and the Liberals are going to make sure the NDP does not steal the limelight as the Liberals were successful in stealing it from that Party during the election.
Fortunately, the Canadian public was watching very closely and it chose our Party because of our vision for this country. It let the other two Parties fight it out between them as to who would be the Official Opposition. That is what it is really all about.
It is about a battle that is going on within their caucus and within their Parties and it has spilled out on to the floor of the House of Commons. As a result there is the possibility that a grinch may in fact steal Christmas.
None of us want that to happen. We really want to proceed with this legislation, but we want to ensure that all the people in this House who wish to speak on the issue of free trade will have that opportunity. That brings me right back to where I began, with this motion which the Government very wisely and very generously tabled here in the House of Commons. We want all of these people to have a chance to speak. We do not like to see fights and anger within the NDP caucus. We do not like to see tension between Bob White and the Hon. Leader of the NDP. That worries us. We do not want to see that happen. We want to ensure those Members have a chance to come into this House and express their concerns on the issue of free trade.
There has been an election since the last time we dealt with this legislation. The reason we have to go through it again is that it did not receive Royal Assent. That is why we have to go through the procedure at this point to make this legislation a reality.
The Canadian people chose this Party to form the government. They chose us because of our vision for the country. They chose us because they saw us creating jobs and opportunity for the Canadian people. They saw us as the Party offering a positive direction for this country. That is why we were chosen.
In fact, we are in a majority position today, which is a very unusual circumstance. As Canadians know, it is not common to have back-to-back majorities elected in this country. When the Canadian people do that, when they elect back-to-back majorities, it is because of the confidence they see in that Party. That was demonstrated very clearly by the very fact that this Party has now formed the government for a second time.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
By electing us Canadians have accepted the free trade deal. Canadians have accepted the leadership of this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and this Government. Canadians have said: "Let's get on with free trade, let's get on with the business at hand, and let's get on with the kind of vision this Government expressed to the Canadian people".


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary procedure is an essence of our parliamentary democracy. Indeed, I am honoured and privileged as a new Member of this distinguished Parliament to be sitting in the company of Mr. Stanley Knowles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rey D. Pagtakhan: He showed us that we could use procedure to achieve the proper objective. Indeed, Parliament is to serve all our people including those who chose not to elect this Government. The people of Winnipeg North have given me their ears. They have opened their eyes and entrusted me with their minds and hearts that I may be their voice in Parliament to speak for their concerns.
Parliament is the forum, as has been said, for the voices of all Canadians, including those, I repeat, who did not vote for this Government. Any threat, therefore, to be held over our parliamentary process must be resisted and the treatment is adequate debate. It will be an historic mistake if new Members of Parliament now and in the future are deprived of the right to speak for their constituencies. If that happens, this Parliament becomes a Parliament of government, not the Parliament of all Parties representing all people across the country.
I am beginning to learn, and he who says that he knows everything, for him it is the beginning of educational death. Citation 16 of Beauchesne's the rules and forms of the House of Commons of Canada reads as follows:
"Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed
by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of
Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without
with they could not discharge their functions-"
I underscore the latter part of it. If we allow the suspension of our rules, if we do not allow Members of Parliament to speak, then we will not be able to discharge our duty to our people.
Citation 21 of the same authority provides that "the most fundamental privilege of the House as a whole is to
establish rules of procedure for itself and to enforce them". I recognize the right of Parliament to suspend debate from time to time, but it must be used only seldom if there is truly a compelling national reason. That has not been demonstrated.
It is true the Free Trade Agreement was introduced and passed by the Thirty-third Parliament. We must recognize, however, that the Thirty-fourth Parliament is different. It is different for a variety of reasons. We must recognize, as well, that although the Government was returned, it was returned with a remarkable reduction in its majority, something which the Government has failed to point out honestly to the people of Canada.
On the matter of the Free Trade Agreement, which matter I would have been prevented from saying even a few words on, I would like to say that the people of Winnipeg North are very concerned, very concerned indeed, that the health care and social programs of our country, for our youth, and for our seniors, will be jeopardized. On that basis-and I call this to the attention of Government-about 75 per cent of the sum total of our constituents voted that the Free Trade Agreement not be passed.
I recognize the reality of parliamentary democracy. I recognize that the Government has been given the mandate to implement its policies, but the Government must be honest. It has to recognize, as well, the right of the Opposition to introduce amendments, to point out the evils, the vaguenesses and weaknesses that the Free Trade Agreement has been shown to have.
It was an American who said that the Free Trade Agreement was the beginning of economic union and that economic union was the beginning of political union. The inescapable conclusion is that when political union happens, we will have lost our sovereignty and independence.
It has been said earlier-and I echo the position of my Party and the position of my Leader-that we must ensure not only the success of our economy but also the economic health of our people whose jobs may be lost. Therefore, job assistance programs must be ensured.
It is the essence of any quality program that the program must be reviewed. Our Party's submission that there be a parliamentary committee and that this Parliament oversees the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement is not only sound but is imperative.
December 16, 1988

Now I would like to touch on the weakness of the dispute settlement mechanism that the Free Trade Agreement hopes and claims is good. I would like to read very briefly the words of an authority, Mr. Bruce Fisher of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Halifax, a policy analyst in the trade policy division:
"While the dispute settlement mechanism of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been widely claimed to be the solution to bilateral trade disputes, in reality it is a complex and one-sided system which may prove detrimental to Canadian interests."
I emphasize that it is detrimental to Canadian interests. Is the Government not concerned about this? I continue:
"The maximum time allotted for the resolution of disputes is excessively long. . . Almost all panel decisions are unenforceable."
On the review of trade remedy laws, the same authority states:
"A "binational" panel is created upon the request of one party. Panelists-all of whom must be American or Canadian-are chosen from a permanent roster. The panel is empowered to review changes in countervail or anti-dumping statutes for violations of GATT laws. Although free to rule for or against either country, and with no waiver of GATT panel rights, the entire process can require as long as 195 days. Even then the offending party cannot be forced to enact changes. After an additional ninety days of "consultation" and a 9-month waiting period, the other country is free to retaliate or to terminate the FTA with sixty days written notice."
That tells of the weakness of the dispute settlement mechanism. If I might continue-


John Horton McDermid: Which one?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: When his time comes, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may speak. On the future of redefining subsidies, the same authority states:
"Canada has committed itself to successfully negotiating a definition for "subsidy" within 7 years . . . The US views these negotiations as ending Canada's extensive subsidy practices, including regional development... As a strongly litigious society, the US will never cede its right to initiate trade remedy actions. Indeed, it would be almost impossible to redefine subsidies so as to exclude Canadian assistance programs."
I would like the Government to listen to this:
"At the end of seven years, a future U.S. government could deliver an ultimatum: cease subsidization or face termination of the agreement. After seven years of industrial restructuring Canada would have little room to maneuver during the course of such negotiations... Undoubtedly, Canada's trade negotiators saw the danger in this caveat. But, strongly anti-subsidy themselves, they saw little harm in its inclusion."
Then we come to the worst of the status quo:
"Ironically, the FTA magnifies the flaws and errors of the status quo..." Also, "security of access" for Canadian exports to the United States remains as elusive as ever."
I continue:
Extension of Sittings
"The next 10 years will establish that the changes to the status quo are marginal and probably damaging."
I rise on behalf of the constituents of Winnipeg North. I know I have the trust of their minds and hearts.
I am determined in this Parliament to speak for them and to resist any attempt on the part of the Government to violate the spirit of the parliamentary process. I will defend the right of the youth to be heard. I will defend the right of seniors to be served. I will defend the right of all Canadians to be heard and to be served.
If my privilege as a Member of Parliament is potentially threatened by a suspension of rules, then we will have surrendered democracy. Co-operation is not surrender. Co-operation is a challenge to the majority, the Government, to see the heart and soul of the minority, the total Opposition, who in this instance represent the majority of Canadians across the country.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to address the House today. It is my first opportunity to make a speech since the election of November 21, when the voters of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell again gave me a mandate to represent them in the House of Commons. My first words will be to express my thanks and gratitude to the voters of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for the support they gave me in the election on November 21.
Mr. Speaker, it has often been said that it is an honour to be a Member of Parliament. The greatest honour, the greatest privilege that can be given to a Canadian is to represent his or her fellow citizens in the Parliament of our country and for me, the honour is even greater when a Member is sent to the House of Commons with the support of a large majority of the voters. The voters of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell supported me with about 74 per cent of the vote in my riding. So I am extremely honoured with the confidence they have given me.
Mr. Speaker, the voters of Glengarry-Prescott- Russell spoke in this election. It is true that the Canadian people chose to re-elect a Conservative Government, but it would be false to claim that Canadians all said yes to free trade. If the Government claims that a vote for the Conservative Party is a vote for free trade, it would therefore be equally true to say that a vote against the Conservative Party is a vote against free trade. Of

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
course, not all those who voted for the Conservative Party are for free trade, not and those who voted for an Opposition Member are against it. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that this election was almost a referendum and one must at least assume that most people who voted in this election nevertheless expressed serious concerns about this trade agreement negotiated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

We should ask ourselves how we got into this mess in which the Government has placed us today. Why is it that we are here a few days before Christmas just starting the debate on the trade deal? We started it for an hour or so yesterday. The Government should have completed its agenda in time for the January 1 deadline that it placed upon itself.
Here is how we got into this mess, Mr. Speaker. First, the Government decided on the strategy last year that it would make the least amount of information available to the Canadian people.


An Hon. Member:: Wrong.


Don Boudria: That is not wrong. That is entirely correct. There were leaked cabinet documents. The Hon. Member should pay attention; we will give him a copy of those leaked cabinet documents later. The documents express a strategy of communicating the Government's message while withholding as much information as possible and keeping the debate low key. That was the strategy.
What the Government failed to realize was that by keeping or attempting to keep the debate low key and by attempting to withhold information from the Canadian public, the Government achieved instead a prolonged debate because people were craving for information about the trade deal. It took longer to get information, but the people eventually got what they were looking for.
The Government meanwhile manufactured millions of dollars of propaganda through pamphlets, leaflets, flyers, and video clips. I was even sent a cute little video cassette. I put it on the VCR machine in my office and played it. It had pictures of cabinet Ministers telling each how smart they were and just how great this country would be under free trade, but not explaining anything about what was in the deal. The Government spent over $30 million on that kind of propaganda.
As well the Government printed an original or a preliminary draft of the trade deal. Sometime later there was a final version, so there was no use for the first draft. What did the Government do with all the material that had been printed? It was recycled.
When we recycle paper do you know what the converted product ends up being, Mr. Speaker? Sure enough, we have millions of dollars worth of recycled free trade material which ended up in-you guessed it- toilet paper. I raised the issue on the floor of the House of Commons. I did not get much in the way of response from the Government. Of course, I never do get much of a response from the Government across the way. Most of the time the Government does not know the answer, but whenever it knows the answer it fails to hold itself accountable to the people of Canada.
In any case Canadians wanted information. The Government was feeding propaganda through leaflets and flyers. There was little information of substance, no background studies of what the damage would be or even the alleged benefits. The Government was not giving any more information than it had to give.
Early in the summer the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) indicated to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) very clearly that the Government had no mandate to negotiate, to sign, or to put into effect this trade deal. After all, it was the Prime Minister who said in 1983, that free trade was like sleeping with an elephant. "Everything was fine until the elephant rolled over and then," said the Prime Minister, "you are a dead man."
Two years later the Prime Minister had this conversion on the way back from the Shamrock Summit. He wanted a free trade deal but he had not received a mandate from the people of Canada. Given that he had no such mandate, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition pointed out very astutely, I might add, that the only thing to do was for the Prime Minister to call an election right there and then. The Leader of the Opposition said to the Prime Minister and to his Government: "Look, folks, you want this trade deal. Go to the people now, get a mandate. If and when you come back, we will debate the Bill in the House of Commons, and the Senate will not object any further".
Of course, as usual the Prime Minister did not listen to anything. He did not call an election at that point. He woke up one morning in October, I believe it was October 1. Perhaps he had had a walk in the fog the night before, or something like that, but on that Saturday morning the Prime Minister took a stroll over to Government House and asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and to call an election for November 21.1 saw it on my own television set.
December 16, 1988

We fought the election. It was a bitter and tough one for all of us. The Government was feeding the people more propaganda, and we were telling our side of the story. People ultimately had to make their choice. Until a week or so before the election it was quite clear that the choice was going to be to defeat the trade deal.
In came the big guns to the rescue with all their money. They bought newspaper ads, many ads to attempt to discredit people on an individual basis, when they felt that they were losing. The Government, sadly I must say, won the election of November 21.
The next day the Prime Minister woke up and decided "Wait a minute, I promised Ronnie Reagan that I would have the trade deal signed by January 1. That only leaves me 41 days. What am I going to do now?" Tie decided that he was going to rush the Chief Electoral Officer, and everyone else to get the writs in as quickly as possible, to recall Parliament for three weeks hence, and to present what he claimed was a Throne Speech. Actually, it was nothing of the sort. It was a 90-second document in which the Prime Minister said: "I was elected, now I want my trade Bill". The Governor General read that to us, and we were called back into the House.
We listened to the so-called Throne Speech, but we are not convinced that the Prime Minister still has a mandate to negotiate the deal, to adopt the Bill in Parliament, and to do so within a seven or eight day timeframe.
Let us pretend that the Prime Minister told us the facts as they are, which sometimes is questionable. Let us pretend that he gave us all the information when he said that this is the greatest and most important trading agreement ever signed by any two countries on the face of the earth. If it is so important, would it not be true that it should be studied by Parliament for more than five or six sitting days of the House of Commons? If it is as important as the Prime Minister tells us it is, why are we not allowed to do what we would do with any other Bill?
We should have a thorough debate on second reading and send it to a legislative committee. I am sure you know this, Mr. Speaker, but for the information of some of our newer colleagues, if it were a very important Bill we would have a committee that would hear witnesses. It would hear witnesses across the country and have meetings in various provinces and the territories in order that we could listen to what the people had to say about a particular legislative initiative. If that is true of any
Extension of Sittings
important Bill, should it not be even more so when we are talking about this Bill which is supposed to be the most important piece of trading legislation ever signed by two countries on the face of the earth?
Obviously, the Government never had in mind to have a full debate on this issue. On the very first day the House was sitting the Government sought the consent of the House to suspend the rules duly adopted by Parliament. I have in my hand the Standing Orders of the House of Commons dated November 1988. Incorporated in those rules are the days of sitting of Parliament, the process that we must use, and the parliamentary procedure. The Government even flawed its motion and had to start it over. Today we gave consent that the Government could amend its motion. It was so badly flawed that it probably would not have worked at all to start with. There are still things in the motion brought before us that I question. For instance, it states:
"That, for the duration of this session or until otherwise ordered, the provisions of Standing Order 73(1) and (2) respecting committee stage of Public Bills be suspended-"
What does that mean? Does it mean that Standing Order 73(1) which states that we will have amendments to the Bill after second reading is now suspended? Does it mean that we could move an amendment at second reading after this motion is through, that we could actually amend a Bill at second reading stage as opposed to committee stage? Perhaps it means that we could amend the Bill at third reading on the floor of the House. The provision in the rules that has been suspended tells us where and when we can make amendments to the Bill. I say to government Members that they had better look again at that motion they brought to the attention of the House.
The Government has stated that there is a precedent for doing this, that it was done once before, but it is not quite what the Government did before. I know that the Chair has already ruled on it. Notwithstanding the ruling of the Chair which determined that this motion was in order-and I am not questioning that-I submit to the Speaker that it is far more strict, far larger in scope, and far more important than the one we were dealing with last summer.
The motion that we had before us last summer was for the purpose of one piece of legislation only and for a specified period of time. I know an amendment was introduced today to amend this badly flawed motion. The final paragraph states:

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
"That immediately upon the House returning from the Senate
after the first Royal Assent-"
When is the first Royal Assent? It could be at any time. The Government could pass 15 Bills, not give Royal Assent to any of them, and ask for Royal Assent on all of them at the same time. The motion further states:
"-a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice or debate, a motion to rescind this Order."
It states that "a Minister of the Crown may propose, but then again he may not. There is no obligation on the part of the Minister to reinstate the rules we have now which are being suspended with this motion today.
Let us assume that the Minister made such a proposal. The House would not have to accept it in any event, because the Government could have a member of Cabinet move the motion to reinstate the rules and have the same parliamentary majority. In other words, if all the other Conservative Members vote against the motion that was proposed by the Minister, we could end up with a situation whereby that suspension of the rules would be here for the rest of this session of Parliament.
That is how badly flawed this motion is. It was probably written on the back of an envelope by the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis), perhaps on the way back from the men's executive washroom or wherever, trying to find a process to deal with and get rid of this Bill immediately, which is what the Government wants. Why do they want this? Lor no other reason than to accommodate a political agenda.
In March, 1985, you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in Quebec City there was what we now know of as the Shamrock Summit. At the Shamrock Summit the Prime Minister promised the President of the United States that we would have a trade deal. In the beginning, it was not called the free trade deal because he pooh-poohed those words.
I have a copy of a story written by Martin Cohn, a well respected journalist who works for the well respected Toronto Star. In that article the Prime Minister is quoted as saying: "Trade enhancement I'd go along with-not free trade. Trade enhancement with all of our partners is what we want". This was stated by the Prime Minister at the Shamrock Summit.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, it was during the Shamrock Summit that we had the Prime Minister and
the President of the United States appear on our television sets singing When Irish Eyes Are Smiling. My television set has not been the same since.
We heard the Prime Minister and the President of the United States agree that we should try to improve our trading relations. But even then, the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "Trade enhancement with all of our partners is what we want."
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the position of the Liberal Party. It is our position that we should be working toward the lowering of tariffs on a multilateral basis, and not the type of binational agreement represented by the Canada-U.S. Tree Trade Agreement-and a flawed one at that. It is an agreement under which we gave away the store and got nothing in return.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the Conservative Government did not properly negotiate this agreement, the Conservative Government needlessly put off the elections, and then in an attempt to meet its needs, stick to its political agenda and live up to its promises-the Prime Minister's promises to the President of the United States-the Prime Minister now expects us to accommodate him and give him the green light to have this legislation adopted after only a few days' debate.
Mr. Speaker, that is not what we intend to do. The Canadian people have spoken, the Canadian people have elected Government Members, but quite a few Canadians also voted for other candidates. The role of the Government is to govern, my role as Opposition Member is to oppose and to propose constructive amendments as we are wont to do. I have every intention of continuing to do just that.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I was very proud to have been elected to this House of Commons, proud to have been given the opportunity to participate in this democracy in an active way.
The electorate of the riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands is very serious about its politics, very serious about participating in our democracy.
December 16, 1988

I was voted in with a large majority, with a voter turn-out of 85 per cent. My constituents took the issues in the last election seriously, and they expect me to work hard on their behalf, and I intend to do just that.
My introduction to this House over the course of the past week, however, has left me profoundly disillusioned. 1 came to this House with the expectation that 1 would be taking part in one of the greatest debates in this century. And what does my first speech have to be about? It is about the arrogance of this Government in suspending its own rules of operation.
If we do not have rules in a democracy, we have nothing. The arrogance of this Government is to be deplored.
On the night of the election, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked about a period of reconciliation, and this is what we have now. Is this what he calls reconciliation?


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Lynn Hunter: It is certainly not reconciliation in my estimation. The motion under debate represents a brutal attack on our fundamental traditions of democracy. The more people know about it, the more they will come to understand the kind of people they have elected to form the majority in this House. It is a shame that this Government is behaving in this manner.
Some government Members have accused us of obstruction. That is the word that has been used. If "obstruction" means to provide for fair debate of the issues before this House, if that is what they refer to as obstruction, then I can understand why they can use a tactic such as the suspension of the rules of the House.
We must have debate. The Free Trade Agreement constitutes the whole reason for my becoming a candidate in the last election, and now we are not to be allowed to debate it. Closure is to be introduced.
My constituents elected me to speak out forcefully on their behalf in opposition to the Free Trade Agreement and to try to get the best deal for them.
The fact that the over-all election result meant that I would have a front-row seat to this Government implementing an agreement which I find so abhorrent meant that my election to this House was a bitter-sweet victory.
We must press this Government to adhere to the traditions and the rules that have governed our democracy. We must bring this Government to its senses.
If we do not conduct our business in this House pursuant to those rules, we are going down a very dangerous road.
Extension of Sittings
Prior to my election to this House, I worked in international development, and in that capacity I had occasion to witness the violations against human rights in a number of countries, countries where the Governments had no interest in representing the ordinary citizens. I thought Canada was different from those places. Well, this week has taught me something new. It has taught me that we are not immune from the types of human rights violations that one sees in other countries. It can happen here.
We have a tradition of democracy in this country, and we have to defend that tradition of democracy. With all of my being, I will defend it. The people of Saanich- Gulf Islands elected me to speak out forcefully, and I am proud to be able to do that today.
It is my hope that the next occasion on which I speak in this House, it will be in a substantive way in opposition to the free trade Bill.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by welcoming to the House the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands (Ms. Hunter). I compliment her on her speech. While I do not agree with very much of what she has said, and while I would have preferred to have heard her predecessor, Pat Crofton, I must say that she did acquit herself well. She spoke with conviction.
In addition to welcoming to the Chamber the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, I should also like to welcome the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Pagtakhan), who I think has provided us with one of the better speeches from the opposition side. I compliment him on what he has said.
The Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands berated the Government for its arrogance. In fact, arrogance is when the losers try to prevent the winners from tabling their legislation.
As has already been said, the election is over. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), on election night, conceded that the Government had won, that it had a mandate, and that he would not try to stop it from introducing and passing its legislation.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), both on election night and the day following, made the point that the Government had a clear mandate to table its legislation and that his Party had no right to hold it up.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
That is what we heard on election day and the day following. What do we now find? We now find that those who are in the minority are saying that they want to debate the legislation, while at the same time they are doing all that they can to prevent the Government from tabling its legislation so that it can be debated.
That, Mr. Speaker, is arrogance. We do not need to be lectured by the Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands about arrogance, when all that we are trying to do is fulfil the mandate given to us by the Canadian people. That is all we are trying to do. Far from what the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has said, the motion that is before us today is to apply to one Bill only. It has a sunset clause. It will expire when this legislation is passed. It is not Draconian. It is not extreme. It is functional and designed to let the Government fulfil its mandate.
As I said before, repeating what others have said, the election is over. We are now here to work and fulfil the mandate the Canadian people have given to us.
I now want to draw on our experience of a few years ago in this Chamber and the work done by the committee headed by the former Hon. Member for St. John's East, James McGrath, now the Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland. It was commonly called the McGrath committee. I was a member of that committee, as was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Transcona (Mr. Blaikie), at that time the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Birds Hill, and the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) who sits next to me here. We did much to streamline the proceedings of this House to make it work better, create a better atmosphere, and give backbenchers a more precedent setting role. Members from all Parties agreed with the recommendations.
One of the memorable experiences we as a committee had was travelling to the United Kingdom and hearing witnesses from the House of Commons, the Mother of Parliaments, telling us their experience and how they proceeded with their work. I think all Members here realize that if ever politics were polarized, they are polarized in the United Kingdom.
It is a little like British Columbia that way. We have the Conservative Party on one side and the Labour Party on the other side, and the Leader of the Coalminers' Union is very prominent in the Labour Party. It is a polarized political scene and the practice is that each Party at election time publishes their manifesto. They
line up before the electorate all the things their Party believes in and would institute if elected to office. It is assumed that when that Party is elected it is going to fulfil its manifesto. On election night the public, having elected the majority Party, expect it to bring in legislation that will fulfil that manifesto.
When we on the committee met with officials of Parliament there, the clerks and their deputies, they told us of the practice that when the governing Party brings forward its legislation, it will meet with Leaders of the Opposition Parties. They call it "talking with the usual channels", who in our case would be the House Leaders of the various Parties. "The usual channels had their discussions," they say. There is a very important phrase they use constantly in those discussions and when they report back. They say: "The Government is entitled to its legislation". The Government has presented its manifesto to the people, the people have chosen that manifesto, and the Government is entitled to its legislation. That does not mean the Opposition is not entitled to debate it, raise its opposition, and bring forward amendments. Yet the understanding among the Parties is that it will not be unduly held up.
What is the experience in the U.K.? It does not matter how important the legislation, the debate lasts at most for a few days.


Sergio Marchi: Who rang the bells in 1980?


Benno Friesen: I will come to the ringing of the bells.


Sergio Marchi: Did you charge the Chair as well?


Benno Friesen: When the Hon. Member has something to say, he can stand on his feet and say it.
The debates in the U.K. usually last a few days and the legislation is passed because there is an understanding. The socialist party in England, being a little bit more mature than the two socialist parties here, understands that when democracy speaks the winners are the winners. They are entitled to pass their legislation. Our two socialist parties have not understood that yet. They are still in the adolescent stage when it comes to that kind of democracy.
One of the reasons the Parties here say we are not entitled to our legislation is that we had 43 per cent of the vote, and that is not a clear mandate. Let me point out, for example, that in 1972, we had a general election in the Province of British Columbia. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett), who sits
December 16, 1988

opposite me, became the Premier of British Columbia as a result of the election of 1972. He had a mandate. Did he have a mandate! He brought in auto insurance. 1 remember that campaign when the Hon. Member went around the province. He never said: "I will get you auto insurance for $25". He never said that. What he did say is: "The Government has a fleet of vehicles and do you know what they have? They have coverage for $25. Would it not be nice if you and I could have that kind of insurance?"
He never said that he would provide $25 car insurance, because I think he knew he could not do that. However, once he got his mandate, boy, did we get auto insurance. Not for $25, but for about ten times $25. Something like $250.
We got auto insurance on the basis of his mandate. What was that mandate?


Albert Glen Cooper: He had a majority.


Benno Friesen: Yes, 39.59 per cent of the vote.


Albert Glen Cooper: What?


Benno Friesen: That gave him a mandate to give us auto insurance in British Columbia. Wow! At least we did four points better than that. We got 43 per cent and that ought to give us a mandate.
Not only did he give us auto insurance, he gave us a land freeze. I remember the demonstrations around the province during that land freeze. It escalated the price of land for developers so they could make a healthy profit. Those people who are always fighting land developers lined the pockets of land developers during that land freeze. How did he do that? With that overwhelming majority of 39.59 per cent.
We had bumper stickers all over British Columbia during that time, because he ruined the mining industry, which read: "Welfare, B.C.'s No. 1 Industry". He did that all on a mandate of 39.59 per cent.
Did he have a mandate for that? Do we have a mandate today? I think the Government is entitled to its legislation.
I was elected in 1974, when we were campaigning on wage and price controls. It so happened that the Liberals were elected under Mr. Trudeau with a majority of about 43 per cent. Did that prevent him from bringing in the six and five program a year later? Not at all, even though he campaigned for exactly the opposite. I suspect the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) supported him. He campaigned on exactly the opposite. He got a mandate of 43 per cent. That did not stop him one bit.
Extension of Sittings
In 1980, Mr. Trudeau was elected again with no overwhelming mandate. It was less than 50 per cent. What did we get out of that? The bell ringing. Why? Because of the National Energy Program. Had he told us in the campaign that he was going to give back-in provisions for Petro-Canada? Did he tell us at that time that he was going to confiscate lands? Not at all. But on the basis of 43 per cent he said he had a mandate for the back-in provisions, and to confiscate lands. That is why we had the bell ringing, by the way. It was because the Government was not entitled to legislation it had not campaigned on. The Government did not provide a manifesto that declared forthrightly what it was going to do.
1 come back to what this House ought to be providing by way of tradition, and what the political system in Canada ought to do. It should be to provide a clear message to the Canadian people during the election campaign on what the issues are for each political Party. Our responsibility as political leaders in each campaign is to make sure that our electorate understands clearly what we stand for, if we are to be elected. Believe me, I think all Members in this House in this Thirty-fourth Parliament understand very clearly what they were campaigning for in this election. The public certainly understood. They knew that it was one overriding issue. That was made clear by the Leader of the Opposition when he said: "Give the people the chance. Give them the voice. Give them the choice". The people have spoken. It was one issue. It is our mandate.
Members of the Opposition have every right to stand, to debate, and to outline their principles, their objections, and what they stand for. They have not only the right; they have the duty to do that. We are trying to provide them with that opportunity.
That is why we tried to table the legislation as soon as we came into the House. That is why we cannot understand why the Opposition forced two votes at least just on tabling the Bill. That took up an hour that could have been spent on debate of the legislation. It was taken away from us. What we are saying is let us establish the tradition as has been established in the United Kingdom.
As political Parties during the election campaign we decide on our manifesto. We decide what we plan to implement, if we are elected. We must make the

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
message clear as we did during this campaign so that when Parliament comes together after the election the people have a clear understanding of what is before them. Thus when the majority Party takes office it is entitled to its legislation with proper debate, but not obstruction, with clear statements of principle on the part of the Government, on the part of the opposition Parties, but not obstuction, not trying to hijack the system.
I say to Members: Let us debate. Let us debate free trade. Let us state our points. But let us pass the legislation because the people of Canada have decided. Tree trade is the future for Canada. It is the horizon, the hope for the Canadian people. Let us have that legislation.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, as a new Member from St. Boniface, of which I am very proud, what is most important for me and I believe also for all Canadians in the provinces and two territories is that every Member be able to speak on every issue that he or she feels important for his or her constituency, province and country. And that is exactly what I intend to do.
I have just arrived, I am brand new and I admit that I have a lot to learn. For example, what struck me is that the Government has greatly embellished or somewhat exaggerated many things and has sometimes been contradictory.
Let us take one example. When they talk about spreading fear, it seems to me that the Government has contributed to this situation. I remember a press release stating that two million families would suffer if the agreement were not implemented. That is fear-monger-ing!
I heard many times that if the Government were not elected, the dollar would fall, the economy would collapse and our links with the United States and other countries would be weakened. What I found most disturbing during the election campaign was the interference of leaders of other countries. For example, the President of the United States took the liberty to make a speech in which he referred to this agreement. This same gentleman had said after concluding the agreement with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that it was the realization of the American dream. And later on, the Prime Minister of England also meddled in our affairs.
I ask, with all due respect, whether they took the time to read the Agreement. Have they read the Agreement? Have they really understood it? And if they neither read
nor understood it, did they have the right to interfere and make favourable comments on this Agreement?
I would point out that not only the Opposition parties have raised serious questions about this Agreement. Many groups have done so, and here are some of them: an impressive number of women's organizations from almost every part of the country, unions throughout Canada, at least 90 environmental groups, cultural groups throughout Canada and a large number of churches in Canada. I know at least five that have spoken out. Business men and women from small, medium and large companies have also done so.
We are being led to believe that business men and women are all for the agreement, that they want to support it. But that is false. And I sincerely believe that if they did not feel muzzled, they would have spoken up much more loudly about its shortcomings.
1 like to believe that all these people whom 1 have just mentioned, and I identified only a few, are not always wrong.

During the election campaign we were told that a number of issues that we had raised were not at all being threatened, for example, our culture. This is a real concern to a number of groups, for example, our new Canadians, our northern and native peoples, les francophones hors Quebec.
We were told, as well, that our environmental standards would not suffer, that the very serious problem of acid rain and the thinning of the ozone layer which has caused numerous kinds of medical problems would in fact not suffer as a result of this particular accord. We were also informed that our regional development programs would not be hampered in any of serious way. We were told that our control and pricing of our natural resources would not be jeopardized. We were also told many, many times that our social programs would in no way be negatively affected now or in the future. We were told that our working men and women would not lose better jobs than those that might be created by the Mulroney-Reagan agreement, that when they were displaced they would be entitled to assistance and retraining and/or moving and adjustment expenditures.
If all of this is in fact true then what the people of St. Boniface-and I think many people throughout Canada-are really requesting is that that be put down very simply and clearly, not in some isolated or remote section of the accord or in the appendix, but that it be written simply and clearly so that their fears can in fact be removed.
December 16, 1988

Let us tell the one million people who are unemployed today how they will be helped. Let us guarantee to them that that is in fact the case. We have more than four million Canadians who are poor and who are working at minimum wage. Out of those four million there are over one million children who are involved. How well can their condition be improved? If their condition will be improved, let us set it down clearly. How will our seniors, our youth, our women, our northern and native people, and our new Canadians profit from this agreement?
I would suggest that if the Government is really concerned about the people of Canada, the concerns which have been raised by these various groups and some of the concerns I have just pointed out need to be addressed. These concerns need to be reflected in some sort of mechanism such as legislation.
What the people of Canada really want from Government and from the Opposition is the truth about this trade deal. They want us to share honestly with them the information we have. They want copies of the studies the Government has. They want to be told clearly and unequivocally about the difficulties that lie ahead. They want to know if the definition of subsidies will cause serious difficulties. They want to understand more about what is meant by the process of harmonization. They want to identify the industries that will fall or suffer seriously as a result of this agreement.
I think you will agree that our Canadian population is, generally speaking, quite politically literate. They are really vitally interested in the politics of this nation and where we are going as a country. I think they increasingly resent what they perceive as being manipulated, not being given the whole truth, all the facts, being treated as if they are not knowledgeable enough or intelligent enough to understand what we as politicians supposedly understand. In fact, I would suggest that they are insulted and angered by such an approach. I would venture that they will no longer tolerate such treatment.
Canadians want their Government and their opposition Parties to do everything in their power to protect them. Personally, I will do everything in my power to protect all my constituents and all Canadians.


Mr. John F. Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, when I see the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin), as I understand her position to be in the House, I am inclined to begin with a discussion of the Heliport in Victoria, but I will save that for another occasion.
Extension of Sittings
The topic that we are supposed to be discussing, as I understood the Order of the Day, was the Government's decision to use its majority to change the rules of this House. I find it something of a shame that those of us who are making our first speech here are required to speak to this particular topic.
We come here with a deep sense of excitement and honour at the opportunity we have to serve our country in this place. We listened carefully to the Speaker's words yesterday when he ruled in order the motion that we have before us. I am disappointed the Government did not take the very broad hint or strong words the Speaker gave to this House. He said of the motion before us that while it is in order, he found it was a hard case. I quote from page 78 of Hansard:
"I am not pleased as your presiding officer to put this question to the House; but it would be bad law to do otherwise."
He is saying that it is in order for the Government to introduce this motion, but it is a bad motion that is being put.
Let us look at precisely what the Government is asking this House to approve. It is not asking the House to approve the Free Trade Agreement or the enabling legislation. It is asking this House to change the Standing Orders. To paraphrase the Hon. House Leader for the Government (Mr. Lewis), it is changing three rules.
First, it is extending the sittings on four days a week from 6 p.m. to midnight. It is wiping out the rule that the House would have no evening sittings.
Second, it is changing the regular House schedule by extending beyond December 22, this session of Parliament. Normally, we would rise on December 22, and return on January 15.
Third, it changes the requirement that this very complicated piece of legislation go to a smaller legislative committee and provides that it be discussed clause by clause in Committee of the Whole which gives to the Government far greater opportunity to shorten the debate.
Those are the three things that are being proposed by the Government. I come here, I admit, as a new Member, but it is my understanding that the Standing Orders are the constitution of this House. The Standing Orders have been developed over a number of years and, in particular, these provisions were the result of the McGrath reform introduced at the urging of a former member of the Conservative Party and Conservative caucus.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
What is very disappointing is that the Conservatives have so quickly forgotten what it is like to be on this side of the House. It has not taken them very long to take on the demeanour of our friends to the right in the Liberal Party, to behave as the Liberals did for so many years.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John F. Brewin: I had them with me up until now, but I will get them back before we finish, Mr. Speaker. The reforms to the Standing Orders that were adopted, as I understand it, in 1985, represented a very delicate balance between the need for legislative efficiency and the need to ensure that the business of the House had full and careful consideration. That balance was agreed to on all sides of the House. These particular rules play a very important part of that balance.
First, it was the wisdom and experience of the House that evening sittings were not sittings which gave full and proper consideration to issues before the House. All sides agreed that in normal circumstances, in fact in all circumstances apart from closure, those evening sittings were to be done away with. Second, it agreed that there should be fixed times for the House to rise, and for it to rise during the Christmas season has obvious advantages. Not only are the Members themselves in need of and entitled to a break from the business of the House, but the public is obviously not focusing on the business of this House at this time of year. It made some sense, if the public was to play its part in consideration of the business of the House that we should not be dealing with business over the Christmas season.
Finally, the earlier rule about sending matters to smaller committees was clearly aimed at having full and detailed consideration of legislation, and particularly of complicated legislation. It enabled the House to call and to hear from witnesses who might conceivably contribute to the improvement of the legislation. These rules, as I understand them, were a compromise of interests and were designed to further the public interest. It is these rules which this motion proposes to do away with.
The Government proposes to do so for two stated reasons: first, to meet the alleged deadline that the Government sees it must set; second, because the Government says there has been enough discussion. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) went on about the mandate the Government has. I certainly concede, as I understand all Hon. Members concede, that the Government has a mandate to
introduce legislation, to have it considered and ultimately to bring it to a vote, but the Government does not have a mandate to set aside these important and sensitive rules and to deprive the public-not the Opposition but the public-of its right to have the details of this legislation thoroughly and carefully reviewed.
I submit that the exercise of the election campaign will have changed significantly the perspectives of every single Member of this House on the details of this Bill. The election campaign may well not have changed the over-all view for or against the Free Trade Agreement, but none of us could have gone through this particular election campaign, this exciting and dramatic election campaign, this very intensive election campaign, without having learned something from the all-candidates meetings, without having learned something from the people we argued with on the doorsteps, without having learned something from the intense public debate of all aspects of this matter. We come, new Members and veterans, informed in a very special and sensitive way to this legislation.
I would like to think that if we had the opportunity carefully to go through this legislation clause by clause, using the committee system, if we had the opportunity to go through it, not during midnight sittings but fresh and during the day-to-day sittings, if we had the opportunity to go through it when the public was in a position to pay full attention, it is possible this legislation might be improved. It will not be ultimately defeated. The Government has a mandate for passing it, but it might be improved.
The specific concerns that we all heard and to which the Government responded at least in its advertising and public commitments, concerns about social programs, about the environment, about the impact on regional programs, about the dislocation of workers, might conceivably be met by changes in this legislation. Further, there may be very specific impacts of this legislation on the tourist business, for example, or on real estate. Various sections of the legislation or the appendices, if we had a full and proper opportunity, might be improved by a proper consideration of the legislation.
Now the Government is depriving the public of this opportunity. It does so for the second reason, this alleged deadline. I know many Hon. Members have spoken of the deadline, but let us remind the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that the deadline, the short time we have to consider this, is self-inflicted by the Government.
December 16, 1988

It is the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in particular who decided the timing of the election. He did so in full knowledge of the fact that he would have only eight working days of Parliament left when the writs were returned. It was the Prime Minister's choice to wait until October 1, to have the writs for the election issued, it was no one else's. He could have called the election under the new electoral boundaries at any time after July 14. He chose to do it when he did it and now he and his Government come to the House and say, "Let us push aside these protections for the public interest in the interest of trying to meet a deadline". It is a deadline which is far from written in stone.
As a new Member, sitting here in this place with some awe, I thought of some of those who have been here before us. As I began listening to this procedural debate, I recalled my first particular interest in the goings-on of this House. It was in the mid-fifties when I was at university, the time of the infamous pipeline debate about which we have already heard.
I thought of the role played by the former Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre who sits here as an esteemed honorary Clerk of this House, and I am very pleased on a personal level to see him here. I recall that it was the Conservatives who joined with the then CCF to stand up to a move by the government of the day, the Liberals, to change the then rules of the House in order to meet a deadline, a deadline that the then government had gotten itself into because it had mismanaged the business of the House. Having mismanaged the business of the House, the Government then had to meet this particular deadline in order to guarantee financing for the trans-Canada pipeline.
In that exciting exercise, which I remind the Government opposite ultimately brought down the Liberal Government of Prime Minister St. Laurent, it was none other than Mr. Diefenbaker who stated the words which I will now put to the Government, words which I wish it had remembered before it brought this motion, words which I suppose it is naive to hope that government Members would consider when they come to vote tonight. I quote from page 4736 of Hansard for June 5, 1956. Mr. Diefenbaker then said to the House:
"The House of Commons-with its traditions, its dedication to preserve and maintain freedom, its necessary dependence on the fact that an opposition must be able to express itself fearlessly and powerfully upon the issues of the day-requires rules that are interpreted fairly."
Extension of Sittings
He went on to say:
"-the rules of parliament should not be altered, dare not be changed in order to meet the demands of an overwhelming majority. Only yesterday the Prime Minister, in the course of his speech giving one of the reasons for the action the other day which denied the rights of parliament, when the decision of the previous day was reversed in the morning, said that after all that prejudiced the government. I have his exact words, and I asked him to repeat them. "To the prejudice of the government." Is that the basis upon which the Parliament is operating? Is that the basis by which we in fact, as Members of this House, are to be attendants at the will of the Prime Minister and those associated with him? Sir, the events of the last week will be forgotten, but not forgotten in this generation will be the short-cuts through freedom that have been made by a government that has set the zero hour and then curtailed the rights of parliament in order to achieve an arbitrary date."
He referred to this as the cry of every dictator and every potential dictator in every generation. Parliament works too slowly. They want action now. The rules have been with us for generations, dump out the rules. It seems to me that this statement made 32 years ago applies precisely to the situation we have here.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a lot of rhetoric this afternoon from great democrats who maintain that this motion is absolutely dreadful and that it curtails freedom of speech.
Last night, on television, Mr. Bourassa was talking about his reaction with regard to Bill 101, saying that he would introduce a bill next Monday in the National Assembly. When he was asked if he would follow normal procedures, he said no, that they would be suspended and that a bill would be passed.
Mr. Speaker, it is not anti-democratic for rules to allow us to change or abolish laws or to put forward motions of closure which enable a duly elected government to take power, because there is a difference between the two.
Mr. Speaker, when the rules allow us to put forward motions of closure, it is democratic to do so. To have in our rules special clauses which allow a government to pass a legislation is not antidemocratic.
Mr. Speaker, we have just had an election campaign, and a good many people described it as a referendum campaign. During this campaign the poll figures went

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
up and down all the time and when they seemed to indicate a strong preference for the Conservative Party some people would take us to task-particularly those who did not share our views, of course-and say to us: Why did you not hold a referendum on this question? My answer was: Listen, I recall that in the House of Commons both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party urged us to hold a referendum election. Well, you have one. We are in the midst of a referendum election and the outcome could very well have been quite different. However, we followed the democratic rules all along and we had a referendum election. Now we are asking the Opposition to play by the same rules and stop wasting the time of Members in the House.
We have all been democratically elected by the people. We should never suggest that someone is wasting his time here. But when I begin repeating what someone else just said, and when others enjoy repeating what they heard earlier we may well think that we are not wasting our time, but we are certainly not making very good use of it. We are going to debate until one o'clock in the morning and then vote on a closure motion. Will democracy be short-changed? And tomorrow you will see that none of the newspapers in Canada carry headlines about Parliament being anti-democratic. Most of them will say: At last the Canadian Government or the Parliament of Canada has taken action after winning the election and having been brought back into office. Nobody will accuse us of being anti-democratic because of that, Mr. Speaker. The session opened last Monday. We have been sitting since Monday. We have been here five days and have yet to debate the free trade issue. Members have been talking about procedure.
But it does not matter, I am a patient man. I am prepared to sit through the weekend, I am prepared to come back next week, not to mention between Christmas and New Year's. So what? If that is what they want for Christmas that is what they will get for Christmas. What more can I say. Democratic principles have not been breached, Mr. Speaker.
So we had an election campaign which was a referendum campaign. That is exactly what the people wanted. John Turner-this must have been before he was first stabbed in the back over his leadership-had this to say on June 22, 1988: The kind of trade deal the Government is about to make with the United States is an issue which has to be decided in Canada by Canadians, debated in Canada by Canadians. Well, that is what has happened. He said that on June 22. He made a number of other comments which I will not repeat, he even said bad things about the Conservative Party. I will skip that. On August 31, 1988, Mr. Turner told the press what his
election slogan would be: Let the people decide. You know Axworthy. It is very simple, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is in favour of democratic choice, why not the ultimate test, a general election. He said that on July 26, 1988. And the House sat through the summer as well. Let us not kid ourselves.
In view of that alarming circumstance, and I stress alarming, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) should ask Canadians for their agreement. We got it on November 21. Sheila Copps: The power lies with the people. That was a good one she hit upon. Gagliano, for once not talking about super-boxes, stated: The nation's future, and he stressed that, is sufficient reason for holding elections; that was on July 23, 1988. And so on. Even Senator Hebert took it upon himself to go on record: The Senate never suggested it would block the free trade legislation. It only said free trade was too important a matter not to allow the Canadian people to give their opinion. On November 21, the Canadian people gave their opinion, especially in Quebec. The quote comes from Liberal Senate leader Allan Mac-Eachen, a worthy senator, on July 22, 1988. Carlo Rossi: Call an election! which we did. And won. To their regrets. They wanted an election which would be a referendum, well they got it. That is what democracy is all about.
On December 8, 1988, Axworthy said: We will not take Brian Mulroney's word, stated Liberal critic Lloyd Axworthy, the assurances he gave Canadians during the elections will now have to be inserted into the agreement et cetera. That was from one side of the Liberal Party. And the same party, Mr. Speaker, which had very solid foundations in Quebec, when we came here in 1984, there was one Conservative Member for 74 Liberal Members. That was the power base, Quebec. But there we won again. In 1984, they said it was only a glitch. We recouped seats in Quebec because people did not believe that. Because when we came in in 1984, we changed the job strategy-we changed a lot of policies in 1984 and 1985. A lot of policies and Government programs set up by the Liberals. At the time people said this was horrendous, and how many jobs would it cost? Axworthy said: What will the number of job losses be-
100.000	or 200,000? He asked that on November 9, 1984, not long after being elected. He could already foresee the downturn in employment. Warren Allmand: That will result in 125,000 to 150,000 job losses. Certainly Sheila Copps must have said something on that. Yes, she did. She suggested: They will destroy
125.000	jobs. Yes.
December 16, 1988


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. You are an experienced Member of this House as is the Member who is speaking. I have had some patience but the Member continues in his remarks to refer to a Member by name. He knows better than that. He knows he should refer to the Member's riding. I think he has continued naming Members enough times to warrant some caution from Your Honour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Belsher):: I would remind the Hon. Member that he should not refer to Members by name but by their ridings.


Jean-Guy Hudon: All right. I thought indeed, Mr. Speaker, that I may quote from documents. But if this will please you, I will change that.
And since November 4, 1984, more than one million new jobs were created in this country, because of the policies put forward by this Conservative Government that point to the economic reliability of this Government's policies.
Mr. Speaker, the people in 1988, had to decide, and as I said during my election campaign-the major thing in the 1988 campaign is the credibility issue. Whom are you going to believe? And of course, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the liberal party's history or record in Quebec, which explained why people did not believe them. My Liberal opponent, among others, travelled around ... 1 may not name her, and please note that I prefer it this way. She drove around the constituency aboard a large van, with slogans to the effect we were selling out the country to the Americans. There were loudspeakers chanting: I love my country, I love it. How beautiful that was. American flags, the unemployment rate, the American minimum wage. That was awful. I told the people that the big van they saw is just like the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party's program is a big empty box. And they lost seats with the big empty box, Mr. Speaker, because people remembered that, Mr. Speaker.
I am not sure whether you remember the early 1970s when the Conservative Party was led by a man named Stanfield. He was not good-looking, he did not come across well on television, he spoke badly, he spoke French badly and furthermore, he was a little "wacky" because he suggested voluntary wage and price controls-5 and 6 per cent. It was awful, Mr. Speaker! It was terrible! They beat him, the man who was not goodlooking, and the Liberal Party implemented his unpopular measure not long after. I reminded people how this
Extension of Sittings
reflected on the Liberal Party's credibility. Mr. Clark led that Government for eight months in 1979-80, Mr. Speaker. He was beaten on the price of gasoline, the 18cent tax proposed by the Minister of Finance at the time. It was disgusting because the Liberals wanted a 14-cent tax then, and a year later, they had increased it by 54 cents.
We have started to consider free trade; we did not just start yesterday. People were saying, "It's awful. They'll tear up that Agrement." But during the election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition backtracked. Perhaps it was due to his sciatica, but he said, "Well, we won't tear it up; we'll negotiate something else." And when I saw them bring out the subject of old age pensions, that is where they put their foot in it, because people stopped believing them anymore-they remembered something. True, the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) did urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to lower indexation, but he did not do so because it would not have worked out. The last Minister of Finance who did that was the man who is now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), at the time he was Minister of Finance.
That is something the people remembered. It was just like a big empty box, and they did not have any alternative measure to suggest. It was a matter of credibility. Who to believe? The Liberal Party has just shown that it has lost most of its support in Quebec. What happened in 1984, and in 1988, will happen again in 1992, and 1993, because people now understand that they cannot have faith in this Party which has no policy at all. So what do you have to offer? When did we first hear about free trade? Under the previous Government, in 1982, through a royal commission of inquiry on prospects for Canada.
It was not strictly a politicians' program, for it cost $21 or $22 million. People stopped to think, Mr. Speaker. They said: Our trade and our markets are south of the border. The world is getting organized, Europe is organizing, they are talking about the Europe of 1992, about the deal between Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia. Here we are in Canada, 25 million producers, and apparently we cannot agree with our consumers? We export 30 per cent of our gross national product and we have no confidence in ourselves? Well, now, if we export 30 per cent it is because we produce quality goods at competitive prices, our neighbours to the south buy them. Some 85 per cent of our products are shipped south. Why should we be unable to sit down with them and sign an agreement? Well, Mr. Speaker, here again it is a matter of credibility.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
How was this country built? If youy read Berton's history of Canada, he says Canada was built on two railroads. He has a point there! I come from the constituency of Beauharnois-Salaberry, right south of Montreal. Beauharnois-Salaberry is the former Beauharnois Seigniory. Troubles had started in 1837 between Lower and Upper Canada, and in came at some point a bloke from Britain named Lord Durham who said let us make the Union in 1841.
Of course, when you set up a new political structure you have to feed it with major projects. I see my colleague from Ville d'Anjou, the former mayor of Ville d'Anjou. I was mayor of Beauharnois. My colleague here behind me also was a mayor, and we also have the former mayor from Laval... with projects that put people to work, everything is fine.
So they decided back in 1841, to build the Beauharnois Canal, the one which went through the land of Lord Durham's brother-in-law's, but we'll talk about this detail another time. And they built that grand canal that was to unite Lower and Upper Canada. After that, the bets were laid on the Canadian Confederation, because it was only a matter of transportation! Look at the map of Canada. We have a huge country, ten provinces, extending from East to West, and it was said that Canada would be built on a difficult challenge, East-West trade. This is something. Figure out how much it costs to take this piece of paper and move it from Montreal to Vancouver, when we have neighbours down South who can buy it.
So we have been building ever since our trade from East to West, with the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. Our grandparents paid dearly for those railroads. But there was a hitch-we still had to go down South. And the broker who goes down South does not live in Beauharnois nor Montreal but in Toronto.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Free Trade Agreement will make many as well off as Toronto. Why did we get eight out of ten premiers on our side? We will leave the Premier of Prince Edward Island on his island. Why does Ontario not agree? It is like a Cherry Blossom-it cannot be shared. They do not want to share economic growth, Mr. Speaker. There will be north-south cleavages, in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia. People are worried-that is quite normal. But there will be north-south gaps and Torontos. That is what the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) wanted to show Canadians and that is why, Mr. Speaker, we have eight out of ten Premiers with us. They are not crazy. Eight out of ten are with us and even in Ontario, people were saying that Ontario-the people there are on our side. Look at the popular vote we got in Ontario. We got more than forty seats.
Mr. Speaker, not everyone is against free trade. It is quite normal and healthy that people are worried about change. But, Mr. Speaker, we are here to build the future, to build something for our children. What sort of country will we build, Mr. Speaker, if absolutely the only thing we invent, that the Liberals invented in 22 years in power, is a Canada Works project? That is what they came up with. They built their world around Canada Works. This program was cut. I too find it a shame that it was cut. But basically, when unemployment goes down, Mr. Speaker, the Government must make way for the private sector.
Now the history of our country, Mr. Speaker, shows that it was built on the future, and the facts show today that a country which manages to export 30 per cent of its Gross National Product. .. Never forget that Japan is supposed to be about the finest example of an exporting or trading nation in the world. It does not export more than 10 per cent of its GNP. We export 30 per cent. From 80 to 85 per cent of these exports go to our friends to the south. That represents $170 billion crossing the border every year. My father had confidence in the future and he built this country on two things: a quality product and the ability to produce it at a better price. That is why we export. And suddenly, we are not supposed to try to reach an agreement to take on the trading blocs that are organizing throughout the world. That is what will save us. If we can agree with ... People lecture us. Our neighbours across the floor say that they are for free trade, but with all countries. Well, my God! If we are for free trade with all countries, let us start with our neighbour and then we will set an example for everyone. We know people, psychologists, who agree that a man and a woman get along but cannot work it out at home. I am not singling anyone out. Let us get along then with our southern neighbour.
That is what we wanted to do, Mr. Speaker. We will build a better economic world order. I am not at all
December 16, 1988

worried about the lesson in democracy. The people spoke on November 21. At one o'clock this morning, we will vote on a closure motion. We will take power tonight. Next week, we will talk about free trade and be done with it and pass it before New Year's Day.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the words of the Hon. Member for Beau-harnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon), who said the people spoke on November 21 last. And indeed he is correct. In fact, 57 per cent of the people spoke against the present Government of Canada on November 21 last.
While today we have a government that has the legal right to pass the implementing legislation in respect of the Free Trade Agreement, it has very little moral right to do so. In any event, no government has the right to suspend the rules of the House of Commons so as to impose legislation unilaterally without proper debate, without proper investigation, without study by the appropriate committee of this House. It is only through the full parliamentary process that we can ensure that the legislation in question does not destroy certain sectors of the Canadian economy, as we on this side believe it will.
And so today we have a continuation of what the Government's game plan was when it launched into its activity to integrate the economies of Canada and the United States through the Free Trade Agreement.
If one reads the communications plan of the Government, it is evident that its intention was to conduct the whole process in secret. The premiers were sworn to secrecy, with the result that they had no opportunity to talk. And while some of them have since commented on the free trade deal, it is not many.
As well, if one visited the office of the Trade Commissioner, one was sworn to secrecy. If one participated in one of the special advisory groups on international trade, the SAGITS, one was sworn to secrecy. Again, while some of those individuals have since commented on the deal, most have not.
This whole scheme has been entered into on the basis of secrecy. And that is not surprising given that the communications plan of the Government of Canada said: "Look, our proposition is so controversial and will find such little acceptance on the part of the people of Canada, our approach must be to tell the people as little as possible. We will try to sell the deal, but we will not try to explain it."
Extension of Sittings
If one reads the little blue book that was sent out, a book that was produced at a cost of millions of dollars, one can readily see that the whole approach was to sell the deal.
In my 20 years as Member of this place, this is the first time I have seen a document that is designed more in terms of selling the legislation than its substantive value. Normally one would expect the details of the agreement to be spelled out. Instead, we have all of this advertising and editorial comment, all designed to sell the agreement.
That is the approach of the Government in respect of the Free Trade Agreement, and we are now at the point where this Government is going to shove it down the throats of the Canadian electorate. Over the course of next week, the Government will probably invoke closure three times.
Just imagine, here we have the most important trade document in the history of our country, and we will have debate on the motion for the second reading of the Bill closed off after one day's debate. We have now in this place something of the order of 75 new Members of Parliament who campaigned against the agreement and who were elected to represent their respective constituencies, and most will be deprived of the opportunity to speak on the motion for the second reading of the Bill.
As well, closure will be invoked during report stage. The motion that is before us today is designed to ensure that Bill C-2 does not go to a committee separate and apart from the House, with the result that those workers who are already losing their jobs as a result of the Free Trade Agreement will be deprived of the opportunity of coming before a legislative committee of their Parliament to voice their views.
And finally, a week or so from now, we will have closure invoked for a third time, with Bill C-2 then receiving third reading and being referred to the Senate for consideration.
It has been 105 years since we have seen the rules of this House so badly skewed, changed, altered, so as to ram a piece of legislation through in less than a week

and all of this in the context of an election in which 57 per cent of the people voted against the deal.
I believe that all Members of Parliament should have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the free trade legislation and to vote against it, as I expect some 125 Members will do. More important, they should have the opportunity to move amendments to it.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
If Government Members are prepared to destroy sectors of the Canadian economy-the textile sector, the electrical sector, the footwear sector, and many parts of the food processing industry, where we estimate that over 100,000 could lose their jobs-surely they should be prepared to stand in their place and vote against amendments which would preserve those sectors of the Canadian economy intact, thus giving those affected by this deal the opportunity of knowing precisely who voted against the preservation of those industries in our country.
Under the process proposed, it is questionable that the amendments that would normally be moved by those on this side of the House will ever see the light of day, let alone be passionately debated by those on this side of the House.
As has already been pointed out, 57 per cent of the electorate voted against this deal. Those people believe that Canada should maintain more of a sovereign position in terms of our trade relations. They believe that we should not integrate the North American economy into one economy. They believe that Canada should maintain its independence, while working toward the lowering of trade barriers over-all. And past Liberal governments in this country lowered average tariffs by some 40 per cent, taking them from 45 per cent to somewhere around 5 per cent. But we do not wish to turn over to the United States the fate of vast sectors of our economy.
Clearly, there are important amendments in the agricultural sector relating to supply management, relating to the dairy industry, the poultry industry, as well as to the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board, and to the fruit and vegetable industry. These are all sectors which will be not only adversely affected but practically wiped out as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
It is not something that will happen on January 1 next. However, over the course of the life of this deal, and certainly over the next four or five years and beyond, there will be extremely adverse impacts on those sectors of the Canadian economy.
Perhaps no action by the Government in the last two years represents more of a microcosm of what is going to happen as a result of the Free Trade Agreement than the agreement that was signed two years ago on December 30 next, that being the Memorandum of Understanding on Softwood Lumber. If we examine what has
happened in respect of that softwood lumber deal, I believe we can come to understand what will happen in many sectors of the economy as a result of the entering into of this Free Trade Agreement.
The Government of Canada entered into the Memorandum of Understanding on Softwood Lumber because it was threatened with a countervail action by the U.S. softwood lumber industry, an industry which had already been turned down in respect of a similar application heard in 1982.
The application in question was before the International Trade Commission in Washington, and that commission was about to come down with a decision. But that decision could have been appealed to the International Trade Court in New York, where Canada would probably have come out the victor-not because the federal Government was doing anything but because of the efforts of the forestry industry.
Two weeks before the decision was taken to enter into the Memorandum of Understanding on Softwood Lumber, through the usual obsequious approach, the weak-kneed approach of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the application we had before the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for the establishment of a panel of that body to challenge the petition brought before the U.S. International Trade Commission was pulled. Why did we pull out? Because the Prime Minister was more concerned about making a deal on free trade than he was about protecting the forest products industry. We probably would have won either at the GATT or the International Trade Court, but the Government pulled out. It withdrew the application before GATT because of the Prime Minister's usual obsequious approach to the President of the United States. He was not willing to slug it out for the Canadian forest products industry, so we have the deal and a 15 per cent export tax.
The industry was in a very strong position back then, but in the last two years what has happened? As in all things which are very strong, the market for softwood lumber eventually deteriorated. Prices dropped dramatically during the last couple of years. On top of that, the value of the Canadian dollar has risen from about 71 cents to about 83 cents U.S., almost 15 per cent, during that period of time. With falling prices the Canadian softwood industry is practically on its knees because its
December 16, 1988

position today is worse by about 30 per cent. I do not know many industries in this country with a profit of 30 per cent, especially in the face of falling market prices. As a result, the G. W. Martin Company in Sault Ste. Marie, for example, has seen its position deteriorate by almost $1 million because of the exchange rate and $750,000 because of the export tax. I believe that many sawmill operators in northern Ontario, especially if they are selling into the U.S. market, are going to face drastic shut-downs and lay-offs this winter.
What is the solution? Five Members of the northern Ontario Liberal caucus met with the provincial Government, whose position is sharply circumscribed. It cannot reduce the stumpage charge. If it does, that would invite further retaliation by the U.S. It would violate the deal. The $30 million which has been collected through the export tax by the federal Government and turned over to the provincial Government cannot be channelled towards assisting the sawmill operators who are going out of business and facing shut-downs this winter. It is spelled out very clearly in the deal that you cannot do that.
As is provided for in the Memorandum of Understanding, to transfer the export tax, which is costing our producers in northern Ontario about $30 million a year, to a stumpage charge, it would have to be applied to all stumpage, whether it is lumber for export or for the domestic market. The export tax, which is now costing us $30 million in northern Ontario, would become $80 million if it was transferred to a stumpage charge.
They did something like that in British Columbia. They have a much larger industry there and it is in a terrible situation, even worse than in northern Ontario. So Ontario has practically no room to move. If it tries to reduce costs for the industry, that breaks the deal. It could invite further retaliatory action by the U.S. If it did as was proposed earlier in the agreement, transfer the export tax to a stumpage charge, the province would have to go to Washington to get permission. From then on our books are constantly monitored, audited and investigated every year.
I guess that is what frightens us. You begin to wonder who is running who. Here is the Government of Canada imposing an export tax on an industry which is primarily under provincial jurisdiction, and if they want to make any changes in their stumpage fees, forest management agreements, roads, any change whatsoever, they have to go to Washington to get permission. It seems to me we end up practically losing our sovereignty over this
Extension of Sittings
industry because any change we want to make to try to keep it open this winter is going to invite action by the U.S.
Normally in these situations, if you have a dispute, you can go to GATT. Within two weeks of a petition by the U.S. industry demanding a countervailing or dumping duty, the Government of Canada can ask for a decision by GATT. We cannot do that any more. Oh, the Tories will tell you, sure, in the Free Trade Agreement it is all under GATT and you can go to GATT if you have a dispute with the U.S. However, I ask any Tory over there to stand up and tell me when since 1949 has GATT ever agreed to hear a dispute between two countries with a Free Trade Agreement? It never has and never will.
The only salvation in all of this is to go and negotiate somehow to get out of the deal with the U.S. In any event, it is symptomatic of this agreement that we are totally locked in to the United States. We lose our rights under GATT. We lose our sovereignty to operate as a free and independent nation. Therefore, we will be putting forward an amendment to this deal, if we ever get to the actual Bill itself, with regard to the export tax. It is just a disastrous situation because we do not believe that the U.S. is going to back off on its export tax. We are going to see shut-downs and lay-offs this winter. We cannot go to GATT.
Clearly the Government should not have enshrined it into the free trade deal. It should be trying to get out of it. It should be trying to avoid this export tax on softwood lumber. It is a disaster for our workers in northern Ontario and I believe a microcosm of the whole Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. which 1 do not believe is going to create jobs. It is going to take away our sovereignty, cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, and remove our right as a free and independent nation to try and develop independently. We will not be able to maintain and develop our export potential, not only with the United States but with countries around the world, or develop our full resources, both human and natural, and that is why in my constituency the voters voted three to one against the Tory candidate. They do not think this is a good deal for Canada either.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in rising in this House, for in my case this is my second Parliament. This is also a special occasion to take the floor of the House to debate a major piece of

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
legislation which is of utmost importance to all Canadians and to all regions of this country, and 1 am referring of course to the Mulroney-Reagan Free Trade Agreement. It is a question which raised a lot of interest during the election campaign. Mr. Speaker, it is a question which led our Party and our leader to force all Canadians to look at their families and at their country and ask themselves what the future has in store for this nation. Our leader and our Party raised the issue, in keeping with tradition and Canadian history as was the case with respect to the flag debate, the debate on the national anthem, the debate on the Canadian Constitution.
As I see it, history will show that our Party led the debate and, as far as we are concerned-including our leader, my colleague in the House of Commons-this debate is not over yet. We think this is just the beginning of the debate and, like the millions of Canadians who supported and voted for our Party, we think we will be on the right side of history.
The frustration that we are feeling on this side of the Chamber, and the frustration that Canadians are feeling as they watch this debate on the parliamentary channel, is with the inability to debate what Canadians had expected us as parliamentarians on all sides of the House to debate. In fact, we are debating a desire on the part of the Government, on the part of a majority which has the mechanisms at its disposal, a Government willing, wanting and demanding to change the rules, change the constitution governing our place for its own political satisfaction. We are not prepared simply to roll over and play dead.
Yes, we want to debate the question of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. But we are also not willing to step aside and allow the forum of debate for the country to be held at ransom. After all, this is not a Chamber for the Conservative Party to play fast and loose with the rules. This Chamber, Your Honour, is a Chamber for Canadians. It is the vessel of democracy.
Members of Parliament will come and go. In a few years perhaps there will be another Member standing in my place, as is the inevitable future for all of us. But while Members come and go, the House of Commons and the democratic system that we fought for, and for which our forefathers died, will remain. That is what is at the core of this debate.
I ask myself, as my colleagues have been asking themselves for almost a week, why does the Government
want to change the rules? What is the Government afraid of? It has an absolute majority. In the end it will rule the day. In the end it will win the vote. I served four years in the previous Parliament. One of the greatest frustrations during that time was losing every vote. I accepted that because it was democratic. While we on the Liberal side may have lost the votes, we believe that in many of those debates we did not lose the intellectual capacity to win the hearts and minds of those who were concerned with a particular debate.
Therefore we are asking the Government what it is afraid of, what it fears from having a proper debate that would put before Canadians the issues, the challenges, the questions, the concerns and the fears about which many average Canadians on the streets of our country are asking themselves and their Members of Parliament. Yes, the Conservatives have won a majority Government. But we ought also begin to realize that this forum is not only to ram through a piece of legislation to abdicate the rules but that this House, after all, is the forum for debate. This is the forum in which various political views clash, and clash in peace, not clash in arms, in bloodshed the way we see on our television sets and read about in our newspapers. That is this forum. Through that exchange, through that give and take, through that exchange and sharing of views, we can reform, we can change. We can avoid the pitfalls that this deal has for many Canadians.
Which Party and which side is upholding not only democracy at its very fundamental levels, but which side of the House really wants to debate the issue for and with Canadians? That side wants the House to continue into the midnight hours. How many Canadians will be afforded an opportunity to sit at their television sets at midnight or at one in the morning? Most of the Canadians that I have the great honour and privilege to represent in York West have to get up between 5.30 and 6 a.m. in the morning to put food on their tables.
I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. They will not be sitting up at one o'clock in the morning, as exciting as many speakers are to watch in this Chamber, to watch the parliamentary channel, with all due respect.
This Government also wants to have the Committee of the Whole look at the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. Why the Committee of the Whole? You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that we-295 Members-are indeed privileged to be able to participate on the floor of the House of Commons. The Canadians who are watching and observing in the galleries can only do
December 16, 1988

that-observe, watch, be spectators as if somehow we were only debating something that is real, alive and important just for this very select club. I beg to differ. My Leader begs to differ. We on the Liberal side, the Official Opposition, beg to differ.
This Parliament is the Parliament of 25 million shareholders. We happen to be the board of directors for four years. But the board of directors takes the charge from the shareholders. That is why we should have a committee study this so that Canadians can also come in front of that committee to express their views. In that way Canadians can tell Members of Parliament: Look, I have a stake in this country, too. This is my future as well.
Let me share with you my dream and my vision for change because I watch you guys every night and many of you are caring Canadians. But I, too, have a vision of things to come. Canadians are being displaced already by a trade deal that is not even in legislation, not even ratified. We are seeing the ravages of it already. Why can we not hear from those Canadians who have lost their jobs and their livelihoods, those Canadians whose futures have been threatened? Why can we not hear from them as well? Who are they after all?
We are asking Canadians to take note, to take a look at the real debate, because not one Liberal Member of Parliament has risen in this House and irresponsibly said to the Government: "You will not get this deal. We will not be going home. The Senate will block the deal". Have you heard one Liberal Member of Parliament say that, Mr. Speaker? Not at all. What we have been saying is, yes, the Conservative Party of Canada has won the first round and it happens to be the election of 1988, but that does not give licence to this Government to run roughshod over the traditions of this House and over the concerns that people have on the question of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), but he keeps referring to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal. He should obey his own rule. He was up on his feet about an hour ago telling the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) not to refer to a Member of this House by his or her last name. If you are referring to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), say the Prime Minister of Canada or the Hon. Member for Charlevoix, otherwise
Extension of Sittings
it is the Canada-U.S. Tree Trade Agreement, Mr. Speaker.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder at the same time if you would mind reminding the Hon. Member who just spoke that one does not in this House use a pronoun such as "you".


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: You are right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All three Members are senior Members here in the Chamber. Please speak accordingly.


Sergio Marchi: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I should have referred to the Prime Minister as-

-the little guy from Baie-Comeau, with his big American uncle.

I think it is pertinent that we also take the view with respect to the debate that we are trying to be forward looking. We are trying to suggest to Canadians and to this Government that eventually when it gets this trade deal through both Houses of this Parliament, the concerns should not stop there. The raison d'etre of this session of Parliament does not end there. We have been trying in our negotiations to establish some parliamentary forum, a parliamentary committee of sorts, to monitor the future course of this country under this historic trade deal.
We have been trying to encourage the Government to act upon its rhetoric when it says: "We will retrain those who need training because of fall-out from this trade agreement". The Government says we will find new job opportunities for those who are displaced. Those are fine words, but we have the evidence of plant shut-downs, of people marching on the streets, of picketing. They are saying they have lost their jobs, but they have been met only by individual members of a Government which is led by this Prime Minister who simply does not have the time of day for those people, despite the fine speeches. It is this Party, as it was this Party during the election campaign, which will focus and lead the charge in standing up for Canada, not in the aspect of necessarily being anti-American, nor in the sense of being antitrade, whether it be with the United States of America or with the international community, but by having a trade strategy for our country that in the end works best for our country, which is number one.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
When 1 look at this trade deal, irrespective of political affiliation, I am saddened as a Canadian that we have allowed the United States to get us into a deal that looks to me very much like a one-way street.
In terms of our energy resources, as precious as those resources are, we will now be treating the United States of America as if it were Canadian. We cannot sell oil to the United States at a higher price than we can sell it to Nova Scotia or to another province. To me that belittles and undermines the very sovereign fact of any nation. Show me any nation on the face of this globe that sells its energy resources, its bank account, at a lower or the same domestic price, and you will be showing me a precedent in world history. Yet we have allowed ourselves to enter that kind of agreement.
There is a great deal of concern in this country with respect to financial institutions because once again we are going down a one-way street. The American business interests can come into this country and buy our banks and our trust companies, but because American banks and trust companies are controlled state by state, we cannot do that.
If one wants to get into an exchange and allow a country to buy into another's financial institutions, fine. I happen to disagree, but if that is the raison d'etre, fine. But to allow one side to do it and not the other, when talking about financial institutions, what kind of leadership does that suggest? What kind of leadership does it suggest to the country? Flow can we engender a sense of confidence and maturity and national building with this kind of deal?
Yesterday our Leader, in a very moving, passionate and articulate statement of fact, set the individual substance for this debate in the proper perspective, that is, that we have the firm belief, not of arrogance but a deep moving, gut feeling, that we are on the right side of history. We feel that the majority of Canadians, as witnessed by the popular vote, share that feeling. As we begin to see people displaced in the factories and plants in our own backyard, that feeling will swell. It will not provide any pleasure for us to say: "We told you so". It will cause a certain anguish that the Government did not hear the calls and concerns.
We are looking forward to entering into the debate on substance. We are looking forward to monitoring the trade deal. We have every confidence that Canadians will join in our struggle, and our movement, and will stand up for the country that we not only have built and
love, but a country we wish to pass on to future generations.
This forum is important. It is for that reason we are not going to let go of a debate that wishes to do away with the rules and our democratic right to speak our mind as an elected representative. We will not allow that flame to die easily.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today on the hijacking of Parliament by the Conservative Government. It is regrettable that we have to participate in this debate today, but I look forward to further discussions as we talk about the trade legislation that this Government has brought forward.
At the outset, I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his election to the chair.
However, it is regrettable that in our enthusiasm last week over his election we are now dealing with the situation of a ham-fisted Government. I also want to pay credit to my leader who spoke last night about the concerns we have over this current trade legislation. He raised our concerns over the softwood lumber tariff, shakes and shingles, which are critical to my riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley in my Province of British Columbia. He also spoke of the concerns we have over the environment and social programs and, frankly, our view of this country.
We are talking today about a procedural motion. We are talking about the abandonment of the Standing Orders of this House. These are the rules that govern this House and give us our guidance in our proceedings when we consider legislation, motions and other issues.
Now the Tory Government has hijacked the rules of Parliament. We are used to that under the Tories. In fact, I took the opportunity before our debate today to do a little research. Let us see just where the Tories stand in history. The Collins Dictionary states that Conservatives were outlaws who preyed upon English settlers. The Encyclopaedia of Parliament says about the Conservatives: "The word originally applied to Irish bandits". The Conservatives are preying upon Parliament and the Members opposite are bandits who have stolen the rules of Parliament.
What will they do next? The Members opposite are certainly repeat offenders and should be placed on probation, like the notion we are giving them now.
December 16, 1988

I campaigned in my riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley on fairness, fairness for the people of Prince George-Bulkley Valley, because we did not have that under the Conservative administration. We had 23 years of combined representation in the City of Prince George and we have seen nothing under the Conservatives.
We want to change that. We do not ask for everything. Most definitely we ask for an opportunity to have our say and our input. Many Members who represent rural ridings like I do had to deal with some of the programs that the Government brought forward and its bungling on issues like the northern tax allowance that affected my constituents in communities like McBride, Burns Lake and Houston. The only thing we asked for was an opportunity to have our say. We did not have that under the Conservatives and now, because with their hijacking of the rules, they are limiting that even further.
Through us, Canadians and the people of my riding have an opportunity to have that say in legislation and on motions before the House. However, as the Government rams this legislation through the House, we are not having that say. If we do not have that say, neither do our constituents.
As we begin to discuss this legislation next week, it is critical that we are given the opportunity to present our amendments and debate fully the legislation. January 1 is not engraved in stone. It is not a date by which we have to pass any legislation. As my colleague, the Member from Victoria stated earlier, it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who set the date for this election, in full knowledge of what kind of timetable he would have.
It is our responsibility as Members from all Parties and all sides of the House to express the concerns that we have over this legislation. I call upon Members opposite to abandon their ways and return the House to its normal practice of reasonable and thoughtful debate.
As an outside observer of this House and its rules for some time, I think it is a pity that it is now rare that we have an opportunity to see full debate. It is an honour that Stanley Knowles is with us in the House from time to time to give guidance about what we must debate. The most important reason why we are here, regardless of where we are from and what we stand for, is to provide input to this House and represent the views of our constituents.
I look forward to next week when we debate the substance of the trade legislation, when we show Members opposite and the Government that we are
Extension of Sittings
serious about representing the concerns of our constituents, the people of British Columbia and, in my case, the people of Prince George-Bulkley Valley.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the privilege of addressing this House. As this is the first time I have spoken in the House, I want to thank the voters of my riding who sent me here.
My riding of Halton-Peel is one of the newly created ridings under redistribution and encompasses a number of communities. They include Bolton, Burlington, Georgetown and Acton. My riding is rural and urban. I believe that its make-up is a reflection of the complexion of Canada as a whole. Such a riding will benefit under free trade very strongly.
I believe this was indicated by the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) chose my riding to kick off his national campaign. He was able to tour a plant in Georgetown that will benefit substantially from free trade and will likely see the creation of many new jobs under the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement.
During the course of the campaign in our riding we took pains to make sure we adequately surveyed manufacturers and retailers in the community. We surveyed all the Chamber of Commerce manufacturing members and different chambers throughout the riding about what free trade will do for them. We asked if they were afraid of it, whether they looked forward to it, and what their business plans would be as a result. Well over 70 per cent of the respondents, not large corporations but small and medium sized businesses from 12 employees to 300, said yes to free trade. They said there is no question that they will benefit from free trade and will likely add employment as a result.
I want to thank the Prime Minister. I want to thank the Government of Canada for its vision. I want to thank them for looking to the future, not to the past or the status quo.
As a new Member I have been somewhat surprised over the last four days at what I have seen and heard in the House. For example, a little while ago we heard the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Axworthy) make some interesting comments. He repeated a statement in the House that he had noted on Canada A.M. yesterday. He said: "Unfortunately, an election is just an exercise in raw numbers". How can he believe that? An election is an exercise in democracy. An election is the people speaking. An election is the highest authority that we can have. When the people speak they

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
ask us to come here and serve them. The people have done that. They have spoken and we are now their servants here in the House.
The Hon. Member also said that a lot of Conservative candidates during the election faced a barrage of questions about free trade. Of course we faced questions. We certainly faced them after the leaders of the opposition Parties ran around the country making totally irresponsible statements about the contents, influence and outcome of the Free Trade Agreement.
Because of fearmongering we were answering questions, yes. Because of scare tactics we were answering questions. We were answering them about medicare. We were assuring Canadians that there was no threat to medicare. We were talking about old age pensions. We were reassuring people who had been needlessly frightened that old age pensions would not be cut. We were answering that social programs will not be touched in this country. We were talking about the environment and how free trade does not in any way threaten our ability as a country and a society to protect our environment.
We were talking about and answering questions about energy. We were saying that in no way does the Cana-da-U.S. Free Trade Agreement jeopardize our adequate and secure access to energy. We were talking about cultural protection. We were even answering questions about our water. Some of the most insane things that were said about free trade were said about our water, about the fact we had to sell it out.
I have also heard in the House today that the Conservatives kept the trade deal under wraps, that they refused to tell the Canadian people what was in it. Nothing could be further from the truth. This House saw the Free Trade Agreement debated for 15 months. We had a debate that was fully open at all times to all Canadians to participate in.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada, any government, is elected to negotiate complex treaties, complex deals, on behalf of Canadians. That was done in this instance. I think that the Free Trade Agreement is just as complex and just as important as, for example, the Auto Pact was, and few Canadians read the Auto Pact, few Canadians have expressed a desire to know exactly how the Auto Pact works, but it benefits Canada. It is exactly the same principle.
The Government was elected to negotiate on behalf of the people. That is the mandate. We have not hidden the Free Trade Agreement under wraps for one minute. I can speak from my own experience throughout the election campaign in the new riding of Halton-Peel where we requested from the other candidates and received a series of debates exclusively on free trade, taking place in different parts of the riding.
We did a survey of manufacturers, as I mentioned, and got very encouraging results. We undertook a canvass of all voters. We offered them consultation at every step of the way on any questions regarding free trade. We established toll-free phone numbers, a free trade hot-line that any citizen could call to talk to me directly for information.
I took the time to read and understand the agreement in its entirety, and when I did, to produce a document of my own, a guide to free trade in every-day language that citizens could use, read and understand. I know many other Hon. Members did similar things in their own ridings during the election campaign.
We also brought in cabinet Ministers to be fully accountable, from the Prime Minister on down, cabinet Ministers who explained what free trade meant and who helped people to understand. At no time was there anything to hide in this agreement, nor did we attempt to hide anything at any time.
The election campaign was won on one simple principle; that is, tell the people the truth, and when you have told them the truth, they will support you. It was not easy, but we did it because once Canadians understood free trade, they knew what they were voting for and they voted decisively, returning the Government with an overwhelming majority. So the people have elected a Government to implement free trade. That was the purpose of the election.
As a new Member of Parliament, I have been surprised by some of the things I have seen in this Chamber. I have been surprised by some of the things I have heard during Question Period. I have been surprised by opposition Members who believe the election campaign is still on. Well, they are wrong. They are wrong to blame every corporate layoff or rationalization for the next number of years on free trade without giving equal credit to the fact that the economy now is a tremendously strong engine of growth. Last month alone 66,000 jobs were created in Canada. That is 2,000 jobs a day, an awfully impressive record of achievement. The economy did that, not free trade.
December 16, 1988

Free trade has not cost us a job. It likely has not created a job so far, but the powerhouse of the economy the Government has created over the past four years has done that, with unemployment down, inflation down, the value of the dollar up and housing starts strong. Free trade is the way to continue that.
As I said, it is not the past we have to look to, it is not the status quo, but it is the future. Free trade is the future. It is the way to build upon the achievements of the past. It is the way to avoid the next recession. Free trade is the way to counter a global move toward trading blocs around the world. Free trade is the way to gain access to the world's largest, richest and most important market. Free trade is the way, for the first time in 140 years of our history of trading with the Americans, to have a dispute settlement mechanism. We have never had that. We have never had a way to take the Americans and their bad trade laws to court. Now, for the first time, we have a mechanism to protect Canadians.
We now have some protection against American protectionism. If the Free Trade Agreement did nothing more than that, it would be a tremendous success. But free trade is not everything. We are also looking toward GATT, and as the conference in Montreal showed last week, we are intimately involved in that phase of negotiations for world trade as well.
The motion we are debating is intended to expand the debate on free trade and to give us all an opportunity to get on the record. Free trade will pass. You know it and I know it, Mr. Speaker. No matter what is said about it in this Chamber, free trade will pass. That is because Canadians want it to pass and Canadians have decided.
I would like to say in conclusion that I think the silliness of this debate should end. I think we should get on with it. I think we should do what the people have asked us to come here to do, to stop being partisan, to start being constructive and to remember, all of us, that our first loyalty is always to the people who elected us. So let us get on with it. Let us do what the people told us to do.


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to your attention what I consider to be a problem with the motion as it is before us. I would like to draw your attention to paragraph five of the motion which reads as follows:
Extension of Sittings
"That, for the duration of this session or until otherwise ordered, the provisions of Standing Order 73(1) and (2) respecting committee stage of Public Bills be suspended, and all such Bills be ordered for referral to the committee of the Whole;-"
Obviously what the Government is attempting to do here is to eliminate the requirement for a legislative committee so that the Bill can go directly to Committee of the Whole. We all understand that.
Standing Order 73(1) states:
"Every public bill shall be read twice and referred to a committee before any amendment may be made thereto."
Standing Order 73(2) states:
"Unless otherwise ordered, in giving a bill second reading, the same shall be referred to a legislative committee, except as provided in section (3) of this Standing Order. A motion to refer a bill to a committee shall be decided without amendment or debate."
In order to achieve its objective of eliminating the legislative committee stage of the trade Bill, the Government obviously had to include a provision for suspending Standing Order 73(2). However, in suspending Standing Order 73(1), the Government House Leader has, I would contend, unwittingly opened a Pandora's box. Let me briefly review once again the provisions of Standing Order 73(1) as it now stands. It states:
"Every public bill shall be read twice and referred to a committee before any amendment may be made thereto."
The purpose of this Standing Order, as I read it, is to prohibit the possibility of amendment to the substance of a Bill at second reading. The Standing Order states that the Bill must have second reading and be referred to a committee before any amendment may be made to it. This is explicit in the text of the Standing Order. Yet the motion that we are now debating, standing in the name of the Deputy Government House Leader, suspends this provision and the amendment to the motion offered this morning by the Government Whip makes no change whatsoever to this part of the text.
If this motion passes, I suggest that what the Government will have done will be to have opened up the possibility of amending the substance of the free trade Bill at second reading. If Standing Order 73(1) is suspended, what is to prevent any Member of the House from proposing a motion to make a change to Clauses 1, 2, 3, 25 or whatever? What normally prevents this from happening is the existence of a specific Standing Order preventing such motions, such as Standing Order 73(1). As I have said, if this motion passes and Standing Order 73(1) is suspended, there is nothing preventing such motions from being brought forward.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
In closing, I would like to refer to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 734 which states:
"The second reading is the most important stage through which the bill is required to pass; for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House. It is not regular on this occasion, however, to discuss in detail the clauses of the bill."
Also, at page 509 of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, a respected procedural authority, it states the following:
"The second reading of a bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure."
What we have here is a motion which will open up to Members the possibility of amending the substance of a Bill at second reading, something which Beauchesne's states should not happen. I do not think this is what the Deputy House Leader had in mind when he brought forward this motion. I cannot understand why he would want to suspend that Standing Order because, as I stated earlier, in order to achieve what he did to his colleagues there would be no need then to suspend Standing Order 73(1). I must say that, perhaps unwittingly, the Deputy House Leader has opened up a whole set of possibilities that would allow amendments at the second reading stage far beyond the one amendment that he would like to have made.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), has made an interesting argument. I am informed exactly that the same point was raised by the Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party in his excellent speech earlier today. In particular, on this matter, why should the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) not be taken to have intended what the House Leader for the NDP has just stated? It may well be that the Government House Leader unintentionally, but in a welcome spirit of generosity, rather than take away from Members of this House their rights to the extent he has been doing all along wants to balance things by giving Members something new. That is what he has done. What is wrong with that? If we are now able, through the adoption of this motion, to offer amendments that we could not offer before on second reading of the Bill to implement the trade deal, what is wrong with that?
As I was saying, I suppose it is up to the Government House Leader to say what he had in mind. Whatever he had in mind, the clear words of the government motion do permit something that is not ordinarily permitted, and if that expands the rights of this House, I repeat, something of that kind might well be very welcome in a
generous spirit connected with this holiday when you contrast it with the arbitrary and jackboot approach of the Government up until now in dealing with the rights of Parliament.
I realize I said yesterday that I would not do this again, and I say this to members of my caucus that I would not be saying kind things about the efforts of the Government House Leader but I am sorry, I apologize to my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, but I find I have to do it again. Unless I am sadly mistaken, the Deputy Leader of the Government may well have done something very generous, and why should we be against that, Mr. Speaker?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Just a couple of points on this, if I may, Mr. Speaker. First, I would argue that the procedural debate on the acceptability of the motion took place on Wednesday afternoon. I felt it was a good debate. Members from all sides were heard. As is the case, often one makes one's point when on your feet. The Chair heard the argument and decided that the motion was procedurally correct.
Yesterday during that point of order on whether or not the motion for Bill C-2 could properly be referred to a Committee of the Whole House rather than a legislative committee, I made the reference to anticipatory arguments. I could have gone on to defend my argument as not being hypothetical because this motion was moved and the Bill had been read a first time. Both were before the House. I suggest to my friend that if he has a point of order, it has to be a point of order. He seems to be seeking direction from the Chair.
1 have always understood that hypothetical questions and points of order are not in order. It may very well be that when We reach the second reading stage of this debate again on Monday that my hon. friend may put an amendment at second reading. I think that is the point at which the Chair should rule on whether or not my hon. friend has a point of order, at that point when the action is taken, not here in the context of this debate whether the substance of the motion should pass.
I say to my hon. friend he has an interesting point. I think it is premature and I think it is hypothetical. 1 submit to the Chair that it should be ruled out of order if that is the case or just perhaps taken as comment by the Chair, but I do not believe that my hon. friend has a valid point of order.
December 16, 1988


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to say to my hon. friend, the whip for the Official Opposition, that I was absent during his presentation and, therefore, did not have the benefit of his sage observations.
I want to suggest very clearly, rising on this point of order, that I believe the motion is, in fact, out of order. The motion itself should be ruled out of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It has been ruled in order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We have made some changes, Mr. Speaker. I suspect what the Deputy House Leader (Mr. Lewis) has indicated is that as a result of his initiative, the ability to deal at second reading stage of this Bill is improper.


An Hon. Member:: Enhance?


Nelson Andrew Riis: While it is enhanced procedurally, it is improper. For that reason I think this whole matter should be ruled out of order. That was the point of my intervention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion has been ruled on by the Speaker and the motion is in order.


An Hon. Member:: It still is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member would like to raise it at a future time, the House will then look at it again.
Therefore, the question is as follows: Mr. Lewis, seconded by my Mr. Mazankowski moved that notwithstanding any order and practice of this House-shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The vote is on the amendment. Mr. Hawkes, seconded by Mr. Layton, moved in amendment thereto that the motion be amended by deleting in paragraph 5 the words "all such Bills"-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: -and substituting the following Bill C-A point of order. The Hon. Member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, are you of the impression that there are no further speakers? What are we doing at the moment?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the amendment. I was under the impression that there were no further speakers. I was putting the question on the amendment.
Extension of Sittings


Nelson Andrew Riis: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you should give us an opportunity to see if there are further speakers.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Nobody stood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) would like to speak, I will recognize him.


David Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did think that there were no further speakers after the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. Riis) got up on a point of order. I apologize. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has the floor.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I was under the assumption that perhaps the Chair would take the point raised by the Hon. Member under advisement and not put the rest of this debate in jeopardy as being totally out of order. Nonetheless, since that is not the case, I will continue in the same vein of wide range of order which the Chair has so graciously allowed.
What the Member has pointed out is that the Government in its haste to ram this legislation through the House of Commons is actually building more of a mess than what can be anticipated up until this point. We have spent this time debating a motion that has been totally and inadequately prepared. Had the Government been more responsible and moved immediately to put this Bill into committee, we would have been further ahead in all instances. If anyone is to blame for wasting time in the House, and wasting the peoples' time, it is the Government in its inadequate way of handling this whole matter.
When I came to this Chamber, I was told that this was the big leagues. With the Government's handling of this matter I have discovered that it is the bush leagues. I have discovered very quickly that there is an inadequate understanding of what this whole process is. If there had been some graciousness, some maturity, and some deep concern about the feelings of people on this legislation, the Government would have immediately moved the Bill into committee and held hearings in committee in an orderly fashion.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
This raises in people's minds a very simple question: What is the hurry? What is the hurry to push legislation on the eve of Christmas, legislation that is probably the most important that this House has debated in perhaps 50 years?
Some of the most profound arguments against this type of debate were made by a great parliamentarian, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, who was a Leader of the Conservative Party. If John Diefenbaker were alive today, he would be up on his feet not only condemning the Government on the free trade legislation, but on the method by which it is trying to ram it through the House.
One becomes attuned to the niceties of the process itself. As I watched the process develop, I was struck by the graciousness of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). Yesterday, the Leader of the Official Opposition took his place in the Chamber when the debate was initiated on the Bill and profoundly laid out his opposition to it. During that process we received a signal of the Government's attitude toward the debate and toward the total opposition. On the Government benches, the Minister responsible for the Bill rose and apologized that he would not be here for the debate. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was not present for one single minute during that particular


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Minister.


John Horton McDermid: I know that the Hon. Member is a new Member to the House of Commons. However, he is a former Premier of a province. He may not know the rules in the House, but we do not refer to the attendance of individual Members and whether they are present in the House. That is the second or third time today that we have heard that from the New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope that the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett) would consider that in context and please be advised not to mention who is and who is not in the House.


David Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Being an ingenue I welcome hearing the rules. If it is an offence to suggest that everybody on the Cabinet benches should be here when this debate is taking place, I apologize.
After the presentation by the Leader of the Official Opposition, he sat through the whole debate of the position taken by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). He thanked the Leader of the New Democratic Party and continued a tradition that I think is essential to the spirit of co-operation in this Chamber.
Now that I cannot talk about a point that I wished to make, if memories are long enough to remember the point that I made, I would like to complete the argument by suggesting that courtesy is also an essential element of co-operation in the House, and there has been very little courtesy from the Government Members. Yes, you won an election, and good for you; yes, you sold your case, and good for you; yes, you are here in great numbers, and good for you. However, it is the duty of those who are elected from other Parties to stand up and represent the other point of view in this country, and that is exactly what they have been sent here to do.
There is a haste that is being pushed by the Government that does not appear to be reciprocated by the other partner in this deal. Have the Americans publicly stated that this deal must be signed by January 1 ? Not to my knowledge. That raises the question, have they said privately that this must be signed by January 1 ? Is there a deadline that we do not know about that is forcing the agenda of the Government? Is there an agreement of which we are not aware that makes it absolutely mandatory that this agreement go through on January 1?
We have no public knowledge that the Americans have taken the position that the deal will be dead if it is not passed by midnight, January 1. Is there a secret agreement that unless it goes through by January 1, it will be dead? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. Who is setting the agenda? Is it the concerns of the Canadian people that will set the agenda, or is there something else going on that we do not know about?
Far be it from me to suggest that there is a secret agenda. Far be it from me to lay that suspicion in anybody's mind. It is mighty suspicious that after winning the election the Government stated that it wanted a reconciliation and a healing process, and then comes into this Chamber and attempts to ram the legislation through, in light of the fact that there was not truly a debate in the House prior to the election on the issue itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: How would you know, you were not here?


David Barrett: I was in British Columbia, part of this great dominion. There was no parliamentary committee in the province of British Columbia visited by Ottawa to allow ordinary citizens to present their case one way or another in front of that committee on the free trade issue.
December 16, 1988

Mir. McDermid: Wrong.


David Barrett: Were the people of Sydney, Nova Scotia visited by-in tatters and rags, I am sure because it is a long trip for these venerable gentlemen-a parliamentary committee in order that ordinary citizens could have their say? Not at all. There was no travelling committee. There was not even a subcommittee of this Chamber. It was put in this House and again closure was used. Closure was used by a political Party that, under a former Leader, promised that it would never do so.
The Government has decided that it is ruling by divine right rather than by a consensus of citizens. There are going to be disruptions from the agreement, and everybody on the government side acknowledges that. However, does the Government intend to head off the deep resentment of people who will be affected by this Bill by at least letting them have a say? Not at all. Government Members say: "Suspend the rules, we are going to ram it through, and we will have anything we want any time we want it".
I suppose that is permissible. I suppose one can do whatever one wants with the rules. Earlier I heard someone talk about moral responsibility. There is no such thing as moral responsibility with a Government that has this majority. It has decided that it will change the rules to suit its own purposes.
I suppose in another Chamber or with another attitude some Members will go to high schools or to universities and tell students to behave themselves, obey the rules of life, and they too will be a success and can join the Conservative Party and then break the rules when they get there.
These sanctimonious Tories who, in deep, serious tones, talk about their mandate to put forward this legislation without a commitment for allowing full debate, suggests the word hypocrisy. I do not know if the word "hypocrisy" is allowed in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Wyatt Dick: It is not.


David Barrett: It is not allowed in this Chamber.


Sergio Marchi: Generically, it is.


David Barrett: Generically, it is allowed. Well, generically it applies to the Conservative Party. I see it as a
Extension of Sittings
cynical move by a Government that does not have a commitment to the total parliamentary process. Only that type of Government would bring forward the amendment we are debating today.
There will be anger over the legislation, Mr. Speaker, as it goes through, and the anger over its results will continue to build in this country. One of the higher points of that anger will relate to the fact that committee consideration of the legislation was done in Committee of the Whole as opposed to a legislative committee of the House.
The whole process, Mr. Speaker, is not a good lesson for new Members of this Chamber, who actually believed that they would be heard as individuals-and that is true even of government back-benchers.
The fact that the Government placed its back-bench Members in the front benches on this side of the House, where opposition Members traditionally have been, is symbolic of how this Government feels about the Parliament of Canada. The front benches on this side of the House should be allocated to the Liberal and New Democratic Parties, with the Government back-benchers then being allocated seating. But that was not to be the case. This Government returned to this House, flush with victory, and declared, through the selection of seating alone, that it did not give a fig about the Opposition; that it was going to have its way, no matter what. And that is exactly what is taking place.


Some Hon. Members:: You should consider yourself fortunate to have a seat at all.


An Hon. Member:: We did not know it bothered you so much, Dave.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that I have captured the attention of Hon. Members opposite. I am thankful that I have Hon. Members opposite listening to me and that they are acting so friendly toward me. In fact, I now want to ask the Government-


An Hon. Member:: Hey, windbag, when are you going to learn the rules of this place?


David Barrett: -what its purpose is.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I find some of the interjections most interesting. I really do.


An Hon. Member:: That is good, because your speech sure is not.


David Barrett: It is the kind of arrogance that is being displayed by Hon. Members opposite that leads to cynicism about politics in this country; and it is that kind of arrogance that will lead to the disillusionment on the part of the majority in this country in respect of what it is we in this Chamber attempt to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I have been told that I should not make reference to attendance, and I will not; however, I find it interesting that there is not one voice on the Government side that is prepared to say: "Okay, we will go back to being the principled Tories we were under Diefenbaker. Okay, we will take a little more time; okay, we will hear this debate out, permitting every Member to speak, and then we will have our way."
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that there is a secret agenda, one that Hon. Members opposite are not sharing with this House. That can be the only explanation for the motion we have before us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Member for Sault-Ste-Marie, on debate.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault-Ste-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to rise for the first time in this House to speak to an issue of little substance, to speak to a point of principle-a principle of considerable import to me, to my constituents, and to the people of Canada. While I appreciate that what I have to say will fall on deaf ears, I am obligated to speak against the kind of undemocratic heavy-handed style of this majority Government.
Before being elected to the House of Commons- something which makes me feel very proud and honoured-I was an educator, the principal of an elementary school, of some 26 years, in which capacity I had the occasion to referee many school yard disagreements. What we are faced with in this session reminds me of just such disagreements. Often, the disagreements were playground quarrels resulting from the arbitrary decision by some bully to change the rules of the game.
If I may continue the analogy, as the referee and witnesses to the event inevitably would rule against the bully, the Government in this case, being the bully, will, in the end, receive its just retribution. It will take time, but inevitably it will happen.
When one modifies the rules-or worse yet discards the rules-the effect on the rules is great; but even more dramatic is the effect on the process itself. Let us not forget the effect upon the participants.
It is no wonder that people are cynical of Government.
The bottom line for New Democrats-and, we believe, for Canadians-is that we object to the contravention of the long-standing revered traditions of Parliament, and we wish our objections to be stated and recorded. We question the abandonment of the rules. Why were they abandoned? There is no apparent reason, other than to satisfy a self-inflicted but nonbinding deadline.
January 1, 1989, is not significant to the Americans, apparently; yet, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) states that he is concerned that the Americans may request exemptions from the Free Trade Agreement if we ask for any change in the deadline. That statement only leads credence to the perception that we will soon be into a master-slave situation as a result of the Free Trade Agreement.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate what a major personal disappointment it is to be obligated to speak to a matter that should not be in question, rules that are enshrined to serve a particular and pragmatic purpose.
It has been a sorry beginning to this the Thirty-fourth Parliament, and we are fearful that things will continue in this fashion, unless this Government changes its pompous, inflexible attitude. The election victory was not meant to condone or endorse smugness. We are only requesting the opportunity to speak to a deal that we believe to be the death-knell of Canada as we know it.
[ Translation]


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: For four years I have been working with a team I think has been serving the community well, especially the Canadian electorate, because in those four years the conservative Party succeeded in reducing the deficit, in creating new jobs, in bringing provinces together. Also globally, Mr. Speaker, we succeeded in giving our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our Canadian Government a credibility that had been lost for some years.
But having followed for four days the proceedings on the procedural matter, quite frankly I wonder what role the Opposition can play in the debate and what should that role be. Are we here to discuss a legislation that is good for the community, good for Canada, for everyone, or are we here to discuss procedure?
1 feel we are wasting time, wasting the time of Canadians. They did not elect me for that. Why did they elect me? Because with the Free Trade Bill, Mr. Speaker, we have something good for their future, the future of our children. But during four days we have been discussing the procedural matter of whether we are going to speak through the night, whether we are going to discuss something? Listen now. I am not sure people in my constituency are proud of what the Opposition is doing. On this side we are so to speak muzzled because they are delaying matters. And on top of that, they rise and tell us we are delaying. On top of that, they rise and tell us we are being hypocritical, we did not act properly during the election campaign, Canadians did not vote for free trade.
Well, I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker. In the Province of Quebec ... I was listening to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Pagtakhan) suggest we were asked questions on free trade during the election campaign. As far as I am concerned, I can tell you one thing: Not one question was put to me during the elections. Nobody told me: Your thing is no good, explain it to me. They all said: It is good for us, jobs will be created, go ahead. As proof, look at us Quebeckers- we were 57, I think, before the election, and now we are 63.


An Hon. Member:: Laval is true blue!


Guy Ricard: That is a fact! Laval is true blue!
So here is what I am telling myself: Why repeat that some one million plus Canadians voted against free trade and because of that, Mr. Speaker, we should start all over again holding public hearings, having committees travel accross Canada, debate through mid-January or perhaps mid-February. Come on. They should be a little more serious. I think that today we should make a
Extension of Sittings
final decision on that, adhere to our schedule and make the decision we had proposed with Bill C-130, complete before the end of December the debate on free trade so as to be in a position in January to implement what we said we would, what is good for the Canadian community, for Quebeckers and for people in Laval.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disturbed to find myself making my first speech in this House on a procedural motion.


John Horton McDermid: Then save it.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: There are four reasons why I am unhappy about this. First, I am one of the new Members of this House. I was not here during the last debate on the free trade Bill. There are 126 other new Members who did not have the opportunity to discuss and lay before the House their concerns and those of their constituents over this Bill. I think it is shameful that the Conservative majority would try to prevent new Members of Parliament from having the opportunity to speak on such an important motion.
All the new Members of Parliament are not just on the opposition side. There are new Members in the Conservative benches who I think also would like the opportunity to stand up and say what they know about their constituents' feelings over the trade deal.
Second, I am representing a new riding. My riding is one of four new ridings in British Columbia. Surrey North was made up from parts of two ridings held for the last 15 or 20 years by Conservatives. That new riding voted solidly New Democrat because it wanted me to come to this House and speak on its behalf about this trade deal. Clearly it was unhappy and wanted changes. It wants protection for social programs and economic development. Yet, the Government is determined that we will not have ample discussion about it.
Surrey North is basically a family community. It is one of the fastest growing residential areas in Canada. Some 60 per cent of the new housing built in the lower mainland of British Columbia in the last five years has been built in Surrey North. The riding is made up of working families and they are deadly afraid of this deal. They are not the big multinational corporations. They do not sit on boards of directors. They have difficulty making ends meet. They cannot afford to risk unemployment and see their social programs eroded by this free trade deal.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
People have said the Government has a mandate. Let me tell you, in British Columbia the mandate was very clear.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Get rid of Vander Zalm.


Ms. Langan:: That, too.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: That, too. The people of British Columbia understand that the Vander Zalm Socreds and the Tories are the same people.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No, we are not.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: That is why they will get rid of both.
In British Columbia, people understand very well that this was a vote on the free trade deal. They voted very clearly against the Government, as did the majority of Canadians. Some 53 per cent of Canadians voted against the Government and against free trade.


Benno Friesen: It was 57 per cent.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: It was 57 per cent. Why not 58 per cent? Next time it will be 60 per cent.
Another thing I am very unhappy about is on a personal level. Like many other people in this House, I am the son of an immigrant.


John Horton McDermid: Are not we all?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: My father left Russia because he belonged to a minority group and faced persecution. There were no laws to protect minority groups. There were no rules to protect minority groups. There was no parliament to protect minority groups. There was nothing like Standing Orders to protect minority groups.
My father left Russia and chose to come to Canada because he thought this country was based on parliamentary democracy. He thought all Canadian governments abided by House rules, by democracy. Yet, what do we find? That is not the case. That is one of the reasons I think it is so important that this kind of suspension of the rules not go forward.
There are many people who have come to Canada because they value democracy and freedom. Therefore, we should not allow a Conservative majority, simply because it has been elected and has its own political agenda, to set aside democracy.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver Centre (Ms. Campbell)
quoted our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said on a number of occasions that wealth is created by the citizens rather than by governments. And so one might add that the citizens of a country are not led by the economy, they are the ones who steer and manage the economy.
Our colleague from Langelier (Mr. Loiselle) supported this argument, and he delivered a speech which is a credit to the Conservative Party, its Members, and the vast majority of Canadians.
I quote:
"We saw quite clearly, in the way the people of Quebec participated in the national debate on the major economic issue of the recent campaign, to what extent the whole of Quebec shares in the confidence we have in our capacity to meet the new challenges involved in the globalization of trade. Massively, Quebeckers joined millions of Canadians who felt free trade is the assertion of the national will to open out rather than shutting ourselves in, selfconfidence rather than fear of new horizons."
Hon. Members are no boubt aware that the riding of Outremont, which I have the distinguished honour and privilege of representing in the House, is the image of our beautiful country. It is home to no fewer than 20 different cultural communities, and over 40 different languages and dialects can be heard there. We all know very well in the House that the riding of Outremont has a long and uninterrupted Liberal tradition at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. These people, representing every imaginable status in society as they do, stood up despite their traditional loyalty to a Party, despite a definitely positive perception of the overly and basically theoretical notion of social democracy. So these people stood up and voted, not to elect a particular candidate but to meet certain needs. A professional psychologist who teaches the subject and has been practicing for a little over 30 years is in a good position to single out these needs which explain why the people voted as they did in Outremont, a vote which faithfully reflects everything that happened throughout Canada.


An Hon. Member:: The people have decided!


Jean-Pierre Hogue: The people of Canada thought it would be useful to bring back into office a program, a Prime Minister and a Party-


An Hon. Member:: A wonderful team!
December 16, 1988


Jean-Pierre Hogue: -a team that can help our country move forward.
The Opposition, which seems to believe that its role is to oppose, is unfortunately spreading falsehoods. In every society, the Opposition's job is to promote debate, not to act as if it were at the helm. It seems to me that the Opposition resorts to demagoguery when it claims that more than 50 per cent of the population voted against free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: That is untrue.


Jean-Pierre Hogue: One cannot with impunity, Mr. Speaker, distort the rules of democracry. Either we abide by the percentage of votes or by the number of Members elected. And according to the rules of our democracy, the number of Members elected is what enables a party to take power and govern.
Since the Free Trade Agreement is a treaty, it allows both parties, over a certain period of time, to normalize their relations. There can be no security in the absence of standards, procedures and limits. The same thing goes for this House, which can only function because it abides by standards and procedures. One can always indulge in histrionics and tear up pages in a book, but if the Members respect each other, they will treat this book as it should be and they will obey the rules of procedure instead of constantly bypassing them.
It is therefore, as I was saying, through standards that a people can increase its security and the Canadian people will be more secure because it will no longer depend on the whims of a huge country like our good neighbour to the south.
The people of the riding of Outremont voted for free trade because the wider the border is open the easier it will be for all cultural entities to benefit from unrestricted economic and financial exchanges. People will have more disposable income. Canadians, individually and collectively, will stand to benefit from the freer flow of consumer goods.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that Canadians deserve this kind of treatment, and I do not think that Canadians should have to put up with the kind of incidents we have been witnessing in the House over the last few days. As a new Member of the House, I have learned that there are, to use an English expression, losers as well as winners.
It seems to me that some of our colleagues rise to express a feeling of mistrust, as if Canada stands to lose under this treaty.
Extension of Sittings
I would suggest that the Progressive Conservative Party and its Members are taking a more constructive approach, and this is why we fully support this initiative and look forward to debating such a challenging issue.
In university lecture rooms we can see how democracy works. A lecture room is not unlike this House, but after a while the students accept the authority, they get in step with the kind of authority as expressed by the vote of the people. Mr. Speaker, there have been enough speeches, the people brought the Conservative Party back into office and gave it a mandate to administer the country, so we should not waste too much time listening to demagogic comments which, as I said earlier, do not lead us anywhere.
Mr. Speaker, whatever their cultural background, I think that the people of the riding of Outremont want free trade. I must be their spokesman in this House and suggest that we ought to launch a more constructive debate at the earliest opportunity.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I was elected in Mission-Coquitlam by people who oppose the trade deal. It is true that the Conservatives won the majority of seats in this House and that they formed the Government. But I believe, as many Canadians believe, that they did not win the hearts and minds of all Canadians.
What the Government's motion does is to suspend the rules and to make a mockery of what Parliament is all about. This Government is mocking those Canadians who voted for any other political Party but Tory. The Government is mocking Canadians in 126 ridings who said no to the deal and yes to Canada. The Government is mocking new Members of Parliament who came to Ottawa to represent seriously and thoughtfully their constituents. The Government, through its wheeling and dealing, is in fact frustrating the established system of parliamentary democracy and the established rules of order.
New Members in all parts of this House are struggling. We arrived two weeks ago to absolute chaos. We had no offices, no telephones-indeed there are still Members without offices and telephones-no staff, and no briefing on parliamentary process. Now, as new Members, we struggle to work our way through this book, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Members on the Government side of the House ignore this book. Members on the Government side of the House remove rule after rule. It certainly makes bedtime reading easier, but it does not help Members of Parliament to work through the process.
The Government should have more respect for its own new Members if not for the new Members on this side of the House. As a new parliamentarian, I am shocked, dismayed, and saddened by what I have seen in this House for the past week. I am sure the constituents of Mission-Coquitlam, no matter what their political stripe, are as dismayed and shocked as I am by the performance of the Government to date.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity to urge the Government to respect all Canadians and to respect other Members of the House of Commons be they honourable or otherwise, and to respect the rules and the traditions-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is no such thing as "otherwise" in this House. They are all Honourable Members.


Joy Langan: I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that had we been given the rules-


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Joy Langan: -and the training, we would not be making these kinds of mistakes. My apologies.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity to speak in the House today. I want to express at the outset my thanks to my constituents in Kingston and the Islands who did me the honour of electing me to represent them in this Parliament. Like the speakers who have preceded me, I regret that my first speech in this Chamber is on a procedural motion, as this one is. I think it is unfortunate that the Government has chosen to take the first week of a new session of Parliament to abandon the traditional speeches that proceed in this Chamber, the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, and try to ram through a Bill to force the Free Trade Agreement on Canadians.
The Government is the master of its own misfortune in this place, but I will turn to that later in my speech. For the moment, I would like to discuss the application of the closure rule which the Government is using to force this measure through the House.
Twice already we have had notice of closure, and today we have had one of the motions put and voted on in this House. I would like to go back to the history of that rule. It was introduced by a Conservative Government originally in 1913, and was used to ram through a certain naval Bill at that time, as I recall.
Subsequently in 1917, it was used on a couple of occasions to rig the election so the Conservatives could gain re-election in the general election of 1919. It was also used again on a more famous occasion by another government in 1956.
None of the Members who are in the House today were present on that occasion, as I understand it. They have all left the Chamber. I listened with interest to the speech of my friends in the New Democratic Party. They quoted Mr. Diefenbaker during the course of the pipeline debate. I will not repeat those words, but it seems to me that they embody the view of the Conservative Party on closure.
I note that in 1957, during the election campaign that year, Mr. Diefenbaker, who was then the Leader of the Conservative Party, although my friends opposite seem to have forgotten this fact, campaigned on a platform to abolish the closure rule in this House. Indeed, in the session of 1957-58, he introduced a motion that would have eliminated the rule, but he did not proceed with it. It was another broken Tory promise. However, I do not think Mr. Diefenbaker and his Government ever used closure. In 1964, we had, of course, closure once again. After months and months on the flag debate, the closure rule was applied by the then government to bring that lengthy debate to an end.


John Horton McDermid: A Liberal Government.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is correct. The person who spoke out most vociferously against the use of the rule was a person who was a member of the present administration until his resignation in January, 1987. That person was Mr. Erik Neilsen, the former Hon. Member for Yukon. He had a lot to say about the Government's use of closure in 1964. I would like to quote him because, of course, he will be fresh in the minds of many of the members on the opposite side of the House. I quote from page 11059 of Hansard of December 11, 1964:
"The procedure of closure has been repugnant to the sense of fair
play of the Canadian people. My own personal view is that never in
parliamentary debate should there be a muzzling of free debate.
They will say they were forced into this by a fatuous opposition.
Surely we had the right to debate this issue,-"
December 16, 1988

He went on to say:
"In every single case, as Laurier said on one occasion, where closure has been imposed, the opposition has been justified."
On page 11061, Mr. Nielsen went on to say:
"There is something else I will vote against when the time comes to do so, and that is the imposition of closure in the House of Commons. I will vote against the gagging and throttling of parliamentary debate, because that is what is happening."
Mr. Diefenbaker in the same debate, a wonderful, wonderful fellow, went on to say:
"-any flag brought in by closure cannot but fly over a divided nation and a discredited Government."
He was talking about our flag, of course, and we know that he was wrong on that issue. He said further:
"The Prime Minister says that an opposition has no right to
prevent a decision. Taken literally that might be true, but in actual
practice one of the major features of our parliamentary system is
that oppositions have a responsibility to prevent wrong decisions."
Those are the words not of Liberals. Those are the words of Conservative Members of great credibility, leaders of their own Party. Indeed, Mr. Neilsen was the Deputy Prime Minister, as I recall, before his resignation in January, 1987.
I think the record should show that during the years he was here-and 1 believe he was also the Government House Leader from 1984 to 1987-closure was never imposed in this House. He obviously believed what he said, and I am sure he was speaking for his Party when he spoke. What happened after he left in January? In June 1987, closure was invoked to cut off the debate on capital punishment. In June, 1988, just this past summer, on a motion similar to the one before the House today, closure was invoked to ram that suspension of the rules through as well.
In other words, the suspension of the rules and the use of closure to do it is becoming a bit of a habit. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is a bad habit and one the Government ought to correct at once.
I would like to turn to the question of why we are facing this particular problem today. The Deputy Government House Leader has pointed out quite accurately that there was extensive debate on this issue during the course of the last Parliament. He has given us statistics to show how many days and hours the debate raged, and that is fine. There are something over 100 new Members in this Parliament-and I am subject to correction on my figures-who have never had an opportunity to discuss this issue in this House or in committee. Surely we have a right to proceed with that kind of discussion. Surely the discussion ought not to be forced upon us by sitting through the Christmas holidays well into the night, which is the proposal the Government has put before us.
___________________________________203
Extension of Sittings
Surely the debate ought to proceed in a normal parliamentary fashion where the matter is brought forward and referred to committee for study. This committee ought to be permitted to travel the country to get the views of Canadians on this issue, and then to come back and give the matter serious deliberation, to vote on the proposals for amendment, and to have third reading debate.
If the Government knew this all along, and it negotiated the deal, why did it call the election so late in November that there were only eight or nine sitting days of Parliament left before the normal Christmas break?
In July, Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) made it clear that the Bill would not clear the Senate before an election was called. It is not as though it were a surprise to the Government that there would be a problem. In spite of that the Government sat here and introduced, beginning in June, virtually its entire legislative program. After three years of indolence it decided that since it had to go to the people within a matter of months it had better do something and pass some legislation. It introduced a whole series of major Bills, starting in May and June of this year and including tax reform, child care, broadcasting and, of course, free trade. When it found it was having trouble getting some of this legislation through, it changed the rules as it is trying to do today in order to make Parliament accommodate itself to the wishes of the Government.
It got some of its legislation through but things stalled again. We went to the people finally in November after, in the view of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at least, the polls had changed. He is the one who told us that he did not govern by polls but governed by the great democratic tradition and his great thought process on when it would be best to let the people make a decision.
If he had not been governing by polls, I suggest that normal rational consideration of the parliamentary timetable would have taken him to the people long before November 21. He would have been there in October, and we would have had several months in which to debate this issue in Parliament and to give this major Bill the consideration it deserves. Hon. Members know how thick the Bill is. As I recall, the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) claimed he could not tear it up because it was so thick. We are expected to pass this Bill before the end of next week. It has only just been introduced this week.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
We have not had any of the usual discussions at the opening of Parliament. We have been plunged into debates on procedural matters, and now a debate based on a closure motion that was passed this morning and is cutting off this debate later today.
It is a poor way to run a House of Commons, and the Government has that responsibility. It is a poor way to run a government, and the Government has that responsibility.
I say to Hon. Members opposite that I hope that having heard the very reasonable arguments which have been advanced on this side of the House throughout the day, they will consider exercising some independence of judgment and voting against this resolution which will change and in effect abrogate the rules of this House.
We could have a full, free, honest and open debate on free trade in which all Members may participate fully in committee and at all the various reading stages of the Bill. Rather than have midnight sittings and holiday sittings, I invite those Members to exercise that judgment today and vote with us to defeat this motion.


Mr. Jean Corbeil (Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour indeed for me to be here today and to make my maiden speech in such an impressive forum rooted in tradition and history. As I rise for the first time as the newly elected Member for the Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies riding, Mr. Speaker, I should like, if I may, to express my sincere gratitude to all the men and women in that new riding who have granted me the privilege of representing them in this House and, together with my honourable colleagues and under the undisputed leadership of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), to be part of the first majority government for the first time ever over the past fifty years to be re-elected for a second term.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding which is situated at the eastern limit of Montreal Island and which is made up of two Montreal wards together with an autonomous municipality, Ville d'Anjou, which I had the honour to represent as its mayor for 15 consecutive years before seeking my election as Member of the House of Commons.
The Anjou-Riviere-des-Prairies riding is very active in the commercial and industrial fields, has a population of about 100,000 people of diverse ethnic origin. It is made up of a very large Francophone majority, along with significant Italian, Haitian and Anglophone
communities, as well as various other ethnic communities which have learned to live and work together in harmony.
My political progression in municipal affairs was a source of great satisfaction for me during all those years and I am grateful to all the men and women-the volunteers and community organizations, my municipal colleagues and supporters-who helped me during that period.
However, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that 1 was overjoyed to have been elected as a Member of this distinguished assembly and that I was really looking forward to coming to the Canadian Capital to represent the men and women of my riding, of my Province of Quebec, of my country Canada. I must admit also that this legitimate desire to come here to discuss the major issues which concern our fellow citizens has been considerably dampened by what performance we have witnessed so far during this session.
Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons I agreed to run in the election was my conviction that free trade is the key to future Canadian prosperity. During a campaign that was long and hard for all players, we had to spend a lot of energy and effort to reassure the most vulnerable members of society, the poor and the elderly, who were told by representatives of the two parties now in the Opposition that their pensions and social benefits were threatened by an agreement which we think will bring prosperity to the whole country.
But what is distressing in this spectacle we have been subjected to since the beginning of the week and the session is to realize that the people opposite have not yet understood that this Government has been re-elected because it combines two intrinsic qualities required to form a government citizens can trust: an unchallenged leadership and a credibility built up over the years. And we have seen this week that Hon. Members of both Opposition parties are on that side of the House precisely because they do not have sufficient credibility to deserve the trust of most Canadians.
With great emotional speeches, they would have us believe that the people did not make a clear-cut decision on November 21. They seem to be pretending to ignore all the governments that led this country in recent years; they were governments that had a majority of seats, because that is how the Canadian Parliament works. And they juggle figures and use all sorts of percentages to try to show and to lead the Canadian people, whose intelligence they seem to greatly underestimate, to believe that the next government should be led by the minority.
December 16, 1988

During the election campaign, we saw the leader of a party make tearing up the agreement one of his main themes. Today, we have on two or three occasions witnessed certain Hon. Members of this august body also tear up other official documents. That is exactly how, throughout the election campaign that ended in our victory on November 21, the Members of those two parties showed the Canadian people that they were not unifiers like our leader and our party, which bring the Canadian people together; rather, they tear the Canadian people apart. They do not care about the prosperity of the country, but are more concerned with spreading mistrust among the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the reason we obtained the confidence of the majority of Canadians is that we bet on their maturity and intelligence rather than on their mistrust and their fear of the future. We are convinced that the Canadian people are mature enough to have confidence in the future and to know that the Government they chose four years ago and returned to power recently is one that cares about the interests of all Canadians, men and women, one that says the same thing in all parts of Canada, and not one that says one thing in the West against Quebec, something else in the Maritimes against Ontario and something else again in other parts of Canada. The Progressive Conservative Party is a Party and a Government that says the same thing throughout Canada, that speaks the language of reason and invites the citizens of Canada to a prosperous future, based on constructive actions.
Over these last few days, Mr. Speaker, they tried constantly to avoid addressing the purpose for which Canadian citizens sent us here, that is to finalize the free trade agreement. And that lack of credibility is being shown by the actions of those people over these last few months. First, they asked for elections to be held on the issue of free trade, suggesting we had no mandate to implement free trade, there should be an election on that.


An Hon. Member:: Let the people decide!


Jean Corbeil: Let the people decide!, as I am reminded by my friend Vincent. The people decided on November 21. They decided by giving us a majority. They elected the Party that proposed signing a free trade agreement,
Extension of Sittings
the Party that proposed prosperity for Canada over the coming years.
The people's verdict therefore was very clear-cut, so much so that on election night and over the following days both Opposition Leaders appeared before the media and conceded they had failed to convince the Canadian people to support their cause. They realized in the days that followed the election that the issue had been settled by the Canadian people and we had to proceed with signing the free trade. But soon, perhaps by chance, the rumblings started within those two Parties and the leadership races got underway, even though the leaders are still in place, they are still on the job. The membership did not wait for the corpse to get cold before it started the leadership races, almost starting to celebrate certain departures and arrivals.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why those Parties did not enjoy the credibility that would have allowed them to form the Canadian Government for the the next four years. Over these last few days they still lack the kind of sincerity that would have regained them some credibility. As we came here on Monday we had every opportunity to take the steps and make the understandings needed in order that during the first four days of this week we could sit 12, 13, or 14 hours a day. We could also have had sittings tomorrow and Sunday and also on the four or five next days of the following week, to give them the number of hours needed, even though the debate already had gone through for more than 33 hours during last Parliament. The possibility was there for each and every Member, new or old, to express his or her views on the matter. Rather, they chose to get into procedural debate, having us go in and out of the House waiting for the bell to stop ringing in order to come and vote on matters of procedure.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of closure of which we heard nothing today . . . Really the debate has raged on free trade under the guise of discussing the motion of closure. Closure is something that is provided for in the Standing Orders, and therefore a procedure that may be used when we want the majority to govern the country, majority rule rather than minority rule using procedural gimmicks to prevent the real debate to proceed, to prevent free trade from being finalized, to prevent

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Canada from starting again on the road to prosperity we had opened over these last few years.
[DOT]	(H40)


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kooteney West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted some four years ago, I rise to oppose the arrogant behaviour of an arrogant government. The only difference between today and some four years ago, when I last rose in this House, is that the arrogant government is now a Conservative Government instead of a Liberal Government. That seems to be the only difference except in the matter of degree.
For a while that previous government, Mr. Lalonde in particular, had begun the process of weakening what was then called the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and we warned about the consequences of that. This Government has, for all intents and purposes, now wiped it out all together and attempts today enshrine in an international agreement a Conservative regime now and for all time, which would prohibit the people of Canada from exercising their freedom of choice to ensure that Canada remain Canadian in the future.
It appears that my colleagues on my immediate right in the Liberal Party have learned something from their mistakes. They have now realized that rather than let this country drift more and more into the orbit of the friendly republic to the south, they have to take a stand. They have joined with us in attempting to stop the trade deal that this debate is about, despite this particular part of the debate being about the rather nasty rules being imposed. This debate is about preserving this nation for the future and preserving the future freedom of choice of Canadians to determine what kind of society they want to live in.
I always thought things were supposed to be a little better after the second coming, but as the old song goes, I now find out that It Ain't Necessarily So. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said after election day that it was now time for healing, that the battle was over, I did not know that healing was spelled h-e-e-l-i-n-g. I always thought it was h-e-a-1 to which he was referring, and the newspapers and the press obviously thought that too.
[DOT]	(1750)
But all we have heard since that time is the Prime Minister yelling "heel", and the Tories obey. He says: "heel" and they heel. He says: "heel", and they heel again. The Minister of Trade says: "heel", and they heel again.
That is not what this Member of Parliament was elected to do, and I suggest to Members opposite that it is not their duty to heel to anyone's command as individual Members of Parliament. When the Prime Minister says "heel", I suggest they check the spelling of the word because what we have seen is not the "healing" interpretation of the word, which means to get over some of the nastiness that pervaded during the last election campaign. Feelings were strong and they were sometimes bitter because they were strongly held on both sides.
Individually we all have different mandates from our particular constituencies, but we must attempt to recognize that we have distinctive mandates and that we are marching to different drummers. All wise people are not on one side of the House. We are not necessarily allwise on this side, but we shall continue to attempt to stop this deal because that is our mandate. We shall attempt to stop it also because we have not had the opportunity to debate it in this context before. If the Government is hell-bent on proceeding with its plan, which we think is wrong, it must attempt to do so in such a way as to preserve certain essential ingredients of the future freedoms of the people of Canada in the process. It must ensure that the fewest people possible are dislocated, hurt, or adjusted whether horizontally, vertically or however the Government intends to adjust them.
The Government has a mandate. It knows it, but so do we have a mandate. We in the Opposition have a mandate. I as the Member for Kootenay West- Revelstoke have a personal mandate approaching some 47 per cent, and indirectly a mandate of 64 per cent of the electors of my constituency, almost two-thirds, who voted for candidates and parties who said: "Stop the deal". That is a majority in Nelson, in my home community. It is also a majority in Trail, Castlegar, Kaslo, Nakusp, Rossland, Revelstoke, Salmo, Montrose, Warfield, Silverton, Slocan, New Denver, and Fruitvale. In every major community of my riding there was a clear majority, approaching two-thirds of the electors and sometimes much more, who said the deal was wrong and that they wanted none of it. I have a responsibility as do my colleagues, to make sure that the Government recognizes that we have mandates too.
This kind of debate and these kinds of procedures are not the way for a civilized Parliament in a civilized country to attempt to reach rational conclusions and display some sensitivity to all those out in the country who have given us our individual and collective mandates.
December 16, 1988

The debate in the election and before, both in this House and out in the countryside was simply yes or no. Do we want this deal or not? The debate now is still yes or no, but it is also how and under what conditions and how best to protect Canadians from the effects of this deal. That debate has not yet been held. That is just one more reason why the Government's arrogant attempt to impose new, reprehensible and unjustified rules and procedures in this debate is wrong.
This is legislation by exhaustion and an attempt to achieve annexation by exhaustion or, if you choose, absorption by attrition. That is not what an assembly of supposed intelligent debate ought to be about.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mission- Coquitlam (Ms. Langan), mentioned just a few moments ago that those new Members in this House who have not had the dubious distinction or pleasure of having been here or of having visited this place before in an official capacity and find themselves in some consternation attempting to learn the rules in a few very short days. It is one thing to want to learn the rules, but when you have a government that insists on changing the rules to meet its whim-and that is what it is, a whim-it is wrong because there is no compulsion upon the Government to have this agreement passed through all stages by January 1, 1989, and the Government knows it.
The Government says that its credibility is at stake. It said: "We have told our American brothers that we would have this thing signed, sealed, and all wrapped up by January 1, 1989". But our friends from the republic to the south have already said that they are quite willing to extend that time. There is nothing hard and fast about it. The Americans certainly perceive it to be in their interests that this agreement ought to be concluded. Obviously the Government thinks that it is in our nation's interest, rightly or wrongly. But there is no need to rush this matter through and deny this House the opportunity to make careful examination of the provisions of the enabling legislation, particularly in view of the fact that the Government made quick, last minute changes to that enabling legislation the first time it was brought into this House at third reading.
Obviously the Government had not given good thought to it at that time, but the Tories found out after they had almost got the Bill through the House of Commons that they had made a serious mistake. They
Extension of Sittings
finally decided to delete the section which originally indicated that the Free Trade Agreement would take precedence over all Canadian law. They thought that was a mistake either for good, sound reasons or simply for sound political reasons.
We are not going to have time to review this carefully in the limited time the Government is giving us. By sitting all hours of the night, and very soon on a very limited and closed, set timetable, we will not be able to give adequate attention to the detailed provisions of this enabling legislation. Is it still the same, or has the Government made more changes? We do not know yet. Perhaps the Government does not know yet either. It did not last time. Does it?
Mr. Clayton Yeutter played a very key and vital part in selling the American case during the negotiations between the U.S. and Canada on this deal. In the Vancouver Province for Thursday, November 17, 1988, at page 17 we read:
"The U.S. could introduce tough new laws against imports from Canada-even if the free trade deal were in effect and the Canada-U.S. panel found them contrary to the agreement.
That suggestion was made in a letter written by President Ronald Reagan's top trade official, Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter.
In the letter, to U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini, Yeutter spells out the wide latitude the U.S. would retain under the trade deal to penalize imports from Canada.
Canada would have similar powers. The letter was written March 28 but was unpublicized. A copy was provided to the Toronto Star.
Yeutter's assertion appears to contradict claims by Prime Minister . . . and business supporters of the proposed deal that Canada has made a major gain in circumventing U.S. trade laws.
Yeutter notes in his letter that, under the trade deal, the U.S. will continue to apply its trade laws against Canada. "We will also retain the ability to amend our countervailing duty law and to apply this amended law to Canada," he says.
Those laws permit U.S. agencies to impose countervailing duties and other penalties on Canadian imports that are taking markets away from American companies."
That item did not receive any publicity at all in this country until four days before Canadians went to the polls. Mr. Yeutter's comment in his letter of some months earlier, which was only released for public consumption in late November, very clearly stated that all that the opposition Parties, whether they be New Democrat or Liberal, had been saying during the course of the election campaign was true, that this trade agreement did not guarantee us any access at all.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
In other stories published in the last few days of the campaign it also made clear that any idea that the binding dispute mechanism would be binding or have any teeth to it was also an argument that was thrown out of the window. There was nothing of either kind. If we did not get either of those two things then what did we get from this deal?
In 1983, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) knew exactly, and he forecasted absolutely correctly what would be happening today, and what has already happened to some 2,400 Canadians, under free trade when he stated:
"We'd be swamped. We have in many ways a branch plant economy in certain important sectors. All that would happen with free trade would be the boys cranking up their plants throughout the United States in bad times and shutting their entire branch plants in Canada. It's bad enough as it is."
It is bad enough as it is, Mr. Speaker, and it is just that bad now. The Prime Minister's forecast was absolutely accurate in this regard. What he forecast would happen is now happening. After the results of the last election the corporations involved in these practices now have no doubt that this deal is going to go through, they are going to get what they want, and in the Prime Minister's words they can now "crank up their plants throughout the United States . . . and shut their entire branch plants in Canada". These are the process that has started.
If the Prime Minister knew back in 1983, that that is what was going to happen, then why does he not have some plans in place to ensure that those Canadians who have or will be cast out on the street have some significant protection? Members opposite have been asking, why should one group get favourable treatment in relation to another group that is laid off, or had their plants closed down? Well, all Canadians who are subject to mass plant closures should have protection. However, there is a particular incumbency upon any government, whose own actions are responsible in a very direct way for such closures, and it should adopt special measures to ensure that there is as little sacrificing as possible in terms of the incomes and the means of livelihood of those workers who, as a direct result of its policies, have been cast out on the street.
In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to some remarks made by Remi J. De Roo, Roman Catholic Bishop of Victoria. During the debate on this subject very little has been said about some of the wider implications of this deal. In a section of his treatise entitled Free Trade and Global Disparities, from a
presentation to the Summit Citizens Conference in June, 1988, he stated in the section entitled "Economic Militarism":
"Secondly, Canada prides herself on being a nation committed to global peace and nuclear disarmament. Yet, the creation of a North American trade bloc will further consolidate the links between Canada's economy and the U.S. military industrial complex in a global war economy.
Take article 907. It serves to tie Canada's energy exports (oil, gas, uranium) more closely to the U.S. military production priorities. If the U.S. runs short of energy needed for military production purposes, then Canada's energy sources will be made readily available. What this means, in effect, is that Canada's role in promoting nuclear disarmament will be further restricted and compromised by our role as an energy supplier for the U.S. military machine."
If one looks at what has happened to uranium production and the marketing of uranium in the years 1981 to 1986, a good portion of which time is under the regime of the Conservative Party, and a good part of it also was under the Liberal Party before it, one sees that Canada's world market share of uranium production has virtually doubled, while that of the United States has been cut in half. Is that the type of future that is in store from a Government that states it is so concerned about environmental considerations? Is that the type of future that is in store for energy production in the energy resource sector in Canada? Are the increasing wastes left over from that process the residue of this Government's policies and its trade deal? If so, it puts the lie to all of the handwringing and the anguish shown by Members opposite over their great environmental concerns.
This trade agreement is bad for the environment. It is bad for working people. It is bad for men and women. We have been challenged throughout the election to say what is our alternative to this trade agreement.


Mr. Nowlan:: And you lost.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The alternative is a nation called Canada, a Canada that is fair to working people, fair to the environment, and most important, a Canada that is fair to future generations who are entitled to freedom of choice.


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


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to greet my dear constituents of Bourassa thanks to whom I am here tonight. I wish to thank them for choosing me to protect their interests and, as I promised them, I will not wait ten years before rising and speaking for them in this House.
December 16, 1988

Tonight, I was supposed to take part in several Christmas parties with my constituents but, given the circumstances, it is much more important for me to be here to speak in their name than to celebrate with their associations.
1 wish to thank them for choosing me to represent their interests. However, I am well aware that, in choosing me, they chose my Party, its program and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Since Monday, I have had the privilege of witnessing the free trade debate and, as a new Member, I am learning all the intricacies of our parliamentary system. I stand absolutely in awe of the competent people who have made this debate possible. I understand that it is through confrontation that we achieve progress in a country. Nevertheless, I deeply regret that all sorts of little schemes and tricks are used to avoid dealing with the real issues. However, we have to remember that, throughout history, the Members of the opposition have been true to themselves.
We recall, for instance, that in 1968, the Liberal Party got itself elected on the promise that it would put Quebec in its place, and we saw the War Measures Act invoked. In 1972, to be returned to office, the Opposition solemnly promised that there would never be any income and price control. However, in 1975, we were put under wage and price controls. In 1979, there were great protests because our Conservative Government had proposed a 16-cent gas tax. But no sooner was the Opposition returned to office that they doubled that tax. We must also remember that in 1979, Mr. Trudeau got a fresh mandate by promising renewed federalism, but as early as 1982, we saw once again Quebec alienated through the exclusion of our province from the repatriation of the Constitution. In 1984, the people of Quebec and the people of Canada expressed their contempt for the schemes and about-turns of the Opposition which had no strategy and rushed to borrow those of the Conservative Party.
Again this week I am witnessing all kinds of shenanigans on the part of Opposition Members who want to start a debate over again which, they know, lasted 64 days. I think people should know that my fellow citizens .. . Indeed I would draw the attention of the people of Bourassa to the fact that we are once again facing mistrust. Opposition Parties are playing games , raising and stressing issues which have absolutely nothing to do with the basic question. What we have to ask ourselves in fact is which of two possibilities are we going to choose. And here are these two possibilities: are
Extension of Sittings
we going to prevent a people-the Canadian people in this instance-from flourishing, under the pretence that we have to protect the weakest or most fragile among them, or are we going to protect the weakest while still allowing the stronger citizens to reach their fulfilment? As I see it, if we decide to prevent everybody from growing because we want to protect weaker people, we are headed the wrong way. Thank God, our mothers decided that such would not be the situation. Instead of keeping stronger children in check, they led us by the hand and taught us to walk so we would eventually be able to run.
When the residents of the riding of Bourassa elected me-and again I recall the fact that there had been a long Liberal tradition at both provincial and federal levels-they had decided they would fulfil their aspirations. The elderly people of Bourassa chose to vote for the future of their children and to protect the investments they had made during their years of active life. Older people have opted for free trade. Younger people have opted for better employment opportunities. Minorities chose to have faith in the people who had welcomed them and they voted for free trade. As 1 recall, the Opposition had said that the people would decide. The people have had their say: Vox populi, vox Dei\ Free trade it must be.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by thanking the people of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception for having elected me as their representative in the House of Commons. I should also like to thank my family and my team members, without whose help I would not be here today.
I am proud to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate today, and during the course of my remarks I shall endeavour to convey to the House the concerns of my constituents, as related to me during the course of the election campaign.
Given that I rise for the first time in the House of Commons, and given the time of year, I should like to take this opportunity, as a recently retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically the Navy, to remember those in Canada's Armed Forces who are involved in the protection of this country, and particularly those who cannot be home over the Christmas season.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
In fact, I note that at this very moment one of Eler Majesty's Canadian destroyers is off on a rescue mission, with the object of that mission being the rescue of the oil rig team which had to take to a safety pod when the oil rig that they were on ran into difficulty.
I ask all Hon. Members to take cognizance of the work done by the members of our Canadian Armed Forces.
The riding of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception is a large one, with a population of 90,000. I can assure the House that during the election campaign, the free trade issue was prominent, was of real concern. In fact, it is difficult for me to convey to the House in words the depth of the feeling on this issue.
Time and time again, people spoke to me of the difficulty they were having in understanding the issue. From one day to the next they would hear arguments pro and con, and both would sound convincing, with the result that it was difficult to draw any clear conclusion.
The problem for the people of Bonavista-Trinity- Conception, and for me, and for all of us here today, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is that it is indeed very difficult for any of us to draw any conclusion in respect of the free trade issue given that we are dealing with future impacts and effects. When one is dealing with what is to happen in the future, one can never say with certainty what will transpire. In fact, it is often the case that, in trying to guess the future, one is more often wrong than right in one's predictions.
In speaking to my constituents about the Free Trade Agreement, I explained to them that we are dealing with the future and that I did not know what the future was going to bring. In fact, in respect of the stance taken by any Member of this House, it can only be said that one cannot know what the future will bring.


An Hon. Member:: Prosperity.


Fred J. Mifflin: In assessing the Free Trade Agreement, we are measuring a risk against a gain.
In my riding, there are 226 communities, all of which rely on fishing for their livelihood. And fishing, as all Hon. Members will know, is a seasonal occupation. As well, there are no certainties as to the catch. The fishing season, depending upon the licence one holds and the area in which one is fishing, ends sometime in August and resumes in the spring. The result is that unemployment insurance benefits, subsidies of one sort or another, and regional development programs play a major role in
those areas of the country where fishing is the economic mainstay.
In those circumstances, it is little wonder that these people should be concerned about their future; it is little wonder that they should be concerned about the fact that subsidies are as yet undefined under the Free Trade Agreement; it is little wonder that there is a great concern that the impact on Canada's social programs is unclear, as is the impact on regional development programs.
In the course of the campaign, I had great difficulty in explaining to my constituents that, in the words of our chief negotiator, we ran out of time in trying to negotiate the definition of what is a subsidy and how regional development programs will be treated.
How does one explain how we could have run out of time for something so important to the people of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and to the people of many other ridings in this country? How can you run out of time for something that important? Why not ask for more time? Why are we running out of time in this debate? Who said January 1? We are answering to the President of the United States. We do not want to offend him. That is why we are having this debate and closing it off. That is why I have to go back to the people of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and say I could not debate the issue to the fullest because I did not have time. Once again, we ran out of time.
Why did we run out of time? Do we not control what we are doing ourselves? Is this what it is going to be like from here on in? Are we going to be second-class citizens in our own country because we are running out of time? I do not believe we should run out of time. However, it does not look as if my belief is going to hold much weight. It is a little bit like putting your hand in a pail of water and drawing it out again. The pail of water is not much different when you take your hand out than when you put it in. This is going to be very difficult to explain to the people of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. It is also going to be difficult to explain why I just wasted that glass of water! I guess this can be allowed in my maiden speech.


Sergio Marchi: Another glass of water for the Hon. Member.
December 16, 1988


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: No, no, save it.


Fred J. Mifflin: I want to talk now about other concerns we have in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. We have concerns about the fisheries. We have concerns about the 50-odd subsidies which have already been earmarked under this deal such as piers, development programs and unemployment insurance. There are many more and some of them are very difficult to define.
1 have to go back and explain to the people of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception that there was no time to define these subsidies or the results that will ensue downstream. This is of great concern to me and my constituents and, I would say, to Newfoundland as a whole, indeed all the Atlantic provinces. That is an indication of why there are so many of us on this side of the House today from that part of the world.
I also believe there is a need to address where we go from here. What do we do when all these things happen? What recourse do we have? Are we going to be able to look at the six-month clause and say it did not work and we are going to withdraw? 1 suggest that is not going to be a very easy thing to do. One of my constituents, when I explained this to assuage his fears, indicated that it is going to be a little bit like taking the egg out of the omelet; very, very difficult. That clause is not a panacea to the 226 communities in my riding or to the fishermen I represent or the other professions in my constituency.
Beyond that we have the issue of other Members of this House who are unable to express their concerns, particularly those new Members of whom I am one, their fears, and the apprehension of those who are watching this debate on television who do not perhaps understand some of the finer points of the rules of procedure. They do not understand why we cannot extend this until later in the year in order to have a better discussion.
Having been through the trials and tribulations, having understood more about what is involved in free trade as a result of the campaign in which many of the issues surfaced, we should now go on and have a more learned discussion in this House on the key issues that surfaced during the campaign. At least we would all be the wiser and be able to understand some of the things that would be discussed here in the House. Yet this does not seem to be the case. We do not seem to have the time and the opportunity to express these feelings.
It is my concern, indeed my fervent hope, that as the business of this House proceeds beyond the Free Trade
Extension of Sittings
Agreement on to things like the nuclear submarine program and other issues of vital concern not only to the security of this country but the very well-being of all the people we represent, we will take cognizance of the rules of debate and the necessity for getting up and expressing our views, our feelings, and yes even our emotions. In that way there will be a full debate and an opportunity for a full display so that the mosaic of this country can serve as a backdrop for the tapestry of parliamentary democracy, so that people will feel their representatives have had a fair go in this House of Commons.
I am very pleased to have had this opportunity to speak here this evening and I look forward to speaking at further length, without being limited, about something that is this important now, in the immediate and the long-term future for me, my constituents, my children, and my children's children.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time I rise in the House during this 34th Parliament, Mr. Speaker. I wish first of all to congratulate all my colleagues from this side of the House who spoke out for the first time today and let them know how great I thought they were. It is an extraordinary Quebec team which spoke out with a lot of enthusiasm and I am looking forward to four great years with them.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to express today my sincere gratitude to all my Duvernay constituents who have again put their trust in me for a second consecutive term. I should like also to thank all the business and working people in my riding who supported my Government and my party not only on free trade, but who expressed their satisfaction with the good things and prosperity they have enjoyed over the past four years.
I also want to thank the people of Saint-Fran$ois, Pont Viau, Saint-Vincent de Paul, Auteuil, Vimont, and most specifically Duvernay which is the very heart of my riding.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to comment on the waste of time we have seen in the House since Monday, something my colleagues have already mentioned.
The La Presse newspaper carried an editorial this week by Mr. Dubuc, a known Montreal journalist, who remarked that the time wasted in Parliament had become a sort of procedural warfare. I think that this expression perfectly describes the situation. He also said that this type of manoeuvering has caused a loss of credibility.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Mr. Speaker, I must confess that in the past four years I never felt that it was that bad, but our new colleagues today must be shocked when they realize the amount of time being wasted here. This waste of time and loss of credibility-it is a sort of procedural warfare and it also turns the House into a circus.
The Canadian people who have elected us, and more specifically those who elected me in the Duvernay riding, wanted a debate to deal with free trade, so that the prosperity they have experienced over the past four years may continue.
Several of my colleagues who rose before me provided a number of examples; I will not repeat them, but I should like to insist on one of them which I hold dear to my heart, that of gas. When the Right Hon. Joe Clark was Prime Minister of Canada, the Liberal Party used to criticize the Conservative Party which thought that an increase of 18 cents a gallon would put Canada back on the right track again. But they said it was too much and that it ought to be thrown out. What did they do? I would like to set the record straight about the amounts involved. The Liberal Party gave us an increase of $1.01 a gallon. As we say back home: "Hold on!"
Today, Mr. Speaker, after four years, after having abided by an international policy, a policy of cheaper prices, we pay gas 10 to 12 cents less a litre and we now pay 20 cents a litre for heating oil which used to cost 40 cents a litre because the Liberals had increased it from 5 cents a litre. With temperatures like today's, 25 below zero, let me tell you that heating oil is not a luxury in our part of the country. It is a basic necessity and the people surely remember that and they certainly thought, when they marked their ballot, that heating oil at 20 cents a litre is far better than at 40 cents a litre, especially when it used to be 5 cents a litre.
1 would also like, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the question periods we have had for the past four days. The Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party keep talking about Gillette. Gillette is shutting down its operations. Here again, the culprit is free trade. Free trade is always the culprit.
1 have been hearing for a number of years that Gillette was going to shut down its operations, was going to make, like all good businesses from time to time, small adjustments.
Once again, I refer to an article published in the December 9 1988 issue of La Presse under the signature of Alain Dubuc and entitled "IBM vs. Gillette". 1 will not read out the whole article, Mr. Speaker, but I think that this man has well summarized the situation by
saying: "What is most striking is the extent to which the double standard applies." At the same time we heard the sad news concerning Gillette, we also found out about two major investments planned in Quebec: $550 million for expanding the aluminum plant in Becancourt and $225 million for building the IBM headquarters in Montreal. But none of the free trade supporters had the gall to say that those investments were due to the Free Trade Agreement. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the other side of the coin.
I also refer to page 35 of Hansard of December 13, 1988, where the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), leader of the New Democratic Party, the socialist party, asked a question and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave him this very good answer: "My hon. friend brings up some problems with the Gillette company, which is a real problem. But he does not mention the $500 million investment in the Trois-Rivieres region in the aluminum sector, which is going to create hundreds of jobs. He does not mention the hundreds of jobs created at National Sea Products in Lunenberg and at Hearn Harbour Terminals in Windsor, Du Pont Canada plans to double its capital spending for 1989 to $156 million. There will be 480 new jobs at a new Cargill Limited slaughter house in High River, Alberta. There are 90 new jobs at Quaker Oats, Campbell Soup, et cetera.
Free trade supporters do not talk about that. I was listening to the Hon. Members earlier today. It is scary to hear them say: "Let the people decide!" We sit here and we vote together. It is a good thing that there is not a tenth party because they would have included it in the total! But they forgot that here it is the number of seats that counts.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Members opposite:
Let the people decide. Well, the people in my area have decided. Some 54,937 people went into the little box and 61 per cent of them voted for a Tory. They voted for me. They voted for free trade.
I did not meet one person in my area who was against free trade. I campaigned for 50 days without stopping for one. I met up to 400 people per hour in shopping centres. I did not meet one person who said: "Mr. Della Noce, I am against free trade". I met a lot of people who said to me: "I am a Liberal but I want to vote for you guys because you have free trade". I said to the
December 16, 1988

same people: "Well, it's a good idea. Vote for me instead of voting for a Liberal. One thing is for sure. With us you will still drive your BMW, your Mercedes Benz, but if you vote for a socialist you will drive a Lada. That is what you will drive, a Lada or a bicycle". These guys always say that everyone is equal-everybody poor. That is what they want.
Some 22 per cent of the people voted for a Liberal in my area. Some 15 per cent voted for the Associate President of the New Democratic Party. Lie was supposed to finish first and be the first one to run and win a seat in Quebec. He finished last-poor guy. Now he does not know if it was his fault or his Leader's fault. He will find out.
This is what the socialists are like in my area. I am sorry that they got 15.1 per cent of the vote. They should have received less than 15 per cent so as to lose their deposit.

Mr. Speaker, a committee traveled for a year. The new Members were just saying that we should consult and then see. But the committee traveled across Canada for a year, spending money. It has been consulting people for a year. The Leader of the Liberal Party and the House Leader tear up everything here. Yes, they do. They spend money to waste time. They tear up agreements. They tear up the Standing Orders. They should be made to pay for the paper they have torn up. It makes no sense to destroy other people's property. All they think of here is to tear up. It does not work. Anyway, they all say the same thing. Even if 150 of them spoke, one would say that they are all of the same school.They all say the same thing.
There is one thing they have forgotten somehow. The reason the country is broke, or almost, is that they were in power for a long time.


An Hon. Member:: For 20 years!


Vincent Della Noce: So, if we had to raise taxes ... I see the Minister of Finance in front of me. Were it not for him, the price of heating oil would be even lower. Perhaps the price of gasoline would be lower still. Gasoline costs 9 cents a litre today. The rest is tax.
Although our Minister had to tax gasoline, it still costs half as much as in 1982. That is something. Of course, no one likes taxes. No one, no politician can afford to try to get elected by increasing taxes.
But even while he raised taxes, this Minister managed to lower prices because he had a good policy. This Minister should have a statue in front of the door here. He has been Minister of Finance for four years and it
Extension of Sittings
has been wonderful. So this Minister should have a statue next to John Diefenbaker outside.


An Hon. Member:: It would be Michael Wilson!


Vincent Della Noce: Yes, sir! Nothing like it has ever been seen.
We are talking about the motion, Mr. Speaker. If it is in the book, it means we are entitled to use it. Look, it is like giving a policeman a revolver and then telling him not to use it. Come on! It is in the Standing Orders. We can use it. Others have used it before. It is a matter of using it reasonably, at the right time.
Mr. Speaker, I say that we have been elected by the people. Even if the same people who shout in front said: [English]
Let the people decide. Well, guys, the people have already decided.

It is clear, as the Liberal Party's great slogan goes. It is clear.
Yes, it is clear, all right! There you have it.

Stay there for another four years and we will see what we will do with those guys afterwards.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Fifty-seven to 43.


Vincent Della Noce: And when I hear my .. .
You are pretty, Madam, with your blue dress, but you are not in the right party. You are a socialist.
When I heard the leader, the House leader who has left, my friend the House leader say that if the Prime Minister of Canada had confidence in this approach with the Americans, why would he not call an election. You were spoiled. It is done! Do you want us to call another election?
That was the phrase the Leader of the Liberal Party had. We have 10 pages of his quotes. "I will stand by the people's judgment." The people have decided. Why do you not stand by their judgment, Mr. Leader of the Official Opposition? Why not let Canadians decide the matter? They decided it where I come from, 61 per cent in favour. That is clear. That is easy to understand. It does not take a chartered accountant to understand that. Even if we combine the votes for the NDP and the Liberals in my riding, they still have only 35 per cent. So they would still have to double their numbers. Even if I gave them 20,000 more, they would still be behind. Would you believe it?

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Let the people decide, and they did decide yes, and we have to do something about it because in my area there are people already doing business with the United States and they are very happy about it. They want to continue and do more business. In my area there are people who are doing some sort of secret military pieces for the U.S. Defense Department. For example, in my area-

-Quebeckers. You will never be able to compete with the Americans. We are being disparaged, run down as unable to compete. Sure we can compete. We already have one up on them. I think of Mr. Peladeau, of Peladeau-Quebecor, one of the greatest businessmen in Quebec. He said: "Only weaklings are afraid of the Americans. Let the Americans come. We do not fear them. We will bring them here." That is the way he talked publicly about them. He said: "I had to get involved in the election campaign because the Liberals make me look as if I were afraid." The first thing that man, Pierre Peladeau, had to do when he started a business, Mr. Speaker, was to sell his mother's piano to get his first printing done.
His mother asked him where was the piano when she returned. He told her he had sold it, that he had started a printing business. That is how Mr. Peladeau got started. Today, he has a turnover of $2 billion. He takes over companies, he operates in the United States. He is not afraid. Quebeckers are not afraid. If they ever were, that was before my time. They are no longer afraid. Stop saying we are unable to compete, that we are afraid. I worked in the United States and did business there. I was a leader back home. I was not afraid of the Americans. They invited me back to make speeches later on. We gave them advice on "how to sell products". If we listened to both Opposition Parties we would say that is not good, we are not able to compete and we will be swallowed whole. That is not true. We can compete.
Our workers have the ability, and if you study the hourly rates, and the trade union activities, and what not, you will see that, give or take 60 cents, we have about the same hourly rates. But as I heard someone say during the campaign, "I have a good union, but I would rather have a good job than a union membership card. 1 have been on strike for six months". And then I saw my good old friend Louis Laberge hugging the NDP leader, like two people in love, while the latter was campaigning in my constituency and posing as a trade-unionist. But
let me remind you of something though. The NDP leader did not solve the Canadair problem. We, in the Progressive Party, did. Mr. Laberge should have been hugging Brian Mulroney. The NDP leader did not put an end to the Bell Canada strike. Mr. Laberge should have hugged the Minister for Labour here.
But, no, he hugged a politician who, to me, is the Bob Hope of politics, because they are what we called funnies. It is funny how they never tell the truth. They are scaring people. They are funnies, they put on a show. But, in my constituency, people need more than a show to live. They need money. Those people have to live, to eat, and they want some means of transportation. They do not want to pay too much for all of this, and they want a little more, because they are affluent people. They are all in favour of progress, and when they come to see me, we shake hands and say "Progressively yours". Because we always want more. As you know, Mr. Speaker, when I came to this country as an immigrant, my family had nothing. We have never known fear. We had to get rid of fear. When we first got here, we were given the worst jobs possible, jobs nobody else wanted to do. People often claimed that we were stealing jobs from Canadians.
They were wrong, they did not understand then that we had come here to build Canada along with them, and today, I am proud of the community I represent, and I take pride in saying: "Not only have we helped build this country, but we even own part of it, and proudly so". I say come to Montreal, come to Quebec City, and you will find that we lose no time in parades, marching away to the call of union leaders and for organized workers. We were in the ditch when we first arrived but we worked hard and succeeded, and today, we feel content.
Being a Canadian is a privilege, so my colleagues and fellow citizens tell me. It is truly a privilege, indeed, to be a Canadian. They were insulted to see people being admitted into Canada without having to wait in line as we had to do, for immigration admission. Today, we now are thankful to Canada for accepting us and giving us a break. I know I am speaking in the name of all Canadians of Italian background and other ethnic groups. Our message is now: "We want a little more. We are not afraid, we like it, we know what pleasure is all about and we request a little more. Give us free trade and we will go to our large customers, our friends next door, and enter the biggest market in the world".
December 16, 1988

Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention to Italy, my home country. Before becoming part of the Common Market, Italy was called la pecora che zoppica, in other words, the lame sheep. However, since joining the Common Market, it ranks fourth only behind Japan, the United States and West Germany; it is now the fourth best producing country in the world, after West Germany, Japan and the US. This is not bad, as you know. It is like being second to Wayne Gretzky; you are a pretty good hockey player when you are second only to Wayne Gretzky. And you are not only good, you are the best. Or second to Mario Lemieux who, incidentally, played in Laval, in my riding. He is a product of my riding. My colleague for Prescott-Russell. . .


Don Boudria: Glengarry-Prescott-Russell!


Vincent Della Noce: ... for Glengarry-Prescott-
Russell (Mr. Boudria) will know that Michael Bossy and Mario Lemieux are both from Laval, more precisely from Saint-Vincent-de-Paul-Duvernay, in the Province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to end my remarks by telling my constituents ...


Don Boudria: So soon!


Vincent Della Noce: I know that my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will miss me, but it doesn't matter because his friend will be back soon and we will be able to discuss this further. It is serious business; we have to get out of here with free trade because that is why my constituents elected me with a 61 per cent majority. It is more than ...

Let the people decide. The people have already decided. They want it and they want it badly.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, as a new Member in this House, I want to make it clear to Members on the other side, after some of the comments made by the previous speaker, that I am proud to be a New Democrat. I am proud of the Party I represent. I am proud to be here in this House representing the men and women of New Westminster-Burnaby, British Columbia as a Democrat. I am also very proud to follow in the tradition of other great New Democrats like Stuart Leggatt, who represented my riding, and Pauline Jewett, who was here in this House before me.
Extension of Sittings
As a new Member for New Westminster-Burnaby, I share with new Members on both sides of this House a responsibility to the men and women who have elected me. The men and women from my constituency have entrusted in me their confidence to represent their interests here in this Parliament of Canada. It has been a difficult week for all of us, more difficult perhaps for some of us who have managed to have accidents. Perhaps it has been most difficult for the 126 new Members who have had to contend with a number of new experiences as they come here to Ottawa. It has been difficult to find office staff and to get set up, to get installed in our office. It has also been difficult to try to learn the rules of this House. So it is with a sense of sadness that I watch the Government opposite attempt to change those rules that we are all trying to learn right now.
1 listened to the Members on the Government side tell us that the debate on the trade deal has already taken place. However, I would remind Government Members that this is a new Parliament. There are new Members here who have not had an opportunity to debate this major economic change, or economic disaster, for Canada.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised Canadians that social programs would not be threatened under this deal. He promised Canadians that there would be no threat to the protection of our environment. He promised that regional development programs were not threatened. But a majority of Canadians are still very concerned. There are amendments that could be introduced to this deal which may ease the deep concerns felt by a majority of Canadians. We have an obligation in this Parliament to address these and other concerns that Canadians have with the trade deal.
Canadian women have a right to know what impact the trade deal will have on them. Many of their questions are still unanswered.
I was elected by the men and women of New Westminster-Burnaby, to represent their interests here. My constituents, in contrast to what the Member opposite said, are overwhelmingly opposed to this deal, as are the majority of the people of British Columbia.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Yesterday, the Minister responsible asked why the Opposition is stalling the passing of the trade deal. As I said earlier, during the election campaign the Conservatives made commitments to the people of Canada. They made commitments on social programs. They made commitments on environmental protection and on regional development programs. These commitments must now be enshrined in the Elouse through this deal.
Democracy does take time. We must take the time to debate this legislation fully and to know that we have brought forward the concerns of our constituents and the concerns of Canadians.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I will ask your indulgence for a degree of latitude as it is my first speech in this magnificent House. I want to thank the people of Carleton-Charlotte for allowing me to take this seat in the House. I am very grateful for their support.
Also, I want to thank the gentleman who preceded me, Fred McCain. He is a man who spent 36 years in elected office, 12 of them here in Ottawa representing the people of Carleton-Charlotte. I know that Members who are in the House today and were here in the last Parliament have a high degree of respect for Mr. McCain and the job he did, not only for his constituents but for the people of Canada. Let me point out to the people of Carleton-Charlotte that that is exactly what I want to do as a Member of Parliament in this House.
The geography of Carleton-Charlotte is unique. It is one of the most diverse ridings in all of Canada. Carleton-Charlotte is situated in southwestern New Brunswick and takes in three Fundy islands in the Bay of Fundy, Campobello, Grand Manan and Deer Island. There are many fishing communities within the riding of Carleton-Charlotte. As we walk through the riding we can go through some of the most famous farm area in our country, which is of course, in Carleton County where the potato belt is perceived as the biggest and best in the country.
Also in our riding is a very high number of forestry workers. They are very hard workers. I believe they deserve the very best from the Government of Canada, and that is what we are debating at the moment. I sincerely believe that the Free Trade Agreement will benefit our riding more than any other riding in Canada.
It is for that reason that the Premier of my province, Premier Frank McKenna, who happens to be on the other side of the political fence, is very supportive of the Free Trade Agreement. He has gone on record in the last number of years as being supportive of that agreement.
He supports that agreement for one very simple reason. It will help the people of New Brunswick. I realize this made it difficult for a number of Liberal candidates in New Brunswick during the past election, but I respect Mr. McKenna in standing up for what he believes and transcending the political barriers, which I think all honourable people in politics have to do from time to time.
When one analyses the arguments we have heard today and in the past number of days, one must ask whether they have really changed significantly from the arguments used in the last Parliament. I believe the arguments have not changed, but are the same and are based on the same shallowness as they were in the last Parliament.
Let us examine what Members of the last Parliament did in relation to the Free Trade Agreement and the hours spent on that agreement. There were 8 days, or 35 hours devoted to debate on supply motions. The External Affairs Committee spent 24 days or 120 hours in debate. It spent four days, a total of 18.5 hours, on Government motions. At second reading there were five days of debate, for a total of 28.5 hours. These debates were on essentially the same agreement.
A total of 16 days, or 87 hours, were spent in legislative committee. At the report stage a total of five days, or 27 hours, were spent in debate.
There was a total of two days or 15.5 hours of debate at third reading. In total there were 64 days of debate, or 331.5 hours on essentially the same Bill. Have the arguments changed since last summer? No, they have not. They are the same arguments and the same scare tactics that we heard on the campaign trail. The campaign is over. The opposition Parties should realize that it is over.
I want to point out to the House some of the statements that were made by the Leaders of the Opposition Parties in relation to this Free Trade Agreement. Let us begin with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) who said: "The Government's trade deal with the United States is an issue to be decided by Canadians in Canada, debated by Canadians in Canada". It was.
The Leader of the Opposition said: "I have not requested the Senate to reject the deal". He said: "I have asked the Senate to allow the people of Canada to reject the deal". The people of Canada did not reject the deal. They voted for it, as evidenced in the Government today.
December 16, 1988

The Leader of the Opposition is also on the record on July 21, as saying: "I am ready to stand by the judgment of the people". He said: "Why not let the people decide?" He went on further to say: "Every Canadian is affected by this deal and they have the right to decide. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada not let the people of Canada decide?" They did decide.
The Globe and Mail quoted the Leader of the Opposition on August 6, 1988, as saying: "Should Canadians decide they want this trade agreement I will accept their direction and ensure speedy passage by the Senate".
It is interesting to note what the Leader of the Opposition said immediately after the election, on November 23, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen. "Liberal Leader John Turner said Tuesday his Party will not block free trade legislation, that people have decided they want the deal. They want the deal, he said. The people are always right, Mr. Turner told a few hundred subdued supporters outside Vancouver." Again, on the 23rd, he said "We let the people decide and the people have decided. As for free trade, Mr. Turner confirmed, as he has said often during the past few weeks and in his speech Monday evening, that he would respect the verdict of the electorate."
"The people have made a declaration, we will therefore let things follow their course," he said on November 23. They have not added anything to this debate nor will they add anything to this debate.
Let us take a look at some of the statements made by Members of the NDP and their Leader. On August 10, 1988, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said: "Go to the people now". The NDP Leader stated on August 31, 1988, again: "Take the trade issue to the voters".
I guess the statement that really means the most and the one that really points out the lack of sincerity on the part of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) was the statement made on November 23 by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He said he has conceded that the anti-free trade forces have been decisively defeated, the Canadian people have taken a decision and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) certainly has the right to continue with the passage of free trade.
Nothing has changed. The argument is the same and the arguments being used by the Opposition are the
Extension of Sittings
same. It is almost like we are going through another election campaign right here in the House.
I support the Free Trade Agreement because it is good for Canada. I support it because it is good for New Brunswick. I support it because it is good for my riding of Carleton-Charlotte. Let us get on with the running of the country. Let us get together as Parliamentarians should and hasten the passage of this Bill.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to take part in this debate, and I must say with certain feeling that since 1968, this is about the sixth time this has happened. Four of the previous times, it happened under Liberal governments.
I sat day after day listening to my colleagues in the Conservative Party condemning the Liberals for doing what the Conservatives are doing now. That only proves something that my Party has been saying for many years. There is no difference. The only difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives, as Tommy Douglas used to say, is that one is in and one is out. Otherwise we cannot tell the difference.


Mr. Horner:: Sure can tell you guys, though.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I know, I hope you can.
I want first to congratulate the Speaker and all of those who are helping him fulfil the onerous task of being in the chair. I know you will continue to do a good job as you have done in the past and that you will treat us with whatever we deserve. I want also to welcome and to congratulate the new Members from all Parties.
I listened to every speech of new Member today, either in the House or in my office over television. The new Members from all three Parties, even the ones I thought were 100 per cent wrong, made excellent speeches. Other Members who have been here for a while and should know better spoke, but they were still wrong. I want to say that I am impressed with what new Members who made their maiden speeches today had to say and how they said it, whether or not I agreed with them.
I want to particularly compliment my hon. friend from Kootenay West-Revelstoke (Mr. Kristiansen) who uttered a key word about the mandate, not only of a Government but of a Parliament and the individual members of it. Each one of us individually has a mandate. I want to talk about the mandate that I have and the mandate that my colleagues and members of other Parties have as well.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
The first thing I want to mention is that all of this was totally unnecessary. No matter how the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) handles the Government's business, the Government has the elected right to decide on the order of business. There is no dispute about that. No matter what happens, though, all of us, either individually or collectively, have the right to speak on the mandate under which we are here.
My mandate from my constituents is to get the Government to agree to changes in the legislation that will put into Canadian law, not U.S. law, provisions to protect the people of my constituency and dozens of others in Canada from the bad results of the free trade deal that I and many others think are inevitable. My mandate was to express the views of an obvious majority of my constituents, even the views of those I did not agree with.
I want to say to my hon. friend from Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) that I listened to his speech and I thought he made an excellent speech. 1 actually enjoyed it, I really did. 1 want to remind my hon. friend, since we are discussing a motion about amending the rules, that before he was born, a countryman of his suspended all the rules of the Parliament in Italy. The Hon. Member should talk to the older members of his family about when that happened. All the rules of a democratic parliament under a monarchy in Italy in the 1920s, before the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) was born, were suspended. I hope he will keep that in mind because no political Party, the Government, the Official Opposition or mine have the right or even a mandate to play fast and loose with the rules of Parliament upon which we have all agreed. I would not hold still even if it were my Party doing this. I promise you that, Mr. Speaker. When you play fast and loose with the rules that have been unanimously agreed upon, you are on a slippery slope to a one-party state and a one-party government. I kid you not. I say that in order to ask my colleagues from all Parties to keep that in mind.
I said at the outset that I have been here on a number of previous occasions since the fall of 1968. I have listened for hours while great Members of the Conservative Party have spoken and have voted against what the Liberals were doing. I had to sit and watch the same spectacle last summer, at what is being done now is even worse. The Liberals are condemning the Conservatives for what the Liberals did before. What a spectacle. I
will not use the words "hypocrisy" because none of us are perfect. None of us are pure.
I can remember when the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) came here in a by-election in 1976. I can remember hearing the Tories rail against the then government of the day, a Liberal Government. They said how terrible it was when closure was brought in. My goodness. In the first place I think my hon. friends, and many of them are friends in this House-


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Are you afraid of Bob White?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is a friend too, especially when I argue with him. When I think of my hon. friends in the Government I would like to suggest to them that they did not, I repeat, did not need to suspend the rules or bring in closure. Some of the fault is on the two opposition Parties as well. But none of this needed to happen. Why, Madam Speaker? I will tell you why. It is because there ain't no deadline.


Benno Friesen: You would not let us table the Bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. gentleman says that we would not let them table the Bill. We could maybe stop the Tories from doing that for a day, if we are lucky. The Member knows that. I have been here longer than my hon. friend. The whole thing was totally unnecessary because the Government could have just said, "Fine. Take all the time you want", or it could have said "you have to the middle or the end of January". So what. There has already, as I understand it, been an exchange of letters between the U.S. administration and the Government of Canada. If the implementation date is not January 1, but January 31, or February 28 or whatever, so what.
The Government might have been smart to let us run out of gas. The trouble is we found out that the government Members are the ones who have the gas and have the gall to suspend the rules. I exert a word of caution. This is dangerous ground on which we are treading.
I want to return to the whole matter of a mandate which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke (Mr. Kristiansen) mentioned. The mandate that I as an individual Member have and my nine other colleagues from Saskatchewan have is not to be totally ignored whether on the majority side or the minority side. We all have to consider why each of us is here. We must not disregard those who are here for different reasons than I am. I have the greatest respect for the mandate of Members on the Government side. I expect nothing more than the same regard and respect for my mandate.
December 16, 1988

Let us not get into the numbers game, and let us not be on the slippery slope of suspending the rules of a democratic parliament. It is not needed. It is not necessary. The Government can get its Bill whether it is next week, a month from now or two months from now. The Government still gets its Bill. Why bother? Why create all this unnecessary, unneeded activity about suspending the rules? If we do not have rules that remain in place, we can suspend rules by unanimous consent. We can make changes. We can do anything we want by unanimous consent. In the years I have been here we have done that many, many times.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Yes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We have suspended one or more rules on numerous occasions.
I am sad that the Conservative Government is just as dumb as the Liberal one was.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I must say that even the Liberals did not have nerve enough to go this far. The Conservatives have now set a new distance in belabouring, impinging, upon the rules of Parliament and parliamentary democracy.
I want to say something about why we are doing this.


Marcel Prud'homme: I rise on a point of order. I know that the Hon. Member talked generally about Liberals being as dumb as Conservatives. We all have an opinion on that. Is the Member going to announce tonight that he and his Party are going to disband since his leader during the campaign said that we are entering into a two-Party system?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Regina-Lumsden.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I hope you will deduct that 20 seconds from my time but, in any event, I can recall similar kinds of remarks from various and sundry Liberals, starting with Mr. Trudeau. If my hon. friend is sensitive about the cut and thrust of the campaign before, during or after, then maybe he should go to a retirement home.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I have another point of order. I would be delighted to retire if the Hon. Member would like to join me.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I would like to continue by expanding on something the Hon. Member for Duvernay had to
Extension of Sittings
say. He may well have a point. I am not sure yet. The Hon. Member agrees that we should suspend the rules of Parliament, suspend parliamentary democracy. Why? Well, because the closing of the Gillette plant has nothing to do with free trade. They have been going to rationalize that plant for the last two years. 1 will take the hon. gentleman at his word, but I do have a question for him and all other Government Members. If the free trade deal is so good for Canada, if it means so many more jobs, how come that Gillette plant is being rationalized? Why is the plant in Georgia not being rationalized into a plant in Quebec?
I am just an innocent stubble-jumping prairie boy. I would appreciate it if somebody would explain why I cannot find a single plant in the United States or Mexico being rationalized into Canada. Perhaps the trade deal is good, who knows. I will not condemn the Government, far be it from me. However, if it is so good, I would like somebody, anybody on the Government side to explain why the Government needs to suspend the rules of Parliament, and why these plants are not rationalizing into Canada and not the United States, or why Canadian corporations are hiring Mexicans at 65 cents an hour to make components. I would appreciate some answers, and then perhaps I might come onside. Do not bet on it, but I might.
I have a mandate from my constituency to fight to protect the Canadian Wheat Board. Our problem in Assiniboia and Gravelbourg was that the Tories got more of the Liberal vote than we did, which proves my point again: what the hell is the difference?


Mrs. Sparrow:: Come on, you can tell the difference.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Supply management, poultry, eggs, and the Western Grain Transportation Act are down the drain. My friend, the Hon. Member for Souris-Moose Mountain (Mr. Gustafson) knows it. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has already admitted that the ink was hardly dry on the ballots and it was up for grabs, and he knows it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, I must interrupt the Hon. Member. His time has expired.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I could have the unanimous consent of my good friends opposite for another couple of minutes.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I do not hear unanimous consent. Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Gloucester-Carleton.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to address today the Canadian Parliament. Since the tender age of 10, I have been living in the shadow of our Parliament. As a child, I have often seen Prime Minister Mackenzie King walking three blocks from my home. When I was 8 or 9, I have seen him strolling by, and a few years later I had the pleasure to meet Prime Minister St. Laurent and, also, Mr. John Diefenbaker, and almost all those who succeded after him.
I have the honour to speak for the first time in this Parliament and this is a very special occasion for me. Like several other new Members, I find myself involved in a procedural debate . . .
For almost 20 years I had the privilege of working at the municipal and regional levels, in the Ottawa-Carleton region, and procedure was often discussed, but it was quite simple.
Nobody was ever denied the chance to speak on the matter. There was always discipline. I have always noted, at both the municipal and regional levels, that people have respect for those who have the floor, that other politicians listen, because when you listen you can always learn something while, if people shout or, even worse, throw insults at each other, they admit to a certain ignorance, in the broad sense of the word. However, when one listens, one always learns something. Since Tuesday morning, I have learned a lot. But I must admit that I am still learning about procedure.
However, Madam Speaker, I would like to do exactly what my constituents asked me to do, that is go to Parliament to speak on various issues. The people who elected me are from the new riding of Carleton-Glouces-ter. This riding was formed by taking a part of Glengarry-Prescott, that is a section of Cumberland, the major part of the city of Gloucester, that I represented for nearly 20 years, the whole of the municipalities of Rideau and Osgoode, a good part of the city of Ottawa, all of which makes up a territory of 350 square miles with a voting population of over 77,000.
I am very proud to have been elected. I am quite touched by the fact that I was elected by 31 000 voters. I make it a rule of going door to door during election campaigns. But this time I had to cover a larger area than the City of Gloucester and I did door-to-door campaigning in every municipality in nearly every area. Two municipalities, Rideau and Osgoode, were represented by a Conservative MP, as was a large part of the City of Gloucester. As one of the main themes of my campaign, I asked people first what they thought about free trade in general, and then what they thought about that agreement. The answer was simple: everybody was in favour of free trade. They thought it was a good thing, but the public at large or the people I met during my door-to-door campaign or while speaking in public asked : What is this agreement about? How will it affect us? Does it refer to goods only? This particular agreement does not affect goods only, it also deals with services and investments.
Those two items worried people because, you see, Madam Speaker, it is a bit like buying a house and having a mortgage for the first time. A wise person will make sure to have a competent adviser check all the clauses of the mortgage or the selling agreement. Any lawyer will tell you that it is not wise to buy a house or do any other kind of deal without checking the agreement first.
During the election campaign, I had the opportunity to read a lot about free trade. There are many interesting things to know about free trade. However, what will be the impact of the deal? This worries people because they do not know what the effects of this deal will be. This is why we need a debate, Madam Speaker. We need to have someone sit down and explain what happens with this deal. We need to go further than to speak to a single politician. If you talk to many policiti-cians representing the Conservatives who are now in government, the NDP or my party, the Liberal Party, you will get three different points of view. And I suppose there are other opinions across the country.
It would therefore be rational, wise and mostly prudent to be able to discuss free-trade and its effects.
I am told that one must have faith. I have faith, Madam Speaker, but not when I realize that this deal could have an impact on the workers of today, that it could adversely affect my own children or grandchildren or those of others. Anybody willing to keep his eyes open realizes that the philosophy and the method of operation in Canada is going to make a 180 degrees turn. Of course, if one takes only into account political aspects, one could totally disagree.
December 16, 1988

Personally, I would gladly hear more about the motives, the rationale and the possible impact of the deal. I was here all week long, from early in the morning until the last hour, and I listened to everybody. I learned a lot, but what I heard repeatedly from the Government side was mostly that one must have faith. I would like to say to the Government Members that 1 indeed have faith. I do have faith in my Parliament. I do have faith in free trade. However, as far as this trade deal is concerned, you could give me a chance to listen to your arguments. 1 would also appreciate hearing those of the socialist party and having a chance to listen to my colleagues. To sum up, I would like to be able to go back home and to explain to my constituents that such and such a clause is a good one or that another one is weak or harmful. So I wish 1 could do that. For the time being, however, 1 cannot, because of the procedural problem, Madam Speaker. 1 cannot do that, because nobody seems willing to sit down with me or rise in the House to provide me with explanations.
Often what I hear, Madam Speaker, is nothing but gibberish and shouting, which astonishes me a lot. I am still looking for substance. I have not found much of it to this day. I have heard a lot of noise. Sometimes, the House reminds me of the Granby Zoo. When 1 look at some of my hon. friends opposite-I hope they will take it in good part, Madam Speaker-1 think they look like a bunch of trained seals making a lot of noise and swinging their arms about.
1 am sorry, Madam Speaker, but I am much more eager to hear arguments than noise and sounds. I hope that next week the Government will give me and my colleagues-1 mean all Hon. Members, including even the learned and experienced ones-the possibility to hear arguments in full, that we may vote in confidence and follow the dictates of our conscience. The important thing is for one to be able to vote according to the dictates of one's own conscience. I know that it is necessary to interpact matters in accordance with one's Party, but it is a question of trust and conscience.
In view of the fact that this is my maiden speech in the House, Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the kindness of all the Hon. Members who are now present in the House. I wish them to know that I appreciate their courtesy and attention. I find the Hon. Members sitting in front of me most gracious and I thank them for listening to what 1 had to say. I promise that when I have an opportunity next week to listen to them, I will
Extension of Sittings
act likewise, pay very close attention to their arguments and extend to them the same courtesy of not talking during their speeches. I want to be able to tell my constituents that I voted on the basis of what I learned, understood and according to my conscience.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Madam Speaker, since this is the first opportunity I have to speak since November 21, 1988, I would like first to congratulate all my Conservative colleagues who succeeded in conveying the message of this Government from one end of the country to the other. Our party is the only one representing all of Canada and for that 1 congratulate my Conservative colleagues.
I also want to congratulate some Liberal colleagues who owe their election to their own personal qualities since their party's program had neither content nor good sense. Among them are good people. So I congratulate them also and will abstain from making any comment about the third Party that sit on my right here in the House, Madam Speaker.
I also wish to thank the people in my riding of Levis who elected me with a 50 per cent stronger majority compared to that of 1984.
I must tell you, Madam Speaker, that the people who elected me represent, and this might surprise some people, the union movement. During the last campaign, union leaders made speeches in my favour to the detriment of the socialist party candidate. They came out in support of the policies of my Government because they realize that, under this Government, jobs are being created and that jobs provide their livelihood, their weekly pay. I also got the support not only of business people, of workers, of consumers, but of major cooperative institutions like the Mouvement Desjardins, which manages assets of $35 billion. I therefore got the support of the co-operative movement.
I also got the support of senior citizens who understand that pensions are here to stay provided that the labour force can go on making money. There is nothing sinful about making money. The men and women in the labour force, people who are 30 to 65 years old, have to make money to pay for senior citizens' pensions, to pay for young people's education and to help those who are permanently or temporarily in need. I got the support of senior citizens.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
1 also got the support of young people because the ones that leave university or college realize that there have been jobs in this country since 1984, and that is the reason why they supported me.
Finally, I had the decisive support-the kind of support all Conservatives had-the support of the community and of the people who sign the pay cheques of working Canadians, and 1 mean business people, chambers of commerce, those who know what exports to the United States mean. I got their support and today I want to pay them public tribute and thank the residents of my riding.
Now to get back to the issue at hand. Here we are again trying to re-open the debate of the famous question of free trade, a question we are debating for the information of new Members, a question which is the topic of debate by the House and by technocrats, a question which was raised during the last campaign. Canadians who want to listen and learn have been able to get all the facts about free trade over the last two and a half years. And before the election the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) had said to them: Let the Canadian people decide.
As it happened, the socialist leader shared his views and he too could hardly wait for the election call. The Liberal leader had said: Once the people have decided, the senators, my Liberal senators, the senators appointed by Trudeau and others, will say yes if Canadians say yes. The day after the election, Madam Speaker, we heard the Liberal leader say: Yes, everything is fine now, Canadians have spoken. We also heard the socialist leader say: Yes, Canadians have made their choice, we will not stand in the way of that legislation. But then something happened.
They received a letter, Madam Speaker, an eight-page letter from the man who pulls the strings, from Bob White, president of the Canadian Auto Workers, who can order them around, because he spent $2 million dollars towards their campaign. His union financed a third of the socialist election campaign, and that amount of $2 million dollars does not include all the equipment, material, stationery, telephone lines, and personnel provided. They will deny it, Madam Speaker. But you will only have to look at the report that will be tabled by the chairman of the Election Expenses Committee in a few months. They will maximize all those services provided under the table in order to get from the Government all the subsidies, that is all the money they can, to finance their election campaign. On the one hand, they pretend that they received no support from
the various unions, and on the other hand, after the election, they maximize all their campaign expenses in order to be able to beg for money from the Canadian Government.
They maximize what they claim to be election expenses. So, they received a letter from Bob White which changed their whole attitude. They also got a letter from the Steel Workers' Union, the most important union in Canada. Those two unions expressed their dissatisfaction, saying that free trade will cost them their jobs. But Bob White's people are the best paid workers in Canada, the only ones who have been enjoying certain advantages linked to free trade, since 1985.
So, Madam Speaker, as you see, we got a very clear message from the electorate. On November 21st, Opposition parties said: If the vote is in support of free trade, if you Conservatives are re-elected, we will expedite the bill. But today they contest that, suggesting that the people did not all vote for free trade. Maybe the majority did not support free trade. The majority supported the Conservative Government. It told us Conservatives: Thank you for providing us with excellent management! And indeed we just saw that in the Auditor General's report the management of Government departments has significantly improved-they should be listening, Madam Speaker, because it is for their benefit that I repeat this-a significant improvement in this Government's management. Coming from the Auditor General of Canada. People thanked us for that. People thanked us also for facilitating the creation of 1,300,000 more jobs in Canada-1,000 jobs per day under a Conservative Government. They said thank you on November 21.
People thanked us on November 21 for achieving national reconciliation, Quebec's return to this great country. Everyone supported then the so-called Meech Lake Agreement. But since then the socialists' pettiness has become evident across the land because they are once more bent, on dividing the country, being dissatisfied with the elections results. They are aiming at preventing Quebec from being a living, contributing part of this country. Such is the essence of their message, the thrust of their actions.
Madam Speaker, we received a vote of thanks for Meech Lake and national reconciliation, and we hope that those people over there will rise above petty partisanship and help us complete the finalization of that matter with the two last provinces.
December 16, 1988

And finally, Madam Speaker, Canadians said yes to free trade on November 21 1988 because free trade means sustained economic growth for our Canadian businesses. That positive response came from business people, consumers, the farming community-notwithstanding the position of one farming union-the farming community and I am referring to co-ops, those groups owned by Quebec farm producers. 1 am referring to the co-ops that said yes to free trade. And those co-ops each year in Quebec produce $3 billion in income for farmers. I would rather listen to those people than to the leader, the star of the Union des producteurs agricoles which, because it is entitled by law to collect $150 every week from its members, is meddling in the affairs ...


An Hon. Member:: Speak on the motion!


Gabriel Fontaine: Madam Speaker, I am going to suffocate. I can hear alcoholic ramblings from here. I do not want to hear them any more.
Madam Speaker, cooperatives such as the Movement Desjardins and the big banks have supported us in our fight for free trade. We are a responsible Government and we want to meet our January 1, 1989, deadline. We want to finalize our agreement with the United States. We can tell you, Madam Speaker, that it is important because we have seen what happened last week in Montreal at the GATT negotiations. The Opposition Parties have always said that GATT was going to solve all our problems.
They have been proven wrong, as we have seen how difficult it is to come to an agreement. It is a lot more difficult with 93 countries than with two. So, Madam Speaker, we are going to govern and pass the free trade legislation. And those who claim that some businesses have closed because of free trade are wrong! And I ask the people who make those claims to explain why Du Pont has decided to invest in Canada $160 million this year and $320 million next year. I would like to hear about that. 1 would like Hon. Members to say that it is due to free trade because it is true. I would like to hear why Alcan has decided to invest $500 million, that is half a billion dollars, this year. I would also like to hear that, next year, Alcan's capital spending will amount to $1 billion.
Sixty plants in my riding, Madam Speaker, want to export more to the United States and need better guaranteed access to that market. In our close to 300 ridings in Canada, 18,000 small and medium businesses are best able to adapt rapidly to free trade, need that
Extension of Sittings
assured market in the United States and want it immediately.
That is why Canadians must be given that agreement and we must pass this legislation quickly, despite the orders of backers such as Bob White and company who are the first beneficiaries of free trade in Canada because, and this is something I am proud of, they have been living in a free trade climate since 1965. It is urgent that all Canadians and people in the riding of Levis benefit from that climate. Thank you, madam Speaker.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment to the motion before us, which may come as some surprise.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: What is it?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My colleague asks what it is.
The motion before us, as you know, Madam Speaker, proposes to change significantly the parliamentary rules of this House and, in particular, to suspend the rules to ensure that there is no particular time limit concerning the specific Bill at hand. With the amendment we are talking, of course, about Bill C-2.
Under the motion we are told that immediately upon the House returning, and I quote from the motion, "a Minister of the Crown may propose ... a motion to rescind this Order." We are therefore looking at a motion which proposes, perhaps indefinitely, to suspend the rules of the House. I think that is totally unacceptable.
By having the House sit continuously for an indefinite period of time we are not allowing, in my view, the due process as I have come to understand it, that is, the democratic process. Simply specifying that this concerns Bill C-2 only is certainly an improvement over the original motion, which was that it would include all Government Orders. However, it cannot be supported because to support the amendment would be to support the over-all thrust of the motion, which is to suspend the rules. Therefore, it is an insupportable amendment.
One of the most serious points about the motion in my view, having had the opportunity to participate in a couple of legislative committees, is that under this motion the legislative committee process would be suspended and we would go into Committee of the Whole.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
In my view, and from my brief experience in the committees, I would say that is the place where we are able to obtain information from expert witnesses, as my colleague from the Liberal Party said, as well as from a variety of groups which are involved and have information on the topic in a variety of perspectives, they being political, business and academic. In this case, since we will be talking about Bill C-2, that perspective would also include economists. Surely it is important in maintaining the democratic process and in ensuring that we respect the traditions of Parliament that Members of Parliament have the opportunity to avail themselves of the best information that is available on which to base their final decisions.
Again, since we are talking in this amendment about Bill C-2 specifically, I think there is a particularly important reason that we cannot support this motion and this amendment as it refers to the trade Bill. The Trade Committee which did travel prior to the end of the last session of Parliament was clearly inadequate. First, it did something in the order of 10 capital cities in nine days. It never even went to the Yukon and had but a brief visit to the Northwest Territories. Clearly it was not soliciting information, the type of comprehensive information on which such very serious decisions about the future of Canada should be made.
The free trade Bill is not just a simple change in legislation. It is a change in the thrust of the country. All along in the process there has been an attempt to cut short debate and consultation with the public, after which we went into the election campaign. What one saw initially, if one followed the polls during the campaign, was that there seemed to be a fair amount of support for the deal as people understood it, but the more people learned about the deal, the more that support decreased. The more the support for the deal decreased, the more we seemed to see an increase on the Government's part to speed up to close debate, to ensure that no more witnesses come in to speak about it. In other words, there appears to be a determined effort to narrow the range of information available, not only to Members who make these decisions, because legislative committees certainly have publicity, but to others.
I certainly found, as I am sure many Members here found during the election campaign, that the more information electors sought, the more confused they became. What was most clear was that virtually everyone I talked to, those who thought they were for it and those who thought they were against it, felt they did not have enough information. It is through the legislative
process and the parliamentary process that not only are we able to garner information, but we are able to share it with the people who have elected us, and with the public at large.
Many of us have had information from the many reports we have read and so on, as well as from our constituents. In the legislative process we have the opportunity to hear from experts, both national and international, to question them and to fully explore the issues. Not everyone is an economist, a financial expert or a lawyer. We can read the reports, as well as the free trade deal, as I am sure many of us have. The opportunity to be able to examine a witness in a legislative committee would really provide the information on which to base rational decisions which we could convey to our constituents.
I believe that we have all come here to represent our constituents in a manner that is responsible and which shows respect for their views, as well as to share with them the information that we learn. We do that because they are the people who are most affected by whatever actions we take here. I am sure all of us share the common desire to represent our constituency and the issues in the most democratic and knowledgeable manner possible.
One of the ways we have of doing that is through the Standing Orders and the parliamentary processes which have been instituted to make this more democratic and thoughtful and to allow not just Members of Parliament to share their various views but to allow members of the public and experts to share their views as well. It is one of the few opportunities that many people in the public have to make these types of views known in this forum.
There are still many questions left to be answered with respect to Bill C-2, the Bill referred to in the amendment. It is quite clear that the Government has a mandate to proceed, but it does not have a mandate not to go forward and ensure that the public fully understands what is happening. Debates in the committee process would enhance that. This particular motion is an attempt to impede that.
Bill C-2 has many measures. For example, the magnitude of this Bill presents difficulties for the average citizen to understand it, just because of its length. If the Bill goes into effect, as I understand it, it will necessitate amendments to about 27 existing federal statutes, for example the Federal Court Act.
December 16, 1988

Does the average person know what amendments that is going to require? And, it may have a lot of impact on the average life of many citizens. What about the Bank Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Customs Act, the Canada Grain Act, to name a few? This is one of the areas where we cannot say that we are just passing one piece of legislation. This will affect many pieces of legislation, as well as our relationship with a major foreign power. Surely, there is a fundamental necessity to ensure that due process through Parliament is observed.
It has been said that tyranny is always better organized than freedom. Yes, it is faster to suspend the rules perhaps under, as was said last June when the Standing Orders were suspended, exceptional circumstances. But we all know how quickly exceptional circumstances can become the norm. It seems to me that as parliamentarians one of the obligations we have to ourselves and to our constituents is to be the guardians of the parliamentary and democratic process. If we cannot even ensure that the democratic process will continue through this Parliament, what kinds of legislation we pass may in a sense become quite secondary because in fact we will have tyranny ruling. Yes, it is easier. Democracy takes a lot of time. I believe-and I am sure most Members of this House believe it-that in the end we can have reasoned decisions which will be of benefit to all Canadians.
The rules of order, as I understand them, are not simply impediments to a government and should not be allowed to be seen as such. I believe this is not at all a frivolous debate as some people have suggested. In fact, I believe it is a very fundamental debate about the democratic system. There are countries such as Chile that had a full democracy and now does not. I talked to a number of people from that country who said to me that they would not have believed that democracy in that country could have been undermined, but it was done.
Certainly, if we are not willing to fight for the democratic process to make sure the decisions we so very recently have been sent here to make are made on sound judgment, if we do not fight strongly to ensure that all the information about a particular piece of legislation is made public, we are not doing our duty. This is not a frivolous debate. This is a fundamental debate about democracy and the democratic process.
Extension of Sittings
We have, Madam Speaker, a majority Government. The Government does have a mandate to govern, but to govern, I would suggest, with respect for the minority views. I would also suggest the Government has a particular responsibility to be accountable to the Canadian people. Accountability is that ability to be able to justify the decisions one has made. If this trade Bill is so good as many Members opposite believe it is, that is great. Let us hear the reasons. Let us be able to tell the Canadian people. We know that in the last election 53 per cent of the Canadian people did not vote for this Government. Surely, a Government that respects the people will also respect the democratic process which will allow those people to have the information about what is happening here.
Edmund Burke in 1771, said: "The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse". I would suggest again that the debate we are having today and tonight is very fundamental, because it is our duty as parliamentarians to guard the democracy and the democratic principles as well as to participate in the serious debates of this country.
While Members of Parliament may disagree about various issues, and assuredly they will, any reasoned examination of the issues, it seems to me, should be supported. We cannot allow, and should not allow exceptional circumstances to arise continually. To support this amendment would be to support changing the Standing Orders. It simply is not supportable to do so. Therefore, when we are discussing the most significant and crucial piece of legislation in 50 years, I as a parliamentarian cannot say that this is an exceptional circumstance.
This is one of the most important events in our history. Surely it deserves full debate, a full legislative process, with the opportunity for all Members to speak to the legislation, for witnesses to be called, and, therefore I would urge that the motion be withdrawn and the amendment be withdrawn.


Mr. Ricardo Lopez (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate that many call historic, but which, to me, is a debate on the prosperity we will get if we can overcome the ill-feelings and the hypocrisy that has long been spread by our friends on the other side.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
First, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my constituents in the riding of Chateauguay for their trust. Some will remember, Madam Speaker, that in 1984 I was first elected to this place with a majority of a little over 5,000 votes. But in 1988, now that my constituents know me better and have learned to work with me as I learned to work with them, they renewed my mandate with about 2,000 more votes than four years ago. This happened in spite of some comments or some difficulties that my friends opposite tried to create by campaigning in my riding of Chateauguay. This is true, but they did not succeed, and their efforts did not worry me too much. At that time, I said: Listen, they can campaign as much as they want, Canadians do not trust them because they have lost their credibility. Let them come, one, two or even fifty Liberals, they will only get me more votes because they were rejected in 1984. People will not look backwards, they will not go back to the old Liberal ways.
Madam Speaker, as you all know, I represent a rural riding mostly made up of farmers. Some say that the trade agreement between Canada and the United States will be bad for the agricultural industry. Nevertheless, we had a debate on free trade in my riding, opposing myself, of course, and the candidates for the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party who took turns trying to attack the agreement and to spread rumours to the effect that certain social programs would disappear.
They also tried to scare farmers, with the help of the president of the UPA in Quebec. It is he who came to my riding to try and sell dreams to farmers or to scare them by spreading unfounded rumours. But I am happy to inform you that in my riding it is the farmers who export some of their produce to the United States who put their confidence in me and financed my election campaign.
I did not get any financial support from any union or high finance source. I was financed and supported by the grass roots, I mean the farmers, workers and small businessmen and I am both very proud and very grateful to them for that. We even had some new municipalities. As you know, because of the new electoral boundaries, the sizes and shapes of various ridings have changed. So there were four new municipalities attached to my riding. All during the election campaign, I focussed my attention on these new municipalities, because the people there wanted me as their representative, and they followed this example of the other municipalities which are also made up essentially of farmers. They got to know me and I won their full trust.
I am proud today to belong to a Party which has always kept its promises. You will remember that during
the summers of 1987 and 1988, the Opposition parties demanded an election. They wanted the Prime Minister to call an election. Sometimes, when we left the Elouse of Commons, we would meet a number of groups on the Hill, probably organized by either one of the two Opposition Parties or even both, that were shouting and waving signs, insisting that Canadians should have an opportunity to vote on free trade.
Finally, the Prime Minister, as you know, decided to call an election. It never occurred to me that free trade would play such an important role in that election. I thought of it as one of our numerous achievements such as good government, the sound management of taxpayers' money and especially, the state of the economy, improved federal-provincial relations, the reduction of unemployment and all the positive things we had achieved during the four preceding years. But opposition parties thought that they might benefit by taking aim at something else. They all focused on free trade. They even suggested that this was a kind of referendum election. What could we do? We had no choice but to play their game and try to explain to the voters the advantages of the Free Trade Agreement.
We also promised that free trade would come into effect on January 1, 1989. And we want to act quickly to keep our word. Some people say: "Why are they in such a hurry?" These people want more debate, they want this and that. But we have been talking about free trade for three years, Madam Speaker. We talked about it in committee, we talked about it in this House, we had debates and a Bill had been adopted, Bill C-130.
But here we are again. Will we talk about free trade for the rest of our lives? It seems to me that time has come for action. Let us act now!
The day after the election, I was really glad to hear the leaders of the two opposition Parties say: "The Canadians have made their decision. The Conservative Party won the elections. We must now accept that fact and we will co-operate to have the free trade agreement come into effect as soon as possible. That is what the Canadians really want."
I was happy to hear that, thought a bit surprised, because we do not often get any co-operation from the other side of the House. But, so be it! If such is the case, they must have changed, they must have understood that we must listen to the Canadians. They must have finally understood that we live in a democracy and that the majority always wins.
December 16, 1988

Yet, they changed their mind a few days later and said: "No, no, we will do all we can to prevent you from passing this legislation". And they are going to do that even though the Canadian population thinks otherwise. Madam Speaker, is that not an attack on democracy which proves once again how hypocritical the Liberal Party has always been? I think it is. Democracy spoke, and you said that you would listen. I am not all that surprised. When has the Liberal Party kept its word? Never. I would have been very surprised if it had done so this time. During the election campaign, our slogan was "Let us continue in the right direction". 1 am sure that we will continue and that the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States will be implemented as planned, in spite of all.
As you know, Madam Speaker, 1 was born in Europe and I had the chance to live in almost all European countries. Some years ago, 10 to 15 at the most, many European countries were importing grains and produce from Canada, United States and other countries. But at one point, they woke up; faster than the Liberals and the NDP. They understood that they had to get together, to open their frontiers to each other if they wanted to develop their trade and production. So, they created what is now called the Common Market, some kind of free trade zone made up of France, Germany and England at first, and finally, Portugal. All those countries which were once importing and poor countries have become self-sufficient one after the other. Later, they became exporting countries. Today, they are our competitors. How strange that countries which have been importing goods for decades, countries on the verge of under-development, have been able all of a sudden, and thanks to the EEC, to become self-sufficient and then to start exporting their products. Not to mention that they have become nowadays fierce competitors.
Is it not a clear signal that we should not be inwardlooking? I know a country called Portugal. The only way it could open to the world was through Spain and France, two countries 10 times its size. Even so, Portugal should not fear losing its language or its culture, since, as we all know, it has not so far. The people of Portugal speak Portuguese as well as they did 20, and even 50 years ago. None of their cultural or social programs have been threatened, but they have found new wealth.
Portugal, which was not able previously to support even 50 per cent of its consumer needs, is now wealthy and more than self-supporting. It has become an exporting country.
Extension of Sittings
Spain, just beside Portugal, was also an importing country for more than 50 years before joining the EEC. Spain has not lost its language, nor its culture, nor any of its social programs. The Spanish business community is not afraid of competition. Today, Spain still has one of the highest standard of living in Europe. You can imagine the turnaround they achieved! But some people in Quebec, Madam Speaker, say they are going to be swallowed up by the United States because it is such a big country. They are not yet convinced that they can compete with anybody.
We all know about Lavalin, Bombardier, Cascade Papers, the Lamarres. All those people have shown their mettle throughout the world. They are not afraid of free trade. They know what is going on in the world. They know that to get on in life, you have to open up then work, you have to have confidence in yourself. And there are many others like them, the caisses populaires, for instance, which, 50 years ago, were doing business from church basements and, having started from nothing, have today become a huge economic force. Is that not a proof that Quebeckers and Canadians are quite capable of competing with anybody? They have proved it in the past. They will continue doing so.
To withdraw from the world, Madame Speaker, is to diminish oneself. To stop is to move backward. Since, as a country, we must open up to the world, to the future, to prosperity, we cannot withdraw in a cocoon.
Economists will tell you that today a country needs at least 200 million potential consumers in order to assert and develop certain types of expertise, and certain manufacturing and marketing methods. Canada has a population of only 25 million. Although Canadians are productive, although they are clever, they cannot, with a market like ours, a very small market, compete with giants with potential markets of 200, 300 and 400 million consumers. Our Government has understood that. It has understood that, in order to really develop ourselves, we need a much greater market than the one we have now. Some say that we must gain access to the markets of Europe, of Asia, of other continents.
I have nothing against that. I quite agree. We should not limit ourselves. The farther we can go the better it is going to be for Canadians. But let us begin at the beginning, let us begin by what is closest, by our friend. First, Madam Speaker, let us begin by keeping what we already have and putting it in a more secure place. As you would know, American protectionism has been more evident in recent years, particularly last year, and there

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
is nothing we can do about that. But with the Free Trade Agreement there will be a dispute settlement mechanism where Canadians will have the same representation as the Americans. We will be able to have our say and defend our rights. Right now we do not have anything at all.
There is one sector where, for all practical purposes, free trade is already a fact of life. I am talking about the Auto Pact which, through sheer coincidence, happens to be in southern Ontario. They enjoy the kind of economic prosperity which is the envy of all Canadians, and all regions of Canada should be in a similar situation. When I heard somebody mention the name of Bob White a moment ago, a man who spoke against free trade and who was against the Conservative Party, I am not surprised because he is an egoist who rules and says: What is good for me is good for me but only me. He already enjoys the benefits of free trade. His members are already protected under the Auto Pact, but they do not want others to have the same privileges. With the advent of free trade, within a few years the entire country's economy will be growing and flourishing just as fast as it is now in southern Ontario.
That is what Canada means, a Canada fair to everyone! 1 always dreamed in my youth, in my life, of being able one day to be part of this great, beautiful country called Canada. But today I am doubly proud of this great, beautiful country which is just, fair and open everywhere and to everyone because I am one of those who have such a vision of openness, of tolerance, of acceptance, of prosperity, and when I say prosperity, it is not only for us today; I am thinking of our children's and grandchildren's future. That is what I have sought in my life and what I have found in Canada.
But 1 am still concerned that not all Canadians have understood this yet. I am disappointed to see the Liberal Party and the NDP opposed to this boost to the economy, to this open-mindedness and free trade. I am disappointed because after all, they are Canadians, but Canadians who have understood nothing, and I hope that one day they will understand and also begin to keep their commitments and their word.
Madam Speaker, do you know that in the past, out of ignorance, I must say, I supported the Liberal Party, in a way, and I must admit-


An Hon. Member:: -out of great ignorance.


Ricardo Lopez: -and I must admit, it was out of great ignorance. But you know that it is never too late to learn. 1 found out about seven or eight years ago, but
you over there have still not learned! And the way you are going, you will never understand.
Madam Speaker, in 1979, the Liberal Party campaigned on four points: deficit reduction, lower unemployment, lower interest rates and also the business of the 18-cent/gallon gasoline tax. But a few months after they were elected, they did the exact opposite of what they had promised. It does not surprise me at all that a few days ago, they said that they were prepared to cooperate on free trade and today, they have done an about-face and are saying completely the opposite. This is typical of the Liberal Party of Canada and I ask Canadians to get rid as soon as possible of a party that does not keep its word.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I must confess to you at the outset that I stand here as, possibly, the unhappy subject of a cruel and bitter irony. It is that I, the first, and for four years, the only elected member of the New Democratic Party from the Province of Alberta, find myself seriously considering rising in this House, for the first time, to speak to some degree in favour of a device proposed by members of the government Party.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) and the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) have brought forward an amendment that would seem to address one small part of the overwhelming problem that confronts this House in Government Motion No. 1. The motion proposes to trample on the rights of committees that would otherwise consider Public Bills brought forward in this ostensibly brief session, and the amendment proposes to restrict it just to Bill C-2, the Bill which ostensibly we are here to consider, and no other. In this, it is perhaps a commendable thing, and hence my dilemma, Madam Speaker.
It is important, certainly, that the House defend its rights and privileges. And if in so doing-as the Government seems itself to recognize-errors, grievous offensive errors in Government Motions can be fixed, then we must seriously consider so doing. I think it is to the credit of the Members from Simcoe North and Calgary West that they have attempted, at least, to address one of these offensive errors in limiting the scope of government Motion No. 1. What makes limiting its scope a question very much before the House at this time is the Throne Speech itself which initiated this session.
December 16, 1988

1 would draw the attention of Hon. Members to the third paragraph of Her Excellency the Governor General's Speech in which she said:
"The purpose of this early session of the Thirty-fourth Parliament is to seek your approval for legislation to implement this Agreement as scheduled."
That is a goal, I will not say a commendable goal, but it is from some points of view an understandable one. But in the fifth paragraph of this self-same speech we find this sentence: while this is going on-
"Meanwhile, you may be asked at the present session to consider others matters as deemed advisable by my government."
What we have is a situation in which the Governor General has warned us that we may be facing other public Bills at this session. Hence, again, it is prudent that, if the Government is determined to trample the rights of the House of Commons, the Commons at least attempt to defend itself to the extent of narrowing that elephantine tap dance to the scope of Bill C-2 where, to quote from the motion, we will have a situation in which:
"-the provisions of Standing Order 73(1) and (2) respecting
committee stage of Public Bills be suspended,-"
"And that Bill C-2", assuming the amendment to be successful, "be ordered for referral to Committee of the Whole". Thus, presumably, if we do get other Public Bills during the course of this, we have been told, brief sitting for the purpose of considering the trade legislation, we may at least reasonably consider those in the proper committee. Perhaps. The wording remains unclear in that regard, but we must assume the intent of the Government in moving this amendment to limit the effect of the motion to Bill C-2 is that any other Public Bill get the full treatment.
We have an amendment from members of the Government that I, in all honesty, must seriously contemplate supporting because anything that will limit the effect of this iniquitous and offensive resolution is greatly to be considered.
I would in this regard, if I may, draw the attention of Hon. Members to the Bill of Rights. By the way, I do not mean the Bill of Rights of our neighbour to the south. I mean our Bill of Rights, that Bill of Rights, which, by virtue of the British North America Act now the Constitution Act, 1867, granted us the rights and liberties originally taken by the British people as a consequence of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when
Extension of Sittings
the corrupt and venal Stuart King was deposed, and which was enshrined in-and I believe it was the second Act of 1688-an Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown.
I would especially draw Hon. Members' attention to a couple of sections of our Bill of Rights, for the time being at least; who knows?
First, the preamble concludes as follows:
"And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections, being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation, taking into their most serious Consideration the best Means for attaining the Ends aforesaid-"
It is basically the rights and liberties of the subjects, if I may interpolate:
"-do in the first Place (as their Ancestors in like Case have
usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient
Rights and Liberties, declare-"
Herein those 13 points which constitute our Bill of Rights, including point number 9 which reads:
"That the Freedom of Speech, and Debates or Proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parliament."
Is it so unreasonable to assert here tonight, Madam Speaker, that, in fact, the otherwise proper proceedings of this House of Commons have been questioned in a place outside of this Parliament, that place being the chambers of the Government?
Have they not decided to restrict the functioning of this House of Commons in a manner unnecessary, but definitely odious, solely for the purpose of depriving those roughly three-eighths of the Members of this House who are here for the first time of the opportunity to consider and debate fully what all sides of the House agree to be the most important legislation placed before it, certainly since the Second World War? If that does not constitute a move that falls at least within the ambit of the ninth point of our Bill of Rights, then I must confess myself greatly surprised.
I would finally point to the conclusion of that section which follows the thirteenth point in the Bill where the Parliament of the United Kingdom in this Act says:
"And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the Premises, as their undoubted Rights and Liberties; and that no Declarations, Judgments, Doings, or Proceedings, to the Prejudice of the People in any of the said Premises, ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into Consequence or Example."

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
The Government of Canada in 1988 in the Thirty-fourth Parliament is doing just that. It is drawing into consequence and example a restriction of the rights in committee of this House. That is not to be tolerated. It is certainly not to be approved by a House that has any respect for its rights and privileges.
I think perhaps I have argued myself out of my difficulties in this regard. Yes, the motion is worthy of contempt and rejection, and with all due respect to the Hon. Members from Simcoe North and Calgary West, any attempt to tinker with it, to render it somewhat the less appalling is insufficient. Only its rejection will do. Therefore, I can in conscience resume my seat arguing now against both the motion and its inadequate amendment.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to congratulate you and your colleagues in the chair upon being re-appointed. 1 would like to congratulate all of my colleagues and friends who have been elected to this House. I welcome this opportunity to bring forward some of my thoughts on the present motion that is before us.
I think one must remember that immediately following the election, leaders of both Opposition Parties said that the people had spoken. An election, a very hard-fought election, took place on free trade. Both leaders clearly stated for all Canadians to see that they would co-operate and that their Parties would co-operate to bring speedy passage to this legislation. Basically they said that because we had formed a majority Government and had a mandate to proceed with the legislation now before us.
I would like to remind Hon. Members and perhaps inform some of the new Members in the Chamber that in the last session before the election this legislation was debated for more than 350 hours at all stages. It was contemplated at all stages for more than 60 days.


Robert Evans Skelly: A different Parliament.


Jack Wendele Shields: I hear an Hon. Member say that that a different Parliament. I wish to remind Hon. Members that it passed the House after vigorous debate at all stages.


Robert Evans Skelly: Closure at all stages.


Mr. Kempling:: You were not here, you would not know.


Robert Evans Skelly: I was watching you on TV.


Jack Wendele Shields: We sent the Bill to committee, we heard witnesses, and the Bill then went to the other place for Royal Assent. The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Turner) directed the Liberal Leader of the other place to stop and let the people decide. That was the cry that originated with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and his Party and was picked up by the socialist Party. I submit that the people did decide. This Government is the first back-to-back majority Government since 1953, and the first back-to-back Conservative Government in more than 90 years. The question then becomes: Do we in the House have a mandate? Absolutely, we have a mandate to proceed with this legislation.
After the election the Leaders of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party were interviewed by the media. They said that our job and commitment was to go back to the House of Commons and co-operate in speedy passage of this legislation.
I wonder what happened between the time of those interviews and now. I would like to suggest that the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is having leadership problems. He is being stabbed in the back by his Party, and he is going to be turfed out. All of this is speculation. To keep the focus of the Canadian people off what is going on within the Party, they have taken up the charge today because new Members are demanding it. Therefore, we have heard many comments about delaying this legislation and keeping it here.
Why have members of the New Democratic Party returned and changed their tune when their Leader made a commitment to the Canadian people and to all Members of the House that he would provide cooperation and speedy passage? Well, he received a letter from Bob White who said: "I do not like the way you ran the campaign. You let the Liberals get ahead of us and take the debate to the people when we should have, and we should have had more Members." The House Leader of the NDP has stated: "If they think they are going to get this legislation through the House, they can forget about it. We are not going to accommodate them so that they can have early Christmas holidays".
We heard the tone, we knew exactly what was happening, and we saw what happened when we returned to the House of Commons and attempted to seek agreement from both Parties to proceed in an orderly, co-operative manner to get the legislation passed through the House and into the Senate.
December 16, 1988

The new Member from Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) rose in the House and stated that it is an offensive resolution. I submit that the resolution is not offensive. What is offensive is the action of Members of the two Opposition Parties who say one thing and then come into the House and do a complete about turn and, through lack of co-operation, force the Government to do exactly what it has done.
The Government has an international commitment. We have signed an agreement that must be in place by January 1. Now we hear the argument that it does not matter. January 1 is a deadline, but we can still carry on for another couple of months. Members opposite do not recognize, will not recognize, or even admit that the delay could cause serious problems for Canada and the Free Trade Agreement because of demands that could be made by the United States Government. The delay would put us in a position that we do not want to be in.
The NDP and the Liberals have been against this legislation from the very beginning. Their members campaigned across the country. I do not say it lightly, and 1 do not say that all candidates did this, but I had cases in my riding where native groups were told that if the Free Trade Agreement went through they would not be able to leave their reserves. They were also told that they would lose their reserves or their treaty Indian status if the Free Trade Agreement went through because of the pressure put on by the United States. I went into a senior citizen's home in High Prairie and a lady I have known since I was a child came to me and said: "Jackie Shields, is it true that I'm going to have to find another place to live, and I'm going to lose my old age pension if the Free Trade Agreement goes through?" Those are the type of tactics we saw during the debate and during the campaign across the country.
Since the turn of the century the Liberals and the Liberal Party have been known as free traders. In fact, they lost a government over a free trade resolution not unlike this one. At that time, my Party led by Sir John A. Macdonald won an election against free trade. During the campaign not all Liberals were against free trade. However, why did the cry go out?
I submit that we saw the spectacle of a Leader attempting to save his job. I say that with some hesitation, but I felt it. I also felt it was a rallying cry, They saw that there might be a possibility that, rather than ending up in third place in the House and sitting as a rump, they could at least gain official opposition status. We saw all the old timers come back on the bandwagon when they thought that perhaps this was working. We saw the Lalondes, the Chretiens, and the rest of them.
Extension of Sittings
The old gang came back because they thought that they might just get in there.
1 understand why the NDP were against it. If 1 were a socialist I would also be against the Free Trade Agreement, and I would have no bones about it. However, I would stand up and say exactly why I was against it. I would not use the scare tactics that I saw during this campaign that said to old age pensioners that they were going to lose their pensions, or to the people who depend on health care, that they were going to lose that, or that the United States would take over all our energy supplies and have total access to them. All of those things we know not to be true, the good solid scare tactics.
The NDP, being socialists, are afraid of the Free Trade Agreement. The aim and objective of that Party is to have Canada be a socialist country, and that is an aim and objective that I could understand were I a socialist. But, that is the objective the New Democratic Party has in mind. It wants big government.
We even heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) saying that in the event that they were to form a Government in this country, they would buy back Air Canada, along with some of the other Crown corporations that this Government has privatized.


An Hon. Member:: And what about the banks?


Jack Wendele Shields: It is a Party that believes in big government. And, yes, it wants to nationalize the banks. That is its philosophy, and one can readily understand that such an aim and objective would be difficult to achieve in the context of a Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, a country far removed from the socialist philosophy.
The other group that came out against the Free Trade Agreement is the labour movement. But of course the labour movement and the NDP are one and the same. We have Bob White, the President of the Canadian Auto Workers' Union, who is also a vice-president of the NDP. He holds that position not because he has been elected as an NDP Member of Parliament but because, as President of the Canadian Auto Workers' Union, he automatically becomes a Vice-President of the NDP. We also have Shirley Carr, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, who is a Vice-President of the NDP. One can also look to some of the advisers to the NDP, among whom are executives of the Energy & Chemical Workers' Union and the the Steel Workers' Union. Many of the advisers to the NDP come from the ranks of Canada's unions.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Does the labour movement control the NDP? All one has to do to find the answer to that question is to go back to the last Parliament and examine the breakdown of the votes that took place in this place. When we legislated the railway workers back to work in order to get grain moved off the farms and into the grain terminals for export, who voted against it? Surprise, surprise: the NDP.


An Hon. Member:: Unanimously.


Jack Wendele Shields: Unanimously. They did not want to offend the union. When we legislated the grain handlers back to work, again we had the NDP voting against the legislation. They do not want to offend the unions.


An Hon. Member:: That is where they get their money.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, I learned a long time ago that if it walks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, if it swims like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, in all likelihood it is a duck.
It is my hope, Madam Speaker, that the people of Canada recognize that we on the Government side are not going to accept an attempted filibuster, an attempted delay in getting this legislation through. We want this legislation passed so that we can live up to the international obligation that we have entered into with the United States.
We hear the criticism that we do not have a mandate to enter into the Free Trade Agreement on the basis that, in percentage terms, more people voted for the other Parties than for the Progressive Conservative Party. Yet, we formed a majority government.
Let me take people's minds back to the debate on the Constitution. The Prime Minister of the day, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, did not have a mandate to patriate the Constitution, beyond the fact that he had a majority in this House of Commons. There was not one Liberal Member of Parliament west of Winnipeg. There were two Liberal Members from the Winnipeg area, but none from Saskatchewan, Alberta, or B.C. But lo and behold, Mr. Trudeau struck a deal with the Leader of the NDP. The Leader of the NDP agreed to support the Liberal Government's initiative on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and on patriating the Constitution, and in
that way he at least had the pretence of having a national mandate for his constitutional initiatives, a mandate that he so urgently required at the time.
When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was first tabled in this House it included a clause setting out the fundamental right to own property. That very night the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) went to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and informed him that if he did not withdraw the clause in respect of property ownership, the NDP would not support it, and the very next day the clause in question was withdrawn.


An Hon. Member:: It was Peter Lougheed who wanted that clause withdrawn.


Jack Wendele Shields: I suggest to the people of Canada that they ask the New Democratic Party Members of Parliament why it is that there is not entrenched in our Constitution the right to own property, a fundamental right that should be in our Constitution and one that is in every major constitution in the world.
It is clear, Madam Speaker, why the New Democratic Party is against the free trade legislation. It is equally clear that the Progressive Conservative Government is a government which represents every corner of this nation. We number among our Members, Members of Parliament from every province of the country. We are truly a national party and a national Government. Lor someone-


Marcel Prud'homme: You have no Members elected from the Province of Prince Edward Island, nor from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Hon. Member is right. I stand corrected.
The Hon. Member always corrects me, and he does so in a courteous fashion.
To get back to my remarks, this Government has a commitment to the people of Canada in respect of the Free Trade Agreement. We have that mandate. We have the first back-to-back majority governments in over 40 years. We are here to get on with the business of government, and not to put up with the delaying tactics of the NDP, who want to re-argue issues that were fully thrashed out during the election campaign.
December 16, 1988

I suggest that, with all but one Member from the Province of Alberta, we speak for Alberta, and I think the position of Albertans is very, very clear. I suggest that the Elon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) check with the people of Alberta before he again stands up and talks about this process being offensive. It is not offensive. What is offensive is the delaying tactics being engaged in by the NDP.
When this legislation was debated in the last Parliament, I witnessed opposition Member after Member stand in this House and read off petition, after petition, after petition. As well, they would adjourn the House and do everything they could to delay the business of this House of Commons. That is the behaviour that is reprehensible.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to sit here and listen to the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-who is the only veteran of the Korean War sitting in this place I might add-remind us of the delaying tactics that we in the Opposition use from time to time in the light of the tactics engaged in by his Party when in opposition. I well remember sitting in the Speaker's chair day after day after day while we listened to the bells ring.


An Hon. Member:: For weeks and weeks.


Marcel Prud'homme: However, I will abstain from doing so.
I will touch on at least two points. The first is what we should be talking about, this motion. The second is the right of a Member to be heard in this House.
I have sat here for many years, as you all know, and I hope I have learned a lot. I still have a lot to learn and I am about to learn a lot more today. If John Diefen-baker, whose memory I always cherish, was to be in this House today there would be an explosion of anger. If Mr. Nielsen, with whom I disagree totally on his concept of Canada, was to be here he would use every tactic in the book, he would invent tactics, so that what we are about to do would never take place.
It is quite difficult to understand why a government which has just been elected would immediately go to that kind of tactic. I have tried, as I always do, to understand the reason why. Is there something behind the curtain? Is there a motivation? I wonder if one of the main motivations would not be to attract us into an easy trap, one into which we have to fall. We could have abstained but we have to fall in it, that is a procedural
Extension of Sittings
trap, by being extremely arrogant and imposing immediately at this time that kind of procedure.
In this way new colleagues will be impeded in putting to Canadians listening to us their view on a very important piece of legislation. Attract them in a procedural debate, they will have to answer, they will be totally upset, therefore we will apply more guillotine and no one is going to talk exactly about what this entente is all about.
If Diefenbaker were here, I tell you he would resent every minute of what the Government is about to do, without a shadow of a doubt in my opinion.
I hear from my friends from Quebec. In Quebec they voted for you, but 1 may still disagree with what we are about to do. You said, let the people talk.


John Horton McDermid: No, you said that.


Marcel Prud'homme: You said in the House time and time again that we provoke you by saying: Let the people decide. Fine. It so happened that the people of Canada have decided to vote for the Government, yes. I respect the British parliamentary system. It is one of the best systems in the world. A majority of seats was given to the Government. Fair game. However, I have to note, too, that when we said, let the people speak, let the people decide, a majority of Canadians decided otherwise.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: My dear colleagues from Toronto may disagree with me. They will have plenty of time to put their views forward. However, on a piece of legislation of this importance I have to put to you that 57 per cent of Canadians, on one particular issue since the campaign was run on it, disagree. Let the people decide, yes. It so happened that in the Province of New Brunswick the majority voted Liberal. Yes, a majority in Nova Scotia voted Liberal. Yes, in Prince Edward Island a majority of the people voted Liberal. Yes, in Newfoundland the majority voted Liberal. Yes, in the two Northwest Territories seats they voted Liberal.


Patrick Boyer: In Etobicoke-Lakeshore no one voted Liberal.


Marcel Prud'homme: In Ontario, a majority voted Liberal. Yes, in British Columbia and Saskatchewan they voted NDP. The Conservatives barely had a majority of the vote in Manitoba by 4,000, if my memory is correct, over the Liberals. That is quite a remarkable achievement for the Liberals, coming from one seat to almost a majority of the votes.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings


John Horton McDermid: You now sound like the NDP.


Marcel Prud'homme: You have a majority of the votes in my province and in Alberta.
When we say, let the people speak, do you not agree with those of you who like reform of Parliament, and there are a lot of people here who believe in the reform of Parliament? I happen to disagree often with my House Leader on one of his interpretations of the House rules, and that is fair game, good debate. Yet we have here people who have just arrived in the House, so who speaks more for others? We say, let the people decide, let the people speak up, let the people take their responsibilities. These new colleagues of mine, and they are all here, may like to put forward their views in a few days.


John Horton McDermid: They will have time.


Marcel Prud'homme: And force you really to react and tell us how it is, for instance, that this or this or this is included or is not included in the agreement.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Let us get off this motion, then.


Marcel Prud'homme: You may yell as much as you want, but that is the fact that remains.
My friend from Athabasca said we used scare tactics in seniors' homes.


Some Hon. Members:: You did!


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is truthful.


Marcel Prud'homme: Fine, let us say it did happen. Let us say some Members did it. If you are so sure, my friend from Portneuf, stand up now. If you believe social programs are not included, why not put it in the entente? Put it in writing.


John Horton McDermid: Should we put everything in the agreement that is not in the agreement? Get serious.


Marcel Prud'homme: I knew I was going to touch some nerves. There is the Minister of housing who made the most strange noise during the campaign about people who have no place to sleep. Yesterday he became red and full of anger because we told him what he said during the campaign.


John Horton McDermid: Because it was not true. I did not say it.


Marcel Prud'homme: He is still trying tonight to diffuse me. He will not.


John Horton McDermid: The Toronto Star said it. You get all your facts from the Toronto Star.


Marcel Prud'homme: You yell. You must be very upset. Listen to the Hon. Minister; she is telling you to be quiet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: And to be cool.


John Horton McDermid: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. 1 know the Hon. Member wants a break and a drink of water so I am giving him a chance so he can get wound up again.


Marcel Prud'homme: Do not worry about it.


John Horton McDermid: There are two facts that he has had wrong so far tonight in his speech which I think he should correct.


Marcel Prud'homme: This is not a point of order.


John Horton McDermid: Let me make my point of order before you interrupt. She is the Speaker, not you, Marcel. I know you would like to be there. We all know that, but you are not, so I have the floor.


Marcel Prud'homme: On his statement, Madam Speaker, you know he cannot call people by their first names.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Vincent Della Noce: Let the people decide. Let the Chair decide.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish the Hon Minister would come quickly to a point of order if there is such a point of order.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, there are two points that the Hon. Member should correct. First, I did not say what he accused me of saying. A newspaper, one newspaper, made an incorrect report. Secondly, the Hon. Minister was telling me that I was doing a great job and to keep it up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 16, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister knows that that is not a point of order. He could certainly use some other time in debate to correct the record.


Marcel Prud'homme: You understand, Madam Speaker, that I cannot start correcting everything that was said during the campaign. I know that I do not have anything to correct. 1 was very careful during the campaign to describe things as I saw them. If the Minister was misinterpreted, then it is for him to correct, but certainly not at this time. He should have done so right away.


John Horton McDermid: I did.


Marcel Prud'homme: I still believe that more than 56 of my colleagues in the Liberal Party in the House of Commons have the right to put to the country in the House their views on this most important piece of legislation. It is not a tax law we are about to pass. We may be passionate. We may say that the law should not be passed. But we could live and correct it.
This is an immensely important piece of legislation about which we are talking. Our future is in this piece of legislation. It deals with the way we will be in 10 or 20 years. Should we not be allowed the time that is necessary to consider it? Is it your opinion, Madam Speaker, or is it the opinion of the people who like to listen attentively, that it takes too long to debate a major issue when there are 126 new Members of Parliament? These people must have gathered information. When knocking at doors they must have listened to some dream. They must have had expressed to them some views that they would like to put to the Minister. They might have been asked: "Would you kindly ask the Minister to say yes or no if this is in danger or not?" For example, they might have asked: "Or what is the future of the textile industry? What is going to be done by the Minister responsible for retraining?"
These are very important questions that should be answered in a very cool debate. What is the urgency? My esteemed friend from Athabasca (Mr. Shields) said it has to be done for January 1. However, we all now know that it could be delayed. If it could be delayed, then why could it not be delayed a little bit longer? In this way Members opposite could be satisfied that the House is satisfied that there have been enough explanations.
I will tell Hon. Members one thing. My experience has shown me that when a new Parliament is started in the way in which this Parliament has been, we must understand that it will be quite an unruly House for the next four years.
Extension of Sittings
I was in the gallery on May 15, 1956, when C. D. Howe arrived with a motion which is less rude than the one which is before us. It was a motion that took the Government down. According to the press and to the history of our country, the Government abused the power it had in its hands. The Hon. George Drew and Mr. Coldwell meant well for Canada, I am sure. But the Liberals at that time were impatient, as Conservatives are now impatient. At that time I was a student attending every minute of every debate for months. I was a student at the University of Ottawa. At that time there was the same arrogance, the same urgency that we see now in the Government. If a little bit more time were taken, the due process of the British parliamentary system would have been fairly put to the House.
I did not invent the British parliamentary system. That system taught me great lessons. It taught me the lesson that the House at least must be partially satisfied. The socialists will never be satisfied. Some of my colleagues will never be satisfied. But at least a reasonable group of people will be satisfied that they have answers to questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: 1 believe that the Government has made commitments to the President of the United States. The Government has said: "Don't worry, you will get it for the first of January". There is nothing wrong in delaying this measure and calling the Government of the United States to say that a few more days must be taken in order to satisfy the House of Commons and Canadians. There is nothing wrong with that.
Do Members opposite remember when our esteemed colleague from Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez) who made a speech earlier made a speech in 1984? He is the Member who wants to get away from unemployment insurance. He believes social welfare should be abolished. He believes that the Indians in his territory should be sent to Labrador. Attila the Hun is a socialist compared to him.
Perhaps he likes free trade because in the United States state after state has no protection for the worker. Maybe that is the type of society he wants for Canada. That is not the type of society we want for Canada.
I am embarrassed by debate of that type. I am past 50 like those who try to interrupt me. We are now going to give our consent to a law, immense as it is, as a colleague of mine showed to the House and to Canadians, that will determine exactly the destiny of the country of these young Canadians who come from all over the country to be pages. That is the country we are making today.

December 16, 1988
236______________________________
Extension of Sittings


John Horton McDermid: That is the point.


Marcel Prud'homme: At least the Minister should listen to arguments. I do not say that he will not get his law. But I would like him to convince Canadians without a shadow of a doubt that it is a good law.


John Horton McDermid: We did.


Marcel Prud'homme: I want him to convince the 57 per cent of Canadians that they may-


John Horton McDermid: Do you believe in the parliamentary system?


Marcel Prud'homme: Yes.
1 am not going to make a point of order concerning the language that is being used. If someone is saying that I speak with forked tongue, I remind Hon. Members that in 1984, I did not campaign in Quebec saying that never, ever shall we deindex pensions. I wonder which Party or which person has a forked tongue in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: Hon. Members opposite have talked about the Liberal Party being the biggest bunch of hypocrites ever. Someone said:
[ Translation]
The biggest bunch of hypocrites.

For me a hypocrite is one who may be gentle to you, Madam Speaker, and then go behind the curtain and be less kind. It is someone who may give his word that he will do something and then do otherwise when he has a chance. This is why I am so upset. I will not receive lessons on hypocrisy from people who promise to do something and once they are elected do something else. That I will not accept.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about price and wage control.


Marcel Prud'homme: The Minister is the one who claims to be virtuous-I am not. It is Members opposite who say that they are better than us. If they are better than us, then they should stick to their guns and do exactly what they said they are going to do.
I want to try to convince the Government that it has started with a kind of motion that is worse than the C. D. Howe motion. Hon. Members may disagree. Later I
would like to send that motion to the Minister responsible for housing who prefers to see people out rather than in. I read the motion today and yesterday and thought that that is why it is good to have some older Members who have good memories. It reminds me of the debate on the pipeline, except that it has come the day after the election.
It is extremely arrogant for people to say: "Listen, we have been elected. You said, let the people decide. They have decided. Now we can do anything we want". It is that disrespect with which we disagree. They are not allowed to do anything they want. They were not given a free lunch to do anything they want now that they are elected. They were elected to be responsible, I put to the House and I put to Canadians. I put to Canadians that to be fair about an important piece of legislation, the Government should give ample time to new Members of Parliament who have just been elected, who have gathered information and who would like to be sure that what the Government is about to do will be the best for Canadians. But how do we know the Government is going to do its best when it takes us to a debate of guillotine instead of saying, what the hell, one week or two or three weeks? The Government will get it passed and it knows it will get it passed.
I will tell Members opposite what I did at the national caucus, and we are not supposed to talk about that. I said, surely it would be well advised for the Senate not to participate longer than the lower Chamber. We were elected and, yes, the Government was elected, but these new Members were also elected and they have a message to bring to this House because of what they feel about it. I say to the great Minister of Agriculture-no, he is not the Minister of Agriculture. He is still dependent on the Minister of Agriculture, the actual one, the one from Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have tried to signal the Hon. Member to help him finish his speech. His time has expired. I would need the unanimous consent of all Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
December 16, 1988


Marcel Prud'homme: Let my colleagues tell you.
Some Hon. Mlembers: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I think I got permission from my friends.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I did ask the House and I did hear some noes. I was quite prepared to allow the Hon. Member to continue, but 1 did not get unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: I will respect that, as Hon. Members know. I will conclude shortly and I will finish as harmoniously as I can. I remember that in 1884, I pleaded with the Prime Minister of Canada-


An Hon. Member:: 1984.


Marcel Prud'homme: What did I say?


An Hon. Member:: 1884.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: Well, I told you I was going to finish on a harmonious note. A great thing happened in 1884, but it will be too long to explain. In 1984, I did not hesitate in one of my speeches to call on the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) directly and say, "Mr. Prime Minister of the country, you wanted to deindex. You see the result". There is nothing wrong with backing off. There is nothing humiliating in backing off. That is the essence of Parliament. You listen, you feel passionately, you say you are going to go ahead with it, then you discover that people are not happy and there must be a reason why people are so upset. It is not because we lost the election.


John Horton McDermid: No, not that!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Prud'homme: My dear colleagues, look at me, you will see that I am not that unhappy. So to finish on a harmonious note, why would you not reflect during the weekend as you did in 1984, when you saw that you were totally on the wrong track? The Prime Minister of Canada decided, yes, Mr. Prud'homme should be listened to a little bit. There is nothing bad in backing off or, to call it differently, harmoniously trying to accommodate to what seems to be better.
I tell you, Madam Speaker, I am totally convinced, and I will not take too much more time of this House, but I am convinced without a shadow of a doubt that the way the Government is proceeding is not going to produce a harmonious parliament for the next four years, and we will be together to see it. Therefore, it is
Extension of Sittings
still time for you Members opposite to change your opinion and to allow more Members to participate. I urge you to withdraw this unbelievable motion that is worse than the C. D. Howe one.


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker,
I find it a little difficult to follow some of the debate today when I hear the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) say he wants to give more time to the newer Members. I happen to be one of those newer Members and he seems to want to keep going and going and going.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Cole: I guess when you have your back against the wall that is all you can do.


An Hon. Member:: And he has been here since 1884.


John Cole: I am proud to be able to rise in the House of Commons to represent the people of York-Simcoe. The new riding of York-Simcoe is a riding made up of the heart of the Region of York which happens to be the fastest growing region of Canada. It consists of towns like Newmarket, Sharon, Georgina, which happens to be the ice fishing capital of Canada, Bradford, Beeton, Tottenham. In addition to being the commercial centre of the area, it also includes the vegetable basket of Canada, the Holland Marsh. It has many new industrial and manufacturing facilities. It really does represent a true cross-section and is a reflection of the population of Canada.
Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, my campaign was only four weeks long, but it seems to be going on and on. It was very evident that the people of York- Simcoe, and because that is a reflective riding, the people of Canada, have spoken. They want a government that can lead this country when there are outside forces over which we as a country have no control. They have chosen a Party to form the government which has shown leadership, credibility and, yes, ability.
The Government reached an agreement when previous governments failed. The Free Trade Agreement is all about improving Canada's access to the U.S. market. The Free Trade Agreement increases the access of Canadian producers to the U.S. market through the elimination of tariffs and most non-tariff barriers such as quotas, import restrictions, custom requirements and various taxes, and through stricter rules of origin and non-discrimination for goods and services. This will help companies like Office Specialty, which happens to be in Holland Landing, in my riding.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement that will jeopardize the continued operation of Canada's agricultural marketing boards including those for dairy products, poultry and eggs. Other supply management programs can be added, if desired in the future, which is Canada's right under the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Canada's highly efficient farmers, particularly those in the Elolland Marsh, produce much more than we can consume. Agriculture commodity exports amount to $4 billion a year.
The Auto Pact is improved. Not only are the already existing Auto Pact incentives and safeguards which guarantee Canada's share of production maintained, but a new North American content standard for foreign firms such as Honda and Hyundai, both new plants in my riding, will continue to fuel the growth of auto parts production in Canada. We can compete with the Americans. 1 really do not understand why we underestimate our ability to manufacture quality products.
Consumers are the main beneficiaries of the agreement. Tariffs on goods increase prices, limit competition, and decrease selection of consumer goods. For consumers, average savings from the elimination of tariffs on U.S. imports is estimated at $1,800 for a family of four.
There is something in free trade for all consumers. It is not fair to say it will only benefit big business. Consumers will also benefit from more competition once barriers to the U.S. market are finally eliminated.
The Free Trade Agreement provides Canadian industry with effective protection against the unfair or incorrect application of U.S. trade remedy law. The binding trade dispute settlement mechanism provided for in Chapters Eighteen and Nineteen of the Free Trade Agreement will, for the first time, give Canadian industries an avenue of appeal to an impartial, neutral panel of Canadians and Americans.
The Free Trade Agreement's dispute settlement mechanism gives Canada an equal voice in resolving trade disputes and constrains the ability of the Americans to harm Canadian trading interests.
All Government-run social programs, including child care, health care, education, unemployment insurance
and welfare, are exempt from the agreement, despite what the Liberals and New Democrats told our seniors during the campaign. If they were at risk I, for one, could not have supported this agreement. However, I know perfectly well from reading the agreement that those things are not at risk.
After the Throne Speech on Monday it was obvious that the Government wished to open up the debate on the Free Trade Agreement and allow everyone, new and senior Members of the House, to speak to the Bill. Nothing else was involved in the Throne Speech, except for the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.
Despite their outcries, the Opposition has done everything in its power to avoid the debate on the Free Trade Agreement. As the Member for York-Simcoe I was hoping that we would have received the co-operation from the Opposition. How naive I am, being a new Member, in believing we could get the Free Trade Agreement discussed and debated.
I believe it is necessary to pass the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. It will be the first step in putting together future trade agreements with other countries. It will lead Canada through the 1980s, 1990s and into the next century not as a country that hides its head in the sand but as an aggressive country led by an aggressive government, sharing its confidence in its ability to compete with anyone, along with the confidence of the people of Canada who also want the opportunity to compete internationally.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I too happen to be a new Member. As far as I am concerned, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) can take all the time he needs to speak ahead of me.
I want to begin my maiden speech by stating for the record that when I walked into this wonderful, time-honoured Chamber I felt as though my family, friends, volunteers who were at my side during the election campaign and the residents of Hamilton West walked in with me.
Following the election night, people asked me how it would feel to be a Member of Parliament. To be honest, I did not know what to say. As the expression goes, it had not quite sunk in.
December 16, 1988

Let me say to my fellow Hon. Members and everyone at home that 1 only came to realize that 1 was truly a Member of Parliament when, during that first vote my heart pumped, the palms of my hands started to sweat, and my knees started to shake because 1 was about to vote on behalf of thousands of fellow Canadians. It is a privilege and responsibility accorded relatively few individuals in this wonderful country.
My role as I see it is to take part in the much envied, respected democratic process of this country. However, the Government's motion to suspend parliamentary rules, which are the very essence of democracy, has prompted me to stand here tonight and state in a clear, strong voice that the issue of the trade agreement deserves full debate. At the outset I must say that there are good, well-meaning Canadians on both sides of this argument.
Having said that, permit me to reveal some obvious facts. If the Government were building a new Canadian pipeline it would do an environmental impact study. If the Government were marketing a new product it would do a pragmatic, authentic, intensive impact study. If we were the Crazy Canuck ski team challenging for the Can-Am Cup at Whistler Mountain, British Columbia, we would never hit the slopes without checking out the course to ensure that it was fair in its layout and safe enough for all the competitors. Yet for a trade deal of historic proportions there is little evidence that the Government has costed out, with the critical eye of a truly responsible government, one, the actual demands financially, two, the actual impact socially, and third, the actual changes from province to province required to fulfil this agreement.
Let us consider the impact of this agreement, particularly Chapters Fourteen, Fifteen and Nineteen. I understand the Government did project a gain of 250,000 jobs over 10 years, about a 1.8 per cent increase in employment. However, was this before or after subtracting the job losses? That was never made clear.
It seems to me that Canada has entered a bold competitive series, much like an international hockey series. Let us call it the Can-Am Traders Cup. It is the economic match of the century. The organizers of this event, the promoters, have repeatedly announced the day of the big game. It is January 1. But many of this on this side are concerned that there seems to be no game plan for les Canadiens. This is beside, of course, the Americanization of the league. Now the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says we can play with the best of them. Canadians are ready to compete, he says. Unfortunately, the puck has not even been dropped yet and the job score has the Americans out front, way out front. The
Extension of Sittings
coach, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Crosbie), has given us the pep talk, our team is warming up on the ice and, oh, there is a cheap shot: November 22, Gillette, 600 jobs; November 25, Johnson & Johnson, 16 jobs; November 25, British Footwear, 50 jobs; November 26, Pittsburgh Paints, 140 jobs; December 7, Northern Telecom, 870 jobs; and the list goes on.
It appears the American team has too many players on the ice. There does not even appear to be any kind of a penalty box. This certainly is a game being played under protest.
I draw the spectators' attention to Chapters Fourteen and Fifteen of this agreement, and I am not sure if the coach has read these parts yet. In particular, let us examine Article 1502 which grants temporary entry to professional people engaged in providing services. As well, let us examine, in light of Article 1502, Article 1403 which encourages the mutual recognition of licensing and certification requirements.
Both 1502 and 1403 refer to a lengthy list of professionals including scientists, dentists, psychologists, lawyers, social workers and nurses. In 1502, there is no limit placed upon the temporary status. It is a sort of permanent temporary. It can refer to one month or one year or five years.
Now, Article 1403 eliminates Canadian professional control over standards of certification and practice. These are professional aspects essential to consumer protection and safety. Consider this very real possibility. An American company implements a medical health and safety program at its plant in Hamilton. The company imports its own nurses and psychologists. Can Canadian workers be guaranteed that this health program operates with the same quality and professional authority we have come to expect from any Canadian health worker?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes!


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Can we? You can guarantee that? We have it in writing in Hansard. Surely a responsible government must ensure that any Canadian trade legislation will safeguard its citizens against low professional standards and services. Surely this legislation must safeguard the role of professional organizations to maintain those high standards of care and certification. I want to state for the record that I cannot vote in favour of a trade agreement which puts in jeopardy high Canadian standards of certification and professional care.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Do not look now, Madam Speaker, we just pulled our goalie and we are only into the second period. But wait, the other team is giving us one of their goalies. Now that is temporary entry! An American firm installs new computerized industrial equipment. A large team of trained computer operators is brought in from the parent company, temporarily, of course. No employee retraining seems to be necessary. The farm team has entered the arena. These computer experts are three to five years temporary and outside the normal labour contracts of Canadian workers in the same plant.
These are facts. Do the rules of fair play in labour relations still apply? Are American workers on longterm temporary entry required to pay a full share of benefit costs, benefits which Canadian communities provide?
Next I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to Chapter Nineteen. How much will it cost Canadian businesses to play the Can-Am Traders Cup? Chapter 19 describes what will happen if an American business blows the whistle on Canadian business.
If it is a situation involving GATT, there is no problem. It will take about six months for Canadian officials to obtain a resolution to a disagreement. However, under Chapter Nineteen, if a Canadian is defending his or her company against American charges, look out, Madam Speaker, the game just went into overtime.
Article 1904 of the trade deal prohibits Canada from requesting a panel until the U.S. Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission make final determinations approximately one year from the time the petition is presented, then go on to require a bilateral panel to make financial decisions within 315 days from the date it was requested.
What will it cost Canadian businesses to play in this game? Well, according to a retired Canadian trade negotiator, the cost under the trade deal would be prohibitive for many companies. They would face at least one year's legal costs while a petition is before the U.S. Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission. If the Canadian company requested a panel to review a U.S. decision, its legal bill would increase substantially. The company could be required to provide U.S. Customs with securities to cover temporary countervail and dumping duties for as long as 18 months before a panel decision.
The legislation before us makes no effort to compensate or assist Canadian businesses against American harassment through Chapter Nineteen. But then, I suppose that would be considered an unfair subsidy. You see, it is a game that we cannot win.
I have spoken with members of the business community, chief executive officers of successful Canadian companies, businesses keen to get into the game, to score in the Can-Am Traders Cup. Some of them find this legislation, though, more crippling than enabling, more rushed than encouraging. Every time they turn around-


William James Kempling: Who are you talking to? Give us names.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: They are coming. Have patience, my hon. friend. Every time they turn around, it is a three on one break for the American industry. They wonder why the rules are not balanced for everyone. The apparel industry is a case in point.
This trade agreement removes from our clothing manufacturers the right to use the highest quality materials from around the world. While these Canadian manufacturers do not compete in quantity, they can definitely compete in quality, until now. Powerful Washington lobbyists have won the provision that Canadian apparel exported to the U.S. must be made only with North American fabrics. This is not free trade but manipulated trade in favour of protectionist interests in the U.S. textile industry.
For example, access to the U.S. market from Hamilton's Coppley Group has been restricted by quotas and duties to 2 per cent of the U.S. market, while American companies can compete for 80 per cent of the Canadian market. We suggest that the best the Government could do for the industry is to provide time, time to upgrade and expand worsted wool fabrics, time to establish long-range contracts in the U.S., time to obtain large financial outlay.
Large American companies will score long before one can put a viable team on the ice. By forcing Canadian apparel makers to use American fabrics, this agreement limits the variety and quality available to differentiate Canadian high standards from American mass production. It is clear that the Government has no interest in a slow, fair implementation of this agreement nor in the maintaining of standards of quality in clothing or in professional certification.
December 16, 1988

Canadians have laced up their skates only to find themselves in a game in which the rules are clearly suspect and the American players have clearly been granted unfair advantages.
By voting for me, the majority of Canadians in Hamilton West said no to free trade.
For all the reasons I have stated here tonight the issue begs to be debated, debated fully and debated democratically.


Charles Deblois: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved to be making my first substantial speech tonight as a new Member for the constituency of Montmorency-Orleans. It might help my colleagues of the House to remind them that Montmorency-Orleans is close to the great city of Quebec. The city of Beauport forms two thirds of the riding and then there is the Cote de Beaupre. I think of all those small villages along the St. Lawrence River: Boischatel, L'Ange-Gardien, Chateau Richer, Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre, Beaupre, Mont Sainte-Anne, not to forget lie d'Orleans and, of course, the two new parishes that have just been added to the riding of Montmorency-Orleans through redistribution, Saint-Fereol-des-Neiges and Saint-Tite-des-Caps, and finally, in the northern area, the minicipality of Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval.
So I want to thank most sincerely the whole population of my Montmorency-Orleans riding-which numbers about 95,000-and all my supporters who have made it possible for me to live this experience! As you know, 1 worked for 15 years as a journalist for the CBC and the TV A network. I spent 15 years covering the political scene at the Quebec National Assembly. 1 was anxious to see from the inside what politics was all about. I had often experienced what it was all about from the outside, and during the last election campaign, I had at last an opportunity to enjoy this rich experience in human contacts and discover the men and women who are our fellow citizens.
As you must have guessed, dear friends and colleagues, this emotion was counter-balanced by the warm welcome I received from all my Cabinet colleagues, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all of you. I admit that the welcome I received from our great Conservative family was a great comfort to me and is helping me make the transition from journalism to politics.
I do not intend to make a long speech on free trade tonight. I will have an opportunity to deal with the
Extension of Sittings
substance of this issue next week. I will deal only with the motion which is now before the House and which calls for the suspension of some provisions of our Standing Orders.
Personally, it makes me laugh. I have heard some of my colleagues opposite complain that the Government is behaving like a dictator and that the Conservatives should be ashamed of their behaviour. In my opinion, leadership was one of the main issues during the election campaign. A leader is someone who, at some point in time, stops talking and starts acting. And our Leader is a man of action.
Mr. Speaker, we have been talking of free trade for three years now. The legislation before us has already been passed by this House. We are considering it again, but people have heard enough talk. We talked for two months during the campaign. People have had enough, they want action and this is what we want to give them. This is why I have a lot of admiration for our House Leader and our whip who have been negotiating with their counterparts opposite from the beginning of the session. They tried with courtesy to agree with them on some rules of debate. But it is now time to act speedily on free trade. This afternoon, I was talking on the phone with people in my riding. I was to attend a seniors meeting this evening. I have three more meetings tomorrow evening and one more on Sunday. When I said: I cannot go, 1 have to stay in the House for a debate on free trade, the people in my riding were shocked. They asked me: How can you still be talking about free trade?
My constituents elected me so we could have free trade. Now they ask me how come it has not been done yet, how come we are still debating this Bill in the House. I have to tell them that it is not because we do not want to settle this issue once and for all, but because the Opposition uses all kinds of tactics to prevent us from doing so, no matter what the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (M. Prud'homme), the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (M. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Carleton-Gloucester (M. Bellemare) say about that. They say it surprises them that they cannot discuss free trade. We want to settle this issue as soon as possible, and we introduced the motion to suspend the rules when we could not come to an agreement with the Leaders of both opposition parties. This motion to suspend the rules is not a sign of dictatorship. It is provided for in the Standing Orders and can be used when all else fails.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
And again we have been discussing free trade for three years. It is about time that we decide to move. When I saw the NDP House Leader (Mr. Broadbent) tear out the Standing Orders the other day, I was shocked. To a new Member of Parliament like me, the Standing Orders and parliamentary customs and tradition are absolutely sacred and must be respected. We are not here to give a show but to see to the collective well-being of our fellow citizens. And I am proud to be part of a team which has decided to move, to do something tangible.
Indeed, the turmoil aroused by the motion to suspend the rules makes me laugh since that motion is far from being strict and tough enough. Under that motion, discussions can go on every day till midnight, and we are being accused of gagging the Opposition. On the contrary, who has been preventing the House from discussing free trade since the beginning of the week? Our friends opposite! They have been preventing us from discussing free trade through all sorts of dilatory tactics. Let us take a concrete example. This week, when the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), the Hon. Member for Newfoundland, tabled the legislation, they asked for a vote. As we know, there usually is no vote on first reading in order to speed up the process. But our friends opposite have been asking for registered votes, all the time wasting time, half hours at a time in the halls, although we could have used that precious time to discuss the substance of the matter. So, we could not discuss free trade. This is why I feel that our friends opposite are somewhat hypocritical. I apologize for saying that, Mr. Speaker. This may be an unparliamentary term. Perhaps you will ask me to withdraw, but I feel compelled to say they are being hypocritical, bleached sepulchres.
On this side of the curtains they say they want to discuss free trade, but behind the curtains they are using every means to prevent us from discussing free trade. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I find that disgusting.
I am reminded of an old latin saying I learned during my classical studies. I wonder if some of us remember those latin sentences. We used to have that beautiful saying Roma locuta, causa finita: Rome has spoken, the matter is settled. It was used in the Roman Catholic Church to mean that once the Pope had decided, the matter was settled. But in politics, the people are the pope, and once the people have spoken the matter is settled. We have no time to waste. And I can tell you something, Mr. Speaker. I did not speak much about
free trade at the beginning of my campaign. But we know what the TV debate did. It spurred us on. Personally, I talked about free trade almost day and night. One of my most rewarding experiences during the election campaign was a conversation I had in the wee hours of the night around a table with about a dozen workers of Abitibi Paper, a superb industry in my riding which exports 95 per cent of its production to the United States. These workers who had been brainwashed by their union against free trade were certainly delighted to get explanations! When this brotherly meeting was over, these people were glad to know what the deal was all about.
During the election campaign, I noticed that the more we explained free trade to the people, the more they were in favour of it and understood that better economic relations with the United States are the key to progress in Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, dear friends, I will conclude with this. If I joined this Party-I must tell you that it was very difficult for me to decide to join a political party. As a newspaperman I was impartial. I kept my distances. You must realize that it was very important for me to keep my distances with the political parties. When I joined the Conservative Party, it was a matter of choice, because believe it or not, the Liberals had asked me to be a candidate for them. I had an opportunity to join either side.


An Hon. Member:: You made the right choice.


Charles Deblois: The main reason was the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Deblois: The greatest quality of a leader is his ability to act. The Parties opposite would like to paralyze us . . . quite the contrary! The time to talk is over. The people have spoken, and I am anxious to address other issues. We have been considering this matter for three years. The time has come to deal with something else. Canadians and Quebeckers have other issues to deal with, other solutions to seek, and I am anxious to move on to something else. I feel the matter is settled and I hope the Opposition will finally understand that the issue is settled, now that the people have spoken.
I conclude by saying how proud I am to belong to that great family of the Progressive Conservative Party. I will have an opportunity, next week, to say much more about the benefits of free trade for the small businesses, the workers, the farmers and the whole population of the
December 16, 1988

riding of Montmorency-Orleans. My electors told me something about those benefits when they gave a majority of almost 20,000 votes, that is six times as strong as that of my predecessor. That makes me very proud and once again, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to explain those facts to you and to all my colleagues.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I gave my maiden speech almost 25 years ago in the British Columbia legislature. Elowever, my riding is different now and I am in a different place. I doubt very much that I will take part in a Throne Speech debate in the near future, so I thought I would take this opportunity, as others have before me, to briefly introduce my riding.
Had I the opportunity to draw the boundaries for the area I would like to represent, 1 would draw exactly the boundaries of the riding of Nanaimo-Cowichan as they presently exist. It is where I have made my home all of my life.
The area depends upon logging, fishing, and tourism.
I have worked in logging camps, done some fishing, have farmed in the area, and currently have a chartered accounting firm that I will have to do something about when the House recesses and before we come back together again.
I started campaigning on May 2, the day after I was nominated by the Party. I campaigned for almost seven months and I enjoyed it. I travelled around the riding and met many people, all of whom seemed to know me. I knew a few of them, and many of them knew various of my relatives. One of them had worked in a local coal mine with my father some years ago. It was like coming home and meeting people. Although not all of them I knew, it made me feel like we were family all together. It was a good seven months and a good campaign.
There was one theme that kept recurring during the campaign. At the doorstep when the people wanted to talk, they always stated that we have to get rid of both of them. They did not use the title Prime Minister, they used the surname, which I know I am not to use in this place, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Vander Zalm. The people used the two of them together, it did not matter which came first. Both had to go-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Extension of Sittings


David Stupich: The other theme that came up was the free trade deal. It was not that the people were all totally against it. The majority were worried and concerned. They did not know whether they should be opposed to it or support it. On balance they were a little afraid. They felt that they had not been told enough about it, had not had an opportunity to hear enough or read enough about it. They were puzzled, concerned, worried, and inclined to vote against the Conservative candidate because on balance they thought they had better not take a chance on supporting the free trade deal. I went along with that argument very nicely. I enjoyed that campaigning.
One of the reasons I came to the House was that I was very worried about the free trade deal, wanted to oppose it, and felt the best way of accomplishing that would be to become a Member of Parliament, take part in the discussions during the campaign, take part in the discussions here, discussions that will not end when the motion or the Bill is passed but will go on for many years to come. It will be a continuing discussion in Canada, and I hope that we will gain something from that long term discussion. I wanted to be part of that, particularly in the beginning. That is one of the main reasons I came here. I wanted to discuss it in this period of one week or two weeks, whatever period we will be here before the new year. I came here today expecting to be speaking about the free trade deal.
I notice that other Members have talked about the stalling and delaying tactics on the part of the New Democratic Party. The New Democrats have stated from the beginning that we want to have the maximum amount of time possible to talk about free trade. We did not devise the various procedural motions and discussions that have taken place. We have taken part in them, but none of them have been at our prompting. Government Members have raised these motions, and one has to wonder if they did it on purpose because, as was the case before the election was called, as was the case during the election, and as is still the case, the Government does not want too much said about free trade in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Stupich: They are afraid that if the people hear too much about it, then there will be more worry, concern, and opposition to the free trade deal that has been engineered. Therefore, we spend our time talking about procedure.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
I am not going to talk about free trade at the present time. I hope to have that opportunity later on. I am not even going to talk about the motion that is on the Order Paper, a motion that is there with the obvious intention of cutting down debate on free trade. That is exactly what it does, and the amendment makes it more certain. I would like to discuss that amendment.
Earlier, the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Harvey) said that he was inclined to think that perhaps the amendment made it better, and perhaps he should consider supporting it. I do not see it that way at all. To me the amendment makes a bad motion worse.
The original motion dealt with anything that might come up in this session, and stated that we were going to treat everything alike. We all know that the amendment will pass. It will state that the only situation for which we will use this extreme power will be the most important issue that has ever come before the Canadian Parliament. People on both sides have said that. It is not going to be used for anything of a minor nature. It will not be used for the little things that the Government may bring up. It is going to be used in only one instance, and that is the instance that is the most important issue ever to come before the Canadian Parliament. That is not an improvement to the original motion. It is zeroing in and saying that we are here to pass this Bill, regardless of the devices to be used, regardless of the changes that have to be made to the rules of this House.
The Government is prepared to do whatever it has to do in order to meet its political agenda. Regardless of what it has to do in terms of the workings of this place, regardless of what it has to do in terms of the rights of the Members of this place, it is going to meet that political agenda.
That is one reason for putting forward the amendment. It makes a bad motion worse. Another reason for opposing the amendment is that it sends up a flag. It tells us that whenever this Government has something important, whenever it has a measure involving a political agenda, it will bring in a similar motion, a motion which will again restrict the rule changes to the one issue. In that way, it can say that it is not a course that is being followed in every case. If it is an issue that is not terribly important, it will not use the sledgehammer approach. But when anything important comes up, it will use the biggest sledge-hammer it has at its disposal.
What this Government is saying, in effect, is that there is no limit to what it will do, no limit to the powers it will take unto itself to accomplish its political agenda.
While it is hard to conceive of the motion before us being made worse, Mr. Speaker, that in fact is what this amendment does, and it does so by revealing, in all truth, the precise plans that this Government has for this the Thirty-fourth Parliament.
I shall have absolutely no hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in voting against the proposed amendment.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, by way of introduction, I am the new Member for the new riding of Don Valley North, in the City of North York, in Metropolitan Toronto.
The riding of Don Valley North is one of the most interesting ridings in Canada, with 62 per cent of the electorate being apartment dwellers and 45 per cent being immigrants. It comprises a varied cross-section of Canadian society, ranging from those living in $1 million homes to those on welfare. It has beautiful ravines and wonderful shopping plazas, and is home to many businesses, all of which make it the envy of any community in the world.
The City of North York is the home to many multinational corporations which provide jobs for many of the citizens of Metropolitan Toronto, as it is the home to many hotels. In addition, it is the home of the Metropolitan Board of Trade.
It is a cosmopolitan city. It is a city whose citizens enjoy working and who live there very successfully, and it is a city whose citizens are served well by the government sector.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the people of Don Valley North for electing me to be their representative in the House of Commons. At the outset, I considered it to be an easy riding for me to win. It was an area in which I had been very successful in municipal politics. However, following the televised Leaders' debate and the campaign of the Liberal Party against free trade, I began to notice a change in the attitudes of the electorate as I met them at the door. People were scared. They were struggling with the issue of free trade. They were attempting to understand the issue-and I was impressed by the lengths to which they went to understand the issue. The supply of the free trade synopsis that we had in our office went like hot cakes. We distributed as much information as we had on the free trade issue, and we attempted to answer questions at the door about the issue.
December 16, 1988

We had to cope with the premier coming into the riding and scaring the hell out of senior citizens. In my door-to-door canvassing, I came across people who were thoroughly terrified that they would lose their pensions. As well, those in Metro Housing Authority dwellings were very much frightened. It took a lot of talking to reassure these people.
People were told that free trade was good for the rich but terrible for the poor. They were told that our water would be diverted to the United States, that the lights would dim, and all sorts of other dreadful things.
The people of Don Valley North were able to see through much of the rhetoric, and today those people, if they are watching this debate, are probably shaking their heads at this very moment and asking themselves why it is that we are here this evening, the fifth day of this Parliament, December 16, and we are still not debating the substantive issue of free trade.


An Hon. Member:: A good question!


Barbara Greene: The people of Don Valley North, and the people of Canada, must surely consider this situation to be ridiculous. We had an election in which the major issue was free trade. The timetable in respect of the implementation of the agreement has been well known all along. It is a date that is set out in the agreement itself. And yet here we are, their representatives in Parliament, debating a procedural matter.
We hear from the other side of the House that this is a debate about fundamental democratic processes, and so forth. To my mind, it is insane that we are here debating a procedural matter.
I was 11 years on the Metropolitan Toronto Council, and the number of times that we varied the procedures of Council, the number of times we dispensed with normal parliamentary procedures in order to deal with a given issue is countless. Any kind of parliament occasionally varies its procedures. The issue is not whether procedures should sometimes be varied; the issue is whether this particular issue deserves to have our procedures varied. And if any issue deserves to have our procedures varied, it is this issue.
The amount of debate to which the Free Trade Agreement has been subjected is unequalled. I cannot think of an issue that has been the subject of so much debate.
We had the Royal Commission on the Economy, a commission headed by a very prominent, distinguished and patriotic Liberal, recommend that a free trade agreement with the U.S. be negotiated. As well, we had
Extension of Sittings
the process engaged in during the course of the last Parliament, including many public hearings across Canada; literature distributed by Members of Parliament; and Members of Parliament meeting with their constituents to discuss the free trade deal. As well, we had an election called on the free trade issue, and it was an election that was called because the Opposition asked for it. During that election campaign, the public had the opportunity to listen to an enormous amount of debate on the free trade issue. The news media did an excellent job in presenting the different viewpoints. The amount of time devoted to the free trade issue by the CBC was nothing short of incredible. As well, the issue was fully debated and discussed on numerous phone-in radio programs, and other public fora.
The public had so much exposure to the issue, I feel they became truly sick of it, and I feel that they are sick of it now. Everybody knows what the issues are. Those who sit on the opposition side of this House are not going to change their minds, and we on this side are not going to change our minds. We are in a very fixed position.
In so far as adjustment programs are concerned, who knows what adjustment programs will be necessary, if any. At the moment, finding a job is not difficult for anyone living in the Metropolitan Toronto area. In fact, one can get several jobs, if one wishes. And certainly any employer offering only minimum wage will find that he will not be able to attract applicants.


An Hon. Member:: Try British Columbia!


Barbara Greene: The Hon. Member suggests that one should try in British Columbia-and he is right: British Columbia really needs free trade, as does the rest of Canada.
The Liberal and New Democratic Parties, during the election campaign, tried to saddle the electorate with an almost impossible task, that of understanding free trade. As a candidate in the election, I felt it necessary that I be fully informed on it, and with that in mind I read the Free Trade Agreement in its entirety. Once I had read it for the first time, I think I understood about 25 per cent. I thought it an absolute bore. I then decided that, given its importance, I had better find out more about it, with the result that I read all of the available literature, including that of the Opposition. I struggled to find the answers to the various criticisms put forward in the literature of the Opposition, and I found them. It is my view that those criticisms are simply not valid.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Many of those criticisms that were debated before will continue to be debated in the future. On the question of subsidies, we now have a committee which will sit for seven years and hopefully resolve some of the more obvious problems. Of course, various countries will always be debating the question of subsidies, one versus another.
Then we have other issues that were mentioned, things such as water. That was a completely phoney issue, in my view, when one looks at the legislation and the amendments and so on. Then there was the pension question. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic. It was alleged that social programs were going to be damaged and reduced and so on. That issue came down to a question of the indirect impact of the Free Trade Agreement.
The basic supposition was that the Tories would give away the ship. Pressures to reduce government programs are there in any country, and of course these are the things that Canadians value. I think any government that reduces social programs in Canada would definitely disappear in very short order. There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement that would cause that to happen, and fortunately the people of Don Valley North were able to see through that in sufficient numbers.
I think I would have had a much larger majority had the election gone on for another few weeks. The more I got around, the more I explained things to people, and they were anxious to learn, the more votes I won. I think on this particular issue they were very intelligent and very wonderful people to be able to see through so much garbage.
I very firmly believe that the people of Canada and the people of Don Valley North do not want this Parliament to spend another six months debating this issue. That is why I support the motion before us. This Government has a mandate to commence free trade. It does not have a mandate through a majority of Canadians, but of course no government ever has. This Government was elected on a lot more than free trade. It was elected on competency. It was elected on a regional representation basis. It has a clear mandate to proceed with the legislation it espouses. I think the people of Canada would want us to be home with our families for Christmas, and we may well be here Christmas Eve, but I certainly think we should be home for Christmas and free trade should be through Parliament. We should get on and deal with the many other issues that people are
concerned about, issues such as housing, and the environment, pressing issues which are of concern to the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Comox-Alberni.


John Horton McDermid: All these provincial NDP Leaders retire to the House of Commons.


Robert Evans Skelly: It is said there is another House that provincial hacks retire to but we cannot mention that one here.
I am glad to have this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to take part in this debate and discuss some of the issues brought out during the long debate today and this evening. I would just like to deal briefly with some of the suggestions made by some of the Members on the other side of the House. I would like to talk a little bit about scare tactics because 1 understand the Tories felt a little threatened during the campaign and felt their constituents might have been a little threatened by the scare tactics that were used.
We on the other side of the country noticed that some of the scare tactics were being generated by the pro free trade party. I can recall the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speaking to the people of Canada and suggesting that if they did not accept the free trade arrangement we were debating, the U.S. would not agree with the acid rain proposals of the national Government and we would be subjected to more and more acid rain from the U.S. The threat was there from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that if we did not accept this Free Trade Agreement, regardless of what we thought it contained that might be damaging to the people of Canada, we would be pelted with acid rain from the U.S. That was the threat delivered to the people of Canada by the Prime Minister himself during the election campaign.
Another statement he made was that if we did not pass this free trade legislation or accept the free trade proposal with the U.S., the U.S. would retaliate against all Canadian trade and all Canadian products. The U.S. would descend into a completely protectionist regime.


John Horton McDermid: Who said that?


Robert Evans Skelly: The Prime Minister of Canada said that.
December 16, 1988


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Robert Evans Skelly: He said the U.S. had a very protectionist sentiment and would be attacking Canada at every possible opportunity in retaliation for our not accepting this free trade arrangement.


Some Hon. Members:: Nonsense!


Robert Evans Skelly: Not only that, Conservative Members were saying in my constituency and throughout the Province of British Columbia that if this free trade arrangement did not pass, Canada would suffer economically and we would lose the ability to generate the finances necessary to pay for our social programs. In other words, those people across the floor said that if we did not get free trade, pensions would be threatened and health care programs would be threatened. They went around the senior citizens housing projects and made that threat and scared senior citizens into voting for this Free Trade Agreement even though it was contrary to their own interests.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: No wonder they dumped you from the NDP.


Robert Evans Skelly: That is the reason they dumped the Tories in British Columbia. One after one they fell like dominoes. For the first time in history we elected a caucus of 19 New Democrats from British Columbia, a majority of Members from that province, who are opposed to free trade.


John Horton McDermid: About half the strength of the whole caucus.


Robert Evans Skelly: They are opposed to free trade.


Benno Friesen: I have heard it all before.
Mr. Skelly Comox-Alberni): You have been in British Columbia and you should know better.


William James Kempling: Tell us about how you are a national Party.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) told us that in this House of Commons there are winners and there are losers.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We are listening to the losers right now.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House of Commons won his or her election. No question about it. Everyone received the confidence of the constituencies in which they campaigned and in which they worked.


Benno Friesen: Now we know why you had such a stirring career as leader.
Extension of Sittings


Robert Evans Skelly: In fact, it can be argued that those individual Members from individual ridings all across Canada received a mandate based on the campaign they fought in their constituencies. I can tell you that virtually every Member on this side of the House, representing 53 per cent of the voting public of Canada, was given a mandate to vote against free trade and do whatever they possibly could, representing those constituents in the House of Commons, to speak against it and attempt to prevent it from being passed. A tremendous number of Canadians-in fact a majority- are concerned about economic integration with the United States. They have not wanted it throughout this century. They have not wanted it for generations. They do not want it now. They made their opinion clear during the 1988 election campaign in which 53 per cent of the voting public voted for Parties opposed to free trade while only 43 per cent voted for Parties in favour of free trade.
The clear majority is against free trade.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Christian Heritage Party is for free trade. The Western Reform Party is for free trade.


Robert Evans Skelly: The majority of people in the country voted against free trade. They voted against it for good reason. That is because there are people in this Parliament representing that 53 per cent majority who as a result of the mandate given them by their electors have to vote against the free trade legislation as it is being presented.
My constituents voted for me for a number of reasons. They have in every year from 1972, through 1975, through 1979, through 1983, through 1986, and through 1988. They voted for me in order to give me a mandate to come here to talk to the people of Canada and to debate with the people in this House issues that they felt were important during the election campaign.
They asked me to bring a message about tax fairness. They were concerned that the Conservative Government has restructured the tax system in such a way that the rich, powerful and mighty get a free ride while those in the poor and middle-income levels are taxed to the point that they are broke. They would like to see some redistribution of the tax burden so that those who are getting a free ride will have to pay at least their fair share while those who are bearing the whole burden of taxes in the country get a little relief so they can spend, invest and make a positive contribution to Canada rather than having the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) suck one-third of their incomes out of their pay cheques every single pay-day.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
The people of Comox-Alberni sent me to this House because they wanted me to talk about an issue that is extremely important to them. That issue is regional fairness. They saw what happened under a Tory Government over the last four years. They saw that procurements by the federal Government in British Columbia over a four-year period dropped from 6.5 per cent of total procurements to 4.1 per cent, in a province where the population is 12 per cent of the total population of the country. That is absolutely unfair to western Canada. That is why we have 10 Members from Saskatchewan and 19 from British Columbia.
People have given us a mandate to discuss the issue of regional equity because the Conservatives have been sucking the West to pay off the provinces of central Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Evans Skelly: Our constituents want us to talk to the Government about child care as well. If the last Parliament had been extended by one week then we might have had a child care program. It would not have been all that satisfactory, but at least it would have been something. Why did the Government not reintroduce it in the first days of this Parliament? By doing so the Government could have shown how important it considers that issue. After all, who are to be served in terms of the child care legislation? Single parent families are being served-women. It is they who on the basis of equity want to get out and use their talents in the workforce while being assured that their children are being well taken care of. Why did the Government not put that on the floor as a priority? Why instead is the Government recognizing its obligations to Ronald Reagan before recognizing its obligations to men, women, children and families in our country?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: How about talking to the motion?


Robert Evans Skelly: I will be getting to the motion in my next few words. Why does the Hon. Member not get in motion and make a speech on this issue?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I might.


Robert Evans Skelly: My constituents sent me here to talk about matters of importance to them, matters such as the environment. They would like to see a government that expresses at least a minimal amount of priority for the environment, a government that is committed to clearing up the mess it has made so far but which is also willing to prevent further damage to our environment so we can set aside something for our children, our grandchildren and future generations. There is an organization in British Columbia called the Telkwa Foundation which says that we do not inherit the environment from our forefathers, we borrow it from our children. We should be treating the environment as if it were borrowed goods that we have to keep intact, maintain, restore and turn over to the benefit of our children when we are finished with it. We are doing an unbelievable job of stewardship as far as the environment is concerned.
More than any other issue that developed during the last election campaign, more than any other issue brought to me by constituents, whether expressed in letters to the editor, letters directed to me or questions on the floor at all candidates meetings, was the issue of trade with the United States. The people of my constituency absolutely reject the idea of economic integration with the United States. They see that such a free trade arrangement so called is nothing more than a foot in the door to economic integration and, ultimately, to political integration with the United States. That is what they are concerned about. That is why we saw such an overwhelming support for the New Democratic Party in British Columbia, the Party that opposed vigorously the free trade arrangement because we did not want to see the sovereignty of our country compromised. We do not want to see the independence of our country compromised. We do not want to see through every economic door the political independence of our country compromised by a Government that wants to turn us over lock, stock and barrel to Ronald Reagan before January 1.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Do you know anything about procedure?


Robert Evans Skelly: The Hon. Member can get up and speak about procedure until the cows come home.
December 16, 1988

I want now to talk about what happened to the rest of the country. How many provinces gave a majority to the Free Trade Agreement? Did Saskatchewan which sent 10 New Democratic Party Members to Ottawa and four others?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Evans Skelly: Did Manitoba?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Evans Skelly: Did Ontario?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Evans Skelly: Did New Brunswick?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Evans Skelly: Did Nova Scotia?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Evans Skelly: Did Newfoundland?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Evans Skelly: Did P.E.I.?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Evans Skelly: Did the Yukon?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Evans Skelly: Did the Northwest Territories?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Robert Evans Skelly: A majority of provinces and territories, a majority of electors, voted against the Free Trade Agreement. When we talk about the people having spoken, we are absolutely right. People have spoken. The people have told legislators in this building: "Kill the deal". That is what they have said. Some people called this a referendum. The free trade arrangement won 43 per cent of the votes of Canadians, a minority.


John Horton McDermid: More than that.


Robert Evans Skelly: How much more?


John Horton McDermid: Take in the Western Party. Take in the Christian Heritage Party. They voted for free trade.


Mr. Layton:: All the Liberals in Quebec.


Robert Evans Skelly: And the silent majority who did not vote. I will tell you something- you have 43 per cent of the popular vote, and 43 per
Extension of Sittings
cent of the popular vote does not constitute a popular mandate for free trade. You do not have a majority of support in this country for that free trade arrangement.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Robert Evans Skelly: Let us look at a referendum that was conducted in Quebec recently, under the Parti Quebecois. It was a referendum about sovereignty association. They got 45 per cent of the vote and they lost.


Robert E.J. Layton: It was 59 to 41.


Robert Evans Skelly: Whatever. It was pretty close to what you got. At 41 per cent they still lost. You got 43 per cent and you are now saying you have a mandate to bring in free trade legislation.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: This was not a referendum.


Robert Evans Skelly: This was absolutely wrong whether you base it on a popular vote, whether you base it on provinces. However you base it, you have a rather skimpy argument coming into the House saying that you have majority support in the House for the free trade arrangement.
One can argue that they have the majority of seats in the House of Commons. They have the majority of seats so basically they can do whatever they want whether or not they have a mandate. That is what power is all about.


William James Kempling: That is right.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is why you never got it.


Robert Evans Skelly: That is what power is all about. I recall reading my ancient Greek history when I was at university. I recall the debate the Athenians and Mycenaeans had before the gates of Hellas when the Athenians sacked them during the Pelopon-nisos war.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We thought Ray was bad, but is he a shining light in that family.


Robert Evans Skelly: My mother always liked him best. The Athenians had a tremendously powerful army and told the Mycenaeans that because they had the power they could do anything they wanted to the City of Hellas. Therefore, they sacked it, burned it to ashes and killed all of its inhabitants.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
That is the definition of power as those Members see it. If they have 150 seats they can do anything they want. Whatever Canadians have said, or whatever they have told Canadians, they have no more regard for that than for any other promises they have made, and for whatever Canadians have said. They only consider the number of seats they have in Parliament and the power it gives them to do anything they want.
The Conservatives are attempting through this resolution to use their power in terms of numbers to ram down the throat of this House of Commons legislation that has not been accepted by the people of Canada. They used fear tactics during the last election campaign. They are using fear tactics now.


Vincent Della Noce: You cannot talk about fear tactics.


Robert Evans Skelly: You attempted to use the majority you have in the House not to involve yourself in a healing process or a debate with the people of Canada, but to pass this agreement on the Prime Minister's schedule. This is the last act of submission by the Canadian Government to the United States.
It is shameful that its Parliament has to go through this kind of measure just to see the Tories submit once more to the tactics of the United States Government. It makes one wonder what kind of negotiations went on. The Conservatives went to the heel of the United States. They took orders from the United States. There was no process of negotiation.
This agreement is for the benefit of the United States, not for Canada. The Government is simply serving the priorities and requirements of Ronald Reagan rather than the people of Canada. One can see this in its priorities in the House and its efforts to get this legislation through prior to January 1. It is simply a way of submitting again and again to the United States and reducing the image of this country in the eyes of the world and the eyes of Canadians.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the people of St. Catharines for their support and to say how proud I am to represent the City of St. Catharines here in the Parliament of Canada.
I was interested in the comments just made by the Hon. Member opposite. He spoke of a loss of sovereignty. A similar argument was raised by the same Party with regard to the Auto Pact when it came into effect. The Auto Pact is very important to my community. St.
Catharines has prospered as a result of the Auto Pact. It is the one form of free trade we can look to as an example of how it works for this country. As the Hon. Member for Chateauguay (Mr. Lopez) said, we would like to spread it to the rest of the country. That is what the people of St. Catharines would like.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, Hear!


Kenneth David Atkinson: The Auto Pact has not resulted in a loss of sovereignty in Southern Ontario or St. Catharines. Obviously the argument made during the election campaign still holds true. Up to 80 per cent of the tariffs have been reduced over the years, since 1947. Canada has not lost its sovereignty as a result of that. That is a fallacious argument and should not be continued.
The motion we are debating tonight is a procedural one to extend the hours of this House in order that more Members can be heard with regard to the Free Trade Agreement. We have heard other new Members state how saddened they are because of the loss of their rights and the fact that the first debate in which they participate is on a procedural matter rather than something more substantial. I share that view.
I sat in this majestic place on Monday during the election of the Speaker. There was a short Speech from the Throne relating to one issue. When we returned to this Chamber, a motion was placed to the House stating that the Speech from the Throne be taken into consideration "later this day". That was the extent of the motion and I did not think there was anything unusual about it. We came here to do a job and why would we not consider that speech? Much to my surprise, rather than the motion passing without great difficulty, five Members rose, the bells rang for 30 minutes and we had a recorded vote.
This side of the House did not set the tone for this session of Parliament. The tone was set in the very first instance with regard to that motion. Since then we understood what we were going to face in trying to get a debate on the free trade legislation. We have still not succeeded in doing that today.
We are here discussing a procedural matter which began at two o'clock this afternoon. We are still debating whether we will pass this procedural motion to extend the hours of the House in order that more individuals can be heard on the free trade legislation.
December 16, 1988

We have heard a great deal about the free trade legislation in the context of this procedural motion. We will probably hear more about it.
1 have some difficulty understanding why we cannot get right to the free trade debate. Why do we have to go through this particular motion? Members on our side of the House have said the people have decided. The debate on this matter during the election campaign should have been sufficient. We know what we are here for, let us get on with the debate. We have heard indications that the Opposition would like to make some amendments. Certainly, let us hear what the amendments are and let us debate them.
There has been some suggestion that moving the legislation into Committee of the Whole would somehow be usurping the rights of Members of Parliament. It seems to me that the matter of free trade has been debated throughout this entire election campaign. We hear that the legislation should go to a smaller committee and that there should be experts look at it and give evidence. I would submit that experts have looked at this agreement. We have debated it through the election campaign. It was debated in the House prior to the election campaign. I would submit that there is enough information on which to go.
We should get to the Committee of the Whole and have every Member of the House consider the legislation. To me that seems logical. Obviously it is something that is important to everyone. We all have our opinions. We have all done a great deal of research on it. I do not think that expert evidence will add anything to that.
We want to get into a Committee of the Whole discussion. Obviously everyone has an opinion on this particular matter. If we put it to a committee of seven members who would report back, we would still have all these Members of the House wanting to speak on the matter. I have difficulty understanding why we cannot get to that point. The amendment that has been moved seems to be a reasonable one, in line with trying to get us to the point where we can debate the Free Trade Agreement. I would think that we should get to that point and get to it as soon as we can.
The thing that amazed me about the election campaign was that we did not actually discuss what was in this particular agreement, a commercial agreement. My understanding is that a commercial agreement speaks for itself. There is nothing else in that agreement, but all
Extension of Sittings
these extraneous issues came in during the election campaign.
We heard talk about losing social programs and the like. Social programs were not mentioned in the Free Trade Agreement. We found out subsequently that an international trade case has said that any universally available social program cannot be considered a subsidy. Only a leap of logic must be taken to possibly say that any of those universally available social programs could be considered a subsidy. We found out during the election campaign that that cannot be done.
We spoke about the environment during the election campaign. There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement about the environment. We spoke about sovereignty during the election campaign. There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement about sovereignty. We spent so much time on matters that are not even mentioned in the Free Trade Agreement that we did not get down to a discussion of the actual agreement.
Now the Opposition decides that it is time to get down to discussing the agreement. Why did we not discuss it during the election campaign? Why did we have to wait until this point in time? We should have discussed it during the election campaign, and a great disservice was done to the Canadian public by not discussing the agreement itself.
As I indicated, my community has benefited from a form of free trade. The Auto Pact has been a great benefit to our community and we have prospered. We would like to share that prosperity with the rest of Canada.
There are other sectors in the community that would also like to share in that prosperity. One that is not so noticeable is the greenhouse and cut flowers industry. It is important to this industry to have a market in the United States, and in fact, it does now, but there is a tariff on flowers. There are even rumours that the Americans would countervail against the cut flower industry. The industry does not say too much, but it is rapidly becoming the second largest industry in our area after the automobile industry. It wants secure access to the American market and it wants it quickly.
As I previously indicated, we should get to the matter of the Free Trade Agreement. We should not be going through all this. We can say more on the Free Trade Agreement during debate on the Bill, and I certainly hope that we can get past this procedural motion and get to the Free Trade Agreement itself.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Madam Speaker, I too am rising to give my first address to the House, and I share with my colleagues who are here for the first time the sense of awe, pride and humility in having the privilege of representing our electorate here in this House. For my part, 1 am particularly proud to represent a constituency as varied and as interesting as Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.

I am also especially proud to be the first Acadian to represent that part of the world.

I would be remiss if I did not begin my remarks by expressing my sincere gratitude to the people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso for their support and their confidence which enables me to be here to address the House this evening. The people of Highlands-Canso take their politics seriously. They are great teachers in the art of politics and they ensure that their representatives are constantly made aware of their concerns. They never let them forget it.
I would also like to pay tribute this evening to the previous Liberal Member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso who, as all Hon. Members know, is one of the most distinguished Canadian Parliamentarians this House has ever known. 1 am speaking, of course, of the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen who has made such a contribution to this House and to Canada over his long years of service to the Canadian Government and whose guidance and friendship has been of such valuable support to me.
As others have said before me, the election campaign was a passionate debate among Canadians about one single issue, the Government's Free Trade Agreement. That issue absorbed the country as no issue had ever done before. In fact, our neighbours to the south marvelled at the extent to which we as a country were able to mobilize during an election campaign, to have intelligent conversations among Canadians about an issue that was of such deep concern to us. I suggest that if this agreement goes through, we may not have a chance to see that again because our future election campaigns may look very much like the one we saw in the United States this fall.
In my constituency of Highlands-Canso, the free trade deal was the central issue of the campaign, as it was across the country. My constituents wondered why, after arguing so strenuously against a comprehensive
trade agreement with the United States, this Government was so hell-bent on entering into one even before calling an election on the issue. They wondered particularly once we started to get into the details of the agreement as the election campaign progressed.
I am prepared to look at these things dispassionately. Having been trained in economics and having studied at some of the best universities in Canada, universities like St. Francis Xavier, Dalhousie, Queen's and Universite Laval, having studied economics with Professor Richard Lipsey, who I admit is one of the ardent supporters of this agreement but is also one of Canada's best economists, I was prepared to look at both sides of the issue.
Fundamentally, I am philosophically for free trade because of my university training and also because I am a Liberal, because as a Liberal, I know that it has been successive Liberal governments that have promoted free trade in Canada and have promoted the successions of agreements and international arrangements which have promoted prosperity in Canada through an extension of the reduction of our trade barriers.
Successive Liberal governments have been responsible for that since the war, and we have always been a Party for free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands

Canso): I was
even prepared to entertain the notion that a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States might conceivably be in Canada's interests. I was willing to listen to reasonable arguments in favour of such an idea and to consider the benefits that it might have for our country. I was even prepared to suspend judgment when I kept hearing about all the flaws in this agreement and about the hastiness and the secrecy with which it had been negotiated.
I started to discover, as we did throughout the debate prior and during the election campaign, that the agreement did not provide secure access to U.S. markets. It left several key sectors of the Canadian economy like agriculture, textile, and several other industries vulnerable to being overrun by U.S. competition. There was no protection for the displaced workers before the agreement would go into effect. Our social programs were in no way protected. There was no commitment on the part of the Government to ensure that they were protected. Our oil and gas and other natural resources were pretty well laid on the table for the United States to take over.
December 16, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Francis G. LeBlanc: I was
prepared to suspend judgment and look at the merits of this deal. When 1 encountered supporters of the deal, as I occasionally did, although more at the beginning than at the end of the campaign, I asked them: "What does this deal do for you?" Invariably I would get the answer: "The deal could always be better, but we might as well go ahead with it."
When asked the question "how will this deal benefit you", the answers were hard to come by. The more I learned about the deal, the more disturbed I became and the more concerned I was about the consequences that it would have for Canada and for our future.

No matter, Madam Speaker, on November 21, Canadians gave their support to the Conservative Party and gave it a mandate to proceed with this agreement with the United States. As agreed before the election and during the campaign, we said we would not prevent this agreement to go through.
So we will have our agreement with the United States.

This Government has been given a mandate to proceed with this Free Trade Agreement. We concede that, but it did not receive a mandate to ram this deal through the House. It did not receive a mandate to limit debate, to ride roughshod over the concerns of 57 per cent of Canadians as expressed by their representatives on this side of this House.
I would like to know from the Government what the rush is. I would like to know what the indecent haste is to pass this legislation and to lock ourselves into this agreement. Whose agenda are we following here?


John Horton McDermid: The Government's.


Francis G. LeBlanc: What new initiatives does this Government have on its agenda that require that we pass this legislation within two weeks?


John Horton McDermid: Because it is our agenda.


Francis G. LeBlanc: there is an agenda, it was not revealed in the Speech from the Throne. Maybe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is trying to accommodate his friend, the U.S. President. Maybe he wants to give Ronnie one more
Extension of Sittings
notch in his belt, one more conquest, our Canadian resources, to finish off his presidency before he rides off into the California sunset on January 21, to retire gracefully on his ranch with a secure supply of Canadian gas to keep his and Nancy's hearth warm and cosy.
The Canadian people gave the Government a mandate to proceed with its free trade deal. Canadians also expressed grave concerns about our social programs, our regional development programs, our resources, and our future. These concerns are expressed in the election of all Members on this side of the House.
Why not withdraw the guillotine? Why would the Government not provide for a reasonable period to consider and include in its legislation amendments to improve the agreement and reassure Canadians? That would build consensus. I somehow doubt that any form of accommodation is possible. This Government within weeks of its re-election has shown its true colours. It has been affected by the disease that accompanies the unbridled lunge for power that we saw exhibited in this election. It is the idea that no one, not even Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition with 83 seats in this House, has anything to contribute to a debate on Canada's future.
We in the Liberal Party have amendments to propose. We have improvements to make. We are ready to debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Let us go.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Under our able and principled leader, the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), we have articulated the concerns of Canadians about this deal. We are equipped to make major improvements to this flawed contract. That is why, although I would much rather debate the substance of this important issue-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Come back on Monday.


Francis G. LeBlanc: -I
have to add my voice to those of other hon. colleagues on this side of the House against this Draconian measure to curtail and stop debate in this House.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise as a new Member in this great House to represent the new riding of Selkirk, Manitoba.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Bjornson: It is a great honour to represent the riding of Selkirk and the class of September, I believe it was, at the particular college I went to.
As I stand here this evening I am very uncomfortable in the fact that I am a purist as far as rules and order are concerned. I can see where the Chair is uncomfortable with the way the situation is going, and I am sympathetic.
I think it is important to speak to the House this evening about the fact that we are debating procedure and tradition somewhat. I would like to remind Members opposite that they basically broke with tradition and used their strength in other sections of the Government to slow down the passage of the trade agreement. It was that influence which caused the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to take us out on the campaign trail.
The result is that the people decided what they wanted, and we are here this evening. It is also important to speak to the people at the far end of the House, and I believe the term is the rump of the House. I had the opportunity to run against the flagship of the NDP Party and the Free Trade Agreement. We worked very hard in the riding of Selkirk. The people of the Selkirk riding decided that they wanted free trade. That was widely shown by the fact that their flagship, Howard Pawley, is not sitting in the House this evening.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Bjornson: To a greater extent, there is the fact that the flagship for the Liberal Party did not receive as many votes as the NDP candidate. It is important that I say to the House that the people in the Selkirk riding do want the Free Trade Agreement. The people in the Selkirk riding want us to get on with the business of the House and discuss the trade agreement. When the vote is taken in the near future, we are going to get on with the business of getting the trade agreement through. The trade agreement is very important to the people in the riding of Selkirk. Along the campaign trail many people came to my aid for many reasons, but most of them understood the fact that we need the trade agreement for the riding of Selkirk.
The biggest single employer in the riding of Selkirk is the steel industry. It knows what can happen to it, and the people of Selkirk know what can happen to it if we do not have access to that American market.
In the northeast corner of my riding there is a fishing community. Freshwater Fish is a major exporter of fish
into the U.S. market. It is the biggest market for the Freshwater Fish Corporation, and it is important to the people of the Selkirk riding.
In the bottom right-hand corner of my riding there is a large Hutterite community which works very hard in various sectors of the agricultural industry, pork being a major one. Seventy per cent of the pork in Manitoba and in the Selkirk riding is exported to the United States. We no longer need those artificial barriers because we are more efficient at raising hogs than the people on the other side of the border.
During my first few days in Ottawa in preparation to come into the House, I had the opportunity to phone home and find out that there is an industry that wants to come from the United States to expand in Canada. Dow Corning wants to come to the community of Selkirk to expand. These are jobs that will be coming our way. Members opposite are not speaking about those jobs. In our community we have the opportunity to do well and progress. The trade agreement will give us the availability to do that.


An Hon. Member:: At what cost?


David Bjornson: I do not want to hear negative comments from the other side of the House. If we have the opportunity to go out and work hard, let us go and do it.
I am very fortunate to have three healthy children. They are very good children. When they are finished their education, I want them to have opportunities, as I did when I finished my education. We want all our children to be able to get out and earn a living. It makes one feel much prouder to have a pay cheque rather than a UIC cheque.
I urge the House to consider the amendments in order that we can quickly get to the business of discussing the trade agreement in a good and honourable fashion. I know after Hon. Members opposite hear the arguments on this side of the House that they will agree with us and will pass the agreement.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate you and your colleagues in the chair on your re-elections to key positions in the House of Commons.
1 also want to thank the constituents of the riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan who saw fit to return me to the House of Commons as their representative. All of us fight elections. Some of us win and some of us do not. It was my first re-election, and I am pleased to have passed that threshold and have returned.
December 16, 1988

I also want to compliment my new colleagues in the New Democratic Party who have spoken tonight. I watched many of them on television and sat with many of them in the House. I am incredibly impressed, and I am sure that their constituents must be proud of the work that they have done in choosing to send them here. That is why they are here and not their opponents. Congratulations, my friends.
I am here tonight to stand up in defence of parliamentary traditions, traditions that have been developed collectively in Canada, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere over centuries. Those protections are designed to look after the rights of the minority as opposed to the rights of the majority. 1 wish to quote an individual who shared that concern in a debate some time ago which dealt with an issue similar to that of closure, which is what we are talking about tonight:
"Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate with a degree of sadness and regret having regard to the fact that we have just had thrust upon this House one of the most repugnant and most destructive devices ever perpetrated on the democratic process.
I am deeply saddened, because the debate that has taken place in this Chamber for the last 24 hours interspersed over a couple of weeks or so is perhaps the most important historic debate I have ever witnessed in my 12 years as a Member of the House. It is with a great deal of regret that I see it cut off prematurely having regard to its importance and the fact that some Members who wanted to speak will not have that opportunity.
The government's action is the result of a move that is ruthless, arrogant and, I believe, cowardly. Parliament is now succumbing, as the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has said, to the tyranny of the majority.
Who was that Member of the House who spoke so eloquently? Was it a member of the New Democratic Party? No, it was not. It was a member of the then Official Opposition, now the House Leader of the Government of Canada, the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski). That is what he said on October 23, 1980, as reported in Commons Debates. Some things come back to haunt people, and that is one of them.
In my experience as a parliamentarian, what we have seen over the past five days is extremely distasteful. It is extremely unfortunate for the democratic process. We have before us a Bill of major consequence. We have a fundamental disagreement in the House in terms of whether it is good or bad. That is what the House is for, to take a look at issues such as that, to debate, to argue, to propose, and in come cases to modify.
Extension of Sittings
In the previous Parliament we were very successful in modifying government legislation to reflect more accurately the spirit of its intentions. We have to oppose other Bills because they are fundamental to what makes this country what it is today and we do not want to see that change happening. The future of our country is more important than attempting to rush through an important piece of legislation in time to be home for Christmas.
While it is true that this legislation has already been debated-and while I have not read through Bill C-2, I assume that it is identical, or almost identical, to its predecessor Bill-we have to remember what kind of debate it was. The debate held last summer was not a lengthy, reasoned debate. It, too, was crunched. At every stage of the process, closure was invoked. The Government was not prepared to have a full and open debate, not only on the principle of free trade, but on the nitty-gritty of the legislation.
The legislative committee charged with the detailed study of the Bill was not permitted to hold hearings outside Ottawa to enable it to hear from those in opposition or in favour of the Free Trade Agreement. It had no opportunity to travel to those parts of the country which would be negatively affected by such an agreement and hear from Canadians living in those areas. Conversely, it had no opportunity to travel to those parts of the country which would benefit from the Free Trade Agreement and to hear from the people living in those areas.
At that time we listened to a former Prime Minister of this country taking issue with the fact that the legislative committee then charged with considering the free trade legislation was not allowed to travel to various areas of the country to hear the views of Canadians on the important issue of free trade.
What has happened over the course of this past week, and continuing this evening, and which will culminate in a vote within the next couple of hours, is the tyranny of the majority, the power of the majority being used to thwart the views of not only the Members on this side of the House but the citizens we represent. We are the representatives of our constituents. Each and every one of us spent countless hours during the campaign knocking on doors and talking to people about this issue.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings


Some Hon. Members:: As did we.


Iain Francis Angus: Yes, as did Members opposite. The point is, we should then be given the opportunity to stand in our places in this Chamber and report on the concerns that we heard at the doorstep. And, yes, free trade was the issue on the doorstep. There is no question about that. I am sure Members opposite found that to be the issue as well, and particularly the new Members opposite.
It is important that we be given a reasonable opportunity to stand in our places in this place and report to the House on the views expressed by our constituents. It is not something that should be done at 11.25 in the evening at the end of a very chaotic week in the House of Commons. This past week represents one of the most chaotic periods in the history of this Chamber. We should be able to reflect upon the views of our constituents and report to the House on them in a reasoned fashion, without the pressure of time constraints.
It is our job to convince the Government that an error has been made, and we need a reasonable time in which to do that. We should have set aside sufficient time in which the Government can listen to Members on this side of the House report on the views of their constituents.
Time and time again during the course of the campaign we heard the fear expressed that the Free Trade Agreement will affect programs held dear by Canadians. There is no need for me to go into the details. We all know what they are.
This Government, notwithstanding that it constitutes a majority in this place, has the responsibility to listen to those concerns. We on this side should be given sufficient time to report on those concerns to the House and to have the Government reflect upon them. We must be given sufficient time to convince the Government of the merit of including in the enabling legislation the kinds of protections asked of us by our constituents.
It is unfortunate that the Government has chosen to ram the enabling legislation through this House; it is unfortunate that it chooses not to permit a reasoned debate.
I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Atkinson) saying that it is not the Government that has set the tone of this House over this past week. Of course, it was the Government. We have the fact that it broke from tradition in terms of the Throne Speech debate, a debate which normally commences the day following the opening. It did not permit
the Leader of either Opposition Party the courtesy to deliver their traditional response to the Speech from the Throne. Debate on the Speech from the Throne was cut off.
In addition, it proposes to impose, through the invocation of closure, a schedule for the passage of the free trade enabling legislation that will make it very difficult for all Members of Parliament to participate fully, all with the aim of having the legislation referred to the Senate for passage in the period between Christmas and New Year's. The irony is that it is not legislation that has to be passed by January 1, next. The Government has admitted that. The agreement will only be implemented once the Canadian legislation is adopted. There is no need to have it passed by January 1, next. There is no need to rush it through. We need to spend a reasonable length of time discussing all of its ramifications.
We on this side of the House represent the collective voice of more than half of the population of Canada. The Government ought to keep that in mind.
This debate will take place. We will have the opportunity, albeit in condensed fashion, to stand in this place and reflect upon the views of our constituents in respect of the Free Trade Agreement. I only hope that the Government will take the weekend to consider what it is doing and return to this Chamber on Monday with a saner approach, an approach that will permit us sufficient time not only to study the legislation but to add to it the necessary protections in respect of Canada's social programs, our medicare program, and our environment. We need to have the opportunity to include the establishment of a permanent committee of this House to monitor the ongoing effects of the agreement.
The hour is getting late now, Madam Speaker, and I know that other of my colleagues wish to make some remarks. I thank you for your indulgence. Before I take my seat, I wish once again to thank the electorate of Thunder Bay-Atikokan for again putting their trust in me.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam
Speaker, 1 wish to address the procedure inherent in the motion now before us. Before doing so, I should like to take a moment to thank the electorate of Halifax West for electing me to the House of Commons for the fifth time. I appreciate the confidence they have shown in me, and I hope to discharge the mandate that they have given me satisfactorily.
December 16, 1988

Let me address now the mandate we were all given on November 21 last, and specifically with the procedure inherent in the motion before us.
This sitting of the House of Commons was advertised in advance as the sitting which would deal with the passage of the Free Trade Agreement, something that was talked about among Canadians in all parts of Canada for days, and weeks, and months during the election campaign. When the verdict came in on November 21, of course a sitting of the House of Commons was called for the purpose of dealing with the major issue in the election campaign, the passage of the Free Trade Agreement.
There is no reason for any Canadian to be surprised about the taking of that action. For members of the Opposition to stand in their places, as the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) has done, and say that we must follow the ordinary procedures, that we must feel our way along and do the things that we do in an ordinary session of the House, is absolute nonsense, given that everyone knows that this is a special sitting of the House of Commons called strictly for the purpose of passing the Free Trade Agreement enabling legislation. Canadians understand that. I think we are justified in proceeding with the motion now before us. I do not think there is anything to fear in terms of an erosion of the democratic processes, now or in the future.
Let me talk about the procedure for a minute. Members of this House govern its procedure. We are not subject to rules from on high or some other authority. This House of Commons is the authority. We write the rules and we can change them, and surely no one can seriously object to that.
The document we have in our desks, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, is there to be changed. As the Speaker said the other day, we write the rules and we follow the rules we write and we do not follow anyone else's rules. Please get that through your heads, will you, because there will be many more occasions in the future that we will have to change the rules to meet the exigencies of the situation. Canadians understand that. They do not want us guided by anything coming down from a mountain. We take the responsibility and we will take that to the Canadian people. Do not worry about that, just follow the rules when they are made and you will not have any difficulty.
Extension of Sittings
It has been said continuously in this debate that we do not have a mandate from the Canadian people. Speaker after speaker from the Opposition stood up and told us why we do not have a mandate. 1 would not expect anything less from members of the Opposition, but unfortunately journalists get involved in the act. Presumably they have some credibility beyond making their point in the House of Commons for the benefit of their readers. We tend to believe the printed word. Here is a journalist by the name of Francis Russell who said that it was not an election, that it was a referendum. How a journalist can call an election a referendum just like that, I do not know, but there it is in the Winnipeg Free Press for everyone to read. He said that the Progressive Conservative Party got only 43 per cent of the vote. We all understand that. We got only 43 per cent of the vote. Never mind we got 170 seats. Forget about that because we got only 43 per cent of the vote.
However, the Reform Party got 2.1 per cent so they are going to concede that to us and add 2.1 per cent to the 43 per cent and bring it up to 45.1 per cent. Yet that is not enough, that is not a mandate, because the opposition Parties, those people over there, New Democrats and Liberals, got 52.3 per cent of the vote. The other 2.6 per cent did not count because nobody knows why they voted or who they voted for, so we are not going to count them. They are at 52.3 per cent, not the 57 per cent they are talking about.
However, there is a little problem here. There were 17.5 million people entitled to vote in the last election. How many of them voted? Can anyone guess? It was 13.2 million, so 25 per cent of the electorate did not even vote. Do you think they woke up on November 22 and said: "Oh, darn, we did not vote. Let us get out there and re-vote this election, have it over again, and then we will vote"? Where were they on the free trade issue? What gives anyone in this House the right to stand up and say that the 4.3 million Canadians who did not vote are against free trade? I say that they are in favour of free trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: I will tell you why. Because 4.3 million voters, 25 per cent of the Canadian electorate, said we are not going to vote, we are going to abide by the outcome of the election. What was the outcome of the election? Does anyone know? The Progressive Conservative Party was re-elected. We did not have 43 per cent of the vote; we had over 50 per cent of the vote because 4.3 million Canadians abided by the results of the election.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
Do not think you can go out there and tell people you have a mandate to come in here and stop the free trade legislation. You have no such mandate and even if you get the backing of journalists, neither one of you know what you are talking about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: Do you use that kind of math, too?


Howard Edward Crosby: All right, you bring those 4.3 millions who did not vote into this House of Commons and find out if they are for or against free trade. If they are for free trade, then I will cross over and help you guys.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: God forbid, Howard. You stay where you are.


Howard Edward Crosby: That is not enough for you? I will tell you, in case you do not know down there in Vanier, knocking on doors-I would like to know how many doors you knocked on.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It was 22,585.


Howard Edward Crosby: A few people voted on other issues in this election. Maybe the Liberals and NDP do not know about it but-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I counted every one of them.


Howard Edward Crosby: Will you tell Vanier to calm down or take the 89 bus and go home?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: What is the bus again?


Howard Edward Crosby: There are a few people who were concerned with other issues in this election. Maybe they did not know that in the NDP, but there are a few people in this country concerned about abortion. The NDP is not, but the people are concerned about it and a lot of them voted on it. There are defeated Members sitting out there who know it. Do not tell us what the electorate did in the election. We are here and we are in a position to tell you what the electorate did in the election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: That is why we said that your Leader said let the people decide. The people decided and now you will not accept the verdict of the people.


Don Boudria: Talk to the Speaker. She will accept it.


Howard Edward Crosby: I am talking to the Speaker, but I am looking at you.
Let me deal with some of the myths these people perpetrated during the election. You were out there on
the election trail, Madam Speaker. You heard some Liberals say: "Oh, do not deal with the Americans. Some 80 per cent of our trade goes there already. Go somewhere else. Go to the European community. You can make a deal with them".
Do they read the papers over there on the other side? If they did, they would find that that same community which they think we can sit down and make all kinds of wonderful deals with is increasing its fish take from the North Atlantic by ten times the allocated catch. They are going to clear out our codfish on the north coast, those same people they want us to sit down and deal with.
Do you know what they did a few years ago when Brigitte Bardot decided she did not like the seal hunt? They stopped the seal hunt and then said if you do not stop it we are going to ban your fish products, that is the European Common Market. They want us to throw away deals with the U.S., not solidify our trade there, and go out and take a pig in a poke in Europe. Then maybe we can go to Japan and sell our TV sets and stereos to Japan.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Edward Crosby: That is the Liberal-NDP trade strategy. I see the Hon. Member from Kamloops (Mr. Riis) there. He is a great trader. He knows how to trade. Watch him. Listen, what he knows about international trade is not worth knowing. The man was never out of British Columbia until he came to Ottawa, but he knows exactly how to trade internationally.
The fact is that they do not know anything about international trade. They do not know how to increase and enhance trade. They do not know how to create jobs in Canada. That is why we were elected in 1984. People elected the Progressive Conservative Government because they wanted a stronger economy. They gave us a mandate to do the things that would strengthen the economy. That is exactly what we did from 1984 to 1988.
We thought we had to do something else. We had to move outside. We had to create wealth in Canada by trading abroad, and where were we going to trade? Yet they do not understand that because they do not understand the Canadian economy. They only understand giving stuff away.
December 16, 1988

One has to get the votes, which is why they keep talking about social programs. Do they worry about social programs? No, no, no. They use social programs to buy the electorate. We know that the Liberals did that for decades. They know how to scare the electorate, too, with social programs. That is what they did. You heard them in the election campaign, Madam Speaker. They said: "Social programs will collapse. The Americans will take away our social programs".
Have you ever met anybody from the United States, Madam Speaker, who did not admire Canada's medical care system? Did you ever meet anybody from the United States who said: "One thing I don't like about you in Canada is your social programs. You should not have those things such as unemployment insurance and medicare. They are terrible, as are your hospitals. Get rid of them"? What nonsense. The people of Canada do not believe that nonsense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: The great thing about that is that it did not work. The people of Canada were too intelligent-1 will not say anything about Prince Edward Island or some of the Maritime provinces. I have to go back there a little later. They did not accept the opposition rhetoric on social programs and other aspects of the Free Trade Agreement. They know we have to keep Canada strong economically. They know the greatest threat to social programs is a bankrupt Treasury-it is not a trade agreement. It is not something that will create wealth. If we create wealth in Canada, we will have social programs. We will have even more social programs. But they are afraid of that. Do you know why they do not want this trade agreement to pass by January 1, Madam Speaker? It is because they know it will not have the disastrous effect that they have been predicting.
When January 2, February 1, and March 1, come around and there is no disastrous effect, where will the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) be? Where will the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent) be? They will be right where the clippings in Quorum say they will be-fighting their buddies for leadership. Bob White will be on the doorstep here every day watching the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). That is why he does not want the trade agreement to pass. When it is passed and implemented it is: "Goodbye, Mr. Leader of the Official Opposition, and goodbye, Mr. Leader of the New Democratic
Extension of Sittings
Party". If they do not know it, others do, and so do the journalists.
There are a great many things that could be said at this time-


Some Hon. Members:: Go ahead!


Howard Edward Crosby: I take special offence to the remark that we want to get home for Christmas. Are we not awful? We want to go home for Christmas to spend Christmas with our families in the traditional way that Canadians spend Christmas. We are not supposed to do that. Do the Members opposite think that the people of Canada will fall for that nonsense? Do they think that the people of Canada think we are smart Members for being up here Christmas Eve debating some issue that was already decided by the people of Canada on November 21? No. They think we are nuts.
I just want to tell the people of Canada, or those who might be listening since it is 12.45 a.m. in Nova Scotia, that I think it is nuts, too. I want them to make sure they point the finger of blame right at that side of the House of Commons, right at the Leader of the Liberal Party and at the Leader of the New Democratic Party. They are the ones who want to rehash this whole deal. They are the ones who want to distract Canadians. They are the ones who want to create a problem where there is no problem. But it would not be so bad if it did not have a potentially disastrous effect.
Another myth we heard all through the election campaign-and 1 am sure everybody heard it-was that we did not negotiate a good deal and that we were really dumb. It was said that we did not sit down to put the right words on the paper and get the right kind of concessions. That is terrible, terrible, terrible. What about Simon Reisman? Was it suggested that we get rid of Simon Reisman and get somebody? What about Ambassador Ritchie? As a matter of fact, I always associated those people with the Liberal Party. They were there before we were. I do not know how they got there.
What are we going to do about this negotiation? This is what the Opposition wants to do at this late date in December. They want us to go to Washington tomorrow or the next day and say: "Will you please delay this deal? We do not want to sign it right now. We want to renegotiate the deal. What concessions can we make to get that delay?" Why would the opposition Parties send a negotiator to Washington to fix up a trade deal with

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
both hands tied behind his back? Because the first thing he has to do is ask for a delay. Does that make any sense? It may make sense to some Members opposite simply because, as I said before, they do not know anything about international trade and even less about negotiating national trade agreements. So do not come into the House of Commons and try to tell the people of Canada that you know what you are talking about. We know that you do not.
I want to say one thing about Nova Scotia because Members opposite talked about selling out energy in the agreement. They said that we will be selling Canadian energy cheaper. The Hon. Member from Cape Breton got up and talked about energy. What are we going to do with the oil and gas off the coast of Canada? Are we going to bring it into Vanier in a pipeline and sell it there?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Good idea.


Howard Edward Crosby: Let us get serious. If we are going to develop east coast oil and gas, there is only one customer and it is the United States of America. If that customer is taken away, then that oil and gas will stay in the ground under the ocean forever. Hon. Members opposite know it. If they do not, I am telling them right now.


An Hon. Member:: What about your mandate?


Howard Edward Crosby: Talking about mandates, where was the mandate for the National Energy Program? Was there any referendum on that? Some $8 billion was spent on holes in the ocean floor and the Canadian people were not even asked if they wanted it or not. Do not tell us about mandates.
I wish to make one remark generally. We have no monopoly on good faith. But neither do members of the Liberal Party and certainly not members of the New Democratic Party. They continually suggest that they know how to treat the Canadian people. Trust them! They know how to respond to all the problems in Canada is what they say. The NDP has never formed the government, and it never will in my time or in anybody else's time in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: Yet they can claim moral victories. They run Main Street. They may run Main Street in Coquitlam or some place, but they sure as heck do not run any main streets in Atlantic Canada. I can vouch for that. They do not even walk down the main streets of Atlantic Canada.
Do you know what happened to the NDP in the Nova Scotia election, Madam Speaker? It lost its deposits in 30 of the 52 seats. The Party won two seats-and talk about majorities. The two winners received 36 per cent
of the vote. I would be ashamed to walk into the Chamber with only 36 per cent of the vote. I would say that it is only fair to have a recount and another election.
But do Hon. Members know what the Leader of the NDP in Nova Scotia said? She is now being thought of for national Leader. She said, guess what, it was a-


Some Hon. Members:: Moral victory!


Howard Edward Crosby: We are not here for any moral victories. We won an electoral victory. We won it with policies that were intended to strengthen the economy of Canada. We are here to put those policies into operation and implement them for the benefit of all Canadians. We are not going to let Members opposite stand in the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I will be closing the debate if the Government will stop putting up speakers. Tonight we are reviewing the rules of the House of Commons, using procedures that were used in this House but only once in more than 100 years. Why has this House operated at almost an impasse in the last week? It is because I believe the Deputy Government House Leader and the Government have failed to recognize the importance of 300 years of British Parliamentary practice. During 121 years of Confederation we have developed British Parliamentary rules for this country, but the Government fails to recognize the importance of that tradition.
It is a fact of recent history that most governments in this country have not had a majority of support of the people of Canada. Yet they have managed to rule the country quite adequately.
There have been times when the Opposition did represent a majority of the country. Yet the Government proceeded through carefully and succeeded in getting a majority of the country to accept its particular proposals.
The Government seems to have forgotten examples provided by previous governments, both Conservative and Liberal. While a government may have had less than a majority, it persevered slowly and carefully, using the rules and recognizing the rights of both sides of the House and that all were attempting to represent their constituents. It eventually got its way in a manner that was accepted by the country because it used the democratic process.
December 16, 1988

The process involved in this House is extremely important in holding the country together. This is disparate land of differing opinions from east to west, north and south. It is important that time be taken for the process to work. The Government and its Deputy House Leader, acting on behalf of the Government, failed miserably and totally this past week to follow those procedures and recognize their importance in the continuation of this country.
Whether it was the flag debate, the constitutional debate or the pipeline debate, governments of the day finally were forced to recognize that time was needed and healing must take place. Any Government which refused to learn that lesson was promptly defeated in the next election. That is what happened in the pipeline debate when the government absolutely refused to take the time necessary for the country to accept the proposition before it.
The issue before the country today is equally important. The Government did not clearly get a mandate. That has been discussed ad nauseam today and I will not go further into it. I am talking about the process and the ridiculous and unnecessary motion before us.
Government Members are well aware of the process involved with the Speech from the Throne. On the first day we hear the Speech from the Throne. The second day is normally devoted to the speeches given by the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne. As well, the Government usually presents its urgent legislation. Day three would have resulted in a leader's debate and day four, Thursday, would have been the beginning of the debate on Bill C-2. The Government would have been well into its agenda, but that was not good enough for the Government.
If it has learned anything about parliamentary procedure in this country, it will know that one makes haste slowly. It may be unhappy about the length of time consumed by following the proper procedure, but the fact is that it works. We have proved again that if it ignores the process it will not work.
The person who has thrown the roadblocks in front of this process all the way has been the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis). No roadblocks were thrown in the way by Opposition Members because he threw them first. We did not have to erect roadblocks.
Extension of Sittings
The Deputy Government House Leader insisted on attempting to speed the business by disrupting the process on the first day. He insisted on disrupting the process on day two, which prevented the leaders from making their speeches on the Speech from the Throne. How marvellous. It was not a moral victory on this side of the House, but one for the Deputy House Leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and all his backbenchers. What a great victory in stopping the two Opposition leaders making their speeches on the Speech from the Throne. What a great day for Parliament.
The Government claims that it knows how to manage but it cannot even manage the House of Commons. It purports to be able to manage the economy. It cannot make efficient use of time. It has wasted the time of the House.
The Government has continued to ignore the rules of the House, the lessons of history, the lessons of Parliament, and continued to display its ridiculous incompetence. At the same time it has made righteous speeches about trying to protect the country from the horrible Opposition.
We are only responding to their blatant attempts to break the rules and traditions of the House, and to change the Parliamentary process under which this country has operated for 121 years. What a stupid thing to do to this country.
At the same time that the Government House Leader has been putting roadblocks in the way of due process, he has been claiming that we must get on with the business of running the country. At no time during this debate has the Opposition indicated it was not willing to get on with it, given an opportunity. There was no opportunity for the usual Leader's debate, which is a long-held tradition. There was no opportunity to debate the legislation that the Government alleges it has called us back for. There was no preparation for a debate.
The Deputy Government House Leader threw enough roadblocks in the way of the House that even he could not extract us from it. We had to adjourn the House temporarily yesterday. It was the Opposition Parties, not the Government that got us out of that predicament. We eventually reached all-Party agreement to allow the two Opposition Leaders to begin debate on Thursday.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
This morning we came to the House prepared to work again. However, we were faced with this motion which, according to the Government, is meant to speed things along. While Members are ready to debate, we cannot do so because we must fight a motion that is almost unprecedented in the history of this House.
The Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) demonstrates the attitude we have heard all week. He said: "We have the majority, we write the rules, and all you have to do is follow them". That completely rewrites more than 300 years of British parliamentary tradition. It is utter arrogance. It is complete stupidity. It is totally unacceptable to this Parliament.
1 think this House, in the interests of maintaining that tradition of parliamentary control, should vote against the motion that is before us and the amendment to it. We should then be able to continue on with the normal parliamentary process which is much less hazardous than this and gets much more work done than this Government has been demonstrating it can do this week. I say let us have the vote. Let us revert to correct parliamentary process. Let us reject this motion and allow the House to function as the House was meant to function.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend opposite says that this debate is about the rules. This debate is about getting on with the business of Canada. That is what this Government has been attempting to do for some time.
In as much as this is the first time that I have risen to participate in debate in the House, I would beg your indulgence to allow me to compliment you on your appointment, Madam Speaker, and indeed your colleague, the Hon. Mr. Speaker, on his election. At the same time, I would like to pay tribute to the man who preceded me as the Hon. Member for South Shore, a man who served this Parliament, this country, and indeed Nova Scotia from June 10, 1957, until November 21, 1988, the Member of Parliament for South Shore for 31 years, five months, and 11 days, the Hon. Lloyd Crouse, PC.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter L. McCreath: Lloyd Crouse served the House of Commons with great distinction for many years. He is a great Canadian. He is a very much beloved Nova Scotian. He is the most popular man on the South Shore, and that is a reputation that is much deserved.
I would like, if I may, also to thank the constituents of the South Shore who have elected me to represent them in Parliament and to assure them that 1 will to do the best I can to do that effectively. That is why I wish to speak in this debate on the motion.
The people of the South Shore are people who like to get on with the business of life. They are people who like to see economic growth. They are people who are selfreliant. They are people who believe in getting on with the business of the day.
It is an historic time for those of us who are new Members to enter the Chamber and to participate in the debates of this House. What we have in the debate that is before us and in the business before the House this week is a logical follow-up to the economic growth and development that the Conservative Government has brought to our country during the course of the last four years.
This new agreement represents an opportunity and a challenge for Canadians. It strengthens our entrepreneurship, it strengthens our identity as Canadians, and it is a sign of the self-confidence that we have developed as a nation moving toward the twenty-first century.
This debate, as I said before, is about time. The time for talk has passed. We have had enough talk. The people of the South Shore have had enough talk. The people of Nova Scotia have had enough talk. The people of Canada have had enough talk.
Contrary to what I have heard from the other side of the House this evening, Canadians in my part of the country and, I suspect, right across this country are ready for Parliament to deal with this Bill so they can get on with the other business of Canada. Really and truly, what this debate is about are the perceptions that Canadians have about Canada.
Clearly, during the last few months Canadians have been presented with two alternatives to the approach to governing this country. One Party has offered positivism, an upbeat approach and confidence in the country and in our future. The alternative presented has been negativism, fear, and disconsolation. This governing Party is the Party that has offered positive leadership to the country, and that is why Canadians opted for this Government on November 21.
This Government is one that leads the way. I would like to say that the South Shore joined in supporting this Government. By electing the Progressive Conservative candidate, it chose to go along with positive leadership.
December 16, 1988

The South Shore typifies the best of Canada. It is beautiful country. There is no riding in Canada more beautiful. There is no riding that has the beaches, the forests, and the hills that we have. It is a wonderful place to live, and I look forward to returning there very soon.
It is an area that has a wealth of resources, ocean resources, forests, fields and so forth. It is an area that has marvellous people. The 77,000 constituents whom I now represent are a self-reliant people. They are a hospitable people, as the Sikh refugees found out when they landed on the shores of Charlesville which is in the South Shore riding last year. They are a compassionate people as well as an optimistic people. They cherish their values. They are industrious and self-reliant.
We have on the South Shore in Nova Scotia a very proud history. We have a history of European settlement that goes back 350 years, and throughout that period our best times have always been the times when our trading links have been the strongest and the best with the people to the south in the United States. Many Nova Scotians share personal links with the New England area through their friends and relatives. I myself have a grandmother who came from New England of whom I am very proud.
The Free Trade Agreement will be good for Canada but it will be particularly good for Nova Scotia and for the South Shore. I was pleased to hear the previous speaker from this side, the Elon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), make this point. I perhaps better than anyone in the House know what an outstanding Member and representative he has been here for the last decade, and I compliment him on his remarks.
Debate on this resolution is not waiting to take place. It has been taking place since the negotiations began in June of 1986. I suggest that Canadians want to get on with what they know will be a good deal for Canada.
Why will it be good? It will be good because of the access it will provide us to American markets. It will be good because of the impact and the benefit that will come from the gradual reduction of tariffs. It will be good because of the greater investment that will flow. Such investment has been so valuable to the Province of Nova Scotia as have the jobs it has created, including, for example, the 6,000 jobs that have been created through Michelin Tire plants and through Bowater and the various other industries that we have.
We will benefit from the dispute settlement mechanism that will address the problem that has been created by countervails put up against various products
Extension of Sittings
over the years, and as Canadians we will all benefit from lower consumer prices. In 1986, $2.1 billion was paid by Canadians in taxes to the United States through tariffs.
I would like to comment briefly on the impact that this legislation, getting on with it through this motion, will have that will benefit the people in the South Shore. By far our biggest industry is the fishery. South Shore is the biggest constituency in Canada in terms of the fishing industry. Approximately 60 per cent of the people of the South Shore are employed directly or indirectly in the fishing industry.
Fishing, of course, is a great industry for Canada, and the fishing industry must be represented as a valuable resource for all Canadians. Sixty per cent of Canadian fish are exported to the United States. Seventy-five per cent of Nova Scotia's fish exports go to the United States. In fact, 62 per cent of all fish caught by Nova Scotians end up going to the United States. That is one of the main reasons why this agreement is so important to us in the South Shore and is so potentially valuable to all Nova Scotians, and indeed to Canada.
All elements of our fishing industry will benefit from this agreement. Fishermen will benefit because there will be guaranteed access for the fish that they catch, and indeed the increased demands for Canadian fish will inevitably lead to better prices down the road. Our processing industry will benefit because of the reduction in tariffs and the jobs that will be created as a result.
I could not help but be amazed, as I went through the various fish plants in my constituency during the campaign, that there are over 200 fish plants in South Shore. In one area alone, Barrington Municipality, there are 110 fish plants. I went into most of them during the election campaign, including Bon Portage Fishery in Shag Harbour, for example, as well as those in Woods Harbour, Doctor's Cove, Bear Point, Clark's Harbour, Centreville, Southdale and Newellton.
Time and again I heard plant operators telling me that the Free Trade Agreement is important to them because it will mean an opportunity for expansion. It will be an opportunity to sell their fish, whether they are selling processed fish or saltfish or more cooked fish. In any case, all of them were looking forward to the opportunities that this agreement presented to them.
I was amazed when I walked into fish plants and heard plant operators saying to me: "I have been a Liberal all my life, but for the first time I am going to vote Conservative because there is no way I can vote against this agreement because it is so good for our industry and so good for our products".

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
One of the greatest fears that fishermen in Nova Scotia have had for many years is that Americans will get the right to come back and fish on the Canadian side of Georges Bank again. The fact that we have reached this agreement which gives us access to American markets without giving them access back to the Canadian side of Georges Bank is probably the single most important thing we get from this agreement that will benefit the fishery in the South Shore. That is probably the main reason why Senator George Mitchell of Maine so vigorously opposed this agreement at all stages. We do not very often hear about him in Upper Canada.
The reduction of tariffs will mean the creation of jobs for Nova Scotians. We look to the creation of anywhere between 300 and 500 new jobs over the next four or five years. National Sea Products alone estimates that it will mean 200 jobs in its various plants in the South Shore. Clearwater talked about another 100 jobs and, as I mentioned earlier, many other fish plants see possibilities. Because of the growing demand for fish sticks and consumer ready-cooked dinners, this will mean job opportunities and expansion for Nova Scotians.
The dispute settlement mechanism will prevent some of the phoney claims that are presented in courts and will quickly lead to a resolution of others. There was a lot of talk about social programs and a real effort made in Nova Scotia to terrorize fishermen into thinking they would lose their unemployment insurance because of this free trade deal. That is nothing but bafflegab. Thank goodness the people recognized it and elected a Conservative Member to represent them, because it indicated their support of the agreement.
The United States Commerce Department already in 1987, said what the score was with respect to UIC when a countervail was brought against Atlantic ground-fish. The U.S. Department of Commerce threw that claim out and said, of course, Canadian unemployment insurance is not a subsidy because it is universally available.
Much talk was directed to our social programs throughout the campaign. It scared a lot of people in the South Shore. I found it very distressing to go into senior citizens homes to find people who were terrorized into believing that their senior citizens assistance or their pensions and so on would be affected.
Nothing in this agreement whatever imperils social programs that are so much a part of Canadian life and
are so important to Canadians. That matter was never on the table. That would never be put on the table by a Tory Government and no government that I am a part of, and I am proud to be a part of this Government, will ever have any part of impairing in any way things like medicare and unemployment insurance that are so important to Canadians.
The real protection for social programs comes from a strong economy. It comes from having an economy that will grow and generate more revenue for the Government of Canada. That in the long run will give the Government more money to improve the quality of social programs. That is what the people in the South Shore are in favour of. I could go on at some length about the fishery but I am not sure you really want to hear me, Madam Speaker.
I do want to mention two or three other things. Forestry is a major industry in Nova Scotia, particularly in the South Shore. We have one industry, Bowaters, Mersey and Liverpool, that employs close to 1,000 people. Eighty per cent of the product of that plant goes to the United States. It recognizes the value of the free trade agreement.
We have in Nova Scotia a $50 million Christmas tree industry that employs 3,500 people; 70 per cent of them are in the South Shore. If this agreement did not go through, the U.S. developing Christmas tree industry in New England would be looking to put tariffs up again that would destroy that Christmas tree industry. It is not something we want to see happening. My opponent during the election campaign suggested that we should develop new markets in Asia for our products. I can see selling Christmas trees in Hong Kong, Singapore or Thailand.
We have a Michelin Tire plant that employs 1,500 people. Michelin in Nova Scotia employs 6,000 people, and 95 per cent of its products go to the United States. Michelin is looking at expansion that will create several hundred more jobs because the agreement is going through.
I can talk about ABCO and Lunenberg. I could talk about ABCO plastics in Mahone Bay. I could talk about the beef and pork producers who would be exempted from meat import laws and look forward to new marketing opportunities. I could talk about culture. There is nothing in this agreement that imperils Canadian culture. Canadian culture has never been so strong.
December 16, 1988

We as Nova Scotians have a sense of our identity. Newfoundlanders have a sense of their identity. I saw the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) earlier. 1 am sure the Mennonites in Manitoba have a sense of who they are, and the Ukrainians have a sense of who they are, and on and on. We as Canadians have a very proud sense of who we are. We have confidence in who we are.
One could talk about sovereignty. If we are imperilled in our sovereignty going into this agreement, goodness gracious how has Luxembourg survived in the European Economic Community over the last several years?
I could go on, but the hour is late and I will draw to a conclusion. It is very clear what we are here to talk about. We are here to talk about getting on with the business of Canada. We are here to choose between a Government that offers strength, confidence and optimism in the future of Canada, and an Opposition that offers timidity, weakness, fear and pessimism.
Canadians chose Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Government because they opted for leadership that will develop this country in the 21st century. We are not here to stifle debate. The debate has gone on. When we get home this weekend Members will find out that Canadians do not want to hear the free trade debate anymore. They want us to get on with this legislation, get on with the business of Canada.
I am proud and I will be proud on behalf of the South Shore not only to vote in support of this motion but to vote in support of Bill C-2 when it comes before the House.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam
Speaker, I am honoured to be able to make my first speech in this Chamber especially on an issue which is of such importance to Canada and to the people of Stormont-Dundas. I represent a riding which has both a rural and an urban mix. I can tell you that whether or not my constituents are from Cornwall or from some small town in Dundas county, people showed on the night of November 21, just how they felt about free trade.
There are farmers in my riding who fear how free trade will affect their livelihood, how it will affect supply management and how their markets may erode before their very eyes.
In my riding I have several large food processing plants. We were told before the election by the major food processing companies themselves that they will
Extension of Sittings
relocate in the United States if free trade comes into effect. If they do, and this exodus includes those plants in my riding, then the economic tragedy to those workers and to the riding will be substantial.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the electorate of Stormont-Dundas who put their faith in me as their representative in the House of Commons.

I shall do all I can to maintain their trust and to represent them to the best of my ability here in this House.
I was elected because the good people of Stormont- Dundas lost confidence in the Conservative Government, but I also believe they elected me because they did not agree with and did not trust the free trade deal proposed by the Conservative Government.

They did not approve of this deal because of fear but because they felt the deal was inadequate. I certainly agree with their assessment. As the representative of Stormont-Dundas and as a Canadian I strongly disagree with the free trade deal. I cannot let the concerns of my constituents be ignored and I cannot let this debate go by without registering their concerns in this House. 1 take much pleasure and pride in speaking tonight in this debate, but the seriousness of this issue must not be lost.
The unemployment figures in Cornwall are already high. As well, Cornwall ranked ninety-ninth out of 100 Canadian cities in terms of income. The free trade deal will, I believe, only add to the economic woes of Stormont-Dundas. We cannot afford plant closures in Stormont-Dundas. We cannot afford the destruction of the family farm and we cannot afford the elimination of small businesses, Canadian small businesses.
The electors of Stormont-Dundas cannot afford the free trade deal. The voters in my riding, like many others in eastern Ontario, showed that they cannot afford to put their future in the hands of the Conservatives.
I will monitor the factories and businesses in my riding. I will monitor the agricultural and agri-food industries, and I will monitor the textile plants. 1 will not tell my constituents how sorry I am that they face layoffs and dismissals. I will tell them that they can lay the blame at the feet of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings


John Horton McDermid: Will you give the praise to him when the new plants come in?


Robert (Bob) Kilger: I say to the Elon. Minister of Elousing that, yes, I would look forward to the day that I could stand in this Chamber and tell him and his colleagues that the trade deal has brought the prosperity that we would look forward to in Stormont-Dundas. I look forward to that day.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Try today.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Should it not come, I will rise and we shall reopen that same discussion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: How about today?


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Today, I have no reason to give that credit until you are worthy of it.
I will tell them to lay it at the feet of the Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who by this deal shows how little concern he has for Canadians.
The Government has been slow to tell Canadians how those who will be adversely affected by free trade will be looked after. I for one see this as another example of the Conservatives' lack of concern for the people of Canada. I am appalled that the Government is content to put through free trade without considering the negative impact that it will have on many Canadian workers and their families. The Government is merely intent upon implementing a trade deal. Why should it give any consideration to those who will feel the agony from its actions? The Prime Minister called for a healing in the country. I believe that the Prime Minister is the one who requires healing.
I implore the Government to reconsider its naive actions and cancel this deal. It has received no mandate to inflict pain on Canadians. It has a mandate to provide good government, not government for those individuals the Government perceives to be good.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate members of my Party who were re-elected to the House. I especially would like to congratulate my colleagues who are new Members. Those Members represent ridings whose voters could not support free trade, and their voices can now be added to those of many other Canadians. I hope that the Government is prepared to listen.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate to speak against the motion and against the amendment. There are many Canadians watching who
are interested in this debate who know that the Tories and their big business friends bought their way back to government. We still do not know how much big business threw into the coffers in buying newspaper ads in my riding, and in many others, who bought radio ads, who bought TV ads, and porked all the money over to the Tories to buy their way back into government.
However, let me spend a moment on the motion before the House and what has gone on during this week. Since 1913, this is the first time we have seen a government come before the House and attempt to move closure before a debate had even begun. There are many Canadians who understand what type of a jackboot Government has been re-elected.
The rules under which we operate have been in place since 1883, untouched. The Government comes in and hoists the Standing Orders, and hoists our opportunities to have the minority voices of Canada heard in the House. The first thing the Government does is try to dispose of those. Of course, we have the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) who requires the assistance of the two opposition Parties even to get his motion before the House so that he can carry on the debate before the House today.
Let me digress for a moment and deal with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) on fish, because we see the type of deals involved. We know how the Government gave away on drug legislation. It gave it over to the United States. It got rid of generic drugs in Canada and made all Canadian consumers pay higher prices, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That was just one of the little cards that the Government handed over to the United States. There is also the film industry, and many other things.
I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is present. I remember his remarks when he was in British Columbia and the fishing industry asked him about that industry. What did he have to say? "Oh, sorry, you guys lost. You were sold out in the negotiations". Who is protected under Article 1203 supposedly? Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is false, Jim.


James Ross Fulton: He is trying to stand up for it now.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell the truth, Jim.
December 16, 1988


James Ross Fulton: The five Maritime provinces think they are protected. The Minister for International Trade sent off these cozy little letters.


Charles Joseph Clark: Try a novelty, Mr. Fulton. Try the truth.


James Ross Fulton: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is a little tender about this.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am tender about the truth.


James Ross Fulton: They are trying to sell out our fishing industry, our herring and salmon industry which is worth $750 million a year. They will try and sell it out on Monday and Tuesday of next week in Washington. Peter Murphy is the negotiator for the United States. We are sending down Howie Wilson. What is he going down with?
Cabinet yesterday decided for British Columbia that landing requirements are all that are required for British Columbia for our herring and salmon-no grading requirements, and no evisceration requirements. If we do not have a right to gut fish in British Columbia, what type of a government have we got over there? They are giving the whole thing away. They are gutless, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the whole works. What are they doing over the weekend? They are bringing Mr. McRae back from France and getting everyone together over in Hull to have a summit meeting.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell the truth, Jim. Try the truth.


James Ross Fulton: They are going to decide that we are going to have A sockeye and B sockeye. We are going to have dark chums, and we are going to have this, and we are going to have that. They think that they are going to have it ready by Monday to take down to Washington. 1 know what Peter Murphy is going to say. The Minister for International Trade has said to Howie to go down there. "Don't worry, there is no herring fishery until March, but offer Peter Murphy the opportunity to negotiate with Canada with a December 19 deadline." Why is there this short deadline?
The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) receives a call from Brian Peckford. He receives calls from the East Coast. They say that they are worried about the fishing industry and do not want any retaliatory action against the east coast fisheries. "Give away the West Coast." We know that the Government gave away the West Coast fishing industry during the negotiations on the Free Trade Agreement. Why were the B.C.
Extension of Sittings
regulations not protected? We know that Mr. Vander Zalm did not do anything. He finally sent a letter today to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). He said: "We want full regulations. We want landing requirements. We want grading requirements. We want evisceration." A deathbed repentance by Mr. Vander Zalm.


An Hon. Member:: He supported free trade.


James Ross Fulton: That is right. He is a big supporter of the Free Trade Agreement, like Mr. Bourassa. Five Liberal Premiers favour it and four are opposed. We are starting to get the swing of things here. Mr. Vander Zalm comes in right at the tail end.
Let me come back to what they are doing over the weekend. They are working on the grading regulations. They are saying that Cabinet is going to claim just landing requirements for British Columbia. We will designate certain places where chum, sockeye and spring-things that the Secretary of State would not even know about-are going to have to be landed in certain places, but no grading requirements, no evisceration requirements. This week in the House I stated to the Minister of Fisheries that GATT countries like Great Britain and many other countries have import controls-


John Horton McDermid: Import.


James Ross Fulton: -GATT consistent on graded fish and eviscerated fish from British Columbia. They have to be graded and eviscerated to get into Great Britain.
And what does the Minister for International Trade say? "Oh, the U.S. doesn't want B.C. to have grading, or evisceration requirements. We will get rid of those."


An Hon. Member:: It is the same as with the GATT.


James Ross Fulton: It is just another trade-off to the United States, Madam Speaker.
Well, let us take a look at what the implications are. It means that offshore buyers will be able to come into Canada and buy our fish, and they will be able to gut them and can them, and short freeze and ship them to markets all over the world.
One has to ask oneself why it is that B.C.'s fishing industry is known around the world as number one; why it is that B.C. fish products are number one around the world. Well, it is because we have in place comprehensive quality of product controls. It is because we in British Columbia, unlike the U.S., understand stock management and stock conservation.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
We heard the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. McCreath) talking about the Georges Bank decision. That is a decision that was made by the World Court. My friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs has told me to my face that this Government would like to negotiate 54/40, the AB Line, the fixed entrance.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


James Ross Fulton: He wants to negotiate that with the U.S.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell the truth, Jim.


James Ross Fulton: It is a preposterous proposal.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


James Ross Fulton: Here we have the richest fishing grounds in the whole of Canada, and they want to give it away.


Charles Joseph Clark: If you are going to quote me, tell the truth.


James Ross Fulton: The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that what I say is not true. He said it to my face. We have heard similar kinds of statements from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Prime Minister, on Wednesday, said to my friend from Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca (Mr. Barrett): "Oh well, there will be an interim report on Friday. You will see it on Friday. Don't worry about a thing."


An Hon. Member:: It is now 12.30 a.m. on Saturday morning, and we have not seen a thing.


An Hon. Member:: Tell the truth, Jim.


An Hon. Member:: We have waited until 1 a.m., and still nothing.


James Ross Fulton: They had a little meeting. A couple of Ministers got together with Jean de Grandpre, who has stepped down from his $1 million a year job at Bell Canada to head up the blue ribbon committee to look at the impact on displaced workers.
Let us look at what the U.S. Congress has done. There they have insisted upon 60-day notice of plant closures for any plant with more than 200 workers. The U.S. Congress considers that to be a good idea.
This Government has had two and one half years in which to put into place retraining and assistance programs for displaced workers, and it has done nothing.
All we hear about are interim programs, interim studies, and final studies.
We have to wait until next May or June before we find out what this Government is going to do. It is absolutely preposterous!
What has this Government done for the displaced workers at Gillette, for the displaced workers at Catelli, for the displaced workers at Northern Telecom? Nothing. And what is it doing in relation to the B.C. fishing industry? Nothing. It will be giving it away on Monday and Tuesday. Mark my words. Here we have Howie Wilson-who is a nice guy and an excellent public servant, going down to Washington with a full set of regulations in hand to deal with Peter Murphy-and in the person of Peter Murphy we do not exactly have your naive "short pants" negotiator.
Howie Wilson will arrive in Washington and present the landing requirements for B.C. to Peter Murphy. It will be a case of Howie saying: "Oh, oh, Mr. Murphy, here are the landing requirements for B.C."
There is no exemption under Article 1203. There is no protection there. And when British Columbia falls, Newfoundland falls, Prince Edward Island falls, New Brunswick falls, Nova Scotia falls, and Quebec falls. Those fishing regulations aren't worth salt. Read Article 1205.


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell the truth, Jim. For a change, try telling the truth.


James Ross Fulton: The Secretary of State for External Affairs has never even read Article 1205.
Let me deal now with forestry. We have heard a lot of drivel from the other side of the House. I remember only too well the former Member for Vancouver Centre, the past Minister for International Trade, going down to Washington to deal with the U.S. on a countervail action in respect of softwood lumber-and this at a time when there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to even deal with the U.S. on that countervail action. Canada had been found absolutely innocent. There was no need to change any forest policy, any stumpage policy in any province or the territories of Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: What dishonesty; what rampant dishonesty.
December 16, 1988


James Ross Fulton: There was no need for any change in U.S. or Canadian law.


An Hon. Member:: Tell the truth, Fulton!


James Ross Fulton: We send down to Washington a Minister with no backbone whatsoever. And what do we get?- "Oh, oh, I am going to make a one-time only 10 per cent offer."
The Americans go: "This is incredible." And that is precisely what Murphy is going to say next week in respect of fish. These idiots go down to Washington and offer to give away a $750 million herring and salmon industry.
They will not get away with it in so far as British Columbia is concerned. I have already told the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) that if they do that, the Minister of Fisheries will be crabmeat in British Columbia. And his reply was: "So what."


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: Well, while he may not like the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: Well, Madam Speaker, we in British Columbia are simply not going to accept that kind of giveaway. But let me finish my point on forestry. The Minister for International Trade in the last Parliament goes down to Washington and says: "Oh, oh, I will make this 10 per cent one-time only offer." And the Americans go back to their offices and they belly laugh until they are almost sick. They are laughing. They are going: "Oh, oh, oh; this is really incredible. These Canadians are incredible. They want to tax themselves."
So, they say: "Listen, Madam Carney, you slap it on at 15 per cent, and we will be your pals." She comes back and gathers this magnificent Cabinet together and they say: "Oh, Pat, 15 per cent! We are only going to tax ourselves to the tune of $650 million a year. That's great. That's great."
Who are these people, Madam Speaker! They are giving away the country. They have given away our pharmaceutical industry; they have given away our film industry. These are the same people who tell us that we need not worry about our social programs. These are the same people who gave away our largest industry, our
Extension of Sittings
forestry industry, an industry that, directly and indirectly, employs one million Canadians.
Look at what they are doing to B.C. Look at what the Auditor General has had to say.
I am glad to see the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) in his seat. Not a single contract under FERDA is being properly administered.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


James Ross Fulton: NSR is growing in the whole country.


Some Hon. Members:: What a mess!


James Ross Fulton: Our forestry lands are not being satisfactorily restocked. Our forests are being overcut. Everyone in the country knows it.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


James Ross Fulton: Bill Vander Zalm replaces the 15 per cent countervail with a $800 million stumpage fee increase per year. Yet, he does not put one thin dime back into reforestation.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


James Ross Fulton: The Tories condemned the Liberals for putting less than 10 cents on the dollar back into reforestation. Yet here we have the Tories putting less than nine cents out of every dollar back into reforestation in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


James Ross Fulton: It is absolutely shameless what is going on. And let us talk about shakes and shingles for a few moments-


An Hon. Member:: Shake them up, colleague.


James Ross Fulton: We have to get right down to it. I was speaking earlier this evening to a person who is very knowledgeable about the shakes and shingle industry, an individual by the name of Mary who lives in Point Grey in Vancouver. She has a great deal of knowledge about the shakes and shingles industry.
We had a 35 per cent countervail imposed on shakes and shingles, without any legal basis whatsoever. And what does this Government do? "Oh", it cries; "Oh, oh, oh". We had thousands of workers put out of work. And then this Government said to the U.S.: "Oh, oh, take it off." And then they say: "Don't worry. Had the free trade deal been in place, this never would have happened. And once it is in place, it will disappear."

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
And what does President Reagan do? The Canadian dollar, between 1986 and 1988, increased in value by 17 per cent vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar, and President Reagan drops the countervail to 20 per cent. "Oh, thanks, President Reagan; thanks."
Once you add on the 17 per cent increase in the Canadian dollar, the countervail amounts to 37 per cent. It is worse now than it was in 1986! It is worse now!
These guys are absolutely incredible! Absolutely incredible.


An Hon. Member:: And they negotiated a free trade deal.


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. McCreath) made his first speech in this place this evening, and I do not intend to be too hard on him. He talked about a disputes settlement mechanism.
That was the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) bottom line-a binding disputes settlement mechanism. We were told that if we do not get that, there would be no deal signed.
There is no binding disputes settlement mechanism in this deal. There is diddly squat in the deal, Madam Speaker. Anyone who can read, anyone who knows about fish, anyone who knows about forestry, anyone who knows about agriculture, about manufacturing, knows the difficulty we are in.
And what about plywood? What happened this week about plywood? "Oh, Canadian knots are too big. Ooooh!"


Some Hon. Members:: Ho, ho, ho! It must be Christmas time.


James Ross Fulton: Canadian knots are too big. "Oh!"
Let me tell you a story, Madam Speaker. You need to hear a story. We took a Canadian two-by-four. We have what is known as SPF No. one, a product made in my constituency-


An Hon. Member:: It probably fell on your head.


James Ross Fulton: We took that two-by-four to a meeting in Washington, an eight footer, and we picked up an American southern yellow pine two-by-four and carried out an experiment on the two.
Well, Madam Speaker, as you can see, I am not very big. I weigh 100 kilos. I went metric some time ago in an effort to keep my weight down. Yet, with a mild swipe
of my hand I was able to break that American southern yellow pine two-by-four. No problem.


An Hon. Member:: I have news for you, it would not work on the Canadian two-by-four.


James Ross Fulton: I am coming to that. A good solid Canadian two-by-four, whether produced in the riding of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) or on Vancouver Island, or in the interior of B.C., or in my own great riding of Skeena, there is no man or no woman in this country who could break that two-by-four; not in any way, shape or form. "Oh!" What do the Americans-


Some Hon. Members:: Ho, ho, ho!


James Ross Fulton: So what do the Americans do? They say we cannot compete with you. That is what they say in every industry.


William James Kempling: What is the punch line?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Ross Fulton: Our workers and our mills are more productive. Do you know what they are doing now on shakes and shingles? They are keeping the 20 per cent on in order to allow the roofing industry to figure out ways to replace our shakes and shingles. If we are beating them on anything they slap on a tariff.
The Tories do not seem to understand that. They claim we are trading to the marketplace. Those guys cannot run a popcorn stand. They really cannot.


John Horton McDermid: But guess who got re-elected!


James Ross Fulton: Oh!


John Horton McDermid: The little red rump is still in the same place.


James Ross Fulton: I knew they would come around again.


John Horton McDermid: A moral victory! We know, we know.


James Ross Fulton: We know who put them in. Who paid for all the big ads?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William James Kempling: The unions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Bob White.


John Horton McDermid: Shirley Carr.
December 16, 1988


James Ross Fulton: Oh, the unions paid for the Tories' ads?
Let me deal with a few other things. The Tories say the Americans are so progressive on social programs. Some 40 million Americans have no medical coverage of any kind, and 20 million of them are children.


John Horton McDermid: A terrible shame.


James Ross Fulton: The Minister of Housing says in a humorous way, oh, isn't that terrible?


John Horton McDermid: Do not impute motives, my friend.


James Ross Fulton: It is unfortunate for anyone who actually goes into a constituency and knows what the real impact of poverty is, who knows what the impact of being out of work for a long time is. That is a Government that forgets in the countervail case against east coast fish that unemployment insurance was found as a counter-vailable subsidy.


Some Hon. Members:: No way!


An Hon. Member:: The Commerce Department threw it out.


John Horton McDermid: And you know it. Now, tell the truth.


James Ross Fulton: It was found as a countervailable subsidy.


Some Hon. Members:: It was thrown out.


James Ross Fulton: Let us talk about a few other things.


John Horton McDermid: Yes, get off that one because you are not telling the truth.


James Ross Fulton: They do not like to hear the truth.
What about the Maquiladora zone? There are 150,000 Mexican men and women working there for $6.25 Canadian a day. Some of the products they are making will find their way into the Canadian market.
What about the 12 States with no minimum wage? What about the nine States with a minimum wage below $3 Canadian an hour? Those Tories are trying to tell workers over here in Aylmer, in Belleville, in Arnprior, out in British Columbia, in Alberta, Yukon, the Northwest Territories and the Maritimes: "Do not worry, we will lower our wages and get rid of our social programs." It is Canadian companies that will bring pressure to get rid of social programs, not just American companies.
This deal is stupid. It cannot be described as anything else. The bottom line that the Prime Minister wanted, a binding dispute settlement mechanism, is not there. We know what the Secretary of State had to say about the
Extension of Sittings
Free Trade Agreement. We know what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had to say. We know what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had to say.


Some Hon. Members:: Time!


James Ross Fulton: They were all opposed to a Free Trade Agreement because they all said "if it affects our sovereignty, we will have none of it." It does affect our sovereignty, and we will have none of it!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I appreciate having an opportunity to close this debate on the motion before the House. It is important that those watching us are reminded of what we are debating tonight.
We are debating something very straightforward, but the first point made by the Members opposite is that the Government is hijacking the rules of this House. They say we are doing that because we want to get legislation passed without the rules of the House. That is simply not correct.
The fact is that it is only within the rules that any government can get any temporary changes such as we have in this motion. It is a very restricted motion with respect to time and the issue it covers. It is done under the rules. In fact, it is so clear it is within the rules that the matter was put before the Chair for a ruling. The Chair clearly ruled that we were within the rules and the Government was sustained in the position it took.
There has not been any hijacking of the rules. There has not been any changing of the rules. It has been done within the rules, and I think that is the first point people listening should be aware of.
What we are discussing now is simply the amount of time for debate and we will decide in about 15 minutes time not only to confirm the rightness of the Speaker's decision, but to sustain the rights of the majority in this House.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You do not vote on Speakers' rulings. You are 20 years out of date.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The second point is also interesting. It concerns the matter of a mandate. We have heard a lot during this debate about the Government not having a mandate or the moral right to bring forward free trade legislation. Let us look at that position.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings
First of all we have a parliamentary system. That is interesting to note because Members opposite have been arguing both sides of the issue at the same time. On the one hand they talk about the traditions and practices of the British parliamentary system. That system is based on majority government. It is based on the ability of any government, majority or minority, as long as it enjoys majority support, to put forward its legislation. If it is sustained in its legislation, it continues to govern. If not, someone else governs or an election is called. That is the parliamentary system.
Members opposite say this is a hijacking and it would never happen in Britain. If they look at the rules in the British House they will see they have a method of determining how much time will be spent on each piece of legislation. It is pre-determined even before they debate the legislation. Here they are trying to say on the one hand this is a violation of the system, but they should go back and look at the rules in that system right now.
There is an even more interesting point. They said we did not have a referendum. Well, we do not have a referendum system. We have the British parliamentary system which is very clear. If a prime minister, such as ours, has the support of the majority of Members in the House, he has the ability and the right to put forward legislation and the right to expect it will eventually be voted on and determined by the House. That is what we are asking in this motion.
The Opposition talk about a mandate. They say we do not have 50 per cent of the votes cast so we do not have a mandate. Obviously if that were so this Party would not have a mandate after the 1988 election. What about 1984? Then with the largest majority in the history of Canada, our Party did not have in a technical sense a mandate. It had 49.9 per cent of the popular votes cast. In fact, we have to go back to 1940 to find a Party which formed the government and which had more than 50 per cent of the votes cast. I guess it was only in 1940 that that government had a mandate to do anything.
Let us take a look at what happened in 1972. In 1972, a number of us came into the House. It was a minority government. There was a difference of two seats. What happened? The NDP with the smallest number of Members in the House every day was demanding another deal behind the curtain. They had no mandate.
They had no position. In fact, it was an incestuous relationship.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In fact, the symbiotic relationship was so close that under any other terms it would have been covered by the pornography laws.
Liberals did not have a mandate. Yet what did they do? During that period of time they brought in the National Energy Program. They brought in price and wage controls. They repatriated the Constitution. They changed the Constitution. They did all those things. And not at one time did they have above 50 per cent of the votes cast. What kind of poppycock are they trying to throw out on the floor of the House of Commons?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let us take a look at another point. It is rather interesting. I know that I cannot put hold up displays in the House so I will not do it.
What is interesting to note is what happened to the individual Members in terms of the number of votes cast in the last election. Did they have 50 per cent of the votes cast? Do they have a personal mandate? Let us take a look at the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). Let us look at the riding of Vancouver Quadra in British Columbia. The numbers might not be totally accurate after an official count but they are so close that they still make my point very valid.
John Turner had 20,704 votes. Bill Clarke received 14,235 votes. Gerry Scott received 10,304. I could go on. There were over 24,000 votes for the last two. Mr. Turner received less than 50 per cent. Does he have a mandate?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What kind of mandate does he have? That has been the argument of Members opposite. The point is very clear. On the one hand they argue that if one does not have 50 per cent of the votes cast then one does not have a mandate. But on the other hand they are saying that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) does have a mandate. They should get their act together.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let us take a look at the Leader-


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a new Member I am not too clear on this point. I thought that we were not supposed to refer to Members by their first names. Is that not so?
December 16, 1988


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is not a
common practice for Hon. Members to refer to other Members by their names. They are normally referred to by title or by the name of their riding. Even though the Hon. Minister was quoting he should have found a way to express himself differently. I think that he knows that. I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, if Members opposite do not want me to use the name of their Leader then I will not.
What about the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent)? Let us take a look at that person. I will not use that Leader's name.
The Leader of the NDP won the vote in Oshawa- and, no, it was not Bob White. Nor was it Shirley Carr. This unnamed Member received 18,410 votes. Nancy McLean received 14,040 votes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Ed White, the Liberal candidate, received 8,379 votes. The Leader of the NDP does not have a majority either. He has no mandate to speak.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let us take a look at the great riding of Charlevoix.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am sorry that I cannot name the Leader of the Government, my Leader and the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney). We all know who he is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It says on what I have in my hand that Brian Mulroney received 33,729 votes. The Liberal candidate received 5,983 votes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The NDP candidate received 1,829 votes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has a mandate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He received 81 per cent of the votes cast-now that is a mandate!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thus the Leader of the Government decided to let the people decide. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said. How many times before the election was called on October 1, did he say: "Let the people decide"? He would stand and say passionately: "Let the
Extension of Sittings
people decide". Would somebody please tell that slow learner that the people have decided?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I must tell you this. During the election campaign from time to time I had to go to various places. Twice I met the Leader-no, she is not the Leader of the NDP yet, she is just working on it-Shirley Carr. It was interesting to watch her. She went across the country wearing a huge orange button. It stated: "This time, Ed". Every time I would see her she would be wearing this button. I saw her the other day. She is not wearing the button any more. There might be a reason for it. The reason I take it is that Bob White said to Shirley: "This time, Bob". Probably Shirley has said: "No, this time, Shirley".
I ask members of the NDP what has happened to your campaign? What happened when they said that there should only be two Parties? Does that mean that they are going to leave after this day? Does it mean that they have no mandate whatsoever, or now because they are number three they will not only have to try harder, they will have to look first to see whether or not they have any credibility?
What is the position of those Hon. Members? Where is their power? They went across the country making all types of statements and yet the people did not sustain them. That is why the Member from Selkirk (Mr. Bjornson) is here. He defeated Howard Pawley. That is why long-standing Members who were in the House are not opposite any more. It is because the people did not give them the mandate; they gave the mandate to the Leader of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, if you really get down to the bottom line tonight we see that there is another problem that they have. From time to time I must admit, although I am not very pleased to do it, that sometimes we ran into a similar problem in opposition. Members opposite have become prisoners of their own rhetoric. On the one hand they said: "Let the people decide", and when the people decided, they did not like that. On the other hand they said: "We will fight them in the House of Commons. We will fight them on Main Street. We will fight them on the beaches". That is where they all want to go-to the beaches. I say to them, what you really want is for the Government to pass this motion. You want the Government to pass free trade so that you can go home and whine and cry, saying that you could not do anything about it but you sure put up a good fight. That is what you really want to do.

December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is time to put forward the rules so this House can in fact pass the legislation for which the people have given the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) a mandate. It is time to get on with that deal and time to pass the Free Trade Agreement. We have done that once before in the House. We will do it again. We will do it, starting now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 57, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to put to a vote forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the amendment and the main motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my
opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 1 declare the amendment carried.
The next question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder if, in the spirit of this Christmas season, we could apply the last vote to the main motion. 1 ask that you seek unanimous consent in order to do that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Do 1 understand there is unanimous consent that the last vote be applied to the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, (Mr. Lewis), as amended, which was agreed to on the following division:
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cole Collins Cook Cooper Corbeil Corbett Cote Couture Crosby
(Halifax West)
Darling
DcBlois
de Cotret
Della Nocc
Desjardins
Dick
Dobbie
Domm
Dorin
Duplcssis
Edwards
Epp
Fee
Feltham
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Friesen
Gibeau
Gray
(Bonavcnture-lles-dela-Madeleine)
Greene
Guilbault
Gustafson
Halliday
Harvey
(Chicoutimi)
Hawkes
Hicks
Hockin
Hogue
Horner
Extension of Sittings
Horning
Hudon
Hughes
Jacques
James
Jelinek
Johnson
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kempling
Kindy
Koury
Landry
Langlois
Larrivee
Layton
Leblanc
(Longueuil)
Lewis
Littlechild
Loisellc
Lopez
MacDonald
(Roscdalc)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacKay
Malone
Marin
Martin
(Lincoln)
Masse
Mayer
Mazankowski McCreath McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight
McLean
Mitges
Monteith
Moore
Mulroney
Nicholson
Obcrlc
O'Brien
Plamondon
Plourdc
Porter
Pronovost
Rcdway
Reid
Rcimcr
Ricard
Richardson
Robilaillc
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Shields Sobeski Sparrow St-Julien Stevenson Tardif Tetreault Thacker Thompson Tremblay
(Rosemonl)
Tremblay
(Qucbcc-Est)
Turner
(Halton-Peel)
Valcourt
Van de Walle
Vankoughnel
Vcnne
Vien
Vincent
Weiner
White
Wilbce
Wilson
(Swift Current-Maple
Creek)
Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Winegard Worthy-144
++NAYS
Members
(Division No. 9)
++YEAS
Members
Anderson	Blackburn	CampbellAndre	(Jonquiere)	(Vancouver Centre)Atkinson	Blais	CardiffAltcwcll	Bouchard	CaseyBeatty	(Lac-Saint-Jcan)	ChadwickBclshcr	Bourgault	ChampagneBernier	Boyer	(Champlain)Bird	Brightwell	ChartrandBjornson	Browes	Althousc	Gauthier	McLaughlinAnawak	Gray	MifflinAngus	(Windsor West)	MillikenAssad	Guarnieri	MitchellBarrett	Harvey	NaultBcllemarc	(Edmonton East)	Prud'hommeBenjamin	Karpoff	RiisBlack	Keyes	SkellyBlondin	Kilger	(Comox-Alberni)Boudria	(Stormont-Dundas)	StewartBrewin	Kristiansen	Stupich-36Cattcrall	LeBlanc	Copps	(Cape Breton High-	Duhamel	lands-	Fulton	Canso)	Gardiner	Manley	
December 16, 1988
Extension of Sittings The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the motion, as amended, carried. It being 1.27 a.m., this House stands adjourned until	Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). The House adjourned at 1.27 a.m.

Monday, December 19, 1988