1988-05-16

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), I wish to table, in both official languages, the Report of the Parliamentary Group on Haiti, a report produced by the committee appointed by the Secretary of State on January 26 this year. The report is unanimous, and the committee included, in addition to myself as chairman, the Members for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), Chicoutimi (Mr. Harvey) and Saint-Boniface (Mr. Duguay).
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Government's response to eight petitions numbered as follows: 332-4281 to 332-4283, inclusive; 332-4340, 332-4342, 332-4343, 332-4345 and 332-4347.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



PETITION


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdaie-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present to the House today a petition on behalf of Canadians from Vancouver who oppose the Memorandum of Agreement signed between Canada and the U.S.S.R. dealing with the gathering of evidence on alleged war criminals on the basis that the agreement pertains only to Nazi war criminals and not to all war criminals, contrary to what the Government promised in its response to the report of the Deschenes Commission of Inquiry. The petitioners call upon the Government to renegotiate the agreement to reflect the prosecution of all war criminals, and I add my strong support to their petition.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: Question No. 316.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


Mr. Young: Does the Government spend any money on advertising the rules and
regulations pertaining to applying for unemployment insurance and, if so, on
average, in what amount per year?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: While the government does not spend money to "advertise" UI rules and regulations it does have an extensive public awareness strategy to inform UI claimants, employers and the general public about the UI program. The strategy consists of both audio-visual presentations and print material.
The 1988-1989 budget for this strategy is $2.9 million which includes the production of brochures, information sheets,

May 16, 1988
15466___________________________
Supply
posters and inserts on the UI program for approximately three million UI claimants and the general public; a yearly direct mail campaign of the Record of Employment Guide to close to 700,000 employers; and the production of three audio-visual presentations for claimants, employers and the general public on the UI program.
In addition to the above strategy, all people have access to the UI Act and regulations at any Canada Employment Centre.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood) moved:: That this House condemn the government for voluntarily relinquishing political sovereignty in the "trade" deal with the United States, namely by limiting the power to decide on new or expanded social programs and cultural industries, including those by the federal, provincial, territorial or municipal governments, present and future.
She said: Madam Speaker, I rise on this Opposition Day to deal with the loss of political sovereignty in the trade deal. This is not a free trade deal which has been negotiated with the United States. It does not save us from countervailing duties being applied by the Americans. It is not free trade under GATT. It pursues a deviation allowed by GATT for two countries to come together when they want to achieve an economic union. We know there is a political price to pay for economic union because institutions have to be changed. It is called harmonization, and that means a loss of our distinctiveness as a country in favour of adopting American institutions, and increasing influence by the American market.
What this is really all about is constitutional change. This deal will bind future Governments. The federal Government is saying it has the power to negotiate an international treaty, but while it is doing so it will bind the provinces, the municipalities and even Indian bands. Indian self-government will be affected. The Territories lose as well. They all lose the power to make economic decisions, create jobs, and pursue social programs unhindered by external considerations such as the trade deal.
Women understand this very much better than men do, it seems. Prominent in the struggle against the trade deal are women's organizations. Right now we have the National Action Committee on the Status of Women in a lobby session
with parliamentarians. They have focused on the trade deal because women are going to be prominent among the economic losers. They also care a great deal about our social programs and institutions such as public broadcasting. They see the need to continue to have the power to design institutions to suit Canada's needs.
Women are not so ideological. They are not in pursuit of the buck. They are prepared to use the public sector, the Government, political power. Women are increasingly entering the mainstream of political life and they do not want to come in and find that their votes do not mean very much because the decisions are going to be made in the U.S. by market forces instead of citizens as voters and parliamentarians.
The Americans understood this aspect of the trade deal very well. They welcomed, for example, the section expanding control over services. They say the agreement establishes the very first international understanding of a comprehensive nature over the service industries under which each side will provide treatment to each other's citizens that is no less favourable than that granted to its own citizens with respect to all new measures affecting services. The agreement provides the right of establishment, the right to cross border sales, and disciplines on public monopolies.
What does that mean? It means whipping them into shape, keeping down the public sector, providing more space for markets and profits. They welcome that. This reference to discipline on public monopolies never appeared on the Canadian side of the elements of the agreement. Why not? Because the Canadian Government is a little bit embarrassed about giving away power, acceding to pressure from the Americans to put this in the trade agreement.
How will the exercise of power be affected by this trade deal? First, if a province wants to start a new social program or expand an existing one or start something like car insurance or a cultural program, it will first have to consider whether it will constitute an unfair subsidy. We do not know the answer to that question in many respects because unfair subsidies remain to be decided upon. We also know that covered services are going to be expanded. We have a list of certain services covered already but more are going to be included as negotiations proceed.
The provinces will also have to consider whether or not whatever it is they want to do infringes on the monopoly section. That refers to covered services which may expand in scope. They will have to look at Section 210 and Section 211 of the trade deal. If what they want to do constitutes a monopoly under the deal, they would have to ask the federal Government to in effect to negotiate on their behalf. The trade deal requires that the provincial, territorial and municipal Governments, as well as Indian bands, ask the federal Government to notify the U.S. Government of an intention to establish a so-called monopoly. In the meantime, the U.S. could retaliate against Canada in some other sector to get equivalent commercial
May 16, 1988

value for the anticipated benefits it might not get if the so-called monopoly went through.
What if the provincial Government concerned is a more progressive Government than the federal Government and wants to do certain things? Perhaps the federal Government will not have a veto, we do not yet know what is in the legislation, but the provincial or territorial Government might not have a great deal of confidence that its interests will be well looked after by the federal Government.
If the matter goes to dispute settlement a panel will be set up. Who is on the panel? At least two Americans, at least two Canadians, and a fifth person to be decided upon by the other four. If they fail to decide, the fifth person would be chosen by lot from a list of potential panel members. These panel members are supposed to be objective. I wonder how objective they can be. Are they going to ignore totally the interests of their country or region? What if there is a conflict? What if the federal Government puts on its list of potential experts only those with the privatization ideology? What if they do not really represent the point of view of the provinces, territories or municipalities which might want to do something a little bit different? We do not know.
I was in a briefing session recently and asked trade officials about car insurance. We have four provinces with public car insurance services. Right now insurance of all kinds is a covered service in the trade agreement. The officials told us they did not know if car insurance would be affected by the trade deal. We would just have to trust them and wait and see. I do not think this is good enough.


Mr. McDermid:: That is not true. That is nonsense.


Lynn McDonald: I was at the briefing and certainly it was stated that we would not know if car insurance would be included as a covered service. I suspect it would be.
Child care is not covered right now. Fortunately it looks safe. It would not be a monopoly in any event, but what about the management of this service? The management of health care and all kinds of other services comes under the trade deal and that means American corporations have to be treated the same as Canadians in working in what we have normally treated as public sector areas.


John Horton McDermid: Our rules.


Lynn McDonald: It will not be we who decide. That is what is crucial.


John Horton McDermid: It certainly will.


Lynn McDonald: It means we will not have the power to undo decisions made by a previous Government.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Lynn McDonald: We have some give and take. For example, FIRA was brought in by a Liberal Government to allow review
Supply
of foreign investment for a particular purpose to see what good it would do Canada. The Conservative Government had a mandate and changed that as it was entitled to do. It got rid of FIRA. However, under this trade deal we will not be able to make these kinds of changes. Investment policy will be right in the trade deal and the threshold goes up with respect to the kind of decisions that can be reviewed. If another Government comes in and wants to change it back, which is normal in our political process, it will not have that power. That power will be traded away in the trade deal. It is a weakening of the power of people to use the political process. That is being given away in one fell swoop. These things will be incapable of correction. This weakens the political process.
Women are especially concerned about health care. Large numbers of women work in this industry. Women, of course, are major consumers and they are the health care organizers for their families. This deal looks toward increasing Americanization of our health care services. We have achieved a very high standard of non-profit, publicly organized health care. We are proud of our system. It has been called the best health care system in the world.
The American system excludes coverage of many people. It provides excellent services to some people, those who can afford to pay for highly specialized services, but it is a twotiered system. If we allow our institutions to be changed in that direction we will move toward having a two-tier system with costly services available to some and high quality care not available to all.
We have chosen a different route, the not-for-profit route. Our system is so efficient that there are complaints that it constitutes an unfair subsidy because employers in Canada can rely on our health care system to provide benefits. American employers have to bring in private plans which allow for a profit. They cost a great deal more money and are inefficient. They consider our system such a benefit that it can constitute an unfair subsidy.
According to our Constitution, health care is supposed to be entirely a provincial matter. We have joint programs, but the jurisdiction is provincial. However, under the trade deal aspects of health care get bargained away. The management of all technical services related to the health care system has to be open to American corporations. That is interference with something which should be under provincial jurisdiction.
Our hands will be tied in a very special way in culture despite all the promises that culture was not on the bargaining table. Section 2005 of the trade deal contains a very special notwithstanding clause which is a very important loophole in the deal. It reads:
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Party may take measures of equivalent commercial effect in response to actions that would have been inconsistent with this Agreement but for paragraph 1.

May 16, 1988
Supply
Paragraph 1 otherwise exempts culture. Again, it is an exemption with exemptions from the trade deal. It is a clause notwithstanding any other measure in that agreement.
It has been said, and I think correctly, that the trade deal says that we can do whatever we want in culture, with some exceptions, but the Americans can do anything they want in retaliation. This is a very considerable loophole for us.
Further, the Americans realize this and they welcomed it. I will read from the text of the summary of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement put out by the United States Embassy- right from the horse's mouth. It says:
The U.S. recognizes the importance to Canada of maintaining its cultural identity. At the same time however, the U.S. wants to ensure that Canadian cultural policies do not constitute a discriminatory and unnecessary barrier to U.S. trade.
In other words, whenever they can make a buck they want to be able to make it and not be impeded by our so-called exempting culture. I quote further:
Recognizing Canadian sensitivities, the U.S. has agreed that certain cultural areas are not subject to the specific provisions of the agreement.
Certain are not, but it is very clear that certain are. It continues:
However, the U.S. retains the right to redress any adverse commercial effects of any future cultural measures enacted by Canada.
In addition, Canada has agreed to alter some other things. It says, therefore, that we are on warning that they can retaliate if we take any measures in the future to improve our distinctive Canadian cultural identity.
For example, film distribution is a cultural industry. Is it covered in this agreement? Suppose we wanted to have a policy of Canadian ownership in film distribution, as we have in broadcasting, as was recommended by a task force established by the Government. The current Government does not want to pursue this, but if a future Government wanted to pursue it, the United States could retaliate on behalf of the film distribution interests in the United States. They could use Section 2005 2 against us.
We do not know how many other things they may want to use against us. What about the All News Channel? Would that be against the trade deal? What about newspaper ownership? Suppose we had the threat of a major take-over of our newspapers and wanted to have Canadian ownership. Would our hands be tied in the future? Would we have the possibility of limiting foreign ownership in the cultural sector? It is not at all clear that we could this without retaliation because Section 2005 allows for retaliation.

Madam Speaker, with Meech Lake, Quebec will again become a member of Canada's constitutional family, but what good will that do? Because of the changes imposed by the free trade agreement, the Constitution will have lost much of its
strength. Both federal and provincial powers will be diminished. The provisions of the free trade agreement are in fact so many major amendments to the Canadian Constitution, amendments that cannot be changed later on because there is no formula for amending the free trade agreement. With this so-called international trade treaty, the federal Government is about to weaken the political powers of our federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments.
Understandably, there is a mass movement of protest against this agreement. The unions, churches, environmentalists, women and Quebec's united stand against free trade are to be commended.
Quebec has used government measures to promote its social programs, investment, performance standards, culture and the use of energy resources to create jobs. A distinct society needs such measures. Quebec needs them. Canada, across the border from a society that is ten times as big as this country, needs such measures.
The free trade agreement with the United States relinquishes the power to use such measures, both at the federal and provincial level. Why become a distinct society under the terms of Meech Lake, without the tools to do the job?
I understand why the big corporations in the private sector support this agreement, especially the multinationals which rely on large imports from the United States. Any pressure to lower salaries and social benefits is very much to their advantage. Newspapers controlled by big corporations share this attitude. However, I fail to understand why Quebec's two major political parties have sided with the corporations against the interests of the vast majority of Quebecers. They must have overlooked those parts of the agreement that relinquish political power to the U.S. market.
I accuse this Government of abandoning all principles of honesty and fair play as far as this agreement is concerned. I accuse this Government of proceeding without a mandate from Canadian voters. I accuse the Conservative Government of relinquishing the political powers of the provinces and the federal Government to the economic forces of the U.S. market. On behalf of my Party I demand that an election be held as soon as possible.

We want an election. If ever there was a Government without a mandate, this is it. It has broken promises and attacked social programs. It has failed to achieve tax reform or bring in adequate child care programs. It has an appalling record on patronage and friends in high places. It has refused to plug the loopholes in election law and to bring in real controls in conflict of interest. Its trade deal has sold out Canada in our distinctive culture, our social programs, our natural resources and in the possibilities for industrial strategies, job creation and regional equalization.
May 16, 1988

[DOT] ("30)
For all of these reasons, I call on the House to condemn the Government and I call on the Government to go to the people of Canada by calling an election now.


Miss MacDonald:: You cannot even get anyone in the House to support you. Not a single Member.


Lynn McDonald: The Hon. Minister wonders where some of our Members are. The NAC lobby is on the Hill presently. Most of our Members are meeting with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, answering their questions and their concerns. I think they ought to be at that lobby, and they will certainly be in the House to deal with this question for the rest of the day. They are where they ought to be now.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, a great deal of what the Hon. Member said today is not exactly accurate. I will cover that later in my remarks.
All that the NDP and Liberals do is to knock the trade deal. Neither have come up with a policy-the Hon. Member from Montreal, a former Minister, holds a document. Have you read that?


Mr. Allmand:: Yes.


John Horton McDermid: It certainly does not make any sense to us. It does not meet the realities of what is going on in the world today.
How does the NDP propose to handle the protectionist mood in the United States today? How does it plan to handle the various good Canadian industries that are under attack by special interest groups in the United States? How does the NDP propose to handle these problems in Canada?


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I do not think giving up our political sovereignty and caving in time after time is a very good way to handle the problem. We heard constantly before this trade deal was signed that it would save us from the countervail powers of the United States. We were told it would be a trade deal to cut off the protectionist pressures in the United States. It did not achieve that.
We have seen the Government cave in time after time, with film distribution as the latest example of a government without the courage to pursue Canadian interests.
The Government has no mandate to act this way. Before the election it was against any kind of bilateral trade deal. It said clearly that it would not pursue that kind of option because Canada would be smashed. It used the elephant and the flea analogy. The Government's mandate was to oppose the trade deal. It does not have a mandate at all to pursue a trade deal.
What would we do positively? We have spoken frequently about what we would do. We issued a report stressing other objectives-


John Horton McDermid: Like nationalization.
Supply


Lynn McDonald: Our report outlines possibilities for development of municipal infrastructure for local job creation, mechanisms to deal with irritants on a particular case basis. It is not a question of a bilateral deal that includes everything and in which we give up the power to act in the future. We would deal with matters on an industry by industry basis. We believe that is the safest way to proceed and also defend Canadian interests. It is a way to make sure that regional interests are not lost in the deal.
The Conservative Government has simply caved in in the hope that the friendship between the President and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will save us from U.S. protectionism. It has not saved us from any protectionist measure by the U.S. in the past and it will not in the future.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I understand the NDP policy on trade is to help municipalities with job creation. That is what the Hon. Member answered.


Lynn McDonald: One measure among many.


John Horton McDermid: The other measure she says is to handle them case by case as they attack our industries one by one. That is what she said.
That is what has been happening in the past and it has been costing industries in Canada millions and millions of dollars to defend those actions. The NDP policy is to perpetuate that. That is what the Hon. Member just told the House. I cannot believe it.


Lynn McDonald: You are just going to cave in.


John Horton McDermid: The NDP are back in the 1960s. They do not want to change. They wear blinders so that they will not see what is happening around them. They want to look straight ahead rather than see what is happening. They are a bunch of standard bred horses with blinders. I might add that they are not breaking any track records with their attitude.
The NDP has no policy. We know what it opposes but we certainly do not know what it proposes.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about being against change. What is most profoundly offensive about this so-called trade deal is that it prevents change in the future. It takes away the flexibility of the federal Government, provincial Governments or territorial Governments to make decisions because the deal binds future Governments. It states that we cannot use the political process 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now when conditions may be different and a different strategy may be needed. We will not be able to use a different strategy because the decision has been made.
For example, there has not been nearly enough discussion on the section dealing with monopolies. There has been a cover-up on the part of the Government because it does not want Canadians to know what it has given away.

May 16, 1988
Supply
The section on monopolies provides for a dispute settlement by a panel on which we do not control the membership. We would be a minority on that panel.


John Horton McDermid: Wait a minute.


An Hon. Member:: Horsefeathers.


Lynn McDonald: We have two Canadians, two Americans and a fifth person chosen by them.


John Horton McDermid: Chosen by whom?


Lynn McDonald: Chosen by two Canadians and two Americans.


John Horton McDermid: Where does the panelist come from?


Lynn McDonald: We have no idea.


John Horton McDermid: It could be the Chairman of GATT.


Lynn McDonald: We have no idea who the fifth person would be. We know further that the panel reports to a trade disputes commission, the Canada-U.S. Trade Commission. We do not know how many members would be on this commission in terms of people, but there are two parties to it. It could be the two trade ministers. Their decisions would be made on the basis of so-called consensus. How can there be a consensus with just two bodies, one of which is 10 times more powerful than the other? What kind of recourse do we have when that body says: "Do it our way or else?" We are trapped in that decision. We cannot develop another strategy because we are bound to it.
It is not like the system in Europe which has a Parliament with permanent institutions involving a variety of countries that give their power to a whole.
We are giving our power to a neighbour 10 times larger and 10 times more powerful than us. We will not be able to stand up to their demands.
Therefore, the Government is closing off options for the future and taking away decisions that should be made in this Parliament and the legislatures of the provinces and the territories, decisions that should be made by local councils, Indian bands, all of these citizens who have minds and hearts, and care about Canada. It is giving away that power to panels and a commission that we do not control either now or in the future.


Mr. Kilgour:: Madam Speaker, the Member knows that I have much respect for her. However, I say with great respect that what she has said this morning represents, if anything, the line of Bob White and the Canadian Auto Workers. I suggest to her that it is anathema to the outer eight provinces in Canada and those who work in the forestry and mining industries in British Columbia.
Let me confine the argument to her own Province of Ontario. Does she realize that if the trade agreement is not
ratified, the Auto Pact can be cancelled on one year's notice? Does she realize that the trade agreement would enshrine the Auto Pact so that if it is cancelled, everything would be cancelled? In that sense, it provides protection for the 100,000 or more people who work in the automobile industry in Ontario.
Does she realize that we have had free trade in the auto industry since 1968, other than for a few months in the early 1980s when Chrysler was in trouble? Fortunately, Ontario has been the great beneficiary of that free trade.
Is Mr. White not saying that what has worked so well in Ontario with respect to the auto industry is something that must not happen in other parts of Canada?
Will she deal with the argument relating to the Auto Pact?


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, the Auto Pact can be cancelled, as the whole trade deal can be cancelled, according to the terms. It is not free trade in the automobile sector. It is managed trade with the possibility of the reintroduction of tariffs if investment is not made according to what is specified. It is very, very different. Here we are going to be wide open to investment going both ways. We lose the protections. We lose the penalties in this trade deal that we previously had in the Auto Pact.
The Auto Pact was not supposed to be on the bargaining table. We ought to have more Auto Pacts. That is the kind of thing we should be pursuing on an industry by industry basis so that other parts of the country can profit from it.
The Hon. Member refers to British Columbia and Alberta. All the provinces lose political sovereignty. All the provinces lose the power to make decisions about natural resources. Natural resources are supposed to be a provincial responsibility, according to our Constitution. By having a continental approach to resources, it is giving away the provincial jurisdiction over resources we have in our Constitution. That means that the federal Government is assuming that jurisdiction illegally, in my opinion, and handing it over to the Americans in a continental energy pact. That is flagrantly wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time provided for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party fully supports this motion before the House today because it restates the position the Liberal Party has taken with respect to this bad trade deal ever since it was revealed to the public last year. We have said over and over again that this trade deal between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States threatens our present social programs, our medicare,
May 16, 1988

health care, family allowances and old age pensions and limits our ability to bring in new social programs such as day care, and so on.
We also say that this bad trade deal threatens other social programs and programs related to social life in Canada such as marketing boards, affirmative action programs, environmental programs, and in a moment I will spell out exactly how that will happen. Even this morning, in answer to questions from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, our Leader, the Right Hon. John Turner, made it very clear again, that is our position, and that is why we will support this motion today.
Before I get into the substance of the matter, I want to respond immediately to the question put by the Hon. Member from Brampton to our colleague in the New Democratic Party. He asked: "What is your alternative if you do not do it our way?" Well, the Liberal Party has published an alternative and I stated it in an ad lib way when he was posing his question to the Hon. Member, to which he replied: "Well, it is not worth anything". First he says we do not have an alternative, and when I point out very clearly that we do, he then dismisses it. Of course, he will dismiss it because it completely disagrees with his approach on these matters.
What is our alternative? It is to pursue trade barriers through the multilateral process and through the sector process. I want to point out that it has worked in the past. We cannot understand why the Conservative Government would change that pattern, that approach, and in doing so give up vital elements of our sovereignty and independence.
Let us look at the record. Since the end of the Second World War, mostly under Liberal Governments, we have been able to reduce tariffs between Canada and the United States to the point where approximately 80 per cent of all goods and services now move between the United States and Canada without tariffs. That was done through the Kennedy Round, through the Uruguay Round, through the Tokyo Round. It was done through multilateral bargaining to the point where 80 per cent of our goods and services now move between these two countries without tariffs. In addition, when we started this process back in the 1940s and 1950s, the average tariffs between Canada and the United States were about 29 per cent. They have been reduced to about 7 per cent only on the 20 per cent remaining goods and services. That is a pretty successful record in lowering tariff barriers.
The major outstanding barrier that remains between Canada and the United States is not the tariff barrier. It is important but it was going down anyway. The remaining outstanding barrier is countervail. This deal between the Prime Minister and the President does nothing about countervail. It is the most harassing barrier against Canadian business and traders, and this agreement does not do one thing about it. When the Conservative Government started out, that was its goal, to get some sort of agreement that would reduce the applicability of countervail by the Government of the United
Supply
States against our Canadian business and traders. That was not done.
When Members opposite ask for our alternatives, I find it quite amusing. I like to put these quotes on the record as often as I can. During the Conservative leadership campaign in 1983, what did leading Conservatives say about a possible free trade deal with the United States? In 1983, before the election of 1984, the Prime Minister said: "Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would do so again in 1983. Canada must increase its share of total world trade which has dropped by 33 per cent in the past two decades". The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said: "Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally". What a flip-flop. That is what was said in 1983, and in 1985 they are saying exactly the opposite.
The former Minister of State, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), said about a potential free trade agreement with the United States: "It is silly. Canada must improve relations in trade with the United States, of course, but our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak sister". Is that not a great statement? No wonder he left the Cabinet. I suppose he was feeling uneasy about some of these things and thought he would take the honourable way out.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in 1983, at the very same leadership convention, which was manoeuvred by the Prime Minister to get rid of Mr. Clark, said the following: "Unrestrained free trade with the United States raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost in such critical industries as textiles, furniture and footwear". This is what the leading members of the Conservative Cabinet said in 1983 about a so-called free trade agreement with the United States. That was one year before the election of 1984, and in the 1984 election campaign they did not give us one hint they would pursue this kind of agreement which threatens our social, environmental, affirmative action policies, and so on.
What did happen? Our Prime Minister, at the first opportunity, went down to Washington and did an Irish jig with the President of the United States and they patted each other on the back and drank champagne. The Prime Minister jumped right into the President's pocket and there he was ready to accept anything the President proposed to him. We ended up negotiating the free trade deal which will sell out our sovereignty and independence unless we defeat it.
This so-called free trade agreement, and I call it "so-called" because it is not really a classical free trade agreement, not only limits our ability to decide on new social programs in the future but threatens our present social programs. How does it do it? It does it in two ways.

May 16, 1988
Supply
[DOT] (U50)
First, it does it directly since it forbids, in many ways, subsidized programs. The Americans like to have what is called a level playing field. That means that all businesses must compete without any subsidy and under the same rules no matter whether they are big, small, new or old, and regardless of what their hold is on the market-place. With that sort of clause in the free trade agreement our regional development policies are threatened. Our marketing boards are threatened, as are our environmental programs. They all involve subsidies to small businesses, to start up businesses and so on. That in turn affects our social policy, particularly in the slow-growth areas of Canada such as Atlantic Canada, the North, some of the prairie provinces, and northern Quebec. That is how the deal directly threatens social programs and the levels of social welfare in Canada.
However, it also attacks them indirectly, and in this regard I mentioned some of the programs. I mentioned our health programs, our minimum wage, our unemployment insurance program, our old age pensions, and others. It attacks them indirectly because there will be very strong pressure to harmonize our Canadian programs with American programs.
How will that happen? Let us look at some of the testimony that was given to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade by certain big businesses. I am referring particularly to McCain's. My hon. colleague behind me is from New Brunswick. He knows what McCain's said about the deal. I also refer to the President of Quaker Oats.
These people have said the following. At the present time in Canada they buy their raw food materials for food products which are processed from marketing boards. They have said that they do not oppose marketing boards in general. They feel that they are good for farmers since they give them a steady and fair income over the years. However, they said, if this deal is brought in and they as food processors have to compete with American companies that do not have to buy their raw food products from marketing boards and they can sell to Canada without tariffs, then they will be at an unfair advantage. They said: "We are against marketing boards in that particular environment. You will have to get rid of the marketing boards so that we can buy our raw food products on the free market, or we will move to the United States where we will have access to the Canadian market since there will be no tariffs or barriers".
What this agreement has done is to have put some of our food processors into a position in which they say: "Either get rid of marketing boards or we go to the United States". That is what it has done. At the present time they are not facing that dilemma. We are suggesting to the Government that it should not have put these companies in front of that dilemma.
The same is true about many other programs since Canadian companies that have their plants and head offices here in Canada will have to compete on this so-called level playing
field with American companies that have lower social programs in the United States, lower minimum wages to pay, and lower unemployment insurance. Yet our Canadian companies that have to pay the taxes to support these social programs, which we believe are important, will say at one point: "Because we are in Canada, we are paying taxes to our provincial and federal Governments to support important social programs. We have always paid those taxes and we have not objected to them. But now, because we have to compete with American companies that are not paying taxes to support medicare and a reasonable unemployment insurance system, those companies are coming into Canada and underselling us". These Canadian companies will say to the Government: "Either you reduce these programs so we can compete, or we will go to the United States".
The pressure will arise. I might say that that sort of pressure arose when we were discussing the Bill on pharmaceutical drugs during the last year. People in Montreal were saying: "Either you support the Government's Bill to weaken support for reasonable drug prices or we are going to do our research and development in the United States or some other country". They were trying to put that pressure on us even then. But of course the Government had made this deal with the United States. It pushed through its Bill despite the objections on this side of the House. We have now seen drug prices go up in Canada for ordinary Canadians. Already they are paying the price for the Government's policy on free trade.
I have already mentioned with respect to jobs-I forget how much time I have left, Madam Speaker. I could spend the whole day attacking this agreement.
With respect to jobs-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In Montreal, in the pharmaceutical industry.


William Warren Allmand: I have dealt with that. The Government has already raised the price of pharmaceuticals through its Bill. We will be watching to see how much research and development and new employment there will be in Canada as a result of it. We have not seen it yet, but we will be watching very closely. With respect to that Bill, we had a formula as a result of a commission that would have solved the problem without selling out to the United States. So there was another way of doing that without pursuing the same means that the Government put before us.
This trade deal with the United States is a means of entrenching a Conservative agenda for a long period of time. That is the hidden side of it. What this agreement will do is more or less to entrench us into a free market system with a Conservative agenda, an agenda against reasonable social programs, minimum wages, unemployment insurance and affirmative action programs. Once we get into this deal with the United States it will be hard to change. The sort of society which prevails in the United States will be imported into
May 16, 1988

Canada through this deal. For the Government to suggest otherwise is complete nonsense.
When a country of 25 million people, Canada, is up against a country of 250 million people, the United States, one does not need much intelligence to conclude who will win. It certainly would be nice if the Americans would harmonize to our medicare programs, to our hospitalization programs, to our unemployment insurance system and so on, but they will not. The pressure on Canadian companies will be to do it the same way as they do it in the United States so that we can compete.
Very often the Government likes to compare the Canada-U.S. trade deal with the European Common Market. It says: "Look, free trade works in Europe, therefore, this is a great deal. It is similar, it will work here. The Canada-U.S. trade deal is not at all the same as the Common Market. First, the European Common Market involves a large number of countries. Several of them are larger countries, such as Britain, Germany, France and Italy. There are some smaller countries, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, and others. They all have their own languages and their own cultures. There is not the opportunity for any one of those countries to overwhelm the other. The Germans will not overwhelm the French, and the French will not overwhelm the English. They balance each other off so that one side will not predominate.
Unfortunately, in this particular deal we have a country of 25 million people, Canada, in which two-thirds of the people speak English. We are already bombarded by American magazines, television, films and so on. We are side by side with a country of 250 million people who speak the same language as two-thirds of our own people. The threats that are present in this one-on-one deal are not present in the European Common Market. One cannot compare the Common Market to this particular deal. Nor can it be compared to the Auto Pact. The Auto Pact is not a free trade deal. It is a managed trade deal. It obliges the United States to invest in Canada. It obliges the United States to maintain so many jobs in Canada. It is a managed trade deal. It does not allow the United States to do whatever it wants with respect to these matters.
With respect to jobs, we have all sorts of estimates. I suppose that jobs are the ultimate social policy. One's policy on employment is one's ultimate social policy because the first goal is to have people working in good, solid jobs. There are safety nets in case they are not working, for example, if a worker is ill, handicapped or thrown out of work.
There have been so many statements with respect to jobs. One day the former Minister of Employment said that 300,000 jobs would be lost. The next day he retracted on that and was contradicted by the Minister of Finance. There have been all sorts of estimates. Some were that we would lose jobs, and some were that we would gain them. The most recent one, about a month ago, in a report of the Economic Council stated that over a 10-year period we would have a net gain of over
Supply
200,000 jobs. That is an average of 20,000 to 25,000 jobs per year in all of Canada. That is what was said we would gain.
The report pointed out-and a great many people did not look into the fine print of that report-that 188,000 jobs would be lost. Most of those jobs are in industry. Most of the jobs that would be gained are in the service sector. We all know that, for the most part, in industry the jobs are high paying, full time, unionized, with benefits, pensions, and so on. The jobs that will replace them under this deal will be nonunionized, minimum wage, part-time, and involve contracting out. That is the American way; lay off full-time workers and contract out to a small company that can avoid the minimum standards of national programs. They will hire the same people to do the job whether it is maintenance or repairs, and it will be done at the minimum wage, whereas before it was done for a reasonable wage where a man could support his family. That is what will happen as a result of this deal. There will be good industrial jobs lost to service type jobs in this wild melee with the United States over trade and markets.
Despite this adjustment that will have to take place between industrial type jobs and service type jobs, it is interesting to note that the Government has not provided for any special retraining or adjustment programs. Two committees of the House, in unanimous reports, recommended special adjustment programs. That means that the Conservative Members on those committees agreed with those reports, because they have the majority.
In the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration there are five Conservatives, one Liberal, and one New Democrat. Together, the seven of us issued a report stating that there must be special adjustment programs in order that the person who has been kicked out of an industrial job and has to go into a service type job will have some type of retraining.
What did the Government say when we asked for those special adjustment and training programs? It stated that the present programs are good enough. People all over the country are saying that they are not good enough. Last week the community colleges in Toronto said that the Canadian job strategy was not adequate. They stated that they could not train people to fill the jobs in Toronto at the present time where there is a very good economy. They said that they cannot even get the people trained to do those jobs.
The reason that the Canadian job strategy is not doing the work that it should do is that the Government has cut training programs by 32 per cent since 1984. In 1984 those programs received $2.2 billion, and now they are down to $1.6 billion. That is the type of programming that will be used to adjust workers who are thrown out of good jobs when the free trade agreement goes into effect. No, Madam Speaker.
I wish to reiterate that we support this resolution. The trade deal threatens our social programs. It threatens our job

May 16, 1988
Supply
policies. It threatens our cultural programs. This agreement is not only about trade, and it is not only an economic agreement. This is a deal with very serious social and political implications. The real question in this debate, not only here today but throughout the months to come, is what type of country do we want. What type of place do we want Canada to be? What is our vision and dream for Canada? Is it a Canada that is a semi-sovereign appendage of the United States, harmonized to United States standards, harmonized to United States social programs and culture? Is it submitting to the doctrine of manifest destiny which was enunciated in the United States over 100 years ago? Or is our vision of Canada of a free, independent Canada, friendly with the United States and other countries but developing its own policies, pursuing its own goals, maintaining its own identity and sovereignty? That is what this debate is about. My choice is with the latter option, and we will completely oppose this agreement to the bitter end.


Lynn McDonald: I agree with a great deal of what the Hon. Member had said about condemning the Government on this trade deal. I particularly agree with the Hon. Member on his interpretation of the trade deal as bringing in the Conservative agenda, that the Government would not have the nerve to attack our social programs and our cultural institutions in a direct manner. Therefore, in this indirect manner it is able to pursue the neo-Conservative agenda along with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. I heartily agree with all of that.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member why, given the concerns that he has raised in his speech, Quebec Liberals are not opposing the trade deal? It seems that because of the loss of sovereignty, the loss of power to make decisions, to pursue the distinct society, to use performance requirements, to have a provincial energy policy as opposed to a continental energy strategy, to use the energy sector for job creation, to have a differential pricing policy, and all of those things that Quebec has used effectively in the past, under the trade deal Quebec will lose the opportunity to make those types of decisions. I wonder why Quebec Liberals are not fighting with the Hon. Member against the trade deal.
My final question is the following. With the increasingly hypothetical possibility of the Liberals forming a federal Government in the near future, how can we be sure that they would tear up the trade deal? Some days they say that they would tear it up, and on other days they are not so sure that they would. What type of day would it have to be for the Liberals to decide one way or the other on this absolutely crucial question for the future survival of Canada?


William Warren Allmand: I wish to make it clear that it is the Quebec Government, a government of the Quebec Liberal Party, which has taken that position. There are many Liberals in Quebec who take the same position as the federal Liberal Party which means that they oppose the deal. The Government of Robert Bourassa supports the deal. If the Hon. Member is asking me to explain why they are supporting the deal, I am
afraid that I cannot explain why Mr. Bourassa is supporting the deal, because I do not agree with him. Unfortunately, I take issue with Mr. Bourassa on this. By the way, the Liberal Party, different from the New Democratic Party, has two separate Parties in Quebec. There is the Quebec Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party in Quebec. A large number of people belong to both Parties. The reason they split years ago was that things are often seen from a federal perspective or a provincial perspective.
Having said that, I guess one would have to elicit the reason for the Quebec Government supporting the deal. I feel that the deal is contrary to the interests of Quebec; Quebec farmers are opposing the deal, Quebec workers are opposing the deal. If energy is the principal reason why Mr. Bourassa is supporting the deal, I do not see that as a legitimate reason. Mr. Bourassa is already selling a good deal of Quebec energy to the United States. It is true that he has to respect the mechanisms of the Energy Board, as long as it stays in place., The fact of the matter is that I do not know how this would help Quebec in promoting its energy business.
On the other hand, I think it would hurt Quebec citizens since they may not be able to have a lower price for their own energy as they have had for years. It has always been a natural thing to do that if there is a lot of electricity, oil or gas, the citizens of that province receive a lower price. We have been benefiting in Quebec from low hydro prices for many years. If I understand the deal correctly, and many experts have told me that this is the case, we will not be able to charge one price to Quebecers for energy and another price to Americans. The same price will have to be charged. Therefore, if a market in the United States dictates a higher price, then that is what we will have to pay in Quebec. I am not an apologist for the Quebec Government of Robert Bourassa, and I cannot tell the Hon. Member what his arguments are. In any case, I do not support those arguments.
The other point raised by the Hon. Member was that on one day we say that we will tear up the agreement, and on another day we say we will not. I would like the Hon. Member to cite the days when our Leader has stated that he would not. He states that, if elected to office, as the Leader of the Party and as the Prime Minister of the day, he would tell the United States that this deal is not acceptable to us and we want out. He has stated that over and over again. I do not know what the Hon. Member is talking about when she says on some days he states that he would tear up the agreement and on other days he states the opposite.
I challenge her and anybody else in this House or elsewhere to show me one quote from the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) where he would agree to this trade deal. He said over and over again that he will not agree to this trade deal, that he prefers the alternatives set out in our Liberal Party booklet called "Reaching Out. A Liberal alternative to the Canada-U.S. Trade Agreement", which is to pursue lower
May 16, 1988

tariffs and lower trade barriers internationally through the multilateral process and through sector agreements as we have done for years and years with great success.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, let me comment on my hon. friend's discussion. I think everybody in this House wants a free and independent Canada. We want a free and prosperous Canada, but we also want a Canada able to afford its social programs, own cultural programs and its own sovereignty. The choice is not between the status quo, as many would have you believe, Madam Speaker, and free trade with the United States; the choice is really between a competitive, vigorous Canada and a Canada which will sink into an abyss of protectionism and government intervention to make us uncompetitive in the whole world. That is what this is all about.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: Why didn't you say that before the election?


William C. Winegard: I have two questions for the Hon. Member. Where in the agreement, specifically, I ask the Hon. Member to give me page, chapter and article number, does it say that Quebec cannot make any deals it wants on electricity with whoever it wants to sell it to? I ask the Hon. Member to give me the article number.
Second, could he give me the article number where it says that we cannot protect our cultural industries and cannot continue to promote the CBC, where we cannot subsidize all the things we have been subsidizing now, and where the United States cannot take reciprocal action. It is not in Section 20.05. Section 20.05 specifically says that under Section 1 of that article the cultural industries with the exception of 4 are protected. Why don't people learn to read the thing properly, Madam Speaker?


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, first, the Hon. Member suggests that we need this deal in order to afford our social programs. He says we need this deal in order to become competitive and work toward a growing economy so that we can have social programs. Canada has developed one of the best social networks in the world without a free trade agreement with the United States.


Mr. Stewart:: With a deficit.


William Warren Allmand: The Hon. Member says "with a deficit". Since the Conservatives have come to power the deficit has increased by billions of dollars.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, it has been reduced.


William Warren Allmand: It has gone down.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes. The deficit has gone down.
Supply


William Warren Allmand: It has not gone down. The deficit has gone up. Everybody in the country knows it has gone up. The Minister of Finance has even announced that.
In this country we have developed excellent social programs without a free trade deal with the United States and over the years Canadians have ensured good jobs and prosperity. As a matter of fact, in the last year for which we have trade figures Canada had a $200 billion trade surplus with the United States. Yet the Government was begging for this free trade agreement with the United States which gives up our sovereignty and threatens our social programs.
The Hon. Member asked me where in the agreement it says that certain social programs are threatened or our ability to bring in new programs is limited.


William C. Winegard: What about electricity?


William Warren Allmand: I will deal with electricity. Of course it does not say that explicitly, but I refer to the the testimony of the people from Quaker Oats, the people from McCains and others who have said that if they are to compete with American companies in Canada they will not be able to afford the taxes and special payments which they make for these social programs if they compete with these companies which do not have that same infrastructure.
With respect to energy, what the agreement does say-I have the elements of the agreement here and I will have somebody here this afternoon with the final agreement-is that there is broad agreement to ensure the freest possible bilateral trade in energy, including non-discriminatory access for the United States to Canadian energy supplies and secure market access for Canadian energy exports to the United States.
One has to ask, and many experts have, what does nondiscriminatory access by the United States to Canadian energy supplies mean? It means that you cannot charge a higher price to Americans than to Canadians. I will go on with the elements of agreement at page 17. It states that both sides have agreed to prohibit restrictions on imports or exports including quantitative restrictions, taxes, minimum import or export price requirements or any other equivalent measure subject to very limited exceptions. It goes on. If the Americans are to have non-discriminatory access to our energy supplies, then it means we cannot charge them a higher price than we charge Canadians.
By the way, Peter Lougheed, former Premier of Alberta, was asked that question when he came to the committee chaired by the Hon. Member. He said, "Despite the fact that we will not be able to give Albertans a lower price for oil and gas because of this deal, I still support it because, on the balance", according to him, "it was a good deal". He supported it despite the fact that he would not be able to give a lower price to Albertans for oil and gas and other energy supplies in that province. That is what Lougheed said to the committee. It is on the record. Look at the transcript.

May 16, 1988
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Eton. Minister for Communications (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it has been a very interesting morning so far as we have listened to the spokespersons for the New Democratic and the Liberal Parties trying to outdo one another in undermining Canada's position as a trading nation. Obviously they are completely, introverted in their outlook. It does not say anything much for the future of the country when we get such a narrow introverted policy being espoused by members of the opposition Parties.
Within a few days now the House of Commons will debate in earnest the free trade agreement which was negotiated between Canada and the United States. If what I have heard so far from Hon. Members opposite is any indication of that debate, then I think it will have less to do with the future of Canada and more with the election hopes of the New Democratic and Liberal Parties.
In fact, as I read this motion and as I listen to the arguments put forward so far I really do not have any sense that Members in the Opposition really believe what it is they are saying simply because they know just how ludicrous their claims are. But I very much have a sense that they want the people of Canada to believe what they are saying. They want Canadians to believe that the Government would abandon its social or its cultural policies despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that has been shown time and time again. But one thing stands in the way, the truth. Not a version of the truth, not a perception of the truth but the truth, plain and simple. That is really what the people of Canada are seeing. The truth proves indisputably, clearly, that Canada's sovereignty, Canada's right to establish and expand our social policies and cultural policies is as strong today six months after the agreement was signed as it ever has been.
Of course, the New Democratic Party is not about to let a little thing like the truth stand in the way. New Democrats want people to be frightened. That is the aim. They want people to doubt the future of this country, especially those in our society who are the most vulnerable, our older Canadians on fixed incomes, single parent mothers and children, Canadians on disability pensions and veterans' pensions, and Canadians in job retraining programs who rely on child care allowances in order to learn new skills. These are the people to whom their remarks are directed in the hope that they will create fear and concern among them. However, the truth sets out quite clearly what has been the trend in Canada over the last 50 years.
For the last 50 years, Canada and the United States have been progressively liberalizing trade between our two countries. Today, just 15 per cent of our trade carries any sort of tariff or any sort of restriction. The other 85 per cent is
already free, and one must ask oneself what exactly is the result of these 50 years during which we have been reducing trade barriers to arrive at 85 per cent of our trade free. What exactly has happened? Have we seen our social programs diminished? Have we seen our powers limited in any way? Of course not. The exact opposite to that has occurred.
This half century has been marked by the greatest progression forward of social and cultural policies in our history. Programs such as medicare which is available to every Canadian, the Canada Pension Plan with disability allowances and survivors' benefits, the spouse's allowance, the child tax credit and many, many others. These have all been implemented during the time when our trade with the United States has been progressively liberalized.
What holds true for Canada's social programs also holds true for our cultural programs. Obviously, we have been introducing programs in both fields over this period of time when our trade has been liberalized to the point where only 15 per cent remain with any kind of barriers, tariffs or restrictions.


William Warren Allmand: Through the multilateral process.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Through bilateral and multilateral processes.
The fact is, and the record will prove, that the free trade agreement with the United States guarantees and strengthens the bonds of Canadian culture and identity by writing into the agreement a special exemption for culture. As with social programs, it is precisely the last 50 years, in which we have seen trade barriers and tariffs being reduced between the two countries, that we have seen as well an establishment and growth of independent and viable cultural industries and institutions in Canada. Because they are independent and because they are here, we insisted on having exemptions in the field of culture. We do have an independent culture, a culture that we can be proud of, one that we want to see grow, because it is so very special to each and every one of us.
This, of course, brings me back to this petty-minded motion that is before us today. Those who support this motion show that they have not understood the first principles, not only of the exemptions but of our Canadian culture itself. What do the cultural exemptions which Canada insisted upon in the free trade agreement mean? The exemptions mean that Canada will use support and policy measures to promote the financial viability of Canada's cultural industries, whether they involve individual artists or large organizations. Our purpose is to promote the ability of Canada's creators to reach the Canadian audience.
Opposition Members are so tied up with relying on what Americans have to say that they forget the purpose of our cultural policies. Cultural industries are exempted because the arbitration of continental market forces alone, with economics of scale determining success, should not govern whether an adequate Canadian choice is available in our lives.
May 16, 1988

The exemptions mean that Canadian content rules will continue to apply in broadcasting policy. They mean that simultaneous substitution and Bill C-58 as it applies to advertising will remain cornerstones of the Canadian broadcasting system. Why is this? It is because we insisted that those exemptions should be there.
The exemptions mean that the CBC will remain a central figure in the way our cultural growth and development take place, as with the Canada Council and our other cultural institutions. Every one of them is free to develop as they and the Government of the day see fit. Why is this? Again, because we were determined to see that all of these industries and agencies were exempted from the free trade agreement.
The exemptions mean that our publishing industry will continue to grow and prosper under majority ownership, because the Baie Comeau policy is preserved intact. In fact, if anything, free trade strengthens the policy by insisting that when there is no other Canadian purchaser available, the Canadian Government itself will pay fair market price for a foreign-owned publishing concern that is required to be sold under the divestiture terms of the policy. That is a new and even better guarantee for our publishing industry, and we have done that in the case of Ginn and Company.
I might also observe that the Baie Comeau policy has now been applied on four different occasions, directly or indirectly. It has been applied on Doubleday, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Ginn and GLC. However, I might say that we are not in the business of protecting warehouses, whether American or British, as in the case of the Penguin takeover of NAL. Instead, we have directed our attention to the retention of postal subsidies and to the retention of Bill C-58 as it applies to advertising because these too are part of our exemptions. That, of course, is what Hon. Members opposite seem to forget.
These exemptions strengthen and secure the roots of a thriving Canadian culture, no matter what opponents may claim to the contrary. It is thriving, because for the last three and a half years, this Government has made an unprecedented commitment to an independent and secure cultural future for Canada, equal to and, in the opinion of many, surpassing anything that has been done before. Opposition MPs, of course, pull no punches when telling the people of Canada what the Government has failed to do in this area, or what they think it has failed to do.
Just let me give Hon. Members a brief sampler of the things that have been done. If Hon. Members object to these, I would like to see them rise and say so. It is this Government which set up the Canadian sound recording development program, a program to give Canadians an opportunity to hear their own singers, their own songwriters, their own composers and their own musicians. For the next five years, $25 million has been put into this program, and it is having tremendous benefits.
It is this Government which created the Public Lending Right Program, something for which writers had argued for 40
Supply
years. This Government brought in a program that has given long overdue recognition and compensation to Canada's writers for the public use of their works.
It is this Government which established the Baie Comeau publishing policy to ensure Canadian control of this vital industry. It is this Government which created the book publishing industry development fund. We have moved to strengthen Canada's national museums and their contributions to cultural activity all across Canada.
It is this Government which achieved what no other Government in over 60 years has achieved, that is, to begin revision of the Copyright Act which is so absolutely vital to our creators. If Liberal Members opposite would just convince their colleagues in the Senate to pass the copyright Bill we will provide a greater guarantee for creators than we have seen in this country heretofore.
It is also this Government which made the broadcast program production fund an ongoing program involving $60 million every year. It has made Telefilm Canada a major producer of quality Canadian programming. We have also created a separate five-year $165 million fund for feature films. It is this Government which accomplished what other Governments only talked about, an independent film distribution system. This is not a record of abandonment or limitation. It is not a record of faint measures. I might add for the benefit of Hon. Members opposite that much of this was achieved in the past two years precisely while negotiations for a free trade agreement were going on.
There are others who say what I have just said as well. It is not just I. In an editorial last autumn the Winnipeg Free Press said that "Canadian authors have enjoyed national and international success. More Canadian plays have been appearing in Canadian regional theatres. A host of Canadian ballet companies have sprung up. Canadian films have begun to make their way on to Canadian and foreign scenes. Canadian television programs are finding larger Canadian audiences. Certainly if culture expression is any measure, the Canadian identity has never been stronger". Never stronger, Madam Speaker, directly because of the contributions and initiatives of this Government.
Let us look at what has happened since the signing of the free trade agreement and its tabling in the House. Just look at that period of time alone. If the agreement signals, as Hon. Members opposite would say, the "voluntary relinquishing" of Canadian sovereignty to decide upon newer expanded cultural programs, then surely we would see some indication of this. Yet what do we see instead? Just take a look at the last six months in the Department of Communications alone. We have increased the public lending rights to authors by some $800,000. We have increased grants paid out through the Canada Council by $8 million. We have announced the go-ahead on the CBC's new broadcast centre in Toronto. CBC

May 16, 1988
Supply
resources have increased this year by $53 million. In fact, total program spending in this portfolio will increase by $115 million this fiscal year alone.
The new Canadian film distribution program, as I have already said, has accomplished what no Government before ever attempted. That is, we have created a separate national film distribution market by governing the importation of foreign films. That is something which has been requested for years. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) may not want that measure in Canada, but those of us who believe in the future of Canadian culture and films certainly do.
That policy, of course, does even more than establish rules giving access by Canadian distributors to independently produced films. It also creates a $85 million film distribution fund to help Canadian distributors achieve this objective and invest in and market Canadian-produced films. The program also gives another $115 million to Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board to make culturally significant Canadian films over the next five years. Again, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood may not want to see that come into effect, but those in the Canadian film industry do. As Peter Simpson, President of Norstar Distributors said, it is a terrific piece of legislation. The people in the industry know.
Then there is another program, that of postal subsidies. Canada's publishing industry sees this Government's billion dollar plus commitment to continue postal subsidies as yet one more affirmation, one more proof, that this Government has lived up to its word on culture and free trade. It is building for the future. Governments have traditionally renewed postal subsidies one year at a time. We have moved to give the publishing industry long-term security and stability by announcing that this program will continue in effect for the next five years so they are able to plan adequately.
What we have done in film programs we have done in the field of sound recording and so many other fields. Only Members opposite cannot see what we have accomplished and what the industry recognizes as the contribution made to them. The reason they cannot see that is that they do not have either the foresight or hindsight, they only have the short-sightedness to look at themselves, what it is they want to carp about at any particular time, with no policies whatsoever in this field.
In closing, I want to say that the evidence that we have respected and lived up to in the free trade agreement with regard to culture is all around us. We see it reflected in the industries as they grow and develop and become stronger. Others during this day will speak to some of the issues raised this morning. I close merely by saying that fear and the creation of fear will get Hon. Members opposite nowhere because Canadians understand the game they are playing. Canadians understand what it is they are trying to do and they simply will not buy it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, at the beginning of her remarks the Minister acknowledged that over the last 40 years there has been a considerable decrease in tariffs between Canada and the U.S. My figures show that at the present time about 80 per cent of goods and services are without tariff. She said, about 85 per cent. She also acknowledged that during that period of time there was a great increase in social and cultural programs. What she did not say was that all that was done without a special comprehensive trade agreement with the U.S.
If we were able to bring down tariffs to the extent that she acknowledges without a special bilateral comprehensive trade agreement with the U.S., why is it necessary to enter into such an agreement in order to get these decreases in tariffs?
In order to get further decreases in tariffs we have to give them, one, non-discriminatory access to our energy supplies. We have to treat all American companies as nationals. We have had to abolish our capacity to screen foreign investment to control U.S. investment in Canada. In order to get further tariff reductions we had to throw our agricultural industry into the same market-place as the Americans, even though we have long and harsh winters with all the costs associated with them. We had to weaken the Auto Pact.
Why was it necessary to enter into such an agreement when we were getting lower tariffs over the last 40 years without such a comprehensive agreement, without selling out our energy, our ability to screen foreign investment, our agriculture, and the Auto Pact? Why was it necessary to enter into such an agreement when we were getting these things through another process which was effective?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member is a student of history and he may want to look back at the beginning of this arrangement whereby we have seen, over the past 50 odd years, the liberalization of trade between Canada and the United States.
It began in 1935 with the signing of the Most Favoured Nation Treaty between Canada and the United States. At that time that was the largest trading arrangement between any two countries in the history of the world. That Most Favoured Nation Treaty went on to become the forerunner of the GATT. After World War II that agreement between Canada and the United States became the prototype for the establishment of the GATT.
We have progressively followed that route bilaterally and multilaterally over the past 50 years. With the free trade agreement we now see the possibility for history to repeat itself, for the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States to become another model for the GATT with

May 16, 1988

regard to the liberalization of world trade which most countries desire. That is what the Uruguay Round is all about. In fact, we can help to move that process forward as we did in 1935 when we signed the Most Favoured Nation Treaty between our two great countries.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I remember when the Hon. Minister was an ardent nationalist and an activist within the Committee for an Independent Canada. I would have thought that she would be the Conservative who would lead the exodus from the Conservative Party over this trade deal. I thought that she would stand up for Canada and fight the deal instead of succumbing. She is today defending the indefensible, and I would like to ask her some very specific questions.
She talked about Bill C-58 but she did not talk about Article 2007, the print in Canada requirement which says that Canada shall repeal various sections of the Income Tax Act which define a Canadian issue of a newspaper or periodical for purposes of deduction of income tax expenses. This was the very controversial measure brought in to give a boost to magazine periodical publishing to encourage advertisers to advertise in Canadian publications.
Without this measure we probably would not have had the weekly Maclean's. Maclean's thinks it can do just fine without it in the future, but I do not think it could have got started without it. Certainly it only went weekly after we got that. Many magazines, which constitute a thriving industry in Canada now, depend on that. Would the Hon. Member comment about the pressure she has received from the smaller magazines especially which provide a very important cultural service for Canada and would want that?
She talks about the exemption for the cultural industries but it is a fairly limited list. Printing is not on the list. I wonder what Gutenberg would think about the suggestion that printing is not an artistic cultural activity. What about a province that wants to improve and develop book publishing within its own jurisdiction? What if it wants to see more Canadian publishing? We know it is important to get more textbook publishing done in Canada and some provinces, particularly Ontario, have had a printing policy. Would it be possible for a province to have a requirement that school textbooks be printed within the country, or would this be against the trade deal?
With regard to film distribution and ownership, the Minister has talked about her scheme, which is a very pale imitation even of the one about which she spoke a year ago. That, itself, was a far paler imitation of what had been recommended by the task force set up by her predecessor, that is, to have film distribution Canadian-owned.
My question on this is very specific. I cannot see the Liberals doing this because they have chickened out on this issue so often in the past, but if Party X gets into government and wants to bring in a film distribution ownership scheme,
Supply
would that be against the trade deal? Would Canada be able to stand up on that issue.
What does it mean when the Government of the United States, in its summary of the free trade agreement, states very explicitly:
However, the U.S. retains the right to redress any adverse commercial effects of any future cultural measures enacted by Canada.
Would the Hon. Minister tell us what kind of future cultural measures the United States Government might have in mind? This is not fear-mongering. What are these future cultural measures that the United States would be able to stop as a result of this shameful trade deal?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, it is always a sad spectacle to hear people speak who do not believe in their own creators, their own artists, and their own culture. It is a very sad state of affairs when we hear this kind of comment emanating from the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Lynn McDonald: Answer the questions.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: She is so nice and polite, Madam Speaker. First, she asked about the book publishing field. Printing is not a cultural activity, it is an industrial activity. Printing is carried out back and forth across the border now. People have their books printed where they can get the best possible financial deal. That is what is referred to. Nothing else in Bill C-58 has been touched; nothing to do with the cultural aspects of the measures of Bill C-58. Of course the Hon. Member would never think to acknowledge that, as she has never acknowledged anything that has been done.
The Canadian Book Publishing Industry Development Program funding has been increased substantially over the past few years. She would not acknowledge that of course. The postal subsidy has been maintained, a billion dollar plus program which, of course, the Hon. Member did not even mention.


Lynn McDonald: It wasn't supposed to be on the table. You're admitting it was on the table.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Let me tell you what the book publishers and the periodical associations are saying. They say:
The members of the Canadian Book Publishers' Council, a national trade association representing more than three quarters of all books sold in Canada annually, congratulate the Hon. Flora MacDonald, Minister of Communications on her successful and critically important efforts to freeze the postal subsidy at its current level for five years.
The Canadian Periodical Publishers' Association says:
I am writing on behalf of the CPPA's 268 members to express our appreciation for your tireless efforts-to maintain the postal subsidy programme.


Lynn McDonald: You're not answering questions about the trade deal.

May 16, 1988
Supply


Flora Isabel MacDonald: These are the programs that are so critically important to our publishers and they were exempted from the free trade measures and maintained here in Canada.


Lynn McDonald: What about the others?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Member has asked about Section 2005. She cites this Section as being somehow sinister to Canada's cultural purposes and undermining the significance of the cultural exemption. Since she does not seem to be able to recognize this, I will explain to her that this is both a clarification and a protection. On the one hand, it makes clear that since cultural industries are exempt under the agreement the dispute settlement mechanism specified in the agreement generally does not apply. For actions taken by one side or another in the area of cultural industries the existing trade remedy laws continue to apply, as they have in the past.
The difference is that while in the past the U.S. could take counter measures of any value against Canada, with this agreement they can only do so to the equivalent value of the measure taken in this country. In other words, it is a big improvement on what we have at the present time.


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate because some of the matters involved in the trade agreement have been grossly misunderstood. Certainly the Conservative Party seems unwilling to share its information with the people of Canada. It has been packaging a sales deal without discussing the real substance of the agreement.
We were told that many items would not be open for negotiation at the table, including culture and social services. We were asked to trust the Government and wait for the agreement. We are very concerned about what we see because the Minister who just spoke admitted that the question of postal subsidy was on the table and was a struggle to protect.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is right. But we protected it.


Marion Dewar: We were assured that it would not even be part of the discussion. We are concerned about how many other items were on the table and how many long-term deals have been made.
The Minister talked about protecting 15 per cent of the market for the Canadian film industry.


Lynn McDonald: We are going to get 20 per cent.


Marion Dewar: We did not think there would be any suggestion about any percentage. Traditionally, we have only had 3 per cent, but we now find that Canadian industries must compete internationally against huge corporations in the American market. They will only be subsidized with some funds to help them make proposals, but there is no guarantee for any part of their own market. That certainly interferes in our cultural industry.
We were also told that social programs would not be part of the negotiations in this trade deal. Lo and behold, we find that the administration of health care is part of the deal. Private corporations will be able to administer our non-profit public institutions.
A profit oriented health care system will cost the consumer more. Second, it reduces the delivery of service to the consumer. We must also compare non-profit health care delivery in Canada with that in the United States where health insurance is voluntary. We know that 40 per cent of the American population is not covered and that we have been able to provide health care services at less cost than the Americans. Yet the Government has opened the doors to the Americans for them to administer our health care system and our hospitals for a profit.
Ninety-seven per cent of Canadians treasure our health care delivery system and will not give it up easily. We will not accept this measure in the agreement, and the Government will recognize that as soon as it goes to the electorate for support.
We are also concerned about child care. There are some two million children under formal child care with standards of which we are not certain. For the first time in our history, the Government is providing public funds to private sector corporations in order to subsidize child care. This means that our tax dollars will go to help multinational child care facilities make a profit from child care.
Those who have been closely involved with child care over the years say that a lobby group has asked for a reduction in the standard of child care for such things as the number of staff, health conditions and space. The reason is that the current standards are too expensive and prevent the facilities from operating at a profit. The Government is saying, with its so-called national child care strategy, that it is willing to subsidize these multinationals with public funds.
We know that the trade agreement will require American companies to be treated the same as Canadian nationals. Canadians never thought their Government would go so far as to allow their children to become pawns in an agreement between two countries.
Never before has a trade agreement in the western world included services. Government officials, the Economic Council of Canada and others have consistently stated that they do not know the implications of trading services and have recommended that the Government not enter into such an agreement. Yet that is what the Government has done, and it is absolute nonsense to suggest that our sovereignty is intact.
I am sure the Minister was influenced by this trade deal and could no longer protect 15 per cent of our market for our film distribution. There was also great pressure on the Government to pass its drug legislation in order to tell the multinationals it could have free access to Canada with higher drug prices. It
May 16, 1988


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
was trying to show the Americans that we have an enticing market.
We heard this morning that the reduction of tariffs over the years has been positive for Canada and that we have been part of the GATT negotiations. Everyone agrees that there is a need for freer trade. But the Government accuses the NDP of trying to keep a fortress, protectionist mentality. The Government has made sure that we have a North American fortress mentality so that we will be unable to experiment and take on the challenges of the Pacific Rim or expand our trade to become an equal player in the world.
The Government's action means that we will have to answer to another country when we want to expand our trade. We cannot review any kind of foreign investment. If we will have no say about foreign companies operating in Canada because the national interest will include the North American continent, according to this agreement. That is not acceptable to Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member will want to complete her remarks after lunch.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on February 24 the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) announced a change in policy which would allow foreign students studying in Canada at Canadian universities to work in Canada for their universities and for agencies of the universities. The policy also permits the spouses of international students to work in Canada.
This policy went into effect on March 1, two months ago, in all provinces of Canada except Quebec, simply because the Conservative Government did not properly consult with the Quebec Government beforehand. Since there are thousands of international students in Quebec who need employment this summer, when will the Government straighten out this mess it created?

Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis has reached a critical stage in Metro Toronto. A solution for affordable housing must be found or Toronto will be facing social upheaval in the near future. However, the Peterson Government, for purely cynical, political opportunism is eyeing the hundreds of undeveloped acres in the Rouge Valley.
The Rouge River Valley is the last remaining land in Metro which contains much of the flora and fauna which were indigenous to Toronto before concrete became king. The Rouge Valley is a priceless opportunity for present and future generations to experience the beauty of our natural environment.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), after touring the Rouge, has added his support to preserving this national treasure. The Peterson Government should look at the causes of the housing crisis, such as rent controls, instead of destroying our heritage.



FINANCE


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: May 16, 1988



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, during the weekend, I had the pleasure of announcing that federal financial assistance was approved for Baie Bleue Inc., a company in the riding of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine. The federal funding is provided as part of the industrial development plan for Eastern Quebec. The company will also be able to take advantage of lower interest rates and loan insurance under the Atlantic Enterprise Program.
The project, which is expected to cost a total of nearly $1 million, will create at least fifteen new jobs in my riding.
When a commercial mussel farm is established in Carle-ton-St-Omer, where the mussels will also be prepared and processed, the Company will be the biggest producer in Quebec.
I want to say in concluding, Mr. Speaker, that this is another example of our Progressive Conservative Government's commitment to regional development.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and once again everyone is welcome to invest in Bonaventure and the Madeleine Islands.



ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INDUSTRY-EFFECT OF TAX CHANGE

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the chickens are coming home to roost. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) chopped capital cost allowance writeoffs for people investing in energy conservation equipment, he was warned that such a move would have a serious impact on the alternative energy industry in Canada. "This decision has already meant the collapse of small hydro, wind, gas cogeneration, solar and biomass projects across the country", says Jeff Passmore, Chairman of the Conservation and Renewable Energy Industry Council.
One estimate calculates that as much as $800 million in investments will be lost as a result of the Minister's removal of the tax incentive to invest in alternative energy projects.
We urge the Minister to read the Brundtland Commission report and restore the tax incentive he removed last February.



THE NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA


Mr. Claude Lanthier (LaSalle):: Mr. Speaker, this week, which will be memorable for the opening of the magnificent National Gallery of Canada, it is a pleasure and an honour to invite the distinguished Members of this House to pay tribute to the outstanding construction team that built this monument to Canadian architectural genius.
Mr. Speaker, three cheers for the Canada Museums Construction Corporation, ably directed by Mr. Art Wilson, who carried out this masterly project designed by the brilliant Montreal architect, Moshe Safdie, whose solidly avant-garde work confirms his international reputation as a master of aesthetics and practical design.
This is another impressive accomplishment by one of our world-class Quebec architects.



NUCLEAR ENERGY


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the prize for the most incredible answer in Parliament must surely go to the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) for his response to my question last Friday concerning an environmental assessment of the risks of nuclear submarines, particularly in the fragile environment of the Arctic Ocean.
The Hon. Minister said:
The nuclear powered submarines will be out in the ocean. As the Hon. Member knows, when we are trying to neutralize used uranium in the Pickering plant in Ontario, for example, they put it into a swimming pool full of water. There are very few swimming pools in this world that are larger than the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans.
I wonder if the Minister would care to take a dip in the nuclear swimming pool at Pickering, or any other nuclear swimming pool, perhaps with the Minister for National Defence (Mr. Beatty). Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) go along with him, or the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan)?
This is incredible policy for the environment, that nuclear wastes would simply be spilled into the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. Shame on the Government!
May 16, 1988



TOURISM


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, this is National Tourism Awareness Week. It is important for all Members of Parliament, and all Canadians, to reflect on the significance of tourism to our country. We have established a tourism industry which has built upon Canada's strong and unique attractions, and our reputation for providing world-class hospitality.
Canadians can expect tourism to be our second largest industry by the year 2000.
Canadians were proud of the way in which all sectors pulled together to put Canada at the centre of the world in Expo 86. We did it again this year with the Calgary Winter Olympics which turned our winter weather into a Canadian asset.
I am proud that our Government is a full participating partner with the private sector in building a strong tourism industry. I fully support the Government's view of tourism as a priority industry of great importance to Canada's future.




Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Tourism Week, and this year's theme reflects the importance of tourism for this country.
Tourism is one of our most important industries. It generates over 600,000 jobs directly in this country and more than 600,000 jobs indirectly, which means that one out of ten Canadians is involved. Tourism is the fastest growing job creating industry. It is already worth $22 billion to our economy.

Tourism is a vital industry in Canada. Its job creation capability and other positive economic spin-offs for our economy cannot be overestimated. Tourism is presently Canada's fifth largest industry, and is expected to be second largest by the year 2000. Though it is expected to grow, the Government still has a great deal to do to help the industry along and provide leadership where it is necessary.
Canada grows with tourism, and National Tourism Awareness Week is a good opportunity to reflect on the many positive benefits Canada receives from this vital industry.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I would like to pay special tribute to the greatest Prime Minister of all time.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, in my riding in Montreal East we had twenty years that were absolutely disastrous. Montreal East was abandoned, hundreds of thousand of jobs were lost and the Liberals showed a total lack of concern for this area.
From 1980 to 1984, Mr. Speaker, 4,000 jobs were lost in the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Since 1984, 114,000 permanent jobs have been created.
That is why, on behalf of my constituents, I wish to thank a Government that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Montreal East. This is an extraordinary example of economic renewal. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents, I wish to thank the Prime Minister and his Cabinet who have done a fantastic job for Montreal East.



ABORTION


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, despite an historic Supreme Court ruling last January that struck down Section 251 of the Criminal Code, women of this country still do not have access to comprehensive reproductive health services.
The federal Government has refused to take any leadership to ensure that women are not denied access to safe therapeutic abortions. It has allowed several provinces not only to ignore the intent of the Supreme Court ruling, but it has allowed them to ignore the principles of the Canada Health Act.
The Canada Health Act clearly states that medical services should be comprehensive and accessible. These are the principles that should guide the Government's policy on abortion as on all other health services for Canadian women.
At the same time the federal Government should finance the search for safe and effective methods of birth control, and it should support the work of responsible education organizations such as Planned Parenthood, rather than drastically cutting back its funding.

May 16, 1988



STATUS OF WOMEN


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we heard from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women about the litany of difficulties facing women across the country. No matter what the issue, it seems that the Government has broken a promise.
It started off with the Government's promise that we would have an expanded, accessible child care system across the country. Instead, it brought in a sham which is completely unacceptable. It has not been brought forward in Bill form, but it certainly does not reflect the aspirations and wishes of the women across the country.
On the issue of Indian women, with much fanfare the Government brought in legislation which stated that Indian women would be treated equally across the country, but the Government refuses to put its money where its mouth is. We are seeing a situation where discrimination still exists among our aboriginal peoples, discrimination which the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs (Mr. McKnight) refuses to address. He will not even meet with the women's groups involved.
Homemakers' pensions are another broken promise. On the issue of family violence the federal Government has totally washed its hands of responsibility for federal programs in this particular area.
I would not be surprised if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) does not participate in the women's debate in the next election, because he knows that he will be held accountable for the list of broken promises that characterize his Government's work on the issues that affect women.



CHALLENGE '88 INCREASED FUNDING FOR HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT AREAS

William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to say a few words about Challenge '88, a program designed to help students find summer jobs which, for the most part, are career related.
At the moment the economic performance in Ontario is very good. The same is true for some parts of Quebec. Unfortunately, it is not true for the country as a whole. Some parts of the country are in difficulty, and the Government must respond accordingly.
Within the total funding of $180 million, Newfoundland will receive an increase of 92 per cent over last year; New Brunswick will receive an increase of 45 per cent over last year; and a large portion of the funds allocated to Ontario will go to Northern Ontario.
What a pleasure to see a Government responding in the proper manner to the realities of Canada, and using our taxes in the right manner. We owe the Minister our thanks.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, all morning I have listened to the purveyors of doom and gloom-the NDP-Grit coalition-decrying free trade. Free trade is the greatest thing for Canada since Confederation. I abhor David Peterson and the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) for their fearmongering.
I polled the chief executive officers of the 27 largest employers in the city of Barrie and asked: "Do you favour free trade?" One replied "No", one replied "Undecided", and 25 replied a resounding "Yes". Overwhelming approval.
Support is strong. Who are opposed? Socialists, unionists, and left-wing media. Individuals such as Bob White, Mel Hurtig, and Shirley Carr. Why do they oppose free trade? Because it implies a free market economy, and this is diametrically opposed to the vital principle of a left-wing Government which believes in state control of the economy.
John Turner has more ups and downs than a Moldex toilet seat in a bus terminal. What about his paranoia? He who says he will tear up the free trade agreement. Well, I don't want that doubting Thomas tearing up my children's and my grandchildren's future.



FISH EXPORTS-UNITED STATES SENATOR'S ACTIONS

Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last fall on the initiative of a United States' complaint GATT ruled against Canadian regulations prohibiting the export of unprocessed herring or salmon. This directly threatens the jobs of some 4,000 to 6,000 shore workers in British Columbia, many of whom are women.
In an attempt to protect these jobs the Government announced that it would bring in regulations requiring that all these fish would have to be landed in Canadian ports.
Now we have an American Senator, George Mitchell from Maine, bringing in regulations requiring the United States to retaliate for any action that Canada takes in this regard.
|j|
*
May 16, 1988

How much longer will Canada submit to this kind of action on the part of the United States? How often will we back down to U.S. action in the Government's mad desire to get an agreement, any agreement, on the free trade proposal?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the extraordinary interference of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the independence of the refugee determination system over the case of Mr. Santokh Singh.
Following a unanimous ruling in favour of refugee status by the three distinguished members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, two former ambassadors to the Vatican and the UN, and one former head of the RSAC itself, the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote two secret letters to the then Minister of Immigration, and on the basis of what seem to be purely personal, political, and diplomatic pressures, the Minister asked for and received an immediate reversal of this decision.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister inform this House and through this House give Canadians a rational explanation why an independent favourable decision based on advice from refugee experts was suddenly and politically overturned, and why the Department of External Affairs is allowed to dictate how refugee policy is run and operated in this country?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is stretching it a bit when he suggests that the actions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs could be classified as extraordinary interference.
I think what we have here is an exchange of correspondence between two Ministers of the Crown. Obviously certain information was brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which he has a duty and an obligation to impart to the Minister and the officials responsible, and that is precisely what was done.


Sergio Marchi: The Deputy Prime Minister ought to realize that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is the External Affairs Minister for Canada and not the Foreign Minister for India. He ought to be pushing for Canadian interests, respect for Canadian institutions and Canadian citizens. That has not happened in the simple exchange of correspondence.
Oral Question Period DEPUTY MINISTER'S MEMORANDUM


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Deputy Prime Minister. In this correspondence there is a suggestion that the letters were written from a security viewpoint. Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain to this House a memorandum dated February 10, 1988, from the Deputy Minister of Immigration to the then Minister, which stated that both the RCMP and CSIS concluded that "no evidence or intelligence exists to substantiate the suspected involvement of Mr. Singh in any subversive activities"?
If the gentleman was such a security threat, can the Government explain why this man was allowed to stay in Canada for over two years and there was no effort by the Government either to deport him, as it could have, to detain him, or to exercise the extradition treaty which the Government recently signed with India?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unfair to suggest that there was any interference with due process. The Secretary of State for External Affairs in imparting the knowledge to the then Minister of Employment and Immigration enunciated certain concerns that had been expressed to him of a general nature. He simply suggested and asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration to consider seriously the factors when evaluating the recommendation.
I think that is an appropriate and a responsible manner in which the Minister involved should act and respond.


REFUGEE PROCESSING SYSTEM-REQUEST FOR RE-EVALUATION OF CASE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my third question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, I hope, realizes the serious damage that has been done by the harassing actions of the Canadian Sikh community by the External Affairs Minister, and the capitulation to those pressures by the then Minister of Employment and Immigration. Therefore, I would like to ask the current Minister of Employment and Immigration what steps she plans to take to ensure that the Canadian system of refugee processing will not be interfered with blatantly and politically, thereby undoing the foundation of independence and individual merits of cases. Can she also inform the House if she plans to re-evaluate the case of Mr. Singh so that he can receive a most favourable and fair decision, and through that attempt to repair the damage that has been done to our system?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there are three things I would like to point out. One is that if a colleague of mine felt that he had some information that was germane, from whatever source, I

May 16, 1988
Oral Question Period
would not be offended if he wrote to me. I would be offended if he did not.
The second point I would like to make is that in Bill C-55 the way the refugee determination process is structured is that, if there are two opinions, the decision will always be made on behalf of the claimant. That is in the legislation.
Third, in the case under discussion today there is the right of appeal. I believe there is a 15-day period still to come in which this decision can be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board, and I do not want to comment any further on it in case that appeal goes forward.


TRAINING AND ACCESS TO LABOUR MARKET
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.

We know that there were large cuts in the language training program and we also know that immigrant woman have no access to the official language training which the Government offers to heads of immigrant households.
When will the Government end this discrimination against immigrant women, discrimination which condemns them to a life of isolation outside the mainstream of Canadian society, and restricts them to the kind of low-paying, low-skill manufacturing jobs which will be eliminated by the trade deal?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that 22,093 women received language training as compared to 27,724 men. That is about 64 per cent men and the rest are women. The Settlement Language Training Program was also introduced as a pilot project by this Government in order to provide language training for people who are not headed for the labour force, a group which largely includes women.
We have made it a real priority to assist immigrant women to participate fully in our economy. The jobs that immigrant women have in some industries in Canada, such as the apparel industry and the textile industry, are threatened with competition not from the United States, so free trade will not have an impact on that. The impact comes from overseas countries, and indeed, because the Canadian industry is so competitive we believe that there will be more opportunities under the free trade deal.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES ON DAY CARE
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister that the 1988-1989 Estimates reveal a $9.7 million cut in spending on immigrant language training in the past year.

As you know, a lack of day-care facilities prevents women from having access to the labour market. I wish the Minister would inform the House why funding allocated for day-care when mothers participate in trading programs is discontinued when these women are qualified to enter the labour market. Why does the Government give with one hand and take away with the other? Why does it provide training and then prevent access to the labour market? Why does the Minister accept this lack of continuity on the part of her Government?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that when day care was declared an urgent problem in 1970, the Party to which she belongs did absolutely nothing. It was this Government that brought in a day care strategy. She has done nothing but talk about this issue, and nothing was ever accomplished.
We do regard this as an urgent problem. We know how difficult it is for women in training programs. We do provide child care allowances, and the new child care strategy will also incorporate more subsidized spaces which will help women in training and those already working, as well as those who stay at home.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister concerning the important refugee case. She will know that Canada was selected in 1986 by the UN as the country of the year for dealing in an equitable way with refugees, which is a human rights problem on a global basis.
The Refugee Status Advisory Committee unanimously ruled in favour of Mr. Singh. According to what we see in the press today, both the RCMP and CSIS said there was no security problem whatsoever in this case. Therefore, could the Minister explain to the House of Commons how this incredible decision could be reached by her Department when it seems to fly in the face of fundamental human rights?
May 16, 1988

Oral Question Period


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the normal processes were followed in this case. Advice came from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister had an internal advisory process, and this happens frequently in cases from the Refugee Advisory Council where there is some controversy. There is a right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board, and I suggest that the Hon. Member allow that appeal to continue without inflaming the issue in a way that may bias the hearing.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have very often heard Ministers say that a certain matter was sub judice and therefore they did not want to comment in the House. However, I think the Minister has just set a record. She is saying there should be no comment even before it has been appealed. It is not before the Immigration Appeal Board. It is not before the courts. It is before her Department and she is responsible for her Department's action.


LETTERS WRITTEN BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. The two letters written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, one last April and one last June, do not deal with the merits of a particular case, they simply make two points. One is that bilateral relations with India and not genuine refugee status claims ought to determine such cases. Second is the incredible offer of legal advice to the Department of Immigration, suggesting that his Department would help them get away from the cumbersome or perhaps embarrassing decisions of the IAB.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister think such irresponsible recommendations by the Minister ought to be tolerated?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat that I think the Hon. Leader of the NDP would be the first person to criticize the Secretary of State for External Affairs for failing to draw the attention of a Minister, in this case that of Employment and Immigration, to certain information about a certain person who was proceeding through the refugee process. Certain facts were drawn to his attention. He had a duty, a responsibility, and an obligation to make that information known to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, which he did. He asked that it be considered as one of many elements which have to be considered when this matter is being adjudicated.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if we were talking about something other than a particular case of which we have information, what the Minister said might make sense. However, we know, according to what has been said, that the particular gentleman was cleared by CSIS, the RCMP, and a special advisory committee, composed of very distinguished Canadians, which looked into his case also said he ought to be accepted.
We on this side of the House say that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is simply continuing unwarranted persecution of the Sikh community. That is what the evidence points to.


REQUEST THAT TWO LETTERS BE TABLED
John Edward Broadbent: But the Minister suggested that the opposite was true. The Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote two letters to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and Canadians have a vital interest in the contents of these letters. Will the Deputy Prime Minister decide to have these two letters tabled in the House?
[English)


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that there is a process in place, and all the information will be made available throughout that process. There is an appeal process which can be followed. Whatever the Hon. Member may think about commenting on it at this stage, it is a sensitive matter and I am not going to jeopardize the potential for this appeal.


INFORMATION PROVIDED BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, continuing on the same subject, both Ministers have indicated that there was certain extra information which they felt it was justified for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to bring to the attention of his colleague and which, of course, resulted in the adverse decision being made. The Minister claimed that due process was followed in this case.
I will direct my question to either Minister. Was that additional information, of which CSIS and the RCMP evidently were not aware, brought to the attention of Santokh Singh in order that he would be able to challenge it if he did not consider it to be true?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, all the information in the file at the time was made available to the Chairman of the Refugee Advisory Committee. Given that the decision was only recently released, Mr. Singh has an opportunity to appeal. All relevant information will be made available should he choose to do so.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is known in Canada that there are foreign countries which try to manipulate their expatriates who live in Canada for their own political purposes. In fact the CSIS legislation passed in the last Parliament recognizes and defines that as a threat to our national security.
I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Should it not be the policy of the Government of Canada, as it

May 16, 1988
Oral Question Period
has been in the past, to protect multicultural communities from that type of pressure coming from abroad, rather than acting as henchman for foreign powers in their attempts to manipulate domestic events inside our country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course it is the duty and obligation of the Government to protect the multicultural interests of Canada. That has become a very clear characteristic of our country. However, at the same time all Ministers in the Government that is mandated to govern the country have the clear obligation and responsibility to ensure that the security of the nation is preserved.
Whenever anything is drawn to the attention of any Minister that suggests certain security threats, certainly that information must be examined, looked into, and considered. That is exactly what was done in this particular case.


DEPUTY MINISTER'S MEMORANDUM-REQUEST THAT MINISTER'S LETTERS BE TABLED
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and deals with a matter which, contrary to the what the Deputy Prime Minister just said, is not a matter of security information according to the evidence we have quoted from the correspondence.
We are told that the Deputy Minister, Mr. Lussier, wrote:
-Mr. Clark suggested that the Canadian Government's granting of
convention refugee status to Bagga would have a negative impact on Canada's
bilateral relations with India.
Although this does concern the rights of one person which will no doubt be examined by the Immigration Appeal Board, it also concerns the integrity of the whole process, including the Immigration Appeal Board itself, with regard to whether there will be interference, not on the basis of law and fact as to whether he is a refugee, but on the basis of whether Mr. Rajiv Gandhi would be unhappy if this person were accepted by Canada.
Therefore, will the Minister table in Parliament the correspondence, in particular the two letters from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, inasmuch as they concern not only the case of one person but the entire process and the integrity and credibility of the Immigration Appeal Board?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on the record supporting the integrity of both the Refugee Advisory Committee and the Immigration Appeal Board.
This information was appropriately shared with the Minister of Employment and Immigration at the time as one piece of information which should go into the making of this decision.
In terms of tabling the letter, it is a Minister-to-Minister letter. That is not something which the Government will table in this House. We will conduct ourselves on the advice, not
only of Ministers, but of other people. This was one piece of information.


INTEGRITY OF IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that this does not concern one case only. No matter what the Minister says about supporting the Immigration Appeal Board, the question is whether the Canadian people will believe in the integrity of an Immigration Appeal Board which appears to take orders from one or another member of Cabinet, contrary to their oath of office.
In the memo Mr. Lussier noted:
-although Indian Government officials advised the RCMP in April 1987
that they were considering extradition they have not pursued with matter with
either the RCMP or External Affairs since that time.
Is it the case that India had no grounds for extradition and therefore asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to use extraordinary and unusual procedures to have Mr. Bagga forced to return to India? If it is not the case, will the Minister table those letters in order to clear the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, first, the integrity of the Immigration Appeal Board is in no way in question because this has not yet even been heard by the Immigration Appeal Board. When and if it is, all relevant information will go to the Immigration Appeal Board.
In terms of our responsibility, Mr. Speaker, it is to investigate information which comes to us. We would be letting the people of Canada down if we did not do that. We must act appropriately and fairly on all available information.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT OF ICELAND
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Members the presence in the gallery of Thorhildur Thorleifsdottir, Member of Parliament from Iceland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Documents, albeit censored documents, acquired under the Access to Information Act and published
May 16, 1988

this past weekend make clear that the Minister of DRIE and the Government of Canada systematically misled the people of Canada and, in particular, the people of Manitoba, about the awarding of the CF-18 fighter contract in 1986.
On October 31, 1986, the day the contract was awarded, the Minister of DRIE said: "Let me be very, very clear on this. This was not given on the basis of regional disparity, this was given on straight economic and financial terms".
The released Cabinet documents make clear that the Minister's statement was not true.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is completely within his rights in raising this general issue. However, the Hon. Member is getting outside his procedural rights by making an allegation that a Minister has made a statement in this House which is untrue. I know the Hon. Member will understand that, and I would ask him to rephrase his question appropriately.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Given that the Minister's statement is totally at odds with the evidence contained in released cabinet documents, is he prepared to set the record straight today, and apologize to the people of Canada in the process, particularly the people of Manitoba? Perhaps he might consider a resignation.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the last part of my hon. colleague's question is a definite no.
I mentioned at that time, and say again today, that we had two very good contenders. In terms of technical merit, at that point I indicated that one company had been evaluated at 926 points out of 1,000, from the other at 841 points out of 1,000.
I indicated at that time that the bid from one company was $100.54 million and the other company was $104.0 million. I indicated at that time that these two excellent companies provided a choice which the Government had to make, and a choice that the Government did make within its mandate and its authority to give out contracts. It was a choice that was based on economic considerations. I stand by the statement I made at that time.


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT DECISION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, an expert evaluation done in May, 1986, by Supply and Services, involving a panel of 75 experts, recommended Bristol Aerospace. The Cabinet documents released last weekend show that on technical and financial bases the winner was Bristol Aerospace.
Indeed, the Government does have a right to make a choice. Indeed, the Cabinet has a right to choose Canadair. No one questions that. However, we say that if Winnipeg and Bristol Aerospace are not entitled to the contract on financial and
Oral Question Period
technical grounds, they are at least, a year and one-half later, entitled to the truth.
Will the Government admit today that the decision was made on a political basis, not on a technical and financial basis? Will the Minister apologize today for making a statement on October 31, 1986, that is at complete variance with the facts as we now know them and which the Minister had in his possession at the time he made his statement? Will he apologize today?
Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and	Minister of State for Science and
Technology):
Mr. Speaker, we had two excellent contenders at the final moment-


Sheila Maureen Copps: You said that before.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We heard the press release.


Robert René de Cotret: -through the bidding process. They were very close on technical merit and on cost. We looked very closely a the issue of technology transfer because it is an important issue for the country. The Government had a choice, and it made a very deliberate choice to favour Canadair because we felt that the downstream technology transfer could be better done through the existing facilities of Canadair than by the competing consortium because Canadair is a producer of aircraft as well as being in the maintenance business.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Table the document.


Robert René de Cotret: Well, it is page 947 of Hansard, October 31, 1986. It has already been tabled. You call that a political decision? It was a government decision.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister responsible for the Status of Women announced that the Government would shortly introduce a program for women who are victims of family violence.
Studies have estimated the number of battered women across Canada at one million annually.
Could the Government give Canadian women the assurance that the new program will have sufficient financial resources to meet the real needs of battered women and their children?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm to the Hon. Member who has

May 16, 1988
Oral Question Period
asked questions on this topic before that the Government has been working on a response respecting family violence.
The Hon. Member also asked about funding. Funding has also been part of that package which I hope to be able to announce relatively soon. However, I cannot give details beyond that today.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ALLOCATE $50 MILLION TO PROGRAM
Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, currently only 60,000 women and children can be housed by existing shelters. During the 1984 leaders' debate, the Prime Minister said that a Conservative Government would not be inhibited by dollar amounts. Will the Minister keep the promise of his Government and guarantee that the initiative to be announced this week, or soon, will be allocated at least $50 million?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, again, I cannot give the Hon. Member the amounts. She is trying another way to get the same answer. I can tell her that we have looked at this very carefully and part of the component of addressing family violence must be more shelters and more spaces. We have been working with CMHC on the proposal.
There are various ways in which space can be handled. I think we have been fairly innovative in terms of putting those proposals together for my Cabinet colleagues.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. On Friday the Minister answering for Canada Post replied to my question: "If we had door-to-door delivery for all Canadians we would need a 60-cent stamp". Rural Canadians have never asked for urban delivery, no more than urban Canadians have asked for rural delivery in the past.
Given that Canada Post's business plan contains figures proving that door-to-door service in urban areas would cost $38 million, or a postal increase of two cents per stamp, can the Minister tell the House where he dug up his figures?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member dug up his figures from a newspaper article. The reporter is not accurate.
The fact is that since the Post Office was first formed there have always been several ways of delivering the mail, including door-to-door, rural routes, general delivery, and lock boxes.
There are now five million households that do not receive door-to-door delivery.
If the Hon. Member is suggesting that everyone have the same type of delivery system, as he seems to be saying when talking about second-class citizens and so on, the cost of that is a 60-cent stamp. Where would he draw the line between who gets door-to-door service and who does not?
Canada Post adopted a policy that new subdivisions would receive their mail by group boxes. That is a policy followed by post offices throughout the world. Only in Canada are there opposition Parties wanting to turn back the clock because they do not want to see any change.


HOME MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE-MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister, and I will speak slowly so this time he will understand what Canadians want to know.
Considering the fact that it would cost not more than 2 cents to offer all residents in urban areas door-to-door mail delivery, is the Minister prepared to inform the House today that he will offer this service, and if not, why not? And the reason isn't a 60 cent stamp. The Minister knows that as well as I do.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, whether the question is in French or English, the answer is the same. The figures the Hon. Member uses are wrong and it is as simple as that.
The Hon. Member may not be aware of the fact that other postal jurisdictions have recognized that, in this modern era with different lifestyles and different approaches, delivery systems designed for the 1920s, the 1930s, or 1940s are not the most appropriate today. We no longer have door-to-door milk delivery or bread delivery.
There has been no extension of door-to-door delivery in the United States since 1978. That country is not falling apart. Their stamps are cheaper than ours and, according to some measures, their service is better than ours. We want to achieve an efficient, effective, and economic postal service in this country. Canada Post is working toward that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations.
May 16, 1988



Recently, some stories have appeared regarding the misuse of Canadian aid by the Marxist Government of Ethiopia.

On the border of Ethiopia lies Sudan, a country that still tolerates opposition, accepts criticism of the government and also has a free press.
Presently the Sudan has over 2 million refugees within its borders who are struggling for support. Will the Government review our present aid to the Sudan in order that at least this country, which has a rudimentary democracy, can be allowed some economic breathing room?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest in this matter, which is also a great concern for the Canadian Government. We are now assessing the various options and ways of sending emergency aid or humanitarian assistance to the people suffering from the conflict raging in the region. Until quite recently, it was very difficult to consider emergency relief for the southern region, precisely because of the conflicts.
The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Sudanese government authorities are now looking at how food might be sent to the affected populations. And I can tell my hon. colleague that I would be glad to allocate funds from our humanitarian aid budget once an agreement has been reached between the two parties.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will recall that during the 1984 election campaign the Prime Minister promised to introduce an effective system of child care across the country. After waiting three years, the Government's ineffectual strategy was introduced and it has been rejected by women's groups, child care groups, child care advocates and Canadian families from coast to coast.
Will the Government, in view of these objections, now go back to the drawing board? And will it reintroduce a child
Oral Question Period
care program which really deals with the need of Canadian families for effective, quality, licensed child care services?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have taken the views of Canadian women into account. We have taken the views of Canadian families into account. We have taken into account the views of women in isolated communities. We have taken into account women in cultural minorities. We have provided flexibility and dollars. For the first time ever we have provided new funding. We have provided $5.4 billion for new spaces, for tax credits, so that women have the option to work at home rather than in the workplace, if that is what they choose. We have taken the needs of farm women in isolated communities into account. We have taken all the needs of women into account, and those women like the strategy.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I just wish the Minister had listened to the groups from across the country which spoke to our child care committee. That is not the message we got from them, I can tell you.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's facts are not correct. The Government is not putting $5.4 billion into new spaces. It is not even putting in enough money to keep up the introduction of new spaces we have now. We are going backward. Therefore, I want to ask this Minister, who professes to be concerned about women, what she will do, as far as the Government is concerned. Will she go back and insist that they must have adequate funding for adequate child care spaces? There is a crisis and the Government program is not dealing with it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Government has listened. The majority report brought forward by the special committee was reflected in the proposal as the Minister of Employment and Immigration has stated. We have listened to those groups.
I cannot help it if the Hon. Member who asks the question was of a minority and somehow today likes to translate that she was of the majority, when in fact she was not.
Additionally, if one takes a look at the numbers under the Canada Assistance Plan, and the evidence given by me as recently as last week in front of the Senate Committee, she will find very clearly that there is more money of the $5.4 billion, or the $3 billion of the $5.4 billion, for new spaces and for capital costs, capital costs which were never covered before. So the point I make to the Hon. Member is that it is substantially more than under the Canada Assistance Plan which is today about $150 million. Even at the end of the seven years' boost period, it would be at least $600 million. If the Hon. Member cannot understand that $150 million is less than $600 million, she is in even bigger trouble than I thought.
Oral Question Period FISHERIES

May 16, 1988


CANADA-FRANCE DISPUTE-FRENCH GOVERNMENT'S POLITICAL AGENDA
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the meaningless and insulting offer by France on Friday to delay for three months any further arrests of Canadian vessels is as unacceptable as Canada glossing over France's actions. Our Prime Minister said: "One would have to be a fool not to expect such actions during a presidential election".

Well, now we have a general election. What will France do to Canada now?

Now I ask the Minister-

Must Canadian fishermen live in fear of France's political agenda?

Why do Canadian fishermen have to live in fear of the political agenda of the Government of France?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs made formal representation on May 5 and filed a note of protest to the Government of France. As the Member knows, elections have now been called. We are prevailing upon the new President to restore the normal and traditional practices which have been in place for a number of years.
The Government of Canada has made it abundantly clear that our first objective is to protect the welfare of the Canadian fishermen. There will be no quotas for French vessels in Canadian waters unless and until a general agreement on the issue is resolved and, particularly, the boundary issue sent to an international tribunal. We have taken a number of unprecedented steps to back that up, and we will continue to work very closely to try to resolve this matter as quickly as we possibly can.


CANADA-FRANCE FRIENDSHIP
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, Article 2 of the 1972 Fisheries Agreement states that French nationals have the right to fish in these waters:
Subject to possible measures for the conservation of resources, including the
establishment of quotas.
The metropolitan fleet from France has violated that four and five times every year, only since this Government came to power. That is over the last three years to four years. That is why it is the common enemy of Newfoundland and St. Pierre.
I ask the Minister to verify that our Prime Minister received a letter dated December 23, 1985, from M. L. Perouas, representing the metropolitan fleet, wanting to know if they could fish beyond the 1972 agreement? Our Prime Minister, in his continuing efforts to be loved by the whole world, instructed the Secretary of State for External Affairs to respond by saying: "This Government will not abandon the people of France. It is because of our friendship with France that you will be able to fish in Canadian waters in 1986 and well beyond that". Is friendship with France more important than fidelity to our own fishermen?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that unprecedented action has been taken. For example, no French vessels have been permitted to conduct their normal fishing inside the Canadian zone. No quotas have been granted. We have closed our ports to the French. These are all pressures that have been imposed upon the French in order to bring them back to the bargaining table and to ensure that we can resolve this matter in a proper manner.
The fact of the matter is, and the Hon. Member I am sure acknowledges it, the problem we are in today goes back to the 1972 treaty negotiations in which the Government of the day, of which he was a supporter, sold the fishermen of Newfoundland and the Atlantic Provinces out, out, out!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In answer to earlier questions today on the CF-18 he gave two reasons for the decision, first, there was some type of technological transfer that benefited the Canadair bid, and he knows his own officials said that was not true, and, second, that the technical merits, the markings given by the Department and the officials, were 926 out of 1,000 to Bristol, and 843 for Canadair. He makes it sound like those two marks are the same. Perhaps he could ask the schoolteacher who is his seatmate if he believes that a mark of 84 is the same as a mark of 92?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question time and time again. All I would like to tell my hon. friend is that my answers today are the same as my answers were when the announcement was made. Nothing has changed. I stand by those answers. They were based on the information that was available, which information has now been made public.
May 16, 1988


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT DECISION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. He has also said: "In no way was this prejudged on a regional basis". It is evident from the papers that have been released that, month after month, officials were looking for some type of basis upon which to get the Government to change its mind and to ignore the financial and technical advice. If it was not made on a regional basis, why were the officials and political advisers spending so much time trying to make sure that the Government gave the contract to Canadair?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and time again, we had two excellent companies and two bids that were very close, both in terms of the financial aspects and in terms of the technical merits.
We looked at the technology transfer. My hon. colleague may think that technology comes in a box. It does not.
Essentially, technology comes from experience. It comes from knowledge. It comes from know-how in engineering design, in analytical techniques, in systems configurations, and in the use of advanced materials. That is what real technology is all about.
If there is one company that is a manufacturer of an aircraft, then its technology is worth more for the nation than technology from a company that is not. It was on that basis that the decision was made.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that the following will be the last series of questions in Question Period. The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


STATUS OF WOMEN
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women was in Ottawa today. Once again it said how bad the Canada-U.S. trade agreement is for Canadian women. Not only does it threaten social programs that women consider very important, it also threatens those jobs in which women are found in greatest numbers, such as textiles, clothing, and footwear. This is not criticism coming from the opposition Parties but from an umbrella organization representing hundreds of Canadian women's groups.
Supply
Why does the Minister not call an election now-have the Government call an election now so that women can give the Government a clearer message that it will understand about this deal?
Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the last time I looked, the powers of my Department did not include the calling of an election.
Let me say that as women across the country are examining the real answers to their questions, many of which are included in the book that we published last week on women in free trade, they will see the opportunities for them. Some 84 per cent of women who work outside the home in Canada are employed in the service sector. There is evidence that those industries will grow as a result of free trade.
Our manufacturing industries, in which there are a large number of women, such as apparel and textiles, are at risk from the Third World and not at risk from the United States.
There are opportunities for women in this deal. Certainly, when I have spoken to women across the country on this matter they start to see the opportunities, if people would stop scaring them to death.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary, please.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, a large percentage of Canadian women work in the manufacturing sector. These jobs are very much threatened by free trade. As the Minister knows-


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but we have gone too long. I did ask for a short supplementary. Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. McDonald:
That this House condemn the Government for voluntarily relinquishing political sovereignty in the "trade" deal with the United States, namely by limiting the power to decide on new or expanded social programs and cultural industries, including those by the federal, provincial, territorial or municipal Governments, present and future.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 p.m. the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar) had the floor. I recognize the Hon. Member.


Marion Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the ability of our health care services to be eroded by this trade agreement is very real. Since health care administration is now part of the agreement, we recognize the fact that it will not

May 16, 1988
Supply
take very long before people come into our system and say that the capability of making profit over quality of service delivery can be a priority.


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Wrong!


Marion Dewar: Not wrong. We have delivered one of the best health care delivery systems in the world.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: That's right!


Marion Dewar: We do not need to have people from other countries coming in to make a profit out of that system. It is important that we do not allow that to happen. It is the slim edge of the wedge before all of a sudden our social service programs become eroded. That is of great concern.
With the increasing pressure to harmonize employment practices and social and economic programs with those of the United States, Canadian economic policy will be set by trade legislation rather than by domestic priorities and policies. The wonderful thing that has happened in Canada over the years has been that we have been very conscious of the fact that we wanted to set our own domestic priorities. Through that we have established a very strong social service network. We have also proven that when we deliver those types of services we do so efficiently and universally. More and more we are concerned that this type of deal will erode that very seriously.
I have in my hand some quotations of people who have looked forward to the trade agreement. The Canada West Foundation states that free trade between our two countries will inevitably lead to wages being equalized between Canada and the United States. It states that this will occur because a high cost producer will not be able to compete against a lower cost producer if goods are traded freely.
What is really being said is that if there are no minimum wages for labour and in some states in the U.S., let alone Canada, we know that the transfer flow of economy is taking place from the north to the south, then that will allow that type of abuse to take place. Certainly, what has happened in Canada is that we have recognized that we are a small population, a population that occupies a thin strip across the country. With that we have stood firm, strong and free. We have established a network that is very different from that in the United States.
We must recognize that with this agreement there are two visions of Canada. There is a vision of Canada about which many people-I would say the majority-say that social policy is important, that the weak and the vulnerable in the country need to be protected. That vision states that we recognize that there has to be a sharing of our resources if we are to have the type of civilized community that I think we have chosen to live in.
The other version of Canada is the version that states that the only economy that makes sense is a market-driven one so that profits can be maximized and so that people can be
exploited to the maximum. In this way we would become a North American fortress which says that we will maximize our profits in North America to the exclusion of the rest of the world, and ensure that we protect what we have here for the greatest profit. It is not a value system which Canadians have had over the years. It is not a value system that we want to have in the future.
When we talk about our sovereignty being eroded we are very serious about it. We know of the ability there is to take the whole military industrial complex and to have our country driven by what the United States foreign policy is all about as if to say that unless we have military jobs we will not have jobs at all. There is that type of talk going on. That is not what Canadians want. It certainly is not what our ancestors fought for over the years. It is not what we want to look forward to in the future for our children and our grandchildren.
When we talk about the trade agreement eroding our sovereignty, hurting our culture and interfering and weakening our social service network we recognize how important it is not to allow that to happen. This agreement must be stopped. It is important that it be stopped. I become quite upset when I hear people I have known for years who have attempted to protect the Canadian culture, now saying "We can compete anywhere in the United States or in Canada. We know that our writers, our artists, and many of our people could not compete if they had not been able to get some help nationally from Canada Council, from research, and those types of things".


John Horton McDermid: They still can.


Marion Dewar: But the Government has talked about how they can still get it, but it has not identified what is a subsidy.


John Horton McDermid: That is cultural. It is outside the agreement.


Marion Dewar: Culture is not outside the agreement. We saw last week what happened in the film industry. One year ago our Canadian industry was asking for 15 per cent of the market. It was not asking for great numbers, only a small piece of that market. What has the Government done? The Government has stated that that is far too much, that it will give some money to assist in making proposals internationally, and the film industry can compete with everybody else, but as far as the Canadian market is concerned, the industry has no right to have any exclusion in its own market. That is the type of agreement that we have in front of us.
When I hear people from the Government saying that the issue of culture is not on the table or that it is not affected, it certainly is affected. It means that we will continue not being able to see Canadian films. Those films can compete internationally, they have shown that. We have listened to the Government tell us that it has reduced tariffs over the years. We know that, and we have worked at making sure we do have freer trade among all nations. We know that that is a good
May 16, 1988

thing. However, this trade agreement is putting us into a North American fortress mentality. It is saying that we in North America must protect ourselves against everything else. That is not a vision that most Canadians have of this country.
We certainly see our economic development as involving multilateral trade, at getting a foothold in the Pacific Rim, and looking at the ability of trading our goods with people from other countries with massive populations. Perhaps with an enlightened Government we would not be tying all our aid to trade, but looking at what it is to be competitive in a multilateral way, and at the same time looking at the whole planet as part of the human family.
It is with great concern that we recognize that, if the agreement continues, the social service network will be threatened. We have seen what has been done with health care. It is on the table, and it is in the agreement. We know that the administration of the health care is there. We know that a subsidy has not been identified. We also know that unemployment insurance and health care are part of many of our labour agreements which could be seen by companies outside of Canada as a subsidy. The Government was afraid to identify what a subsidy was. We know that there have been complaints about our social services being part and parcel of our labour practices.
A well-known Vancouver entrepreneur, Jimmy Pattison, stated: "We are looking at manufacturing along the Mexican border and shipping into Canada. If we do that we will shut down plants in Canada and transfer to Mexico". That is lovely! Is that the type of Canada we want? That is not the type of Canada that we are looking for. The Jimmy Pattisons can go off to Mexico, but we do not want him to start shipping in here. What is happening is far too serious.
I heard the Government state that with this agreement we will end up with better consumer prices. It has been proven that a family will save approximately $50 a year on consumer prices. That is $50 a year to lose what we would lose. Over and above that, we would see the inability of consumers to purchase. If one does not have a job, it is very difficult to participate in consumerism.
The time has come when the Government has to come clean with the Canadian people. It has been packaging a sales package and stating that it is good for us. When specifics are asked for, one is told, "Trust us". In this day and age we have to learn that there has to be more than trust and more than a leap of faith.
We know what will happen to the data processing industry in Canada. We know how those jobs are flowing south of the border, and with the regulation gone of collecting the data in Canada, it looks upwards of 200,000 jobs per year. That study was produced by the Computer Association of Canada. When we look at the background in this agreement, we recognize that all we are getting back is a sales pitch and a trust. We know that our vision of Canada is too important to buy into a
Supply
sales pitch without any substantive foundation. It is high time that the whole trade agreement was eroded.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.


John Horton McDermid: I have known my hon. friend as a person who served on city council, as Mayor of Ottawa for many years, and now as a distinguished Member for Hamilton Mountain. With the greatest respect, Madam Speaker, I think that was probably one of the most unfactual statements I have heard in the House in many a moon. I wish to cover some of the statements made by the Hon. Member and throw them back, if I may.
On day care the Hon. Member stated that multinational companies will come in, and children are the ploy of the trade deal. It is very obvious that the Hon. Member has not read the agreement.


Marion Dewar: Yes, I have.


John Horton McDermid: Does Annex 1408 ring a bell with the Hon. Member? The provision of day care is exempt from the agreement. Does the Hon. Member understand Annex 1408? She obviously has not read or understood the agreement.
The Hon. Member further stated that Canada cannot review foreign investment under the deal. We can. It means that we can review the top 500 Canadian companies. To make the statement that Canada cannot review foreign investment is absolutely false.
The Hon. Member also stated that Canada will only trade with the United States. The Hon. Member obviously does not understand that the spin-off from this agreement, when Canadian companies grow in economy of scale, it will make them more productive and more competitive on the world market. That is what this whole thing is all about. Until the NDP understand that, and understand how business operates, and how when production is expanded there is economy of scale and we can compete better in the world, only then will the NDP understand the importance of international trade in all areas of the world to Canada and to our economy. Thirty per cent of what we produce is exported. We rely on trade more than any other country, with the exception of Germany. It is so important to our economy. For the New Democratic Party to make totally false statements without substantiation is a disservice to the Canadian public.


Marion Dewar: I think it is about time that the Government understood, and certainly the Hon. Member recognized that, that when we start to put all our eggs in one basket and trade with only one major trading partner, we reduce our ability for multinational trading. One does not have to be overly intelligent to figure that out.
We must also recognize that, for the first time, the Government has allowed public dollars to go into private profit-

May 16, 1988
Supply
making day care delivery. As multinationals come in, they will be able to get that type of subsidy from the Canadian Government. That is wrong. That is the type of thing that makes a ploy of Canadian children. The Government must start to recognize what are the true needs in this country. One of the true needs is the delivery of quality care service to our children. We know that there are 2 million children in informal care, and some of it is pretty disastrous. I think if we were really committed to that notion we would not be looking at trying to find ways for people to make a profit and saying that we will put public dollars into profit-making centres.
We have to recognize that much child care now is under the aegis of multinational companies. When those companies come into Canada they will be treated as national companies, and there are the kinds of things that start to erode our social services system. The Hon. Member, with good intention, is defending an indefensible kind of accord. My sympathy is with him. I recognize that he probably does mean well, but when you get an agreement like this, which really gives the country away and invites the Americans to come into Canada under their terms not ours, that is pretty hard to defend. I can understand why outrageous statements are being made.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I just want to correct one thing. The provinces will continue to regulate and set standards for child care services under the new Canada Child Care Act. Provinces will continue to decide which child care centres receive funding not the Americans, not the federal Government but the provinces. The provinces set the standards and the quality of care. Canadian provinces are in charge of day care. They will set the standards and say where the funding can go, nobody else. When the Hon. Member makes the statement that foreign companies will come to Canada and take over our child care operations, she is absolutely wrong.


Marion Dewar: Madam Speaker, my short answer is that the Canadian Government has already set the stage for that by allowing the multinationals to come into child care.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, when we look at this trade deal there is a lot of talk about competition. Canadians are fully capable of competing. We are able to compete when we work and when we have the advantage of Canadian resources and the advantage of Canadian programs. This deal seems to open the door for Americans to come here and have access to our resources and we will not have the advantage of our own resources. The Americans will continue to have the advantages of their resources and of a huge financial pool. They will continue to have the resources of established markets and brands in those markets. We will have to compete with them after we have given away our competitive edge. The long-term effect is that Canadian companies, in an attempt to compete, will have to compete by cutting the standards of Canadian workers to the standards of workers in American states where
there are right-to-work laws and where there are no minimum wages.


John Horton McDermid: No, that is phoney.


James Douglas Manly: The Hon. Member says it is phoney. I challenge him to show how it is phoney. Perhaps he can speak later on.
Will my colleague comment on this whole question of competition and the ability of Canadians to compete if they are given half a chance and the ability of Canadians to compete if the whole competitive edge for Canada has been wiped out by this trade deal?


Marion Dewar: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Many of us are becoming very tired listening to the propaganda coming from the government side, saying those who are against this deal really are afraid to let Canadians compete. I think it is very clear how well we have competed internationally up until now. Certainly in the communications technology field we have shown how well we can do, and we constantly hear how well Canadian companies are doing now. We know that the United States has a trade deficit with Canada. With all of that, certainly Canadian companies are doing well and Canadians workers are doing well. We have confidence in their competition.


John Horton McDermid: It is the status quo.


Marion Dewar: It is not the status quo. This country has never lived in the status quo. Anybody knows that the status quo is suffocation. We know that unless you generate, initiate and support creativity you shrivel up and die.
We are looking for, and certainly what New Democrats want to see, is an economy that is bubbling and a strong economy with Canadian direction in it that will be very competitive in the world. That is the situation we are starting into right now. This deal will tie us very much into large companies. Decisions will be made by boards of directors in head offices south of the border. We will not have the ability to have the same kind of competitive edge that we have now, and I think it is important that people understand that. I understand my colleague's frustration at trying to defend an indefensible deal.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's debate.
Since the beginning of our term in September 1984, our Government has always stressed the fact that Canadian women should enjoy their fair share of the results of our efforts to expand the economy.
Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party should be cheering the Government on today instead of tabling motions
May 16, 1988

condemning the Government for signing a free trade agreement with the Americans.
Madam Speaker, I intend to quote just a few figures to show that the Conservative Government has definitely kept, I would say ... 90 per cent of its promises.
We created nearly 1,223,000 jobs, of which 82 per cent are full-time jobs, and 679,000 of those full-time jobs are held by women.
The Opposition Parties talk about unemployment and the unemployment rate. Madam Speaker, three and half years ago this Government came to power, and although I agree that more remains to be done, I think we should realize that the unemployment rate, which was 11.7 per cent in September 1984, dropped to 7.7 per cent in April 1988. They should be applauding, because this is indeed a real accomplishment. And what about interest rates that have gone down enormously, and today, and I see this in my own riding of Argenteuil- Papineau, we are enjoying economic growth as never before. We have never had so many construction starts, for instance. Everybody knows that when the construction industry is in good shape, the economy is in good shape. I see that in my riding!
Reducing the deficit has also been a very important achievement. As for real economic growth, Canada has the best record of all members of the OECD. Isn't that something to applaud, Madam Speaker?
Fewer Canadians are living at the poverty line, and I agree we cannot afford to be complacent about our achievements because much remains to be done, but we have made some headway.
Foreign investment has doubled since 1984. I referred earlier to the construction industry, consumer spending, price stability and the increase in farm income.
Madam Speaker, I simply want to say today that as far as I am concerned, Canadian women have everything to gain from the Agreement because they will get a substantial share of the opportunities and advantages arising from the free trade agreement.
On May 5, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. McDougall) released a report on free trade and women, which assesses the impact of the agreement on Canadian women. Her conclusion was clear. She said that free trade will mean better job opportunities for women.
Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why, for instance, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, in Ottawa today for its annual lobby meeting, is against the Agreement. They are here to tell us about their objectives, I say to them that women should support the agreement, and all eminent experts who have examined the agreement and its various sections and the impact on women, say that many new jobs created as a result of the agreement will be in the service industry. Canadian women are in a very good position to take
Supply
advantage of this expansion, because they already represent more than half the work force in the service industry in this country. In fact, 84 per cent of Canadian women working outside the home are employed in this industry.
With free trade, existing companies will grow to take advantage of the more secure access to the American market. Increased trade and greater demand for consumer goods will lead to the creation of new businesses.
Madam Speaker, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs also conducted a study on the impact of free trade on consumers. The largest consumers of goods and services in our society are women. They do the shopping for the children, for groceries and so on. So women consumers themselves will benefit from lower prices, because with increased trade, there will be more products and prices will keep going down. 1 am sure, Madam Speaker, that when free trade will be fully implemented, Canadian women consumers will be even happier to see their purchasing power greatly increased.
The paper also looks at the impact of the agreement on women working in the manufacturing sector. Under free trade, according to Department of Finance estimates, manufacturing production in Canada could rise by 10 per cent.
The abolition of customs duties, the lowering of non-tariff barriers and the increased security of access to the American market are all factors that will help Canadian manufacturers improve their efficiency and achieve economies of scale. With lower input costs, these manufacturers will be able to become more competitive. More efficient, more competitive companies will be able to create more and better jobs for Canadians, men and women.
Madam Speaker, once again, as this document points out, the female work force in manufacturing is divided among the various industries of this sector. Thus these working women are in a good position to reap the benefits this sector will enjoy after the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement takes effect.
Certainly, Madam Speaker, and we do not deny it, some adjustments will be necessary. But I do not think they will be major. In fact, it is expected that the dislocation will largely be offset by the overall growth in trade and the employment opportunities created by free trade. In the past, working women have had to make many such adjustments and they have come through them well. God knows, Madam Speaker, as you do, that women come through all right everyv/here!
Furthermore, the changes required by free trade will be gradual, since a ten-year transition period is provided in the Agreement.
There has been much talk of adjusting workers to free trade. Through programs such as the Job Strategy, and the Industry Adjustment Program, we are now in a position to respond to situations where women could need training or adjustment, or are in an industry or community undergoing changes of some kind.

May 16, 1988
Supply
We are hopeful that our programs are adequate to meet the adjustment needs deriving from free trade, but in order to ensure the fastest and most efficient response we have set up an adjustment advisory council including representatives from business, labour, consumers' associations and education institutions, to assess our programs and ensure that we are in a position to adequately respond to any new situation. Just like the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party, I can state, Madam Speaker, that as a Government Member in this House, I am concerned with and especially interested in the advancement of women in our society, and I can state that on this side of the House, all of us women Members, including you, Madam Speaker, have looked at the free trade agreement from top to bottom to ensure that the free trade agreement in no way hinders the advancement or even the jobs of women.
Madam Speaker, I can assure my women constituents that I have a special interest in that matter, and I can assure them today that, despite what the New Democratic Party might suggest, women are not victimized by the free trade agreement, quite the opposite. We can expect there will be a larger number of non-traditional job opportunities in primary industry for women. The new markets opened to small businesses are another area of interest to women, because the latter are playing an increasing role in Canadian small businesses.
Earlier, Madam Speaker, I referred to the Action Committee on the Status of Women, and their suggestion that Canadian women oppose free trade made me wonder, because I know a number of women in the small and medium-business sector who support and welcome free trade.
So, when the Canadian Action Committee suggests that women oppose it, I tend to wonder because women own more than one third of Canadian small businesses. Free trade will bring to these entrepreneurs both new business opportunities and greater access to the huge American market.
The free trade agreement also is good news for women farmers, since women have an essential role in Canadian farming, Madam Speaker. They account for 30 per cent of farm labour in this country. In co-operation with their husbands, they operate a very large majority of family farms. It is a well-known fact, Madam Speaker, that without women participation in agriculture, family farms would not be what they are today. Again, family farms account for 99 per cent of Canadian farm operations.
In addition, 23,000 women operate their own farms. The free trade agreement features a series of important measures which will give Canadians more generous and more secure conditions to export agricultural products to the huge American market. Canadian producers, men and women alike, will gain real benefits. Plentiful Canadian agricultural and food products, meats, grains, oil-producing seeds and potatoes will be in a position to compete fairly with American products on the U.S. market.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you that if the free trade agreement were in effect right now the Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix potato growers who have to cope with overproduction and all sorts of problems would find a secure market and they probably would not be experiencing the difficulties they have now.
The agreement does not restrict the right of the federal and provincial Governments to establish and maintain programs designed to protect and stabilize agricultural income. Free trade will not affect the future of wheat, dairy, chicken and egg marketing boards, nor Canada's right to set up new marketing boards. This sector will not be affected. I can say that because there are ongoing negotiations on potatoes, and I am sure that with the free trade agreement we would still be able to create a potato marketing board. Canadian farmers can indeed look forward to the day free trade does become a fact of life. Much the same thing can be said about Canadian consumers, for they too will benefit from more generous conditions with respect to agricultural trade between Canada and the United States.
As consumers, Canadian women-I said this earlier-take a special interest in the impact of the free trade agreement on prices, if only because a larger share of their personal or family income goes for basic expenses such as those for food, clothing, and housing. Madam Speaker, you know how much money women have to spend on clothes. Fashion being what it is these days, we like our shoes to match the colour of our outfits. As consumers, we need access to better products in a wider market, but at more reasonable prices, of course.
The Canada-U.S. trade agreement will do away with tariff barriers which inflate prices and restrict the consumer's choice. It will make prices more competitive, widen the selection of goods and services, and increase the quality of products.
It is estimated that tariff elimination will reduce the cost of American products by 5 per cent. After the Agreement comes into effect, the price of Canadian products should equally fall by 3 per cent during the transition period. That reduction will be achieved by a lower cost of inputs and an increased efficiency resulting from the economies of scale.
Madam Speaker, it means that a family-the Hon. Member for Hamilton-East finds that funny-would save between $300 and $800 each year and be able to buy more products. The document released on May 5 gives an estimate of the savings that can be made by consumers in general and four different groups of women in particular. This is an important point because Canadian women play a significant role in the support of families.
One last word, madam Speaker. Canadians are proud and rightly so of their social security system. Many of the programs which make it up have already been implemented to meet the needs identified by women and their organizations. The Agreement in no way affects the basic system, nor does it preclude the establishment of new programs. In fact, the
May 16, 1988

economic growth which will flow from free trade will strengh-en the financial foundation of our social programs.
Again I do not understand the obstinate and erroneous contention of the opposition Parties that the Free Trade Agreement will jeopardize our social programs. How inconceivable, how incomprehensible for members of this House to make such assertions! The Free Trade Agreement is an economic agreement, no more no less. We are not relinquishing our sovereignty. On the contrary, we are exercising it since, by concluding this Agreement, we will improve our position vis-a-vis the United States and other countries. For women, this vision of the future would appear as a culmination of the efforts of many of us to improve our life and hppefully of other women's. Change is not a bad thing when it implies an improvement. For women, free trade will open up a new range of opportunities. To cling to the past inevitably leads to failure. Women know something about that.
Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that I am most proud to be part of a Government which has looked to the future instead of gazing at the past, which was able to sit down and negotiate an agreement. As the Prime Minister has said, this agreement is by no means perfect, but it allows us to face the future more optimistically and without the threat of protectionist measures, to react, in case of an emergency, as a unified country, not as provinces and regions, since the agreement will benefit all of Canada. That is why I think the opposition parties should applaud the government and try to cooperate in improving the agreement instead of saying that they will tear it up. Madam Speaker, those are the attitudes of people who cling to the past and who are not looking into the future. In conclusion, the Progressive Conservative Party looks into the future determined to pass on to our children the same kind of economy we have enjoyed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, first, I want it to be clear, once and for all, that I totally disagree with the comment of the Hon. Member that we should support the Mulroney-Reagan Agreement so that we, as female consumers, can find shoes that match our dresses. That is ridiculous! It is a shame to argue in the House of Commons that we should support the free trade Agreement to have a wider selection of shoes in Canada.
I would like to ask this to the Hon. Member: Is she aware that the United States Government, with which her Government wants to harmonize all our laws, including legislation on social programs, does not accept the 1975 Convention of the International Labour Organization which stated, as a general rule, that women should not be laid off as soon as they get pregnant? Does she agree with this American decision not to sign the 1975 Convention of the International Labour Organization?


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, obviously we do not agree with that U.S. policy. We have our own policies here in
Supply
Canada and I will say once more that Opposition members cannot have much to say to raise such ridiculous points.
Madam Speaker, we have our own policies here, in Canada, and obviously I do not agree with the U.S. policy.
In answer to the first statement of the Hon. member for Hamilton-East (Mrs. Copps) when she said... In my speech,
I mentionned the garment industry as an example, Madam Speaker; I do not say that we must accept the Free Trade Agreement simply because of that industry.
I find rather inappropriate that the hon. member should quote only one example out of my speech rather than the whole speech.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, could the Hon. Member give us her definition of the term "harmonizing"?


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, when the Hon. Member raises such a question, the term "harmonizing" ... harmonizing programs.
Well, harmonizing means in my view that currently, we are importing into Canada products from the United States... The Hon. Member is noting the term "harmonizing" ... I think what we will do in Canada is ensure that American goods coming into Canada are harmonized to our laws, our labelling methods, in the sense that the goods will have to meet the standards set up by Canada as to their acceptability to consumers.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, could the Hon. Member tell us, if she can do so, how much money we will enable Canadians to save in western Canada or eastern Canada or the Maritimes that is, if that agreement can work, what kind of savings will it bring consumers? How much money each year? Would she have figures, by any chance?


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did a study on that matter, and it is our contention that in real terms the free trade agreement will save consumers between $300 and $800 a year. This does not include for instance the case of a couple buying a new home, because they could save tremendously on building materials, and also on appliances.
So there are substantial savings to be derived by Canadians from the free trade agreement when they want to build a home.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member just stated that harmonizing would only start with standards concerning goods that are imported into Canada. How come then the Committee on Subsidies will be sitting for the next five or seven years?


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member insists on criticizing part of the agreement instead of taking a comprehensive view.

May 16, 1988
Supply
I simply want to remind her that anyone who is interested in bilateral trade should look at what is happening in other countries. I think we should look at what happened in Europe and in New Zealand and Australia. From what I gathered upon reading the documentation, Madam Speaker, before these agreements were ratified the socialist parties and the unions were against the free trade agreement that now exists within the European Economic Community. Today, the same organizations, and I hope the New Democrats are listening, view with some embarrassment their erstwhile objections to an agreement that has enhanced the economies of the Common Market countries, while New Zealand has benefited enormously under the free trade agreement signed with Australia.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I am delighted the Hon. Member asked us to look at the situation in Europe. She should have known that in Europe, they started with a trade agreement and now they are harmonizing their social programs, including retirement age. For instance, we know that in Italy, the retirement age for women was lower than for men, but that is now changing. Programs for maternity benefits, hospital benefits and day-care facilities are all being harmonized according to the present policy followed by the Common Market. So how can the Hon. Member take this particular instance as an example of an economic agreement, when we know that in Europe, what they are doing is social harmonizing of social programs?


Lise Bourgault: Madam Speaker, trying to compare the European Economic Community with Canada and the United States is like comparing apples and oranges.
Madam Speaker, those discussions were held with the Council of the European Economic Community. That does not mean that Canada will reach the same conclusion; I hope not. Look, when she points out that European countries are harmonizing their programs, that is their business. As far as we are concerned, we are in North America, a completely different situation. There is just no comparison. In Europe, you can travel from one country to another in an hour or two, but we know how big Canada is. There is no comparison whatever. We have provinces, each with its own jurisdiction.
So, Madam Speaker, this issue, this statement is not very relevant.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Member now states that there is no relationship between this deal and the European community because only a few short moments ago the Member herself said: "Look to the European community to see what kind of a terrific deal they have signed". If you examine the history of the European community, you will find that first comes an economic deal and then comes the so-called harmonization of social policy. The Government time and again claims that harmonization has no bearing whatsoever on this trade deal, but it will
devastate the social safety net we have established in this country and the benefits and protections which we have provided to women through such things as pregnancy benefits.


An Hon. Member:: Cheap shot.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member says "cheap shot". I do not think it is a cheap shot to talk about what is going to happen with the future of the country. In the course of harmonization over the next five to seven years the leaders of our country, who have been selling us down the drain for the last four years, will get together with American leaders to try to develop a so-called check list of what constitutes an unfair subsidy. Do government Members think that it is our social policy and our laws that will harmonize with the Americans? Do the Members think they will accept pregnancy benefits similar to those which we have in Canada and unemployment insurance such as we have? No, we will harmonize to their programs.
I would like to provide a check list of what we can expect under the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal which inherently involves the harmonization of social programs because "harmonization" is the hidden watchword, the hidden buzz word, the ticking time bomb in this deal that will change the very fabric and face of a country which we have fought so hard to build.
The United States has yet to ratify the International Labour Organization Convention of 1975 which sets standards for all women workers. Section 103 of the ILO Code states that there must be a minimum leave period of 12 weeks for pregnant women, protection against dismissal, and a minimum standard that cash benefits during pregnancy leave be sufficient for the full and healthy maintenance of the child. These are the standards which the U.S. has refused to sign. They have refused to sign because in their jurisdiction the protection of pregnant women simply does not exist.
The social safety net of unemployment insurance for unemployed workers in that country falls far short of even respecting the poverty level. In fact, there are only five states in the United States which provide publicly paid pregnancy leave for women. If a woman happens to have a child in those states she can leave work for six to eight weeks. The stellar states include California, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. In 45 other states there is no public law providing any kind of financial assistance for women who leave the job during a period of pregnancy.


John Horton McDermid: What a shame.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is a shame, it is a damn shame. I would like to know why the Government is committing itself, in the trade deal, to harmonization of social programs, social benefits and a subsidy committee which, over the next five to seven years, will play Russian roulette with the social programs and benefits for which our Party has fought and will continue to fight.


Mr. Merrithew:: You're full of it.
May 16, 1988


Harvie Andre: You sure beat the devil out of that straw man.


John Horton McDermid: You're not even telling the truth. Tell the truth for a change.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The truth hurts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All Hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate. It is very difficult for the Speaker to hear what the Member who has the floor is saying when there is such very loud talking across the floor. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The net result of the lack of national social policy which currently exists in the United States is that only 40 per cent of working women in the United States are entitled to any paid maternity, including from private companies, of at least six weeks duration. I do not think we want to see such a program here.
Earlier today, during Question Period, we heard the Minister who is supposed to be responsible for the Status of Women say that this trade deal has no effect on women and no effect on the textile industry because our threat is from the Third World countries, pays d'outre-mer.
Does the Government recognize that textile workers in the southern sun belt states of the United States pose a real threat to competition in Canada? Would we like our minimum wage laws harmonized with American minimum wage laws? Nine American states have no minimum wage whatsoever. Twelve states have a minimum wage under $3 U.S. The minimum wage in Texas is $1.40 an hour. The Government has the gall to say that this will have no effect whatsoever in the trade deal which basically says that Canadians and Americans are supposed to be able to compete on an equal basis. I do not want my constituents working at Coppley, Noyes & Randall, a clothing factory, to have to work for the equivalent of $1.40 U.S.
The harmonization process which will take place as a result of this deal will not only see devastation in social programs and in the national health care system which Canadians hold very dear, but will also see a downward pressure on wage scales because we are supposed to compete with states which have right- to-work laws which abolish the right of the union to automatic dues check-off, that do not believe in minimum wages, and which, frankly, have gone a different route in terms of national economy and national social structure and social policy.
Let us look at the issue of health care. The Parliamentary Secretary guffaws and chortles over there. It was not I who said before the travelling trade committee in Vancouver that medicare would be under threat as a result of this deal. It was the President of the B.C. Council on National Issues. That group came before the committee and said that it is okay that
Supply
this deal will threaten medicare because they have to become more competitive.
With regard to the harmonization of our health care system with the United States, let us look at the auto worker in Canada. The wage package portion of an auto worker's salary in Canada, which includes premiums for health, accident, dental, vision, and life insurance, is equivalent to approximately $2,800 Canadian. The same firm in the United States, because of the absence of a national health care plan, pays about $8,900 Canadian per worker in annual premiums for health, accident, dental, vision and life insurance. What happens, for purposes of discussion, if once this infamous trade deal is set in motion American auto makers come to the table and say that they think the medicare system in Canada is an unfair subsidy because their employers have to pay $8,900 per worker whereas in Canada they only pay $2,800?


John Horton McDermid: Why haven't they done it then?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Member asks why they haven't done it. They did it. They did it with the shakes and shingles and they did it with ground-fish. With regard to shakes and shingles, a 1983 complaint against Canada was struck down and in 1987 a complaint was upheld. The same thing could happen in the area of unemployment insurance. The same thing could happen in the area of health care.
Let us look at what is available for Americans in the area of medical insurance. A quarter of American women of child bearing age have no medical insurance whatsoever. America's infant mortality rate is 40 per cent higher than Canada's. Is that the direction in which we want our social programs to go? Do we want to see an increase in infant mortality which is directly related to inaccessibility to a universal health care system such as we have developed in this country?
On top of 47 million Americans who have no medical coverage whatsoever, 15 million have inadequate coverage. The American Medicaid program is actually targeted to the lower half of people living below the poverty line. One must be in the bottom half of those living below the poverty line in order to be eligible for Medicaid.
A recent study from the auto workers shows that those people who were hardest hit, unemployed workers, are the ones who dropped off from medical coverage. Only 30 per cent of unemployed American workers had any health insurance at all.
We know that Annex 1408 of the trade agreement identifies health care facilities management services as a sector in which we are extending national treatment. If health care is not under discussion, why does Annex 1408 of the trade agreement open the door for an influx of private sector, profit oriented companies to come into Canada to establish their own systems like we have seen with American Humana Corporation. Is that the kind of health care system we want for our country?

May 16, 1988
Supply


Mr. Reimer:: What does that have to do with the trade agreement?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Again the question is asked: "What does that have to do with the trade agreement"? The trade agreement calls for a harmonization of our laws. When the European Common Market first set up a trade agreement, the natural sequence of a trade agreement was social benefit harmonization. That is why a subsidy committee was set up. Over the next five to seven years it will sit down and play Russian roulette with these social programs and the benefits and guarantees that have been given to working men and women in this country.
I, for one, do not trust the statement from a Government and a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who first came into office saying senior citizens' pensions will not be touched. The same Government and the same Prime Minister is saying that social programs will not be touched.
Let us talk about the food sector industry. A short time ago I received a letter from the plant manager of an American multinational in my community known as Procter and Gamble. The plant manager wrote a letter saying that we should be supporting this wonderful trade deal. However, he did not include a memorandum which had been circulated to the Liberal trade committee. It is a private letter from the Vice-President of McCain Foods, who just happens to be a good Conservative.


John Horton McDermid: McCain kept loaning his plane to Pierre all the time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry that the Government is not aware of the facts surrounding this letter. I will spend a few moments reading parts of it into the record. It states: "Dear Miss Carney: I am writing to you as a member of the agriculture SAGIT and as a hard core Tory..." The letter is from Archie McLean, who was with McCain Foods. This hard core Tory points out how this trade deal will not only devastate the dairy, poultry or feather, horticulture, beer and wine industries, it will reek devastation upon the food processing industry across this country. He also implies in the letter that one of the reasons that most corporations in Canada have not spoken out against the deal is because most of them are 100 per cent U.S. owned.
Let me run through the table. They include Procter and Gamble. I will say right now to those workers in my riding who would like to know whether they can buy matching shoes and dresses, in reference to comments made by the Member who spoke previously, that they will not be able to buy matching shoes and dresses if they do not have jobs. Procter and Gamble in my community will have very little lifetime left in Canada if this trade deal goes through. It has 100 per cent U.S. ownership, with annual sales in Canada of S939 million.
Other companies include Nabisco Brands with 80 per cent U.S. ownership; Kraft, 100 per cent U.S. owned; General Foods, 100 per cent U.S. owned; Coca Cola, 100 per cent U.S.
owned; Beatrice International, 100 per cent U.S. owned. Do Members really believe these companies are fighting for the jobs of Canadians?
This same vice-president of McCain Foods stated clearly that the President of Heinz has already told him they have plans to move their plant production to the United States if this trade deal goes through. Naturally, they are not standing up one by one to decry this deal, because they are owned by American multinationals.
Only three companies in this sector are majority Canadian owned. They are B.C. Tree Fruits, McCain Foods Canada and Canberra Foods. The vast majority of the food processing industry in Canada is owned by Americans.
It is like Cameo in my community, a company which makes refrigerators. Everyone believes that they will be able to buy cheap refrigerators once this deal goes through. However, I have spoken to officials with Cameo Corporation who say that if this deal goes through, there will be excess capacity in American manufacturing plants that can service and sell a refrigerator to every Canadian with some left over. Cameo will be on the chopping block as well.
The Government says that there will be some minor adjustments as a result of this deal. The Finance Department figures which came out last summer and allegedly gave us a sector by sector breakdown of what we could expect in terms of winners and losers were an absolute farce. They could not indicate in absolute numbers what industries would be on top and what industries would falter. I know that in my community the steel industry is supposed to be a winner. However, the Canadian steel producers stated categorically to the trade committee, that they had no intention of selling more steel in the U.S. market.
The status of the Canadian dollar is also a hidden time bomb. Early last week, we had breakfast with the Canadian Foundries Association, who are terrified about the increase in value of the Canadian dollar. As it continues to increase, probably as a result of some back room deal signed between Americans and Canadians in the same way they allowed the drug Bill to go through-the competitive edge upon which the original premise of the deal was based is eroded. The steel producers themselves will say that an 80-cent dollar will wreak havoc on what is now a competitive industry.
While these are many questions, the most important one concerns the ultimate direction of our country. Government Members chortle and say this has nothing to do with social programs. The key watchword is harmonization. Will this committee sit down over the next five to seven years and bargain away our national health care system? Will it bargain away any expansion of that system with something like parental leave for fathers, or ruin any potential plan for an increase in a national child care delivery program? Will it say that affirmative action programs and regional development programs are subsidy oriented and therefore cannot be permitted? Are we as Canadians willing to abdicate our right
May 16, 1988

to develop our own future to some committee that will sit down over the next five to seven years and wipe out all the gains we have made in establishing a separate and different identity?
The Government Members consistently kowtow to their American neighbours. They accuse us of being anti-American. I certainly do not categorize myself as anti-American. However, I believe that as a country we have determined a future course which is different from the Americans. I do not want to see an infant mortality rate 40 per cent higher than what we have now in Canada. I do not want to see legislation that does not protect pregnant women, so that they can get kicked out of their jobs merely because they got pregnant. If we move to harmonize, that is the direction in which we will go. That is why it is so important that we fight tooth and nail to prevent this Bill from ever becoming the law of the land.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I would like to ask her a few questions. She said there is a term in the agreement that talks about harmonization of laws. The problem, in my view, is that in our system of Government, whatever the Government proposes, with very few exceptions, opposition Members have to oppose it as if their lives depended on it. That, in my view, explains a good deal of the absolutely empty rhetoric we are hearing today from the opposition Parties.
Would the Member tell the House where in the agreement the expression "harmonization of laws" appears? Where in the agreement does the expression "harmonization of social programs" appear? In my respectful submission, the Member should know, if she does not, that there is nothing in the agreement that says that social programs shall be harmonized. For example, Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts, as the Member probably knows, is arguing for a health care plan similar to the one we have in Canada. If Governor Dukakis is elected, presumably the United States will have a health care plan along the lines of our health care plan.


An Hon. Member:: Without free trade.


David Kilgour: Without free trade, of course. I submit respectfully that the Hon. Member is not arguing on the merits of the agreement. What members of the Opposition are doing is what President Lincoln once said about an opposing attorney: "If you do not have a good case, abuse the plaintiffs attorney". Opposition Members are not talking about the merits of the agreement. They are simply trying to scaremonger along the lines my journalist friend, David Crane, has been doing.
When the Member talks about her extreme affection for Americans, I recall an interview a couple of years ago in which the Member and I were both interviewed by someone from the Los Angles Times. The reporter found it most amusing that the Member made exactly the same point and then in the next four paragraphs of the interview, she did nothing but attack
Supply
the United States as she has been doing here in the Chamber. I put it to her that it rings a little bit hollow to say she has extreme affection for Americans, talking about her husband's country of origin, when she in fact, from everything I have ever read the Member saying, has nothing but contempt for the United States. I put it to the Hon. Member that if we had Peruvians or Bolivians living there, or anyone else on earth, the Member and the New Democratic Party would have quite a different view. The reality is that there are 23 industrial democracies in the world today. If this agreement goes ahead, as I very much hope it will, only one of them, Japan, will not be a member of a trading agreement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by addressing the Hon. Member's last point first. My father-in-law will be very surprised to learn when he comes up for a visit that I hold Americans in contempt. Perhaps it is because I have spent some time in my husband's home State of Florida that I have a little concern about what we are getting into with the so-called free trade agreement. Almost every time I go there to visit my in-laws, I hear about someone killing themselves because they cannot afford to face the financial burden of an accident. The last time I was in Florida, there was a double murder suicide. A woman's young son had injured himself in a motorcycle accident and had ended up a quadriplegic. The drain on the family's economy in dealing with that young man who was very seriously debilitated was such that the family had been driven into bankruptcy. They had lost everything they owned. The woman felt the only honourable way out was to kill herself and her son.
Perhaps I feel this way because I have looked at some of the legislation there which does not protect working women or ordinary working people. We have a system here which has developed in a different way. Yes, it has more government involvement. Unlike the Conservatives, I am not radically opposed to government involvement at any cost. I feel that we as a society have developed programs to support the regions and minorities in a way that has not been the case in the United States. I like our way of life. I do not want to trade it for what I see south of the border however much I may admire and respect and have friendships with the people south of the border.
I am a Canadian. I think my leader said it best when he said: "We may pay a little more to put chicken on the table in Canada". Yes, we do pay a little more because we have marketing boards which feel that farmers are entitled to an honest living and should not be simply at the mercy of the rise and fall of the market-place", as we can see with the devastation of the family farm in the United States. I do not begrudge it because, as a Canadian, I feel it is a price worth paying.
Second, on the issue of harmonization, if the Hon. Member does not believe me, I ask that he consider a statement by Health and Welfare Canada. There was an assessment done by the Canadian Council on Social Development which basically deals with the question of subsidies and the fact that since

May 16, 1988
Supply
there is currently no definition of "subsidy" in the agreement, the next five years to seven years will tell the tale as to what happens to social programs. I ask Canadians if they think that when we are sitting at the table with American negotiators, negotiating what constitutes an unfair subsidy, our subsidies and our programs will win out, or will the American programs win out? I tend to think we will be sinking to the lowest common denominator in terms of public programs. That is why I do not want the deal to go through.
Once the agreement is implemented, according to the Canadian Council of Social Development, Canadians could face countervail after we have reduced our tariffs. This is no idle threat, since the Trade Bill before the U.S. Congress includes a very broad definition of subsidies and since U.S. negotiators have already indicated that Canadian social programs could be considered subsidies. These are not my words. These are the words of a bulletin issued by Health and Welfare Canada.


John Henry Reimer: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Member and I wonder if I might ask a question. In one of her comments the Hon. Member referred to the fact that one of the consequences of a freer trade agreement, say, the European example, was social benefits, harmonization. I think those were her words. I would like to quote the C. D. Howe Institute study of September of 1987. It talked about the lessons of the European Economic Community for freer trade between Canada and the United States. In the conclusion it was stated:
The European experience suggests, and theoretical considerations confirm, that free trade is compatible with an amazing degree of diversity. In fact, one only has to look within federal states to see just how much diversity survives after decades, if not centuries, of economic unity. The harmonization of laws is simply not necessary. Sweden can retain its extensive social welfare system- and the high level of taxation that goes with it; Switzerland can remain at the other end of this spectrum, with a maximum of self-help and low levels of taxation; Austria can run its economy on largely state-owned lines; Finland can retain its special relationship with the Soviet Union.
Here we have some of these countries which are in the European Free Trade Association that trade with the European Common Market and, according to the conclusion of the C. D. Howe Institute, the harmonization of laws is simply not necessary. Yet the Hon. Member suggested that harmonization has to follow, that it is a natural consequence. Why then has it not occurred in Europe? Why is it that the C. D. Howe Institute, in looking at the lessons of Europe and at the European Free Trade Association and its association with the European Common Market, suggests the contrary?
From 1981 to 1984, which is the last year for which I have the figures available for the amount of money we put into our health care program, compared to what the Americans put in as a percentage of their GNP, the Americans on average put in 10.4 per cent. We put in 8.6 per cent. Yet we have a comprehensive universal scheme. Therefore, if we can service all Canadians, and we can do so cheaper than the Americans, then on whom is the pressure, them or us? I would like the Hon. Member to comment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, first, obviously, the Hon. Member does not know what the European community is since three of the countries he mentioned are not even in the European community.


John Henry Reimer: I said three trade associations.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I said the European community. It does not include Finland, Austria and Switzerland. If the Hon. Member is talking about FTAC countries, that is one thing, but if the Hon. Member is talking about countries in the European community, which is what I referred to, then the Hon. Member is talking about countries that are moving toward a harmonization of their social programs. Obviously, the Hon. Member is not aware of the objective of 1992.
I will give Members of the House a very specific example of how harmonization of social programs is currently in effect in Europe, and moving into effect. In Italy, a country from which many of my constituents originally came, until this point in time there was a retirement program which is different for men and women. The mandatory retirement age for women in Italy is 55, while it is 60 for men. The reason that was originally instituted was to recognize that during the years of childbirth women undergo physical strain which means that they should be given a different retirement age.
Under the harmonization of social programs, which is currently being carried out in the European community, Italy has been advised to change its retirement age. I suspect that when Italy moves to revise it, it will not say to all men: "You can now retire at age 55". It will be moved upward. The age of retirement for all women in Italy is being changed, not because of a social policy change in the Italian Government but because of a directive from the European community which is moving to harmonize social programs.


John Henry Reimer: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a point of clarification, the countries named in the C. D. Howe study at which I was looking concerns countries outside the European Common Market that have trading relationships with the European Common Market. It is that study which I quoted.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the debate with great interest today. I welcome the opportunity to talk about the free trade agreement and to participate in the debate on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). I take the Hon. Member's motion seriously, even though it is seriously flawed. The motion condemns the Government for "voluntarily relinquishing political sovereignty in the 'trade' deal".
May 16, 1988

I submit that any international agreement, any contract between two parties, imposes limits on the scope of the action of those parties. In 1974, the Liberals signed an agreement with the International Energy Agency of which Canada is a member, along with our 25 partners in that agency. That agreement stated that in a time of oil shortage throughout the world these 26 countries would share their resources equally. At that particular time in signing that agreement, an agreement with which I agree since I feel it makes sense, we gave up some of our sovereignty. We agreed to share our energy resources with our 25 partners in the International Energy Agency. I submit that any contract imposes limits on the freedom of individuals, just as international agreements or treaties for as long as they are in force impose limits on the sovereignty of countries.
When Canada helped to establish the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade some 40 years ago, it agreed to abide by the rules and regulations defined in that agreement. That was our commitment to our 96 partners now in GATT. The GATT thus prevents us from fully exercising our sovereignty in trade matters. We saw that recently in the decisions handed down by a couple of GATT panels, one which dealt with the discriminatory pricing of liquor and wines and the other which dealt with fish and how it is handled on the west coast of Canada. There are certain rules that we have to follow. In following those rules we give up a little bit of our sovereignty. But we do that with any agreement that is signed.
I suggest from reading the Hon. Member's motion that she is suggesting that we never sign international agreements because they limit some freedom to exercise sovereignty. Surely that is not what my friend, the former Mayor of Ottawa, and now the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar), was saying in her remarks when she was speaking to this motion. We only accept limits on our sovereignty in exchange for limits on the sovereignty of others.
I have been involved in the free trade agreement very closely for the last couple of years. It is interesting to hear some of the arguments put forward in the United States that that country has given up some of its sovereignty. Americans have complained to their elected representatives that they have given up some of their sovereignty in signing this agreement with Canada. That is right. We both give and we both take. That is what an international agreement is all about. That is what any agreement is all about.
The sovereignty debate on this matter is a red herring. Let us go beyond that. I believe that the Hon. Member's concern centres on the ability of all levels of Government in Canada to establish programs or plans related to such matters as day care, auto insurance and cultural industries.
Let us deal firstly with day care. The provision of day care is exempt from the agreement. It does not appear in the list of the services specified in Article 1408 of the agreement. I want to remind the Hon. Member that it was this Government, after the free trade agreement was signed, that introduced a
Supply
national day care policy. This is something which mothers and fathers have been seeking for 20 years. We announced our national day care policy shortly after the legal text between Canada and the United States was signed and made public. But nothing in this agreement prevented us from having such a program, and the Hon. Member knows that.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Your day care program feeds right into it.


John Horton McDermid: We can debate the benefits of the day care program another time. All I am saying is that we have every right to introduce social programs that we want.
Let me deal now with the cultural industries. Article 2005 specifically exempts cultural industries from the agreement. Article 2012 defines what is meant by a cultural industry. I wish to read this into the record so that people will know what we are talking about. Under Article 2012 it states:
a)	the publication, distribution, or sale of books, magazines, periodicals, or newspapers in print or machine readable form but not including the sole activity of printing or typesetting any of the foregoing,
b)	the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of film or video recordings,
c)	the production, distribution, sale or exhibition of audio or video music recordings,
d)	the publication, distribution, or sale of music in print or machine readable form, or
e)	radio communication in which the transmissions are intended for direct reception by the general public, and all radio, television and cable television broadcasting undertakings and all satellite programming and broadcast network services;
Could the agreement be any more explicit? Could the list of cultural industries be any more exhaustive? I do not think so.
Who introduced a publishing policy which promoted Canadian interests and control in that vital cultural industry? We did. We, the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada, did. Who introduced a film policy which provides Canadian film production more money than ever before and which establishes Canada as a distinct market for foreign films for the first time in history? We did. We, the Progressive Conservative Government, did.
Who brought amendments to the Copyright Act so that authors and artists would begin to receive some fair treatment for their creative works? The Government led by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), that is who did it. Who is fighting it in the other place? The Liberal Senators. They do not want our artists and authors to receive fair compensation for their work. They are holding it up in the Senate.
As far as Canadian publishing and films are concerned, what did the Official Opposition say, bolstered by their socialist friends in the New Democratic Party? What did they do over 20 years in power? To use a much hackneyed expression, "the square root of nothing" is what they did over the last 20 years. Perhaps that is not quite accurate. They talked a lot about it, they attended cultural events and had their pictures taken with our great Canadian stars, but that is about it.

May 16, 1988
Supply
Nothing in the free trade agreement in any way, shape, or form prevents this Government, or any succeeding Government, from introducing other policies to protect and enhance Canada's cultural industries. As a Government we have already done so, and we will continue to do so.
In ending this part of my remarks, Madam Speaker, I might say it was difficult to explain to the American people our concern for protecting our cultural industries. It was difficult to get through to them. Because the culture in the United States has never been under attack or threatened, they could not comprehend why we in this country would worry so much about it. We did worry about it. We took the appropriate action, and we are very proud of what we accomplished.
As I understand it, the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood and her colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor (Mr. Langdon), have a particular interest in the potential impact of the free trade agreement on the establishment of provincial auto insurance plans. The free trade agreement in no way prevents any provincial government from introducing such a plan. As I understand it, the Members are worried about Article 2010 which concerns the establishment of monopolies. It states as follows:
1. Subject to Article 2011, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent a Party from maintaining or designating a monopoly.
This is subject to the bilateral consultation provisions in the agreement.
First, if the Hon. Members are specifically referring to the Province of Ontario, and I am sure they both are because that is where the discussions have been going on at the present time on establishing a potential provincial auto insurance plan, we do not yet know the nature of that plan, or if the provincial Government has even decided to establish such a plan. But let us assume for the purposes of the argument that Ontario does so-perish the thought-but let us assume that it does. The plan could take several forms. For example, companies which currently sell auto insurance could end up being full participants in such a plan. If that is the case, and the United States firms have the same rights and obligations as Canadian firms under the plan, there would be no basis whatsoever under the free trade agreement for American complaints under the agreement.
Another possible arrangement could be the creation of a provincial auto insurance agency which would co-exist with private insurance companies. Again, the United States companies have the same rights and obligations as Canadian companies. The principle of national treatment is respected, and again there would be absolutely no basis for complaint.
What if the Government of Ontario established a provincial monopoly that excluded the private sector from the auto insurance business, if it just decided to take it over holus-bolus? First, under Article 2010 of the free trade agreement it would have every right to do so. Second, should the scheme give rise to expropriation, or nationalization of an investment,
the agreement provides for compensation at fair market value on a non-discriminatory basis.
In other words, if there is expropriation or nationalization, those that are being nationalized will receive fair compensation. Is that fair? Does that not make sense? In expropriation or nationalization, and the victims-and I use that term advisedly-would be compensated at fair market value. That is fairness.
The Hon. Member seems to be considering this issue from only one point of view. Apparently, she does not believe that Canadian firms are active in the United States and that they will enjoy exactly the same protection and benefits under the monopolies clause as U.S. firms will in Canada. Perhaps the Hon. Member does not care about the hundreds of Canadian firms that do business south of the border. Perhaps she thinks that Canadian firms do not invest, establish plants, or do much business in the United States market. The fact is that Canadians are major investors in the United States, and we have seen some of that lately. Our businesses have billions of dollars worth of investment there. If any state government decides one day that a state monopoly should be established in this, or in any other industry, Article 2010 will provide the Government of Canada and the Canadian businesses affected with a useful instrument for protecting Canadian interests there.
The Hon. Member and many of her colleagues keep making the same mistake about this country, about this Canada that we all love and are proud of. They underestimate what has taken place over the past 20 years or so. Their positions, proposals, and policies are consistently based on what Canada was in the late 1960s and not what Canada is today.
Why do the Members opposite not come to terms with the fact that the global economy has radically changed, and Canada has changed also. Why do they have this intellectual reflex to establish barriers instead of bridges to opportunities in the world economy? Why is it that labour thinkers and policy makers in countries such as Sweden and Great Britain are opting for policies to eliminate barriers to international trade and to stimulate market forces, whereas here in Canada the socialists, that great New Democratic Party, arm in arm with Shirley Carr and the Canadian Labour Congress, persist in opting for central planning models and technocratic intervention? I find it depressing, if not bizarre.
I have heard it in a couple of speeches today from both the Liberal Members and the New Democratic Party members that we are too small, we are not ready, we are too weak, we are vulnerable, or we are not able to adjust. Right down the line they underestimate Canadians. They think that they have all the knowledge and the ability over there, that they can control everything in this country. That is just not true.
With that type of pessimism and hopelessness, our forefathers would never have built this great country. The greatest moments of this country have been when it faced great challenges. Whether or not the Opposition chooses to see it, every day the 3 million Canadians' jobs that depend on trade
May 16, 1988

face great technological and competitive challenges in the global market-place. Those people are not saying that we cannot compete. They are not the ones who are opposing the trade agreement. They are saying that we can compete, and we will compete. But the Opposition persists in underestimating them. The opposition will continue to insist that big brother look over everybody's shoulder. Most Canadians have come to a very definite conclusion that, after bigger and bigger government, an enormous deficit, and mushrooming Crown corporations run by bureaucrats, big brother is a lousy manager. Canadians can see what has happened to the firms that were privatized by the Government.
For example, Firms like Canadair. Near my area, De Havilland employs 1,500 more people than when the Government had it, and it is going lickety-split. The Member from the riding where de Havilland is located fought that privatization. He said it will cost jobs. There are 1,500 more jobs. Fisheries Products International is now financially sound. It is employing more people than ever before. It is exciting. But, oh, no, the NDP do not think so. They think what is happening is terrible. They want those big deficits to come back. They want big brother back on the shoulders of Canadians. I wish they would wake up to the fact that big brother's time has come and gone. I will tell you whose time has come under this Government. It is the time of those Canadians who want to be free to build, to innovate, to trade and be rewarded for their initiative and enterprise as well as to provide assistance and protection to those Canadians who need it most.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) talk about the inadequate social services in the United States. I agree with her wholeheartedly. But she sets up a straw man and then proceeds to knock him down. We are not harmonizing our social programs, not one bit. As a matter of fact our social programs are the envy of the Americans. Why is a presidential candidate saying he would love to implement the health care program that we have in Canada? I have great faith in Canadians. I know Canadians believe that we do not want in any way, shape or form to destroy what we have built up in this country. Canadians know the last thing we want to do is to spoil the social safety net that has been developed. It is one of the things that makes us unique. I also know that if our economy is not doing well, if we are not trading, if we are not paying the bills and creating jobs, then we cannot pay for those wonderful social programs. That is the bottom line, Madam Speaker.
Canada has a great growth record going now, the best of the OECD countries, because we freed capable, innovative Canadians from the stifling and overbearing reach of the technocracy so favoured by the NDP and the Liberals. The free trade agreement is a vital part of that approach. It provides Canadians free and secure access to a market 10 times bigger than our own. This access will, in turn, put our businesses, large and small, in an even better position to
Supply
diversify the markets in Europe, in Japan and in all major markets of the world. I ask the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood, who brought this motion to the floor of the House today to consider what I have said and free herself from the ideological blinkers of her Party. I ask the Hon. Member to see Canada as a dynamic and growing part of the world, not as a timid northern territory lost in the shadow of its neighbour. Once she sees that and takes time to read the agreement and understand it, then I think we will have her support.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary. Could he explain why the Government decided to include the service sector in this deal when it is the fastest growing sector in Canada and is creating the most jobs, particularly jobs for women? Can he explain why we are doing this when other countries have consistently resisted this through the GATT agreements? What are their reasons for not doing so? Why have we suddenly decided to open the doors to the Americans in the service sector?
I might point out, as the Hon. Member knows only too well, that the Macdonald Commission, when it did a very extensive and expensive study of our economy, came out in favour of free trade and did not include the service industry. Why is that? The Economic Council of Canada when it initially considered the impact of jobs did not consider the service sector. Does the Hon. Member not agree that the U.S. has a surplus of jobs in the service sector, so Americans are very anxious to export and infiltrate their service sector into other economies without any tariff barriers? Many Canadians feel that the Government has been naive in this area, the area where jobs will be most affected.
Why did the Government include our large and developing service sector in this deal, making us very vulnerable to the intrusion of the expanding American system when other countries refused to do so under GATT arrangements?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question. First, the service industry accounts for two-thirds of the economy. It is the fastest growing industry in the world. Our GATT partners have asked for services to be part of the GATT negotiations in the Uruguay Round that is going on now. Services are very prominent on the agenda. To say our GATT partners have not wanted that is totally inaccurate.
Second, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East likes to give examples from her riding. I do too because that is what we know best. I have Picker X-ray in my riding which is a major company making huge X-rays for hospitals. It sells many into the United States, but it has trouble getting its service people down there to service equipment. After sales service, as the Hon. Member may or may not know, is a very important part of any contract. This is the maintenance and the upgrading of a particular product. We give Americans problems coming here to service equipment as they do with ours. Canadians and Americans with tool boxes under their arms were having to lie at the border, saying they were going on holidays. Things were

May 16, 1988
Supply
that bad. But the agreement will facilitate-it is not a labour agreement-a temporary movement for the servicing of products both ways.
Speak to our architects and see if they cannot compete in the United States. See if they do not feel that they can go there, do extremely well and bid on jobs in the U.S.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: They are elite Canadians, not ordinary Canadians.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member is talking about ordinary Canadians.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: And women particularly in the service industry.


John Horton McDermid: I have one architecture firm in my community which has three women architects and a number of support staff. The Hon. Member talks about ordinary Canadians. I have not met any more ordinary Canadians than those people. They are very fine people.
The service industry is now going through a revolution throughout the world. That is why some rules and regulations are being established to cover service. It only makes sense. The Hon. Member cannot ignore that end of it. I have a fellow in my constituency who is a brilliant individual when it comes to software programs. He has to lie every time he goes into the United States to sell his product. This agreement will facilitate that kind of movement. Canadians are good and we can go to the American market and sell. I have faith and pride in Canadians. The vice-president of IBM tells me that the most productive plant he has is in Bromont, Quebec.


Sheila Maureen Copps: They said that about Firestone and closed it this year.


John Horton McDermid: Firestone was making a product that no one was buying. That was the problem.
The second most productive plant IBM has is in Don Mills, Ontario. The Hon. Member talks about moving firms back and forth. This will not happen. We in Canada are productive. I keep hearing about the southern United States. I keep asking my hon. friend why hasn't everybody moved down there now if it is so good? The tariffs are only 9.2 per cent average. People do not go because the southern U.S. does not have a well educated labour force and its force is not very productive. Our productivity is way higher than the southern States and in Florida where my hon. friend from Hamilton East likes to visit her in-laws. Hon. Members opposite put down Canadians every time they stand up and ask those questions.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We are proud of unionized Canadians.


John Horton McDermid: The Hon. Member knocks Canadians. She doesn't think they are any good. She does not think they should go into the United States. We do. That is the difference between the socialists, the Liberals and the Conservatives.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Don't be so arrogant.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member brought up the issue of productivity. Does he really think that most American multinationals which are located in the States and 100 per cent American owned value productivity when push comes to shove, when they have to reorient, retract and shut down a plant? Firestone, which was located in my riding, was employing 1,400 people and had the most productive workforce of the Firestone chain of 13 plants across North America for three years running. It had won awards from the company for being the most productive, highly effective and economical plant. When the time came to find a plant to close down, why is it that the head office in Akron, Ohio, sent a three paragraph telex to the Hamilton plant saying that after over 100 years in that community, the plant is shut down?
If the Hon. Member thinks that an American multinational will make a dispassionate decision based specifically and solely on the bottom line, then he does not understand United States politics. Anyone sitting in a head office in Akron, Ohio, finds it much easier to close a plant in a foreign country than to close a plant in their own country. If productivity is the criterion, why was Firestone shut down in Hamilton?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, because it was making a product that was not being purchased by the public, that was the problem. A lot of it has to do with the consumers. Goodyear closed in Hamilton but is opening up a new, modern plant and is hiring people in Canada.
I look at Oshawa. My friend, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), does not mind foreign investment in his area.
Plants come and go. They have ever since they were established. In my community of Brampton, there were three or four industries that formed the base of Brampton. We were known as the flower town of Canada with Dale Estates and Calvert Estates there. There were 60 acres under glass producing beautiful roses, but they do not do that any more. It is just not economical to do that any more.
In Brampton, we had William's Shoe and Hewitson Shoe. Their plants became outmoded and their products were not accepted any longer. They closed. Those workers went on to new plants and new challenges. Change happens all the time. Over two million Canadians a year change their jobs. Change goes on all the time.
The Hon. Member wants to keep plants open, whether or not they have customers and whether or not they are productive. Just keep them, prop them up, give them more tax dollars, keep them going, shove them along. That is her attitude and it is also the socialist attitude, and it does not work.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce my remarks, quite sincerely because these are things in which I believe and not just rhetoric, by
May 16, 1988

explaining why I, particularly as a New Democratic Member, oppose the Tory government trade deal. There are many reasons for this, of course, which I have no time to go into, but basically, we feel very strongly that this is not just a trade deal but it is much more. In fact, it changes the very nature of Canada.
As the social policy critic for my Party and as a person who is very concerned about health and welfare programs and status of women programs, I feel very strongly that the ethical and social principles for which we as Canadians stand and which most Canadians hold dear are really being threatened by this deal. These principles include our concern for each other which overrules market-place philosophy and the making of a buck, and particularly our concern for the poorer regions of Canada and our absolute conviction that we must help one another and therefore we need to have regional development programs. Another is our whole concept of social rights which I believe is imbedded in the Canadian psyche and certainly in Canadian institutions. I do not believe that that principle is embedded in the same way in the American society. We in Canada feel very strongly that we must have a floor of social programs so that when times get tough, people do not starve, although some who are on social assistance come pretty close to it.
We also believe that we must have a competitive economy and we have to be aware of market trends. However, we temper this belief with a certain amount of government planning, nationally, provincially and regionally. This combination of public and private which is very characteristic of Canada is another thing that makes us very strong. That is why we believe that we must have certain essential services that are public services. We also need to have certain Crown corporations which carry out functions that would not be carried out in the market-place if the Government were not involved to some degree.
These are things that are very important to us in Canada and these are things that the trade deal threatens. Many of us feel this very deeply. I do not think that my hon. friend has convinced me, and I doubt if he has convinced many concerned Canadians, through his remarks today that these things will not be affected.
Those of us in western Canada are rich in resources and have a resource-based economy, but we are subject to boom and bust cycles. Therefore, we must diversify. It has been very difficult to diversify. There are very fragile manufacturing and high-tech industries that are just getting started in British Columbia and these industries are threatened. They need government assistance to get started, and under this deal, they will not be able to get government assistance. We believe it will be very difficult for the Government to give leadership in helping western Canada to diversify.
The trade deal will also create in the future a continental energy policy. This concerns us greatly. Canada should have control over its own resources. We will not be able to charge
Supply
preferential prices for gas to secondary industries in Alberta such as the petrochemical industry, and I believe that has been done in the past.
We will have an open-door policy for U.S. investment under this deal and that will surely mean more branch plants than we already have and a transfer of jobs to the United States. It will certainly mean a move to do away with unions in Canada. Of course, that is a trend that this Government started, so it is not unreasonable at all that government Members are in favour of the trade deal.
Many of us do not agree that that is the way we want Canada to be. My friend, the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), has already spoken eloquently about the impact of the free trade deal on our culture and our sovereignty. We know that jobs will be lost in key industries and especially in industries that employ women. There will be less access to U.S. markets than the Government anticipates because the Americans were pretty cagey about what protections they wanted in the deal.
Some of the trade problems we face in British Columbia which are related to tariffs on shakes and shingles and the export taxes on softwood lumber will not be resolved by the free trade deal. The deal also makes us so absorbed with Canada-U.S. trade that we are completely disregarding in our thinking, our motivation and our policies the tremendous potential in the Pacific Rim.
I have just returned from Japan and Korea where I went with a parliamentary group led by the Hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees). The Governments and the business people in Japan and in Korea as well are very concerned that we are not giving them a fair deal because of our complete absorption with this trade deal.
I would like to speak particularly about the impact of the trade deal on women. Many of the remarks I will be making deal with facts that have been researched extensively by Marjorie Cohen, an outstanding economist who is very active in the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, a group which met this weekend.

Both NAC and our Party argue that the trade deal will have devastating consequences for Canadian working women. The deal opens Canada to free trade in services. The service sector contributes two-thirds of our national income and employs 70 per cent of our labour force. Some 83 per cent of service sector jobs are held by women. They will be jeopardized by a trade agreement in services. We are not talking about sophisticated, highly trained architects or highly skilled computer programmers. They will of course have some advantages. We are talking about the masses, particularly the 83 per cent of service sector jobs held by women. They will be jeopardized by this deal.

May 16, 1988
Supply
The deal will eliminate many clerical jobs in data processing by cancelling laws which now require data to be processed and stored in Canada. We have already, without a trade agreement, lost 180,000 data processing jobs. With the agreement that could go as high as 500,000.
In the manufacturing sector, industries most threatened by free trade are those that employ 66 per cent of women; textiles, clothing, food processing, electrical and electronic products, and leather products. There are a couple of industries in my riding where, given the threat of this deal and existing policies of the Government, women are losing jobs. Many of these women are immigrants whose English is not a strong asset. They work in the garment industry and the fish plant industry. Jobs are already being threatened and many more are likely to be threatened in the future. Many of them are immigrants, older women, or those with low levels of education, and they will be losing jobs. It is difficult for them to get into ESL language training programs, much less retraining for the high-tech jobs which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned as one of the benefits of this deal.
The harmonizing pressures exerted by free trade will cause a drop in Canadian wages and working conditions. We know the Government and the trade deal will definitely undermine the trade union movement. Women will lose their unionized jobs, of which there are not enough anyway, and will be concentrated in low wage occupations. They will suffer the most.
The benefits and social programs which are the right of all Canadians will be threatened by the agreement. Child care and maternity benefits may be considered unfair subsidies by the U.S., which certainly does not give these programs a high priority. Women will be particularly hard hit by a loss of such benefits. Americans have weak health and safety regulations, lower wages, poorer environmental protection, and ineffective equal rights legislation. Our standards will be threatened and this will harm all Canadians.
I asked the Parliamentary Secretary why the Government included the service sector in this agreement. European countries have resisted this change and certainly Third World countries have been very concerned about it. The Macdonald Commission did not include the service industry in its study of trade. The Economic Council of Canada did not initially include it in its projections of the impact on jobs. Obviously this was added later. We know the Americans were very anxious to include this sector because they have a surplus of services and are only too eager to move their service industries into Canada with no tariff barriers and with a decline in the kind of unionized jobs we should be protecting in Canada.
This deal allows U.S. firms to move in and run institutions for a profit. They can even receive Canadian subsidies for institutions in the service field which they are already moving into Canada. U.S. firms are given the right to be treated as Canadian firms, whether they are located in the country or not. This kind of invasion will result in job losses, depressed
wages and working conditions for workers, particularly women.
Marjorie Cohen is an outstanding economist who specialized in this field and she said this deal will also severely affect the quality, accessibility and universality of our social services. I would like to refer people to the document she prepared called Americanizing Services. She made very many important points and I will be able to touch on only the highlights.
First, the trade deal talks about the management of all health and most social services. This includes management of hospitals, including general hospitals, mental hospitals, childrens' hospitals, management of other institutional services such as homes for the physically handicapped and disabled, homes for disturbed children, homes for single mothers, and the management of non-institutional services such as ambulances, rehab clinics and public service clinics. These services are up for grabs. Annex 1408 of the agreement, I think it is, will open these services to American firms coming into Canada, taking over and expanding the administration of these services. These are the areas of secondary health services which are not protected by the Canada Health Act. They are not protected by the five principles of medicare which are so important.
This deal makes it harder to protect these services from erosion. The federal Government left the door wide open for U.S chains to continue to own and operate homes for seniors, indeed chain day care operations which have been established for profit, not to serve children. They are already moving into Canada and this trade deal plus other government policies will certainly give considerable incentive to expand this program and we are very concerned about it.
Studies show that the standards are very minimal in these chain operations. Wages are very low and there is a high turnover of staff. There is not the same quality of service and there is no real protection in the sense that there is in nonprofit services. It is grossly unfair that such commercial operations, such low quality commercial operations will be eligible for Canadian subsidies. There is no protection against that happening.
A hospital can contract out its management. This is the trend in British Columbia already. The British Columbia Government is privatizing everything in the public service. It even wants to privatize the servicing of highways, and certainly all the human services. It is contracting out to non-union kinds of operators and when you add the trade deal to this along with federal government policies on privatization, it just creates a tremendous threat to the quality of our social service sector, particularly our health care services. We believe we should have much more in the way of public, non-profit systems. It has definitely been proven that this is better quality service. However, the trade deal will not encourage that.
The effect on the nursing care labour force will be very great. There will be a great increase in part-time jobs and computerized services to replace the human care that nurses
May 16, 1988

provide. Unionized jobs for nurses will also be threatened. This means poorer services for patients. There will be less time for personalized services in the hospitals and the same will be the case in for-profit day care services.
[DOT] (nio)
Another section which concerns us is Section 2010, the rules on monopolies. The new rules on monopolies will make it almost impossible for any government in Canada, and I think particularly of British Columbia of course, to extend public provision of services for those in the private sector. We are concerned about that because there are services which should be public services which, if we become the Government, we will not be able to return to the public sector.
Many of us have spoken about access to government services. Although the agreement does not explicitly say that service firms will not be given access to government subsidy, there is nothing in the agreement which allows the right to give preference to non-profit services in many cases where the Government provides a fee for service.
We are also concerned about the subsidy section. This is where people are saying there is likely to be a real threat to our social programs. The deal does not clarify the definition of a subsidy or what kinds of services and industries will be considered subsidized services in the future. As you know, the deal stipulates that during the next five to seven years negotiations will continue so that new rules about what constitutes a subsidy will be established.
This could include any of our social programs which are already considered subsidies by many Americans. Unemployment insurance, social service programs, old age pensions, and so on could very well be considered subsidies.
We have heard several Members speaking about women in jobs. I am not going to concentrate on that except to say that the service sector concerns women, who are still the poorest sector of our society, who will be the biggest losers if we allow the erosion of social programs and the part-time jobs which will result from privatization. This trade deal is a great threat to women's jobs in particular.
Finally, the Parliamentary Secretary wants to debate child care programs at another time. We will not debate it at another time. The national strategy on child care is the forerunner of what we will see developing with this trade deal. It leaves the door wide open. In fact, it encourages provinces to develop and fund for-profit child care services. So it is there already and there is nothing in this deal which will protect for-profit child care. As was pointed out by one of the previous speakers, child care in the United States is of very poor quality. They do not even have maternity and parental leave policies there.
That is because the United States views social services from a market-place point of view. Making profits rather than service to people is their goal. We do not want this in Canada.
Supply
We want services, particularly child care services, that are concerned with children, pay decent wages to care givers, and will have public subsidies for good quality child care.
I could go on and on, Madam Speaker, but I see that my time is up. In conclusion, we are very concerned about this trade deal as are growing numbers of Canadians, the more they study and learn about this deal. It is basically a sell-out of Canada. I say that with great emphasis. It is particularly harmful to Canadian women. We will do everything in our power to stop this deal and to enable the people to express their views in an election.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the Member is from western Canada. In her province two of the three major industries are forestry products and mining.


James Douglas Manly: What about fishing?


David Kilgour: Of course fishing is another one. Does the Member not think that it is in the interests of a great many British Columbians to have a more secure access to the United States market than they have had during the past year in terms of shakes and shingles, softwood lumber, and fish? There is a long list of items in western Canada that have been harassed by U.S. trade laws and actions under those trade laws.
Has the Member looked, for example, at the recent data of the Canada West Foundation which shows that large numbers of western Canadian jobs would be more secure if this trade agreement goes ahead than they are at present? At present what you might call anarchy exists in our trading relations with that market.
The Member might wish to do more trade with Japan and other countries of Asia and the Pacific, China included, of course. The reality, as she probably knows, is that approaching two-thirds of the exported goods and services from western Canada go to the United States whether or not she or I like it. In other words, by my figures the pay cheques of roughly 600,000 western Canadians depend on access to that market.
With regard to the social programs and the seven years, at least she is more responsible than the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who said unequivocally that all our social programs will go down the drain if we form this agreement. This Member, if I remember correctly, said that they could be changed by the seven years of negotiation. Does the Member not think that it is important to the livelihoods of young people, middle-aged people, and the next generation to have some security of access to the United States?
Bob White is eviscerally opposed to this agreement even though, as I said this morning, we have had, for all intents and purposes, free trade in the auto sector since 1968 except for a few months in 1980 and 1981. The Member's Party calls it managed trade but it has, in fact, worked as free trade since 1968, three years after the Auto Pact.

May 16, 1988
Supply
Does the Member have to take Bob White's word on this issue when she and I know that western Canada needs this agreement? All provincial governments in western Canada and all independent bodies of research except for Mr. Bob White, as far as I can see, know that this agreement is in the interests of men and women throughout Canada. Does the Member not think that the prospect of having a job and a pay cheque at the end of the month is a fairly important social program to Canadians throughout the country?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I agree completely that having a job with a decent pay cheque is extremely important. It should be a basic right of all Canadians. This is particularly important to Canadian women. The point of what I was saying is that Canadian women, who are already marginalized and earn 60 cent dollars compared to men, will be really hurt by this deal. I made that point in my remarks with great sincerity.
The Hon. Member asked many questions and made many comments in his statement. As far as the western provinces are concerned, I am surprised that he seems so naive about it. I visited his Province of Alberta a few months ago and found considerable anxiety there. If any part of Canada needs to diversify, it is the West. We want secondary industries and more opportunities for secondary manufacturing jobs. We want to be able to export to places other than the United States. It is this open door policy which is a real giveaway to the United States which concerns us so much.
As far as the problems which we have had in British Columbia in the forest industry and the fisheries, as far as I can understand there is nothing in this deal to solve those problems. In fact, they are still there. I know that the Member of our Party who will speak next will comment on this further. I have a very close relationship with fishing people in my riding, particularly women working in the fish plants, and they are very concerned that this deal will not solve any of the problems they are facing. IWA members are solidly against this and the forest industry has real reservations in many instances.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated the discussion by my hon. colleague from Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) about the situation of women and the effect of the trade deal on their job opportunities in particular. I would like to ask her a question about the political aspects of the deal. She is a western Member and I am a former British Columbian.
It is my experience that westerners are patriotic Canadians who are proud of their Canadian institutions. They want an independent Canada and take pride in our public social programs. They take pride in our cultural institutions which are nationally funded and which we have operated differently from the Americans. Westerners are no less patriotic than any other Canadian. They may have their gripes against the East on some issues, but they are true Canadians and want strong
Canadian institutions. They pay their taxes and want that money to go into regional diversification, social programs, old age pensions, medicare and all of those programs, the same as Canadians from coast to coast.
Will my colleague comment on the loss of political sovereignty and the weakening of the powers of the federal and provincial governments to create and expand social and cultural programs for the good of the people within their territories?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I do not think I have to say that westerners believe in Canada. Of course we believe in Canada and are very proud Canadians. Sometimes we think central Canada should listen a little more. The Parliamentary Secretary made some very central Canadian comments earlier and said nothing about some concerns of the West. However, there is no question that we feel very strongly about Canada. We believe strongly in the potential of the Pacific Rim and that our trade relationship in this area is not being adequately developed.
As far as social programs in British Columbia are concerned, I am deeply ashamed of our Premier for what he is trying to do to undermine social programs and social service jobs in that province. This deal will add to that threat, and that is one reason why an increasing number of British Columbians are joining anti-free trade lobbies and coalitions. British Columbians are real fighters, as they are on the Prairies.
We are very proud that British Columbia is a highly unionized province. The Tories constantly talk about Bob White and Shirley Carr. Not only are they paranoid, they should have a guilt complex because they are trying to destroy unions in this country. Their policy of privatization and this free trade deal will certainly contribute to that. There is nothing they would like better than to eliminate unionized jobs for contracting out, to put women in part time jobs so they can return to the home and so on. I am very much afraid that rather than look to the future of Canada, this policy will take us back.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, as I listen, I understand the dichotomy to which Canada would be reduced if we had a war of wills between those on the extreme right and those on the extreme left. This is not a debate between General Motors and Bob White. This is a debate on a free trade deal that affects every Canadian, including those who are not necessarily tied to General Motors or the Canadian Autoworkers Union. It concerns people who are in business and members of unions and see for themselves and their families great changes and potentially great harm.
How does the Hon. Member respond to the Government's claim that the trade deal will be a cure-all for the problem of regional disparity in this country? Presumably, the various states in the United States are the beneficiaries of free trade within those United States, but there is still regional disparity
May 16, 1988

in many of the southern states. That regional disparity is growing in some of the rust belt, or northeast United States.
The Government would tell a province like Newfoundland or an area like Cape Breton or parts of northern Canada that this free trade deal will solve their regional disparity, yet the reality in the United States is that gross regional disparity exists notwithstanding the fact they have all the so-called advantages of the American economy. How does the Hon. Member respond to that?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend was not in the House when I began my remarks. I stated clearly that what concerns me and many Canadians is that Canada is unique because we care about each other in the different regions of Canada. We have a system in which there are certain written and unwritten social rights, including a concern for all regions so that people have equal opportunity and equal protection in all regions.
We must have regional development programs and the Hon. Member is absolutely right that this trade deal will gradually erode them. While the Government says this will not happen, the five to seven years in which to define subsidies is certainly a cause for concern.


William C. Winegard: Madam Speaker, I was rather hoping today that we might have a debate based upon the free trade agreement. However, what we have had is another debate with a lot of rhetoric, exposing once again what I call the myths of free trade.
I want to examine some of those myths this afternoon because I think it is important to set the record straight on what is and is not in this particular trade agreement. Since it was just mentioned, let me deal with myth No. 1. It is that regional development programs are at risk. We have heard that over and over this afternoon. I do not know how to respond to that, except to say that it is pretty close to absolute nonsense. They are no more at risk under the free trade agreement than they are now.
Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which has been mentioned so often in this debate, Government subsidies are recognized as legitimate tools of governments to help promote regional development. All that GATT requires is that countries should not use subsidies in a way that injures other countries. Subsidies in themselves are not illegal.
Under existing Canada and U.S. law as well, subsidies are only countervailable by the importing nations if they are not generally available. Those persons who would have us believe that regional development programs would go down the drain should know that the ones they are talking about are generally available.
Only very few of the Canadian regional development subsidies have been challenged as countervailable in the United States. Only a fraction of those that have been
Supply
challenged were found by U.S. authorities to be injurious to American producers. Since 1980, no countervailing duty on a regional development Subsidy has exceeded 1 per cent of the export price. One of the advantages of being an engineer is that I always ask myself, what are the numbers? Never mind the rhetoric, what are the numbers? I remind people of the 1 per cent of the export price. Even if the subsidies were found to do harm, we can still put them on if we wish. It is entirely our decision. The free trade agreement does not in any way take away that decision from us.
Let me go now to what I call myth No. 2. I have so many myths here that I am going to lose count. The next myth is that Canada's cultural sovereignty is at stake. How? Article 2005 of the agreement stipulates that with four very limited exceptions, nothing in the agreement impedes Canada's ability to pursue cultural policies and programs of its own. If we look at the four that are taken out, we find they are hardly going to shake this country's cultural policy. We are going to eliminate tariffs on musical instruments, cassettes, films and records. In other words, the U.S. will be able to export records and tapes into Canada free of tariffs. We will be able to do the same.
Under Article 2006, both Canada and the United States will provide copyright protection to owners of television programs broadcast by distant stations and retransmitted by cable companies. Article 2007 is the typeset and printing section. None of these changes our ability as a nation to do what we have always done, to call for Canadian content regulations, to support the CBC, to support our national galleries, to support the Canada Council, and to support our artists and writers. None of these things are changed in this agreement. There is a myth out there that we have given up our cultural sovereignty. In fact, culture has been taken right out of it. There is nothing in the agreement that we do now that we cannot do.
The next myth is that free trade will destroy Canada's social programs. Well, we have heard this afternoon about how somehow or other-no one says quite how-we are going to harmonize our health care system. Why would we want to harmonize anything that is working very well right now? There is nothing in this agreement that talks about harmonizing our health care system. It is our system. It will remain our system.
My opposition colleagues talked often about the GATT today but under GATT, generally available social programs are not countervailable. Why should we be concerned about changing our health care system? It is another straw man put up to frighten people. As an aside, you know, Madam Speaker, and 1 know, that the United States has already examined the fishermen's disputed unemployment insurance benefits, and they were found not countervailable.
Finally, on this one subject, the preamble of the agreement itself clearly sets out Canada's ability to take measures to defend the public welfare. We are no less Canadian because we are entering into a free trade agreement with the United States. In fact, it is so typically Canadian that we would reach

May 16, 1988
Supply
out to have more trade. That is what Canada is all about. Our health care system is in no way in danger, neither are our social programs. Read the agreement, Madam Speaker, that is where it says they are not at risk. They have been taken out of the agreement.
Another myth, and the committee heard this myth when it was on the road travelling across the country, startling as it may seem and almost incomprehensible to Members of this Chamber, is that free trade will lead to a flood of American pornography and hand-guns coming into this country. One person even said that the streets of Toronto will not be safe. I do not know how something like this gets started, but it has about as much relevance to the free trade debate as the price of hot dogs at Maple Leaf Stadium. Pornography is already dealt with under the authority of Canada's Criminal Code. There is nothing in the agreement that says we have to change Canada's Criminal Code. That is nonsense. The GATT already provides the authority for Canada to control the import of both pornography and firearms. Article 407, chapter 5 and chapter 12 of the free trade agreement makes it clear that these powers remain absolutely untouched.
The next myth is that free trade will unleash wide-open competition in services. Article 1402 of the agreement makes it clear that existing laws and regulations governing services remain untouched. The agreement relates only to future laws and regulations. I am always concerned when people talk about services as if somehow or other this is a departure that will ruin Canada. But I ask, when the GATT was established in 1947, what was the world trading in? It was trading primarily in goods. In 1987, if we were establishing the GATT, it is incomprehensible to me that it would not talk about goods and services because services have become more important in the world in terms of trade than goods. In some instances, I do not know how one tells the difference between what are goods and what is a service. What is a floppy disk? Is it a goods or is it a service? Of course, it is a combination of both. To say that service should not be in a modern trading agreement, to me, hearkens back to the horse and buggy days. Of course, they belong in a trade agreement. Canadians are good at these sorts of things. We have nothing to fear in terms of services. We sell our services across the whole world and we want this agreement to be the forerunner of what the GATT should be. We will win on this at the GATT.
Another myth is that Canada's trucking industry will be destroyed. The services annex of the agreement does not include transportation, not at all. Like the cultural and social programs, the trucking industry is not affected in any way by the agreement. "Canada should depend on multilateral negotiations in the GATT rather than bilateral free trade with the United States". We have heard that statement several times through the course of the last few months. Well, of course, Canada depends on both, and will continue to do so.
The free trade agreement itself sets out our continuing commitment to ensure that we trade multilaterally in all aspects. The agreement that we have here is consistent in every way with Article XXIV of the GATT, the article that provides the framework for negotiating the free trade agreement.
Both countries retain their existing GATT rights and obligations. It strikes me that not many of the people who are concerned about this and talk only of the GATT are traders. Not many traders would tell one to stick only to the GATT. Most of the talkers do but not many traders do. If one is a trader then one knows that it is easiest in Canada to trade with the United States. It is our natural market. That is what Canadian business does. It moves with the United States.
There have been two Governments in the last few years that have tried to switch that around. Mr. Diefenbaker's Government tried to do it, as did Mr. Trudeau's Government, with a spectacular lack of success. Those things cannot be dictated to traders and to business people. They must be allowed to do their own thing. They would prefer to trade with the United States.
We can therefore use this agreement and our experience in trading with the Americans, our ability to compete with them and our ability to produce world product mandates, to then trade with the rest of the world, which is what part of this is all about. Both the United States and Canada are founding members of the GATT. We want the GATT to be successful, but we want the GATT to move away from where it is now.
Let me finish by talking for just a moment about child care, something which we have heard so much about this afternoon. There is nothing in the agreement that foresees or encourages, provides for or allows health and social services to become tradable services. If a United States firm comes into Canada to operate a child care facility it may do so. However, if we read the agreement, we find that it is not entitled to national treatment for the conduct and operation of that facility since that right flows only to covered services. Day care is not covered.
Let us do away with the myth and let us look at the agreement. There is nothing in this agreement that causes a change in any Canadian standard or criterion governing services within the health, education, social service or child care field.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: How about management of institutions?


William C. Winegard: Hon. Members now want to talk about health management. That is a good one for Canada since, once again, people do not understand what Canada is doing. They are so afraid of the United States that they do not understand.
Do Hon. Members know who will win with respect to health care facility management? It will be Canadians going down to the U.S. marketing and operating their facilities. We do it now. We are big operators there, and we will continue to be
May 16, 1988

Supply
big operators. Most of the people who talk about this have no experience in running a health care facility, none whatsoever. Some of us have. Some of us know how good we are.
One of the tragedies about this is that so few people have yet to learn that this agreement is typically Canadian. It is an agreement that reaches out and says: "We are good. We can do it. Let us have the opportunity".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order! It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82(9).
Copps	McDonald	RobinsonGauthier	(Broadview-	RodriguezHopkins	Greenwood)	RossiHovdebo	Mitchell	SkellyIsabelle	Murphy	Tobin-29Jewett	Ouellet	Kaplan	Penner	MacLellan	Riis	Manly	Robichaud	
++NAYS
Members

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
Allmand
Althouse
Benjamin
Members
Blackburn
(Brant)
Boudria
Broadbent
Caccia
Cassidy
It being 6.12 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.12 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, May 17, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers