1988-12-23

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board) and Acting President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the debate on the motion for third reading and passage of Bill C-2 and on any amendments proposed thereto shall not be further adjourned.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 22, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and by substituting the following therefore:
Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be not now read a third time, but that the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for reconsideration of Clauses 3 through 150 inclusive.
Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (International Trade) and Minister of State (Housing)):: Mr. Speaker, today is an historic day. Today the representatives of the people of Canada decide whether to say yes or no to free trade. The Canadian people by choosing the Members of this House as their representatives decided in favour of free trade on November 21. What the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) did on July 20-I remember it well-was to seek to force an election which offended important conventions of Canadian Government. After listening to him in the last few days he seems not only unrepentant but proud of what he did that day. But the election having been held, the issue of free trade having been central in the campaign, and the Government having been returned with a majority, the decision has been made; yes to free trade.
Over the last two years I have been involved in the Free Trade Agreement, first, as Parliamentary Secretary, and then as Minister of State. I have travelled from coast to coast. I have been in some 100 ridings speaking on free trade.
I have been involved in debate, attending conferences both here and in the United States. It has been a fantastic experience. Not all those conferences, not all those debates were easy ones. The appearance before the labour council with 450 union workers in attendance made it very difficult for speeches that evening, but it was a very interesting and challenging experience which I shall not forget for a very long period of time.
This agreement with which we are dealing today talks to the change that is going on in the world. Change happens all the time. It has happened since the Industrial Revolution where industries have come and gone because they became outmoded. They could not keep up with modern technology. When you think that children in school today will absorb more knowledge in about five years than their grandparents did in their lifetime, that gives you an idea of the rapid change we are going through in this country.
I should like now to take a moment to talk a bit about the community that I come from.
When I was a young boy growing up in Brampton, its population was 5,000. In those days, rush hour commenced when the workers were released from the one industry that we had in town, and lasted all of one and one-half minutes.
At that time the two main employers in Brampton were Dale Estates and Calvert Estates, which were then two of the largest flower growers in Canada. In fact, in
December 23, 1988

those days Brampton was known as the "flower town of Canada".
It was a one-industry town, with a population of 5,000.
We had over 60 acres under glass, and produced some of the most beautiful orchids ever produced in Canada, and of course the world famous Dale Estates rose.
Today, the flower industry in Brampton has disappeared. Dale Estates is now a real estate development company. Its property became too valuable, and it could no longer compete with what was going on in the world today, given the cost of energy, and so forth. And so that industry disappeared. But other industries came in to take its place. When Dixie Cup first came to Brampton, it was considered to be quite a revolution. As well, we had Williams Shoes and Hewitsons Shoes, both of which have closed down because they could no longer compete. But other industries came along and took their place. Today the community that I and the Hon. Member for Brampton-Malton (Mr. Chadwick) represent is the community of some 200,000 people, a community growing at 5 per cent a year.
I have in my hand a list of the businesses created just in the last 11 months-and it is a significant list. In fact, it is some 25 pages in length, and while I do not intend to read the full list, I should like to highlight a few.
In the last 11 months the businesses established in Brampton include High Frequency Systems Ltd., a manufacturer of high frequency equipment, employing six people; Presscraft Litho Finishing, die cutting, employing five people; Carleton Cards-Rustcraft, employing 600 people.
In fact, Carleton Cards-Rustcraft erected a building in my community which could accommodate five football games all at the same time without fear of one interfering with the other. It is a phenomenal operation.
We also have Palco Telcom, a company involved in the refurbishing of telephone equipment, employing 30 people; Burnemann Pumps, a manufacturer of motor pumps, employing 10 people; Warren Publishing Company, employing 10 people; JI Trimming, cabinet makers, employing 20 people-and on it goes, page after page after page of industries being created by entrepreneurs, people who are accepting the challenge of the future and who have addressed this thing called change.
These people are prepared to meet the challenge. They are creating jobs in Ontario.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
And we in Ontario have been very fortunate. Brampton is a 24-hour truck drive from 60 per cent of the Gross National Product of the U.S. What a fabulous opportunity! And other regions of this country want to have the same opportunities.
Hour after hour we listen to the opposition Members talk about the threat that the FT A presents for our regional development programs. Well, the Free Trade Agreement in itself is the most significant regional development program that this country has ever seen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: To say that there are no regional development programs, or there are not going to be in the future, is nonsense. Of course there are. But this agreement, what a fabulous opportunity it presents for Canada, what a magnificent opportunity for Canadian entrepreneurs, for the creators in this country, whether it be in the arts or any other endeavour. What a fabulous opportunity for them.
We cannot do it for them. As parliamentarians, we cannot do it for them. But Canadians have indicated to me time after time after time that they are prepared to meet the challenge; that they want to develop their businesses; that they want to see their businesses expand here in Canada. They want to sell into the U.S. market.
As I keep saying to people, we are good; we Canadians are very, very good. We can compete, and we will compete. We have in the past, and we will in the future.
The kinds of things we have seen happening over the past couple of years have been encouraging. By way of example, I received the following letter from a resident of my riding. It starts out with "Dear John", as most letters directed to me do. It reads:
I have for many years, as you are aware, been active in my support of the Liberal Party.
And not only has he been active, he has been the chief bagman for the Liberals in my area. He continues:
However 1 believe that your party's position on free trade with the United States is the correct stance and a wonderful opportunity-
I repeat, "a wonderful opportunity".
-a wonderful opportunity that, as the Economist magazine states again this week, any country in the world would leap at.
John, you and your Party have my support and my vote for this election.
And it is signed "Peter O. Montgomery".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 23, 1988


John Horton McDermid: I met with that type of thing time and time again as I travelled across this country of ours. People are prepared to take the opportunity, to grab the challenge, to get involved in the changes that are going on. They are not interested in being protected.
We know the opposition Parties want the industrial sector to be subservient to Government. That is their raison d'etre. It is for that reason that they want to keep them in a little cocoon, only letting them out the odd time. When things go wrong, they should be running to Government to be propped up and to be coddled. The opposition Parties like that. They love to be able to pull the strings.
This Party doesn't like that philosophy. We want to see the entrepreneur, the creator free to meet the challenges that are presented by the 21st century. The Free Trade Agreement speaks to that change.
The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) delivered a very eloquent speech in the House the other day, a speech in which he talked about the changes taking place in his riding, where Domtar has an expansion coming on which will create 130 more jobs- and that in a part of Ontario that is well north of the Golden Horseshoe area.
Even our friend Frank Stronach is expanding his operations. Does anyone remember Frank Stronach?


An Hon. Member:: Frank who?


John Horton McDermid: Frank has said time and time again how devastating this Free Trade Agreement will be for Canada, how terrible it will be. And what is he doing? Well, he is going to build another of his auto parts manufacturing plants in Bracebridge, in the Muskoka region.
The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is doing a tremendous job for his riding. He is attracting more and more industry to his riding. It is little wonder that he was re-elected. He is doing just a marvellous job for his riding.


Some Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: These companies have accepted the challenge of change; they are prepared to run with this thing.
I see that we are getting close to eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I will just cite the example of one other company, a company that is a prime example of a success story and one which is very supportive of the
Free Trade Agreement. I refer to Husky Injection Molding Systems Ftd.
The Hon. Member for Halton-Peel (Mr. Turner) will be very familiar with this particular company as it operates within his riding. It is a company that I have followed for a number of years.
Husky Injection Molding Systems Ftd. has 1,600 suppliers world wide. In 1987, it shipped into the U.S. $64 million worth of product, representing 69 per cent of its total production. Because of the tariffs and other barriers to trade into the U.S., this company was looking at the possibility of expanding within the U.S. The Free Trade Agreement will ensure that that company stays in Canada, creating more employment and doing a bang-up job for Canadians.
I see that it is eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to concluding my remarks following Question Period.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being eleven o'clock, we will now proceed to Statements by Members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we are closing the year with a false sense of security. The so-called Free Trade Agreement will, in essence, lead to economic union between Canada and the U.S., which in turn will mean becoming less Canadian and more American. It will mean relying more and more on the export of our natural resources, instead of adding value at home. It will mean a weakening of our environmental standards, losses of jobs, and more American investment. The list is long.
Equally serious is the weakening of Canadian federalism as proposed by the Meech Lake Accord. Such poor leadership has resulted in the the weakening of the respect for minority language rights. In addition, Charter rights are eroded. Prospects for native people are dim. The definition of Canada is outdated.
Ironically, we will be indebted to provincial Premiers for the demise of Meech Lake. All this adds up to one
December 23, 1988

bottom line. Canadians will bring an end to this Tory regime which has done so much to weaken the fibre of this nation. Canadians look forward to doing so in 1992.


FINANCE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Quebec announced yesterday that it was increasing the tax exemption for flow-through shares, which it had reduced in December 1986, from 133 1/3 per cent to 166 2/3 per cent. The Minister of Finance of Quebec emphasized that the aim of this new increase in the deduction for investment in mining exploration was to sustain growth in Quebec's mining sector, particularly in the Abitibi-Temiscamingue region.
Individuals who incur exploration expenses will, moreover, be able to claim the additional deduction announced, even if the exploration project is being carried out under the new Canadian Exploration Incentive Program, the CEIP, which comes into effect on January 1,1989.
Mr. Speaker, this represents a victory for the Association des prospecteurs du Quebec and for all economic agents in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and I am pleased to see that our investors will benefit from this measure.


TRIBUTE TO STAFF
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, this has been an eventful year for all of us, a year of achievement for this Government and this House. We have spent hundreds of hours in this House debating vital issues such as tax reform, abortion, language issues and, of course, the crowning achievement, the Free Trade Agreement.
None of this would have been possible without the faithful work of all those who work to make the operation of this House so successful. I think it is appropriate that all of us today pay a special note of thanks and recognition to all those who make it possible-the Pages
who keep our messages going, the Table Officers who give us such good advice, the Library staff, the security guards who keep us safe, all the translators and the Hansard staff who listen to every word we say, those who work in the cafeterias and the restaurants to keep us well fed, the messengers who send our messages and, in particular, all our own office staff who keep us going.
To all of them I think we can say that, with the cooperation of the House they will be home for Christmas. To all of them a Joyeux Noel and a happy 1989.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT COMPENSATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA GRAPE GROWERS
Mr. Lyle MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, last August the federal Ministry of Agriculture announced a $28 million federal-provincial bail-out package for B.C. grape growers to help ease their way into oblivion in light of the trade deal.
As of yesterday, representatives of the B.C. Grape Marketing Board confirmed that this agreement had not yet been signed. B.C. grape producers are waiting anxiously to receive this compensation so that they can either pull out their grape vines and move into other areas of production, or get out of farming altogether.
In light of the Government's zealous commitment to ram this trade deal through before January 1, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) should also make a commitment to sign the financial compensation package for B.C. grape growers also before January 1 so that these grape growers are at least assured of some financial help in an industry that will be killed by the trade deal.


DISASTERS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, it was with great sadness that we learned that one of my constituents, Mr. Paul Freeman, was one of

December 23, 1988
two Canadians who went down with a Pan American jumbo jet in Scotland a couple days ago.
I am sure that Members of the House would want me to extend our deepest sympathies to Paul's family in Dundas, along with the many other families and friends of victims of this horrible Christmastime tragedy.
I know that the preliminary investigation into the crash is being handled by Scotland Yard and the U.S. State Department. But because Canadian citizens were involved I am asking Canada's External Affairs Department to keep us posted on the international intrigue surrounding the disintegration of Flight 103.
More immediately, I am grateful that External Affairs has already been in touch with the Freeman family. I am aware that the Government of Canada is providing all possible assistance in their time of sorrow.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski) visited my riding during the election campaign and promised a $35 million redux program for tobacco farmers. This program was to begin in early December.
We have yet to see this program begin. The program is designed to assist tobacco farmers leaving the business as a result of changing social patterns and adverse government legislation and tax policies such as we saw during the last sitting of the House.
This program was promised for early December. Tobacco farmers want to know when they might expect the program. I call on the Government to start this program immediately, and assure tobacco farmers that they will continue to have a future in farming.


FESTIVE SEASON
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the holiday season is a special time to extend good wishes to those whom we love and appreciate. I would
like to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes for Christmas and the New Year to all Canadians, and in particular to the people of the federal riding of Drummond.
We are one big family and I wish only the very best for all of us.
Together, we have accomplished some great things over the past four years and I am confident that the future will be very bright for all of us. I am proud and honoured to have represented you in the House of Commons over the years and I will continue to prove myself worthy by working on your behalf and with you.
In closing, I hope to see all of you in 1989.

God bless all of us. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Buon Nat ale. Felices Navidades.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mrs. Pauline A. Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of Members of Parliament a recent government initiative which provides important tax breaks for disabled Canadians.
Eight items will be eligible for deduction under the Income Tax Act. They include electronic devices to help disabled persons control home heating and lighting, and electric track systems to enable those confined to wheelchairs to move around their homes. As well, electronic insulin pumps, and expenses involved with bone marrow and organ transplants will now become deductible.
I would like to point out that the introduction of these much needed income tax deductions has received praise from the Canadian Paraplegic Association. The Association says that these measures will help the financial burden of paraplegics and quadriplegics.
I am sure my colleagues will join me in commending this initiative which demonstrate genuine concern to help meet the special needs of Canada's disabled persons.
December 23, 1988


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona): Mr. Speaker, many Members may recall that during the election I released an internal document of the CNR which talked about downsizing the railway from a level of 43,000 employees to 26,000 employees. At that time I was accused of being alarmist in predicting a 17,000 person lay-off.
The fact of the matter is that we are not talking about a lay-off in the traditional sense. We are talking about a systematic downsizing of the CNR. The figures that I used were used earlier in an article in the Report on Business, in an interview with Mr. Lawless, the President of the CNR. Those figures of going down to 26,000 thousand were used in that article in February of 1988. So the concern is real.
It is reinforced by an article in a magazine called Trains which talks about the scheduled delivery of locomotives in 1990, shortly after the easing of duty on imported locomotives, likely the result of the Free Trade Agreement, which would include a 15-year service contract for these locomotives.
What we are looking at is the overhaul and maintenance of locomotives being done in the United States in the future, the contracting out of this work which should be done in Canada.
I call on the Government to make sure that that kind of work continues to be done in Canada.

Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, workers laid off by the closure of Route Canada have yet to receive any adequate satisfaction from the Government.
During the last election campaign the workers were promised by the Government that their problems would be dealt with. CN promised to do a study of costing. To date, neither the Government nor CN has done anything.
At the time of privatization of Route Canada the CN employees made major concessions in the area of benefits and rights due them in the belief that an honest
attempt was being made by CN to save their jobs through the sale.
Less than one year after the sale 50 per cent of the workers were laid off. To avoid further payments for severance and hospital benefits, the company went bankrupt.
CN and the Government knew that the operations of Route Canada had been mismanaged and run down far too far to survive. The only people who did not know were the unfortunate workers who acted in good faith, and who at this Christmas season are still without a settlement.
This Conservative Government must take action for these workers. Rhetoric and words are not enough. A settlement is needed. These men need the Government to intervene to assure a just settlement for Route Canada workers.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the rise of high inflation most definitely leads to high interest rates. That situation would have negative effects in Canada unless our Government soon takes steps to reduce our high budget deficit, an OECD expert on Canadian affairs has warned.
The Economic Council of Canada urged our Government in a recent report to tighten our fiscal policy and reduce our deficit, which would allow the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates.
We have had the warning signs of inflation and the Government has certainly stayed the course to curb this rise. It is now time for an all-out assault on the deficit, the EEC and the OECD tell us.
What is more important, my constituents have been telling me to reduce the deficit. Many could not or would not vote for the Liberals or socialists in the last election due to their display of indiscriminate spending plans. The free trade debate is behind us. We must bite the bullet and tackle the debilitating deficit problem.

December 23, 1988
Oral Questions


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. William C. Winegard (Guelph-Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, our recent elections centred on free trade. The people decided. Now let's implement the Agreement. Every argument that the Opposition has raised has been rejected. The time for talking is over and the time for taking action is now. Unfortunately, we must continue to respond to the objections raised in the House.

Oh, well, thank goodness Bill C-2 will soon be passed. We will be glad, and the country will be glad.


THE CONSTITUTION NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, it's a shame the Prime Minister has not arrived because I wanted to say to him indirectly that it is false to assume that Pierre Trudeau agreed to the "notwithstanding" clause in 1982 simply because it had always existed in Canada.
In our parliamentary system, governments enjoy unlimited powers in so far as they act within their respective jurisdictions. With the Charter, the Liberal Party wanted governments to defer to a higher authority, namely the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We were only partly successful, Mr. Speaker. However, when a government invokes the notwithstanding clause, we revert to the status quo ante, that is to the situation that existed before we had the Charter.
The real question we have to ask, Mr. Speaker, is this: Why did the Prime Minister not demand the withdrawal of this clause at Meech Lake, when he conceded everything to the provinces?
Mr. Speaker, there is no choice but to conclude that it's Brian's fault that we have the "notwithstanding" clause today!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the population of the new riding of Quebec-Est, which I am proud to represent, is made up of young families and of a significant number of senior citizens. The majority of these people benefit from social programs that are in place as a result of existing legislation and the prevailing economic situation.
We are all in favour of protecting, and even improving, the social programs that are available to Canadians. However, before we enhance these programs, it is vital that we protect what we already have. We cannot achieve our goals by mortgaging the country further, as the NDP and Liberal parties have suggested we do in their programs.
On the contrary-it is by stimulating the economy, by increasing productivity and by maintaining a high level of prosperity that we are going to be able to fulfill our social obligations! The Free Trade Agreement, signed thanks to the initiative of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and to a climate of confidence generated by the policies of a truly responsible government, is going to enable us to protect our existing social programs. Because more Canadian men and women have jobs, because our productivity is going up, we are spending less money on unemployment insurance, we can reduce the national deficit, a legacy of the Liberals and the NDP, and the result is that we are making the future and the value of our social programs more secure.
On November 21, the voters of Quebec-Est understood this, and today I ask you to respect their will. History will show that we are right!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister?
It has been a disturbing week for Parliament. We have seen rights trampled in Quebec. Equally disturbing has been the Prime Minister's refusal to deal directly
December 23, 1988	__________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________7T7
and frankly with the Secretary of State. That man categorically contradicts the Prime Minister on the notwithstanding clause which was used this week to override minority rights. The clause can be used in the same fashion in the future by any province, or by this Parliament.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not recognize the signal the Prime Minister is sending to Canadians by leaving that man in that job in our country?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs and Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the country knows, there is no contradiction.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: What is your position, John?


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister says he wants to eliminate the clause. The Secretary of State says the clause is essential. Yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs can see no problem. I very much regret that he is being asked to carry the can for a very indefensible case.


QUERY WHO WILL NEGOTIATE FOR GOVERNMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the question is more serious because the Prime Minister is talking about holding a conference with his provincial counterparts to negotiate the elimination of the notwithstanding clause.
But who will be the Prime Minister's negotiator in this matter? The Secretary of State, who doesn't believe in minority rights?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State of External Affairs and Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition is well aware of the impact that a First Ministers' conference can have, here in Canada. We had a success with the Meech Lake process. It was very clear at the time that it was the Prime Minister who was the catalyst of that historic consensus. The same will hold true of any future conference.


GOVERNMENT'S CREDIBILITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs honestly think that Canadians can
Standing Order 31
really believe in a conference to negotiate the elimination of the notwithstanding clause when the Secretary of State is in favour of retaining it?

On the Prime Minister's constitutional agenda there must also be for early consideration constitutional recognition of the inherent rights of our aboriginal peoples.
How confident can the first peoples of our nation feel about success in obtaining justice as long as the Secretary of State remains in the office he holds?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I assume that is a straight question, requiring a straight answer. The straight answer is they can have full confidence not only in the Secretary of State but also in this Government. I will remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that it was as a result of an initiative of this Government that we came within an ace of getting agreement on those illusive and fundamental problems not very long ago.
Indeed, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would know that had Meech Lake been in effect at that time, had Quebec been at the table rather than excluded, we would have achieved that type of agreement.
That is one more reason why it is so important for the aboriginal people, for language minorities across the country, and for Canadians who are interested in the integrity of the country, for us to find ways to get on with the adoption of the historic agreement reached at Meech Lake.


QUERY WHETHER DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER HAS MET SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence-which is now habitual-of the Secretary of State and given the latter's offhand attitude to this matter and to the obligations entrusted to him as a Senior Minister in this Government. We as members of the Opposition have an obligation to question Cabinet Ministers in this House. In his absence, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he has met recently with the Secretary of State, today perhaps, to explain to him his duty, his obligations to the House of Commons? Did he

December 23, 1988
Standing Order 31
ask him to show up today, or is he too busy, as the press inform us, with his little meetings and his trips to Toronto? I would like an answer, please!


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Secretary of State is also the Acting Minister of the Environment. My understanding is that he is attending to some very urgent matters pertaining to the environment, which I am sure Hon. Members believe is a matter of major importance to the future of Canada, and very much a national priority.


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Minister that we had a difficult week in Canada, and the Secretary of State, the Minister responsible for protecting and promoting minority groups in this country, has been absent most of the week.
The Prime Minister has put a gag on all Members and said that he is-if we are going to believe the Hon. Member for Richelieu-the sole spokesperson on minority language rights.
The Secretary of State is quoted in the press as stating on September 20, 1988: "I want to speak with Anglophones. I would like to understand them. We have to talk to each other. They told me they had apprehensions about me".
Is the Minister trying to favour himself with Canadians by staying absent from the House, or is it not his responsibility to be here to answer questions from Anglophones and Francophones concerning this very important subject of minority rights?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find the Hon. Member's observation rather odd, inasmuch as the Prime Minister has been in the House every day this week with the exception of today, responding in detail to all the important issues. The Prime Minister speaks for the Government, on behalf of the Government, and on behalf of Canadians in this issue.
I would remind the Hon. Member that perhaps he should heed the advice of the Prime Minister when he stated yesterday: "How we resolve this issue will clearly demand reason, fair mindedness, and tolerance".
Rather than attempting to escalate the political nature of this issue, the Hon. Member should practise what the Prime Minister told him to practise yesterday.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT MEMBERSHIP OF DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PANEL
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Given the Minister's detailed knowledge of the trade agreement he will know that Article 1901.2 provides, prior to the implementation of the deal, for the selection of a panel of some 50 individuals, 25 of whom are to be named by Canada, who will make up the roster of individuals to be used to make decisions when trade disputes arise after the deal comes into effect.
This list of names was supposed to have been announced prior to the implementation of the deal.
It is to include such people as lawyers in good standing, of good character, of good reputation, and chosen strictly on the basis of objectivity.
Since the workers at Northern Telecom, Gillette, Pittsburgh Paints, and other places will have a real interest in this list, could the Minister tell us if that list of names is available, and who is on it?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Leader of the New Democratic Party himself might be interested. He will be looking for a job shortly. We will certainly keep him under consideration.
Under the Free Trade Agreement, and of course we cannot start to implement it until it is passed by the House, and the very questioner is a person who is preventing it from being passed by the House, there has to be a panel appointed, as the Hon. Member has indicated.
There is no decision yet as to who will comprise the 25 Canadian nominees. That is being worked on. We have sought names from across the country. These will have to be experienced people, and excellent persons who will be able to put forward the Canadian case strongly and well. That is the type of person we are looking for, but we have not yet made a final decision, nor has the United States.
December 23, 1988

By the way, Mr. Speaker, they do not all have to be appointed by January 1, but there has to be sufficient appointed so that if there is any dispute it will be resolved early in the term of the agreement and there will be panel members available.
As soon as the names are selected, we will certainly make them public.


SELECTION OF CANADIAN NOMINEES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the meaning attached to the word "objectivity" by the Government before. We have seen the selection of Mr. de Grandpre as chairman of the blue-ribbon committee. We have seen Jim Fleck selected as a member of the trade advisory committee, and then immediately shut down jobs in Canada.
Canadians, and particularly those workers who are affected by those decisions, have an interest in knowing how they are being selected.
Will the Minister tell us who is selecting these people, and when we will have an opportunity to see the list of names? According to the agreement they are supposed to be selected before it goes into effect.
Is the Minister saying to the House that he is waiting until the House rises, and when it is in recess after Christmas the Government, noted for its partisanship in the past, will provide us with a list of names?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of the Government has been the many appointments of opponents of the Government we have made, and the gratitude they have shown after they have served their time, such as Mr. Stephen Lewis who was our U.N. Ambassador for three or four years, and then spent the weeks following his leaving that post campaigning against the Government.


John Napier Turner: You could not buy him.


John Carnell Crosbie: You could not even rent him.


Mr. Nunziata:: You should have appointed your son, John. He would have been grateful.


John Carnell Crosbie: He would have been a hell of a lot better than Stephen Lewis, believe me.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, for every former New Democrat or Liberal, as the Minister knows, including members of his family, we have seen 10,000 Tories.
Standing Order 31
Since the Minister has suggested that he would be open to the idea of a monitoring committee, independently to review what is happening with the implementation of this deal-


OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE OF MEMBERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister is a very simple one: does he intend to accept the idea of an independent committee of MPs who would be responsible for overseeing who get chosen to sit on this Panel, which would give them a chance to support or contest the appointment of these lawyers? It is the Members of this House, not the current Government, who should decide whether the Panel is an objective body or not.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has fought for 14 months to prevent the Cana-da-U.S. Free Trade Agreement from going ahead. Now he is showing an unusual interest in who may be appointed to serve on panels.


John Edward Broadbent: Only a Tory would see a contradiction in that.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister of Finance and I have an extensive search under way across the country to see that we get 25 people, women and men, with first-class qualifications in the trade area to serve on these panels. When we have them we will be proud to announce their names.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Department of Employment and Immigration released the first annual report on the implementation of the Employment Equity Act.
The report found that visible minorities make on average 93 cents for every dollar whites make, women earn 10 per cent less than men, disabled women make 4

December 23, 1988
Standing Order 31
per cent less than other women, and native people made no inroads at all into the workforce.
In other words, systemic discrimination still exists. The report tells us exactly what we already knew when the Government tabled the Act for the first time. What action does the Minister intend to take now to correct the situation?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question because there will be a very important process come out of this reporting.
This is the first stage following the passage of the legislation whereby there is not just sociological information, but information by companies and occupation.
The process from here on is that these reports will be turned over to the Human Rights Commission which will then monitor the progress that is made in the future. There has been a certain amount of finger-pointing in these reports, which I think has been valuable. It means that employers are now looking at their own practices and trying to upgrade them.
In the annual reports over the next few years, as the Human Rights Commission follows this, we will see considerable progress.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, as the former national manager for Action Positif, let me say that the report proves that the Act simply does not work. That is what Liberals and every interest group in the country told the Government when the Bill was first introduced.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE EMPLOYERS TO MEET TARGETS
Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, the Act has no teeth and it is ludicrous to pretend that it does something to help put an end to discrimination. Does the Minister intend to amend the legislation to require employers to meet targets, and to set timetables along the lines that we have asked for on so many occasions, or is the Government, in other words, still throwing political cotton balls that fall short of consequence to Canadians who need their help?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it simply is not true to say that the legislation does not work. This is the first stage of the implementation of the legislation. No legislation could proceed until we know what is happening, not just from some sociological study of who is doing what and what discrimination there is, but from
the different companies. What will happen from now on is that it will be monitored, not by the Government but by the Human Rights Commission.
Of course, we are prepared to go further at some future point if this does not work.
We have done other things. We have the job accommodation network for the disabled. We have integrated this with other programs we have made for other clearly disadvantaged people.
We will continue to ensure that this is a better Canada as we head into another decade.


FISHERIES
Ms. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will he ask the Prime Minister, when he reshuffles his Cabinet over the holidays, to keep in mind the clear message that was sent to him by the Atlantic fishing communities who showed their complete dissatisfaction with the policies of the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans toward the inshore fisher?
Will he ask the Prime Minister to appoint a new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who will look after the interests of the many communities that are so dependent on the prosperity of the inshore fishery?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, neither I nor the Prime Minister share the Hon. Member's interpretation of that message.


Coline M. Campbell: I cannot help it if you lost so many Members, including the former Member, because of fishing policies.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF ATLANTIC MINISTER
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, considering that the fishery management plan for 1989 again favours the large offshore companies and it is clear that it will work against the inshore fisheries, will the Deputy Prime Minister ask the Prime Minister to appoint, as he did in the Canada-France negotiations,
December 23, 1988

an Atlantic Minister to consider the disastrous consequences that will face the inshore fishery if the proposed fishery management plan goes into effect on January 1?
Would he ask that some Minister from the Atlantic discuss and review with Members of Parliament, no matter if they are Liberals or Conservatives, and with members of the Legislatures, and concerned communities, what will happen to the inshore communities if this management plan goes ahead?
Two trips a month-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker-


Coline M. Campbell: Appoint him. You only have a week.


John Carnell Crosbie: He is the greatest Minister of Fisheries in our history, except for somebody else whom I should not mention.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I can say that I understand the problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I find the Hon. Member's comments most unfortunate indeed. I think all Members of the House would agree, indeed the fishing community would agree, that we have in the current Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a hard working, dedicated Minister who has worked diligently on behalf of the fishing community.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, you might want to allow the Hon. Member another supplementary so she can explain to the Canadian people what she has against western Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.


Coline M. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.
_____________________________721
Standing Order 31


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday's employment equity annual report confirmed that systemic discrimination persists in the federally regulated workforce and that women, the disabled, visible minorities, and native Canadians are not being given a fair chance to compete equally in the Canadian workforce. Free trade will only exacerbate this trend.
Since the present Act is just a front for inaction, and since the Minister said there is no provision later for enforcement but will only monitor, will the Minister amend the Act to incorporate real enforcement measures? Will the Minister set an example for all employers by including the Government's own Public Service in greatly strengthened employment equity legislation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we are the first Government ever to have taken employment equity seriously. I think the Hon. Member might also be interested in talking to some of her fellow NDPers.
Here is a comment from one of the employers: "We are a highly unionized employer, approximately 87 per cent of our workforce. Of these unionized employees, some 97 per cent are covered by collective agreements which have union hiring hall provisions. The unions operate a manpower dispatch system, thus leaving the employer with little actual control." So I suggest she join with us in helping some other segments of society to make this work.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INTRODUCE PAY EQUITY LEGISLATION
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, a lot of myths are being passed around this House this week, and that is another one. One thing this report confirms is that a large wage gap exists between women and men in the federally regulated sector. In light of this fundamental unfairness, will the Government bring in pay equity legislation, as has already been

December 23, 1988
Standing Order 31
done in four provincial jurisdictions, to correct this basic inequity in Canadian society?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this Government has pay equity provisions and affirmative action in the Public Service, as well as employment equity. Let me tell the Hon. Member that other countries are looking at this.
We are the first country in the world to have national standards on employment equity and there are other countries looking at it.
Of course there may be other provisions that we will need, but we have to get at every sector of society and not just make rules that will be impossible for people to follow. That is what has happened in those jurisdictions with that legislation. It hasn't worked.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Treasury Board. This morning the Minister released a report, the first report, I believe, on employment equity in the Public Service of Canada. That report indicated that visible minorities and the disabled are drastically underrepresented in the federal Public Service and that visible minorities, the disabled, women, and native people are seriously underrepresented in the senior levels of management. What do the Minister and the Government intend to do to put our own house in order?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to reiterate that we are the first Government to set targets for employment equity for women, visible minorities, and the disabled. One aspect of the question we might zero in on is the visible minorities, and one has to remember that a large percentage of visible minorities reside in the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, whereas the number of federal positions in those cities is correspondingly lower.
I think the important thing to remind my friend of is that we now have the first report and we can take action on the figures that flow from that report. I am sure that, when we report next year, the figures will be better.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, despite the reported near midair collision at Pearson International Airport Tuesday, only last week the Minister of State for Transport made statements to the effect that everything is now fine at Pearson. She is either unwilling or unable to take action to make sure that this holiday season remains a time of happiness and not a time of sorrow.
I would like to ask the Minister responsible what it will take for the Minister finally to do something concrete, instead of taking haphazard measures to correct this horrendous situation. Lives are in danger as we speak.


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, safety is number one at the Pearson Airport as it is across the country. Yes, there have been near misses, but the legislation was brought in to ensure that the reporting system was more secure and more stringent allowing for more representation as far as responses are concerned.


John V. Nunziata: That is nonsense.


Shirley Martin: The nonsense is on the other side of the House today. I can assure the Hon. Member that all necessary steps are being taken, and in fact the incidents at Toronto have dropped by 40 per cent in a year-


Ms. Copps:: Oh, my God, that is even worse.


Shirley Martin: -in a year when traffic has increased by 10 per cent. Therefore we are taking the appropriate action, and we will continue to take the appropriate action.


REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL STEPS TO ENSURE SAFETY
Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the unwillingness of the Minister to take action to bring in steps in order to avoid the four near misses in the last 50 days and to assure the travelling public of their safety, would the Prime Minister announce today additional steps to ensure public safety?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, initial steps have been taken. Future steps will be taken. Safety is number one and will continue to
December 23, 1988

be number one, regardless of what the Elon. Member opposite may say.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport. The lobby group, Transport 2000, is calling for a rerouting of VIA Rail trains Nos. 58 and 59 which currently pass through Cornwall.
Train 58 is an important commuter link for many Cornwall residents who work in Montreal. It is also used by people who wish to make airport connections at Dorval. Train 59 connects Cornwall with Toronto and is an inexpensive service used by many people in Cornwall and the surrounding area, especially low income travellers. I would like to ask the Minister of State for Transport if she will guarantee that these trains will continue their present operation and not be rerouted.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his concern for the constituents of the Cornwall area, and I will certainly take notice of his question, look into the situation, and reply to him.


TRAIN SERVICE IN EASTERN ONTARIO
Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, this answer is not helpful.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert (Bob) Kilger: The Government has promised in the past to maintain rail passenger service in Canada. We have just witnessed the cancellation of overnight train service between Ottawa and Toronto. I ask the Minister of State for Transport if she will today honour the Government's commitment to preserving train service in eastern Ontario.


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question with the first answer.


TESTING OF NERVE GAS ANTIDOTE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Dr. Somers, the Director General of the Drugs Directorate of Health and Welfare, today confirmed that the green light has been given to the Department of
Standing Order 31
National Defence for human guinea pig testing of HI-6, a nerve gas antidote.
Since we learned this fall that Canadian servicemen involved in chemical tests at Suffield were not informed of the possible side effects of tests they were involved in, will the Minister assure this House that any servicemen or civilians who participate in HI-6 tests will be fully informed? In some tests on animals, this drug caused death, and in many cases extreme birth deformities.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the assurances that the Hon. Member asks for are the assurances that the Department of National Health and Welfare required of the Department of National Defence. I believe the Hon. Member had a conversation; possibly within the last 24 hours, with officials of my Department relating to HI-6.
The situation is that informed consent will be necessary, that an ethics committee will have to be in place, that no one has to participate, that it will be used as an antidote only to test tolerance, and that no nerve gas will be involved.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer, but this Conservative Government has endorsed the production by the United States of a new generation of chemical weapons, and Health and Welfare confirmed today that an East bloc country has published a study in support of human guinea pig testing of HI-6.
Will the Minister give his support to the striking of an all-Party committee of the House to evaluate Canada's role in the development of nerve gas, chemical weapons and antidotes, and report those findings to the House in 1989?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence and Acting Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, this is only the most recent example of the Hon. Member attempting to inspire fears among the public.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: The House will recall that the Hon. Member made very irresponsible allegations earlier in the year with regard to Suffield. When we asked him to give the Department names of individuals whom he had

December 23, 1988
Standing Order 31
alleged had been affected by nerve gas or by chemical testing, he refused to do so. That was simply an irresponsible action on his part.
The House will know that I have asked Mr. William Barton, a former disarmament ambassador, the Chairman of the Canadian International Institute of Peace and Security, to conduct a full study of all of the aspects of chemical and biological research in Canada. That study will be completed by the end of this year. It will be made public. It will be made available to all Members of Parliament. If any Member of Parliament, for example, serving on the National Defence Committee wishes to pursue the issue, we will be pleased to see it pursued.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as the Attorney General of Canada. On December 10, The Kingston Whig Standard, a newspaper published in my constituency, published a major investigative report which alleges that one Joseph Kirshbaum was involved in activities in Slovakia in World War II which could render him liable for prosecution under the Criminal Code provisions respecting war crimes.
When will the Attorney General make his decision as to the prosecution of this Joseph Kirshbaum?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have seen that special edition of the Whig Standard. The Hon. Member will know that these are questions about which the Attorney General should exercise care and public comment. I think in the circumstances I will not reply directly to that question here on the floor of the House today.


John V. Nunziata: Consult your lawyer.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will the Attorney General take seriously the allegations contained in this article?


Some Hon. Members:: Come on.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The information contained in this article has been in the public domain for some time.


John Carnell Crosbie: You cannot discuss possible prosecution.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Attorney General has a responsibility to make up his mind. Simply, when is he going to make a decision? I think that is a reasonable question, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take my duties sufficiently seriously that I do not propose to discuss potential hypothetical prosecutions here on the floor of the House.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In August, 1984, the Chinese Canadian National Council received a letter from the Conservative Party which said:
The Progressive Conservative Party supports the introduction of
an all-Party parliamentary resolution which would recognize the
injustice and discrimination of the head tax and the Chinese
Immigration (Exclusion) Act.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister live up to his promise and take immediate action to resolve this painful issue in a fair and appropriate manner?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Multicultur-alism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, following the settlement of the Japanese Canadian issue which had been a dark stain on our reputation for some 45 years, we indicated quite clearly to the Chinese community that we would be very prepared to meet with them.
Indeed, I did meet the leadership of the community in Toronto. We had a very extensive meeting. We explored the situation very carefully and clearly, and the information has been very helpful.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF ALL-PARTY COMMITTEE
Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, it is now almost 1989 and the Chinese National Council has
December 23, 1988

gone through four Multicultural Ministers trying to get some sort of action.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister promise today to the House that he will set up an all-Party committee to ensure that the Chinese-Canadian community gets a fair and just resolution to its concern?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, for too many years we had seen a Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers refuse to address themselves to any previous injustices that might have existed in this country. By coming forward with our historic settlement, by redressing a wrong that we faced for far too long, we have said clearly that, if there are any other injustices, we have not closed the door to addressing ourselves to those issues. On the contrary, it gives others the opportunity. But certainly they must be examined very carefully and in an appropriate way to see if redress is necessary.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It is related to Ferdinand Marcos and also the question of laundered money.
There is a story breaking in Vancouver where a firm known as the Vancouver Securities Incorporated has been a conduit for money to be laundered by the Marcos family. As everyone knows, a U.S. federal grand jury has instructed that the Marcos funds be frozen but there appears to be a loop hole in allowing these funds to be laundered here in Canada.
Is the Solicitor General aware of this case, and are the RCMP looking into this matter that has now been exposed in Vancouver?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, although I thank the Hon. Member for his question he will know that it is not practice to disclose in the House whether an RCMP investigation is under way. Certainly the RCMP read newspapers, just as the Hon. Member does.
If the Hon. Member has any information that would be of use to the RCMP, I would invite him to present it to the RCMP directly.
Standing Order 31


David Barrett: Far be it for me to underwrite a subscription to the Vancouver Sun for the RCMP.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INVESTIGATE
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, could I have an assurance from the Solicitor General that he will personally look into this matter and assure all Canadians that no funds from the Marcos family that have been frozen by the U.S. courts will be laundered here in Canada, and that Canadians will not be used as a haven for ill-gotten gains by people like exPresident Marcos?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, what I will do is ensure that the RCMP are fully aware of the Hon. Member's concerns.
Further, he has every right as a Member of Parliament and as a citizen to contact the RCMP directly to bring to their attention any concerns he has, or any information that he has.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, nobody likes to think too much about taxes this close to Christmas but I do have a question for the Minister of National Revenue.
During the recent election campaign, advertising by groups other than political Parties really made a mockery of the election expense limits contained in the Canada Elections Act. I would like the Minister's assurance to this House that Revenue Canada Taxation will ensure that corporations do not deduct for income tax purposes amounts spent on advertising in favour of or against the free trade agreement.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with care to my colleague's question, and I can assure him that I will take it as a representation.
I think he will understand that practices are pretty well established in this regard, and let me say that so far

December 23, 1988
Privilege-Miss C. Campbell
I have not had any other representations except his. We will look into the matter.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think the practices are established under the Income Tax Act-


John Carnell Crosbie: Under the Liberals.


John Paul Manley: -and I think there are limitations on what can be deducted. It is clear individuals cannot deduct amounts which they might have spent on advertising against the free trade deal because they wanted to protect their jobs.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about the unions?


John Paul Manley: Unions do not deduct for income tax purposes but corporations do.


John Carnell Crosbie: They take it from their members.


John Paul Manley: Is the Minister willing to ensure that these amounts spent on advertising which have nothing to do with the business of the corporations which are advertising, will not be deducted?


Henry Perrin Beatty: There is a lot to do with the very survival of their businesses.


John Carnell Crosbie: You would have ruined their businesses if you had gotten in.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the question of my colleague. I remind him that previously the Government corrected some inequities and inadequacies in Liberal legislation, and we will continue to look at it and see if it is appropriate.


PRIVILEGE
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member asking me to agree with that?


Coline M. Campbell: I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier in Question Period I was invited by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to explain my bias against the West Coast. The Deputy Prime Minister is using what I consider offensive measures of defence to a major problem on the East Coast.
We will take any Minister of Fisheries from any coast, and we enjoyed having you, Mr. Speaker, in that role at one time. We are not biased against the West Coast because of this Minister Fisheries. We are biased against this Minister of Fisheries.
Members of the inshore communities on the East Coast are certainly showing that they dislike this Minister of Fisheries.
When Robert Stanfield came down to South West Nova and stated that the people had to accept the Prime Minister "warts" and all, I do not think that he meant that we had to accept this Minister of Fisheries. We may have had to accept the Prime Minister "warts" and all, according to the Chronicle Herald the next day, but I must say that we do not have to accept this Minister of Fisheries.
It is unfair to accuse me of bias against the West Coast when we do not like the Minister of Fisheries. Name anyone else from the West Coast. Name someone from Alberta, and we will take that Minister of Fisheries. However, we do not want this Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. Speaker:: The complaint of the Hon. Member arises from a comment made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) which, as I remember it, was putting the question of whether or not the Hon. Member might or might not have a bias against the West Coast.
I find it difficult to find that it is a question of privilege. It is not a matter that has arisen for the first time in the House. As Hon. Members will recall, there was an exchange some months in which a similar complaint was brought by a Member the New Democratic Party concerning an alleged or imputed bias against one part of the country or the other.
I doubt if either of those are questions of privilege. However, in view of the fact that there have been complaints, I am sure that all Hon. Members would want to take this matter into account, and keep in mind that all Hon. Members in the Chamber are here to serve the entire country. Suggestions of bias against one part of the country or another perhaps ought not to be made.
December 23, 1988

I have to say to the Eton. Member that it does fall short of a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Hawkes:: Subsequent to the vote this morning there was an opportunity for the three Party Whips to review the balance of the day. During the course of that review we considered the arrangement we have had for the supper hour this week. It seems to have worked well. We think that there might be unanimous consent within the Chamber to adopt that understanding for the balance of today, which would be that there would not be any tactical manoeuvring, including quorum calls, or dilatory motions. The restaurant will be open this evening from 6 p.m until 10 p.m., rather than from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. for the convenience of Members.
If all Members are in agreement, it would allow all Members of the House, as the debate goes on today, to have a little more flexibility to do the hard work that remains to be done in their offices before the Christmas break.
I believe that you will find, Mr. Speaker, such a predisposition in the House, if the Whips have a good feel for the will of their caucuses, and that they be given the opportunity to bring their work up to date before they leave for Christmas.


Mr. Prud'homme:: This Bill will be passed tonight and next week we will wait for Royal Assent. Would Your Honour see to having at least a minimum of services at the disposal of Members next week, since most likely some will stay behind. Officially the House does not adjourn until after we are called in at your request, Mr. Speaker, to go to the Senate for Royal Assent.
Therefore, I am very skeptical that there may not be as many services for those Members of the House who will stay here at the call of the Chair. Would Your Honour see to it that at least some minimum services such as those provided by the restaurant be made available to all Members.


Mr. Speaker:: First, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) for bringing this matter to my attention. There has been some consideration, and I want to assure the House that I myself and others will make every effort to ensure that appropriate
Business of the House
facilities are available for the comfort and use of those Members who are here.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the matter under consideration, namely whether we can agree on a ceasefire as far af the procedural wrangling is concerned. I agree that it would be appropriate, today at least, in order to allow as many Members as possible to make their speeches, that we do not resort to any stalling tactics. We should also agree that for the lunch and dinner hours, Members should have an opportunity to use the dining room.
I would prefer, Mr. Speaker, that we agree on the length of the speeches. I would agree to limiting the length of speeches, to allow as many Members as possible to speak on such an important issue. I am always open to any suggestions from the government and, if it was possible to limit the time allocated to each Member to perhaps 15 minutes, instead of 20 minutes, it's as you wish . . . I'm open to all suggestions!


Mr. Riis:: In an effort to allow Members to complete their necessary work before the break, we would certainly be prepared to agree that we will not do anything to prohibit that.
Perhaps having some services next week would be in order, because we are still attempting to think of some way to expand the debate into next week. I do not think there is any way to do that beyond the closure motion at 1 a.m. tomorrow.
As far as limiting the length of speeches, I would not suggest that we would be in agreement with that at this point. Perhaps after some further discussion, but at this point I would like to discuss it more before we agree to limit speeches.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I would be quite happy to undertake those discussions at an early point. In the normal course of events, and in the absence of the motion this morning, very soon speeches would have reached the 10 minute mark, and that might be the place to start discussions. However, I look forward to those discussions and we will report back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I might take the opportunity while Members are present to indicate that later on this evening, certainly from 10 p.m. onwards, there will be a reception for Hon. Members in Room 16 which is the traditional way in which we meet with each other at the

December 23, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Plamondon
end of a busy several weeks. I invite all Hon. Members to join me at that time.
If events should so transpire in the House that it would be necessary to adjust the time of the reception, I shall of course do that in due course.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) uttered a word that outraged several of my constituents. I received many telephone calls about this incident.
I'm sure the Hon. Member wasn't thinking straight when she referred to an individual who was speaking French as a slime-bag.
I would just like to let the Hon. Member know that she shocked a great many people. However, I know her well enough to realize that these cannot surely be her true feelings.
Undoubtedly, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East was caught up in the emotion of the moment and, with all due respect to her, I hope that she would wish to apologize to the voters in my riding who were shocked to hear her use this word.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the first time I heard the word slime-bag was here in the House. I heard it from two Ministers of the Crown who used it on several occasions to characterize the goings-on in the House.
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member claims that I was asking the Prime Minister to speak in English when he knows full well, as does the Prime Minister, that I was asking him to speak in English because he was saying one thing in French, and something quite different in English. I do not accept this kind of duplicity from the Prime Minister, no more than I can accept it from any other Member of the House.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you try apologizing for once.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall refer to the Hansard record and, if necessary, report back to the House.
The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment on the point of order, and in doing so I draw your attention to-


Mr. Speaker:: I will of course hear the House Leader for the Opposition, if he feels that it is necessary to offer some remarks. It may be that it will not be necessary.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I merely want to draw to the attention of the Chair and the House that there is a well established principle referred to in Beauchesne's Rules of Order to the effect that the proper time at which to raise a point of order with respect to unparliamentary language is when the words are used, and not afterwards.
If the Hon. Member opposite had a concern about language that was allegedly used by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) yesterday, he should have raised the point of order immediately. Not having done so, I respectfully submit that the point of order, whatever the words might have been, is not valid.


John Horton McDermid: That is the only defence you have.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I learned it from you.


Mr. Speaker:: I will take the matter under consideration. The incident about which the complaint has been raised has attracted considerable publicity, and it is for that reason that I urge upon all Hon. Members that restraint at times, no matter what the provocation, is probably in the best interests of order in this place.
I will consider the matter and, if necessary, report back to the House on it.
1 thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West for his remarks.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, without wishing to prolong the discussion, I would like to advise the Chair that we will be reviewing the "blues" as to the recent comments of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) in order to determine whether or not, in this
December 23, 1988

latest intervention, there has been a Question of Privilege that should be followed up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(1), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of the annual report to Parliament on future immigration levels.


INCOME TAX ACT
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that certain changes under the Income Tax Act will not have an adverse effect on the benefits paid to recipients of the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Spouse's Allowance, which are based on a definition of income originating in the Income Tax Act.
Because this definition has been changed, a consequential amendment to the Old Age Security Act will be needed to ensure that recipients with employment earnings who claim or renew these benefits in April, 1989 will be protected from unintended reductions in their benefits.
At the same time, and on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Merrithew), I wish to point out that this will provide identical protection to recipients of the War Veterans Allowance.
Specifically, for purposes of these programs, the same deductions for unemployment insurance premiums, Canada and Quebec Pension Plan contributions, and employment expenses will be available as before.
The necessary legislation to maintain this protection will be tabled at Budget time.
Statements by Ministers


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mrs. Speaker, the Minister's statement, brief though it may be, was only delivered to my office at 10.26 this morning.
The information contained in this release, from what I can gather, Mr. Speaker, represents a real blow to senior citizens.
What the Minister is saying, even though he is unable or unwilling to clarify it in this House, is that the Income Tax Act has been changed to redefine the definition of earnings, and that could potentially have a negative impact on 40,000 Canadians receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Spouse's Allowance and 4,500 war veterans receiving the War Veterans Allowance.
In order to mitigate the impact of the changes that are going to be brought in under the Income Tax Act- which he fails to explain either by way of his release or by way of his statement-he is going to bring in enabling legislation to change the requirements specifically for senior citizen recipients.
The reason it is of concern, Mr. Speaker, is that each and every Member of this House, usually in the month of April, receives telephone calls from irate and distraught senior citizens who have not had their Guaranteed Income Supplement renewed.
In his statement, the Minister should be far more explanatory as to what income is being redefined and how it is going to affect senior citizens immediately.
He calls it a benefit, saying that an amendment will be introduced to safeguard current levels of the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
Well, who is being cut back, and what is the redefinition under the Income Tax Act which will negatively affect senior citizens and the war veterans?
The Minister states that as many as 40,000 people will be affected but that they do not have to do anything as the Department will initiate whatever action is needed.
It is simply not good enough, Mr. Speaker, two days before Christmas, to tell seniors that the Income Tax Act is going to be changed, that the definition of "earnings" under the Income Tax Act will be changed; to state that there could be a potential negative effect on 40,000 seniors, as well as 4,500 war veterans, and then to say: "In the future, we are going to bring in legislation which will vitiate against the negative effects of the

December 23, 1988
Interparliamentary Delegation Report
changes to the Income Tax Act which we are now bringing in."
I think the Minister owes the seniors of this country an explanation which is far more precise. I should like to know precisely what changes to the Income Tax Act are proposed to be brought in and why it is that he is coming in with this statement at this time, a statement which is going to frighten senior citizens and frighten war veterans.


An Hon. Member:: You are the one who is frightening them.


Sheila Maureen Copps: And then he says: "Don't worry about it, because the Department is going to get in touch with you individually."
Well, Mr. Speaker, we know that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am sorry, but this a very important issue. It is an issue that deals with the Guaranteed Income Supplement for senior citizens. I think the Minister needs to give more information to our seniors as to the kinds of changes that have been made and how it is that we can be assured that the Department is going to be able individually to contact the 40,000 senior citizens whose livelihood depends upon the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
The Minister's statement is uninformative and needs to be expanded.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, while we agree with the intent of the Minister's statement, I can say that, like many Members of this House, I have had telephone calls and letters from senior citizens who do not understand why their benefits have been cut when they have had employment earnings-earnings that they desperately need in order to survive.
We certainly support the intent to ensure that recipients of old age pensions, spouses' allowance and veterans' allowance will not have their benefits reduced as a result of the income tax measures. However, I agree with my colleague that it is important to have a much broader and detailed explanation of this matter, particularly for our senior citizens. I would think it would not be too difficult to have some kind of statement sent out
with the next cheque mailing. Certainly all of us in this House will be most anxious to have further information as well.
Those older people must have protection. They have planned their lives with the idea that they would receive full benefits under the existing laws and not have them reduced due to Income Tax Act changes.
I note that the Minister in his press release stated that the move is "consistent with this Government's commitment to protecting pensioners and veterans with limited incomes". Why did the Minister and his Government not have the same concern about families raising children on limited incomes? Why does the Minister continue to tolerate the reduction in family allowances and benefits as a result of the deindexation policy of his Government which was imposed on family benefits? The Tory tax system does not treat families with children fairly and I hope the Minister will be reviewing and correcting this in the next Budget.
I urge him to bring forward measures to reindex family allowances and child tax credits fully. I know veterans and other pensioners and their spouses will want their grandchildren and other children to be fully protected from poverty. Therefore, I ask him to work on those two measures which are most important to the youngest and oldest of our society.


PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, I would like to bring to the attention of the House, particularly in light of the fact we have so many new Members, that Canada, more specifically the Canadian Parliament, will be host to a very important conference from June 8 to June 15, 1990.
This conference is the seventh parliamentary scientific conference organized under the auspices of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is expected that 150 parliamentarians and scientists from 21 Council of European member countries, as well as the remaining six OECD countries, will be in attendance at this Ottawa conference.
December 23, 1988

The conference will give Canada an opportunity to increase the awareness of the international scientific community as to what Canada has to offer in various specific scientific fields. Quite apart from the meeting itself, we would like to focus the attention of the delegates on Canada's technological advances, and show them evidence of this around Ottawa. We really have a story to tell with respect to technological and environmental development which is unheralded and unmatched anywhere in the world.
Because of the importance with which the Canadian Government and the Canadian people regard questions related to the environment, the Canadian Executive Committee has requested that Canadian participants lead a discussion on the subject of global environmental change, focusing, among other aspects, on the problems of monitoring and evaluating and the technological adjustments urgently needed in industry, energy and agriculture. This request was approved by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly last week.
This conference will further signal to the world that Canada and Canadian parliamentarians are prepared to move forward and meet the challenge presented to the Governments of the world by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the Toronto conference in June on the changing atmosphere. The challenge: To create an International Law of the Atmosphere by 1992.
The world needs environmental leadership. Canada and its parliamentarians have responded.


PRIVATE MEMBERS PUBLIC BILL
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) wishes to introduce a Bill. However, we do not have it at this time.


John V. Nunziata: If I may, Mr. Speaker, it was my intenion to introduce a Bill today which would have amended the Criminal Code to protect the innocent unborn. I have been advised by the Table that although the Bill is listed on the Order Paper, it is not yet at the table, which precludes me from introducing it today.
However, I am also advised that once that matter is dealt with it may be introduced later this day with the consent of the House. I ask that I be allowed to do that.
Motions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Fair enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well.


CRIMINAL CODE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find there is consent to move the following two motions, which I will do one at a time, immediately without debate. Therefore, I move:
That, pursuant to Section 195(2)( 1) of an Act to amend the
Criminal Code (Prostitution), Chapter 51, Statutes of Canada,
1985, the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be
the committee to review the Act.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Treasury Board have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are disposed to accept the order but I want to draw to the attention of the House a potential problem which has just been brought to my attention.
Contrary to the rules, the Striking Committee of this House has not met. No committee has been constituted as a result. I think it should be noted that the Government has been remiss in carrying out this responsibility placed upon it by the rules. While I want to see the obligation placed on this House by the statute carried out, I think it should be noted that as yet the Justice Committee has not been set up.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, just immediately prior to your putting the motion, I would suggest to my hon. friend that we are making an effort to comply with the legislation by designating the proper committee, and we did so on that basis. The question of when the striking committee will be set up is one that will be looked at in the very near future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 23, 1988
Motions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the second motion will probably be of more interest to the House. I move:
That immediately following the vote on third reading of Bill C-2, the Speaker shall adjourn the House to the call of the Chair for the purpose of receiving a message from the Senate respecting the giving of Royal Assent to the said Bill; and
That immediately following Royal Assent on the said Bill, a motion to rescind the order of the House of December 16, 1988, respecting sitting hours shall be deemed to have been moved by a Minister of the Crown and the Speaker shall forthwith deem such motion adopted and shall adjourn the House until eleven o'clock a.m., Monday, March 6, 1989;
Provided that, in the case of any other message from the Senate on the said Bill, the Speaker shall within 48 hours of receipt of such message call the House into session for the purpose of considering such message, and recorded divisions on which shall not be subject to provisions for deferrment.
While the Page is taking the motion to the Chair I might undertake to the House that since the date of March 6 will shorten the time allowed to the House to consider Estimates, I undertake on behalf of the Government that in this case we will provide an additional week to allow the House to consider the Estimates.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the motion. We have been consulted about it beforehand. As I have indicated to the Deputy Government House Leader, we are ready to accept the motion in the form it has been proposed in the light of the undertaking given by the Deputy Government House Leader.
One of the most important duties of members of the Opposition in the House-in fact of all Members-is to give due and proper consideration to the spending plans of the Government and what they say about the over-all policy of the Government. Ordinarily, the final date for submitting to this House the Main Estimates would be, I think, around March 1. If we agree without the undertaking being offered by the Deputy Government House Leader to begin on March 6, then the time offered by the rules for the studying of Estimates will have been rather seriously abridged, which I do not think would be in the interests of the House or of Canada as a whole.
Because the Deputy Government House Leader has given the undertaking that he has just made, we are
willing to accept the order by unanimous consent in the form in which it has been proposed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. President of the Treasury Board have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think it is particularly appropriate that I present this petition following the statement made just a few moments ago by the Deputy Government House Leader. The petition I have the honour to present comes from many residents of Strathcona, a residential community in Vancouver East which has a very large school population.
The residents of this community have said that, whereas their neighbourhood is now seriously at risk of being destroyed by prostitutes, their johns and the filth, disease, violence, crime and disturbance they bring with them; whereas they, the residents of the neighborhood, are the victims of this outrageous activity, suffering increasing break-ins and verbal abuse and threats of violence on their neighbourhood streets such as that they no longer feel safe; whereas the current laws governing street solicitation for the purposes of prostitution are completely inadequate and ineffectual; whereas victimization, destruction and disturbance of residential neighbourhoods can be substantially reduced or eliminated, and the excessive costs of policing and court processes could be more effectively applied or reduced, therefore they call upon Parliament to review the laws governing street solicitation for the purposes of prostitution, particularly in locations in or around residential neighbourhoods, day care centres, schools, churches, parks and playgrounds for the health, safety and welfare of citizens.
December 23, 1988

There are many signatures including those of many representatives of the Chinese community of Strath-cona. I hope that we will get on with the review of this legislation very quickly.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from some residents of Canada and southwestern Ontario in particular representing the hatching egg producers from across Canada who have organized themselves into a Canadian Hatching Egg Producers Marketing Agency under the provisions of the National Farm Products Marketing Agency Act in a sincere attempt to tailor their production to meet the demand of the Canadian market.
However, their efforts will be of no avail unless chicken hatching eggs are added to the import control list. Therefore these petitioners call upon Parliament and the Government to honour this commitment to the Canadian producers and announce the addition of the product to the import control list so as to provide stability for these farmers whose industry will be destroyed if no action is not forthcoming.
Please make this a merry Christmas for this sector of Canadian agriculture.
[Translation\


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be held over.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, our Standing Orders provide that when a Minister rises and makes a statement under routine Proceedings-and we have had such a statement today-an MP from the official opposition, or from each of the opposition parties, may take roughly the same amount of time to respond.
Petitions
Standing Order 33(2) stipulates, and I quote:
A period of time corresponding to the time taken for the
proceedings pursuant to paragraph (I) of this section shall be added
to the time provided for government business as follows:
On Fridays, the time is added to the end of the day, and so today if we are going to respect Standing Order 33(2) we should add on the time that has been used for the Minister's statement and the response from the opposition parties.
I noticed that you did not indicate to the House that there was a provision to this effect. Normally you say so just before the call for Routine Proceedings or Orders of the Day.
I wonder, in the opinion of this House, or of the Chair, whether we are to take it that Standing Order 57, which stipulates that questions must be decided without delay, closure having been invoked, overrides Standing Order 33(2).
I would ask the Chair to direct us on this matter, so that it will be clear that when I and my caucus a few minutes ago asked the House to restrict the time allotted to each member, which is 20 minutes per speech, so that more Members would have a chance to speak, it doesn't mean we have to add on extra time tomorrow morning at one a.m. because of a Standing Order that is interpreted perhaps somewhat differently from the way I see it.
I would ask the Chair to tell us which Standing Order, 57 or 33(2), takes precedence here.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, with his usual intelligence, knows the Standing Orders, and I congratulate him. I believe his question is a valid one. From the government's point of view there is no problem regarding the interpretation of Standing Order 57, which in my opinion is the one that should apply.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and the Hon. Member for Calgary West for their remarks.
There is indeed a conflict between Standing Orders 33 and 57. I shall take the following position: in my opinion, Standing Order 57, because this is an exceptional case, ought to take precedence over Standing Order 33. However, I think it might perhaps be a good idea if the Committee on Procedure were to consider the question, and once they have reported a conclusion one way or the other I am sure the House will act on it.
I thank the two Members for their comments.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (p. 640).
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left to me there are two or three points that I would like to cover. I think the first point that should be made for those people who are watching this debate is that we are on an amendment that was introduced by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy). The Liberals have come back to the House to debate the Bill but have obstructed all along the way. They have called for votes for leave to introduce a Bill and first reading. It became very clear that we had to take action to ensure this legislation passed the House in a reasonable amount of time with reasonable study. That was accomplished. We are now into third reading. This amendment is another stall tactic by the Liberals. We will be defeating the amendment by voting against it. That is point one.
The second point is the campaign waged by the United Church against the Free Trade Agreement. The United Church of Canada, of which my father was a minister for a number of years, put little inserts in church bulletins during the campaign opposing the Free Trade Agreement. We have heard objections to corporations advertising in support of free trade, but unions such as the CLC and the CAW advertised. Mel Hurtig and Maud Barlow advertised. Did that not count?
From the proceedings of our committee on Bill C-130, let me read the position of the United Church. It reads as follows:
The United Church of Canada has found that the agreement limits our democratic ability to use our capital and resources for worthy national purposes and has declared that the agreement is not, on balance, in the overall interest of the people of Canada. It has called upon the Government of Canada to suspend further steps toward the implementation of the agreement until such time as the people of Canada may be democratically consulted.
Well, they have now been democratically consulted. I have not heard a word from the United Church supporting this move.
I went to church last Sunday, and I brought the bulletin from our church along with me today. It is interesting that the United Church is attacking the Free Trade Agreement, saying how terrible and bad it will be for Canada. The United Church's standard Christmas bulletin, "Rejoice, the Lord is Coming", was printed in the United States of America. This is the hypocrisy that has plagued this debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What have you got against the United Church?


John Horton McDermid: When I saw this on Sunday, I could not believe it. I am calling on the United Church of Canada to come out and support the agreement and make it work. That is all we are asking for. We will pass it tonight. We will go into the Senate next week to get Royal Assent so that entrepreneurs and creative people in this country can get on with their lives and create a better and more prosperous Canada.
I wish to thank some people for the work they have done over the last three years. The three Ministers involved, the Hon. James Kelleher, the Hon. Pat Carney, and the present Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), have spent considerable time on this agreement and have done a fantastic job. They also allowed me to participate actively, for which I am thankful.
I want to thank Ambassador Reisman, Ambassador Ritchie and the staff of the trade negotiation office who spent countless hours working on the agreement, negotiating and consulting with the sectoral advisory committees, the International Trade Advisory Committee. I want to thank myriad other people. Our bureaucrats are often criticized for being lazy and not going that extra mile. These people worked many nights and weekends. They travelled extensively to the United States during these negotiations. They are to be commended. I learned a tremendous amount from Ambassador Reisman, Ambassador Ritchie, and those in the trade negotiation office who offered such good advice.
Finally, I want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I want to look back at four decisions leading to free trade, four crucial decisions taken by the Prime Minister, four decisions in which he showed courage and leadership.
December 23, 1988

The first decision, taken in 1985, was the decision to seek free trade with the United States. The Prime Minister as a candidate in 1983 had given the conventional wisdom on free trade. We were too weak economically. Canadians were not sufficiently confident as a nation. It was a political graveyard. But as a Prime Minister in 1985, with all the evidence presented from a myriad studies, he realized the opportunity for free trade, the threat of protectionism without a Free Trade Agreement, and the maturity of this great country called Canada.
The Prime Minister had a choice. Tie said "yes", in spite of political risks. He decided in favour of what would be good for Canada.
The second choice was in May of 1986 when the Senate foreign affairs committee split 10-10 in the vote to start free trade negotiations with Canada. Politically, was this not the time to quietly bury the free trade initiative?
Again the Prime Minister had a choice and he said "yes", in spite of the political risks. He believed that free trade with the United States was what Canadians needed to grow to become stronger and more prosperous as a nation.
The third decision was in August of 1987. There was one month left at the negotiating table. Mr. Reisman told the Prime Minister that the U.S. side had not offered what Canada needed to make a good deal. The Prime Minister authorized Ambassador Reisman to break off negotiations.
That took political courage. That was one of the Government's major initiatives. Walking away rather than staying at the table to the end was risky. The decision paid off when, in the final days of negotiations, the United States side brought forward the proposals needed to make this a good deal for Canada.
The Prime Minister had a choice. He said "yes" to Simon Reisman, "Walk away", when the U.S. offer was not good enough, and "yes" to the Americans when the walk-out produced what we needed for a good deal.
The fourth decision was made during the election campaign, the day the Gallup poll came out after the televised debate. To the pundits and the political seers and seasoned observers like the head of the CLC, the Prime Minister's commitment to free trade would be his Waterloo. The Prime Minister did not buy that.
The Prime Minister knew that free trade was a good deal for Canadians. He knew that he only had a few
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
weeks either to turn back the Opposition's baseless allegations on free trade or to try to turn to other issues. He took the Opposition's free trade allegations head on. He decided to fight on the issue, to stand up for what he believed in, to defend that which was in the national interest. He and his Party won because of it.
Those are the four crucial decisions for free trade. They were decisions by a Government and a Party, but in the end, they were the Prime Minister's decisions. He took the risks. He made the right decisions. He demonstrated courage and great leadership. Because of that, Canadians will benefit from free trade for decades to come.
1 look forward to the vote tonight, to the passage through the Senate and receiving Royal Assent next week, so that Canada can be a leader going into the 21st century.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Cardigan.


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his re-election as Speaker to the House of Commons.
I would like to thank the people of Cardigan for the confidence they placed in me. I consider it an enormous privilege to serve as a Member of Parliament. I want to thank the people of my constituency for their recognition and to say it is an honour for me to take part in this important debate on Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, better known as the "Mulroney-Reagan Free Trade Deal".
A majority of people in this country are opposed to this deal. In my riding of Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, there was an overwhelming turn-out of about 90 per cent who voted against this deal.


John Horton McDermid: Ninety per cent voted against it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for refer to the deal as the Free Trade Agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Exactly.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: You can call it anything you want. Wait until I get up!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: You can use the words "President Reagan", but when you refer to the Prime Minister, you must refer to him as the Prime Minister.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Blaikie:: The "Prime Minister's-Reagan deal". That is okay.


Lawrence MacAulay: This trade deal will pit Canadian farmers against American farmers for the benefit of the corporate sector. The end result is that the lowest seller establishes the market price for the commodity at the farm gate. Farmers will be forced to undercut each other and farm incomes will decline. This agreement caters to large corporations while ordinary farmers on both sides of the border will be sacrificed.
Farmers, however, are not the only ones threatened by this deal. Our fish exporters also understand the threats of their American competitors. Over the past three years, our fishing industry has had to fight American protectionism twice.
In January, 1985, the American Department of Commerce slapped a 24 per cent duty on our exports of dried salt cod. This was only a sign of things to come. In March, 1986, a duty of 5.8 per cent was levied on our exports of fresh groundfish. There is little doubt that had the Americans ruled seasonable unemployment insurance benefits were an unfair subsidy, the duty would have been at least 15 per cent. Because our unemployment insurance benefits are available to other Canadians they were not considered an unfair subsidy under existing American law. But should the Americans change those laws, our fishermen would pay a heavy price.
Before leaving the subject of fisheries, I want to quote from a press release dated February 7, 1986:
The Minister of International Trade also noted that the termination of the FVAP eliminates a program identified by the U.S.
Government as a countervailable subsidy.
Of course, I am referring to the Fishing Vessel Assistance Plan which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) cancelled. As we see, one program has already been slashed. We did not jeopardize our primary industries of farming and fishing to get 80 per cent free trade, so why in the name of common sense should we put these things on the table to get the remaining 20 per cent?
Another concern I have is for our social programs. Unemployment insurance benefits are one of Canada's social programs. Do American fishermen receive unemployment insurance benefits? No. Will Canadian fishermen receive unemployment insurance benefits
after our economies are harmonized? No. These programs are not protected under the trade deal. Subsidies will be defined after the deal is signed as our economies are harmonized into a level playing field. Let us not kid ourselves, the population of the United States is 10 times that of Canada, and harmonization simply means doing it the American way.
I want to touch briefly on the potato industry. Being a seed potato farmer, I have a vested interest in the industry. I want to stress very strongly that I am opposed to potato inspection fees. Harmonization of the laws in the seed potato industry with the United States will lower our standards. For example, many states in the United States do not have proper ring rot control measures. As everyone in Cardigan and Prince Edward Island is aware, without these measures an end will be put to our offshore markets. The bottom line is that it would mean Prince Edward Island would lose its European markets.
Another concern is the dairy industry. Under this deal there will be reduction in the prices of fluid and industrial milk in line with U.S. levels.
Mr. T. K. Warley, Professor in Agricultural Economics at the University of Guelph, wrote a paper entitled, "What would Free Trade Mean to Agriculture"? In it he says that there will be a 20 per cent to 40 per cent reduction in price as Canadian prices harmonize on U.S. border-state levels. There will also be corresponding reduction in profitability and loss of about $1.5 billion in quota values, as well as an end to supply management.
With respect to industrial milk, Mr. Warley writes that the prices will fall at least 20 per cent to lower U.S. support levels. There will be lower profits and a loss of about $3.5 billion in quota value as well as an end to national supply management in provincial market sharing.
I would also like to touch on the issue of regional development. Regional development programs are of vital interest to the Atlantic Provinces. This agreement does not specify which kinds of government subsidies will be permitted.
Premier Joe Ghiz of Prince Edward Island warned that our province will not support any agreement that undermined agricultural marketing boards. A background study by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion entitled Regional Adjustment to Free Trade had projected that potatoes would be a big loser under free trade as U.S. potatoes would be expected to grab the southern Ontario market.
December 23, 1988

In no way does this deal protect traditional government programs for regional development. Will the free trade deal help in regional disparities in Canada? Liberal Leader John Turner gave an indication during a speech in Halifax in December, 1987:
If access to the U.S. market is going to solve regional disparity, why hasn't it solved regional disparity in North Dakota or Montana or Idaho or Mississippi? They have access to that market and they had since then joined the union and they still face very dramatic regional disadvantages.
I could stand here all day and go on about the issues involved in this debate, but I realize my time is limited.
In conclusion, as the Member of Parliament for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island, I recognize the importance of international trade. Our agriculture and fisheries, to name but two of our largest resource industries, depend on international markets. The Liberal Party has always supported more liberalized trade, but certainly not this deal. This trade deal is bad for Canada.
Canadians are proud of their culture and heritage and Prince Edward Islanders are doubly proud. Prince Edward Island is the birthplace of this great country.
I was elected to represent the people of Cardigan who voted overwhelmingly against this deal, and I pledge to uphold this right.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the Speaker on his re-election to the House. Members are grateful for the sentiments expressed so eloquently by the Member for Vancouver Centre (Ms. Campbell) in her maiden address to the House last week. I join with her and all those who have paid tribute to the Speaker, to his contribution to our country and to his patience and dignity in bringing decorum and civility to this Chamber.
May I also congratulate you and the other chair officers. Perhaps you will allow me a particular note of congratulations to the Deputy Chairman, the Hon. Member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski), who in his 20 years in the House has served Alberta with distinction. That is quite a tribute coming from a guy from Calgary to a guy who played football with the Edmonton Eskimos. I would also like to thank the Table Officers for their assistance, particularly to new Members of this House.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I begin by thanking the people of Calgary Southeast for giving me the privilege of serving them in this, the Thirty-fourth Parliament. Calgary Southeast is a new and diverse riding reflecting the dynamism of a maturing nation, formed from parts of the constituencies, ably served in the last Parliament by the Hon. Member for Calgary Southwest (Mrs. Sparrow) and the Hon. Member for Calgary Northeast (Mr. Kindy), Calgary Southeast has inherited a legacy of exemplary service to Canada. Hon. Members will recall the strong western representation of John Thompson and Peter Bawden, to whom I am grateful for their encouragement and counsel.
My riding has also been distinguished by the service of Carl Nickle, Senator Harry Hays and Arthur Smith who have contributed so much to my native city. Notable too was the representation of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, former Prime Minister of Canada, and later, by Judge Manley Edwards whose son Douglas, one of my dearest friends, carries on a family tradition of service to our community.
There is a great spirit of pride, of entrepreneurial endeavour, of caring for others and of participation in the community in Calgary Southeast. We shared the pride of all Calgarians and all Canadians earlier this year in the "Best Ever" winter Olympics. We showed the world a friendly, vibrant city, dedicated and determined to strive for and achieve excellence.
My constituents know what they want and are prepared to work hard to achieve their goals. While knocking on over 25,000 doors during the election campaign, the people of my riding told that me they want to participate in the mainstream of Canadian life, that they want to be involved in the making of decisions that affect their lives and that they have the confidence to compete with the best, and over 32,000 voters in my riding said, "Yes, we want free trade".
I have listened, as have all Hon. Members, to speech after speech on the subject of free trade, each Hon. Member's speech reflecting a part of Canada, each providing a perspective of his or her riding, experience and vision of our country. There are differences to which I will refer later, but there is also a remarkable consensus. There is on both sides of the House, both sides of the debate, above the rabble, a sense of fairness and tolerance. It is to be Canadian, to respect the views of others, to consult, to debate and to find the consensus.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada's Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in his speech to the Americas Society in New York last week, said:
There are times in a nation's history when it must make important and difficult choices if it is going to take charge of its economic destiny. Our recent election was just such an occasion. Canadians were given an historic choice: either to continue the march of history toward freer and more efficient trade or to slip backward toward increased protectionism.
We in Calgary know from painful experience, as our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said, what happens when we make the wrong choices, when we try to swim against the tide, for example on energy policy or investment policy, or to resist the global trend toward more open trade. One had only to walk through the western Canada of the late seventies or the early eighties to see the devastation inflicted on western Canada by the wrong policy choice in energy. That will not happen again.
During the election campaign, some argued that a vote for the Free Trade Agreement was a vote for a Canada that turns its back on distinctive cultural and social values that help to define our country. On the contrary, we believe the Free Trade Agreement will strengthen our capacity to enhance those values through increased economic prosperity and growing national confidence.
After a thorough and energetic debate, Canadians boldly opted for the opportunities and the strengthened prosperity that will accompany the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It was a decision based on our national confidence in our ability to compete and compete successfully in an increasingly competitive market-place and on our maturity as a distinct and dynamic nation.
We in Canada have debated this subject for over 14 months. Prior to that the, Macdonald Royal Commission held hearings, conducted interviews and heard from Canadians in all parts of the country. It was a healthy exercise. However, the debate has also involved hypothetical notions and hysterical emotions and has left many Canadians asking what it will do for them, what happens when the Free Trade Agreement is implemented.
When the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement enters into force on January 1, 1989, a number of changes will immediately come into effect. Among them, tariffs will be completely removed on about 15 per cent of dutiable bilateral trade. Upon entry into force of the agreement,
such items as computer equipment, fur and fur garments, frozen fish, animal feed, skis and skates, and, as the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has noted, whisky, will cross the border duty free if they are of Canadian or U.S. origin.
On the same date, tariffs will be reduced by 20 per cent on about one-third of dutiable traded goods. Such goods include machinery, paint, furniture, paper and paper products, hardwood, plywood, petroleum and after-market auto parts. Each January 1, another 20 per cent of the tariff will be removed until these goods become duty free on January 1, 1993.
On the remaining goods, consisting of about 50 per cent of dutiable bilateral trade and including such items as clothing and textiles, appliances, most processed foods, footwear, drugs and cosmetics, et cetera, tariffs will drop by 10 per cent on the date of entry into force and 10 per cent each year thereafter until they become duty free by January 1, 1998. Canadian consumers will be the first to benefit.
Of more specific interest to the people of Calgary Southeast, the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement provides Canada with the opportunity to maintain control over our energy future. Canada's energy industry will flourish in a competitive environment while we maintain Canada's ability to control ownership and regulate the industry.
Today Canada has a thriving and developing energy industry. Nearly 275,000 Canadians work in the field, and that number is growing. In 1985, we produced over $60 billion worth of energy and energy products. Energy is our third largest export, and more than 20 per cent of our total production goes to the United States. In fact, we did over $12 billion worth of energy business with the United States last year.
It is simply not true and completely misleading to suggest that Canada has committed itself to a "continental energy policy". Under the energy provisions of the Free Trade Agreement, the federal and provincial Governments maintain their unassailable right to implement distinctive Canadian energy programs. The producing provinces will continue to exercise all rights of ownership, to determine rates of production and to levy royalties.
The agreement specifically allows for government incentives to industry to develop new energy supplies, to increase conservation measures and to implement policies that ensure the maintenance of a strong and viable oil and gas industry. Under the Free Trade
December 23, 1988

Agreement, neither country will be able to impose an export tax or duty on energy unless the same tax is applied to domestically consumed energy. Canadian energy producers can still extract a higher price in the United States market than charged to a Canadian customer if the market will bear it.
The removal of tariffs will also have a dramatic effect on the petrochemical industry that is so important to our province. Alberta alone exports 75 per cent of our production to the United States. Canadian methanol presently faces an 18 per cent U.S. duty, and polyethylene a 12.5 per cent duty. The removal of these tariffs will provide the petrochemical industry with a major incentive to further process our raw products here in Canada for export to the United States. Further processing of our resources in Canada means a broader and more diverse economy, and that means more jobs.
Many of the past energy policies have proven to be destructive for this important industry and for the thousands of people in my riding, in Calgary and in Alberta who depend on the energy industry for their livelihood and for Canadian energy consumers. The free trade agreement is good for the energy industry and it is good for Canada.
Before leaving the subject of energy, allow me to dispel the myth that the Free Trade Agreement gives the U.S. unlimited access to Canada's energy reserves. In fact, there is absolutely no obligation under the Free Trade Agreement for Canada to supply energy to the United States on demand. Resources are owned by the provinces, and the provincial Governments will continue to decide when and how these resources are developed. Canada remains free to determine when and where to allow energy exports, to monitor and license such exports and to sell energy to the United States at whatever price the market will bear. Existing Canadian ownership policies applicable to the energy sector will not change.
Under Chapter Nine of the Free Trade Agreement, Canada has retained the right to impose export restrictions on energy for a number of reasons, including short supply, conservation or domestic price stabilization. All that the Free Trade Agreement does is to require Canada to ensure that the U.S. is provided access to its normal proportion of Canadian supply if we impose export restrictions for any of these reasons.
This is nothing new, Mr. Speaker. We have long been committed, under our membership in the International
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Energy Agency, to share oil in a period of short supply. This notion is also fundamental to international trade law under the GATT. Furthermore, it is only fair.
Free trade will also benefit the agricultural industry in my province with enhanced export opportunities for beef, veal and pork producers. With the removal of tariffs, prairie livestock producers and producers of grains and oil-seeds will be more competitive in the United States. Exemption from U.S. meat import laws will give prairie beef producers greater and more secure access to the U.S. market.
Under the Free Trade Agreement we have preserved the right to use our marketing board systems and we have kept intact the supply-management system for dairy, poultry and eggs that is so important to Canadian agricultural producers.
Services are the fastest growing part of the economy in both Canada and the United States. The prairie provinces are strong in petroleum, chemical and mining engineering, resource science, management consulting, accounting, computer services and insurance and banking. The services agreement guarantees the service sector its current high level of access to the U.S. markets.
For the West's manufacturing sector, the Free Trade Agreement will lead to further diversification of western industry and increase the competitiveness of the strong manufacturing base already in place. The Canada West Foundation estimates that over half a million jobs in western Canada are in industries which can expect positive benefits from the Free Trade Agreement.
The Free Trade Agreement will ensure the long-term viability for our energy sector, give our farmers a sure and equal access to the huge U.S. market and create jobs in sectors such as mining, forestry and metal production. Every reputable report from the Canada West Foundation to the Economic Council of Canada has documented the potential which the Free Trade Agreement offers Canada. The Free Trade Agreement is the type of policy which western Canadians have sought from the federal Government for years. After so many years of economic mismanagement and destructive policies, the Free Trade Agreement offers real opportunity and benefits for the West.
During the recent election much attention was paid to the divisions that seemed to open before us. Observers here and abroad claimed that we Canadians were split as we had never been split before. In the days immediately after the voting the most important question being

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
asked across the nation was: EIow can the nation be healed? Like many here on both sides of this House I spent too many hours knocking on doors, talking and listening to the people in my riding to stand here this afternoon trying to minimize the serious differences we have with opponents of the Free Trade Agreement. I do believe, though we were and are divided on this most important issue, Canadians share a basic notion of themselves and their country.
This vision, I believe, emerged clearly from all parts of Canada, from all segments of our society and from those on both sides of the free trade issue. It is a vision that grows out of Canadian history. It was born with the Conservative Macdonald, advanced by the Liberal Laurier, nurtured by the Social Democrat Woodsworth and brought to fruition by men and women of their Parties represented in this House today. It is a vision of a society that takes great pride in its social programs, that believes in fairness and equity and that has combined individual enterprise and skill with caring community values in one of the world's few democracies.
We Canadians know who we are. We know we can take on the world with our brains, our drive, our energy, our enterprise and our entrepreneurship. Our culture is flourishing. Our standard of living is increasing. Our productive capacity is growing and we are becoming more united, whatever momentary setbacks we seem to face from day to day. We have flung a transcontinental nation into the teeth of adversity and we are winning the battle.
We have built one of the world's great nations not on might but on justice and tolerance. Tolerance is the basis of a civilized society.
The Free Trade Agreement is no capitulation to anyone. It is rooted in Canada's historical development and it is made possible by the pride of accomplishment we Canadians rightfully feel. It is a reward we owe ourselves because of the success we have enjoyed in rebuilding our economic strength since 1984 and in restoring confidence in ourselves.
In the recent election some of my colleagues asked the Canadian people if we can afford to go it alone, to stay aloof from the great trading blocks of the world, Europe, Japan, Southeast Asia and the United States. I prefer to put this in another way. Why should this great people deprive itself of the opportunity to compete in the toughest markets in the world? Why should we settle for second best in anything? The people of Canada answered loudly and clearly on November 21 that they
should not settle for second best. We in this House have a democratic duty to accept that judgment. The people have decided.


Mr. James Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I find as the debate rages on that it is becoming more and more difficult to say anything that is very original or try to say it in an original fashion, but I will try anyway.
As a novice Member of Parliament I was hoping that we could have had a typical discussion with something as major as this Bill is to Canada and to Canadians. I was looking forward to what you might call a typical day in the House of Commons. I think after being here a week I am not sure there is such a thing, but no doubt we will learn about that.
I never deny that the Government has the power to do what it is doing. I do not question that it has that right, but I do question this urgency, this obligation it seems to feel that it has to impose upon us what it is imposing. We, however, will leave that to be judged by the Canadian people in the course of time.
Most Members have referred back to the recent election, and I suppose that is normal because it is current and on our minds. I think it is safe to say that in all instances we referred to the Free Trade Agreement in the last election. Most of us went to our people and told them sincerely and honestly what we thought was good for Canada and Canadians. I believe that we all did that. We did not win the election, but we went with principle about us and carried our message forward.
The questions were and still remain who is going to be helped in the free trade deal, and who will be hurt in the free trade deal. I am still looking for some answers. I will admit that I have only been here for a few days, but there are not many answers coming forward.
1 want to talk briefly about the dairy industry. I come from a community not too far from here. My constituency embraces Carleton County. The dairy industry is of vital importance to the riding of Leeds-Grenville. We have done a lot of pioneering in that riding. A gentleman by the name of Talmage Stone, who made the best Cheddar cheese in the world, was buried about a week or ten days ago. The late Mr. Stone did a lot of pioneering in the artificial insemination industry. He started his own farm, and when it became impossible for him to carry on because of the growth in the industry, he moved and became Eastern Breeders in Kemptville.
December 23, 1988

I mention that to illustrate that there have been pioneers in the dairy industry in the riding of Leeds- Grenville. We are trying to protect the dairy industry. The people of Leeds-Grenville sent me here, in large measure by support from the dairy industry, to speak for them.
Great advances have been made in the dairy industry. No longer is the dairy farmer the man standing under the apple tree wearing a straw hat. It is now a much more sophisticated industry. The dairy farmer no longer goes up the lane with his collie dog to bring in the cows.
I am not against the milk marketing boards. They have stabilized the industry. I know what used to happen in the dairy industry. When prices fluctuated and increased, milk flooded the markets, people got out of the industry. Then prices would escalate because too many got out, so we were on a roller-coaster. How could a man advance his industry, buy a tractor, and have any consistency in his level of income in order to pay for the tractor? The milk marketing boards have put some stabilization in the industry, although I am a free enterpriser.
I am as concerned as was the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), and disappointed that at the GATT round in Montreal absolutely no progress was made when talking about world subsidies for food. It bothers me to visualize how Third World countries will ever be able to afford basic food at the largely elevated prices. The food is too expensive for them. Perhaps we can determine some third level of pricing so that we can supply the Third World countries. In the direction we are going at the moment, I do not see how it is at all possible.
I know those who have all the answers will say that GATT protects our dairy industry. Perhaps it will. I hope they are correct. However, the Canadian dairy industry should not take on the United States dairy industry in a bilateral fashion, because the Canadian dairy industry will lose.
Two months ago yesterday six inches of snow fell in the Ottawa area. That happened on Saturday, and at 10 a.m. on Monday morning I visited a farm. I wondered why the young cattle were up at the barn and all the cows were in the barn at ten o'clock in the morning. The farmer told me that the winter season had now started, on October 22, and that he was using his winter silage as of that day. He said that his pastures had an excessive amount of moisture, and that he could not put the cattle out because they would punch the pastures full of holes,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and his problems were just getting more complicated. If a farmer starts using his winter silage on October 22, he will run out of winter silage by about March 22, and then he has to use expensive grains to feed his cattle to carry them over to the time when they can return to the pastures.
Weather and soil conditions were not on the table. They were not negotiated, and they never will be. That was out of reach. That is why I am saying, do not let the dairy industry of Canada take on the dairy industry of the United States, because we will lose. Approximately 40 miles as the crow flies from where I live one could find a herd of 1,500 milking cattle. There are two international bridges in my riding approximately 40 kilometres apart, however if one wanted to travel by water one could go a little quicker than that.
The dairy industry in Leeds-Grenville was watching that situation with great care. One can approach an international bridge and be golfing in 12 hours. One can travel to where it is warm in 12 hours. No one can tell me that there is not going to be a temptation, if nothing else, to bring fresh milk over those bridges. One tank truck contains 80,000 litres of milk. With a pup trailer added, enough milk could be transported to give every man, woman and child in the riding of Leeds-Grenville one litre of milk. One truck load of milk will give one litre to every man, woman and child in Leeds-Grenville.
Members opposite cannot say that the dairy industry had no right or reason to be afraid. Of course, it had. Remember that the dairy industry is a private enterprise. Usually the dairy farmer is a small businessman. Too often I have heard it said that if an individual is in trouble because of free trade, do not worry about it, your industry will look after you. If it fails, the Government will look after you. Who is going to look after those small dairy farmers? Usually it is a man, his wife, and perhaps a son and his wife, or two sons and their wives. Without exaggeration, there are $500,000 or $600,000 sitting around that barnyard. Perhaps some other uses could be found for tractors, or some other use might be found for a truck. However, much of that equipment was designed for a special reason and it cannot be converted to other uses.
If the Government has that type of money to help people out, do not forget that the dairy farmer will need some of that assistance as soon as the deal starts to slip, and I am sure that it will.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The difficulty that I see in competition with the bilateral arrangement is not only the proximity of the United States. It does not have to spend money on storing silage, to the same degree. It does not have to spend money on ventilating barns, to the same degree. When the calves are coming it does not have to worry about heat lamps, to the same degree. Let us not get into a war in a bilateral fashion with the United States dairy industries, because, knowing enough about it, I know who will lose.
If people are going to be retrained to work in new industries, do not forget that the dairy farmer may be living in the house in which he was born. It is not the same as moving someone from one side of a factory to another and retraining that person. What is the Government going to do with a 55-year old dairy farmer? That has to be thought about. It is a very fragile industry. Much of what has been said here this week has put dairy farming in a very broad, basic category and called it agriculture.
It is a highly technical aspect of agriculture, and it has to be addressed separately. In the beef cattle business there is a little leeway. I am not sure it will come out well either, but at least the cattle can be held over a little. It is pretty difficult to hold over fresh milk.
While I am being told by farmers that they are not doing too badly at the moment, they do stress that they cannot afford to miss one cheque. It is for that reason that I refer to agriculture as a delicate industry. It is one about which there has been simply too much flippancy. There has been flippancy about most aspects of the Free Trade Agreement, with the Government simply saying: "Don't worry, we will retrain you. And if we don't, somebody will look after you."
Well, I can tell you that I am not going to see the dairy industry in the riding of Leeds-Grenville put at risk.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jim Jordan: All through the election campaign we heard: "Don't worry, we can get out of it in six months."
In a conversation I had with a 58-year-old dairy farmer in my riding, I asked him how long it took him to put his holstein herd together, and his reply was: "All of my life."
If that individual loses his herd as a consequence of the Free Trade Agreement and, six months later, when
the agreement is terminated, he wants to get back into dairy farming, he would not live long enough to be able to do so, and in fact nor would his children.
He now has his herd with just the right strains in it, and it has taken him his whole life to achieve that. If anything happens to his operation, there is simply no way in which, in his lifetime, he could get back into dairy farming.
So, to say that we can get out of the deal on six months notice is of no comfort to the farming community. In fact, it got to be a bit of a joke among the farming community.
It is my sincere hope that the Government is proven to be right about this whole deal. While the fact of an industry or sector of the Canadian economy being adversely impacted by the Free Trade Agreement would make for great ammunition for Question Period, it is not something that anyone would want to see happen. It is my sincere hope, and that of my constituents, and I am sure everyone in the country, that the Government will be proven right.
It is something that will have to be closely monitored, and one of the reasons that it will have to be closely monitored is the lack of a definition of what constitutes an unfair subsidy.
The Minister for International Trade, in The Globe and Mail of July 26 last, admitted that there is no definition of what constitutes an unfair subsidy. "It is too bad", he said, "we haven't been able to agree on what constitutes an unfair subsidy."
It seems to me that the whole idea would have been to get that established before entering into the Free Trade Agreement.
Hon. Members opposite are continually throwing out the name "Donald Macdonald". It may be that because he is a Liberal, he has some credibility. However, Donald Macdonald, one of the early architects of the free trade deal, wanted the agri-food industry excluded.
I imagine Donald Macdonald was a long way away when the deal was signed.
During the election campaign, I had occasion to watch a televised panel discussion involving a senior cabinet Minister and two opponents of the Free Trade Agreement, and I can recall that senior cabinet Minister saying: "You know, it was twenty to twelve and we had to have a deal. It was twenty to twelve and we had to have a deal by midnight."
December 23, 1988

They were waiting for the dreaded knock at the door.
I have been dickering for a car, Mr. Speaker, for about four weeks now, and while the first dealer was ready to make a deal, and the next guy was ready to make a deal, I wasn't ready to make a deal-and I am still not quite ready to make a deal.
Imagine the pressure that was on the chief negotiator when it was ten minutes to twelve. He had to make a deal, and he had to get it through by midnight.
Where I come from, we wouldn't buy a necktie or a pair of shoelaces under that type of pressure. Yet, here we had a representative of our Government who was willing to put the nation at risk, and in fact did put the nation at risk, by entering into a deal in order to meet a time deadline.
Whether it turns out in fact to be a bad deal, only time will tell. I hope the Government is right in its view. I hope the country has not been put at risk. But only time will tell.
No right thinking country in the world would put the quality and quantity of its basic food supply at the mercy of another. It just isn't done. The first thing a country must do to get itself on its feet is to guarantee itself a basic food supply. It is not something that is handed over to another nation.
As I read the Free Trade Agreement, I think we are running the risk of putting the quality and quantity of our basic food supply at risk.
I hope that turns out not to be the case, but certainly those of us in opposition will be closely monitoring the situation and doing what we can to prevent it.
I am a free enterpriser, up to a point. I do not feel that a country's basic food supply should be subjected to the whims of the market-place. Rather, it is something that needs to be stabilized, and that can only be done through government intervention.
During the campaign I was surprised to find that high on the list of priorities of the young people of Canada is the environment. Canada's youth is very concerned about the environment; they are concerned about their quality of life.
The U.S. is the largest consumer nation in the world. It constitutes less than 5 per cent of the world's population but consumes 20 per cent of the world's consumable goods, and experience has shown that there is a direct correlation between the goods consumed and the lack of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
respect that one has for the environment. That is a known; that is a given.
We recently had a company establish itself in my part of the country, a toxic waste disposal company whose headquarters are in Arkansas. That company, known as EMSCO, has established itself near the international bridge in my part of the country, and it has done so because, like many Americans, it considers Canada to be a great vast land with lots of empty spaces wherein a lot of garbage can be dumped.
In taking up the fight against this company, I found its representatives to be a rather arrogant lot. It is a company that has taken out an option on some land in my area, and it is saying that it is here to stay.
This is a company that is headquartered in a foreign country-though I am not sure that they will be foreign to us for very much longer.
Here we have a company setting up in the Thousand Islands region, one of the most beautiful and picturesque parts of the world, an area which relies heavily on tourism, and its desire is to set up a toxic waste disposal plant.
Now, wouldn't that make the Thousand Islands region a great place in which to spend one's holidays? Heck, you could take the children with you. In fact, perhaps you could go and have dinner at the toxic waste disposal plant in Leeds-Grenville.
Over my dead body. I am going to ensure that that whole situation is closely monitored.
As well, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Government will bring research and development up to previous levels.
A farmer friend of mine visited a food processing plant in Australia and found that, in one corner, duck feet were being processed. While we do not have a great market for duck feet in this country, I mention it to illustrate the value of research and development.
If we are going to enter into this trade deal with the U.S., we had better start pursuing world markets fiercely. We can no longer consider duck feet to be a useless by-product.
It is only through research and development that we can learn about this type of thing. Certainly, the Government will hear no complaint from this quarter should it increase research and development funding.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
If there is a market somewhere in the world for duck feet, Canadians should be going after that market. In that way, we will not end up with all of our eggs in one basket.
After the devastation of the Second World War, Japan had nothing. I understand now that it spends about 2 per cent of its Gross National Product on research and development. We spend something like .7 of 1 per cent. Looking at Japan and Canada, one can immediately see the reflection between the amount of money invested in R and D and the benefits reaped therefrom.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to appoint a full-time Minister of Agriculture with dispatch, for three reasons: to reassure the people of Canada that agriculture is important; to allay any ideas that Americans may have that they are going to corner our domestic market; and finally, to generate confidence within the farming community, permitting them to move ahead and expand their operations.
I see the Chair signalling that my time is up. I thank the Chair and the House for its indulgence in allowing me to complete my remarks.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should extend my congratulations to the new Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Jordan) on his first speech in the House of Commons. This is not my first speech in this House, but it is my first speech in this House as the Member representing Winnipeg- Transcona.
As Members will recall, some with regret I am sure, at least on the other side of the House, I have been a Member of this House for the last nine and a half years. At that time I represented a riding called Winnipeg

 Birds Hill. I am very happy, with all respect to the Town of Birds Hill and the name Birds Hill, to be the Member for Winnipeg-Transcona, because Transcona happens to be the name of my home town. It comprises a good third of the riding of Winnipeg-Transcona and I am particularly pleased that the name has now been incorporated into the name of the riding I represent.
I would like to take the name of Transcona as a departure point for my remarks on the Free Trade Agreement. The name comes from two sources, the word "transcontinental" and the name of Lord Strath-cona who was responsible, as many of you will recall, for
the first transcontinental railway. The Town of Transcona was created in 1911 as a place for the railway shops involved in the building of a second transcontinental railway, at that time the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern, I believe. So it is in that context that I begin by saying that for me the passage of the Free Trade Agreement puts my faith, if you like, in my self-understanding as a Canadian in triple jeopardy.
Of the three things most important to me, the first is, of course, the background from which I come, that of a railway family from Transcona, concerned with railway matters and with the future of a community which, understandably, is now not only a rail community but also a bedroom community for part of the greater City of Winnipeg.
The second is my self-understanding as a United Church person and a minister in that church. I will also have something to say about what the Minister of State for Housing (Mr. McDermid) said about the United Church earlier. The third is my self understanding as a New Democrat. I would like to deal with all three of those things and say why, for me, this election campaign, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the vote tonight are a source of, to put it bluntly, depression for me.
I feel many of the things I have valued most about the country that I live in and was brought up in are being put at risk tonight, finally and firmly, by the vote on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. I had occasion to raise in the House earlier today under Standing Order 31 a concern I have about what has happened to the railways, particularly the CNR, and what is predicted to happen even more so in the next few years. I talked about the document which came into my possession during the election which dealt with a down-sizing of the CNR to some 26,000 employees.
When I was born in 1951 the railway had 151,000 employees. The aim of the Government and of Mr. Lawless, President of CN Rail is, within a very few more years, to bring the level of employees at CN down to 26,000. That is of concern to me coming from Transcona and having a great many supporters in the CN shops, the one remaining whole back shop for the CN, because in order to do that it becomes obvious that the railway is planning to contract out work which should be done in the Transcona shops I just completely fail to see why the railway would want to put itself in a position where it had no back shop capacity of its own to do its work. Yet we read that the CNR is contemplating the purchase of new locomotives from General Electric
December 23, 1988

in the U.S., and that the deal may well include a service contract. People in my riding are concerned, as I am, that that will mean that the major overhaul and repair of these new locomotives will be done in the U.S. by General Electric and not by the CNR itself. You can understand that it is a major concern to the machinists, electricians and other tradesmen who work in the CN shops.
We have seen the fruits of free trade already in the transportation sector. We already have deregulation there, which is the equivalent of free trade in transportation. We have seen that it does not mean more jobs. We have seen that it means a compromise of safety and public service as companies like the CNR and the CPR try to undercut each other, and the trucking industry in turn tries to undercut them. We know from our own experience, those of us connected with the transportation sector, that deregulation is not the wonderful thing the Government pretended it would be when it brought it in. I might add that it was started by the Liberals, as were the free trade discussions.
As I said before, I wanted to speak about three different ways in which I find myself depressed today as we move into the final hours of this debate about the end of this country as we have known it.
The second way in which I find myself morose, moved to lament rather than attack, has to do with my selfunderstanding as a person involved in the United Church. I go back to what the Minister of State for housing, formerly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, said when he got up and quoted some of the things that the church had to say about the Free Trade Agreement. He then went on, too clever by half, to say that because the United Church had asked that the people be consulted about the Free Trade Agreement and because they have now been consulted in the process of a general election, he wondered why the United Church was not now supporting the deal.
I ask him: Had the Government lost the election, would the Minister change his view of the deal? He might have said that the people had spoken against the deal and therefore the new Government had the mandate not to proceed with it. However, I am sure he would not have changed his mind about the agreement. I find it rather scurrilous of him to suggest that the United Church should somehow have changed its mind about the deal because the Conservatives happened to win the election.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The fact of the matter is that the history of the United Church, which in some sense parallels things happening in the social and political life of Canada through the CCF and the NDP, since 1925 has been to say to Canadians that the market-place does not make the kinds of decisions about human life that are called for by biblical tradition. The market-place does not and has never by itself protected the oppressed, the fatherless, the needy and all those who the prophets called upon society to treat justly if they wanted to be called a fully human community. The movement within the United Church has been to say to Canadians that the more we want to be a fully human community, the more we will make decisions based on human criteria rather than purely economic criteria, rather than purely market economics. The Member across the way from Missis-sagua belongs to the United Church, and I know that. I will get to him in a minute because I have him in mind.
The fact of the matter is that the theological leadership of the United Church-who may not always be able to penetrate the thick skulls of the parishoners like the Hon. Member from Mississagua-has been trying for decades to make this point, that the more we take things out of the market-place and allow them to be decided on the basis of human need rather than on the profit motive, the more we become the kind of community that we are called upon to be.
That is why for me and for a great many other United Church people-not all because obviously there are people in the United Church like the Hon. Member from Mississagua, the Hon. Member from Brampton and probably many others in this Chamber who have different views-we have found that we have had to oppose the Free Trade Agreement because the Free Trade Agreement elevates the market-place and makes it, in my judgment, not just an idol in the pantheon of idols that we have before us but the idol in the pantheon of idols that we have before us.
I entered politics both as a Christian and as a New Democrat because I felt that the market-place already made too many decisions. So it is absolutely inconceivable for me, both out of my religious self-understanding and my political self-understanding to have anything to do with an agreement that so changes the political and social cosmos, if you like, that we are going to live in from here on in. That is what I think a great many people do not realize.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I think the Hon. Member from Mississauga realizes it. I would have to be unparliamentary if I were to quote what I know the Hon. Member from Mississauga has said about the Free Trade Agreement. I remember him saying to me in an elevator one day: "You know, when this Free Trade Agreement comes in you socialists are-" I will leave it up to your imagination, Mr. Speaker, to determine what the expletive was that the Hon. Member then went on to use.
The Hon. Member from Mississauga, unlike some of the other back-benchers here who really do not know what they are doing, knows, as does the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and many of the cabinet Ministers-I do not think the Hon. Minister of State for Housing knows because I think he is just a kind of acolyte of others in that Government-that this Free Trade Agreement, and we ought to be frank about it, is a comprehensive philosophical defeat for everything the CCF and the NDP has stood for-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Celebrate it if you will, but be honest about what is being celebrated. That is all I ask. Members opposite tried to pretend throughout the election that this is just about trade, or that this is just a contending among political Parties who are basically the same about contentious facts pursuant to a Free Trade Agreement. It is not that. It is a battle for the very way we understand the world. That is what a handful of Conservatives realize, particularly the Hon. Member from Mississauga. I give him credit for that. One thing I like about that Hon. Member is that one always knows what he is about. He is an honest man. He never tries to stab you in the back; he is always running right at you with his spear. I give him credit for knowing what is really at stake in this debate, and for admitting it. But what I despise about some of his colleagues is that they have not been willing to admit that this is exactly what the Free Trade Agreement is all about.
I would now like to move on to another Member of the House who spoke in this debate who is not here at the moment, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy), formerly the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Fort Garry who lamented the fact that the NDP had the nerve to criticize his Deader, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), in the dying days of the campaign. Why could we not have seen-those of us in the NDP-that the thing to do was to elect Liberals in order to save the country from the Free Trade Agreement? I did not hear Fiberals in the
early part of the campaign when the NDP was running second advising their troops to vote NDP.
One of the things we asked Canadians to remember was that it was the Fiberals when they were in power who started deregulation. It was the Fiberals when they were in power who started privatization. It was the Fiberals when they were in power who started the comprehensive bilateral talks with the United States. It was the Fiberals, had they been elected, who would have proceeded to go ahead with this Free Trade Agreement. That would have been worse than having these people over here implementing it honestly. The Fiberals would have found a way to have implemented it and to have blamed it on somebody else because we know that there are many high-powered Fiberals in the Senate, in the business community and in their caucus who are secretly and sometimes not so secretly in favour of the Free Trade Agreement.
Canadians decided that they could not trust the Fiberals to be telling them where they were really on this agreement. That was part and parcel of the problem. There were other problems, and we all have to take some responsibility for the fact that the Free Trade Agreement will now go through. But the fact of the matter is that it was Fiberals who could not be trusted. Why? Because the Free Trade Agreement is not for the Liberals what it is for the NDP. It is not a comprehensive defeat because Liberals never really had a notion of what kind of country they wanted anyway. They are always just trying to find their way in the context of: "How can we get into power in this context, or in that context"? When the context changes, they will change. No problem. By the time the next election rolls around they will be talking about the opportunities that present themselves in the Free Trade Agreement and what we need to do and what the Conservatives have not done. It is only members of the NDP who know truly what is at stake in this Free Trade Agreement because it is the NDP-and before that the CCF-who fought for the very things that are most at risk as a result of this agreement.
We talk about medicare.


Mr. Blenkarn:: It is not at risk.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member says that it is not at risk. I believe that it is. I believe that it is at risk in that five to seven year period when we define what is an unfair subsidy. Of course one of the problems with the next election is that by the time it comes along we still will not have completed the five years, let alone the
December 23, 1988

seven years of that negotiation. So the Government will be in a position to say: "Has anything changed"? Of course with respect to subsidy nothing will have changed because the negotiating period will not have come to an end.
When it comes to regulating foreign investment, managing energy resources for the well-being of Canadians instead of multinational corporations, when it comes to orderly marketing, and things threatened by this agreement, who fought for those?


John V. Nunziata: Liberals.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It was the New Democratic Party who fought for those. It was the Liberals who promised them. The Liberals promised medicare in 1919 and delivered in 1966. Tommy Douglas promised it in 1944 and delivered hospitalization in 1945. That is the difference between the Liberals and the New Democrats. Had it not been for minority Parliaments and New Democrats pushing Liberals and others to do the right thing, we would not have the kind of country we have today, the kind of country we are going to lose because of this Free Trade Agreement and a deliberate plot on the part of the more intelligent Tories-Father forgive the rest for they know not what they do-to achieve through this Free Trade Agreement what they could never achieve directly if they went to the Canadian people and posed an honest question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton.


Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment. I also want to thank my constituents, the voters of Sarnia-Lambton, for my re-election. It was a decision based upon the candidate, myself, being full out and positive about the Free Trade Agreement. We have struck a decisive victory in Sarnia-Lambton and throughout the country.
I want to publicly thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for his diligence, supreme strength, and commitment to this important treaty when many less strong would not have persevered.
It is important to note some of the speeches which have been made in the House today. We had the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Jordan) talking about doom and gloom in the agriculture area. I was concerned. I can imagine what he was saying in the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
campaign. It was almost as though somebody were coming with jackboots on to the farmers' kitchen door, to rip away their milk quotas. I have great concern for those kinds of tactics used in an election. I do not think it is fair. I also know of incidents where candidates for the Liberal Party were going to the kitchens of the farmers and scaring their wives by telling them untruths.


An Hon. Member:: The wives are not necessarily in the kitchens.


Kenneth Albert James: It is less than being forthright.
The Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville mentions talking to the farmers, so I assume he is not one. I raise purebred Holstein cattle, was raised on a farm and spent most of my life there. My brother, myself, and our company have a milk quota. We have absolutely no concerns about the supply-management system being maintained. It is enshrined now in the Free Trade Agreement. It is maintained and protected under Article 11 of the GATT. It is of concern to me when individuals attempt to scare the farmer and his wife.
I took an article from an agriculture magazine. The headline is, "Wither the Milk Business:?" It talks about a Mr. Bruce Whale, and he is described as a "bottomline man". He knows how much milk each of his 275 workable acres produces. From feed run through his 85-cow herd, he knows he can store one and three-quarters years supply of hay and an extra half year of corn cob meal. Like most farms west of Toronto, he knows he is going to have to do things differently on his farm because things do change.
He was asked this question at a seminar: "Some farmers are concerned that Ontario may be forced to import milk from the U.S., resulting in increased pressure toward free trade in milk. Do you see our supply management system in jeopardy?" Mr. Whale said:
Not really. The drought is most serious from Toronto west. In the past, in time of shortage Quebec has been a traditional supplier. Butter (milk) powder will move. Last year there was some old powder brought in from the U.S., but that was done by the Canadian Dairy Commission. The U.S. may be taking first steps toward supply management. A joint committee of all states has been looking at the option and recommending options to Congress including another buyout program . . . This would be a first step toward supply management.
Why are we concerned? They are looking at supply management because they have seen how well it works in Canada.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. MacAulay) talked about this 80-20 principle. Eighty per cent of the tariffs are going and only 20 per cent are remaining. What they failed to explain to the public is that there are many other aspects to the Free Trade Agreement that eliminated other irritants at the border. I will name a few of them.
In this agreement, we will have clear rules of origin, which we did not have before. That will remove the uncertainty currently associated with the customs officers in making ad hoc decisions. By 1994, the United States will limit the use of customs user fees, which we did not have before. The right of the national treatment gives blanket assurance that the United States will not discriminate against Canadian producers in any activities covered by this agreement. Internal taxes, such as sales and excise, no longer can be used as concealed trade barriers. The agreement eliminates various nontariff barriers to trade such as the common misuse of standard requirements. This is another aspect that our Loyal Opposition forgot to mention to the people in Canada when they talked about 80-20.


An Hon. Member:: It was very convenient what they forgot.


Kenneth Albert James: That is right. They tended to forget an awful lot. They did not really know, because they had never really studied the agreement.
The United States will allow unlimited access to its U.S. market for Canadian food products containing up to 10 per cent sugar. We could not get anything with a granule of sugar in it before. They forgot about that.
The tariff agreement restrains the use of technical regulations. There are non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade, for example, relaxing U.S. meat inspection laws. They conveniently forgot to tell the farmer that.
The United States will recognize Canadian whiskey as a distinct product and will not permit the sale of any product labelled as Canadian whiskey unless it has been manufactured in Canada. They conveniently forgot to tell the Canadian people that.
Under the national treatment principle, the United States will allow British Columbia Hydro fair access to the distribution lines of the Bowville Power Administration. They forgot to tell the people in British Columbia about that.
The agreement also opens up some government procurement markets that we did not have access to
before. Temporary entry for Canadian business people and service personnel is another aspect of the agreement that was never mentioned by members of the Opposition because they did not know about it or did not want to know about it.
I was in Peterborough some months ago where some people told me that when they had to service products which were sold into the United States from Canada, they had to pretend they were going on vacation in order to get into that country to service the equipment. That situation will be remedied by this agreement.
As well, personnel from the United States will be able to come to Canada to service equipment that we buy from them.
National treatment is extended to Canadian business enterprises established in the United States covered by the agreement, thus increasing access for those businesses where physical presence is needed.
All of these subjects were never discussed when the Opposition talked about the fact that 80 per cent of tariffs are gone and only 20 per cent remained.
During the election, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that he would tear up the agreement. He also said he would go back and negotiate with the Americans on a sectoral basis. I and most Canadians, certainly those in my riding, would like to know what sectors he meant.
The Leader of the Opposition complained about secret negotiations. He did not even want to talk about what areas of sectoral trade he would discuss. When I was travelling with the committee on the East Coast, Mr. Gerry Regan, a former Cabinet Minister in the Trudeau Government, appeared before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. He stated most emphatically that the comprehensive trade agreement was much more meaningful and workable than the sectoral policy of the Trudeau Government. While the Trudeau Government realized we needed more access to the American market, it tried to do this on a sectoral basis.
It is difficult to imagine sectoral trade in the steel industry, where the carbon steel sector would be traded off against the specialty steel sector. They would certainly have serious concerns with that type of negotiation. It would not work. It would be far too
December 23, 1988

secretive, misunderstood and misguided in its application to ever work. Mr. Regan was certainly correct about that.
We talked about the importance of removing tariffs. Some people are concerned about how it would affect small business. Small and large businesses in Canada have traditionally been able to carry on in the face of the removal of tariffs. We have done that since the end of the Second World War in an ever-progressive fashion. Our industries have been able to compete in a very positive way.
Between the mid-1970s and mid-1980s, the transportation industry which had no tariffs had a net job increase of 37,977. The chemical industry, which had an average of 5 per cent and 9 per cent tariffs saw an increase of employment of 8,615.
However, when we look at the furniture industry which had a 12.5 per cent tariff, there was a decrease of 3,348 jobs. The textile industry saw tariffs of 20 per cent and a decrease of 4,000 jobs. Knitting mills had a 20 per cent tariff and a decrease in employment of 4,000. Tariffs did not necessarily increase employment in Canada.
Sarnia-Lambton is the petrochemical and refining centre of the East. We are at the end of the pipeline. The business community in Sarnia-Lambton was very enthusiastic about the Free Trade Agreement. Even union leaders, while they were fairly silent during the election, because are NDP Members and belong to the national executive, they knew the importance of the agreement to Sarnia-Lambton. In fact, Mr. Kwinter, the Liberal Minister of Industry for Ontario even came to Sarnia and stated in the newspaper that the agreement was good for Sarnia-Lambton.
Some of the companies located in Sarnia-Lambton include Esso Chemical, Esso Refinery, Shell, Dow Chemical, Du Pont, Cabot Carbon, Ethyl, Sun Chemical, Novacor, Polysar, Welland Chemical and Chinook Chemicals. They believe the five-year countdown on tariffs to the U.S. is tremendously important to our area. It gives them a better profit margin and makes them more competitive in the American market.
The people of our area remember what the former Government did to us with the national energy policy. The petrochemical industry task force in the late 1970s presented its report to this Government when we took over in 1984. The national energy policy removed 2,400 jobs in Sarnia-Lambton.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Members opposite ask for an emergency debate about job loss. I did not hear them come forward when we were losing thousands of workers in Sarnia-Lambton because of the National Energy Program.
I did not hear any concern about that from Liberals or New Democrats who were in support of the National Energy Program. When we were elected in 1984, we removed it, and Sarnia-Lambton is building and prospering again. They elected me in 1984 to fight against and get rid of the NEP. We got rid of it. They elected me in 1988 to fight for the Free Trade Agreement and put it into effect. At 1.15 a.m. tomorrow morning we will be doing that very thing.
We need it because we need jobs in our area. Sarnia-Lambton is on the border of the State of Michigan. Southwestern Ontario is within one day's trucking of 10 of the top 13 U.S. industrial markets. Fifty-four per cent of the manufacturing activity is within a 500-mile radius of the U.S. manufacturing activity. Forty per cent of the total U.S. population and 48 per cent of all retail sales are within one day's trucking of southwestern Ontario. The people of my riding are very excited, as all should be in southwestern Ontario and Ontario about this important opportunity. I have a list of those who are positive about this deal. The Sarnia-Lambton Economic Development Commission wrote me a positive letter about the Free Trade Agreement. An article states that most Sarnia area businesses favour free trade with the U.S. They include retail and service industries.
The Sarnia Construction Association, which includes the contractors and the tradesmen who do the actual work, are positive about free trade. The Chamber of Commerce repeatedly declared its support of free trade. The City of Sarnia backs the free trade deal even under some pressure not to do so by some municipalities that were less than enthusiastic about it. The college students from Lambton College were positive about free trade, according to their newspaper. Novacor, the largest petrochemical company in all of Canada promises an election boom. Jim Butler, Novacor's President, says that Sarnia's future economic outlook for this area is exceptional.
We do not have to worry about protecting people's jobs. There will be jobs for their sons and their daughters too. He was one of the several speakers who referred enthusiastically to the opportunities a free trade deal

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
with the U.S. will mean to Sarnia. Polysar, the Economic Development Commission and the Sarnia-Lambton Chamber of Commerce were very positive. No wonder I am here.
The small business community is very positive about trade. We are interested in promoting tourism but, of course, that is not talked about by many people. The Free Trade Agreement is certainly of importance for tourism. Restrictions on travel agents and hotel managers will be removed and tariffs on the very important equipment needed for the hospitality industry will be reduced.
I want to end by saying to all Hon. Members that the voters of Sarnia Lambton have spoken and the voters of Canada have spoken after having an exhaustive debate on free trade, and they have spoken in favour of free trade. We as a Government accept the responsibility for implementing this very important agreement.


Ms. Catterall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the Hon. Member who just spoke caused some problems for all the women Members in the House. He spoke about speaking to the farmers in their fields and going to the kitchens to talk to their wives. As any farmer worth his salt, his plough or his fields knows, the women on the farms are as likely to be found in the fields as they are in the kitchens, operating the same equipment, doing the same work.
On behalf of an organization known as Women for the Preservation of Agriculture, I want to say that anyone in this Chamber with any association with agriculture knows that that organization is making an extremely valuable contribution to the recognition of agriculture as an important industry and an important way of life in Canada.
The Hon. Member's remarks were a direct reflection on my privileges as a Member of this House. During the election campaign, I suffered the indignity of putting up with a gentleman who walked into my campaign office and told me that women belonged in one of two places, in the kitchen or in bed. As long as those stereotypes of women persist, neither I nor any other woman in this House, or indeed working anywhere in Canada, can expect to be respected for her competence, her ability and her dedication to her job in the same way as a man.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The matter raised by the Hon. Member is no doubt important. However, unfortunately for the Hon. Member, I cannot consider it as a question of privilege according to the rules of the House.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Nipissing for the support and confidence they have shown in me by electing me to represent them for the next four years. The people of Nipissing, like most Canadians, are not opposed to freer, more liberated trade as such. They recognize fully the benefits which have accrued to Canada because of the liberalization of trade laws between Canada and the United States. The people of Nipissing realize that they must live in the real world and cannot isolate themselves from others.
I must point out that the people I represent resent the suggestion that they are fearful and timid by nature because of their concerns regarding this trade agreement. These people are self-reliant, independent people who are quite accustomed to standing on their own two feet. They do, however, look to Government to protect and to nurture those things that are important to them, namely their jobs, their families, their environment and all aspects of their lives that are uniquely Canadian.
The concerns of the people of Nipissing are concerns directed to the great uncertainties inherent within the proposed Canadian trade agreement with the U.S.A. These people do not regard the Canadian-American trade agreement as a mere commercial treaty. They view it as a document that has the potential for going right to the very heart and nature of Canada and what it means to be a Canadian.
These concerns are not unique to Nipissing. I would point out to the Government that only two of the 11 Members elected to the House of Commons last month from northern Ontario were government Members. The concerns of the people of Nipissing and northern Ontario are very real and deeply felt. I urge the Government to recognize these concerns as valid and to take them into consideration in the upcoming negotiations with the United States.
The number one fear of the people in my area stems from the fact that the definition of the term "subsidy" has been purposely left up to negotiations with the United States. The Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said earlier this week in the House that he is still not sure if they will be successful in those negotiations over the next few years.
A succession of federal Liberal Governments has recognized regional economic development grants as legitimate economic tools for fostering economic growth in underdeveloped parts of the country. Nipissing and all
December 23, 1988

of northern Ontario has benefited from federal government initiatives. Fednor is the latest example of this type of program. Even though this program has failed up to this point to make a major impact in our area, we are still concerned about the future of this and other similar programs.
Will regional economic development grants be considered subsidies? Again, the Minister for International Trade is still not sure if he will be successful in these negotiations. The problem is that we just do not know. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents will not accept a "trust us" approach. We recognize fully that whenever an international agreement of any kind is signed, some of our sovereignty is lost. Will we lose regional economic development grants and will they be considered subsidies? We still do not know.
The quality of our environment is critical to us. Nipissing is blessed with an abundance of clear, clean water, beautiful lakes, forests and wildlife. Tourism is a major aspect of life in Nipissing and the economic benefits of tourism spread throughout the whole area. We fear acid rain. On the other hand, we welcome the Prime Minister's comments yesterday afternoon when he assured us that he is finally going to get off his "ass-id" rain moratorium and do something.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Wood: We also fear pollution from the American heartland and from our own industries. Government programs are in place and we will be urging the adoption of others to minimize industrial pollution of our environment. Will the government subsidies to industry for pollution abatement be considered unfair subsidies? Once again, a "trust us" answer is really not good enough.
Canadians in general and my constituents in particular feel close to the land, the water and the out of doors. We want guarantees that this Government will not negotiate away any protections that we demand.
There are many job skills shortages. Skilled tradesmen are required desperately in fields such as automotive, electrical, electronic, machining and other trades associated with the mining and the forestry industries. This Government has steadily reduced the funding for job skills training in my riding. Further cut-backs have already been announced for 1989. Are we now facing the risk of losing funds completely for skills training? Will the Americans argue that this funding represents unfair subsidies to business and industry? Will this
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Government be able to stand up to American pressure for harmonization? I worry for the workers who will be dislocated by the Canadian-American Free Trade Agreement.
The Government is fond of quoting the Economic Council of Canada. The Council admits that thousands of workers will be dislocated in a wide range of industries. If workers are dislocated in Nipissing, can the Government guarantee them equivalent jobs in our area? Can the Government guarantee them jobs at all? How is the Government planning to differentiate between jobs lost because of free trade and those lost for other reasons? What specific programs has the Government in place to assist those workers who are dislocated? Can the Government guarantee the workers of Nipissing that they will not suffer?
I worry about the workers in Nipissing who have negotiated reasonable union contracts with their employers. The new buzz word, as I said before, will be harmonization. Management will argue that we must harmonize with the Americans' labour costs, that the cost of benefits must be in harmony with those in the United States if we are to compete. We will hear this argument many times over in the next four years.
What does this Government plan to do to protect workers from unjust contract stripping? The overwhelming majority of Canadians reject the Reagan-Thatcher approach whereby the only thing that matters is a market-driven economy. Canadians believe in fairness, compassion and a balance between the needs and goals of business and the needs and goals of individual citizens. Business does not exist to be compassionate. Its legitimate goal is profit. It is the role of Government to ensure that legitimate social concerns are heard in our society and at the same time acted upon.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that hard-won legitimate gains by labour and others will be lost as pressure is placed on them to harmonize. I urge the Government to be ever vigilant in its negotiations with the U.S. over the next few years.
Everyone recognizes that the impact of the Mulroney-Reagan agreement will be swift and immediate. The Economic Council of Canada states that the benefits to the U.S. are immediate, that the adjustments required of Canadian workers in many industries will be immediate. Will the protection to Canadian workers also be immediate by this Government?

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) both before and repeatedly during the campaign assured us that workers affected by the Canadian-American trade agreement would be compensated. Unfortunately, in spite of repeated questioning, the Prime Minister has failed to bring forward any program to substantiate his promises. When you talk about the dislocation of workers and the adjustments required to improve our access to the American markets, you are not talking about academic abstractions, you are talking about people, workers and their families, businessmen who have invested and taken risks, workers who have contributed their labour and their skills. You are talking wages and benefits which have been justly earned.
What the Government will achieve will be achieved for Canadians and Canada. What will be lost will be at the expense of Canada and at the expense of Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I cannot recognize the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton as he has already spoken in the debate.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On a question of privilege.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I was involved in speaking to another Member and I did not realize that the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Miss Catterall) was saying some things about women on the farm. I am not taking any lessons from the Hon. Member. My mother is 85 and she feeds the calves yet today. She has worked on the farm. She has dug sugar beets, topped them and picked potatoes. I do not need to take any sort of lesson from the Member for Ottawa West about women working on the farm. In addition to that, there was mention about the kitchen. If the Member knew anything about the farm, she would know that most meetings take place in the kitchen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had an opportunity to address all the Members of the House. I would like to thank the people of Cariboo-Chilcotin who gave me the honour of sending me to this House. If you will allow a pun, Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to be "worthy" of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dave Worthy: I represent a population of more than 70,000 people who live in a most beautiful part of Canada. It is 40,000 square miles of plateau nestled between the coast range on the west and the Cariboo range on the east. The powerful and historic Fraser River bisects my riding. Mine is a riding well known for its gold rush and its rodeos. The world famous Gang Ranch even occupies a corner of my riding. There are many things that attract the tourist to the Cariboo- Chilcotin.
The old historic Cariboo Gold Trail winds its way primarily following the Fraser until it reaches the recently restored historic towns of Wells and Barker-ville. The rivers and lakes lure thousands of fishermen. Big game hunting is very popular during the fall.
Besides tourism, ranching and mining contribute much to the economy and especially to the lifestyle of Cariboo-Chilcotin. But the primary resource of the Cariboo-Chilcotin, of course, is the forest industry. In fact, the sawmills in my riding produce over 10 per cent of all of the lumber produced in Canada. The forest industry affects either directly or indirectly everybody in the Cariboo. In fact, it affects everyone in British Columbia and I would also say probably everyone in Canada. It is important for all of us to know and understand what the forest industry is saying about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Many would have you believe that because of the shingle and shake tariff imposed by the U.S. and the softwood lumber situation, the forest industry is not supportive of the Free Trade Agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is precisely because the industry has been mugged twice already by the protectionists in the United States that it is so strongly in support of the Free Trade Agreement. This industry, better than anyone else in Canada, understands the need for the protection offered by the Free Trade Agreement.
The forest industry in British Columbia is a good industry to look at in terms of free trade. Some would have you believe that we Canadians cannot be competitive when dealing with the United States of America, but that is not true as far as the forest industry is concerned. Nobody in the world can produce lumber like they do in the interior of B.C. No one anywhere can produce as much, as fast or as efficiently. This is so in spite of many adverse conditions that many maintain. Canadians cannot be competitive because of cold weather, because of great distances from the market, because we are highly unionized, we receive high wages
December 23, 1988

and because we have the best benefit packages of any forest industry in the world.
There has been so much talk, Mr. Speaker, that high wages and benefits will suffer under the Free Trade Agreement. In the forest industry the experience has been the opposite. As it is has traded more and more with the United States, it has become more competitive, and wages and benefits have become better, not worse. In fact, I believe that this is the experience across Canada.
As we have reduced our tariffs with the United States over the past 50 years, our standard of living has gone up, not down. Reducing tariffs has resulted in increased trade. Wages and social programs have benefited. Why should this trend change? It definitely will not change. Free trade will not destroy our social programs. On the contrary, it will make it possible for us to improve them.
Although securing the existing U.S. market and protecting current jobs is the primary motivation for the forest industry, it also recognizes that the Free Trade Agreement will provide new opportunities for value-added processing. There is no doubt that over the years we will see many new plants and jobs in this area.
However, there is a more immediate opportunity for secondary industry. That will be the creation of businesses based on the experience and creativity of our own people. In spite of the fact that the forest industry in the interior of British Columbia is the best in the world at producing lumber, much of the equipment and technology comes from other parts of the world, for example, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Washington, Oregon, and California. This does not have to be. We have the people, the experience, the knowledge, and the ideas.
Many small companies in the Cariboo have struggled to establish themselves. They may be small, some companies with 10, 20 or 50 employees, but they are very important to us. They represent our opportunity for growth. They represent our future. These are Main Street Canadians from the Cariboo. They want to compete. They are confident in their abilities and are looking forward to the future.
For example, Brigden Manufacturing is a company with a unique design for a log grapple and arch which allows multiple use of the crawler tractor. It is a small company just beginning, but it has potential.
Bradeco Fab and Welding is a company with an innovative cutting head for automatic falling of trees. It
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
is lighter, less complex, and requires less maintenance than the traditional cutting head. It has been under way for six months and currently has eight employees. It has recently received three new contracts with the United States and Oregon, and the potential is definitely there.
Exco Manufacturing is a small company that has been growing rapidly over three years. It started off producing automatic lumber and log handling systems for the sawmills. Currently it has 65 employees, and the potential is to triple that number of employees in the next four years.
Those companies all started producing for local requirements. Invariably they discovered that there was a very large market just to the south. It is the U.S. market that will produce the incentive for new growth. We need all of these companies. In fact, we should have many more. There is a real opportunity for Canada to become a world leader in development of forest industry technology and equipment. We, the Members of the House, must encourage industry to grasp the opportunity and make it happen.
There are other opportunities for my riding provided by the Free Trade Agreement. For example, totally new secondary industries assembling or manufacturing products for the U.S. market. The investors may be Canadian, but it is very possible that we will attract new investors from the Pacific Rim and Europe. It is curious that these offshore investors recognize the opportunities of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement better than many Canadians. We do not care where the investors come from. We desperately need the jobs, and we hope to have some of those jobs in the Cariboo.
A respected British Columbia Senator, George Van Roggen, was chairman of the committee conducting hearings across Canada on the Free Trade Agreement. He said: "If B.C. wants the prosperity that they enjoy in central Canada then B.C. must have the same secondary industry they have in central Canada. This is only possible under the Free Trade Agreement".
For the people in British Columbia, for the people in western Canada, for all of the people in Canada who live in areas outside the industrial belt of central Canada, we can finally say that it is our turn for fairness in economic opportunity.
I accepted the concept of the Free Trade Agreement very naturally. To me it was something whose time had come. In the same manner as a young person must eventually leave home and find his or her own way in the world, so must Canada find its way with all the

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
industrialized countries of the world. This agreement with the United States, our closest neighbour and largest trading partner, is the natural step to take.
Our young people have no guarantees when they leave the security of home. No one can say for sure how they will succeed. However, even the most protective of parents knows that the time has come and they must do it on their own. It is for them a step of faith. So it is with us. As we step into the free trading relationship with the United States, there are no guarantees. The studies are promising, but we must make it on our own. I have total confidence that our industries can compete. I have total confidence that we will succeed.
All Members in the House recognize that this has been a unique election. Never have the electorate of Canada wrestled with such a major issue. It has created a divided population. When campaigning door to door, it was not unusual to find a husband and wife on totally opposite sides of the free trade debate. Members of the House were fiercely engaged in this election and developed firmly entrenched positions. Normally once legislation is in place that is the end of the battle, but this is not normal legislation. When it is enacted on January 1 it will not be the end of anything. In fact, it will only be the start. It will be the initiation of a new beginning for Canada. Remember that there are no guarantees. Canadians must make this work. Our businesses and industries must respond to the challenge.
I do have a concern. Surely the direction, the leadership, and the motivation should be coming from Hon. Members of the House. Yet, many Members of this House have been violently opposing the Free Trade Agreement. Their concentration and focus has been on why it will not work, why industry will suffer, and why jobs will be lost. They have been conditioning themselves and their constituents to the failure of the Free Trade Agreement. My concern is that, if they are not careful, they could find themselves with a self-fulfilling prophecy in their ridings and perhaps elsewhere.
When the Members of the opposition Parties in this place next address their Chamber of Commerce or Board of Trade, will they continue to put down the Free Trade Agreement? Will they, in effect, encourage their constituents to invest elsewhere, in effect telling them to relocate in the U.S.? It would be so easy to continue the fight-but at what cost? From a political point of view, it could be to their advantage were the Free Trade
Agreement to fail. But at what cost to their constituents, and at what cost to Canadians?
If Hon. Members opposite take a few minutes in reflective thought, I am sure they will recognize the point I am trying to make.
There has been a lot of concern expressed in the media that those areas which did not vote Progressive Conservative will suffer. The answer, of course, is that this Government will treat all areas with fairness and equality. But, those areas which have elected a representative who, because of a lack of confidence in the Free Trade Agreement, a lack of vision, or for reasons of political expediency cannot or will not provide the positive leadership required, if we are to grasp the opportunities of the Free Trade Agreement, may have cause for concern.
I am proud to have had the opportunity of participating in this historic debate, and I am confident that the people of Canada made a good decision in their choice of Government.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks today by expressing my sincere thanks to the constituents of the riding of Dartmouth for having afforded me the great honour of representing them in the House of Commons. I consider the privilege to be able to stand in this great Chamber and speak on behalf of one's fellow citizens to be one of the greatest honours that a single individual can have bestowed on him.
On Tuesday last, when I first spoke in this House, I felt that special sense of history, of awe and of respect that I am sure every Member feels when first rising to add his/her voice to the record of Hansard. I thank the people of Dartmouth for allowing me to experience that very special feeling. I shall never forget them for having given me that moment.
The riding of Dartmouth is one of the fastest growing regions of Atlantic Canada, and for good reason. The riding itself is comprised of the beautiful City of Dartmouth, known all across North America as the City of Lakes. It is a family oriented community, a community in which people from all over Nova Scotia and all over North America have chosen to live and raise their families.
And there are other great communities in my riding that deserve special mention, among them being the community of Eastern Passage, with its fishing traditions, located on the shores of Halifax Harbour, and the
December 23, 1988

community of Cow Bay, located on the rugged shores of the Atlantic, as well as the communities of North Preston and East Preston, the largest black communities in Nova Scotia.
All of these communities add to the cultural diversity and richness which is the riding of Dartmouth.
I should also like to congratulate my colleagues from Nova Scotia on their successful election and re-election to Parliament, and as well I extend my congratulations to the Speaker on his re-election to the chair and on his re-election in the riding of Vancouver South.
For the past two weeks I have listened carefully to the debate that has taken place, first on the procedures in this Chamber and then on the substance of the Government's motion to put into effect the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America.
As a new Member but not a rookie to politics, I shudder at the attempt by this Progressive Conservative Government to once again stifle a full and unencumbered debate on a Bill that would initiate the economic union of this great nation with the United States of America.
As I listened and watched, I remembered quite clearly that it was exactly this type of disregard for the Elouse of Commons and for the people of Canada that convinced me to run as the Liberal candidate in the riding of Dartmouth. I did so because I saw a Government led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who cared less about the preservation of the unique fabric of this country than he did about building his so-called special relationship with the President of the United States.
I saw a Government which refused to listen to any point of view on the trade issue but its own; I saw a Government that would close down debate in the House of Commons by wielding its majority to block a full public hearing on the proposed deal, a hearing which could have taken place by way of extensive committee hearings held across this nation. I saw a Government that refused to allow its own studies dealing with the potential negative impacts of the trade deal to see the light of day.
I stand in my place today to voice my opposition and that of the people of Dartmouth to the trade legislation, Bill C-2. I, and the overwhelming majority of the people of Atlantic Canada, believe that this deal, if passed unamended, will negatively alter the very structure of this nation.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The reality of Canada, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a nation of regions, each distinct, each with its own strength, but collectively forming the unique fabric that is Canada.
Our forefathers saw the potential of what Canada could be. They believed, as I believe, that a great nation could be forged on an east-west axis, and they resisted the pressures of continentalism. They believed that there was a better way than the American way. They recognized that the vast resources and wealth of this nation could be used to overcome the obstacles of geography.
Successive Governments have used national programs and policies to redistribute wealth from the have to the have not regions of this great nation.
I and my colleagues in the Liberal Party believe that every Canadian should have the right to make a decent living in the region in which he/she chooses to live and that he/she should enjoy the same level and quality of social benefits regardless of income and choice of location.
We have used the richness of this great nation to create fairness and equality of opportunity-in the Atlantic, in the North, and in the West. In short, Mr. Speaker, we have used regional development as a tool for nation building.
Anyone who submits to the reality of Canada as a nation of distinct and vibrant regions should be concerned about the implications of the Free Trade Agreement on regional development programs. This Government is asking us to approve the Free Trade Agreement, knowing full well that it is a flawed document, a document that puts at risk the very ability of the national Government to use regional development programs to bring about level playing fields within Canada.
We have before us, Mr. Speaker, a deal that has no exemption for regional development programs, a deal that has no definition of "subsidy", a deal that trades away our very ability to have made-in-Canada policies for the future development of this nation.
It is a deal that stipulates that once we integrate our economies, the United States and Canada will negotiate the definition of a subsidy and will work toward the elimination of same. These things are all still on the table, Mr. Speaker.
How does this Government explain this outrageous deal? How many more concessions will Canada have to make? The Government says: "Trust us."

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
This is the same Government that told us that it would get a deal that would guarantee Canadians full access to the U.S. markets, a deal that would exempt our exporters from harassment under U.S. trade remedy laws, a deal that would protect our regional development programs.
Elow can we possibly trust this Government to negotiate for our country over the next five to seven years in respect of those matters that remain outstanding? The record is clear. What was promised is not what this Government got in this deal.
We know that the Americans are already starting to clamour for the dismantling of our regional development programs, as well as some specific programs in our forestry and our fishing industries. Indeed, the Americans have already said that some of our Government's investments in silvaculture and reforestation constitute an unfair subsidy and should be countervailable. That is what they have said.
I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a document from the United States Department of Commerce, and it lists such things as the Economic and Regional Development Program, ERDAs-and they are not icing on the cake in Atlantic Canada. That money goes to pay for the flour that bakes the cake in Atlantic Canada. It is an important regional development tool.
Also listed is the IRDP, the Industrial Regional Development Program, a tool of nation building that was first put into place by a Liberal Government. Also listed is the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program-and I do not think there is one Member in this House representing a riding in which the fishery plays an important role who would say that the Fishing Vessel Assistance Program constitutes an unfair subsidy and should be contervailable in the U.S.
These are the types of programs that the U.S. Department of Commerce wants eliminated, and it is these very programs that will be on the table over the next five to seven years. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these programs do not constitute subsidies; rather, they are tools of regional development, tools that we have used for years in this country to redistribute wealth and create economic opportunity and fairness across this nation.
I submit that the trade deal, if brought into force and effect, will lead to the systematic dismantling of the regional development programs in this country, thus ensuring that Atlantic Canada will never become a full partner in the economic development of this nation.
Simply put, we in Atlantic Canada cannot support an agreement that does not fully protect these vital programs. Already we have seen this Tory Government slash its deficit on the backs of the poorer regions. In his first two Budgets, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) cut over $1.5 billion from the regional development envelope. That is on the record. Atlantic Canada should shudder when the Conservative Government makes a commitment to maintaining these programs because its record speaks otherwise.
Time and time again Ministers opposite have shown a complete lack of knowledge of Atlantic Canada and its legitimate concerns about the impact of this trade deal. We recall the former Minister of State for International Trade, the former Member from Sault Ste. Marie who, when asked about the impact of the free trade deal on the textile industry in Nova Scotia said: "Nova Scotia shouldn't worry because it doesn't have a textile industry". This came as quite a surprise, not only to the Stanfields, a name that should be well known in the Conservative Party, but also to the hundreds of workers in Nova Scotia who are employed in the textile industry.
Perhaps the former Minister was shedding a little light on what would happen once the deal comes into force. 1 think he was right. Under the deal Nova Scotia will not have to worry about asking questions like that because it may not have a textile industry five years down the road. During the election he was asked about a statement made by Tom Stanfield, who said that his company would survive free trade, but it may mean that they would have to relocate their operations to the U.S.
When the Minister of Finance was travelling through Nova Scotia telling people they had to vote for the deal or they would lose thousands of jobs, he was the expert on everything dealing with free trade, and he was asked to comment on Tom Stanfield's statement, he said: "I am not an expert on textiles. Don't ask me about that". That was the same Minister who said in this House that we are not to worry, that he and his Government will protect our regional development programs. However, we saw his attack on the pensions of senior citizens after the 1984 election. After all, those pensions were supposed to be the sacred trust of the Prime Minister. I think we in Atlantic Canada have a right to be very concerned over the Minister of Finance and his commitment to protect these programs over the next five to seven years of negotiations.
December 23, 1988

I have also listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), the Hon. Member for St. John's West. He has a stand pat response to every question he is asked in the House. He comes back with the same phrase by rote: The people of Canada have decided and the Government has a right to proceed with this free trade deal. I am sure if you asked him where the washroom was he would give you the same answer. Perhaps he is right. The people of Canada have decided.
We have a Government in this House today debating free trade legislation. However, the people of Atlantic Canada have also spoken and even the entertaining effusiveness and huffery-puffery of the Minister from St. John's West cannot deny the fact that Atlantic Canadians have said no to this free trade deal. All you have to do is count the numbers. Twenty out of 32 seats said yes to the Liberal Party in Atlantic Canada.
As one of those Members, I made a commitment to the people of my riding that I would fight as hard as I could to ensure that the interests of Atlantic Canada are not trampled on by the Government's indecent haste to implement a deal that fully 57 per cent of the Canadian electorate said no to.
I say to the Hon. Member for St. John's West, who is not in the House, in fact I do not think there are any Ministers of the Crown to hear this particular debate today at this point, the people of Atlantic Canada saw through his cloud of smoke and they have not forgotten the comment he made in 1986 when he said that Atlantic Canada was well off compared to Bangladesh. Only that Minister could have uttered such an insensitive statement to the people of Atlantic Canada. That shows why Atlantic Canadians cannot, will not and did not rely on him to represent their concerns in Ottawa. They elected 20 Liberals out of 32 ridings to do that for them.
What has happened since the election? Have there been any attempts by the Conservative Government to allay the concerns expressed by 57 per cent of the Canadian electorate, people from northern Ontario and people from Atlantic Canada who have said no to the Government? No, and for a Government which has refused to listen, this is truly indicative of its style over the last four years.
I say its attitude is of no comfort whatsoever to Canadians. We have seen plants and factories close. We have seen people thrown out of work. All the while the Government refused to announce any assistance for
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
those workers, none whatsoever. We hear every day in Question Period about some of the problems with industries closing down. My colleagues from Thunder Bay-Nipigon and Nipissing got up in this House and raised concerns about job losses in the forest industry, and the Government has shown it has no compassion at all.
For Atlantic Canada, however, the Government's negligence is particularly worrisome. Just last week or the week before we heard Mickey Cohen, former Deputy Minister of Finance and now a senior business executive, say this about the future of regional development in Canada: "This is not pleasant stuff. You've got to say: Atlantic Canada, you're on your own; northern Ontario, you're on your own". I submit it is the right and duty of this House to ensure that does not happen.
If the Government had the legitimate concerns of the north and east and parts of the west of this entire nation at heart, it would have allowed our amendments on regional development programs and we would have had a Bill, while still flawed, which would have at least given some basic protection for the people that do not live in the centre of this great nation.
It is no wonder that we on this side of the House -wanted that type of protection for regional development programs built into the Bill. Atlantic Canada has much at stake. We cannot afford the risks of this so-called leap of faith. The Prime Minister talked about winners and losers under free trade. I believe the people who need the assistance the most in the regions most at risk will be the first to suffer and will suffer the most.
The Government has let the people of Dartmouth down. It has let the people of Nova Scotia down. It has let the people of Atlantic Canada down. It has traded the unique fabric of Canada for a few bolts of cheap U.S. cotton and a sing-along with Ronald Reagan.
I recall when the Tory Government began the trade discussions. The principal objective was to obtain guaranteed access to the American market. In Atlantic Canada we know the importance of the U.S. and our producers were concerned about harassment of our products on the U.S. market. As the Prime Minister stated in an interview with the New York Times, "U.S. trade remedy laws can't apply to Canada, period". We know he will say one thing one week and another thing the next week, depending on what the polls tell him.
Does this trade deal protect Canadian exporters from American trade remedy laws, namely their countervailing duties and anti-dumping actions? The answer is no.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The trade deal, in my opinion and in the opinion of many across this nation, is a dismal failure. Americans will still be able to harass our exporters and they will still have to fight these cases before American trade bodies. The Conservatives claimed victory when they got a binding dispute settlement mechanism. Really, what is it? Nothing more than a panel to decide whether or not Canadian or American laws have been properly applied. The Prime Minister did not win any protection from trade remedy laws.
We know some of the things the Government put on the table, but what other concessions have been made under the table? We remember Bill C-22, the drug patent legislation, a bargaining chip given away even before negotiations began. We remember the softwood lumber tax and the shakes and shingles tariff where the Prime Minister kowtowed to Mr. Reagan. In fact, this Bill goes even further than that, it grandfathers the lumber tax.
Before I conclude I want to touch on one or two other areas which show the Government was out-negotiated by the Americans. Under the Prime Minister's deal we have traded away forever the ability of the Province of Nova Scotia to use its own oil and natural gas resources as a tool for regional development.
Under this deal, should the Government of Nova Scotia encourage new business ventures through a preferred energy pricing policy on some of its own resources, the Government is obligated to offer these same rates to Americans. To make matters worse, we have guaranteed the U.S. a fixed percentage of our oil and gas production. Canada has become nothing more than a gigantic natural resources reserve for the U.S. This is deplorable and must be condemned as a sell-out of our very birthright.
The Government has agreed to harmonize, some call this a euphemism for Americanize, our technical and environmental standards. I am sure the people of Dartmouth and Nova Scotia are very concerned about their environment. They see this deal as a sell-out of our children's natural heritage. Acid rain is one commodity that the U.S. has traded too freely in with Canada and Atlantic Canada in the last dozen years.
Over the past four years the Prime Minister has completely failed to obtain a comprehensive agreement to combat this very serious problem. But then what can one possibly get for a bad rendition of Irish Eyes are Smiling?
The more we compare past Liberal Governments achievements and the liberalizing of international trade, the more obvious it becomes that this trade deal is a very bad deal for Canada.
I wish to conclude by telling the Government that over the next week, months and years we in the Liberal Party will be keeping a very close eye on the implementation of this deal. We will continue to fight the battle for Canada, for its independence and for its sovereignty. I serve notice that this battle has just begun.


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


Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, first let me thank my constituents in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for putting their confidence in me on November 21. I am proud to represent these people who have shown their faith in the future by supporting the Conservative Party and thereby the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. This Agreement, as our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) pointed out so well when he spoke in this debate yesterday, opens opportunities for all Canadians in Canada; that is, central Canada and the main urban centres will not be the only ones to benefit from it. All regions of this country will be able to benefit from it and for Quebecers, it is also recognition of the regions that will gain from this boost to the economy.
The Free Trade Agreement, Mr. Speaker, is not strictly speaking a policy like the National Energy Program which had more to do with the problems of regional representation in Canada of the previous administration than with a rational approach to developing this country's potential.
This Government is the first one in years to pursue really national interests. The interests of the West, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Ontario are well represented by all the Members of this Government.
Think of initiatives like the Meech Lake Accord, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Western Economic Diversification Initiative, the Quebec Regional Development Program and of course the Free Trade Agreement. These are a few examples which show that the Government is sensitive to the needs of Canadians and Quebecers. And these needs clearly expressed by all Canadians have remained a priority objective throughout the negotiations which led to the signing of the Free Trade Agreement.
December 23, 1988

We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that protectionism is a threat to Canada and particularly in regions like Quebec where free trade has been a long-desired goal. The Free Trade Agreement is widely recognized as an essential element of this country's regional policy.
The natural resource sectors such as energy in Quebec and the West and fisheries on the East Coast will no doubt benefit considerably from this agreement. The manufacturing and industrial sector, so important to the development of my riding, Mr. Speaker, will benefit directly from this new economic environment in which the agreement puts us.
The fact that eight out of ten premiers have given their support to this agreement and that a majority of Canadians have returned to power the party that defended it is living proof that this agreement will provide balance in that the economy of all regions of Canada will benefit from it.
This Government also allowed the regions of this country to take charge of their own regional development. Indeed, the new regional development agencies like the one for the Quebec development plan are designed so that the sectors which benefit from the regional development programs will be controlled by those who live in the most affected areas. And it is important to point out, Mr. Speaker, that it is now possible to focus the effort of these new agencies in a way that will make the most of the agreement itself.
In the spirit of national reconciliation which this Government has pursued since 1984, this historic Free Trade Agreement will be implemented with policies to help all regions of the country tap the immense potential of the agreement. With this in mind, the Government has said from the beginning that there would be no agreement if Canada's ability to promote regional development were hindered. And we know more than anyone in my constituency that this commitment was respected. There is no restriction on the Government's power to create jobs and facilitate growth in any region of Canada. National reconciliation implies the need to face the challenges posed by this vast and diverse nation by ensuring that all Canadians benefit equally from the national potential, from coast to coast.
The Free Trade Agreement guarantees that the economic growth required to maintain our high standard of living will be shared by all Canadians. This trade agreement in no way prevents reaching Canada's regional development objectives. On the contrary, it contributes to reaching them.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
In addition, Mr. Speaker, it was alleged during the election campaign that many Canadian companies, subsidiaries of American multinationals, would move to the United States because some states have no minimum wage or occupational health and safety laws. This allegation is more than misleading and my constituents were not taken in by such blatant demagogy. For a company or an industry, the workers' pay is only one aspect of its competitive position. Closeness to markets, labour productivity and overhead such as energy costs also contribute to production costs.
A vehicle made in a Canadian manufacturing centre is within one day's travel of 150 million Americans. Canadian labour is usually more productive than American labour. Mr. Speaker, that is not mentioned often enough. Furthermore, our health insurance system helps reduce the number of working days lost due to sickness.
All these factors combined, Mr. Speaker, make Canada an excellent place to do business. The American states that have no minimum wage are in non-industrial-ized regions where labour is generally less skilled. Indeed, industrialized states like Michigan, Massachusetts, New York and California have a skilled work force and a minimum wage similar to ours. The industries are not going to move to and set up shop in areas with an unskilled labour force and dismal economic and transport facilities, merely to take advantage of a reduced pay scale. Mr. Speaker, this did not happen in the United States and will certainly not happen in Canada with the Free Trade Agreement.
That is exactly what the people in the Hochelaga- Maisonneuve riding understood on November 21. That is the reason why they put their trust in a responsible Government. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada is and has always been an exporting nation. Compared with the seven most industrialized countries, Canada is the most dependent economically on its export trade. As much as 31 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product depends on its export trade, and that is the reason why we can enjoy such a high standard of living. Eighty per cent of our export trade is with the United States which represents for us the most natural trade market. Moreover, in Canada, three million jobs depend directly on our external trade.
Faced with this reality, Mr. Speaker, the Government had to assume its responsibility to Canadian men and women. The rise of American protectionism represented a threat for the Canadian economy. With the Free Trade Agreement, the Government under our Prime

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has taken the necessary steps to obtain for Canadians a secure access to the greatest export market in the world.
In this connection, Mr. Bernard Landry stated: "Canada is practically the only major industrialized nation without a secure access, directly or through association, to a market of over 100 million people. This limits considerably its ability to compete especially for the most sophisticated products. The United States is offering us access to a market of 250 million people."
The business people in my riding have stated on many occasions that they are anxious to see this Agreement become a reality and this, because they have confidence in their ability to compete and because this access to the American market would open up for them the way to prosperity. Take for instance the initiatives taken by the Quebec business people during the election campaign to convince the people of the usefulness of this Agreement. For instance, Mr.Bernard Lamarre, President of Lavalin, stated, and I quote: "I just cannot understand how people can oppose the notion of having free excess to the American market."
In addition to providing us with a secure access to the American market, the Free Trade Agreement ensures that Canadian exporters will no longer be at the mercy of a trade bill used for political purposes. The disputes resulting from the application of anti-dumping and countervail legislation will be settled by a panel made up of Canadian and American trade and commercial legislation specialists who will rule as equals and whose decisions will be final and binding, something which will make the settlement procedure much more expeditious.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, our representatives will no longer have to go to Washington to try and settle disputes which can arise between two trading nations and be submitted to the whims of American politicians. That is another expression of our sovereignty.
It is because of our Prime Minister's perceptiveness, his confidence in the potential of Canadian men and women, and his vision of a more equitable Canada that we have obtained this Agreement. All we have to do is take advantage of this instrument to enter the 21st Century.
Mr. Speaker, today being the 23rd of December 1988, I will probably not have the opportunity to offer my best wishes to each and everyone individually. So, if I may, I should like to wish the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his family, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and your family, as well as my colleagues from both sides of the House,
all my Hochelaga-Maisonneuve constituents, and all other Canadian men and women, a Merry Christmas and a Most Happy New Year.


Mr. John F. Brewin (Victoria):: Merci, monsieur le president. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might begin by paying a special word of tribute to my predecessor from Victoria, the Hon. Allan McKinnon. Mr. McKinnon represented Victoria for 16 years with diligence, dignity, and honesty. I know that the people of Victoria would ask this House to join with them in wishing him and his wife a very long, happy, and productive retirement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John F. Brewin: May I also take this moment to mention my father, the late Andrew Brewin, who served in this House from 1962 to 1979. I know he treasured his time here, and I honour his memory on this occasion.
This is an historic vote. I hope that tonight, we in this Chamber are not making an historic mistake. I happen to have two great grandfathers who served in this House, both of them Liberals. It shows that generations do advance as time goes on.


John Horton McDermid: Or slip back.


John F. Brewin: I am sure the Minister responsible for housing would agree with me at least on that, although there are a few Members who appear not to agree with the proposition.
My mother's grandfather, James Lyons Biggar, who represented East Northumberland in the Canadian Assembly, had the honour of voting against Confederation. History will judge that he was on the wrong side of that issue. I truly hope history will judge that I am on the wrong side of this issue tonight, because it will be an important decision for this country.
In this debate, we have heard a great deal about the seniors in Canada and how they were terrified by the exaggerations of the Liberals and New Democrats during the election into voting against the Free Trade Agreement. Victoria has more than its share, happily, of seniors. We are the retirement capital of Canada. I had the opportunity to speak to seniors frequently during the election campaign. The suggestion that they were terrified into voting against the agreement does not do them justice. My experience is that the seniors and others in our community who came to the conclusion
December 23, 1988

that this agreement was bad for Canada did so because they took the long view, the historic view of what this agreement would do to our country. It was their view, and mine, that there was a truth about Canadian history that the Government has neglected. Ironically, it was a truth that has over the years been expressed by the Conservative Party, first by one of the early Members for Victoria, Sir John A. Macdonald.
Sir John A. Macdonald is associated in Canadian history with the National Policy. The essence of that policy was that if we were to build a distinctive nation in Canada, we had to have an economy which was independent of the larger economy of the United States. If we were to have an independent economy, we needed to build certain protections for our business and manufacturing sectors. We had to have tariffs. We had to have other protections which included the creative use of government to assist in building an infrastructure across the country from east to west to withstand the natural pulls from north to south.
From the beginning this policy has won the overwhelming support of the Canadian people. It has been the issue in a number of elections, most famous perhaps in 1911, when the Conservatives under Sir Robert Borden, won re-election on the slogan: "No truck nor trade with the Yanks".
During the election campaign I had the privilege of meeting someone in my constituency who actually heard Sir Robert Borden in that election during 1911. She was most eager to vote in this campaign because she was not able to vote in 1911 on two grounds-she was under the age of 18 and she was a woman.
She said she had been a Conservative all her life but that she was eagerly looking forward to voting in this election against the Conservatives because she felt this agreement and this policy was a betrayal of what she believed Canada stood for.
The critical questions that underline this debate are the issues of the future and nature of Canada. As it has been said more than once in the last two weeks, we have developed a distinctive set of social and economic programs, programs which have helped us to develop a caring society. We still have a long way to go, but it is a society which has a capacity to deal with fairness, justice and equality with people in our own land, and to give us a basis for speaking internationally for social justice and compassion.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Let me address, in that context, one particular element of the agreement and the legislation before us, which has not been addressed much. That is the impact on provincial jurisdiction. This agreement interferes in a number of ways with what has traditionally been viewed as provincial legislative jurisdiction. This agreement and the legislation interferes in the area of energy policy.
Our Constitution has given to the provinces the responsibility for development, conservation and management of non-renewable energy resources. Yet this agreement, without the official consent of a single province, restricts our capacity at both levels from dealing in a number of respects with our energy resources. This agreement further makes substantial inroads in the capacity of provinces to regulate services and to develop distinctive policies for local economies.
The agreement undermines provincial jurisdiction and responsibility in the area of investment, including, for example, control over decisions as to who may even own land, a matter of great sensitivity in many parts of Canada. As a result of this agreement, the provinces are now bound not to intervene in these areas, or Canada will be in breach of the agreement.
Perhaps most significantly, the section of the agreement, Article 2010, dealing with monopolies, goes a long way to undermine provincial responsibility and capacity to deal with new social and economic innovative programs. For those of us in western Canada public automobile insurance is not a particularly innovative program. In the Province of Ontario, however, it is a very active issue.
I wish to draw to the attention of the House a report in The Globe and Mail on December 13, 1988. It states:
. . . Philip Dewan, director of policy in the Premier's office, says that under Ottawa's free-trade deal with Washington, the province might be obliged to compensate U.S. insurance companies for the loss of business that they would suffer if the provincial government were to create a public monopoly over auto insurance.
The Ontario Liberals are, in effect, laying the groundwork for breaking another political promise. But it does suggest how this agreement is going to be used by Conservative minded Governments to avoid doing what has been so productive over the last 50 or 60 years in this country, the expression at the provincial level of that innovative social and economic spirit of which the Member for Winnipeg-Transcona (Mr. Blaikie) spoke earlier.
We have had innovative programs like hospitalization and medicare because provinces have had the opportunity to do so. I submit that this agreement and its

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
legislative variation Clause 6 in the agreement undermines that capacity. That is to be severely regretted.
One thing that has been instructive to me as I looked at the election results and listened to this debate is the profound division that we are building in this country on fundamental issues of the future and vision for Canada.
It has been said that only the winners in this election are properly interpreting the view of the Canadian people. But let us break that down on a regional basis. As has been said, eight of the ten provinces, taken on that view, voted against the Free Trade Agreement. If we consider which provinces and which areas of Canada voted against the agreement, we find ourselves at an historical oddity.
Traditionally it has been the regions which have tended to object to protectionism and the National Policy to the extent that they did, and it has been the so-called heartland of southern Ontario and Quebec that have tended to favour the National Policy and tariffs. Yet we have seen in the recent election results that it is the regions of Canada, including the Atlantic provinces, northern Ontario, the West and British Columbia, that have voted most strongly and forcefully against this Free Trade Agreement.
I believe from my own experience that these sections of Canada voted against the Free Trade Agreement because it was their perception that the protections which had been built in over the last 120 years for an independent Canadian economy were essential to their vision of this country. It is a matter of deep resentment, in our part of the country at least, that this has not been understood, particularly in the Province of Quebec. While we may not have expected a lot better of Toronto and the Golden Horseshoe, we did hope that our brothers and sisters in the Province of Quebec might have been more sensitive to the perspective that we were offering to Canada. It is a perspective that we were prepared to pay a price to be Canadian. We are prepared to pay a price to be Canadians. We do not insist on goods at the cheapest price. We recognize that if we are to be an independent country and if we are to speak with an independence in the world, we need to have these protections. We need to have an independent economy in Canada.
It appears that within a few hours the House will pass the free trade legislation. Within a week it will become law. In doing so, we in this Parliament and in the legislatures across Canada will give up substantial rights. We will give up rights to regulate our energy
policy. We will give up rights to regulate investment. We will give up rights to regulate our own economy and to develop innovative social and economic experiments. We will give up rights to have policies that favour Canadian or local businesses in Government purchasing.
This is to be regretted on a number of grounds. It is to be regretted because of its impact on confederation. It is to be regretted because it will leave us with only military spending as the main vehicle for regional development in Canada, to add further to militarization of our economy. It is to be regretted because in selling so much of what we have, we have failed to get the guarantees the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised. We have failed to get protection against American countervailing duties and legislation.
The Prime Minister and the Conservative Party paid a price to get this deal. During this election campaign, they were forced to make a series of commitments to the Canadian people. Chief among those commitments was the Prime Minister's view, as he said in a speech during the election campaign, that the re-election of his Government would ensure the enhancement of social programs. He made his solemn pledge again that a Conservative Government would not dismantle our social networks. That price may have gone against the grain, but it was a price the Government had to pay in order to get this deal.
We will, over the next four years, remind the Prime Minister of that commitment. If for a second time he betrays the Canadian people in their trust, the Prime Minister can count on hearing from these benches.
There will be three points of observation for us during the next four years. Under the terms of the agreement, there will be five to seven years of negotiations surrounding countervail. Those negotiations will, I hope, begin immediately. We will be watching those negotiations.
Second, the Government has again made a solemn commitment that it will protect workers who have been dislocated. The depth and generosity of that commitment, as we have heard it in the last two weeks, may yet be tested. We have heard words with no action, but we will be watching.
Finally, the Government will have opportunities to strengthen our social programs. The Government will have an opportunity to build regional economies across Canada. The Government will have an opportunity to
December 23, 1988

work with the provinces to build a better, fairer and more equitable Canada.
As the Government faces those opportunities, often, we hope, presented to it by those of us on this side of the Elouse, we will be watching the extent of the Government's commitment. If we see one part of these programs eroded, we will alert the Canadian people. It will be our responsibility during the next four years to stand as watch-dogs for Canada over the future of this country.
There is a six-month cancellation clause in this agreement. During the television debate, the Prime Minister referred to this as just a commercial transaction. He invited Canada to exercise that six-month cancellation clause should any of his commitments be undermined. It will be our responsibility in the months and years ahead to stand in this place for Canada and to ensure that the hope that the Prime Minister expresses for this agreement is in fact realized and that history will not regret tonight's moment.


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first time to address this House since our election. First of all, I would obviously like to thank my fellow citizens from the wonderful riding of Lotbiniere.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents, like those in the 169 Conservative ridings in Canada, on November 21 chose the way of prosperity by giving their support to the only political party in this country proposing a trade agreement with our largest trading partner, the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you quite humbly that I really enjoyed the last election campaign because the voters were faced with an extremely straight-forward situation.
The three parties in the race offered the people a program. On the one hand, the New Democratic Party, being for virtue, changed its policies and programs to suit the opinion polls. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party in this election campaign insisted that the debate be essentially on one issue, the Free Trade Agreement.
As for us, Mr. Speaker, we had to answer for the last four years of our mandate, from 1984 to 1988, and for the next four years. Our record for the past four years was extremely prosperous and full of accomplishments. You will recall that the polls conducted at the beginning
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of the election compaign showed that the outgoing Government was extraordinarily popular. Never had there been so many favorable polls for a government.
Mr. Speaker, a government's role is to give the people something to strive for, a challenge. The only party in the running that had an attractive plan for the people was the Progressive Conservative Party. All the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, could say was that what the Conservatives were offering was no good; that was negativism.
In the end, Mr. Speaker, faced with this situation, the people on November 21 realized that they had had a competent government for the past four years. Remember that in 1984, we had inherited a deteriorating, disastrous situation, with a $38.3-billion deficit, let me remind you. It was frightening!
So on the basis of these facts, seeing that we had given the country good government again, the people obviously wanted to hear what the future government could give them over the next four years. Mr. Speaker, we had achieved a most masterful agreement in the present circumstances, an agreement for prosperity. That is what our business men and women achieved.
Mr. Speaker, my riding of Lotbiniere essentially is quite representative of the social and economic dimensions of our immense country. I have many dairy farmers-more than 1,100-with their wives and husbands, children and friends, and also many small and medium-sized businesses that have not only achieved tremendous economic development but also have developed an expertise that enables them to reach the markets of the United States, Europe and even Africa.
Mr. Speaker, you certainly know the Vibec Group in Victoriaville, a highly competent engineering firm, which has managed to use its expertise beyond the limits of the riding, the province and the country, by opening up new markets in both Europe and Africa.
We also have-I want to salute it now because it has just established itself in my riding-the Cascade Corporation in Kingsley Falls which is administered with dynamism by the Lemaire brothers whose leadership is only equalled by the great dimensions of this country.
There are also in my riding quite a number of furniture-making businesses which for years have had subsidiaries in the United States. May I remind you also, Mr. Speaker, that in the City of Princeville alone, there are five major boat-building firms which also must

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
export their products to be able to prosper and create jobs for our people back home, in Lotbiniere. These people have realized that by taking their cars or trucks and driving a few hundred kilometres to the south of the Lotbiniere riding, they could reach a concentration of over 100 million consumers. They have managed to understand that, these businessmen and women back home. On the other hand, they have realized that by covering the same distance, not southward, but eastward or westward, they were still within the Quebec borders. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, the project proposed by the Conservative Party to our businessmen and women certainly made sense.
These men and women include Mr. Guy Boulanger, from the Boulanger corporation in Warwick which specializes in making doors and mouldings, and which in its field has become one of the most important manufacturer in Quebec, if not in Canada. These people have realized that free trade was already a "fait accompli".
The fact is that for the past twenty-five years, more specifically since 1963, which is not so long ago, Mr,. Speaker, the average duties collected by our Canadian custom officers on all goods imported from the United States decreased from 10 per cent to 3.5 per cent, a reduction of over 6 percentage points. I wish to emphasize that the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement will bring about a reduction of these duties from 3.5 to 2.5 per cent, only a 1 percentage point.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, over the past twenty-five years, we have demanded from our businesses, for their modernization, expansion and consolidation much more than we are going to ask for during the next ten years following the full implementation of the so-called Free Trade Agreement. But again, that is something that the people in Lotbiniere, the businessmen and women, as well as the producers fully realize.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you certainly remember that in 1986, we were forced by the Americans to levy a 15 per cent tax on our softwood lumber. Unfortunately, at the time, there were about a dozen items which were affected by this tax. Do you know what the next item would have been? Mouldings. You can understand that the Boulanger corporation in Warwick, among others, was keeping very quiet about this situation. It was afraid that the negotiators would finally reach that item. Thanks to the Free Trade Agreement, they can breath more freely today, because they used to have no protection whatsoever against
American protectionism. Thanks again to this Agreement, we now have a number of mechanism to block the extension of protectionism.
This may be a sign of the times, Mr. Speaker, but do you realize that for its mouldings, the Boulanger corporation in Warwich must purchase its raw material in the United States? It has to bring this raw material home and transform it. It creates jobs for our people and sells its finished products to the Americans.
That is the kind of ability and foresight our business people and citizens in general now have, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say here, Mr. Speaker, that we as a party never claimed that the Free Trade Agreement as such was the end of all our problems. This Agreement, Mr. Speaker, was always presented as a challenge, one that we believed our business people, our producers, and, I repeat, our workers, could meet. But that, Mr. Speaker, obviously depends on the Government being able to give them appropriate policies. So again, in the last election campaign, it was important to be credible. Now what party in recent years could show such credibility? Is it a party that was in power for 25 of the last 30 years and ran up a total debt of $38.3 billion a year, not a decade, or a government that in four years has reduced the debt by $10 billion?
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we gave our business men and women, our producers, support policies so that they could consolidate, modernize and, in short, meet the new challenges that we were offering them. And if we did so over the last four years, obviously we can continue to do so. Besides, we already have some policies in place. The Department of Industry, Science and Technology has just implemented programs to follow up the consolidation and modernization we began. That is foresight. That is what we offered the citizens, the people in my riding, and they answered yes.
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the various speakers for some time. Not that I claim to bring anything new, because I think that everything has been said. But you will agree with me that the Hon. Members opposite have not brought anything new either. But I would nevertheless like to point out some things that are unfair, Mr. Speaker. I recently listened to the Hon. Member for "Arctic Power", Mr. Speaker, and I congratulate her for her election, but certainly not for her positions. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on December 19, she said, as reported on page 367 of Hansard:
During the campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) stated that regional development programs were not at risk.
December 23, 1988

His attitude was one of "trust me". Many people in the North believe that they were forced to trust the Prime Minister, our federal political representative, when he met in secret in the middle of the night with ten Premiers to finalize the Meech Lake Accord. Many of my constituents believe that the Accord makes northerners second-class citizens in this country. They also state that the provincial Premiers protected their constituents, but that the Prime Minister, our sole representative, did not do the same for us.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member for "Arctic Power" forgot two very basic things. First, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully remind her of the First Ministers' conference with the native poeple in 1985; 1 was there myself. This conference almost resulted in an agreement, except for internal problems with the native people themselves. Secondly, I would remind her that she belongs to the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, the same one-imagine-that imposed repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 without the agreement of not only the native people but also, Mr. Speaker, the Province of Quebec, the birthplace of the French-speaking people, one of the founding nations. She belongs to a party.. . She criticizes us for not having included the Indians in the Meech Lake Agreement. But back in 1982, Mr. Speaker, her own party imposed the Canadian Constitution without the consent not only of the Indians, but of the French-speaking people of Canada. That is no mean feat! That is really something! That is why the people of Quebec, in 1984, told them: "Get out! Enough is enough!" Enough is enough, indeed! In 1988, it was no fluke, Madam. Last year, in Quebec alone, the people realized that we were capable of governing them well. They realized that we were able to identify with and respond to their true aspirations. We don't have any magic solutions, but we have an open attitude, we are able to listen and to discuss. We don't impose things. We don't want to go down in history as a party which says: "This is how it's going to be. And that's that. We're the boss." A country does not work like that. That is no way to govern. But that's what the Member from "Artie Power" tells us. Surely there are limits, Mr. Speaker.
She has forgotten, just like the Member from LaSalle-Emard (Mr. Martin). How terrible ... He says he is going to watch us. But how long has he been a member of that party? I don't know if he remembers- in any case, his father was there at the time- when Mackenzie King actually told the Canadian people, the people of Quebec in particular-


Mr.   Deputy-Speaker@: I would ask the Hon. Member to confine himself to the amendment.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Maurice Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am simply quoting the words of other Members and trying to show that their assertions are false and misleading.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Member from LaSalle-Emard warns us that he will keep a close watch on us as we implement not only the agreement but our policies. I want to remind him that- if he was not a Member of this House, his father was-Mackenzie King told French-Canadians that there would be no conscription. We voted him in power, and the first thing he did was to impose conscription on French-Canadians. You will recall, Madam, that, in 1972, Mr. Trudeau made fun of the then leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Stanfield, because his French was poor. Mr. Stanfield had, in fact, proposed wage and price controls, and Mr. Trudeau made fun of him at the time. In 1975, the first thing he did was to control wages, not prices, mind you, but wages! In 1979-1980, Madam, the Opposition defeated the Clark government over an increase of 18 cents per gallon of gas. When Mr. Trudeau got back in power, he increased the price of a gallon of gas to a whopping $1.80, and during that time, he imposed the Constitution without the consent of Quebec. Imagine that, Madam. That is what Quebecers and Canadians in general have finally understood. That's why they voted like they did on November 21.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, and this is important, there are a lot of farmers in my riding. As you know, the United States is by far the most important market for our agriculture. And the Free Trade Agreement gives us a better access to that market while at the same time protecting our supply management systems which are essential to our agricultural sector. Remember what the leaders of the agricultural sector did, at least in Quebec. They asked for additional guarantees with respect to what was originally proposed in the agreement. We agreed with them, first by adding to the list of protected goods milk products like yogourt, ice cream, and so on. We then specifically included in the agreement article 11 of the GATT in order to protect our supply management boards. We not only protected them, we retained the right to create additional ones.
That is what our farmers in Lotbiniere and in 45 rural ridings in Quebec understood because they also knew that Canadian sales of farm produce to the United States total $3,7 billion and that it is important to them to secure or increase their access to that market. That's what they voted for on November 21!
Mr. Speaker, some people want to tear up the Agreement in ordre to improve it! You cannot improve on an

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
agreement that doesn't exist. The only party who had the courage, because we did not invent free trade ... You will recall that an election was held on that issue in 1911. Fortunately, we have come a long way since then ...
That is what we are doing again today, but we needed the political courage to do it in all sectors, otherwise ... Mr. Trudeau was quite aware of it, he even confided in his then lieutenant, Mr. Lalonde, you remember, and he wanted to negotiate on a sector by sector basis. Imagine, we are going to put agriculture on the table! We get all the advantages, and then we think that we are going to put agriculture on the table and get all the advantages. Besides, Mr. Trudeau tried to muddle the issue at the time by appointing the Macdonald Commission because he did not have the courage to negotiate an all-sector agreement. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) had that courage.
And that is what we have proposed to the Canadian people and what they have responded to. That is where the future stands. How could we forget, Mr. Speaker, the Armenian earthquake, a terrible catastrophe which shocked the world recently and by which few were left untouched.
I see that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude.
The only positive element, if any, about this unfortunate event is that it did show, for the first time, that all countries of the world were capable of compassion in the face of such a situation. For the first time, the Soviet Union accepted international aid from all countries! And this shows precisely that we have taken a step forward in terms of co-operation, and that is what it is all about for Canada in the economic sphere. What is true with regard to incidents or accidents is also true in terms of economy and that is what we have told the Canadian people. And that is why they gave us a massive majority on November 21.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude briefly and to follow upon what my colleague has just said, I will take this opportunity on December 23 to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and all Hon. Members of this House, as well as all my constituents in the riding of Lotbiniere, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very
important issue. It is particularly important for a rural constituency such as Haldimand-Norfolk. I am somewhat surprised that there are no Ministers of the Crown present, but I suppose they have taken their lessons from the Minister of State.
I wish to thank the people of the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk for giving me their support. As I stated in the election, I will work hard on their behalf and attempt to make sure their concerns are heard in Ottawa, and that the Government knows of the solutions that they want to propose, especially on the very important issue of free trade.
In this vein, I rise to talk on Bill C-2 because I think it is important for the House to hear the concerns of the people of the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk. For those Members who do not know anything about my riding, it is in southwestern Ontario. It stretches along the north shore of Lake Erie from Lowbanks on the eastern end, down through St. Williams, up through Delhi, and along to the City of Brantford town line.
My riding contains a significant number of towns and cities for example, Simcoe, Hagersville, Caledonia, Port Dover, and Jarvis. The majority of people in those towns elected me because they wanted a voice to be heard in Ottawa on the issue of free trade.
My riding is an agriculturally based riding, therefore I will talk about the effects of free trade on agriculture. Earlier, many of my colleagues spoke on how it would affect the environment, energy, and important social programs.
I shall concentrate solely on how it will affect the farming community, and I will be brief as there are a large number of Members who want to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.
As I travelled throughout my riding during the course of the election campaign, I heard from a large number of my constituents, mostly farmers, who were genuinely concerned how the Free Trade Agreement would affect their livelihoods.
I listened intently to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Mazankowski), and I was somewhat surprised that he did not make reference to the concerns of the farming community in respect of the Free Trade Agreement. In fact, I was shocked that he did not seem to recognize that a large number of farmers throughout Canada were very concerned about how the trade deal would affect the farming sector.

December 23, 1988

In the Township of Charlettville in my riding there are a large number of vegetable producers, with the main crops being tomatoes, cucumbers, and the like, and all are concerned about how the trade deal will affect their operations. Many are concerned that the commitment in the Free Trade Agreement to phase out seasonal tariffs will eventually lead to the demise of the vegetable producing sector in this country.
There are some 27,000 farmers employed in horticulture in Canada, and processors of horticultural commodities employ another 24,000 full and part-time workers. We are talking about a large number of jobs and the effect that the loss of such jobs could have on employment levels generally.
With our shorter growing season, we produce very much less in the way of fruit and vegetables than is produced in the U.S. U.S. growers, under the Free Trade Agreement, will be able to sell their products into Canada. Granted, there are provisions in the agreement to minimize the effect on Canadian fruit and vegetable growers, though I do not think they will help the farmers in my community.
It is difficult for Canadian fruit and vegetable growers to compete with the American growers given the much lower cost of production in the U.S.
Archie McLean of McCain Foods Ltd.-and I do not know what his political persuasion is-has come out and said that well over 100,000 jobs in the agri-food sector could be lost as a result of this deal. That is scary.
The elimination of tariffs in this sector will, I believe, lead directly to lower returns for Canadian farmers, brought about by increased competition from American growers and producers. The only protection would be in the snap-back provisions. In order to reactivate duties for a temporary period, the formula is a complex one, and especially so in respect of fruit and vegetables.
Let me review the formula for Hon. Members, in an effort to help them understand just how complex it is. The snap-back provisions can only be activated if prices fall more than 10 per cent below the weighted five-year average for the month in question for a specific commodity for a period of five consecutive days, and our own acreage in that commodity has not increased over its five-year average.
A temporary duty can be imposed in respect of each commodity only once in a 12-month period and must be removed as soon as the price climbs.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
As can be seen, it is no easy task to reintroduce duties in respect of these commodities and is not something that I think will work. In fact, it seems to me that the cost of the monitoring imports, prices, and domestic acreage with sufficient accuracy and speed, would be such that the time, effort and money would be better spent elsewhere in the agricultural industry, perhaps in agricultural research or in reducing farm debt.
The Liberal Party has proposed amendments which we feel would go a long way toward minimizing the adverse effects of the Free Trade Agreement. By way of example, one amendment would establish a government board which would review annually the impact of the elimination of the tariffs on fruit and vegetables, as well as the impact of the special provisions for fresh fruit and vegetables under Article 702 and on the food processing and horticultural industry. It would also give the Government of Canada the right to impose a temporary duty on fresh fruit and vegetables when advised by the board that a horticultural or food processing sector is in jeopardy.
We tried to have this amendment and others considered, but the Government would not accept them. For that reason, I should like to take a moment to read the amendment we had in mind. It is as follows:
That Bill C-2 be amended by adding thereto, immediately after
line 7 on page 4 thereof, the following clause:
"8. (1) There is hereby established an inquiry board composed of three members appointed by the Minister and representing the Canadian horticultural and food processing industry.
(2)	The Board shall review annually the implementation of Article 702 of the Agreement and the impact of such implementation on the Canadian horticultural and food processing industry.
(3)	Upon the finding that the Canadian horticultural and food processing industry is adversely affected by Article 702, the Board may, with the assent of the Minister, recommend that specific measures be taken pursuant to Section 59 of the Customs Tariff in order to correct such adverse effects."
This amendment would establish a board to review Article 702 of the agreement and, as such, minimize the adverse effects that it may have.
The Government has refused this amendment; it has refused to even consider it, and it will have to suffer the consequences.
I should like to talk for a moment about Article 706 of the agreement, the effect of which is to increase the global import quota for poultry product coming into Canada.
I have a large number of chicken and turkey producers in my riding, and in fact the whole range of the

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
feather industry, all of whom are genuinely concerned about the impact of Article 706 on their industry.
I would think that probably half those who supported me in the election came from the ranks of the chicken and turkey producers, and they did so because of their fear about what this agreement will mean for their operations. Specifically set out in the agreement are increases in the import quotas in respect of poultry product, the increase being somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent.
As it happens, Eugene Whelan came to my riding to campaign on my behalf, and he informed us that that 2 per cent increase could translate into $70 million of product.
When quoted in percentage terms, it may not seem like all that much; but when given in dollar terms its impact is more readily understood.
We also have an amendment which seeks to preserve the right of the Government of Canada to place quantitative import restrictions on the import of poultry product from the U.S. We believe it is necessary to protect our domestic industry. Again, I shall read the amendment for the record:
That Bill C-2 be amended by adding thereto, immediately, after
line 8 on page 6 thereof, the following clause:
"13. Notwithstanding anything in the Agreement, the Government of Canada reserves the right to impose quantitative import restrictions on chicken and chicken products, turkey and turkey products, eggs and egg products, as these products are defined in the Agreement."
That amendment, Mr. Speaker, would merely retain the right of the Government of Canada to protect Canadian poultry farmers. Yet, the Government would not accept it for consideration; it would not even accept it for debate. We feel that these sorts of things were needed in the deal. Again, the Government will have to pay for it.
The FTA provides for a one-time increase in global import quotas on poultry and, as I said, increases the levels allowed into the country. I do not know if you realize the size of the industry I am talking about. In 1986, Canadian production totalled 582.2 million kilograms of poultry meat and 491.5 million dozen eggs. The farm gate value totalled $1.4 billion. Added value for processing and retailing was $536.3 million and $628.8 million. The estimated retail value was $2.41 billion. We can see the significance of the industry for
Canada, yet this agreement throws open the doors to competition.
As I said, a lot of my constituents worked on my behalf to elect me to this House and I thank them for that. I want to be able to go back to them and say that in this debate we were able to do something for them, we were able to change the Government's mind on certain things. However, I am afraid I will not be able to go back and give them a Christmas present like that because the Government has consistently refused to address these questions.
Every supply managed commodity group in this country is very concerned about this deal. Our supply-management policy was established in the 1970s in an effort to stabilize previous large variations in product supply and price. This would introduce some certainty into the market. I believe it has worked very well since the 1970s, and I am afraid this deal just throws it out the window. We cannot have an open-door policy and supply management. They are just inconsistent.
I do not know if you have been to upper New York State, but if you look at the dairy industry there, which is not supply managed, you would realize how well supply-management works in Canada and how well off our dairy farmers are compared to New York State farmers.
With this agreement, and without the supply-management system, our farmers will not be as well off. Granted, the Conservatives say that supply-management is protected in the Free Trade Agreement, but I do not believe it is. In fact, from what I have heard, the Canadian Government does not care. Even if it is in there, the Government is working with the Americans at the GATT negotiations to get rid of Article XI, throw it out the door. Eugene Whalen worked hard to get that article into GATT and every country in the world would like something like it, but it has been said by people at GATT that our Government is supporting the Americans in their effort to throw it out.
I do not agree with that. I do not think the people on this side agree with it. I think we will find that the Government will learn, probably not for four years, what the people think about how this free trade deal has been going.
If the food processing industry leaves the country, as McCain Foods has said, if they go to the U.S., the associated farming industries will go, too. I have dairy farmers in my riding who ship milk to Waterloo. It makes the milk into cheese, puts it on pizzas. Mr. December 23, 1988

McCain says most of these people will go to the States and they will be forced to go for those reasons. What do they do with the milk? This will put pressure on the supply-management system and on the farmers to try to bring down the price in order to compete with American milk products.
We have proposed an amendment to this deal which we feel addresses the concerns of the supply managed farmers. I want to read it into the record:
For greater certainty, nothing in this Act or in the Agreement
shall in any way diminish, reduce or otherwise alter the objects,
duties and powers of the bodies established by or pursuant to the
Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
The Government would not accept that. We feel something like this will help protect our supply managed industries.
I wish to conclude by repeating something I said earlier in this House. Our Party has put the Government on notice. We will be watching every little sector of our economy in order to ensure that the Government keeps it promises-and it might be one of the first times-to the farmers of this country to put programs in place to help farmers overcome the adverse effects of this deal.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues have said, it is indeed a real pleasure to stand before this teeming throng today to make my first speech in the House of Commons.
I wish to extend my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on his election as our Speaker. I had the privilege of being born and raised in his riding. As a matter of fact, I spent the first 25 years of my life on Fraser Street. He had the opportunity of running the most unique election campaign in the country this year. We are all aware that he campaigned on the basis of not having a campaign. However, I knew he was in good shape a couple of weeks prior to the election when I talked to my Uncle Jimmy, a Scottish socialist from way back. He assured me that he was going to do something he had never done before, vote for a Tory, because he was a good "man". I am sure that my colleagues in the House recognized the qualities of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South when they elected him Speaker of the House. If you would convey those greetings to him I would appreciate it.
I would also like to thank the people of Delta for electing me. It was a very hard fought campaign and I appreciate the confidence they have shown in me by electing me as their representative and the first Member
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of Parliament for Delta. I would like to repeat the pledge I made to them on November 21, to serve them in any way I possibly can and to the best of my ability as their new Member.
Delta is a new riding resulting from distribution. Around here when you say you are from Delta, people look at you with a very blank expression. They think that it is probably somewhere in the Mackenzie Delta, in the Northwest Territories, but it is just 17 miles south of Vancouver. Those are very significant miles in that, because of the distance from the mountains, we have only one-third of Vancouver's rainfall. We are known as the home of the sun god, and we take great pride in that.
To the south of our municipality we have a very beautiful beach called Boundary Bay. Beside Boundary Bay, which has the largest salt water beaches in Canada, we have a small area of the U.S. called Point Roberts. It is only a few square miles and completely isolated from the rest of Washington State. To the natives of Delta it is most famous for its milk, beer, and gas, not necessarily in that order.
On the west side of our municipality and district we have the Straits of Georgia, the Gulf of Georgia. Here is located the Tsawwassen ferry terminal, which is a major terminus for the B.C. ferry system to Vancouver Island. It makes me think of the Free Trade Agreement. I remember when that terminal was first built. Everyone predicted dire things. They said that it was foolish to build a terminus way out in the middle of nowhere, out in the country. Yet today it is one of the most successful ventures in B.C. We started off with two capital ships. We now have over 20. The ferry system is planning two more giant ferries to operate out of the Tsawwassen ferry terminal.
I suggest to the opponents of free trade that 25 years from now they will look back on this debate just as we are looking back on the debate on the Auto Pact and saying to ourselves: "What a great thing it was for Canada".
Just north of the Tsawwassen ferry terminal there is Roberts Bank which illustrates a great act of faith in the future of our country. At Point Roberts there is a freight port. The sand was dredged up and the major coal exporting site on the West Coast was established. The port has the potential of shipping over 30 million tonnes of coal every year. This is a tremendous boost to the economy of B.C.. Without it that money would not be flowing into our British Columbia economy. It has a

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
great potential as well for the shipping of concentrates and potash. Containers can be put there, and it can be developed as required in the future.
As we see the results of free trade, greater commerce and economic prosperity in British Columbia, this port will be developed as it is required. It is also capable of receiving the lead and zinc concentrates which will be taken into the interior of the country and developed at the smelter at Cominco.
North of Roberts Bank there is a tremendous delta from the Fraser River estuary. It is an excellent environmental feature which is so important to the life of young salmon. It is important to the wild fowl of the area. Where the Fraser River empties into the Gulf of Georgia there is a very beautiful and unique island called Westhame Island. It is a very rich part of this farming area and is separated off to form the Reifel Bird Sanctuary, a wild bird refuge. Every year at this time thousands and thousands of snow geese migrate to spend the winter in Delta. They come from Siberia. As we see the great flocks of these birds we are reminded that even the goose knows a good place when he sees one.
To celebrate the return of the snow geese the small town of Ladner has a festival every year. It is called the Snow Goose Festival. Everyone is welcome to attend next year in about the third week in October.
As we go up the mighty Fraser we are reminded of the history of the whole area. As the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Worthy) mentioned, this was the original traffic artery into the interior of the country. The gold seekers of the Cariboo gold-rush used it as their transport. We think of the Fraser River and the tremendous fishing industry that has been on its banks for a number of years.
As we travel along we see the evidence, the fishing boats, the fish plants, and the processing plants that are there, but there are other things there as well. A unique floating home community is being developed in Delta. The technology being developed in this floating home is now being exported to all parts of the northwest as people recognize the beauty and charm of being able to live in a first-class home. These are not shacks but first-class facilities that were built on water. They are environmentally sound, beautiful to live in, and beautiful to work in.
We also have a lot of very mixed type of industry from the heavy industries of petrochemical plants to cement plants. We also have the sawmills which are so prevalent in British Columbia.
There are two major industrial areas in Delta. First, there is the Annacis Island area. We also have the Tilbury industrial area. The residents of these industrial areas are looking forward to the advent of free trade.
Delta has three railroads. We have some excellent highway systems. There is water transport on the Fraser River with the Fraser Port Authority rapidly developing an excellent container cargo as well as a general cargo terminus. It is also the terminus for the importing of automobiles from across the ocean, as well as for the exporting of logs and finished lumber.
Just two weeks ago I had the opportunity of attending the opening of a new industry in the Fraser wharf area. What is being done in this particular industry is that we are taking alder logs which were previously burned or discarded. They are chipped up and the product is sent to Japan. Fine papers are made from it.
In the future as we develop our own capacity I would expect that these chips would be used in our country. Instead of exporting the jobs, I believe that the paper manufacturing will be done here because we will have an adequate market to make it profitable in our country.
Our people are getting geared up to take advantage of the free trade movement. During the recent election campaign we heard a great deal about an industrial park in Bellingham, which is just across the border from us. It was being said that property was being sold to Canadian companies which were planning on going down there to take advantage of the low labour rates, et cetera. I suggest, and I believe it is true, that any exodus that we may see at the present time would be nothing to the exodus that would occur if the Free Trade Agreement was not put into place. The trade barriers would go up. Tariffs would be put on Canadian goods and there would be no way that we could compete in the American market. Rather than an industrial exodus from our municipality, we will see an industrial influx with the Free Trade Agreement.
We have three prime residential areas called Tsaw-wassen, Ladner, and North Delta. In between these three residential areas we have a very large natural bog which was mined for years for its peat products. We also have a very large agricultural area. Because of this variation in the soil from the peatmoss to the clay in the Fraser River, we have a vast variety of crops which we can grow in Delta. I will speak on the agricultural subject in a few moments.
The types of products that we can grow in Delta are products such as cranberries, blueberries, raspberries,
December 23, 1988

and strawberries. We have poultry and dairy farms. There are riding stables. There are all the horticultural crops that one can think of. We have peas, beans, corn, Brussels sprouts, cabbages, cauliflowers, and potatoes. We are also developing a tremendous greenhouse industry in Delta. We have been very successful in using waste wood products to heat them and the latest hydroponics and chemical techniques. These greenhouses are making a real inroad into the market for tomatoes, cucumbers, and various types of plants.
1 would like to talk about a few specific areas that I think have been badly abused during the whole election campaign in areas which I am working. The first is health care. I first ran into the fear campaign that had been mounted by the Opposition at a senior citizens' complex in North Delta known as Kennedy House. We were attending a sod turning ceremony for some co-op housing. The elderly people in this community expressed to me the fact that if they voted for a Conservative candidate they were voting for the Free Trade Agreement and that because of that they were going to lose their medicare, their pensions and all the other social benefits which they have. There is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement that could back up these arguments which they have been made. Simon Reisman, the man who wrote the agreement, has said that health care is not included in the Free Trade Agreement. Justice Emmett Hall, that noted Canadian father of medicare, has looked at it. He said that there was no way medicare was threatened by the Free Trade Agreement.
As I listened to all-candidates meetings to find out why they said our health care system was in jeopardy, the ultimate explanation was that the Americans would say that this was an unfair subsidy to the producer. In other words, because we received so-called free medical benefits in Canada, this would be considered a subsidy to the producer. It is a well proven fact in American and Canadian law that something universally available to all citizens is not considered a subsidy in any way.
That argument does not wash, so they had to flip it over. Instead of being an unfair subsidy, they say that Canadian producers would complain that it was an unfair penalty. The Canadian producer would say that because he had extra costs as a manufacturer in Canada he was being penalized.
The fact is that Canada spends only 8.6 per cent of its Gross National Product on its health care system. In the United States, 11.4 per cent of its Gross National
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Product is spent on health care. The Canadian producer, instead of being punished because of our medical system, is paying 3 per cent less than our American neighbours. There is no valid argument to suggest that our health care system is in jeopardy.
The second area that they have talked about is our hospitals. I have worked in hospitals for the last 35 years. I loved it when the opposition members mentioned this topic in the all-candidates meetings, because they did not know what they were talking about. I could never get them to say why our hospital system is threatened. They would tell us horror stories they heard about indigents who could not access the American hospital system-if we vote for free trade, that is what will happen in the Canadian system. They gave us horror stories about exorbitant costs that our American friends contend with in their hospital system. If the Christmas story was written today, the fact there was no room in the inn would be attributed to the Free Trade Agreement.
Hospitals in Canada are under provincial jurisdiction. Our method of operation of hospitals is entirely different from that in the United States. Hospitals in Canada are non-profit organizations. There is no reason why the Americans would want to be involved in our hospital system.
There are provisions in the Free Trade Agreement which say that services can be contracted out, such as laundry, cleaning, and food services. The American companies can bid on this. At the same time, Canadian companies have an equal opportunity in the United States.
A few years ago, every hospital in Vancouver had its own laundry. This was tremendously inefficient. In my riding, we now have one hospital laundry for the greater Vancouver regional district. Many services offered there can be contracted out at a great saving to the taxpayers of Canada.
Another area dealt with by the Free Trade Agreement is that Americans can come to Canada and open nursing homes. They can work in this area. If they are providing a service which we as Canadians are not providing, we should welcome them.
The last area I would mention relates to blood transfusion services in Canada. We have heard horror stories of what would happen. The Canadian Red Cross has provided the best possible services. Blood is not a commodity. In Canada, it is freely given. It is freely received. It is not sold. It is not bought. The medical

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
community, as well as the community as a whole, would rise up in arms if there were any change to that system.
There has been a problem in Canada with haemophiliacs who have received blood. After the session resumes, I intend to make a statement in the Elouse on that particular subject. I believe it is of significance to the whole country.
As a family physician of 30 years, if I thought there were any threat to our health services, I would certainly not endorse the Free Trade Agreement.
I would like to say in closing that I have four grandchildren. Their future is the future of Canada. If free trade was not good for my grandchildren, it would not be good for Canada, and I would not support it. It is not a panacea, but we as Canadians must recognize that we are living in a changing world. If we are living in a changing world, we must change with it. We must be willing to change. We must be willing to work and work hard. We must be creative. We must use our natural resources to the best of our ability.
One of the best tools we have is the Free Trade Agreement. Let us use it wisely. Let us use it carefully to craft a better Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Sudbury.


Ms. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Monsieur le president, I would like to thank the people of Sudbury and tell them I appreciate the trust placed in me. I want to say to my children, who are here in the gallery today, "It is nice to have you here and to be able to speak to you". To all my colleagues here, it is great to be representing Sudbury.
The people of Sudbury have given me a strong mandate to come here and speak on this trade deal. It is the trade deal we are talking about. We are not talking about free trade per se. We are talking about this flawed trade deal. My riding voted over 75 per cent against the deal. That is a mandate. One may say that the people of Canada have spoken; in my riding they have spoken.
Yesterday I was listening to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) speak on third reading, and I honestly thought I had died and gone to heaven, things are going to be so great in Canada. Honestly, he must have thought he was Santa Claus, we are going to have so much money. I really want to believe this. I am so happy.
In Sudbury, we want things like four-lane highways. We need a new intermodal transportation system. We want a new federal building, which had been promised before and has not come about. I am thinking how great it is going to be. We are going to have so much money. We are going to build all these roads and have all these trucks. We are going to ship the money up and ship the goods out.
Come on. Who are we kidding? It is not going to be that great. The deal is flawed. When one thinks about it, one has to go south of the border to the United States. Life is not heaven down there. When you are poor in the United States, you are very poor, and there are many very poor people there.
I want to talk a bit about Sudbury. Sudbury is a very unique place in this country. It has a very unique history. It began as a resource based town with minerals like nickel and copper in great abundance. It developed a boom and bust type of economy so that when the demand was high there were jobs and money. When the demand declined there were no jobs; there was unemployment and a massive exodus of people. This has happened a number of times in the last 100 years.
Today Sudbury has a sustainable urban economy. People find this so unusual because they have never seen such remarkable turnaround in an economy. It was not easy but we did it. Today Sudbury is booming. We no longer rely on two major employers; we have an industrial base of which we are proud. That is what has made us different. People from all over the world come to our city and ask how we managed it. We did it because we worked together and we worked hard, with all levels of government, with business, and with unions. The people of Sudbury are gutsy, tough and hard working people.
On November 21, in northern Ontario, there was a massive Tory sweep. One seat was held by the Tories, and that was retained by a margin of less than 800 votes. Believe me, in northern Ontario we know what free trade and this particular deal could do. We have experience behind us.
I want to deal with what happens in a resource based economy. I was born in Kirkland Lake, another mining town. At the turn of the century and the early 1920s and 1930s, Kirkland Lake was another boom town, with lots of people. There was gold mining. Mine shafts were everywhere. One could not walk down the main street without seeing a mine shaft.
December 23, 1988

When the ore became more difficult to extract, the demand lessened and the money left. One can guess what the people of Kirkland Lake were left with-the shaft. Those mine shafts have since disappeared.
Cobalt is another mining town that had the same problems. The same is true for Elliot Lake. We know what happens when there is no industrial base. The question that was always asked when these towns faced those problems is: Why did you let it happen? It is as if the people knew what was happening to them. The fact is that we had no control over our economy.
The people of northern Ontario are concerned that we are giving up control of our economy with this particular trade deal. That is what is happening.
If there had been a way to retain a measure of control, the deal would have been much more palatable. That is what bothers us the most. We know the difficulty in creating jobs. We know what happens when resources are shifted to the south. The jobs were not created in our town when we had the resources; they were created elsewhere. We are telling Canadians that this is what will happen now. The jobs will be shifted south and that is what worries northern Ontarians, especially the people of Sudbury.
There is no doubt that the deal is flawed. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) said that he did not get a definition of subsidies but would work on it. He did not know whether he would be able to get a proper definition of subsidies because that has never been achieved.
The Government has signed a contract without being able to negotiate a certain part of it. It concerns the definition of subsidy, about which no one in history as been able to agree, yet the Government says that it will do so in the next five to seven years.
It is my understanding that a Progressive Conservative is usually a business person. 1 submit that any business person who signs a contract without finalizing a clause like that would be gone. A contract containing a clause like that eventually comes back to haunt you. I am worried that the clause in this deal will come back to haunt us.
The Conservative Government asks us to trust it. As parents, we do not tell our children to trust everybody. We ask questions and make sure before we trust anyone. I do not want to trust the Americans. They are not bad people, but they are like us. They want what is best for
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
themselves. I want what is best for my children, my family, and my town. There is nothing wrong with that.
Sudbury has gained good control of its destiny and has been able to do so with the help of all sectors in our town. If we are turning our destiny over to the Americans, which is essentially what is happening, I beg the Government to be especially careful and helpful to those regions that will be affected.
I believe that when the definition of subsidies is discussed, our regional programs will be judged unfair. The pressure will be on the Government to cut back on the subsidies. We must be firm.
The Government has given us guarantees. The Prime Minister gave us all kinds of guarantees in his election speeches. He said: "Trust us, we guarantee there is nothing in the trade deal that will affect social programs". The problem is that there is nothing in the deal.
We asked the Government to include some amendments. If it is clear that nothing will affect our social programs, would it have been so difficult to include a clause stating as much? The Government stated throughout the election campaign that there was no problem. The reason it would not add an amendment is that it knows it cannot do so because it does not have permission from the Americans.
The Free Trade Agreement will make regional subsidies a thing of the past. This must not be allowed to happen. All regions in our country must be given the opportunity to prosper.
Why would the multinationals ever want to continue operating in Canada if they can have the same benefits elsewhere? Think about it. In Canada, businesses have to pay the cost of all our social programs, we have minimum wages, all sorts of things. We take all those programs for granted. We say: Yes, we have them, all our very own.
In Canada, corporate taxes are used to finance bilingualism. After all, one thing is clear, we are a bilingual country.
Do you think that, given the choice, businesses will want to locate here instead of in the United States, where they could avoid those taxes and costs.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

Think of what happens in terms of control over our gas and oil. We have given the Americans unlimited access to our gas and oil in good times, and in bad times, they still have access to our oil and gas and we cannot even give ourselves a better deal. EIow will we attract all these industries that will create all these jobs if we do not charge them less than the others if they locate in our country? That is a good incentive to set up a plant in Canada. Why should they bother coming to Canada now? They can go to the States and get our energy at the same price as we sell it to ourselves without paying any social costs whatsoever.
If I were in business and looking for new territory, I would not bother expanding into Canada; I would expand into the States. The reasons are all there. I could then sell my goods both in the States and in Canada.
Let us face it, we did not get the security of access that we were promised either. The Americans will still levy all their countervailing duties and other subsidies against us. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Look what happened with the softwood lumber industry. We have just elected a Government that got the mandate to implement free trade, but did it bother taking the extra tax off? No, way. Hey, it does not care. So long as things go its way, it is great for the Government.
This deal should have been amended to build in the missing guarantee that would allow us to retain control over our destiny. The Hon. Prime Minister, during the election campaign, through the multi-million dollar ad campaign financed by the large American and Canadian multinational corporations, guaranteed Canadians that there would be no problem with protecting social programs. He guaranteed that there would be no problem with protecting regional subsidies. He guaranteed that there would be a quarter of a million new jobs created, that there would be unprecedented growth, and that there would be programs in place to protect the people who lost their jobs.
Now is the time for the Hon. Prime Minister and his Government to make a New Year's resolution; that is, to guarantee to keep that promise. We have all been aware in the past of nice promises made but never kept. It was quite easy during the election campaign to say one thing but do another. We got that throughout the last four years, and I am just worried we might get it again next year.
Now is the time. It will soon be the beginning of a new year. We realize that the free trade deal will be
passed tonight or tomorrow morning some time, and I would like the Government, before it passes the deal, to make that New Year's resolution and to keep that New Year's resolution. In this country, the people should come first, and all regions of the country should come first. 1 will hold the Prime Minister and his Party to task if they do not.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have this chance to point out the basic flaws in Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. I do thank the voters of Trinity-Spadina who sent me back to Parliament to help defend Canadians against this bad deal.
We New Democrats oppose this so-called trade agreement, Free Trade Agreement, because it will not only cut the real incomes of wage earning and salary earning Canadians and the incomes of many selfemployed Canadians as well, but it will also increase the expenditure on war preparations and the risk of war. It in fact chiefly serves a dictatorship, a dictatorial economy ruled by a few great owners and managers of investment capital, essentially for the goal of profit, the sort of people just referred to who spent millions of dollars advertising the trade deal during the election.
I am here to say that this is not the only way that we can go, and not the way we should go.
There are in fact a great many Canadians who would prefer a quite different way, a way that extends the principle of democracy which we have in our political institutions, extends that principle into everyday working life, into the economy, and into international affairs. This way is traditionally called in western Europe and North America democratic socialism, and it is, I am proud to say, the way to which the New Democratic Party is committed by our constitution. I will explain that further in a few minutes.
As to the trade deal, more than anything else, this trade deal is an affront to the kind of democracy that Canadians are still trying to build in Canada. We built it part way and we have a long way to go, and this trade deal is an attempt to stop us.
The trade deal is not fundamentally about trade or about increasing the efficiency of the economy. It is primarily about seizing power to lower wages, to reduce the quality of working conditions and working life, and to transfer costs from the owners of certain industries and the recipients of profit to the general public including, of course, their employees. It is secondarily but
December 23, 1988

quite importantly also about strengthening the power of the largest corporations to increase their profits through investments in war preparations and in active war as is going on in the southern hemisphere where a good many of our arms will go.
The direct lowering of wages and working conditions through this trade deal will be made easier by transferring jobs to low wage, non-union areas of the United States, primarily in the south. It is hard to beat a $1.74 minimum wage in Texas or no minimum wage in some other States.
During the election campaign, we saw an ad from the State of Georgia which said to our companies: "Come to Georgia because only 18 per cent of our labour force is unionized, we have no minimum wage, and we don't worry about the environment". That is the direct wage lowering and that is what James Fleck followed except that he carried it to a further logical extreme. He went down to Mexico where it is a 50-cent wage. He did that during the election campaign while he was telling us how many more jobs would be created in Canada.
The indirect lowering of wages will be pushed by using the threat of rationalization, the runaway shops, to blackmail Canadians into accepting wage cuts. This is particularly noticeable in my own constituency of Trinity-Spadina, especially among the workers in the factories making women's clothing. There has been an unprecedented rate of shutdown as the trade deal comes closer, banks, for example, refusing loans because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has said that this is not one of the industries that is expected to do well.
It will wipe out Canada's tariff and non-tariff import restrictions so that Canadians must compete with workers in the southern U.S., as I said, whose wage is very often $2 or less. You may be able to live in Georgia on $2, but you cannot live in Canada on $2 a hour because, for one thing, we have some heating problems here.
In fact, Mr. Nygard, the millionaire manufacturer of clothing who was the Government's chosen chairman of the SAGIT, the committee for negotiating in that industry in the trade deal, has quit the chairmanship of it in protest earlier this year because as the deal came out it was a bad deal for Canada, so he said, and bad for his industry.
The trade deal, in fact, is intended to protect the power of the owners of these industries by making it
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
more difficult for any future Canadian Government to act so as to create a democratic, full employment economy. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) went to Alberta a year ago to tell the executives of the oil companies that this trade deal would protect them from a future NDP Government.
In other words, this agreement is to protect the profit and the power of the owners of industry operating in Canada from the Canadian workers who produce that profit and who might vote for a political program that would get them a better share of it. Another indirect way of lowering wages is to transfer production costs to the public. Economists have a nice word for this. They call it externalization. It is: "Don't let our company pay for it. Let someone else pay. Let the taxpayers pay.".
Reducing environmental standards is an example of externalization. We have barely begun the struggle in Canada to make the polluters clean up the poisons which they dump into our rivers and lakes and other parts of our country. Low health and safety standards are another way of transferring the costs of doing business to working people, so also is low severance pay. The pressure to transfer costs from owners to workers will increase with the trade deal. Harmonization, as Chapter Six lays it out in the Free Trade Agreement, will be the chief means of lowering both working and living conditions for Canadians.
The second round of the so-called free trade negotiations will begin to establish common standards from everything from the quality of plywood used in housing construction, to health and safety requirements for pesticides and food additives. It is only reasonable to expect that the business dominated Governments of both Canada and the U.S. will choose the cheaper standard for each country. The American law is to balance profit and health. If it is a danger to health, the Canadian law is: do not use it. We will get the American standard. The Americans will get the profit. We will get the danger to health.
In this country there are two sources of power. There is the power of ownership and wealth and the power of the workers through their unions and political movements. The Free Trade Agreement advances the power of the owners over the power of the workers. It has more to do with promoting unrestricted mobility of investment capital than with trade. Increased mobility of capital is only a means to an end. The end is decreased wages, externalized costs, and increased profits. That is why Chapter Sixteen of the Free Trade Agreement opens our investment industry to control by U.S. corporations.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Recently Thomas D'Aquino spoke in the United States arguing that the U.S., by which he means U.S. workers, must accept a decrease in their living standards to solve the economic problems facing the U.S. We are going to unite with a country, according to D'Aquino, that has to decrease its living standard. Thomas D'Aquino is the head of Business Council on National Issues. That organization is promoted by the American Ambassador and is a leading advocate of free trade in Canada, spreading the lie that it will defend or increase the living standards of Canadians. The same man tells the Americans their standard will go down but promises Canadians that ours will go up if we join them.
That is what the free trade is all about. Who shall have the right to decide the future of Canada? Does the Canadian economy exist to serve the drive for profit or the needs of people? During the campaign it became fairly evident that the Liberal Party does not seriously offer an alternative different from this on the trade deal. The Liberals' alternative is a slightly different route to the same end. For example, trading with more countries than just the United States.
A free trade agreement with more of the specifics nailed down, or with more countries, is simply another way of encouraging the dominance of our lives by the logic of profit. Whether we sell to the United States, Japan, Europe, or Chile, the rule will be the same: cut wages, working conditions, and living conditions directly or indirectly. In other words, cut anything that stands in the way of profit.
There is no basic difference between the convictions and principles of the Liberal Party and the convictions and principles of the Tory Party.
The only real alternative to this is democratic socialism.
That is why Canadians have created a democratic socialist Party through which to defend ourselves from the kind of big business control this trade deal would impose. Democratic socialists oppose the economic system that puts the needs of people second to the goals of big business that says: "What is good for General Motors is good for Canada". Instead, we recognize that we have to put the needs of the working people first.
Our Party's constitution has a preamble which sets out our principles as follows:
The New Democratic Party believes that social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles to Government and the administration of public affairs.
It goes on to set out some of the principles:
That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people and not to the making of profit.
To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and when necessary the extension of the principle of social ownership.
Another principle reads:
The New Democratic Party holds firm to the belief that the dignity and freedom of the individual is a basic right that must be maintained and extended.
By the way, we pledge respect for individual human beings, not the fictitious corporate persons so beloved by corporation lawyers. The third principle reads:
The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist Parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.
Upon these principles, Mr. Speaker, we base our programs which can be grouped roughly under three general heads: programs for full employment, programs for social efficiency, and programs for world peace. These are not the goals of the great corporations which provide the drive behind this trade deal. The Deputy Prime Minister said a year ago that the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal would protect the owners of large corporations by blocking the people from voting in a democratic socialist program. Let me give some examples.
Under full employment we aim to ensure that everyone able to work has the opportunity to make his or her contribution to work under good conditions and to be recognized with fair pay and a share of responsibility for the conduct of the enterprise, be it public or private. This would require intervention by publicly elected representatives, federal, provincial or municipal, such as this trade deal would either prohibit or hinder.
The New Democratic Party demands that the direction of our country be shared among Canadian Governments, public institutions, employers, unions, and communities, without having to ask the permission of multinational corporations or the Government of the United States, as this trade deal in many cases would require.
Our next principle is social efficiency rather than economic efficiency. We aim to be redefine the main goal of enterprises by social efficiency. Neither profit nor Gross National Product alone or together can truly
December 23, 1988

measure the health of our country and economy. They do not tell us whether the goods and services are distributed fairly so as to maintain the health, well-being, and morale of the people, without which no economy can last for long.
We must have a democratically responsive program of training and retraining and mobility grants, in order to help workers progress from the declining job opportunities to the growing and better ones. This is what the Prime Minister promised before the election and during the election, and now he wants to forget that he promised it because he does not believe in it. We do. This is why we are committed to working people and we accept their support.
Security of income, as it is practised in Sweden, is needed to give workers confidence that they will not be victimized by long spells of unemployment. Past United States attempts to attack Canadian programs for unemployment insurance, social assistance, health care, and regional development warn us that the trade deal will further endanger these necessary measures of justice.
The New Democratic Party demands that capital which is generously produced by Canadian labour in Canadian enterprises be mobilized under either elected Canadian representatives or localized representatives in Canada to meet Canadian needs. We need the legislative ability to control foreign exchange, to control foreign investment in Canada, and to control the conduct of employees' pension plans. All those controls would be subject to foreign attack under the investment provisions of this trade deal with the United States.
Under the heading of world peace the New Democratic Party follows the ancient teaching of Jews, Christians, and any others that there can be no peace that is not founded on justice. We cannot enjoy the benefits of a democratic socialist society in Canada unless we are actively supporting the same principles and goals for the peoples of other countries.
For example, in the age of nuclear and other indiscriminate weapons of mass slaughter, we must nourish and build the principle of common security. We must negotiate with our political opponents, or our enemies, to find political solutions. We must abandon plans for offensive armaments such as nuclear powered submarines. We must withdraw from threatening alliances such as NATO and NORAD which are locked into the type of thinking that governed warfare in the years before the Hiroshima bomb.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We must make Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone and negotiate with other Arctic neighbours a nuclear weapons-free, pollution-free Arctic. We must withdraw from the obscenely profitable arms export trade in which a few people seek to grow rich and powerful by helping the peoples of Europe's former colonies slaughter each other, or by increasing the danger of nuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw Bloc. We must ban the export of Canadian uranium and nuclear reactors which continue to be used for purposes of war.
All this runs against the thrust of the trade deal with the United States.
The trade agreement, by threatening attacks on unfair subsidies in Article 1907 but expressly exempting defence contracts in Article 2003, would encourage investors with Canadian Government subsidies to fill Canada's regions of low employment with projects in military goods and services. You call that a nifty solution to unemployment, Mr. Speaker? I do not. Hitler did that in the thirties and led the German people into a savage dictatorship and horrible deaths for millions of people, not to mention for tens of millions in other nations.
Therefore, we reject the trade deal, partly because it would tie Canada's economic growth to what President Eisenhower called the military industrial complex, and what the Tory Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) calls the North American Defence Industrial Base.
There are other important concerns to cover, if I had time, such as the environment and the people of the former colonies in Latin America, Africa, and Asia who are being destroyed by the external debt system. I believe that the Canadian people will find themselves more and more in the same boat as those people, and we will have to join forces with them against the people who promoted this trade deal.


Mr. Harry Chadwick (Brampton-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, recently I accepted the challenge to serve the people of the riding of Brampton-Malton. Before redistribution the Brampton-Malton area was represented honourably by two well-known Members of Parliament, colleagues who now represent the ridings of Brampton and Mississauga West. It is my hope and intention to serve the constituents of Brampton-Malton in an equally responsible and conscientious manner.
Today, on behalf of the people of the twin corrtftiuni-ties of Brampton-Malton, I wish to go on record in favour of the Free Trade Agreement.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Brampton-Malton represents a large workforce made up of diversified industries as well as large employer industries. It encompasses a large commercial and transport centre, including the Canadian National marshalling yards of Brantford and Pearson International Airport.
With all this considered, the people of Brampton- Malton wish it to be known that they are in favour of the Free Trade Agreement and that they want the prosperity that free trade will bring to them.
The people of Brampton-Malton are not afraid to meet the future. They are not afraid to meet new challenges and to benefit from these efforts. I am proud to say that the people of Brampton-Malton are a fine example for the rest of Canada, for they know that the Free Trade Agreement will keep a bright and prosperous future in sight.
Perhaps the confidence my constituents and I share in the Free Trade Agreement comes from the fact that a deal with the United States is not new to us. Many of my constituents are auto workers, and like myself are card carrying members of the Canadian Auto Workers Union. We are very familiar with another U.S.-Canada agreement, a forerunner of the Free Trade Agreement, the Auto Pact.
That agreement between Canada and the United States successfully provided incentives and safeguards which guaranteed Canada's share of production. That agreement continues to fuel the growth of auto production in Canada. That agreement has not sold Canadians down the river as the NDP and Liberals threatened it would. That agreement is a perfect example of Canada's ability to maintain a strong identity while standing face to face with the largest industrialized country in the world.
Auto trade is essential to Canada's over-all economy. From 1985 to 1987, $3 billion was invested in auto assembly and parts plants in Canada. More than 140,000 Canadians earn their living directly from the auto industry. Many work for Firms that supply auto makers with steel, rubber, textiles, plastic, and glass.
In fact, for Ontario, auto trade with the United States is the province's biggest export, amounting to over $30 billion per year, some 50 per cent of Ontario's exports to the United States, cars, trucks, auto parts, tires, and trailers make the automotive sector Canada's biggest single business. Much of this prosperity stems from 23 years of success under the Auto Pact.
The opposition Parties would have Canadians believe that the Auto Pact has been weakened. The opposition Parties would have Canadians believe that free trade does not increase access to the U.S. market. The opposition Parties would have Canadians believe that Canada will not be able to adjust to free trade with the United States. By misleading the Canadian public under the thin guise of truth, it is my belief that the opposition Parties have put Canada in jeopardy more so than a trade deal with the United States will ever do.
The truth is, the Auto Pact and all existing safeguards remain in place. The Big Three must maintain a one-to-one manufacturing-to-sale ratio in Canada in order to qualify for tariff-free imports of vehicles and original equipment parts.
Once the Free Trade Agreement is phased in and the tariffs have been eliminated on products of U.S. origin, the Big Three will have to continue to exceed the safeguard levels so that they can bring cars or parts into Canada from third countries duty-free, a provision worth $300 million annually and growing rapidly. That means big business for Canada's highly efficient, productive and competitive parts manufacturers. The Free Trade Agreement enhances the Auto Pact. That is what it does.
Another myth which I feel needs to be dispelled is that free trade does not increase access to the U.S. market. The truth is, the Free Trade Agreement is all about improving Canada's access to the U.S. market. The FTA increases the access of Canadian producers to the U.S. market through the elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers such as quotas, import restrictions, customs requirements and barriers taxes, and through stricter rules of origin and non-discrimination for goods and services.
It makes that access more secure by imposing further limitations on the scope of U.S. safeguard actions against Canada and by exempting Canada from American protectionist measures aimed at goods of other countries.
It will also ensure the fair and equitable settlement of trade disputes through the creation of a binding trade disputes settlement procedure.
Finally, the Free Trade Agreement will add to the security of access, requiring continued consultation between Canada and the U.S. on the issue of subsidies-
December 23, 1988

a process that would have been unlikely without the Free Trade Agreement.
Critics have suggested that Canada did not gain exemption from U.S. trade law. But, it should be noted that the U.S. did not get an exemption from our countervailing and anti-dumping laws either. However, the trade liberalizing provisions of the Free Trade Agreement will ensure that American protectionism will not be used to hinder Canada's competitive advantage.
Finally, I should like to address the myth that Canada will not be able to adjust to free trade with the United States. The truth is that the adjustment to free trade will be a key feature of the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement over the next 10 years.
This Government has a proven commitment to job creation and of easing the process of employment adjustment. Since 1984, over 1.3 million jobs have been created, and the Economic Council of Canada predicts that another 250,000 new jobs will be created due to the Free Trade Agreement. This Government has also established the Advisory Council on Adjustment, which will make recommendations to the Government on the effectiveness of these programs and advise as to what changes may be necessary as the Canadian economy adjusts to meet the challenges of free trade.
The federal Government will also work closely with the provinces to ensure the effectiveness of Government programs and to ensure that Canadian workers and business take full advantage of the new opportunities provided by the Free Trade Agreement.
I know, and the people of Brampton-Malton know, that with new challenges we can expect change. I am proud to say that the people of Brampton-Malton are not afraid to meet that challenge.
If the Free Trade Agreement means prosperity for Canadians-and I believe it does; if the Free Trade Agreement means more jobs for Canadians-and I believe it does; if the Free Trade Agreement means a more secure future-and 1 believe it does, then we need the Free Trade Agreement implemented immediately.


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


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me tonight to rise in the House as Member for the Gloucester riding. First of all, I want to thank my Gloucester constituents for having put their
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
trust in me. I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed, as we are dealing with such an important issue, not to have been able to move amendments to a Bill which will have such a tremendous impact on the future of Canada. We have, of course, discussed several items of this bill over the past few days, but always with the same response.
Before dealing with the ideas which I wish to express on behalf of my constituents, I wish to pay tribute in a particular way to Mr. Roger Clinch who preceded me in the House as the Conservative Member for the Gloucester riding. May I take this opportunity to offer him and his family my best wishes, for we all know that political life is always difficult and, in his case, he was a worthy representative of the Gloucester riding. He has always represented all the groups in the riding in a reasonable and responsible manner.

I want to say that my predecessor in this House, Roger Clinch, deserves a lot of credit for the gentlemanly manner in which he conducted himself and the exemplary manner in which he represented the people of Gloucester.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Douglas Young: Politics is never an easy career, and with that in mind I want to express to Mr. Clinch's family the best wishes of all of us here. As well, with Christmas so near, I wish to extend the best wishes of myself and those in this place to the people of Gloucester County, the City of Bathurst, and the Acadian Peninsula. With Christmas so near, I know that they have many things to think about besides politics, but I hope that, after we have gone through this process, the people of Gloucester and the people of Canada will be the better for it.
In listening to Hon. Members on both sides of the House discuss the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, it became apparent that there is a general belief that because one votes for a given candidate, one believes in everything put forward by that candidate.
That is not my experience. In my experience, one does not necessarily agree with all of the positions put forward by the individual for whom one casts one's vote. One can think of a great many issues that have come before this august Chamber in the past, and will come before it again, such as abortion and capital punishment, on which there is a great divergence of views.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I believe that the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the U.S. falls into that category, a category in respect of which people have to address the issue on the basis of their own individual beliefs.
When I hear people discuss the Free Trade Agreement from the perspective of business, it makes me nervous. I understand as well as anybody why the Thomas d'Aquinos of Canada, why big business in Canada came down in favour of the deal-and I do not blame them for that. I am not one who believes that big business should be prevented from speaking out. I am always disappointed when I hear my friends to my left talk about their fear of profits. I believe in profits; I believe in business. But, I also believe in Canada. I believe it is a charade to suggest that anyone who questions the free trade deal as constituted in its present form is somehow letting down capitalism, is somehow letting down the market-place and the businessmen and businesswomen who make this country tick. I do not believe that for a moment, and with that in mind I want to address my remarks to those who believe that fear was an element in this campaign, fear generated by the Parties sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker.
I want to assure members of this Elouse, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I never once had to raise the question of fear during the campaign.
When I decided to leave provincial politics and be a candidate for a seat in this place, I had already had a number of people speak to me about their fears. It was not an issue that I had to raise. My experience in the campaign was that people asked me to explain the free trade deal and address the question of whether their fears were founded, or not. That was the question. The fear was there. But why was it there? Who put it there? What brought that fear to the fore? It was mainly fear on the part of those in Canada who would be the most vulnerable under this type of a trade arrangement.
I think it is a shame that we were not able to address those fears over the course of the past two weeks. All we have done is to fan them. I do not think that any man or woman sitting in this House now wants the free trade deal to fail. I cannot conceive of people who hold themselves out to be servants of the people and want to do what is best for Canadians who would now get the smallest pleasure out of seeing one person lose their job or one business close because of the Free Trade Agreement.
What I believe we must do, and obviously we are not going to get a chance today or tonight, over the next year or two is to ensure that does not happen. We have to ensure every effort is made to support business in Canada, to ensure that people recognize that Canadians will stand up for our rights, for our traditional values, and we will fight those elements and concerns which have caused fear among our population.
The reason people in New Brunswick have fears is perhaps because we are not as dominated by The Globe and Mail, Southam and other news services, and those who interpret the news and politics in this country, as other parts of Canada may be. The Bangor Daily News today has an article in which Republican Senator William S. Cohen congratulates Democratic Senator George Mitchell on his election as Senate majority leader, one of the most powerful positions in the western world. The President of the United States is powerful but the Senate majority leader is also extremely powerful. He is from the State of Maine, a state with which we in New Brunswick are very familiar. Senator Cohen, who also happens to be, by virtue of the American system, a very influential senator, said, in response to a question about the Free Trade Agreement, that he and Mitchell will continue to lobby the new administration to start negotiations immediately with their Canadian counterparts about reducing Canadian subsidies.
I have listened for days to people on both sides of this House tell me that medicare is not a subsidy and regional development agreements are not subsidies. What I want is what I think most people in Canada want; I want the Government to tell me what a subsidy is. It is incredible that a sophisticated lawyer and successful businessman, such as the Prime Minister of Canada is, can really believe that I and others can accept that we can enter into a deal where the single most fundamental element of the deal with respect to the Canadian social fabric is undefined.
It was suggested that the chief negotiator for Canada, and I will come to him because I am reserving some time for him as he reserved it for me in the campaign, would not have the time to conclude some of the negotiations because of a limitation imposed probably by the people who paid his bills. That is legitimate because when you are given a mandate and time frame and you have a job to do, you must do it. However, we are being told we must accept a deal that was put together in two years, with last minute withdrawals by the chief negotiator and a rushing to Washington by
December 23, 1988

senior elected government representatives, and then we should wait for both parties bilaterally to decide what subsidies are for five to seven years.
Throughout the American election campaign the Democratic presidential candidate and the vice-presidential candidate, who incidentally was thoroughly familiar with the purported free trade deal, never once to my knowledge, and I doubt any Member of this House is able to say otherwise, raised the issue of fre trade. Even though the Democratic ticket was in a desperate situation they never once said the President or the Vice-President, now the President elect, were taken to the cleaners by the Canadian negotiators. Yet we fought an entire election campaign on it in Canada.
1 know Canadians are good. I know we are strong. I know we are competitive. I know we can get things done with the best in the world. However, would you not think that at some point someone would have suggested that maybe, just maybe, there was some kind of a flaw in this agreement as it relates to the U.S.? Michael Dukakis or Lloyd Bentsen could have said this is not as good a deal as it appears for the U.S. Not a peep, and I think that is worrisome to Canadians, as it should be.
The fact of the matter is that we have to go on from here because one o'clock tomorrow morning this Bill will be passed. It will become the law of the land. Then it becomes a question of what do we do with it. How do we ensure that what we have put forward as legitimate concerns will be addressed? Are we going to leave it, for example, to someone like the chief negotiator for Canada?
When I run an election campaign, I am prepared to confront legitimate argument. I believe the participation of the chief negotiator for Canada during the election campaign was absolutely atrocious and irresponsible. I think Simon Reisman did a disservice to the Public Service of this country. He was paid by the taxpayers of this country for years and years. He worked in the most sensitive of positions, and was given a mandate to negotiate a deal. All of that is legitimate because he had been given those kinds of mandates before. However, to come back into the give and take and the heat of an election campaign and sit there in a mean-spirited way and defend his own work as a Public Servant of this country on the payroll of the Government of Canada was one of the most despicable actions ever undertaken by a Public Servant in the history of this nation.
Many of us know how little tolerance the chief negotiator for Canada has for people who oppose his
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
point of view on anything. We know what he thinks of anyone who does not agree with him. We know what he purportedly thought of the chief negotiator for the U.S. He was a little red-headed kid still wet behind the ears. In years to come a hard assessment will be made of the disservice that Simon Reisman did to this country. If he behaved in the negotiations on behalf of Canada as irresponsibly as he behaved during the election campaign, we can only fear the worst.
I have some difficulty with the perception which has been created, that to question the free trade deal is to drive business out of Canada or discourage Canadians from continuing their entrepreneurial spirit, or that somehow those who question how this deal will impact on our way of life are letting down the side from an economic point of view. The fact is that Canada, regardless of the Free Trade Agreement, will have to continue to act multilaterally. If everyone to your right believes we should have all our eggs in the American basket, I think that is a very dangerous road to follow.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that Canada could not survive without this deal, at least at the level to which we have become accustomed. Yet in the same breath he painted a glowing picture of his and his Government's accomplishments on the economic front over the last four years. It begs the question as to why we had to move bilaterally when traditionally nations like Canada are always safer and better served when dealing, in trade and other matters, on a multilateral basis.
The fear Canadians have is not just a fear that has been raised that senior citizens are concerned about their pensions. Senior citizens have a commitment to the country that they feel viscerally. They understand. They comprehend. They have been through it. I think it belittles senior citizens in New Brunswick and in Canada to suggest that because legitimate concerns and questions are raised that they are not able to make a serious judgment based on their own knowledge, their own capacities and experiences. Senior citizens have always understood the necessity to protect the vulnerable in this society because that is the way that Canada has developed for many, many years.
The Prime Minister and the free trade negotiator have promised prosperity in our time. They have returned from Washington with a document. All we can hope is that prosperity in fact will be the result. There was no will on the part of the Government to recognize

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
that maybe in the haste there were some mistakes or some oversights. My hon. colleague proposed, as have many others, a series of amendments that we would like to put forward, to have them discussed and responded to. That has not been possible.
We have made those comments and suggestions in the light of what we perceive to be a need to ensure that there be some bench-marks, some capacity on the part of ordinary Canadians to assess where we are going, to be able to judge for themselves whether or not the free trade deal is unfolding as the universe should.
In closing, I would like to say this. I wish to be clear on it. I have tremendous respect for people who are loyal to their friends. I have had the pleasure and honour of knowing the Prime Minister since we were both boys. He is a man who values friendship, who gives it, who respects loyalty and values it as well. In the case of this Free Trade Agreement I would only point out that the chief negotiator may have had an agenda of his own. I do not know what it was. I hope that the Prime Minister and his Government do not feel that they are honour bound or in some way restricted in their capacity to assess on an ongoing basis what this Free Trade Agreement is doing for and to Canada.
With all due respect to Peter Newman and the people who quoted the article in Maclean's magazine about the assessment of the performances of recent Prime Ministers, if this free trade deal is a good thing for Canada and for its people, business people, senior citizens, the poor, the working people, then everybody in this House and everybody in this country will be very happy. Most likely, as with most deals, there will be good sides to it and less interesting sides to it.
I ask for the Prime Minister and the Government to make sure that mechanisms are in place to take into consideration many valid concerns raised not just in the House but more and more on a daily basis outside the House by thoughtful people. They must ensure that regardless of what Peter Newman thinks, when history judges the Prime Minister and this Government on free trade that in fact it is a forward-looking and progressive instrument of economic development, and that his contribution to history be remembered in a positive light and that he not go down as another R. B. Bennett. When one does not have the economic tools, when one does not have the economic capacity or the economic sovereignty, it is difficult to maintain the social programs that has made Canada a distinct and a great country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly with the greatest of pride that I rise in this Chamber today. First, because it is with great honour that I can thank the Great Spirit for this historic occasion. It is an occasion that allows me to serve as a Member of Parliament for Wetaskiwin, but especially as the first treaty Indian to be elected to this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: As it is my first speech, I would like to add on behalf of our constituency belated congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and to your colleagues for being re-elected to a very important job.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to on this very special occasion for me and my people say a few words in Cree.
[English translation from Cree]
Thank you very much to my family: Omahikan Pimotayo, the late Chief Dan Minde, Mrs. Justine Littlechild, Oskinikee's brothers, sisters and other relatives for continued support throughout this new challenge.
I would also like to thank all the leaders and members of the Four Nations, especially the elders for their guidance and prayers.
This is a great day. For the first time we will be able to have direct input into matters that affect us. I am proud to represent Hobbema.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: At the outset, I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those people in Wetaskiwin who made a positive statement by their support and confidence. Thank you to all my campaign volunteers, a team of winners like the Wetaskiwin Relics. This is a responsibility, Sir, that I take very seriously.
Also, I thank my family: Helen, Teddi, Neil and Megan. On their behalf I want to wish all our constituents in Alberta, Indian country and all of Canada, the very best of the Christmas Season and, certainly, the very best in the New Year.
If I may I would like briefly to introduce to Hon. Members my constituency of Wetaskiwin, one that has been very ably served for four terms by my predecessor, Mr. Stan Schellenberger. I want to register our sincere
December 23, 1988

thanks for his service and dedicated leadership during that time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Westaskiwin is a microcosm of Alberta. When one thinks of Alberta-oil and gas, agriculture, hard-working optimistic westerners come to mind, people of all ages, cultures and ambitions, optimistic ambitions, which leads me to a second reason why I believe my first presentation is one of very great honour. Our riding is a rural, urban and multicultural constituency with major centres including Leduc, Wetaskiwin, Ponoka and Lacombe.
I am particularly happy to address Bill C-2 and present for the record my support for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This agreement, like everywhere else in the country, became the central issue in the election campaign.
Let me then make some comments on how we perceive freer trade. The election was one of determining our future. It presented us all a challenge to shape a stronger economic future. We welcome that challenge. As previous Members have stated, trade with the U.S. is very important for Alberta. The U.S. is by far Alberta's largest market, accounting for about 75 per cent of its total exports. Much of this is in the energy sector, both natural gas and crude petroleum.
A part of our constituency includes Leduc No. 1. Since that time energy development has become a very vital source of our livelihood. It is important, then, for our constituency to develop a freer, more predictable and secure relationship with our single largest and most important trading partner. The Canada-U.S. agreement presents us all with potential economic growth.
Let us look closer for a moment at the petrochemical industry. With 75 per cent of Alberta's exports going to the U.S. duty-free entry will be advantageous. The proposed elimination of tariffs over five years will be a significant factor. It will help the industry remain competitive.
This House has heard from the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) and other colleagues- Members from Red Deer, Wild Rose, and Calgary Southwest-during the past few days about the Joffre gas plant. I am happy to say that the Joffre gas plant is in my constituency. It currently employs 500 people and 100 contractors. With freer trade, they will expand
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
business and hire 250 more people and 30 more contractors. There is potential for even more from the spin-offs that will result in the various products that can then be marketed in the United States. They will save $40 million this year from tariffs, money they can invest locally.
In Wetaskiwin, Denim Drilling Ltd., a company involved in exploration and seismology, anticipates the implementation of the Canada-U.S. agreement because they know freer trade will benefit their company.
In Leduc, Mr. Brian Hughes, a businessman in the oil and gas industry for 25 years, and the owner of the Leduc Inn, believes "that freer trade is the best thing to happen in 100 years". He believes that his oil business will benefit due to his trading with the United States. In addition, with regard to the hotel industry, he believes that tourism will also have positive benefits.
In Nisku, J.L.M. Tanks and Equipment Ltd., a company that competes internationally, now feels it will be better able to negotiate and compete with the United States.
These are but a few examples of constituents who are looking forward optimistically to passage of the free trade legislation. The conventional oil and gas exploration and the related service industries are vital to the economy of our constituency.
Agriculture, from a business perspective, whether it is farming, cattle, dairy or poultry, must have a fair shot at surviving. The new Canada-U.S. agreement will greatly benefit the Wetaskiwin area farmers. Some recent American actions have hurt our agricultural exports.
Under the Free Trade Agreement, the new Canada-U.S. Trade Commission and special panels will be a place to solve such disputes quickly and fairly. Benefits like the greater access to U.S. markets that farmers will enjoy will, in turn, benefit consumers.
I want my constituents to be able to take advantage of the opportunities under the Canada-U.S. agreement. I want my constituents to become involved in a positive development of our economic future in Canada.
People like Mr. Ken Pohl, who is in the cattle business in Ponoka, and hog producers in the Lacombe area feel their companies will benefit from freer trade as they buy and sell cattle and hogs to the United States. Mr. Pohl says it will be easier for him to deal with the United States.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Throughout the debate, we have heard many comments on mandates. In the constituency of Wetaskiwin, it was a tough election, and a tough decision had to be made. Although there were other very serious concerns like the environment, deficit reduction, job creation, the criminal justice and parole system, all of which I am sure this House will address in due time, the major question was the Free Trade Agreement. On November 21, Wetaskiwin decided. The Progressive Conservative Party lost one poll, tied one and won 170.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: I believe I have a mandate, as we won more votes than all of the other six candidates combined.
Let me now address a matter of which I am particularly proud to mention. A small but important part of my constituency, 6 per cent in fact, includes the Four Nations of Hobbema. I am a member of the Ermineskin Tribe of Cree Indians in Hobbema.
During my first campaign, I referred to a quote by one of our country's greatest patriots, Chief Dan George, when he said:
Let me humbly accept this new culture and through it rise up and go on. Like the thunderbird of old, I shall rise again out of the sea; I shall grab the instruments of the white man's success-his education, his skills. With these new tools, I shall build my race into the proudest segment of your society. 1 shall see our young braves and our chiefs sitting in the houses of law and government, ruling and being ruled by the knowledge and freedoms of our great land.
One of the great leaders of the Four Nations of Hobbema, Chief John Samson, started this dream along the path of reality in the early sixties when he hitchhiked here to Ottawa with Mr. Stan Daniels to bring native concerns to Canada's attention.
I would like to indicate that many of those concerns, for example as they relate to energy, health, agriculture and others, are very similar to areas outside of the Four Nations of Hobbema. I must, however, indicate to the House that I was dismayed, to put it politely and mildly, when anti-free traders came to our reserves. They came to scare our people, as they did in other areas, whether it was about social programs or sovereignty.


An Hon. Member:: What a lot of rubbish.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: On the reserves they said: "You will lose the Indian Act. You will lose your treaty rights if you support the Free Trade Agreement." This was proliferated without any substantiated arguments whatsoever. Perhaps it was because they knew that the
Constitution Act, Section 25 and Section 35, entrench those treaty rights, and the Free Trade Agreement has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
The Four Nations of Hobbema have been doing business in the United States for the last eight years at least. They have not lost their sovereignty. They have not lost their social services. They have not lost their treaty rights. They now have a chance to continue maximizing on those economic opportunities in the United States as they work toward self-reliance.
With the mandate expressed in Wetaskiwin, including Devon, Calmar, Thorsby, Warburg, Breton, Bentley, Rimbey, Buck Lake, Alder Flats, Ferintosh, Mulhurst, Ma-Me-O, Nisku and all points in between, we want to register support for the Free Trade Agreement and, in particular, Bill C-2.
Last, I want to refer to youth because a significant part of our population is 25 years of age and under. As future employers, employees and consumers, we should provide as secure an economic environment as possible. According to the Economic Council of Canada, the Canada-U.S. agreement will lead to the creation of an additional 30,600 jobs in Alberta. I want to ensure Wetaskiwin gets its share. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said in this House on October 5, 1988:
We go forward with confidence in our future, confidence in our
country and, most of all, confidence in the youth of Canada . . . We
have set a course for a stronger, a more united and a more prosperous Canada.
We want to ensure to those youth in the Wetaskiwin constituency that there will be a positive opportunity for them to become nation builders, nation builders as all of our elders, parents and senior citizens have been in the past.
In conclusion, I would ask the pessimists of this agreement to consider: What if it works? Are we as Canadians afraid of success?


An Hon. Member:: If it works, that is fantastic.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: As a Golden Bear, I learned early that the only limits we have are those we place on ourselves.
I want to return with a gift to my constituency this Christmas season: Yes, Wetaskiwin youth, you can have those jobs because you can compete. Go for it, Hugh Denim, Derrick Thorne, Ralph Void, Four Nations, because you can compete. The Free Trade Agreement


December 23, 1988

will allow us to shape a stronger economic future. Madam Speaker, Wetaskiwin supports Bill C-2.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Progressive Conservative team with which I am anxious to work towards making our native land a strong and united Canada.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the eve of this trade deal becoming law. It is now cast in stone. It has been made evident to us that no amendments will be permitted and that no amendments can be debated.
In spite of my tremendous misgivings about this deal, all of us in this Chamber and all Canadians hope that it will work. We hope that the expectations of those supporting it are met, and we hope that their promises to Canadians about this deal are kept.
We remind the Government of what its promises concerning this deal have been: More jobs, better jobs, secure access to the American market, greater prosperity for all Canadians, security for our social programs including medicare, unemployment insurance, health care, and pensions.
The Government promised an adjustment and retraining program. It has promised us that our programs to create regional economic opportunities in Canada will be protected. It has said that we will maintain our ability to preserve and promote Canadian culture. The Government has indicated that we will be able to create new social programs, such as child care and maternity leave.
Canadians are watching. Canadians will not let the Government forget its promises. They will keep these promises tacked to their refrigerator doors.
Because further negotiations are continuing with the United States concerning the implementation of this deal, it is important that the Government does its homework. It is important that it does its homework much better than it has in the past.
For example, the Americans have already created this long list of what they consider to be Canadian trade practices that they find offensive under the terms of the deal. Where is our list? We have undertaken with the Americans to review their laws and our laws in terms of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
trade to see if they might be harmonized. I hope we bargain astutely.
There is also the important definition of subsidies. We implore the Government to do its homework. We do not want these issues negotiated as if they are just the closing of one more Canadian branch plant.
According to this deal, I think Canadians will find themselves in a different type of business world. First, American firms are given national treatment here in Canada. They must be treated the same as Canadian firms. We can no longer require that subsidiaries here in Canada produce jobs, hire Canadians, create exports or do research and development here. We can no longer require productivity gains that come from procedures such as world product mandating.
What will happen to our plants here in Canada? Already we have more foreign ownership of our industries in Canada than in any other developed country in the world. Under this deal we will see further rationalization of branch plants on a North American basis, such as with Gillette, Catelli, and Northern Telecom, where the plants move out of Canada. We will see them being phased out in Canada because the bigger plants in the United States can simply put on a few extra runs, a few extra shifts and service the entire Canadian market.
An even greater concern is where new plants will be established in order to take advantage of this new North American market. Let us pretend that we are rational business people and the board of directors of a company that is called upon to make this type of decision. Let us consider the advantages that the United States has as a base for these new plants.
First, the U.S. climate is more amenable and construction costs are less. Second, establishing in the United States means being closer to the biggest part of the North American market. Third, wages in the United States, in many cases, are much lower than here in Canada. In nine U.S. States the minimum wage law is $3 or less per hour and 12 states have absolutely no minimum wage laws.
In addition, if we establish in the United States, we have the advantage of a free trade zone with Mexico, the so-called Maquiladora Region. It is a band three kilometres to four kilometres deep that runs along the entire border inside Mexico. Goods produced in that area come into the United States totally duty-free. The wages paid in that Maquiladora zone are less than 80 cents U.S. an hour.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
General Motors has 24 plants in the Maquiladora zone of Mexico, employing 27,000 workers. If we are talking about a level playing field, that is not it.
Let us look at another advantage. Industries which relied on cheaper Canadian energy, industries that are energy intensive, no longer have to come to Canada to get it either for the consumption of energy or for the transformation of energy into a further by-product. They can now take our abundant Canadian energy and use it to produce and sell back the finished goods into Canada.
We have given up one of the great advantages we were given at the time of creation. While we got the distances and the cold weather, we were given the energy. But we have now given away that one advantage.
When we consider further as a board of directors where we would locate our new plant, we must consider, as more of our Canadian financial institutions are taken over by American firms, whether we would want to be closer to the head offices where the real decisions are made.
Finally, we have not defined subsidies under this trade deal. U.S. trade law will still apply so that we have no exemption from Section 301 of the 1974 trade Bill and no exemption from the omnibus trade Bill. The U.S. trade laws can still apply, and will apply, as they are amended by the Americans from time to time. We did not get that exemption.
If we are going to establish our plant, we are going to put it in the United States so that if Canada applies its trade laws we would lose only one-tenth of the market. It will not be put in Canada where the U.S. can still apply its trade laws and wipe out nine-tenths of our market.
I despair under this trade deal as to whether we will get those new jobs, those new industries that have been promised to us.
I think we have an even greater challenge in Canada in terms of our economic destiny. Canada is largely a resource based economy. In 1930, Argentina, a country similar to Canada in many ways, had the fourth highest standard of living in the world. It is now thirtieth.
Are we going the way of Argentina? How do we learn to compete head-on with the great manufacturing powers such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, the Common Market countries and the United States? They did not do it simply through trade
deals. In Canada it will require a concerted effort and a new way of looking at things. Simply allowing the market-place to determine the types of jobs we have in Canada will not give us what we need. I suggest that to be world leaders in this fight for competitiveness, Canadians, over the next few years, will have to start looking 20 and 30 years down the road to see where we want to be. We will have to start planning what type of economy we will build.
For those in the House to whom planning is an anathema, take a look at successful businesses. They plan their futures. They have five and 10-year plans and work toward them. If we are to be successful the way many of the newly-emerging industrialized countries have been, we too will have to plan. We will have to put together our best management, labour, entrepreneurs, financial institutions and educators, and set directions for where we want to be and then work toward those plans.
One very major component of anything we will achieve has to be education. We in Canada are falling behind our major world competitors in the way we educate our people. We have the fewest scientists and engineers being graduated of any industrialized nation. In terms of skills training, only 30 per cent of the people who graduate from high school either go on to postsecondary education or have actual skills training. That means that 70 per cent of our young people are going into the workforce untrained. We have to address this problem immediately.
I commend to Hon. Members of all Parties the National Apprenticeship Council that was recommended in our platform for this election, bringing together Government, business, labour and educators to set in place a national apprenticeship program. I believe that we can learn extensively from Local 183 of the International Labourers Union and Local 506 of the Operating Engineers Union, which in Toronto have entered into cooperative arrangements with the businesses they work with. The unions and businesses are working very closely together to set up their own training programs to meet the needs that are not being met in any other fashion.
On September 16, Jean de Grandpre the head of the Prime Minister's Industrial Readjustment Council, indicated in a speech to the Montreal Neurological Institute that in Japan, 8.6 per cent of the Gross National Product is spent on education. In Canada, it is about
December 23, 1988

half that at 4.8 per cent. No wonder Japan has had such spectacular economic success.
Another aspect for incorporation into our planning is the need for research and development here in Canada. We know that technological innovation is the single greatest factor in determining economic growth. In the 1984 election, the Government promised to double research and development here in Canada by the end of its first term in office. In fact, the level of research and development in Canada has actually decreased. It is now at the abysmally low rate of 1.35 per cent of Gross National Product.
In Canada, through Government support, we provide for 20 per cent of the industrial research and development that is done. In the U.S.A., it is twice that rate at 40 per cent. Again, as leaders such as Jean de Grandpre have said: "And to continue the bad news for Canadian technology, Government support last year was less than it was the year before". There is great concern over the Budget that has again cut incentives for R and D.
Last, we have to look at the new approaches in many other countries that have succeeded in creating productivity and competitiveness. In Japan, for example, through MITI and other institutions that co-operate with financial institutions, labour, the Government and business, they have a plan whereby robots are leased to businesses so the businesses can afford them. In Taiwan, a Dr. Casper Shih, a Canadian, has been running a program which has targeted 1,500 small businesses. They send in experts at government expense to study how they can increase productivity and exports. The businesses, if they accept these suggestions, can pay for the new products they require, such as computers or robots, out of increased productivity, and that is the only way they pay for them. It is an imaginative approach which has worked tremendously well in that environment. Programs like these are worthy of study.
In addition, we will need financial support. A person in my riding of Willowdale told me the other day that he wanted to start a new business. He was prepared to put up farmland in eastern Ontario as collateral. The financial institutions would not lend on it because they do not want farmland in that part of the country. This is a travesty.
We have to set our own course to create an economy in Canada which is competitive and strong. The trade deal will cause us some problems in setting our own economic course and our own economic goals.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Because of the provisions regarding investment, we can no longer require performances on exports, R and D and jobs in Canada from certain firms. Our energy is no longer an advantage to us alone. We have given up the right to use certain types of tariff policies such as drawbacks in order to assist the establishment in Canada of competitive world-class manufacturing operations. We can no longer have any sort of managed trade such as the Auto Pact, lauded by all sides of the House as a deal that worked for the benefit of Canada. It was not free trade, it was managed trade. One car had to be produced in Canada for every car brought into Canada duty free.
In conclusion, we on this side say to the Government, Canadians are watching. They expect the Government to honour its promises. We beg of it, in the continuing negotiations with the Americans on implementation of this deal, negotiate better than it did in forming the deal.
Start with the real issues. The issue is not who we trade with, the real issue is what we trade with. Start with education. Start with research and development. Start planning a national approach for the benefit of all Canadians. That is what Canadians expect. That is how we are going to get our economic growth through the years.

It is a great honour for me to sit again with you in this Parliament.

I am very pleased to once again be the Member of Parliament for Willowdale. It is a honour for me to have returned and a great pleasure to be with you.
Mir. A1 Johnson (Calgary North): Madam Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to address this House on an issue of such national significance as the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America. The agreement will play a vital role in the development of my constituency of Calgary North as well as the whole of Canada.

As so many others have done, I would also like to extend my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on his well deserved reelection as Speaker. His reputation as a member of this house for fairness, wisdom, and effectiveness is known to us all. It is with pleasure and respect that I recognize

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
him as Speaker and you, as his representative, in this venerable House today, Madam Speaker.
It is with a complex mixture of humility and pride that I have taken my seat in this Chamber and with which I address you today. I am deeply indebted to the people of Calgary North for the confidence they have placed in me and for the overwhelming support they gave me on election day. I intend to ensure that they are effectively represented while I have the opportunity to serve them here.
I would like to extend my warmest congratulations to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet for the outstanding leadership they provided in the recent election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Johnson:: It was leadership that Canada needed, leadership that Canada wanted, and leadership that Canadians once again have. I am proud to be a part of the Progressive Conservative team that will lead Canada into the 21st century. I would also like to thank members of my family who worked so hard to help me achieve my lifetime goal of being a representative here. My sincere appreciation to June, Cynthia, David, and Thomas; to Keith, Mark, and Nickie.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Al Johnson: Calgary North is one of the oldest constituencies in Alberta. It has its roots in the original constituency of Calgary East, and it was created by redistribution in 1952. The citizens of Calgary North have shared the Progressive Conservative vision for more than 40 years, having been represented by Mr. Paul Gagnon who, as you know, brought clarity and integrity to the deliberations of this House for the last four years.
It is an honour to follow in his footsteps and those of such other dedicated servants of the people as Bill Wright, who represented Calgary North with determination after succeeding Eldon Woolliams, who is still remembered on the Hill as an outstanding member and a hard-working contributor to the activities and committees of this House. This vital Canadian constituency was first represented by the late Hon. Douglas Scott Hark-ness, who made a substantial contribution to this House and to the nation as the Minister of Agriculture in 1957 and later as the Minister of National Defence in the early 1960s.
Calgary North is essentially a residential constituency and the people who live there are ordinary Canadians who, under the leadership of dedicated Members of Parliament, have, as I have indicated, guarded the Progressive Conservative vision of Canada for more than 40 years. These people work in the oil and gas industry as geologists, engineers, geophysicists, technicians, drillers, foremen, technologists, secretaries, clerks, accountants, lawyers, administrators, salesmen, roughnecks, and labourers. They work in the oil and gas service industries providing computer services, well logging, consulting, catering, well serving, pipeline construction, operating and maintenance services. They teach in schools and universities, such as the University of Calgary and the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology. They operate day care centres, work in stores as sales clerks, supervisors, and managers. They serve in restaurants and motels. They drive trucks, build homes as carpenters, electricians, dry wallers, and labourers. They work for the telephone and communication companies, for newspapers, and for printing companies. They work for Governments providing social services, health care, and administrative support. They process meat and agricultural products. They sell real estate and insurance, and they provide financial services and computer support for industry. They work in a wide variety of manufacturing industries; most important, in manufacturing high-technology products.
Calgary North is a constituency that makes people welcome. This is demonstrated by the great diversity of ethnic and cultural backgrounds that are represented in our communities. Calgary North is home to native Canadians, to people of British, French, Irish, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Indian, Chinese, Czechoslovakian, Italian, Hungarian, Yugoslavian, and German backgrounds. Indeed, Madam Speaker, virtually every culture, ethnic group, and race is represented in this community where all thrive and share the vision of a land of opportunity.
These people are the quintessential ordinary Canadians and free trade is important to them. It is fundamental to them in achieving their vision of Canada. On November 21, they decided what course they wanted their future to take.
It is with the vision and convictions of my constituency that I address this House today. Not only am I privileged to represent Calgary North with its heritage of hard work, hospitality, and free enterprise traditions, I am also proud to be a member of the Progressive Conservative team that has developed a vision for
December 23, 1988

Canada that is consistent with this heritage; a team with great leadership already in place and ready to start implementing its decision by implementing the Free Trade Agreement.
This is a vision which sees a nation bold enough not only to compete with the best in the world but to allow people the maximum opportunity to act freely and reach their full potential. It is a view of Canada as a caring society, one which provides a safety net for all those who fall, but a safety net which is taut enough to allow them to bounce back. It is not a socialist vision of a country so complicated by government regulations and bureaucracy that the very people it tries to help become entangled in its mesh, their lives and opportunities smothered in debilitating red tape.
The Canada which I and my constituents envisage cannot come about unless we have a healthy, dynamic economy. The Free Trade Agreement is a fundamental cornerstone in making this vision a reality. This agreement promises a nation which is sovereign, competitive and resourceful. It releases Canadians to trade freely. It permits Canadians to hone and perfect their skills. It allows Canadians to prosper.
Let us take a look at why the Free Trade Agreement is so important to the people of Calgary North. For the oil and gas industry, the Free Trade Agreement provides assured access to our largest export market. Calgary North has suffered too often from boom and bust cycles. Once the Free Trade Agreement is in place, we will no longer have to worry about waking up one morning and discovering that our exports have been cut off or that we have a made-in-Canada price for oil, a made-in-Canada price that sucks $60 billion out of the Alberta economy. That is right, Madam Speaker. Hon. Members on the other side may be upset that this Progressive Conservative Government has put a stop to the practice of ripping off Alberta. They are not happy with the concept of market prices for our resources, but the people of Calgary North have made their position clear.
During the recent election as a newcomer to politics I was shocked at the depth to which the opposition Parties would stoop. I had numerous calls from elderly constituents, some of them literally in tears because they had been told they were going to lose their pensions and their medicare. There is nothing which can excuse the development of this abject fear in our senior citizens. The stories we have heard, that we cannot compete with the U.S. because of our medicare costs, are completely ridiculous. It costs a Canadian company only $18 per
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
month per employee for complete medicare. An American company trying to compete would have to pay up to $100 or more for the same type of coverage. Even if there were such a condition in the Free Trade Agreement, there is no way that we would have to consider lowering our programs in order to be competitive.
The Free Trade Agreement means a stronger economy and the ability to work on eliminating the deficit and reducing the national debt. It is only then that we will be able to pay for better services, not only for pensions and health care, but for education where there is a real need for expanded programs and the development of enriched curricula.
For the people of Calgary North who work in the retail and wholesale trade, the Free Trade Agreement means increased economic activity, greater consumption, growth in sales, and more jobs. Under the Free Trade Agreement, with the elimination of tariffs, there will be a better selection of goods and lower and more competitive prices. Not only will owners, managers, and employees in the retail and wholesale sectors benefit, but the ultimate beneficiaries will be ordinary Calgarians and ordinary Canadians.
In manufacturing, the larger market provided by the Free Trade Agreement will mean opportunities for increased efficiency and product specialization. This is particularly important in high-technology industries, such as the manufacture of telecommunications and electronic components.
In the petrochemical industry 75 per cent of our products are exported to the United States. At the present time tariffs on polyethylene are 12.5 per cent and 18 per cent on methanol. Under free trade these will be removed. I can assure Hon. Members that we will see significant expansion and diversification, and many more jobs for people in Calgary North in this important oil and gas-based industry. This is an important point. It is essential to have diversification and expansion of industries that process and upgrade our natural resources, if the people of Calgary North are to avoid the boom and bust cycles I mentioned earlier.
The Free Trade Agreement will also contribute substantially to increases in construction activity. The increased economic activity will require more residential and more commercial building. This will mean more jobs for our carpenters, electricians, and trades people. Less expensive materials will be available and therefore there will be opportunities to purchase buildings and

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
building materials at lower prices. I could go on. However, from my perspective the most important thing about the Free Trade Agreement is what it says about Canada and the world.
The world is changing. Many trading blocs have been and are being established. We are all familiar with the European Economic Community, OPEC, and the Australia-New Zealand pact. It is not that simple. Other informal blocs exist or are forming, and they will eventually become formalized. For example, Canadian coal companies do not have a free market in Asia. There is an informal agreement that every year no country in the Pacific Rim will discuss coal purchases until the Japanese have met with Canadian coal producers and hammered the price as low as they can get it. Then other customers, such as Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong will come in and negotiate their terms. These tactics, and many others, conspire to isolate Canada to its disadvantage.
South American and Malaysian countries are also discussing the establishment of trading blocs. This is the new regime in international trade, and Canada must develop its own alliances. In my view, the Free Trade Agreement is the first step in this process. Canada is a trading nation with some 30 per cent of its GNP directly related to trade, as compared with approximately 15 per cent in Japan and 10 per cent in the United States. We have 25 million people strung out like a string of beads across the Arctic Circle. They cannot afford to be isolated from world trade and the substantial market these new trading blocs represent.
Unlike the EEC agreement, the Free Trade Agreement with the United States does not prevent us from negotiating similar deals with other countries. This must be our future goal, but first let us get on with the Free Trade Agreement.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, my riding of Calgary North is a most friendly and neighbourly area. The ordinary Canadians who live there are the same who were hosts last Winter to the world during the 15th Olympic Games. In my opinion, these people are far from being self-centered, because several thousands of them worked as volunteers to entertain the world during this prestigious event. They show the same kind of friendship and enthusiasm whenever they welcome other Canadians in their midst, no matter their race or colour, not only to live and prosper together, but to share their hospitality.
We are an open and warm community with diverse origins and traditions. We believe that the Free Trade Agreement with the United States is a concrete manifestation of our openmindedness and desire to meet the world community on an equal footing.

The people of Calgary North have decided. They have a vision of Canada that embraces not only free trade with the United States of America, but one which looks outward to the whole world, and a vision that within Canada there would be less regulation and more freedom and opportunity.
In closing, Madam Speaker, may I take this opportunity to wish you and your family, and most particularly the Right Hon. Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), the Hon. Leader of the NDP, all my colleagues in the House, my constituents, and their families, all the blessings of the season.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the people of New Westminster-Burnaby have given their confidence to me to represent them here in the House of Commons. My constituency has a long history of sending men and women from the New Democratic Party here to represent its interests.
In fact, a portion of Burnaby was once represented by a great parliamentarian, former Leader of our Party, and distinguished Canadian, Tommy Douglas. It was Tommy Douglas and the CCF who had the courage to lead the political fight to bring universal medicare to Canadians and Canadian families.
In recent years the new riding of New Westminster- Burnaby was ably represented by the present Hon. Member for Burnaby-Kingsway (Mr. Robinson) and by a woman who has been at the forefront of the struggle for world peace, Ms. Pauline Jewett.
The overwhelming concern of the people in the riding of New Westminster-Burnaby is the trade deal that we are debating tonight. This is an historic debate for Canada, a debate that will affect the future of our country. The men and women who came here before us have ensured that Canadian social and cultural values were protected and have built our country on a cooperative model.
In contrast, the society in the United States has been driven mainly by market principles. We in the New
December 23, 1988

Democratic Party are simply saying that our Canadian traditions, our social policies, and our values should prevail. We must maintain our own political independence.
The major industries in New Westminster-Burnaby are fishing and forestry, and there is fear in the hearts and minds of the men and women who work in those industries because of this Free Trade Agreement. They have watched, as we all have watched, the President of the United States reimpose the unfair tariff on shakes and shingles, and they know that the Progressive Conservative Government in Ottawa imposed an unfair 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber. There is no protection in this legislation against further punitive action by the United States.
B.C.'s fishing industry, according to the B.C. Fisheries Council, generates $733 million a year in sales and employs up to 8,000 men and women.
The trade regulation exempts regulations in respect of the east coast fishery. Why not for the west coast fishery? Where is the fairness in this deal for British Columbia?
The Fisheries Minister is now asking for new regulation that will only provide for landing. The Fisheries Council has already said that some of the major employers in British Columbia will move to Washington State if there are no proper grading or gutting regulations to ensure that Canadian fish can go to Canadian ports and plants to be processed. Thousands of B.C. men and women will lose their jobs. Where is the fairness for B.C. workers and their families? Next week Canada presents this proposal, and it must protect the B.C. fishery.
While a majority of Canadians stand to be hurt by this trade deal, Canadian women will suffer disproportionately. This Tory Government has given no consideration to the economic crisis facing Canadian women today.
Working women are concentrated in the very sectors that will be hardest hit by the trade deal. Almost 85 per cent of working women work in the service industries: health, education, telecommunications, and computer services. All are directly affected by this deal.
The pressure to compete on a level playing field will also put pressure on our minimum wage laws. Canadian women will pay the price, because too often they are
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
concentrated in jobs that pay as little as the law requires.
Women's organizations from across Canada have told this Government of their very real concern. But once again, Canadian women have been ignored by this Progressive Conservative Government. Where is the fairness for Canadian women?
I have listened again and again, and most recently to the preceding speaker, to government Members saying that we New Democrats frightened Canada's older citizens during the recent election campaign.
I find this to be a very patronizing attitude toward our seniors. Older Canadians built this nation. Older Canadians have defended Canada in two world wars; older Canadians struggled through the Great Depression and the hungry 1930s; older Canadians, Madam Speaker, can and do think for themselves.
One Voice, the Canadian Seniors network, made a presentation last July to the legislative committee considering the trade deal. I should like to read the closing paragraph of that presentation. It is as follows:
One Voice does not want us to close without stating that Canada's seniors, some 2.7 million persons, have a huge stake in this country. They have worked, fought, argued, voted, volunteered, saved and enjoy Canada. They don't want it to remain the same. They see it as a vibrant, progressive, evolving, participatory nation with sound basic principles stated through our provision for those who need special consideration, recognizing differences in regions, cultures and experiences. This Canadianism is worth protecting. It is our identity and seniors want to remain independently, uniquely Canadian.
Those are the words of the seniors. I do not think that we frighten them.
My final point relates to the issue of subsidies. The Government failed to reach agreement in this most critical area. During the next five to seven years the Governments of Canada and the United States will negotiate what constitutes a subsidy. Already Ronald Reagan has told the U.S. Congress that his administration has no higher priority than the elimination of Canadian subsidies which adversely affect U.S. industries.
Of course our social programs are in jeopardy, if not directly by the Americans, then indirectly as Canadian big business demands lower costs in order to compete on the so-called level playing field.
Already, only one month after the election, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association is calling for a royal commission on social programs.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
This confirms the prediction by New Democrats that business groups will apply pressure to reduce social spending in Canada. But there is one exemption on subsidies. If any government subsidy is "sensitive to the defence of the country" it will be permissible. The result of this exemption may well mean an increased focus on military industries. This is not what the majority of Canadians want for our country.
A former Deputy Minister of Finance recently made other points about the negotiations, as reported in the Financial Times of November 28, 1988. I quote the words of Mickey Cohen, a former Deputy Minister of Finance:
We will face greater pressures to harmonize, either because the Americans are asking for it or because our own businessmen are saying, "If we're going to compete, we have to look more like the guys we're competing with. Our cost structures have to be more sound." That all along has been the valid criticism of the responsible people in the Liberals and the NDP. The problem isn't in the four corners of the agreement. It's in the pressures that will come indirectly from it.
It is not just New Democrats who are concerned about this disastrous trade deal; it is health care workers, nurses, older Canadians, teachers, church groups. In fact, a majority of Canadians are opposed to this disastrous trade deal. The Government must listen. This Government must address the deep felt concerns of Canadians.
New Democrats in this place and New Democrats right across Canada will continue the fight to protect our social programs; will continue to push for environmental protection; will continue the fight for fair regional development programs now and after the implementation of this deal.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: At the outset I should like to congratulate the Speaker of the House on his re-election as Speaker, as well as his re-election as a Member of Parliament. As well, I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your reappointment as Deputy Speaker of this place, an office you discharged so well in the previous Parliament.
I also want to thank the people of Lisgar-Marquette, a new constituency arising out of redistribution, who saw fit to elect me as their representative in the House of Commons of Canada.
It was the fourth time that I sought election to this place and the fourth time that I have been successful. Given that it was a new riding in which I offered myself for election for this Parliament, I want to express a
particular note of thanks for those who supported me in that election.
I believe that I found support among the voters for several reasons. Elections are not simple affairs. People in general pay a lot of taxes to government, which governments use, in turn, to provide more and more services to the people of the country, and elections are held so that people can pass judgment on the performance of government and what it proposes for its next mandate.
There were many issues in the last election. I do not think very many of us would disagree that one of the most important issues, if not the most important, was trade. That is why we are here tonight. That is understandable because Canada is very dependent on trade.
It has been said many times but I think it bears repeating. Roughly 30 per cent of everything Canada produces has to be traded. Agriculture, which is part of my responsibility in this Government and has been my life as a farmer and continues to be, is very obviously part of that. In fact, somewhere between 40 cents and 50 cents of every dollar a Canadian farmer earns comes from trade. Trade is very important to us.
That tells you a couple of things. It tells you first that we produce in surplus, and we have to be thankful for that. Second, when we export that much, it tells you that we better be good at what we do. In fact, we are. We export about 80 per cent of the wheat we grow because it is high quality and because we are reliable suppliers with a good reputation. We export, on average, close to 70 per cent of all the Canola we produce, either in raw form or as oil. We export something like 50 per cent of the barley we produce. We export 40 per cent of the hogs we produce, so you can see from those numbers that agriculture is very dependent on trade.
What this trade agreement with the U.S. does is simply provide us with an opportunity to continue to be able to sell into the largest and richest market in the world on a more secure basis. It is just that, an opportunity. It is not a guarantee. It is not a perfect deal. It provides us with a much better opportunity to continue to sell in that market.
To use Canola as an example, people have talked about the fact that we lose the Western Grain Transportation Act immediately with respect to that product shipped into the U.S. through the West Coast. On the other hand, tariffs on Canola oil going into the U.S. are
December 23, 1988

being phased out over a ten-year period. Those people say that that is not right. We should not have signed the deal on that basis. That is an example of where we did not get everything we asked for and would have liked to have had. They are right, it would have been better to phase out our transportation assistance over the same ten-year period.
However, if you look at the numbers you will find that after three years we are net beneficiaries so that we have the next seven years we enjoy a net gain. In fact, from the figures I have, the Canola industry stands to benefit to the tune of $25 million over that ten years. Even though it is not a perfect deal, you can see that on balance we are better to have the arrangement than to be without it.
We firmly and freely admit, up front, that it is not a perfect deal, but it is much better to do those kinds of things with that agreement than not to have it and face the possibility of the Americans using one of the sections of their Agriculture Adjustment Act to restrict us even more.
The Hon. Liberal Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) talked about planning. We are going to have to plan. We agree with him. Certainly one of the things we must have when we plan is certainty. If we are to sell into a market, one of the things that gives us certainty is a set of rules. That is what this arrangement is. He asked: "How are we going to get our own agenda if we do not have certainty of access?" This agreement provides us with much more certainty of access than we would have without it.
The Opposition says we cannot compete. The Americans have a longer growing season than we do. They are able to produce two crops a year. Their yield per acre is higher than ours. In some cases they are right but understand that because of our climate and because of the shorter growing season, we have long days and cool nights during the summer which allow us to produce a different and we like to think a higher quality product. It is for that precise reason that Canola is in demand in the U.S. We should not be fooled by people who say that we are uncompetitive because of our northern climate. It is exactly the opposite.
We produce probably the highest quality milling wheat in the world. Last year the Americans bought almost one million tonnes of wheat from Canada. I understand, as well, that last year the U.S. was the largest wheat exporter in the world. It exported over 40 million tonnes. Why would they buy from Canada at the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
same time that they are exporting 40 million tonnes? Not because we are good fellows and they want to do us a favour, they bought it from us because we produce a high quality product.
If you read the agreement it provides that we shall have more certainty of access to that market. That gives us a chance to plan. It gives us a chance to invest for a more certain return over a long period of time.
The Opposition has said that the U.S. will put our vegetable growers out of business. Again, do not be fooled by that. People should know that there are substantial food processing industries in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York State. You would think if anyone was going to put those three states out of business it would be California. Look on the map. Compare the latitude of southern Ontario to that of Wisconsin. It is roughly the same. In fact, southern Ontario is farther south than the northern parts of Wisconsin. You want to know something? Some 25 per cent of the canned vegetables in the U.S. come from Wisconsin. That does not mean we are going to have any kind of guarantees in that market, but it sure tells you that with a better set of rules we will have more certainty of access.
We did not elect any Members from Prince Edward Island. That province is well known for growing potatoes. I come from Manitoba and we like to think we produce some pretty high quality potatoes. We do. Yet, I think it is fair to say that P.E.I. has a reputation for producing probably the highest quality potatoes in Canada. I visited the province during the election campaign and went into the Cavendish Farms processing plant. They told me that 30 per cent of their production went to the U.S. They want the trade agreement because it gives them more certainty of access to that market. Look at the map again and figure out how far it is from Charlottetown to New York and then compare that with the distance from Charlottetown to Toronto. Look at the population down there and the tremendous potential that represents for a high quality product to be processed here and sold in the U.S.
If you look at the value added side of agriculture, in percentage terms Prince Edward Island has the most value added agricultural sector in Canada. That means investment, jobs, transportation. If you are in Prince Edward Island and produce a high quality product, which they do, and you have a large market closer than Toronto, the largest market in Canada; if you have a market in the U.S. which is larger than the biggest market in Canada and you are closer to that U.S.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
market, does it not make sense to put in place an agreement that provides a set of rules that gives you more certainty of access to that market? That is all this agreement does.
When you start looking at some of the things we are doing in this agreement, it makes you wonder what the people in the Opposition have been saying. Why should we as Canadian farmers-and I speak as a Canadian farmer-be afraid when we have a product second to none around the world?
As I said, 40 per cent of our hogs are exported. That is a pretty impressive record. It speaks to the quality of the product that we export. There is an outfit in Saskatoon called Intercontinental Packers. It began selling into the U.S. market four years ago. To be more specific, it began selling to the California market four years ago. At that time it had very little product moving into the United States.
During the election campaign I had a chance again to visit with one of the people who manages the company. He told us that they, out of 28 brands, are now number three in the California market. This company has 200 jobs in Saskatoon. It is a value-added type of situation. The hogs are produced in the province, as is the barley. The barley is fed to the hogs. The hogs are taken to the slaughtering plant. They are processed and then shipped to California. That is good for us. He thinks that within five years, with the trade agreement, he can create an additional 500 jobs in Saskatoon selling what we produce in Canada to the United States. The agreement gives him certainty of access, or more certainty of access, so that he has the confidence to go to talk to his bankers, to expand his production, and to buy more hogs from farmers. The farmers buy more barley from their neighbours. It is good for us. Members have talked about being hewers of wood and drawers of water. This is an example in agriculture where we do not have to do that any more. We can provide jobs.
There are other opportunities in the United States. We produce in Canada the highest quality Durum wheat in the world. It is pasta wheat. It is used for making noodles, for lasagna, spaghetti, and those kinds of things. The United States has a $1.5 billion market for noodles. I wonder what is wrong with the noodles sitting on the other side of the Chamber when we hear some of the doom and gloom that they come up with.
That pasta market from 1972 until 1984 grew at a compound rate of 11.6 per cent per year. Do you know
what Canada's share of that market is, Madam Speaker? It is two-thirds of 1 per cent. Italy sells three times as many pasta products to the United States as do we. Japan and China together sell as many pasta products to the United States as do we. Why? It is incredible when we look at the quality of product. We have the best quality wheat, good people, and good transportation. This agreement provides security of access to that market. It will encourage our people in Canada to build plants to produce these products to send to the United States.
In 1986, there was a $6.8 billion market in the U.S. for cookies and crackers. Imports grew at 13.2 per cent over the last 12 years. I ask Hon. Members to think about that. It is not 2 per cent or 5 per cent. It is over 10 per cent per year on the import side. Canada's share is 1.1 per cent, yet we produce the best quality wheat in the world. There is a rich market next door to us. This agreement gives us more security of access, a better opportunity for us in the West to grow things we are good at growing, to process, and to provide jobs, yet the Opposition is against it.
We are not saying that there are any guarantees. All we are saying is that there is an opportunity. That is why people came to the country in the first place to farm. They did not come here with a guarantee. They came because there was an opportunity. They had some vision. They were willing to work and sacrifice. It was the same thing with my family. I am the first generation in my family born in this country. Why did my parents come here? They came because there was an opportunity. They did not come because there was a guarantee. They believed in themselves and the country. They worked hard and they have made it what it is. That is what we are doing today-providing more certainty of opportunity to give not only this generation but the next a better opportunity. That is simply what it is.
We face a large accumulated debt in Canada. There are two ways to get out of it. We either produce our way out of it, which means packaging it, transporting it, and marketing it. A big part of what we market, especially in agriculture, means export. Or, we print and we borrow it. We know what printing and borrowing have done to us. They gave us 22 per cent interest rates in the early 1980s. It does not work.
What are Members opposite proposing as an alternative? Instead of standing up to say that we think this part is bad, but this is good, they say that everything is bad. Tell us what the options are. They say: "Go to the GATT".
December 23, 1988

I spent 10 days, as did the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. McDermid), at the GATT. Some of us were down there. We know what that is like. It is very difficult to deal with 95 countries to get agreements. We provided an opportunity for members from the Liberal Party and the NDP to be part of the process. They are such enthusiastic supporters of GATT. We never heard a peep out of them. We could not find hide nor hair of them. Where were they?


John V. Nunziata: That is not true.


Charles James Mayer: They did not show up. We would have done everything we could to have made them part of the process. I asked about them. Where were they? They did not come near the place.
What are their alternatives? Do they want to print and borrow it? There are 25 million people in the country. Better access and more secure access-and 1 am talking about agriculture and other areas of opportunity to us-that is what this agreement is all about.
The NDP members want to tear up our NATO agreement and our NORAD agreement. They want to ignore or to pretend that we do not have allies in defence and that we do not need them.
The Liberals want to tear up the trade agreement. 1 do not understand why these people are afraid of our allies. Why should they be afraid of our allies? There is a large country to the south of us with which we have very good relations. It does not mean that we will always have everything our way and that there will not be disputes. Sure, there will be disputes. When as much trade is done between Canada and the United States as we do, there will be disputes. But, with the dispute settlement mechanism in place we are provided with a much better opportunity to deal with disputes in the future than we have had in the past.


John V. Nunziata: It is not binding.


Charles James Mayer: When there is a large market, the agreement provides us with better access and more secure access.


John V. Nunziata: It is not guaranteed.


Charles James Mayer: I did not say that it was guaranteed. There are no guarantees. When there are better opportunities to deal into that market on a more secure basis, why are Members opposite so nervous about entering into the agreement?
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
What I find discouraging about the process that we are going through here tonight, and we have been going through it for almost the last year, is that there are no alternatives offered. It is an interesting ploy that when one cannot offer an alternative one stands up and misrepresents, distorts, twists, and exaggerates. One tries to frighten people. One says that everything will be awful and that everyone will lose their pensions and their identities. They say that the Americans will come up here to take our medicare cards out of our pockets. When people are afraid hopefully they will do what is wanted of them. That is not what we are as Canadians. We are good at what we do. We are good in so many areas.


John V. Nunziata: It was Brian Mulroney who tried to deindex pensions.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member has mentioned pensions. One of the reasons we can have those kind of programs in this country is that we generate wealth. We produce. A big part of our production has to be exported. With the agreement we have a much better opportunity to continue to generate the type of wealth that we need to go on with our social programs.
As I pointed out, the only alternative that we have ever heard from the opposition benches and in their being critical of this deal is to print the money and to borrow it. We know that that does not work. We know that this country was not built like that. It was built by people who wanted to make the country productive. It was built by people who came here for an opportunity to make it productive. That is what this agreement does. It provides us with an opportunity to continue to be productive by giving us better and more secure access to a large market. That is what the agreement does.
I look forward to the results of this agreement. In terms of agriculture we have protected our marketing boards. There is nothing in the agreement that in any way changes the way the Canadian Wheat Board will operate. There is nothing in the agreement that does anything but provide a better opportunity for our farmers to sell. With the high quality product that we produce, that has to be of a benefit to farmers. If it is of benefit to farmers, it is of benefit to the whole country. Farmers are important to this country, which is why this agreement is so important as far as agriculture is concerned. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) who negotiated this deal did it on the basis of providing opportunities. We in agriculture have very significantly

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
improved our opportunities to sell into the U.S. market with this agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, it is with a sense of pride, coupled with humility, that I rise to address this House for the first time. I am deeply thankful to the people of Scarborough West for having considered me worthy of their trust and confidence. Indeed, for me it is quite literally the fulfilment of a life-long dream.
Scarborough West is one of the five federal ridings comprising the City of Scarborough in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. In my view, it is a classic microcosm of urban Canada, containing upwardly mobile professionals, blue collar workers, many generation Canadians, immigrants, low income families and a large population of senior citizens.
During the election campaign, as I am sure most if not all Members did, I spoke with many thousands of people, although, with a population of over 90,000, it was unfortunately not possible to meet with all. I promised the people of Scarborough West that, if elected, I would represent them forcefully and with honesty and integrity.
The people of Scarborough West know that I hold strong convictions on most issues which affect us all and that they can count on me to make those convictions known in the House.
One of those issues about which I hold a strong conviction is this trade agreement, not free trade as a concept but this Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Gustafson:: Be sure now.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: lam 100 per cent sure. During my quest for my nomination and during the election campaign, I made it crystal clear that I am opposed to this agreement. I do not oppose it for partisan reasons. Rather, I believe it is fundamentally a bad agreement. Why? Because the foundation of it is anchored in weakness, and thus, if the foundation is weak, the agreement built on it is fragile at best.
As a new Member, I listened carefully to the proceedings in this Chamber last week. However, I did not partake in the procedural debates which I felt were a waste of the time and the money of the Canadian people, a waste forced on us by the arrogance of a
Conservative Government which, heady with an election victory, refuses to acknowledge the great schism in Canada between those in favour of this agreement and those opposed or unsure. This arrogance caused the procedural wrangling which has been perpetuated by the petulance of the Members of the NDP.
To return to the weak foundation of this agreement, I want to point out to Hon. Members the three weaknesses upon which I believe this agreement is founded. First, the Government which negotiated this agreement is led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who, while campaigning for his Party's leadership, was an outspoken opponent of free trade with the United States.
He has never explained to Canadians why he did a complete about face. Was he forced to change by big business and some of his colleagues, almost pushed into the deal? It appears so to me, since he never told any of us why he changed. What kind of commitment from the top is that to this agreement?
Second, it is a cardinal rule of negotiation technique that one outlines the objectives to be obtained and makes no concessions unless those concessions are returned with the ultimate goal of obtaining the objectives.
The Conservative Government had two very clear and public objectives: first, to obtain an exemption from United States protectionist law; and, second, to obtain a binding dispute settlement mechanism included in the agreement.
The negotiations failed on both these counts. We did not get an exemption from American trade law, and the so-called binding dispute resolution mechanism is a toothless tiger. It is a mechanism without prescribed remedies in the event of default.
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, of which I am a part, has tried to move that the agreement be amended to rectify this latter situation by adding to Bill C-2, immediately after line 29 on page 36 thereof, the following:
Notwithstanding any provision of this Act or the agreement, Canada may refer a bilateral trade dispute with the United States arising out of the implementation of the agreement to the dispute settlement mechanism of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to which Canada and the United States are a party.
Under the present interpretation of the agreement, Canada is not allowed to have trade disputes ruled on by the GATT. Article 1801 proposes that this agreement will deal exclusively with U.S. trade laws, laws which
December 23, 1988

our U.S. counterparts may revise and/or strengthen at any time, now or in the future.
Under this provision Canadians are linked to U.S. trade law. I suggest that Canadians do not want to be tied to American law and thus the amendment proposed by my Party is a reasonable and constructive proposal which the Government should consider. It has not done so.
The third weakness in the foundation of this agreement, in my view, is that it commits Canada to negotiations over the next five to seven years to define the definition of subsidies. How can anything so uncertain lead to stability?
The Government of Canada expected the Members of this House, and indeed the people of this nation, to sign an agreement that does not contain set definitions.
I would ask the members on the government side if they would purchase a house and have the lot size determined later, or perhaps purchase and pay for a new car and have the dealer later decide on the model, make, and colour. I do not think it is unrealistic to say that no intelligent individual would enter into such an agreement. Why would the Government of Canada expect Canadians to sign an agreement that contains no definition of such a contentious topic as a subsidy?
The Prime Minister had, as one of his intentions, that a free trade agreement with the United States would provide certainty and stability to the Canadian economy. To this proposal I say bravo. However, as the Bill now before us stands, it requires polishing by way of amendment to provide the utmost certainty.
We know this Bill will pass at approximately 1.15. But what is so frustrating and irritating is that we have put forward literally a bookful of amendments which this Party believes would be helpful in protecting the concerns of Canadians. Those amendments have simply been totally ignored by the government side. Is the Prime Minister not big enough to accept the amendments or at least some of them proposed to the House? No. Instead, he allows himself to be outnegotiated and refuses to correct his mistakes or even admit them.
The true nature of this agreement was deliberately hidden from the Canadian people. The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Turner) pointed this out during the election campaign. Now we are seeing first-hand the Government's attempt to blur the true focus of this debate by holding hostage this legislative
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Chamber right up until literally the day before Christmas and by constantly invoking closure to limit debate and constructive criticism.
In my view, this is a poor example of democracy. An excellent example of democracy is that of the election results in Scarborough West, where the Progressive Conservative incumbent met defeat by a margin of almost two votes cast against him for every one cast for him. The people of Scarborough West issued a stinging rebuke of this agreement. As their representative, I have the privilege and the duty to deliver their message to the House.
Government Members have been quick to point out what they perceive as the virtues of this agreement. Yet, as the deal comes under closer scrutiny, the risk far outweighs the return. Original employment projections by the Economic Council of Canada have been drastically reduced to the point where it is now projecting estimates of 250,000 jobs newly created by the year 1998. That is an impressive figure, no doubt, at first glance, but one must understand that, to achieve this figure, manufacturing productivity must increase by 3.6 per cent per year.
Is the Prime Minister trying to tell Canadians that they do not work hard enough already? If productivity does not increase, then the Economic Council predicts that an increase of only 76,000 new jobs may be possible over a 10-year period. That is what we have given up.
Contrast this to the projections of a study done by the University of Maryland which states that Canada could very well experience a loss of up to 131,000 jobs by 1995 under the trade deal. This projection is not difficult for me to believe as we have already seen mass lay-offs at several plants across this nation. To date, if the figures have not grown since yesterday, over 1,800 Canadians have been laid off. It will not be a very merry Christmas for some.
During the election campaign, the Government told Canadians that this agreement would save every household $800 a year in consumer expenses. That sounded like a very attractive offer. However, the Government did not tell Canadians that this suggested saving is calculated on items that are very, very infrequently purchased, such as refrigerators, stoves, air conditioners and the like. The Consumers Association of Canada disagrees with this estimate. It insists that individual savings are not likely to exceed one-tenth of 1 per cent of a person's annual income. Surely this

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
negligible gain is not worth the larger price paid, namely the sellout of our country.
During the election campaign and indeed in the House since, Members on the opposite side have scoffed at the suggestion that our social programs are in jeopardy. Yet, if they are so sure that our neighbours to the south do not wish to tamper with these programs, why will they not commit this to writing in the agreement?
Yes, we have heard the argument from the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) that universal social programs are protected under GATT. However, pressure from big business will be felt by this Government. There will be no need for the U.S. Government to force an end to our social programs. Big business has already proven itself capable of forcing the Prime Minister's hand.
My riding contains a large number of senior citizens. These are the people who worked to make Canada what it is today. They are entitled to a reward for that hard work and legacy. They are entitled to a secure knowledge that our social programs are not in jeopardy.
We have heard Hon. Members opposite orally guarantee that seniors are not in jeopardy, but talk is cheap and broken promises are the motto of this Government and its predecessor. What seniors in my riding and indeed all Canadians want is a guarantee in writing placed in the agreement, a few words to ensure peace of mind, but the Government will not listen.
My Party has proposed that the following be added to the Bill in order to complete the initiative of the Government. Let the Bill clearly and succinctly state "that for greater certainty, nothing in this Act or in the agreement shall be interpreted so as to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs, including the health care system, unemployment insurance, child care, pensions, minimum wage law, labour law and maternity benefits". By adding this important amendment to the Bill, social programs are thus removed from the bargaining table and the Canadian social safety net remains intact.
Why will the Government not listen? Its philosophy is, "Our way and you pay". The attitude appears to be that any agreement is better than no agreement at all. I say to the Prime Minister and his Government, amend this deal to reflect the initial goal desired, or, since we have already cast aside all the amendments that were suggested, at least introduce legislation to protect those
Canadians who will suffer as a result. We have already seen Canadian companies announce over 1,800 lay-offs because of this poorly negotiated deal and yet it is not even in force. What will happen in the future?
This is far more than a commercial document, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has called it in debates. Indeed, this is more than just a trade deal. It is a resource sellout.
The Government has guaranteed that the U.S. will have access to Canadian oil and gas, even in times of Canadian shortage. That cannot be disputed because it is there. Canadians should have the first claim and the full control over the use and disposition of our own resources.


Charles James Mayer: They do.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: It is in the agreement. The Prime Minister has bargained this away.
In closing, I would like to thank the Ministers of the Crown for their spelling lessons of last week. On Wednesday last, the Minister for International Trade stated that he would like speedy passage of this Bill, s-p-e-e-d-y. On Thursday last, he told us of consistent decisions, c-o-n-s-i-s-t-e-n-t. During our marathon session of last Friday, the deputy Government House Leader told us that the Prime Minister was going to discuss an interim report, d-i-s-c-u-s-s. Today, I would like to return the favour by telling the Ministers and this House what the people of Scarborough West say to this trade agreement, and that is no, n-o.


Mr. Micheal O'Brien (York North):: For many years, York North has been a bedroom community to the City of Toronto, but now the people of York North have begun to employ themselves in their own communities. Hundreds of burgeoning small businesses have grown to the point where they now each employ up to 700 local persons. These businesses have flourished and prospered within their chosen Canadian market sectors. They are modern, specialized, market-driven operations, run by Canadian entrepreneurs who are today seizing more opportunities and creating more wealth and more jobs than ever before, but they must continue to grow.
Having achieved success in their own market niche, the next step is to expand their business plans to include larger markets. The most sensible target market is the one that most closely matches their own home marketplace in terms of culture, language, consumer attitudes and the monetary system. That place is, of course, the United States, and many independent businessmen in York North have already taken a decision to explore U.S. markets. The Free Trade Agreement is responding to that new direction by removing impediments like protectionist tariffs and non-tariff barriers that have hindered necessary growth.
Businessmen in York North have been disappointed in the past when they found that it is easier to cross the U.S. border wearing Bermuda shorts and carrying a tennis racket than it is to venture on a trade mission wearing a business suit and carrying a briefcase filled with samples of their companies' products.
When they arrived at their prospective customer's doorstep, many found that although they were presenting samples of fine competitive products those products had become burdened the minute they crossed the U.S. border. They were not competitive and were not able to win the sales order because of protectionist tariffs blocking their success.
That scenario in simple terms, Madam Speaker, explains the problem from the businessman's perspective and describes a phenomenom that has come to plague Canadian enterprise. This is a phenomenom which has had serious repercussions. Trade barriers have made us export only the things that others want, like our natural resources, for example, and has restricted the more sophisticated products which we prefer to manufacture and sell. Soon those barriers will be removed. They will be lifted by the Free Trade Agreement. Our businessmen and their employees will benefit from the free flow
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of their goods and services into a market area that represents up to 10 times the sales opportunity they now enjoy.
The Free Trade Agreement is a good deal for Canada, Madam Speaker. It permits Canadian enterprise to take the next best step for market development and continued prosperity. Given that the best and the brightest of our Canadian businessmen and trade specialists were brought to the endeavour of creating this agreement, and given the fact that the Canadian people have decided in favour of the Free Trade Agreement, I believe it is now time for those opponents of the Free Trade Agreement who apparently live in a philosophical dark age, who apparently are not aware of the requirements of Canadian enterprise-many of whom sit opposite in this House-cease their outrageous tirade. They should now stand aside to let Canadians seize this new opportunity and begin the journey toward new wealth, new prosperity, enhanced employment opportunities and modern skills development. They should stand aside and allow Canadians, under the Free Trade Agreement, to build a stronger Canada.
The Free Trade Agreement establishes a set of rules, rules that work to eliminate foreign political imperatives that have hitherto been damaging to the free flow of Canadian exports. It is a commercial agreement covering trade, and no more than that. It is a crucial agreement for Canada. Over three million Canadian jobs are linked to export trade, of which two million depend on our trade with the United States. This country exports 30 per cent of its output. That is more than any other nation in the world and is why the Free Trade Agreement, a deal with our best friend and nearest neighbour, is important and valuable to all Canadians.
Industry experts agree that the Free Trade Agreement is good for Canada. It is in the national interest. For businesses in my riding, it is the next best step to ensure their future prosperity. The Free Trade Agreement is important to York North enterprises like the members of the machining and metal working industry. In an August 1988 editorial in their trade journal, Canadian Machinery and Metal Working, editor Jim Barnes expressed his greatest fear about the November election. He said referring to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner):
If Mr. Turner is elected and delivers on his threat to renege on the Agreement, the effects on our international reputation as a reliable trade partner will be catastrophic, completely apart from whatever we lose by cancelling (the Agreement) itself.
That is what the experts say, Madam Speaker.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Even within that Liberal bastion we know so well in York North, The Toronto Star, economist Richard Lipsey wrote about free trade:
Consumers of Canada unite. You have nothing to lose but your
high prices.
The Free Trade Agreement achieves four significant objectives for Canada. It eliminates the remaining tariffs over the next four years and reduces non-tariff barriers. The Free Trade Agreement liberalizes investment flows between the two countries. The Free Trade Agreement allows Canadian and American service industries to compete on favourable terms within the two countries. It establishes effective and impartial procedures for the resolution of future trade disputes, something we have been wanting for years.
The Free Trade Agreement will preserve existing jobs in York North, especially those which are dependent on trade. The Agreement will lead to more and better jobs for York North constituents, paying higher wages, putting more money in the pockets of more people and providing more and better priced goods for purchase by consumers in York North and throughout Canada.
I believe that this agreement is truly about Canada's future and today's youth. With the national debt as high as it is we all know in this House and in this country when we have a large debt to pay we have to do one or both of two things we either decrease our expenses or we increase our revenues. The Free Trade Agreement will work toward that imperative, the paying down of the national debt as we increase revenues for Canadians.
The future prosperity of our nation will some day rest in the hands of our children. I believe that the Free Trade Agreement will provide them with the foundation they need to accomplish great things and, as it should be, to benefit themselves from their own accomplishments. People create prosperity, not governments. But government must provide the people with free access to the markets they need. This Government has done that, Madam Speaker. This Government has acknowledged that Canadians are traders, that Canadians are innovators and that Canadians are winners.
For the opportunities that the Free Trade Agreement provides enterprising Canadians in York North and Canadians throughout the nation I want to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), all their colleagues and negotiators and this Government. This is the best next best step for developing our local businesses, our industries so that the people in York North, formerly
living in bedroom communities can now begin to employ themselves.
We have all heard the Opposition's arguments against the Free Trade Agreement. Time and time again we have heard the same tiresome chant about water, social programs and subsidies and about a lot of things not in the Free Trade Agreement. While the recent past election was an arduous and emotionally inflamed affair, I am, nonetheless, pleased that the matter has been given a complete airing.
Never before has an issue been so intensely debated, and now the people have decided. The people have decided that if you cannot get along with your closest neighbour, you cannot get along with anyone. The people have decided that the time has come to protect Canada's economic future and to end the trade war with the United States. The people have decided that a more secure access to U.S. markets allows us the confidence and the opportunities to enrich our manufacturing industries and increase the amount of processing we do to our own raw materials. The people have decided that Canadians can compete in the U.S. market because when it comes to export marketing, Canadians are the best in the world.
We do have industries in this country that do have the know-how and the record. Some of our industries export up to 85 per cent and 90 per cent of their output. From my perspective as a former international trade journal publisher and from this vantage point in the far corner of this House, I believe that I have found the true reason that the two opposition Parties are trying to outdo each other in their anti-free trade tirades.
I go back to the commencement of the last election campaign. As a journalist and publisher, I examined the machinations of the three Parties going through the process of attempting to decide what their platform would be. I believe that my colleagues on this side of the House also know that the real motivator is fear. Members of the opposition fear that the Free Trade Agreement is so good, that it will make Canada so strong, that Canadians will become so prosperous and thankful that they will elect a Conservative Government for the next 20 years. That is the real concern of the Opposition.
Representatives of industry, businessmen, and the people have spoken in favour of free trade, and given that it is a commercial trade agreement, those are probably the people to whom we should listen, We should take it from the hands of parliamentarians and
December 23, 1988

give it back to the people who will do that job, the people in whom we have confidence to do that job. I believe in their hands, as they have capably shown in the past, lies the future and prosperity of this country.
I do believe that the debate has ended. Now it is time for healing and for preparing to lead Canada into the 1990s, and for that we all have a responsibility.
I am sure that each Member in the House wants the best for his or her constituents, and is willing to work hard to achieve that end. My goal and pledge is to make certain that the people of York North have a Member who, regardless of any partisan views, strives for the benefit of the people of the riding. As new opportunities for prosperity unfold, as new quests for learning arise, and when adjustments are to be made, I will bring the maximum extent of my abilities to their endeavours. I am sure that all Members will do the same in bringing Canada into this new and exciting era.
To you, Madam Speaker, to the staff of the House of Commons, and the Members here, I wish you all a Merry Christmas.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, may I take the opportunity to thank the people of Moncton for the confidence that they have placed in me by electing me as their representative. Like many other new Members in the House of Commons, this is our first opportunity to speak in the Chamber, and I do so with a great deal of emotion knowing that both my mother and my father have stood in this House and given a maiden address.
The issues of their day were also issues of great nation building. They dealt with such issues as the flag debate, medicare, and the B and B Commission back in the 1960s, to name a few pieces of legislation going on then. Now it is my time and again we are dealing with an issue of major importance for our country.
The Government's trade legislation and the manner in which it has been handled since day one of this debate is indicative of the manner in which the Government has approached many crucial issues. There has been no information, no discussion, and little debate in the hope of quick passage of the legislation.
The people of Moncton were given an opportunity to speak on the free trade deal. In fact it was their first opportunity to vote on the deal with the result that I am very proud to be standing in the House representing the riding of Moncton.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The bilingual riding of Moncton is a centre for education, transportation, communication, and manufacturing. Its geographic location in the heart of the Maritimes makes it a natural distribution point into central Canada, Atlantic Canada and, as we say, the Boston States. We are also a tourist destination point with Magnetic Hill and the tidal bore, to name a few of the many attractions in our area.
The country we know and love as Canada was built on the twin strengths of agriculture and the railroad system. Moncton is no exception.
The future prosperity of Canada depends on a fair and equitable distribution of Canada's wealth. We must protect and support our agricultural sector, maintain our social programs, and provide the conditions for strong economic growth in all regions of Canada. The passage of the free trade deal jeopardizes these important issues.
The agricultural community has been ignored and abused by the Government, and its concerns are at the bottom of the Government's agenda. My view, and that of the Liberal Party, is that Canadian agricultural producers have not been taken care of by the Government.
The Canadian food processing industry has been taking a beating under this deal. Its concerns, expressed over and over, have fallen on deaf ears. The food processing industry processes raw materials, in this case, Canadian eggs, Canadian cheese, Canadian meats, and Canadian fruits and vegetables produced all across Canada. Under this deal, the processing sector will be trapped between the Canadian farmers and their American counterparts.
Canadian supply-management programs have stabilized production, supply, and the price of agricultural commodities for our farmers. However, the price we pay is moderately higher for basic dairy and poultry commodities in Canada than it is in the United States. Not only can American owned plants buy from American farmers cheaper than they can from Canadian farmers, certain other structural differences give these firms a definite advantage.
American owned plants can take advantage of significant economies of scale. Their plants are large and the production runs longer. Canadian based plants face certain climatic difficulty. Canada can be a cold and harsh land, albeit beautiful. The realities of our climate lead to a shorter growing season and lower crop yields. The American sunbelt growing area can deliver year round supplies of agricultural commodities.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
What are the choices facing Canadian food processing plants? Well, they can go out of business. They could rationalize their production runs and supply the Canadian consumers from their existing U.S. plants, in other words close their plant operations in Canada. They could decide to only buy from those Canadian farmers who will sell their produce at the same low price levels as their American counterparts, severely hurting and harming the Canadian farm community.
Could our Canadian farms survive this blow? Are we as Canadians willing to pay this price? The Canadian food processing plants and farmers cannot afford to wait for the Government to react to the dislocations and job losses that will occur. The Government's response to the factory closings over the past 10 days do not inspire confidence.
The people of Moncton have had a first-hand experience with the manner in which the Government deals with economic restructuring and the resulting job losses. It is easy to sit in Ottawa and forget how the closing or rather the rationalizing of a plant affects communities across Canada. The Moncton riding has already felt the harsh cold hand of rationalization with the closure of the Moncton shops. The Government promised no massive lay-offs at CN shops. It was correct in one respect, there were no lay-offs. This was closure. A small riding must now deal with the reality of the loss of 1,100 job opportunities in its future. That is not an easy task.
A similar job loss occurring in a city such as Winnipeg would put 8,500 people out of work. Could one imagine the Government tolerating that situation? This gives one an idea of what my riding has faced and will face.
When the 1,100 jobs were cut, what was the response of the Conservative Government? It gave the community $2 million initially to create replacement jobs, and once the election was called and the hand-out of money began, we received a further $1.6 million, the so-called final chapter in that story. If that is all Canadians who suffer job loss as a result of the Free Trade Agreement can expect, they have every right to be concerned and suspicious of this Government.
Earlier today I spoke about the raw deal that Route Canada employees received at the hands of this Government. Can we trust this Government to look after Canadians who are dislocated in the workplace as a result of free trade? Can we trust this Government to deal with the social costs of free trade?
We have seen what appears to be the inequitable application of compensation to workers, to communities, and to provinces. The CNR Shop was the largest of its type of facility in New Brunswick, and the total compensation received was $3.6 million. The Newfoundland Railway closure compensation amounted to $860 million for the loss of 650 jobs. As well, the CNR workers in Newfoundland received larger exit packages and better benefits than did the workers in Moncton.
I am not trying to pit the CNR workers in Newfoundland against the CN workers in Moncton. However, the inequity in that situation has to be dealt with. Only in that way will Canadians know exactly how this Government intends to deal with the "rationalization" of jobs.
Given that record of neglect, the people of Moncton are rightly concerned about this Government's word that it will "look after those people who will be adversely affected by this trade deal".
Another key area is that of infrastructure. If Canadians are to compete and continue to export successfully under this trade deal, we must have a modern transportation system in place. It would appear that the railroad in Atlantic Canada will be shut down. The highways in New Brunswick are old and in need of major upgrading.
Is this Government prepared to take under active consideration Premier McKenna's request for a four-lane Trans-Canada Highway? Another question which has to be asked is if the new Trans-Canada Highway is to be built, in which direction should it go?
Canada's traditional links have been east and west. Under the Free Trade Agreement, Moncton should perhaps no longer distribute goods and services, or its raw materials, west to Toronto and Montreal but south to Boston. So, will this Government contribute to the construction of the trans-Boston highway?
Substantial sums of money must be spent by this Government in other transportation areas as well. The Moncton Airport needs to be expanded and upgraded. More freezer and cold storage space is needed at the airport to facilitate the shipping of fish and agricultural products to markets in the U.S. and around the world.
Canadians do not want to return to the days when we were hewers of wood and drawers of water. Canadians do not see themselves as just exporters of raw materials to be processed elsewhere. We want to compete and we have been competing successfully in a wide variety of sectors. The Free Trade Agreement will prevent us from
December 23, 1988

doing that. It is the smaller Canadian-owned plants that will be hardest hit by this deal.
We have heard time and time again that the American plants can rationalize their production. It is the Canadian worker and his/her family who will face job dislocation. We have to deal with the inadequate employment programs put into place by this Government, or go through the Moncton experience.
Behind words like rationalize, relocate, employment dislocation, and government job retraining lies a harsh economic reality. These words and their effect on communities across Canada will appear more and more often in the economic dictionary of the new unwelcome environment that this deal will bring.
Canadians also do not want to see an entrepreneurial drain into American head office plants. If we are only to become a source of raw materials for the U.S., our young energetic entrepreneurs will move to where the action exits.
This could have very bad consequences when one looks at the long range effect. This is exactly what happens in Atlantic Canada with the brain drain to Upper Canada-although Upper Canada is fortunate that we are there to keep it going.
This Government must provide the producers and the consumers of Canada with specific guarantees that the adverse effects of this deal will be dealt with, and dealt with adequately and equitably for all Canadians.
By the time we are ready-and it may be already too late-we must have in place the transportation links and the other essential infrastructure. Otherwise, we will be going into this arrangement with one hand tied behind our back.
I have heard time and time again that the FTA opens up a market of 250 million consumers. But that does not deal with the reality that that market is already open to us, with 80 per cent of it being available tariff free. So, what did we give up to get tariff-free access to the remaining 20 per cent? I think we gave up a lot. I do not think we got what we bargained for. It is to be hoped that this Government will reconsider its decision.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to be here this evening and to be making my first speech in this the Thirty-fourth Parliament.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I should like to begin my remarks by expressing my gratitude to the voters of London-Middlesex for reelecting me to the Parliament of Canada. I might say, it is the first time London-Middlesex has returned the incumbent to Parliament. Having been re-elected by my constituents, I now have a responsibility to stand in this place and speak out on their behalf.
The November 21 election was an historic one inasmuch as it provided Canadians with the opportunity to express their feelings on the vision that they see for Canada. I think it was worth the fight-and indeed it was a fight. Up and down every street in the riding and out on the concession roads, there was a battle for votes. Clearly, it was an election in which Canadians had to make a decision about this country's future. The question was whether they would reflect upon the economic record of this Government and choose its vision for the future of this country. Clearly, the voters of London-Middlesex made their choice, and I stand in this place today to represent them.
I think it important to reflect upon why the voters chose the Progressive Conservative Party as their Government.
In the election of 1984, the concern of Canadians had to do with the lack of jobs and the lack of opportunity for our youth. Those were the important issues. When Canadians reflected upon the record of the first four years of Progressive Conservative Government, they could see that this Government clearly delivered on its promises to do something about those two main concerns, and it did so through the very innovative Canadian Jobs Strategy Program and by bringing about decreased inflation and lower interest rates.
As a consequence of this Government's management of the economy, investment was fueled and jobs created for our youth. In fact, over the course of its first mandate, this Government created 1.3 million jobs in Canada. Clearly, that provided new hope for Canada's youth, and when it came time to vote in the 1988 election, Canada's youth did not forget what this Government had done for it.
When one reflects upon why Canadians made the decision that they did, one should look at the riding of London-Middlesex, because it is a microcosm of Canada. London-Middlesex represents all that we can find in this great nation of ours. When the people of London-Middlesex considered what the Free Trade Agreement was going to do for them in terms of the workplace and their place in Canada, they responded in

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
a positive way. The business community responded positively to the policies of this Government. We saw major success stories-something which the Opposition doesn't like to talk about. One can see them cringe when reference is made to firms such as General Motors Diesel, a company which, in 1984, had tremendous problems, with few prospects for the future. That company took advantage of this Government's policies, took advantage of the strong economic environment created by this Government and began to build on that, to the point where it now has a North American mandate for the manufacture of locomotives.
This is a success story. This company makes locomotives and competes with the finest in the world. That was recognized by General Motors management when they closed the plant in the U.S. to enhance the operation in London-Middlesex. Now, of course, with more than 2,000 workers and many small businesses involved, we are starting to see what free trade will mean to Canadians. Companies will grow and prosper and provide a future for Canadian workers.
Some people on the streets say to me: "Terry, you are right, but that is big business. What is going to happen with small business? I work at a little company. Where is my future?" That is a very good question and a very real concern because the majority of Canadians work in small companies. Indeed, we have already heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which indicated a majority of the owners and managers of its membership supported the agreement, but what happens on the street? What happens to the ordinary worker?
In London-Middlesex we have overwhelming evidence that the small business cannot do anything but prosper. As a matter of fact I have one example, Knechtel Mill Works. A small company in 1984 with under 20 employees, it had some innovative technology, an innovative Government that provided the proper economic parameters to operate within, and now has over 100 employees. The business has gone sky high and there are opportunities for many, many people. The company is taking advantage of this agreement because 80 per cent of its trade is with the U.S. and it is looking for more because it knows it can compete.
That company was able to train workers to use the new technology in window-making. The Canadian Jobs Strategy provided that training and the company in turn became very competitive and innovative and went into
that market and provided jobs and opportunities and futures for many, many Canadians.
It is not just big companies that this agreement is good for, it is good for little companies that will grow and prosper and provide futures for our young people.
I think those are two reasons why the electorate in London-Middlesex said, when it got right down to the crunch, that we had better be with this Government because it has a vision for the future which ties in with our beliefs, and so they voted for the Government.
Along the way I was a little disappointed because the election campaign became so involved with the free trade issue that one of the most important issues to the electorate in my riding, indeed Canadians everywhere, the environment, was hardly discussed. Clearly our Government has delivered on the environment. It has only just begun to deliver.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: I am glad the Opposition is finally awake. I want to talk about some of these things. There is page after page of achievements. Some Members opposite are new to this House. I do not know if they have done their homework, but it is very significant that the first effects of the International Conference on Ozone Depletion will be felt on January 1, 1989. We are going to see the results.


An Hon. Member:: Tell us about acid rain.


Terrence (Terry) Clifford: I am coming to that. We have already seen in the Environmental Protection Act some bold new steps. We have seen a reduction and will see a further reduction in the amount of lead in gasoline. We have taken hundreds of steps that will add to the quality of life for Canadians. This was all forgotten in the election. Maybe the Opposition did not really want it to come out.
Some people recognized the situation. Norwegian Prime Minister Brundtland, who chaired the UN World Commission on Environment and Development, paid tribute to Canada's leadership in June when she addressed the Canadian Government's International Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto. She said:
I thank the Canadian Government, in particular Prime Minister Mulroney and Environment Minister McMillan, for their commitment and for the example they have been setting for other industrialized countries.
December 23, 1988

Clearly Canada has shown leadership. We are out front, not behind.
Dr. Noel Brown, North American Regional Director of the UN Environment Program, said:
If there were ever to be a Nobel Prize for leadership in exploring the complexities and intricacies of sustainable development, then my submission is that Canada would have to be a candidate ... the leadership that you are asserting in this field is extremely important and the world is watching.
1 am pleased to see the Opposition is watching. We want them to watch. We do not want them to set fear among Canadians. Canadians had a dose of that and clearly they chose the alternative. I think it is important for the Opposition to remember that.
A couple of myths that were perpetuated in the election dealt with the environment. The FTA will in no way force us to lower standards or change our focus on preserving our environment. We have heard the fear-mongers and we are hearing them again, claiming the agreement will force us to accept American standards on products like pesticides. I am glad to say that Canada has high standards of safety and control on pesticides higher than the U.S. Will we lose the right to maintain our higher standards? Of course not. One simply has to look at the agreement.
Article 603 states that both countries maintain the right to set product standards whose purpose is to protect health, safety, essential security, the environment or consumer interests. Clearly the example has been set and high standards will prevail. Not only will we not allow Alachlor to be used in this country, any products with Alachlor will not be allowed to enter Canada. Everyone remembers when Alachlor was ruled unacceptable in Canada. Clearly this Government acted responsibly. Our officials determined it is harmful to Canadians and it is gone.
At the same time, in London-Middlesex, which is the hub of most activity in Canada, a recently built agriculture research centre, to be officially opened this spring, is currently doing work on biological control and natural methods to deal with pests. Their work will not be affected by the FTA in any way, shape or form. Their approach promotes common sense farming, where agricultural production costs are reduced while using sound environmental farming practices. Our standards will not be lowered. American producers of pesticides wishing to sell their products in this country will have to meet our stringent standards.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
It is very important that that point be made clear. The Opposition has said almost all the time that we have to accept the lowest common denominator when not only is that objectionable to Canadians, it is objectionable to Americans and those who share the global environment with us. When one looks at what is going on in Europe in the common market as they struggle toward union in 1992, in every documented case of their working on harmonization of standards they have chosen the highest standard. It is the highest common denominator, not the lowest.
I know the fearmongers find that hard to accept. They would just as soon be able to capture that fear as they tried so hard and diligently to do for 51 days during the election. Clearly it did not work then and it will not work now. The people have decided.
One month after the election, one month after the mandate that Canadians have given to our vision of the future, particularly as it pertains to the environment or the doomsayers all said that Canada would not be a fit place to live-what are they saying now? As reported in The Gazette of Montreal: "Free trade could help the environment". That was written by Lawrence Solomon, the author of The Conserver Solution, research coordinator of Energy Probe. Clearly now that the people have decided these agencies and organizations have started to see the wisdom in what the people have decided upon. I hope that it can carry across the House.
All those trips up and down the streets and the concession roads were well worth it. Those people in that riding and the others across Canada had an opportunity to reflect on what this Government has done. They have decided that they want to be part of that vision of the future. They see it as the alternative. When they see that Canada is showing leadership, it has been acknowledged that it is moving out with other countries of the world. It is not a shell any longer. It is a country whose place in history and time has come.
It is particularly fitting for the young people of our country that they do not now have to sit back and apologize for their elders' timidness. They can now say: "Gee, my Mom and Dad, my grandparents, cared about me. They included me in their vision in voting for a vision of Canada in which I will have and be able to take my rightful place. I will be able to compete. I will be able to challenge with the best in the world, in fact to make the world a better place".

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I think that this is a monumental and historic occasion. In three or four hours from now we will have an opportunity to put closure on this motion and bring on the new prosperity, the new hope, the new vision for the young of Canada who in fact are going to carry all of us into a very pleasant retirement. By that time Canada will clearly have taken its place as the leading country in the 21st century in the world.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, across the country tonight there are many, many constituents of ours who are saying: "Forgive them for they know not what they do". They are saying that because they are knowledgeable, intelligent people who have made the effort to find out what this free trade deal is all about. They are a group of men and women who wonder why we cannot recognize that economic union with the United States to which we are committing ourselves is a change in the basic philosophy of Canada, a basic change in what Canada is all about.
This agreement alters the basic tenet of what makes Canada different from the United States. The United States believes in the supremacy of the market. The economy of the United States is basically driven by the market. Over the years in Canada we have decided that certain things which are provided by the market in the U.S. should be available to all Canadians, available even if they do not have the ability to get them in some other way. They should be provided not by the market but by the country regardless of the ability to pay or to get it from the market.
I am sure that everyone here tonight can think of an example of how Canada is different from the United States. We have chosen the Canadian way of providing service to all, not just to those who can pay for it. In this regard medicare is probably the best example. We believe that the best possible care that we as a nation can provide should be available to all. In the U.S. the best care is available only to those who can pay for it. Some 36 million Americans have no medicare insurance. Therefore only minimal care is provided for them and even then it is considered welfare. If one cannot pay for it then one cannot have it unless someone is there to give it to you.
Unemployment insurance is another good example in this regard. We make it available in quantities much greater than the contributions that were made by people to the plan.
Our public pension plans are another example, as is family allowance. These are familiar programs that we
have in place which are not in place in the United States of America. These programs are directly funded and are available to Canadians outside the market-place. It is not surprising that these are also the programs or the types of programs to which the Americans refer to as subsidies when they impose a countervail on our products. They do not understand our philosophy that everyone should have a part of the good life and that it should not only be available to the privileged few. Their philosophy is you get only what you can afford and if you cannot afford it then that is too bad.
This so-called trade deal will require the harmonization of our economies. What will that do to these programs? Does it mean that they must be harmonized as well? Nobody has said "Yes" to that question. And no one has said "No". If the Americans think they are subsidies, as they have indicated on a number of occasions, then they will demand that our levels in these programs be lowered or theirs will have to be raised. I ask Hon. Members to figure out which one will happen.
One of the main issues with respect to this deal is whether or not it threatens our sovereignty. Again, nobody can come up with a convincing "No". The Government has pointed often to the European Economic Community saying that the countries there have not lost their sovereignty. This is different. We are quite different. Why are we different? First, there are only two countries in this agreement. One of those countries, the U.S.A., is 10 times larger than Canada. Trade with the U.S. already takes up 75 per cent to 80 per cent of Canada's exports. Much of Canada's industry is foreign-owned. These are differences between us and the economic community in Europe.
Canada and the U.S. share a common language. Our nearest neighbour aside from the United States is 1,500 miles away, not just across the border to the East or to the West.
Canada's history has been one of resistance to absorption by the United States. Strong measures have been necessary in the past to stop that absorption. In 1812 the Americans attempted absorption by invasion. We fought them off. In 1867 Confederation was a response to American expansion after the Civil War.
The expansion was to the west and the north under the American slogan "54-40 or Bust", which would have taken in most of the western Prairies and British Columbia. Confederation was in response to that American expansionism, and it worked.
December 23, 1988

The railways that we built across Canada were expensive responses to deal with American attempts to absorb Canada. They were built to help settle and develop the West through immigration, as well as to bring British Columbia into closer contact with central and eastern Canada.
Tariffs that were in place 100 years ago were established in response to American attempts to move into our territory. They were an attempt to force east and west movement of trade rather than the north-south flow. Again, they worked.
I know that many government Members believe the CBC is an expensive way of resisting American pressure, but it was put into place to fight the predominance of American media on the airwaves. In a sense, Air Canada and the Trans-Canada Highway were used to bring Canada closer together.
We have been successful in resisting absorption by the Americans until now. It has been costly on occasion, but we have resisted. Can we continue to do so?
Until World War II we had a counterbalance to American domination. It was the Commonwealth, or British Empire as it was known then. The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker often spoke about how the Commonwealth counterbalanced the U.S. impact on Canada. He believed that the connection between Canada and the Commonwealth should be strongly supported in order to keep the American counterbalance at bay.
Shortly after the war we ceased to be British subjects. We no longer flew the Union Jack, which is something else John Diefenbaker fought against for many hours in the House. We no longer had the Commonwealth trade preference and moved to the point where we can now amend our own Constitution.
While all these are progressive steps making Canada independent, it also made us much more vulnerable to the drawing card of the United States. That Commonwealth connection was replaced by the American media. Ninety per cent of movies that we watch in Canada are from the United States. Much of the time our children spend watching television is on American programs. Some 90 per cent of music recordings sold in Canada are American, 77 per cent of the books sold in Canada are American, and 75 per cent of the magazines in Canada are American.
Our prospects for survival even before the trade deal were rather doubtful because most of our daily activities are influenced by the United States.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The United States provides more post-graduate education to Canadian students than all the other countries put together. We are already strongly influenced by the United States.
I and some 53 per cent of Canadians oppose the Government's free trade proposal. I know that over 50 per cent of my constituents do not believe in it because they elected me instead of the previous Conservative Member.
However, let us assume for a moment that the Government is right in believing we will increase our wealth. Will we win the other battles for sovereignty? Will we remain politically separate from the United States? Will we remain socially separated from the United States? Will we remain culturally separated from the United States?
We are already awash in U.S. companies, awash in U.S. investment, awash in American culture and media. Economic control is being lost in Canada. If this continues will we be able to remain Canadians?
What will happen when Canadian businesses begin complaining that the taxes they pay for environmental, regional and social programs are too high? Will the Government gradually reduce the emphasis on those social, environmental and regional programs? I believe the more dependent these companies become on the U.S. market, the more policies like medicare and unemployment insurance will have to be changed.
The pressure will come from Canadian companies that want to compete and from American branch plants that could threaten to go back to the United States where they can produce goods cheaper. Even American based companies that do not have a branch plant in Canada will start complaining because the playing field is not level. They will suggest that Canadian workers receiving family allowance, medicare, and unemployment insurance are getting an unfair advantage. They will threaten to withdraw, to refuse Canadian products unless the Canadian Governments do something about it. The pressure to maintain or increase the number of jobs in Canada will force the Government to drop those programs that make Canada different from the United States. Sometimes I wonder if we will have to return to the use of Fahrenheit, pound, feet, and miles as a result of harmonization.
Once the harmonization of economics and ideas occurs, there is little point in claiming that we can reverse it. The six-month cancellation clause becomes more useless as harmonization increases. Besides that, as

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
we become more dependent on the the U.S. market, it will soon be so important to us that we will not be able to back off without disastrous effects to our own economy.
Most of the adjusting to this deal will be done by Canadian companies. It takes only a 10 per cent increase for a U.S. industry to take over the entire Canadian market, but it takes a 100 per cent increase for a Canadian industry to take over 10 per cent of the U.S. market. We will be doing the adjusting here in Canada.
In many cases, those U.S. companies can probably supply our market with their surpluses. We know right now, for instance, that the U.S. can supply us with all the dairy products we use in Canada with the surplus they pour down the drains in the United States every day.
As the deal becomes entrenched, there is no way we will be able to back off. The six-month cancellation clause is a laughing matter. Ask Hawaii. Hawaii signed a 10-year trade deal with the United States, and when the 10 years was up, the United States said: "Well, there is not much in this deal for us, we are going to back away from it". After 10 years, Hawaii could not back away. It begged to become part of the United States.
Perhaps there will be an increase in trade, but where will it come from? Jacques Parizeau says that it will come from the provinces. In fact, all the hurt will go to them. He says that that is why Quebec will be able to separate. It will no longer be dependent upon the domestic markets of Ontario and the Prairies to sell its products.
I spared only one facet of this deal, the impact on sovereignty. There are many other facets of it that need to be explored. Government Members tell us that all the adjustments will be good, that it will be a win-win situation, and that Canada will always remain strong and free. I hope they are right.
Like the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Ms. Blondin), I have to say that if the deal has to go through, I hope I am wrong and that the 53 per cent of Canadians who voted against this deal are wrong as well. I would not object to being wrong in this instance, as the Hon. Member for Western Arctic said. If we are right, the disaster that will occur and the fact that we will no longer be Canadian are something we do not want to have to face in the next few years.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Madam Speaker, I am deeply honoured to be here in the House of Commons of Canada, representing the great riding of Durham. I appreciate the opportunity and the trust the people of Durham have put in me. I will certainly do my utmost in the months and years ahead to justify the trust they have given me in sending me with such strong support to the House of Commons in Ottawa.
When compared to many other ridings in central Ontario, the riding of Durham is a relatively large one. It consists of the regional municipalities of Uxbridge, Scugog, Newcastle, the rural part of Whitby, and the north part of the City of Oshawa.
In this riding are some of the best agricultural lands in Ontario. There are parts of Lake Ontario and Lake Scugog and the beautiful hills and ridges that run north of Lake Ontario, all across the central part of the Province of Ontario.
We have a strong agricultural sector. We have a vibrant manufacturing and service industry. Of course, most everybody knows that in the Oshawa area, there is a very strong automobile manufacturing and auto parts industry.
Here this evening, as we debate the free trade Bill, we are discussing much more than just this Bill. We are really talking about opportunities for Canada, opportunities for our young people as they look for jobs in the future, opportunities for our business people and workers to excel in a strong Canada of the future, and indeed, opportunities for Canada itself as it plays an ever growing leadership role in the economic well-being of the western world.
We have seen, of course, that Canada has obtained entry into the G-7 nations. The economic leadership shown by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada is exemplary when compared to that of other nations of the world.
I want briefly to review some parts of the free trade Bill we are discussing at third reading stage and relate some of the significant parts of that Bill to the great riding of Durham. As I stated earlier, there is a very strong auto sector in that area. A great many residents of my riding earn their living directly or indirectly from the auto industry.
To some degree, the free trade Bill was born out of the Auto Pact or, as it is officially known, the Canada-U.S. Automobile Products Trade Agreement. This is
December 23, 1988___________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________________________809
one of the most successful trade agreements ever negotiated anywhere in the world. The residents and businesses of Durham have thrived as a result of that trade agreement. It is more than interesting to note that Simon Reisman, who negotiated the Free Trade Agreement we are discussing tonight, also negotiated the extremely successful Auto Pact.
I think it is also interesting to note that manufacturers in the Canadian auto industry shipped a total of $38 billion worth of products in 1987, and $34 billion of that total was sent to export. In the Province of Ontario, $30 billion worth of exports, essentially 50 per cent of the exports of the whole Province of Ontario, came from the auto sector. That is how important it is to the economy of Ontario, the economy of Canada, and most certainly to the economy of Durham.
Over 160,000 people work in the auto sector. In the 1980s, there will be approximately $13 billion of investment from automobile manufacturers and parts manufacturers put into the economy of Canada. That is a phenomenal amount, and a significant proportion of that was in and around the area I represent.
The Auto Pact has allowed automobile producers and parts manufacturers to rationalize, specialize and increase their productivity, and to sell on both sides of the border. In fact, some of them in my area are exporting auto parts to Japan. This is very clearly a tremendous success story. Yes, the Auto Pact is somewhat different from free trade. We have heard that many times from the opponents of the Free Trade Agreement.
Still, it is a clear indication that Canadian workers and Canadian companies can compete on an international basis. They have done that extremely successfully. The people of Durham know that we can compete in many other sectors by the strength of the majority with which the voters of that area sent me here to the House of Commons.
We will see that auto sector grow in the future, undoubtedly, particularly the auto parts section. In 1982, we manufactured only 9.8 per cent of all auto parts in the North American market. In 1987, that number was up to 14 per cent, almost double, and the trend will continue. It is a trend from which the manufacturers of Durham riding will benefit. They know it and they have made that positive statement.
We have auto parts manufacturers in the riding of Durham located in Uxbridge, Port Perry, Bowmanville,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
and several other towns and villages in the area. Those companies give jobs, very stable jobs, to the people of our area. They have grown to appreciate the industry and know just how important trade is to the local economy and their own livelihoods. Durham has much more than just an auto sector. We have a thriving manufacturing sector outside of the auto industry.
The Durham Region Manufacturers' Association has organized itself into an exciting group of people. Its members have marketing seminars for their several hundred members. They assist each other with management and export seminars. They have seen first-hand from the auto industry how aggressive salesmanship can help their companies. They are exporting now on a much wider scale than just in the auto industry. They have seen how the automobile industry has rationalized, specialized, and increased production. Believe me, that will continue to happen at an even greater pace as we go into the Free Trade Agreement.
I also stated earlier that agriculture is an important industry in our part of the country. We have some excellent farm land. Some farm families have been in the agricultural business for generations. Indeed, some of them have been there as long as Canada has been in existence as an organized country as we know it. We have seen, of course, the great debate in the agricultural sector relating to free trade. The attention in most of the daily media has been directed to those who were opposed to the deal, but a great many farmers are in favour of it.
This evening, in other speeches, members have shown the tremendous support that is in existence for the Free Trade Agreement speaking on behalf of the agricultural sector, particularly the red meat, grains, bean farmers, fruit and vegetable sectors. All of them have been very strongly supportive of the agreement. It is interesting to note that the soybean growers of Canada recently met with their counterparts in the United States and agreed to ask their respective Governments to withdraw all tariffs immediately from soybeans and soybean products moving back and forth across our borders; they do not want them phased out over 10 years. They want them reduced immediately. That is the other side of the story in the agricultural industry, one that has had very little attention in the daily media. Most of our urban people do not realize the tremendous support that exists for this agreement in the agricultural area.
We have heard at great length what is going to happen to the food processing industry in Canada.

Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Basically that it is going down the drain is what the doomsayers have been saying for several months.
I would like to draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, just what some of the companies in the food processing and the agricultural industry are doing in this country right now. Cargill, for example, which is the biggest privately owned corporation in the United States, is investing massive amounts of money in Canada this very moment. That is not being done for the Canadian agricultural industry. It is not being done because Cargill thinks the industry is going down the drain or the food processing industry is going down the drain. Cargill knows that we are going to benefit from this deal. It is a building a large new processing plant in Alberta at present. It has just bought Cyanamid and the grain division of Maple Leaf Mills.
Very clearly, multimillions of dollars of investment has been made in Canada in 1988, getting ready for a very vibrant agricultural industry that will exist here in the future. Gainers, Canada Packers, and Cold Spring Farms are all currently modernizing or building new meat processing plants here in Canada. General Foods, a major international food processing company, is going to invest $25 million in Canadian food processing plants in 1989. Campbell's Soup is doubling its investment to $15 million. Quaker Oats is going ahead with a $15 million expansion of its plant in Peterborough to process more Ontario and Canadian-grown oats to send breakfast cereals into the United States market.
It is quite a different story than the one heard hour after hour from the people on the other side of the House. The Opposition is saying that the food processing industry is going to leave Canada. Much of the industry is saying exactly the opposite. We will see precisely what we have seen in the automobile industry,
I suggest. We will see them, and I repeat the words I have already used twice in my speech tonight, they will rationalize, specialize, and increase their production here in Canada to markets around the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Kenneth Ross Stevenson: I want to draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, just briefly a report that came out in December, 1988. It is entitled The Road Not Taken. Maybe a better title would be "The Road Not Yet Taken-An Opportunity For The Canadian Grains and Meat Industry". The report says that we must sell wheat as bread, as cookies, and Durum wheat as pasta. We do not need to sell them as grains any more. We now have the opportunity to merchandise those products in a
December 23, 1988
value-added form and keep some of the jobs that are now outside our borders and inside our borders.
That is the future at which the Canadian food processing industry is looking, not the sort of story we have heard from the Opposition at great length. If there is such a thing as a resources sell-out, that is what we have today. We will see in future the production and processing of our resources into products, food products, furniture, petrochemicals and the processing of our fish here, as we have heard from many Progressive Conservatives speakers all across the country. They have stated that our raw materials are going out of the country in raw form. In future we will see them going out as value-added products and giving jobs to Canadian people.
I firmly believe that supply-management commodities which have received so much attention are protected under the Free Trade Agreement. At the moment a new supply-management marketing board is being developed in Canada. That system of laws that allows farmers to determine what marketing system they want to select is still in place. They have used it in the past and, if they wish, they can use it in the future. Canada is acting to increase the strength of Article XI under GATT which allows us to have that supply-management marketing system.
Our laws still exist in agriculture which will allow us to protect all areas of that marketing system, whether one is talking about the Canadian Wheat Board or supply-management for dairy and poultry products.
It is also interesting to note that in the whole resources area, agriculture and otherwise, every single group that has had a trade dispute with the United States over the last several years is in favour of the Free Trade Agreement and the dispute settlement mechanism which exists under the free trade Bill. It is not perfect, but it is far better than what those groups have had to deal with in the past. Broad support from lumber, agriculture, fisheries, and steel clearly indicates that we have a Bill here which is a great improvement over what was available in the past.
In summary, I believe that the real issue in all our discussions tonight, and over the last days, is the fear of the future. We in the Progressive Conservative Party do not fear the future. We look at the future as challenges and opportunities. Unlike the other Parties we have confidence in our leadership. We have confidence in the men and women of our Party. We have confidence in the
December 23, 1988

business people and the workers of Canada. Most important, we have confidence in the youth of Canada who are coming along and who will be prepared to accept the challenges and the opportunities in the future.
Tonight, in approximately three hours, we will take a major step in the history of Canada, a major step into the future. I am proud to be part of that action. I look forward to the future of Canada. If we want a strong and vibrant Canada, we have the opportunity to have it. If we want a strong business community, we have that opportunity. If we want an independent Canada with our own unique culture and identity, a country with tolerance and compassion for everyone, we too will have that opportunity. The future is up to us. We can face it without fear. I am proud to be part of that future.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, as I commence my remarks here tonight in what I believe is a truly historical evening, I want to extend to the Speaker of the House and the Clerk of the House my appreciation for their courtesy and efforts to assist in the settlement of new Members of Parliament in what has been a relatively short period of time. As important, I want to thank the constituents of Scarborough-Rouge River for their electoral support that permits me to speak to the House tonight.
The riding of Scarborough-Rouge River is a constituency of urban Canadian multiculturalism. It is a riding where, thanks to the laws and institutions created by our people in this Parliament, the mix and interplay of culture are laying the groundwork of cultural understanding and tolerance which we hope will serve our nation in the decades to come.
My riding is one part of the country where we see at work the great Liberal principles of opportunity, tolerance, and reform. These principles are minimum government contributions to our society under what I could call the social contract that we have entered into in the Canadian parliamentary democracy. Opportunity is what trade agreements are all about. Liberals in the western world are no strangers to the concept of free trade. Liberals have been free traders for 200 years. North America was built on the principles of classic Liberalism.
In speaking of the subjects of opportunity and trade, I want to note sadly the death this week of Mr. Arthur G. Simpson, a man who manifested in my riding the opportunities present in our country with or without trade agreements. Through his company, A.G. Simpson
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Ltd., Mr. Simpson operated five automobile parts manufacturing plants in Scarborough, Oshawa, Cambridge, Oakville, and Windsor. He employed more than 1,700 people. His success and that of his workers is testament to the opportunities present in our country. Mr. Simpson was an industrial builder who needed no lessons in how to think smart, manufacture, and export. He will be missed.
Economists generally accept the theory that if barriers to trade are lowered trade will increase. If trade increases then enhanced economic activity and related economic growth will occur. These principles are contained in every basic economics text.
Let us look at exactly how much trade liberalization is contained in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement for Canadian exports. First, there are the two general types of barriers to trade. There are tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers. The principal non-tariff barriers are anti-dumping duties, "buy American" legislation, countervail duties, and regulatory barriers.
These types of tariff barriers were initially described as the chief motivating reason for entering into negotiations for a trade agreement with the United States in the first place. Exporting to the United States was beginning to become a minefield of non-tariff trade barriers. Under the proposed trade agreement they still are.
Our softwood lumber export position is deteriorating because of non-tariff barriers. Even though the Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) vaunts in glowing terms the prospects that this trade agreement will bring about, it does precious little to remove nontariff trade barriers. Not the countervail, not the antidumping, not the regulatory framework; only U.S. federal purchasing regulations will be changed but not the state or municipal.
The Government's negotiating team brought back the equivalent of a consolation prize. The Government claims it has created a non-binding dispute settlement mechanism. I submit that this consolation prize is a lifeless, toothless dead fish. The Hon. Minister for International Trade will know what that is all about.
With respect to actual trade barriers, how much trade liberalization did we achieve in this area? Only one-fifth of our current U.S. trade is now subject to tariffs. While I would not underestimate the significance of this portion of our trade, the actual measure of tariff relief was small. The actual bottom line total of trade liberalization was as follows: tariff reductions to zero for only one-fifth of our U.S. exports, no relief from anti-

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
dumping or countervail or the regulatory NTBs, and only a partial rollback of pervasive U.S. buy America legislation.
The Government has presented this to the country, saying that these benefits constitute opportunity; and more than that, an economic blueprint for the future.
The Government states that out of these marginal trade gains will come the so-called winners and the prosperity promised by it. We shall see.
Let's look at the price we had to pay to get these so-called winners. We have given up all our tariffs, tariffs which have protected Canadian industry for decades. This is the so-called "cold shower" of competition envisaged by the pundits.
Out of this cold shower will appear our losers- industries and firms which are important, and even fundamental, to Canadian communities but which will fail to survive and, by their failure, throw thousands of Canadians out of work. We have given up our right to control for Canadians our energy sector. In this vital area of our economy, an area where already we are dominated by and subjected to a high degree of nonCanadian control, decisions on who, where, and when we develop our resources will, without question, and in total deference to corporate America, be made in the boardrooms of Dallas, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
However, the boardroom table in Calgary, in Montreal, in Toronto will sit empty, with only a vase of wilted flowers, a two-week old copy of the Wall Street Journal, and perhaps a fax machine for communicating with head office.
Shame on the Parliament or the legislature that abandons the worker, his spouse, and his children in Lloydminster or in Campbellton to the unrestrained business decision of a person or group outside Canada, someone who knows nothing about that man, his family, his city, his pride, or his dreams, and who has absolutely no interest in the regional and national goals of this country.
That is abdication of our responsibility as legislators, and that is what this Government is doing under the guise of the Free Trade Agreement. Not only do we give up control of the boardroom, we have agreed to pool our energy with that of the U.S.A. We have had to give up our right to decide for Canadians how and when energy resources are exploited and marketed. Washington will
now help us decide, and Washington has a guaranteed share.
We have given up our right to control our capital markets for Canadians. Now decisions on credit worthiness, commercial viability and discount rates will be taken in New York and handed down to the suitcase banker. Decisions on how and when capital is invested, and even how the non-bank savings of Canadians are reinvested, have now, by this agreement, been effectively exported to wherever the Lear jet has been parked. Canadians resent this Government permitting this fundamental tool of nation-building to be tossed into the tool box of corporate America.
In one of the more cruel ironies of this agreement our negotiators set out to claim some form of exemption for our cultural industries. Well, they got an exemption in Article 2005, but there was a price tag, a price tag defined as "measures of equivalent commercial effect".
This means that if an American enterprise is prejudiced or harmed by cultural initiatives or our Government, that enterprise will have to be compensated.
The net result is that, where our cultural initiatives stray from the American commercial norm and it costs an American money, we must compensate that American; in effect, pay a royalty.
The Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, will never pay a royalty to Americans to enable us to foster our cultural initiatives. I call this price tag the Jack Valenti royalty.
As one example of the many giveaways in this trade agreement we have agreed, in a related cultural industry provision, to remove from our Income Tax Act the provision which has influenced Canadian advertisers to place their buys with Canadian magazines and publications printed in Canada.
This provision has sustained and given new life to the Canadian periodical publishing industry, and this new life is now to be placed in jeopardy.
And what about the losers, Mr. Speaker? They are there, too. All sides of this House recognize that there will be losers under this deal. Entrepreneurs will lose their businesses; workers will lose their jobs in bankruptcies; workers will lose their jobs in branch plants when those plants close following head office decisions south of the border, decisions made because the protective tariff is gone and the fact that just one extended production run in Cairo, Illinois, or Columbia, South Carolina will produce all that is required to serve the whole of the North American market.
December 23, 1988

The one thing that the working men and women in Canada will agree on is this: if this Government is going to commit this country to an economic course paid for with the jobs of our workers, then this Government had better have the programs to assist in the adaptation and retraining of those workers, or it won't be the Government for long.
One very interesting element of this trade negotiation with the United States has been the need to look closely again at the unique relationship between our two countries, a relationship that has preoccupied Canadians for two centuries, primarily because of our relative closeness geographically and culturally.
It is, I think, because we are so close to the United States of America, because we cast a shadow on each other along the border, that we have difficulty measuring our relationship objectively. It is that confusion over our relationship which hinders our ability to address this trade agreement objectively.
It is precisely because we are so close to each other that we resist being drawn closer together under this trade agreement. This is not anti-American. This is healthy Canadian self-interest. The closer our two countries get, the more we sweat. Under this agreement we will pull our country closer to the precipice, and all on the promise of a few dollars more, a few jobs more.
I am saddened to hear some Hon. Members on the other side of this place describe this agreement as the key to prosperity or the ticket to the future, without realizing how close we are to abandoning our tools of nation-building.
If we are to maintain and improve our society and increase our prosperity, it will occur because Canadians work hard for it and not because we deal or barter for it.
My conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is in reaching this agreement we have given up far more in the bargain than we have obtained. If this trade agreement was just the mutual elimination of tariffs, which it could have been, we could freely address the future proudly as a nation. But such is not the case. This agreement is much, much more. It is that way because the Americans bargained for those other things, and we gave them away.
If we are to have this agreement, then we will not abandon our workers, we will not pay royalties to exercise our cultural sovereignty, we will not neglect rural and agricultural Canada and native Canadians, we will not permit erosion of needed social programs, and
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
we will never abandon or sell our independence to continue to build this country and provide its citizens with the opportunities essential for their future.
I know that if this legislation is made law, all Members on both sides of the House will address the 10 years of transition to full implementation with those objectives in mind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: It is as the first representative of the Progressive Conservative Party ever to sit in the House of Commons as a Member for Outremont in this century that I humbly rise again today. On this occasion, I wish to address my first remarks to those men and women whom I have the honour to represent in the House. I wish to thank the individuals who, through the exercize of their democratic rights, gave me a majority during the recent election campaign.
They represented every walk of life and reflected the exceptional diversity of Canadians and Quebecers which we can find everywhere in our great country. My Outremont constituents have nothing in common with the nincompoops our honourable friends opposite like to describe. On the contrary, they are quite vibrant. They can breath, think, they are intelligent, they can assess, weigh, and they have needs which they try to satisfy either individually or collectively.
As I said, the men and women in my Outremont riding resemble those you can meet in all the other provinces of Canada. They know what is good for them. They can put things into perspective. They are tolerant. That is why when the chips were down, in the evening of November 21, they chose Mr. Mulroney and the Progressive Conservative Party. Like the rest of Canada, they gave the country more representatives from our party than did the other two parties together. People have decided and they gave the Government a clear mandate to govern. They elected a leader they could trust. They rejected all the candidates who did not know where to stand or who, for lack of a definite program, were involved in a witch hunt.
I want to thank them also for electing a majority government, thereby clearly expressing their support for the agreement we are debating today.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The election of a Progressive Conservative Member in the Outremont riding was not an accident of history which brought yours truly to the forefront. In fact it reflects a new orientation, a new trust and consensus which have their roots among the very diverse groups which live in that riding.
I have been able to witness that beyond the deep-rooted prejudices fed by many generations of a so-called elite, my Outremont riding is undoubtedly the most representative of our Canadian mosaic.
The Quebec men and women who live there represent the two founding nations of our country, together with representatives of about twenty ethnic groups who speak some forty languages and dialects, in addition to one or the other of our official languages. These cultural communities were particularly sensitive to what was at stake during the election campaign and they listened with their ears and hearts to the debate during these seven dramatic weeks.
My Outremont constituents expressed what a majority of Canadians from every corner of our great country wanted. These Quebec men and women expressed their confidence in the future of our country and favoured a still greater opening to the rest of the world. I should like to repeat part of what I said the first time in the House, and I quote: "My colleague from Vancouver Centre (Ms. Campbell) quoted our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said on a number of occasions that wealth is created by the citizens rather than by the Government". It could reasonably be said also that it is not the economy which governs the men and women of a country, but that it is they who govern the economy.
Our colleague the Hon. Member for Langelier (Mr. Loiselle) spoke in a manner which is to the credit of the Progressive Conservative Party, its leader and members. We can bear witness, through the manner in which all Quebeckers participated in the national debate on the most significant issue of the recent election campaign, that Quebec fully shares this confidence in our capacity to meet head on the new challenges brought about by the globalisation of trade.
Quebeckers in large numbers joined their voices with those of millions of Canadians who feel that free trade is an expression of national affirmation based on openness as opposed to withdrawal, on self-confidence as opposed to cold panic in the face of new horizons.
Unlike the people in other parts of Canada, they were not afraid of jeopardizing their national identity. They had the opportunity earlier in this decade to reassert
their identity. To Quebecers, the enhancement of our trade relations with our southern neighbours in no way means a harmful loss of national identity.
The debate in Quebec did not amount to an identity crisis as it did in the rest of the country. I have said it before, the people of Quebec went through that earlier, during the independence debate. Nowadays, they do not fear an American invasion. Their identity is not centered on the risk of losing their language or their political status within Confederation. The issues about the French language, Meech Lake, Bill 101, or the sign language are not based on hostility, fear, withdrawal or weakness ... as some people would like to think.
Nor are they based on a bellicose attitude, or a superiority complex, or aggressiveness against the other founding nation.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the battle of the Plains of Abraham is over, and has been over for some time. Some people may still be a little sensitive. Some people may still feel a little frustrated, but, on November 21, the people in Quebec wholeheartedly approved free trade and its impact. That was not the action of an impulsive and nevrotic people.
On November 21, Quebec was not boasting. Quebec does not go around bragging and boasting. What is happening today in Quebec cannot be qualified as unrestrained emotivity or bragging. Quebec has not responded to meaningless slogans, such as the "c'est clair et net" message of the Liberal Party. Quebec has not responded to the theoretical and harmful social democracy of the NDP. Quebec responded to the Right Honorable Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who urges us to work hard, harder and hardest.
Allow me to digress a bit, Mr. Speaker, by saying that this same Quebec is defining itself with respect to signage. It still thinks Quebec. It still thinks Canada. It is not hostile, aggressive, ungrateful or hateful. It does not want to be insolent. It is what it is, not more, but not less. It is different. It is more and more conscious and more and more certain of its individual and collective future.
In 1984, it voted for Mr. Mulroney and it wasn't a fad. It was a clear choice. Quebec had had enough of the Liberal government's haughtiness, intolerance, pedantry, theatrics and arrogance. It had attained a maturity which gave it enough self-confidence, autonomy and flexibility to be able to say no to separation, no to this mockery of a constitution, no to schizophrenic dreams. It said yes to Mr. Mulroney just as it said yes to Mr. December 23, 1988

Bourassa, who was once contemptuously called a "hot-dog eater".
In 1988, once again and this time more loudly, Quebec said yes to the Progressive Conservative Party and to Mr. Mulroney because Quebec is not arrogant and because it recognized our party's sincerity, simplicity and sense of values.
Today the people of Quebec have confidence in their ability to compete culturally and economically with the best in the world.
The wrenching doubts of our anglophone compatriots are due to the fact that they have steadfastly rejected all liberalization of the ties which link us to our mighty neighbour to the south. On three occasions in the past 100 years, Canadians were consulted on the possibility of free trade with the United States of America. And twice, in 1891 and in 1911, they rejected such a proposal. No truck or trade with the Yankees, as they used to say!
On those occasions, Quebec expressed its agreement with the rest of the country and defeated one of its greatest Prime Ministers, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Note that since 1911, no federal political party or leader has had the courage or ambition to return to the question of free trade between the two countries. And for a good reason. However, Mr. Speaker, on September 26, 1985, the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, rose in this House to make the following announcement: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House (and the country) that I have today spoken to the President of the United States to express Canada's interests in pursuing a new trade agreement between our two countries. We seek to negotiate the broadest possible package of mutually beneficial reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers between our two countries.
Two years later, after difficult negotiations between the representatives of our two countries, a free trade agreement liberalizing the sectors that were not yet subject to a treaty was presented in this House. All of Canada then had a trade treaty that sheltered our leading industrial sectors from American protectionism and gave us wider access to the market considered to be the world's most important. With such an accord, it became possible to steer and guide discussions between the two countries and to limit unilateral actions that are harmful to our industries.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
What the people on this side of the House spelled for Canada was a map of our future commercial relations with our neighbours to the south. In terms of Canadian nationalism, this treaty has been arrived at because of the political will of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to forge ahead and build an even stronger nation.
The response of Canadians has been termed an act of faith. It is more than that. I see the results of the November 21 election as a reaction to common sense and of common sense. As a nation we cannot withdraw from international trade. We depend on it in a large measure and continue to do so in an increasingly competitive world.
Those who work against the Free Trade Agreement seem to have failed to read the consensus among Canadians. Their fears were immediately related to their own sectoral or personal concerns.

Mr. Speaker, the opponents of free trade as it is expressed in this historic agreement have tried everything to spread fear and to trouble our fellow citizens. We witnessed what was really like a hostage-taking when we heard that the most vulnerable citizens were threatened with losing their pensions, their unemployment insurance or their medicare.
What low-mindedness, what panic they showed by such actions, Mr. Speaker. It does not take much to see in such speeches repeated ad nauseam during the election campaign contempt for the voters' intelligence. We saw a determined, often dishonest attempt to shake the nation's self-confidence.
In this House are many Opposition Members who even today raise the spectre of our country being absorbed politically, of the progressive dismantling of our social programs, and what else besides! If they have not yet understood or accepted the Canadian people's verdict, let them at least, Mr. Speaker, refrain from subjecting us to their senseless idle talk and nonsense! They tried to make the Government take the blame for their lack of programs and alternatives. It did not work.
Their hysterical scare tactics have not passed the test of reality and they are now starting all over again as if Canadians, who have the last word, had not realized what they were up to. I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, to deprive the Hon. Members of the right to express their opinion. However, I wish they would stick to

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
constructive criticism of the Bill under consideration. Otherwise, they would have to bear the weight of a totally unacceptable rejection of Canadian public opinion.
To the new generations of Canadians, the rearguard fight led by the Hon. Members opposite will make them look like people from another century. We specifically want to give our future leaders a legacy of confidence in the future and openness to the world.
Those who don't think our culture can resist the American giant simply don't recognize the cultural vitality of this country with two flourishing languages and cultures that extend well beyond our borders.
It is easy to attack the winner and talk of arrogance, but by making such a judgement, we say that the people have elected candidates who are not up to the task. It is insulting to all voters.
At the economic level, we find the same vitality and influence beyond our borders. Isolation, introspection and an underdog mentality have long been the norm in this country. Either after Quebec went through that stage of its cultural and social development despite the demographic reality or, more recently, through the national position taken on the Free Trade Agreement, Canada has changed.
The change was for the better. Canadians are preoccupied with real issues: quality of life, conservation, environmental upgrading, preventive health care for our elderly, technological change for our industries. Canadians of all origins want to move forward, to grow as individuals. They want closer ties with each other. They demand a healthier financial situation and a stronger economy for the benefit of all those who are a part of it.
Whatever preoccupations associated with the introduction of any treaty of this nature can be overcome. There is an implementation period for the agreement, there is a tribunal to ensure continuity in the exchange of views and to provide a forum for dispute arbitration. These features ensure that the gradual implementation of this treaty will have no dramatic or unilateral impact on the Canadian economy or one sector in particular.
Those who voted for us showed their support for the new economic opportunities which are now within our reach. And they did not do so with their eyes closed. Canadians realize in fact that adjustments will be required and that interim measures will change present habits and certainties. Change means adaptation. It will be the role of Government to manage this process of
change and the task force headed by Jean de Grandpre has the mandate to outline appropriate measures and to identify priority sectors needing assistance in the months and years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress that in polarizing Canadians on this issue, the debate has provided an opportunity for Canada to cross a hurdle and take a great step forward as a nation. The notion of belonging to a vigourous and sovereign nation, one open to its own people and to the world, is one that can and must be nurtured.
And finally, I would remind those who see this period of history as critical that the Chinese symbol for crisis is made up of two characters, one of which stands for "danger", the other for "opportunity". We are free to believe that the present debate endangers our country, or that it offers the best opportunity to make another step forward in our natioin-building process.
The people from Outremont who elected me to this Chamber realized they were offered an opportunity to go ahead and find a new prosperity. The act of faith the people from Outremont made was an act of faith in themselves, in their capacities and their desire to move forward. In that, Mr. Speaker, they resemble the rest of the Canadians composing our national mosaic. In that, Mr. Speaker, they expect from their elected Members that we quickly bring into effect the wishes they have expressed.
What is at stake in this debate goes beyond the jobs to be created, maintained or replaced, the new markets that will open up for us to take advantage of, and even the positive trade balance that will follow.
For the third time in this century, Canadians were invited to express their views on their trade relationship with the United States and, for the first time, they chose to embrace the future without loosing sight of the reality. They thus indicated which road to follow, an historical road that we now have to explore, lay out and open up. In the same way that the transcontinental railroad was, section by section, conceived as a unification symbol of our Canadian nation, this agreement can be used to help Canadians reach together new feats.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind Hon. Members the well known words written by Calixa Lavallee:
Car ton bras sait porter I'epee, II sait porter la foi, Ton histoire est une epopee, Des plus brillants exploits ...
December 23, 1988

1 am convinced that with the Free Trade Agreement, our epic is unfolding and the most brilliant feats are still to come for of all Canadians to see.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this historic Bill C-2 on behalf of my constituents in Cochrane-Superior, whom I thank for giving me their confidence on November 21.
Need I point out that this northern land is very welcoming; it is an ideal place to relax, to fish, to hunt, to go cross-country skiing or ice-fishing, etc. It has wide open spaces that ease the mind and challenge us to get to know nature better.
This great huge riding stretches from Hudson's Bay to the north shore of Lake Superior. Combined with the Kenora-Rainy River riding, they are more than half of Ontario. Indeed, we are on the map.
Before getting into the subject, let me just say that I would have preferred the witnessing of an agreement on the curbing of acid rain with its devastating effects on our forests and lakes. Some 14,000 lakes are already polluted in Canada.
There was some hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan would have struck a deal at the Shamrock Summit in Quebec. It flickered out when Reagan flashed the Free Trade Agreement in front of the Prime Minister's eyes. We all know that afterwards the environment was no longer a priority.
President-elect George Bush allotted a mere 10-second clip on the environment issue in 15 months of campaigning. There are some reasons to be alarmed because with the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement we stand to lose a lot of ground on this issue. With the Americans having unlimited access to our natural resources, and considering their low standard on the environment, one can seriously doubt the condition in which they would leave our land once they have exploited its richness.
The natives are also seriously concerned about the possible disruption of their hunting, trapping and fishing grounds. Like any other group of Canadians, they should have a say about the economic development of their regions as much as they have a right to control their own destiny.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation]
The Mulroney-Reagan agreement, Mr. Speaker, refers many times to harmonizing the two nations. What does this mean? There is a significant imbalance between our two countries today. Canada has a just, humane, compassionate society. American society concentrates on profits, leaving aside the welfare of working men and women when it comes to wages and fringe benefits.
And what about the impact of the agreement on social programs? Let us just say that the Prime Minister told the Financial Times that unemployment insurance and social programs might be renegotiated in the coming years.
Which country do you think will adjust to the other, Mr. Speaker? Because the Americans are extremely rich in capital, since they have ten times the population we do, it is easy to see that we will end up subject to their influence and submitting to their demands. We will suffer this harmful influence because might will make right. It will be the law of the jungle.
Mr. Speaker, rest assured that I and all my colleagues in the Liberal Party will be extremely vigilant; we will speak up vigorously every time our Canadian workers are affected by job losses due to free trade. We will see to it that the benefits they have acquired over the last 40 years will be protected, in order to preserve and maintain family well-being.
It must be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, that 40 per cent of our workers are unionized and the benefits and protection they have acquired since the 1930s must not be eroded over the coming years. We must keep in mind that nine American states have no minimum wage law and that twelve states have a minimum wage of three dollars an hour or less.
It is also easy to conclude that fringe benefits are not a priority for their political and economic leaders.

Regional development is also a great concern of mine. The DRIE program is now considered by the United States to be a subsidization program and, therefore, existing industries which wish to adjust to increasing competition are not eligible for government help.
In relation to the forestry industry, when one compounds such an action with the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber, sawmills across Canada find it extremely hard to remain competitive. Their profits are greatly reduced because of a substantial increase in

December 23, 1988
Canada-US. Free Trade Agreement
stumpage fees and therefore the incentive, the motivation to contribute to Canada's economy is not as ardent. They question their future and, by extension, the workers do as well.
Since the Memorandum of Understanding was signed on December 30, 1986, four sawmills have closed in my riding.
What is the Government prepared to do to compensate for these losses? Is it prepared at least to screen American investment in Canada? Has it set up a mechanism where undue, unwanted and unwarranted competition would be controlled? Has the Government thought of negotiating with the Americans a system whereby the latter would have to re-invest some of their profits in Canada?
To summarize, we should not let the Americans muscle their way into Canada and do as they please. They should respect the fact that Canada is huge geographically, and since jobs are concentrated in the larger urban centres, rural areas do indeed depend on regional development incentives in order to remain competitive, and in the end, to survive. Survival can be achieved in other ways than open frontier economic policies with the United States, therefore limiting our exporting capacity to one country only. One should learn from one's past. The Government should expand its exporting markets to the European Economic Community, to China, to Hong Kong, to the Middle East and to the Soviet Union.
Let us not permit history to repeat itself negatively. Canadians know better. I hope the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) will at least consider selling Canadian products elsewhere than the United States.
Hon. Members opposite say that it would be advantageous to limit exports to the American market only. We are already doing 80 per cent of our trade with the United States. Is it worth unleashing American corporations, allowing them to take over our industries, for the remaining 20 per cent?
Out of respect for ourselves, let us keep Canada Canadian. Let us be the masters of our own destiny. Let us diversify our trading partners in order to ensure that American countervailing action not be undertaken. Let us us not give them the opportunity to do so. Let us not adhere so blindly to the North American economic constitution.

I could not conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, without referring to the omnibus bill regarding the entry of foreign products in the United States and to the fact that Canada is not exempt from it. How can we consider free trade with the Americans when this protectionist bill aims at controlling foreign competition with American industries and small businesses! The Secretary of State, Mr. Schultz, admitted, during his visit to Canada last spring, that it would be ridiculous to talk about free trade if Canada is not exempt from it. And what are we to think of the record speed with which the American Congress passed its bill on free trade with Canada. We must infer that the Americans firmly believe that the agreement is largely favourable to their interests. Americans never lose out when they do business with a foreign country.
All in all, conscious as I am of the impact this agreement will have on our society and bearing in mind the uncertainties which Canadians will be facing, it is my duty and my moral responsibility to vote against this bill in accordance with the mandate given to me by the people of Cochrane-Superior on November 21 last.

To my constituents, and to the staff and Members of the House of Commons, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late, the Chamber is understandably sparse, it is nearing Christmas Eve, and Mr. Speaker is beginning his traditional reception de Noel. I am honoured to draw a speaking slot of 9.55 p.m. Eastern Time, 11.25 p.m. in Newfoundland, to address the subject we have been debating for weeks, indeed for many months, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
My position reminds me of a story that the great former Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker used to tell as only the Chief could tell it. Long ago, there was a similar marathon debate. Practically everybody in the House had spoken on the same subject and it fell to one rookie MP to bring up the rear. Well, this Hon. Member had made the mistake of giving the text of his remarks to the press in advance, so he had to forge ahead.
I will let the former Right Hon. Member for Prince Albert tell about this MP's maiden address. He went into the history of his riding dating back to biblical times. He even referred to the paternity of the dogs of his constituents. By now the sounds of tinkling glasses and the singing of carols were heard coming from the
December 23, 1988

corridor of the Speaker's chair. Hon. Members began leaving the Chamber by twos, and then by fours, and then in droves, until there was one lone MP sitting across the aisle.
The new MP on his feet kept talking, fixing his gaze on the lone MP, and when he finished his speech, he crossed the floor, and with tears in his eyes shook the man's hand and said, "I want to thank you for your presence. It gave me that something, that inspiration to carry on. Your attention made it possible. Thank you from the bottom of my heart". The man said, "Don't thank me, I'm the last speaker!"


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I dedicate that story to my predecessor and friend, Father Sean O'Sullivan, whom we all wish Godspeed during these difficult days at this time of year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I want to thank the people of Hamilton-Wentworth for electing me for the fifth time. Without their trust and their confidence in me, I would not be here.
I also want to say congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker. You too have the confidence of this whole House of Commons, of Members from all sides of the House, in the position that you occupy, and you are doing a fine job, Sir.
Let me, in the spirit of Christmas and ecumenism, say congratulations to all the new Members on all sides of the House for the excellence of their maiden speeches. At least the parliamentary television groupies across the country can testify that there is a lot of talent in this Thirty-fourth Parliament, and for some of us who have been observing and participating in this place for several years, it is good to hear strongly and freshly held and expressed views in this Chamber.
I am proud of my Leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), for achieving history with this Free Trade Agreement. I am proud of his great salesman for the Free Trade Agreement, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie). I am also proud to say a few words during this debate on behalf of the city that I represent and love, Hamilton.
We in Hamilton are especially proud of the fact that we are Canada's fifth largest city and we are famous for the industry that stands to benefit most heartily from
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the Free Trade Agreement. We make steel, very good steel.
This Free Trade Agreement that the House of Commons will pass a little more than two hours from now signals the beginning of a shiny new era for Canada's steel industry. Perhaps that is why we have not heard during these long hours of debate a whole lot of mention by the opposition Members of the quality steel and quality people we have in Canada. That is why we never hear about the security of Hamilton's 23,000 jobs which are directly related to the making of steel, or of the tens of thousands more indirect jobs and spinoff products that benefit from the steel industry. I am not surprised. This is one of the innumerable and irrefutable good features of the Free Trade Agreement.
We in Hamilton and in Sault Ste. Marie are producing the world's finest steel. Nowhere will you find a more classic example of an industry where we not only can compete with the best in the world but we already produce the best in the world. Now we will have a market to prove it. Of course, the opponents to the Free Trade Agreement do not like to point this out, but this Free Trade Agreement will be as strong for the Canadian economy as the strength of steel itself.
Let me just turn to an article by Ken Romain of The Globe and Mail. He put it as succinctly as anyone could:
Because of the strength of the Canadian economy and persisting demand, the companies are operating at near capacity. The market is tight and orders from customers are on an allocation basis. The steel makers are squeezing every last pound of steel they can from their plants.
Mr. Romain goes on to quote William Wallace, executive vice-president and chief operating officer of Dofasco:
In our view if you look at our business and that of our customers, it is a really good picture. We have got customers doing a lot of really good and gutsy things.
But we have to develop and maintain the capability that keeps us in business with them and to provide value, quality and price in the product. We see the whole thing as a process of globalization.
We have got to be good enough at what we are doing and our customers have got to be good enough at what they are doing with the product that we sell them to be able to withstand the South Koreans, the Japanese, and the West Germans and the French, who also use excellent products, and are turning it into good automobiles, for example.
Going on in this article we find:

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Stelco, the country's largest integrated steel producer, has called a halt to its major spending. In the past seven years, it has invested $1 billion in new plant and equipment.
Chairman and chief executive John Allan has said the major portion of the company's program is now completed.
Last year, it began operating two continuous casting units, which cost $350 million, at its Hilton works in Hamilton.
All of this heavy capital spending by the industry was planned well in advance of the negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States, and without any reference to what might happen after it is ratified by both countries. Under the Agreement, steel tariffs will be eliminated over the next 10 years.
The industry fully supports the pact. "We see it as part of globalization that is taking place and driving us in the direction that we are going". Bill Wallace said, "We ultimately have to be world competitive and that includes our relationships with the United States".
The Canadian steel industry does not have the capacity to make a major export drive into the United States under free trade because all of its planning in the past has been based on meeting the demands of the Canadian market. Mr. Allan told Stelco's recent annual meeting that the Canada-U.S. Agreement prevents either country from imposing import quotas on the other.
He said that the fortunes of steel companies are directly tied with those of their customers. Many of those stand to gain from the Agreement.
For example, the energy industry which buys steel pipe, gets a secure market in the United States. Steel customers in the manufacturing sector will also gain from the new U.S.-Canada relationship under free trade.
"Steel makers, therefore, stand to benefit not only from their own direct participation in the U.S. market, but also from that of their customers' participation," Mr. Allan said.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that the steel industry is looking at a glittering market and very much welcomes the opportunity to remove the present barriers to trade. Although Canada is the only country which was exempted from the U.S. voluntary export quotas on steel, we did agree to limit our share to 3.5 per cent of the American market. The American steel industry has continued to complain about Canadian competition, although our actual share of that market has ranged from 3.0 per cent to 3.3 per cent, while the U.S. share of our steel market has risen from 4.5 per cent in 1986 to 7.5 per cent in the last quarter of 1987.
Now American firms have modernized and become more competitive in the export market in the face of stiff competition from the highly efficient and technologically advanced Koreans and Japanese.
The binding dispute settlement mechanism has also been hailed by the industry. It has been the target of a
number of U.S. trade actions. Increased economic activity under the Free Trade Agreement is expected to increase demand for primary iron, steel and aluminum products, for example, steel piping and tubing for the petroleum industry. The Free Trade Agreement will also reduce input equipment costs.
Currently the U.S. Department of Commerce is engaged in an anti-dumping and countervailing investigation against steel rail exports from Algoma and Sydney Steel on behalf of Bethlehem Steel of Pennsylvania. In fact, Algoma and Sysco's rail exports have been declining. Here is what the executive vice president of Stelco, Mr. John Hood, has to say about the Free Trade Agreement and steel.
If we fear our ability to compete against a nation with a broadly comparable cost structure to our own, how in the world do we expect to compete against such low-cost producers such as Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore?
I think that goes to prove that when we are talking about the free trade arrangement between Canada and the United States it is that, it is an economic trading arrangement. It cannot just be Canada and the U.S. alone. We do have to live within a market, a world market, and the steel industry is a classic example of how an industry can thrive and survive in a world market.
Here is what Daniel Romanko, managing director, of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, has to say:
Under the Agreement, the steel industry can continue to expand its markets both in Canada and internationally, secure in the knowledge that access to its largest export market, the United States, will be less vulnerable.
Here is what Mr. Milton Harris had to say:
After four intensive years of experience fighting off protectionist forces in the American steel industry, I was appalled to watch a TV replay of John Turner figuratively tearing up the Agreement.
That was Milton Harris, President of Harris Steel and a former Chairman of the Liberal Party National Executive Finance Committee.
Here is a quote that I draw to the attention of my friends to the left:
If there were no deal, 1 believe the U.S. would tighten the screws on us. When there's a glimmer of light, we have to grab on to it. We have a lot at stake.
That was said by Dennis Abernot, President, Local 2251, United Steelworkers of America, Algoma Steel, Sault Ste. Marie.
December 23, 1988

Here is what Mr. Robert Varah of Dofasco had to say. He dismisses the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Turner) sectoral approach to the whole free trade proposition:
There aren't enough sectors on which you can have a balance. So you have to go with the broad approach.
Clearly the sectoral approach will not work in this industry.
I have saved one of the best for the last. This comes right from the heart of the Niagara Peninsula, deep in the heart of Welland, Ontario, from Atlas Specialty Steel, Canada's largest manufacturer of stainless steel. The article reads:
Atlas Specialty Steel, Canada's largest manufacturer of stainless steel, believes so strongly in the free trade deal that it has invested $10 million in each of the past two years to make itself more globally competitive.
Incidentally, this is an article from The Toronto Star. The heading is Steelmaker Sees Free Trade Opening Huge Markets. That is The Toronto Star. The article is buried. You would never hear about it from the Hon. Member from Welland (Mr. Parent). I am just quoting for the record.
Bruce Hamilton, general manager of the Niagara Peninsula plant, Atlas Specialty Steel, says:
And that's just the beginning-"I'm talking about that rate every year-
Meaning $10 million in each of the past two years:
I'm talking about that rate every year-
He says removing trade barriers between Canada and the U.S. will open huge new markets for Atlas, a Rio Algom subsidiary with 1,500 employees in Welland.
"Those (investment) rates are here to preserve and maintain this operation as a viable specialty steel mill in North America. We have the capability, certainly, of hiring more people but I think the main thing we're trying to do is maintain the jobs for the people that we've got."
That is a good place to start. The point is that it is happening. Those jobs are locked in, secure, and if anything they will be increased under this agreement. The article further states:
Without trade, the Canadian economy will wither. It's an economic truism perfectly mirrored by Atlas Steel.
"We have to be an internationally competitive mill. If we're not that, we're dead."
That statement was made by Bruce Hamilton.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Canada faces a clear choice in the free trade debate. Either we accept the challenge to compete, or we retreat like a third place athlete to defeat by default. That does not describe the Canadians I know. It does not describe any of the Canadians sitting in this Chamber who were out to win on November 21.
The type of negativism that we have been hearing from our friends in the Liberal and New Democratic Parties is beyond me when they went out and fought like hell to get their seats in the House of Commons. They made it. They were winners. They are Canadians. Canadians are winners. We can compete. That is why we have to pass the free trade Bill into law by tonight and get Royal Assent by January 1, 1989. We have to do that, and we have to win for our children, their children, and the future of this great country.
In closing, let me wish you, Mr. Speaker, a Merry Christmas, Joyeux Noel. I also say that to my parents in Vancouver, and special holiday wishes to all the good people of Hamilton-Wentworth.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor-Lake St. Clair.


Some Hon. Members:: Howie, Howie!


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Lake St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I should tell my colleagues on the government benches that I am seldom called Howie, except by my most intimate friends, and only in the most intimate circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: First, I wish to express my appreciation to the voters in my riding of Windsor-Lake St. Clair for having extended me the opportunity to sit in the House once more and represent them.
The fact that I was elected to the House in the riding of Windsor

Lake St. Clair reflects the fact that in Windsor approximately 80 per cent of the voters voted against the Conservatives. Although it cannot be argued, and I quite gladly admit this, not all people who voted against the Conservatives were necessarily expressing themselves specifically against the trade deal, nor would I submit the argument that all of those who voted for New Democrats or Liberals were voting against the deal. But in Windsor those who voted 80 per cent against the Conservatives most certainly were voting against the trade deal. There is a reason for that.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
In Windsor we have a much more intimate relationship, and I would say a deeper understanding, of the character of American society than do many other Canadians. That is not to imply a fundamental anti-Americanism, as I am sure you have heard me say before. Most of us in Windsor have American relatives and are engaged in constant commerce between Windsor and Detroit. We like Americans. However, we do not want to be American. We know that their society is quite different from ours. It is a society that we do not want to see replicated in Canada.
It is not only a question of experiencing those differences. We have felt the impact of the subsidiary syndrome in Canada. We have had an intimation of what will happen in this country insofar as it concerns those subsidiary plants that are owned by American multinationals. Nobody in Windsor doubts that efficiency and rationalization will mean a loss of Canadian jobs. There is no doubt about that.
I know there will be a Member on the other side, in typical ignorance not having read anything, and most particularly not having read the trade deal, who will say once more that the Auto Pact was a nice example, a prototype of this trade deal, and we ought to appreciate that what we are doing here is expanding the benefits of that type of relationship with the United States to the rest of Canada. Ignorance cannot be penetrated on that side of the House to convince those Members that the Auto Pact had within it guarantees that ensured Canadian jobs.
Insofar as it relates to something I am going to say later, there was one aspect of the Auto Pact that has not yet been sufficiently attended to in our debate. While it is true that the Auto Pact did ensure some measure of job production in Canada and a rationalization of the industry that assured production in Canada, one of the unremarked features of the Auto Pact was the loss to Canada of engineering, designing, and management. In other words, it was fine for Canadians to work on the factory floor, but not to work in the laboratories, design rooms, and offices of the Big Three. That is very important in respect of this trade deal.
I think that it is necessary to call attention to the fact that when the Government talks about competitiveness it has disregarded the importance of science and technology, and the impact of the trade deal on our ability to compete to the extent that we are able to develop the resources of development for us that will permit us to compete, not only with the United States, but with the whole world.
Let me return to the notion in Windsor, shared by many Canadians, that the inevitable result of this deal will be that Canada will become much more like the United States. Even Simon Reisman had the good sense, in one rare moment, to recognize that fact. He said that it was inevitable that a country with the population of Canada, very much smaller than the population of the United States, would inevitably become more like the United States. The implications of that are very significant.
Most Canadians have a notion of our country that it is in many respects superior to the United States. It is much more civilized and much more humane. All one has to do is live in Windsor and look across at Detroit and see the poverty and the manner in which the poor are treated, to understand that Canada is a much more humane and civilized country, and we want to keep it that way.
We do not believe that we have to sacrifice those characteristics in order to prosper. Indeed, we think that we have an experiment going in this country that would demonstrate that prosperity and social justice could go together, make us successful in the world, and make us just as able to compete as anybody else without doing it on the backs of those who are poor, deprived or oppressed.
Not long ago I had occasion to discuss the trade deal before an audience celebrating the annual meeting of the North American Black Museum in Amherstburg. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I was surprised at the passion of reaction to the notion of the trade deal. Those of us who came to Canada from the United States to escape slavery do not want to see that society replicated here. There is serious potential for harm to minority groups, because the minorities in this country who have not yet achieved equality will not achieve it in a society whose primary imperative is market forces.
It is not only New Democrats who have called attention to the inevitability of Canada becoming more like the U.S., and the consequences which flow therefrom. Tom Stanfield expressed it in appropriate terms when he said: "It is the cost of government, the cost of energy, the cost of human resources that will allow us to compete or not to compete, and therefore we will slowly adopt the American way, with very few modifications. Why is it that manufacturing is largely located in the southern United States, rather than in the northern
December 23, 1988

which is more comparable to Canada, when it comes to cost structures and a way of life?"
That comment is a very interesting one. It calls attention to a very interesting fact. Those who say to Albertans or to Maritimers that they will be enriched by this deal have not looked at Wyoming, or North Dakota, or South Dakota, or Maine-all of which have suffered as a result of U.S. industry fleeing to the south and to Mexico. U.S. industry is cutting back on its cost of production at the expense of the citizens of the northern states.
Let me cite one other view of the consequences of the inevitable homogenization of Canada and the U.S. I quote the words of Mickey Cohen, as reported in the Financial Times of November 28, 1988. He had the following to say: "I guess I would have to go after regional development and universality. I would cut out most of the industrial support and the individual industrial programs, particularly the ones geared to the regions. I would go after universality and cut unemployment insurance. I would raise the taxes as well, and I might skew the tax system back towards investment. I think we have to tax more and spend less."
That comment implies the inevitable evolution that will take place. But what has not been recognized is that it is the deliberate intent of this Government and its cohorts in the multinationals to make Canada more like the U.S. It is no accident. And the clues were there when, early in the life of this Government, it began to attack the social programs in this country. It attacked the indexation of old age pensions. It attacked the indexation of family allowances. It then proceeded to eliminate the National Energy Program and FIRA, putting Canada up for sale. Mr. Speaker, who can forget this Government's action with respect to the drug patent legislation?
Well, we were begging for an opportunity to get into this deal at that stage of the game. We wanted to show Mr. Reagan just how committed we were to giving the country away and becoming more like the United States. But that wasn't good enough. And so, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a Government that is absolutely committed to the notion that this country should have its society, its politics, its economy determined exclusively by market forces. It is no accident. This Government wants Canada to become more like the U.S., and that is why we are struggling against this agreement.
It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that this Government has a mandate. And while we have had promises from
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that the fears that many Canadians have about the need for adjustment programs, and so forth, that the concerns that Canadians have about the threats to regional development programs and the like, will be taken care of by this Government, will be addressed by this Government, one has to bear in mind that guarantees were given that social programs would not be affected, that workers who were displaced would be treated well, to use the kind of phraseology that the Prime Minister is accustomed to using.
And when we engage in this debate-not to defeat the free trade deal, because we know we cannot do that, but to get the Prime Minister to fulfil his promises-we get instead, as my House Leader put it, jackboot democracy. 1 would refer to it as puerile pettiness, to the extent that my colleague from Essex-Windsor, notwithstanding that it had been intimated by the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. McDermid) that he would be given extended time, was not given the opportunity to complete his remarks.
I have never seen such niggardly behaviour in this place in my life, and that coming at the Christmas season. This Government should be ashamed of its behaviour.
We do not apologize for trying to get this Government to fulfil the promises that the Prime Minister made during the election campaign at least to address the fears that Canadians have in the face of the inevitability of this deal.
But, I digress from the focus of what I want to say.
One of the core claims of this Government is that it is trying to give Canada the opportunity to compete internationally and to do so effectively.
I will not digress again into the question of access to American markets and whether we really have that, or whether the disputes settlement mechanism will work or not. But let's consider the elements of competitiveness in the modern world economy.
It surely cannot be a part of increased competitiveness for a country that spends more money on its energy than any other country in the world, both for industrial purposes and domestic purposes, to give it away, in effect, when in fact our energy resources could be a comparative advantage.
Clearly there is something else afoot among those who suggest that we are going to be more competitive if we say that some of the comparative advantages we have

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
will not be comparative advantages, as energy resources otherwise might be.
It is clear to anybody who wants to examine the elements of competitiveness in this the tail end of the 20th century that the very core of competitiveness is the ability to produce new technology and new knowledge; that the core of economic survival for industrial nations such as Canada is research and development.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, this country has a pitiful record in respect of research and development. Only one-half as much of our Gross National Product is spent on research and development as is spent by the other industrial nations against which we must compete. And one of the reasons for this is that so much of our industry is American owned. In fact, if one looks at those industries that are Canadian owned and their commitment to research, it can be seen that they commit the same proportion of their sales to research investment as characterizes the other industrial nations, and our real problem is our foreign ownership.
One of the elements of the trade deal that has not been discussed in any great detail is in fact the ownership or investment rules. In respect of this signal fact, every single company in Canada worth less than $150 million is open to acquisition by Americans without any review at all. None. No conditions with respect to performance; no conditions with respect to employment; and no condition that would say that, once acquired by the Americans, a company even has to stay in Canada.
And what characterizes those industries? What characterizes those industries is the fact that almost every single new net job produced in Canada in the last 10 years has been produced by companies worth less than $150 million. Most important, virtually all Canadian research and development was done in companies worth less than $150 million. We have put up for sale the very core of our competitiveness, assuming we understand that research and development is important to our future competitiveness. Certainly that is clear.
How do you stimulate research and development? You do it by subsidies, at least in part. You do it by grants to industry, at least in part. You do it by procurement. We face five to seven years in negotiations on subsidies and you know damn well that the result is not going to permit the Canadian Government to invest specifically in Canadian industry to stimulate research and development. That is going to be unacceptable. You
cannot count on it. Yet half of all research in the U.S. is paid for by the American Government.
Some $65 billion a year is spent by the American Government on research, and two-thirds of that is for defence. In other words, the Americans have an area of subsidization for research that is not accessible to Canadian industry. And I am not even going to talk about the subsidies at the state or city level that will never be attacked. I am talking about a heavy duty investment in research by the American Government that we will not be able to duplicate and which is closed off to us.
We say we are going to make Canada more competitive in the American market. Nonsense. We put up our research and development intensive industries for sale. We are in a deal in which the Americans can subsidize their research in ways in which we cannot.
Furthermore, we have procurement rules. Oh, we have a nice level playing field in the procurement rules. Procurement is one of the most powerful methods of stimulating research and development. Do you know that our $150 million or less industry is where one would expect to have research taking place, yet they are wounded by this agreement. Do you know that the Americans have protected their small business by a set-aside rule? There is a whole gob of contracts that the American Government puts out that will not be accessible to our industry because it is closed off to favour their industry. We will not even talk about the minority set-asides. So procurement is unlikely to be the weapon it ought to be in stimulating research and development in Canada. The importance of this aspect of this deal is such that I am tempted to ask you for extra time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: However, I know the Government would not tolerate that because of course it does not want to penetrate the cloud of ignorance which has propelled speeches from Members opposite so far.
Let me say in closing that I know you enjoyed this, Mr. Speaker. I wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and I look forward to seeing you again next year.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the privilege of addressing this House. As this is the first time I have spoken in the House of Commons I must first thank the voters of my riding who elected me to continue the tradition of strong federal representation for Cambridge. As many in this Chamber
December 23, 1988

know, Chris Speyer served this riding and this country as a skilled legislator. I am honoured to be the beneficiary of the contribution he made to my riding. He has established an excellent standard for me to duplicate.
The riding of Cambridge encompasses a number of communities: the City of Cambridge, comprised of the former Cities of Galt, Preston and Hespeler; the Township of North Dumphries and the addition, as a result of redistribution, of the south ward of the City of Kitchener. The riding is a combination of urban and rural, and a reflection of the nation as a whole.
This riding has benefited for the last four years because of the economically sensible policies of this Government. The voters of this area remember five years ago under the previous Liberal Government when the unemployment rate was in the 17 per cent range. Over the four years of Conservative Government the unemployment rate in the riding fell to 2.9 per cent or, to put it another way, 97.1 per cent of the working population was employed.
The workers of this region recall that, at the start of the first mandate of the Conservative Government, it established a long-term plan and agenda for economic renewal, and it is clear from the confidence expressed by Canadians that that plan is working. I am proud to represent a Government which created the economic environment that delivered jobs for the riding.
With this record of accomplishment in this riding, a riding which was experiencing one of the fastest growth rates in Canada, why would the voters elect a supporter of the Free Trade Agreement? If there was any riding that wanted to maintain the status quo, it should have been the Cambridge riding.
However, the voters listened during the three years of this debate and on November 21, when they were asked to decide, they decided on me and a second majority mandate for this Government.
Let me review for the House a few facts that convinced the voters of my riding to get on with the job of building a stronger Canada. The Macdonald Commission informed the Canadian people that we do not have unrestricted access to a market of 100 million people as do members of the European Economic Community, Japan, and the U.S. As well, the U.S. has a wide range of non-tariff barriers and regulatory procedures which prevent Canadian firms from having secure access to the U.S.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
We have witnessed the growth of U.S. protectionism with over 800 protectionist measures on the books that would have had a negative impact on plants, which means a loss of jobs. However, the workers of this riding knew that even if the riding of Cambridge was doing well, tearing up the Free Trade Agreement would not continue this golden status quo.
The strongest U.S. opponents of free trade are the United Auto Workers and the politicians from the auto producing States who want a much more aggressive negotiation on the Auto Pact to Canada's disadvantage. If we tear up the Free Trade Agreement we expose the Auto Pact by itself to a fresh and dangerous challenge. The Auto Pact has enriched and strengthened my riding and the citizens want to continue to build on free trade, not only in Waterloo region but in the rest of this nation.
Hon. Members opposite are also aware that any arrangement entered into with the U.S. must be compatible with GATT and acceptable to our trading partners. The only arrangement acceptable is a free trade area under Article 24. The Opposition has suggested it would attempt to negotiate a series of trade agreement with the Americans which are limited in scope to specific industrial sectors, the so-called sectoral approach. However, this approach was tried by the Liberals earlier in this decade and it did not work.
Members of the Opposition say that the Free Trade Agreement is no big deal as only 20 per cent of our exports still face U.S. tariffs. The critical point is that those remaining tariffs are primarily on manufactured and processed goods. The tariff structure makes it cheap to export raw materials and expensive to export finished or processed products made from those raw materials. Eliminating remaining tariffs gets rid of this disincentive to do more with our resources in Canada. As the President of the Canadian Federation of Labour said, or put it simply: "More pre-export processing means more jobs".
Members of the Opposition have made claims that companies will locate down to the southern States where there are no minimum wages laws. If that were the case, then why would the automobile industry invest so heavily in Ontario in the last few years? Why would Honda locate in Alliston? Why did Toyota pick Cambridge? Why did GM-Suzuki pick Ingersoll?
The answer is, first, that the Canadian labour force is well educated and capable of operating the sophisticated equipment of modern industry. Second, in the Province

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
of Ontario and in the communities of Alliston, in Waterloo Region and Oxford County, there exists a tremendous work ethic. When education is combined with work ethic one gets greater productivity. We recognize it. The workers recognize it. More important, industry recognizes it, too.
The companies are willing to pay higher wages here because of the greater productivity of Canadian workers, and that makes it a good investment for these companies. Canadian workers should be congratulated for the well-earned reputation they have achieved in the international community.
I suggest that where wages are low productivity is low. I suggest that where wages are low quality is low. In other words, one gets what one pays for.
I want to say a few words about Canada's aerospace industry that stands as a concrete example that free trade can and does benefit Canadian companies and Canadian workers. The aerospace industry is one of the only Canadian industrial sectors to have firsthand experience with and to operate a multinational free trade agreement.
The Civil Aircraft Agreement is a multinational trade agreement signed by the participating countries of the GATT which came into effect January 1, 1980, and virtually eliminated all tariff duties on commercial aviation products, including aircraft components and parts.
What have been the results between 1980 and 1987? The aerospace industry has greatly benefited under this agreement, allowing the Canadian aerospace industry to add more than 14,000 new jobs-a 30 per cent increase since 1980. In comparison, the remainder of the Canadian economy added new jobs in those seven years at the rate of 11.5 per cent.
The Canadian aerospace industry is proof that international agreements, whose purpose is to encourage export trade, can and do work. Canadian companies and their employees can and do win.
I would now like to be more specific as I review a few companies in the riding of Cambridge.
Com-Dev Limited is part of that aerospace industry that exports most of its products to the United States. The company predicts the current work force of 260, composed of young men and women from our universities and community colleges, will double over the next five years.
Com-Dev Limited is a Canadian company that sells a high tech product to the United States, Europe and Japan. This Cambridge industry is a study of excellence that is another example proving Canada can compete with the best in the world.
The textile industry also has a presence in Cambridge. Let us look at Tiger Brand, a successful Canadian company. Tiger Brand is an example of the kind of restructured and modernized garment plant that will succeed under free trade. As the president of that firm indicated:
The Free Trade Agreement is just a simple transaction between
two countries. It will help this company to employ more people by
expanding our share of the U.S. market. The fact is that there is not
a single 'modern' sewing machine collecting dust in Canada.
This company does not make the $1.50 T-shirts. It wants no part of that market. Let the developing countries manufacture that product.
Tiger Brand markets a high quality, colourful, fashion-oriented sportswear that is aggressively sold in the competitive North American market-place. This is a progressive company, willing to move with the times. Yet, at the same time, it has established a child care centre to assist the employees working there.
Another firm, Allen-Bradley, a major player in the industrial electrical field, supports the Free Trade Agreement because it will protect and expand its access to the large U.S. market. In fact, the president of the firm has indicated that: "When duties are removed from our medium-voltage products, we will be in an even better position to compete in the United States. By increasing our exports, we will be creating many more jobs for our area. Our Canadian employees can compete with American employees in any state, now and in the future."
Allen-Bradley is also committed to the long-term development of business in Canada with its employees. During the past two years it has spent $14 million to improve its facilities and equipment. In 1989, it plans to spend at least $7.4 million on new capital projects.
I might add that Allen-Bradley's record of community involvement is a model of good corporate citizenship.
Canadian General-Tower Limited is a medium-sized vinyl manufacturing Canadian company located in Cambridge, Oakville and Etobicoke that ships 50 per cent of everything it makes to the United States. According to its Chairman, the prospects of free trade have enabled the firm to increase its factory capacities
December 23, 1988

substantially and that means prosperity for the community, not only in taxes paid but, more important, in the jobs that will be sustained and created.
He continues:
The Canadian market is simply not big enough. Worse, without free trade, U.S. protectionist policies will limit and erode Canada's export potential. An alternative for our firm may be to service the American market from plants located in the U.S. And that loss would invariably be deeply felt by those local retailers who currently serve our 1,000 employees.
As these examples illustrate, the Free Trade Agreement will continue to bring more and better jobs to the residents of Kitchener and Cambridge.
In June of this year Prime Minister Thatcher spoke to Parliament. I want to remind Hon. Members of some of her comments. She said:
Britain has learned that it is not Government which creates wealth, but people, provided Government has policies which encourage them to do so.
We have also got away from the debilitating concept of the all powerful State, which takes too much from you to do too much for you, constantly substituting the politician's view of what the people should have, for the people's own view of what they want.
Later in the same address she said:
Protectionism is not the lifebelt which keeps an economy afloat. It is a millstone that drags you down and penalizes consumer and workforce alike. Subsidize the inefficient and soon that is all you have; you lose the competitive edge to export abroad and keep prices down at home.
In my riding of Cambridge local industries and companies have continually emphasized the need for improved productivity, with dedicated and innovative people, the superior application of technology and the new opportunities offered by the Free Trade Agreement. I am confident that the future of the riding of Cambridge is strength and growth, within a truly independent Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand to speak for the first time in this House on behalf of my constituents of Scarborough-Agincourt. I want to thank them for giving me the opportunity to come here.
Last weekend when I was in my constituency the people I met were continually asking about the free trade deal. One business man I know, a man who is a well known Conservative supporter, wanted to know what the fuss was all about, why didn't we Liberals just let the Bill pass and get it over with.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
I am sure that many of my colleagues across the floor are wondering the same. I asked the man: "Would you sell or buy a house of any kind, or any kind of property without first studying the terms of the contract and discussing it with your family? Would you venture into a major business deal with another company without first making sure that all the cards were on the table and that credit was good at the bank and that all your business partners knew what was going on? That is what we are doing." There was no argument.
I explained that as an informed businessman he may have a good idea of how the present free trade pact might affect his business. What about those Canadians who have very little or no working understanding of international trade and business? Do they have any less right to know or feel assured? What about the small local storeowners or textile factory workers who work long hours just to make ends meet, who cannot afford to pay a mortgage and may never own their own homes? What has the Government said to them, either to inform or assure them that they will benefit from free trade, other than there would be some fall-out from the gains made by multinational corporations which will be the real beneficiaries of the deal?
Again there was no argument because this gentleman knew, as we all know, that the Conservatives nearly lost the election because they arrogantly and mistakenly thought that the less the public knew about free trade the better. They wanted to believe that it was a non issue.
Before the beginning of the election campaign, I believe that 99 per cent of Canadians knew nothing about the GATT negotiations, much less their connection with free trade.
I told this man that the track record of the Government is that it has never said once, from beginning to end, what its real intentions in proposing this Bill have been. It has never come clean with the public or the House, to spell out in simple terms who will really benefit and who will really lose once the trade Bill becomes law.
Many are bewildered that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) now hails this deal as Canada's salvation when, prior to 1984, he insisted that he did not even want to hear mention of a free trade pact since it meant the loss of Canadian sovereignty.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Why does a loss of Canadian sovereignty no longer concern the Government? Did the Prime Minister have to go along with free trade to obtain a membership in the exclusive trading club known as G-7? Perhaps the Prime Minister was told in no uncertain times that the Auto Pact would be cancelled and a new arrangement renegotiated under GATT unless he played ball with the U.S.
What will be the impact on national markets all over the world when one of the world's richest resource nations, Canada, becomes intimately linked with the world's largest debtor nation? It is absolutely incredible. It is outrageous. Where and when has the Government, either in the House, on the campaign trail, or in any of its publications ever addressed these issues or attempted to satisfy these kinds of questions with a reasonable response?
It falls upon us, because of the unwillingness of the Government to provide the public with any sort of useful information, to make sure that all the questions are raised and every answer checked so that every opposition Member is satisfied that a reasonable accounting can be given on the issue of free trade to the people of their own constituencies who are now purposely being kept ignorant by the Government.
We have the right to ask and a right to know, but most of all we have a responsibility to the Canadian public to inform them fully of every possible consequence to their future which will result from this Bill.
Our Party has said that we would not impede the passage of a free trade Bill and we will of course hold true to our word. However, the election of the Government was hardly an overwhelming endorsement of free trade.
A better measure of the Canadian feeling on this issue was taken by pollsters immediately following the national debate among the three Party Leaders. At that time, the big corporations spent millions of dollars in advertising, buying the election for the Government.
Why was this done? Were the millions spent because free trade would benefit the average Canadian? Even the most naive would not believe that big business suddenly developed this touching concern for the little guy.
Why did most of the big business community so strongly support the Free Trade Agreement? In the past few years we have seen a number of Canadian corporations transferring their operations to the United States,
or buying on a large scale existing U.S. business enterprises. None did so because they would have access to a larger market, they did it because there are fewer effective government interventionist policies in the United States, that bastion of free enterprise where what is good for General Motors is good for the U.S.A., as a former U.S. Cabinet Secretary put it.
Yet these corporations, which one former Party Leader called corporate welfare bums, are usually in the front line at the trough petitioning the Government for special favours and hand-outs.
The concern of my constituents is over what protection the Government will afford its citizens when corporations in Canada insist they cannot compete with U.S. firms as long as they are forced to contribute to the social programs which constitute the safety net that provides a decent minimum standard of living for so many of our citizens.
Are our social services, pensions, tax system, health insurance and other programs to be changed more like those in the United States where the gap between the rich and the poor is steadily growing? For example, in Canada, over 80 per cent of unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance benefits of 60 per cent of their weekly wage for up to one year. In the United States, only one-quarter of the unemployed receive unemployment insurance benefits, getting less than 40 per cent of their weekly wage for only six months.
In Canada we have universal medicare. In the United States, 36 million people, one-third of them children, have no form of medical insurance.
Welfare assistance is readily available for all Canadians but only one-third of poor American families receive any public assistance. It is no wonder there is such a high crime rate in the United States.
Yet the Americans claim that our social programs are unfair subsidies and want compensation for profits lost to American companies if and when Canadians create new social programs like dental care or public automobile insurance.
That is blackmail, extortion and robbery.
My Scarborough-Agincourt constituents have other concerns. They want progressively higher standards in the areas of environment protection, occupational health and safety, consumer protection and minimum wages.
With respect to minimum wages, several of the states have no minimum at all and most others have pegged
December 23, 1988

minimum wages well below Canadian levels. Surely if free trade is going to make Canada a wealthier nation we should be able to afford higher standards.
Surely no one is going to be so bold as to suggest that in order to keep in world markets we must poison our environment, maim and injure our workers and consumers, and pay poverty wages to our workers.
These are legitimate concerns not only of my constituents but of most Canadians.
When Canadians were concerned that our precious water resources were being jeopardized by the Free Trade Agreement, the Government reluctantly reacted by amending the agreement. Surely since the concerns I have raised on behalf of Canadians are serious and the Government claims the agreement will not have these impacts, then the Government should be prepared to accept amendments which will reassure Canadians that their concerns and reservations on this Free Trade Agreement have been addressed.
Any attempt by the Government to limit legitimate debate and proposal of amendments will be a betrayal of the trust of citizens who have been lured into voting for the Government by the massive big business propaganda barrage.


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


Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, as a proud representative of the residents of my riding in this Chamber, and having the priviledge of speaking on their behalf, I rise today to participate in this third reading debate on the Bill implementing the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. Mr. Speaker, I must take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the voters of my riding of Saint-Hubert who elected me on November 21. They can rest assured that 1 will always be listening to them, as I did during the 51 days the election campaign lasted.
Mr. Speaker, I have no pretension of bringing to this Chamber a completely new point of view on the Free Trade Agreement.
This is partly because, as one of my colleagues indicated earlier, an extremely impressive number of hours have already been devoted to this proposal during the thirty-third Parliament and since the opening of this session, thus allowing many of us to express their wise opinions. However, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition Parties have repeatedly mentioned the fact that the numerous newly-elected Members of the House had not participated in the previous debates. First of all, Mr. Speaker, Opposition Members seem to have forgotten that thanks
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
to them, and because of their lies and the fearmongering that went on, the last election was centered on free trade.
As the new Member for Saint-Hubert, 1 wish to state very clearly that the residents of my riding support the Free Trade Agreement.
On November 21, they clearly indicated their consent, giving me a 10,400 vote majority.
Last week-end, 1 went to a few Christmas parties in my constituency, and the people were both surprised and amazed that the Opposition would try in the House to delay the passing of the free trade Bill. I could see amazement, Mr. Speaker, as they asked questions, and voiced their obvious dissatisfaction with the Opposition who does not want to admit that, on November 21, the people decided, and as one of my colleagues would say, vox populi, vox Dei.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly describe the industrial structure of my constituency of Saint-Hubert. We have mainly small, but excessively dynamic businesses which have earned for themselves a good share of the market. Some of them are already exporting to the United States and other countries.
There is a variety of manufacturing industries in my constituency, making a wide range of products, including plastic mouldings, coffee-makers, lab equipment, steel wire, stairs and ramps, condensers and evaporators, kitchen furniture, clothing, and steel and aluminum containers.
In Saint-Hubert, we also have a Pratt & Whitney plant, building engines for airplanes and helicopters. You can also find in my riding the best aeronautics school in Canada, which offers courses in manufacturing, maintenance and aviation, and creates, with the Saint-Hubert airport, a unique infrastructure ensuring our economic development in years to come.
The Free Trade Agreement can only contribute to the expansion of this industrial complex which well deserves it. Mr. Speaker, the concept of free trade between Canada and the United States is not new. As a matter of fact, it has existed since before Confederation, having been founded in 1854. Since then, many successive attempts have been made to secure comprehensive agreements, including one in 1911 proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It is only after the Depression in 1935, that Canada and the United States would go about signing a whole series of treaties favouring free trade that would evolve in the course of the following 50 years.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The average custom tariffs decreased between 1930 and today from 38.5 per cent to more or less 5.5 per cent. This liberalization of trade occurred under the GATT and mainly under the Auto Pact.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Opposition, those especially of the socialist persuasion, do not like us to mention the fact that a free trade agreement already exists in the car manufacturing industry. Who would dare rise in the House and claim that Canada could have done a lot better after 1965 without the Auto Pact?
Since World War II, Canada and the United States have worked together to encourage the greatest expansion of world trade in history, and the Free Trade Agreement represents the logical conclusion of this long process.
In 1982, faced with the slowness of GATT and a succession of protectionist measures passed and the United States Congress, the Liberal Government of the time created, at a cost of $23 million, the Macdonald Royal Commission to analyze our country's economic perspectives.
Having spent $23 million and three years studying the matter and consultating, the Commission recommended, in August 1985, that Canada seek a bilateral trade agreement with the United States.
Liberal Senator van Roggen, who used to chair the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and who had recommended the signing of a Canada-United States trade agreement in 1978 and in 1982, resigned to protest the attitude of the Liberal majority in the Senate at the end of the 33rd Parliament. During the recent economic summit which was held in Toronto, our main trade partners demonstrated their support for the Free Trade Agreement and remarked that it could be used as a model for the changes to be made to the GATT.
Mr. Speaker, these concrete facts did not escape the attention of the Canadian people on November 21. The Opposition's attitude goes against reality. To my mind, they are reacting out of frustration at their electoral defeat.
The Free Trade Agreement, although much publicized, is an integral part of the legislative program put forward by the Government since it took power in 1984. It is part and parcel of a series of crucial measures aimed at economic renewal and national reconciliation along with the Meech Lake Agreement, the tax reform,
the national child care policy, the Quebec regional development plan, competition legislation and privatization.
Mr. Speaker, this country is undergoing a process of change, of adjustment, of preparation for the twenty-first century. And I am honoured to take part in the debates in this House, in the parliamentary process leading to the implementation of the Free Trade Agreement.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy is based on our capacity to export. I now wish to enumerate certain indisputable facts in order to enlighten the Opposition and perhaps alter its attitude which can only be one of stubborness, of frustration, of lack of respect for the Canadian people. How could it be otherwise when they refuse to accept the following facts:
1.	Thirty per cent of Canada's Gross National Product is made up of exports;
2.	Canada is the only major country which does not have a market of 100 million consumers;
3.	Seventy-eight per cent of Canadian exports are destined for the United-States;
4.	Canada ranks second among the world's industrialized countries with 26 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product being composed of exports, in comparison with 28 per cent in the case of West Germany, which was the greatest exporting country in the world in 1987.
The world economy is increasingly interdependent and in the Canadian economy growth is linked to the constraints of changing international markets and even more so to interdependence with the American market, since no other two countries in the world have closer economic ties.
These are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and they should convince the liberals and socialists across the way.
The FTA will have the following beneficial effects: In the energy sector, opening up to the American market will encourage the search for new energy reserves and will ensure greater energy production in the medium term, thus making Canada less dependent on world reserves.
Increased direct investment in the United States by Canadian companies in recent years will be rechanneled to Canada, given its access to the American market and proximity to energy sources. Trade liberalization will
December 23, 1988

force firms to upgrade equipment and improve productivity and this will bring about increased exports to other countries.
Mr. Speaker, we never hear the Opposition mention the benefits which the Free Trade Agreement holds in store for consumers. The truth is that the cost of tariffs is borne by the consumer, just as the cost of any other indirect tax. With the elimination of tariffs and with increased market access, the Canadian consumer will be paying less for a wider variety of products.
During the election campaign, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has rallied around the threat of curtailment or loss of social services in Canada. It will be noted that having practically flogged to death the issue, they have considerably toned down their attempts to intimidate the Canadian public this week and last in the House, and the reason is, Mr. Speaker, that the Free Trade Agreement will in fact ensure enhanced social services for Canadians in the future. In the past, like in the period after the war, collective enrichment was translated into a more equitable distribution of wealth in social services, unemployment insurance, health insurance and car insurance.
Before redistributing wealth, we must create it. And the best way to be able to afford our social services is not to increase personal income tax as advocated in the electoral platform of the Socialist Opposition.
The search for incentives to stimulate the economy, such as access to the American market, will generate additional resources to pay for our social programs, even with our rapidly aging population.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, our great nation on the eve of the twenty-first century can only benefit from the Free Trade Agreement.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the people of Ottawa West have entrusted me with an important mission, to speak out on their behalf, to bring their views to this Parliament, and to the governing of this society. It is a trust I do not want to betray no matter how late the hour or how enticing the prospect of a Christmas holiday. It is a trust I do not limit just to those who voted for me but to those who voted for someone else. It is a trust I hold on behalf of all my constituents, and it is a trust we all bring to this House.
We talk about participatory democracy and consulting the people. This election has had to be the granddad-dy of all consultations.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation]
I suppose that all my colleagues here spent 50 days and more, as I did, going door to door and personally meeting millions of people in their ridings.

Perhaps never before did a Parliament have such an opportunity to debate a major issue of public policy in full awareness of the views, the aspirations, and the hopes of all Canadians. It is a chance I think we have blown.

In our democratic system, the big question is to what extent we will be able to incorporate in the Free Trade Act everything we learned and heard so that the Agreement can be more acceptable to a greater number of Canadians.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked about reconciliation. He talked about healing the nation. We had the opportunity here in the last 11 days to draw on every shred of wisdom everyone of us in this House has gained to make the best possible deal we could, and we did not do it. We had the opportunity to implement those values that unite us as Canadians, not those that divide us.
The Government has chosen not to take that path of reconciliation but to block by every means at its disposal amendments that would have satisfied and eased the concerns of millions of Canadians. The Government has chosen instead to stifle the expression of those views by limiting debate through every procedural means at its disposal, to cut off the 120 new Members who were elected to this House and who have never had the chance to speak on behalf of their constituents before.
It is not enough for a Government to say "we won the majority of seats" or for others to say "we won the majority of the popular vote".
There was, as I heard it, no impenetrable wall that separated those that voted for the Government on this issue and those that voted against. On either side of the argument there were deep concerns about this deal and what it means for the future of our country. Those who voted for the Government, and presumably for the trade deal, and those who voted against it, with few exceptions, both want to see our network of social programs maintained.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
They want the Canadian Government to retain the power to implement new programs in the future to meet new and emerging social needs. They want to know that we will continue to pursue the Canadian dream that one should be able to live in any of the diverse geographic regions of this country and not be disadvantaged by it. It is a goal that we are far from achieving, that goal of regional equality. It is one we continue to strive for. We want to be able to continue to use the wealth of the more prosperous parts of our country to invest in wealth and prosperity for the rest of our country. We do not want that investment to be considered a trade subsidy subject to retaliation.
The environment is important to all Canadians however they voted on November 21. We live with vast open spaces with lakes, forests, rivers and oceans. We want to know that we can legislate high standards of environmental protection. We may even want to compensate businesses for the extra costs of meeting those standards and still keep them competitive. We should be able to do this without being punished by our trading partners for what they may consider unfair subsidies.
We believe as Canadians in a dramatically changing economic climate, with or without this trade deal. Workers who are displaced by forces beyond their control should have access to retraining and to new job opportunities. They should have the support of their society in adjusting. We know that with this trade deal there will be winners and losers. What does that mean? It means there will be some jobs gained and a lot of jobs lost. Much personal hurt goes along with that. I have some suspicion that most of the big winners, those less than 30,000 jobs a year, less than . 1 per cent of our total employment changes in the year, will be created for those who are able to interpret it and carry this trade deal into court, not for ordinary Canadians.
Who are the victims? We know who the victims are. Every study that has been done has told us who the victims will be. They are women, under educated, visible minorities, and the disabled. Those will be the real victims.
During the election the Minister of Multiculturalism and I were on a panel before the National Association of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women. We heard of about 600 women in Toronto who have lost their jobs. The Minister told those women: "It is because we want to give you better jobs. We do not think that minimum wage jobs are good enough for you". Tell that to those
women now when they are attempting to buy a turkey for their family at Christmas.
Did the Minister return from that panel and find out what is happening to those women? Did he talk to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and say: "What can we do for those women?" The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mrs. McDougall) has told us time and again this week that the Government is taking no pro-active role in helping displaced and dislocated workers. It is sitting back and waiting to see, standing by.
A good adjustment program plans for change and anticipates change. It involves the employers and the businesses in predicting change so that the Government can help people to adjust to that change. Why wait until they are out of work to provide the training that they need? That is the whole new approach needed.
These values are common values held by a vast majority of Canadians. They cross Party differences, and they cross regional differences. They are the values that the Prime Minister assured Canadians were not affected by the trade deal. The Canadian people took the Prime Minister at his word.
My Party lives by those values. That is why we prepared amendments to be introduced in the House, to attempt to reconcile the views of those who voted for the deal and of those who voted against the deal, to ensure that those fundamental freedoms of a sovereign nation are not at risk. We have been prevented from putting those amendments. Why has the Government refused to put on paper the promises that it made to the people of Canada during an election campaign? There is only one answer.
The Canadian public knows that over the years Liberal Governments have taken every opportunity to expand trading links throughout the world. This remains the case today with our Party. We want to look beyond our borders, to look at bold and imaginative plans to open up huge new markets in Mexico, Central and South America, and in every corner of the globe. We should be able to do this without jeopardizing the various development and social programs which enrich life for Canadians.
During the election the Prime Minister assured Canadians that social programs were not at risk. If that is the case, why did the Government refuse even to allow an amendment to put those assurances in writing? What is so dangerous about an amendment that would have stated that nothing in the agreement shall be interpreted
December 23, 1988

to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs? Is that not precisely what the Prime Minister stated the deal was all about and that those things were not threatened?

If the Agreement does not call into question our sovereign right to create new social programs to respond to the needs of our growing number of senior citizens, for example, or to set up a universal day care program, if that is our decision, nothing prevents us from saying so clearly in the Agreement.

The Prime Minister assured Canadians that our ability to legislate and implement environmental protection is not threatened by this deal. If indeed that is the agreement with the Americans, amendments to make it absolutely explicit should be no problem. However, the Government refused to allow us to introduce the "dangerous" amendment that nothing in the agreement applies to existing or future programs and policies to protect the environment, reduce pollution, or conserve the land, resources, and water of Canada. Now, is that not a dangerous amendment? We could not bear to have it see the light of day in the House it is so dangerous to the trade agreement.
The Prime Minister assured Canadians that regional development programs were not in jeopardy in the negotiations to come. Yet we find in the agreement that only two specific regional development programs are exempted from being considered unfair subsidies and therefore countervailable.
We are concerned about all the regional development programs. That is why we put forward a amendment that stated that nothing in this agreement would prevent the authority of Canada in any of the following areas, and I will mention only one, economic development of all regions of Canada on an equitable basis. What is the problem with that amendment, if that indeed is what the agreement allows?
The Prime Minister assured Canadians that there will be ample adjustment and retraining programs to cushion the negative effects of employment dislocation. Yet, the Government refused and prevented amendments coming to the floor of the House that would have ensured that no interpretation in the future would minimize that power of the Government.
There were other amendments to clarify the protection of our water resources and our control of water.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
There were amendments to allow monitoring in order that we could put in place those adjustment programs. There were amendments specifying the sovereignty of Canada. In all those areas they were amendments not to change the agreement, but simply to put in writing what the Prime Minister said.
I shall vote against this Bill because I believe it to be fundamentally flawed on three major points. First, it does not secure free trade, it does not secure assured access to the American market, it does not secure exemptions from protectionist American trade laws, and it does not secure a binding dispute settlement mechanism. Second, there is no conclusion in this agreement on what is a subsidy. Future considerations may be an all right term in hockey contracts. It is not an all right term when the stakes are your country. Third, this is not a free trade deal when it gives away the strongest bargaining tools we have to go into those five to seven years of negotiation. What else do we have to trade with? What else do we have to negotiate? We have given up control of access and pricing of our energy, investment in Canada, and control of our financial institutions.
As I read this deal and talked about it through the campaign, I kept thinking about Kenny Rogers. I wished that he had been standing at Simon Reisman's elbow or at the Prime Minister's elbow as he signed this agreement. He said: "You got to know when to hold, and you got to know when to fold up, know when to walk away, and know when to stay". Mr. Reisman knew when to walk away, and the Prime Minister sent him back to sell a little bit more of the country.
I believe that the sell-out of investment is particularly damaging, and it puts small businesses in this country on the auction block, and not necessarily to the highest bidder. I believe that investing in Canada with its rich resources and vast potential is a privilege, a privilege that should bring with it economic opportunities, not ownership of Canadians.
The riding I represent is touched by all these issues. It is diverse and represents the full richness of urban living in Canada. I represent very wealthy Canadians, middle-income Canadians, low-income working families struggling to make ends meet, and thousands who live below the poverty line. Many are single parents raising their children on public assistance. I know the inadequacy of the present social and training programs to meet the needs of these families to raise their children and to live with dignity and hope for the future.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement [Translation]
My riding has more senior citizens than perhaps any other in the country. During this election, I did not try to frighten them, but I was there to hear them tell of their fears about their pensions and health care and future housing and home care programs.
My constituents include many public service employees, people dedicated to the competent, impartial and professional delivery-in many cases right across Canada-of the programs mandated by the Parliament of Canada. My constituency includes representatives of the many and rich cultures that make up Canada.
We have in Ottawa West some of the densest urban development in North America-but we also live with the historic Ottawa River along our northern border, with beautiful parks and woods, and the world famous Experimental Farm.
We are reminded daily of the importance of protecting our environment.
My riding has a diverse and healthy business community, ranging from the very small entrepreneur to those employing hundreds of workers. In Ottawa West, appropriate to the season, we produce everything from hand-carved shepherd's crooks to sophisticated equipment for space research.
I cannot speak for the farmers, or the fishermen, or the miners, or the foresters of this country; but I can, and will, listen to their representatives when they speak, and I had hoped that the Prime Minister and the members of this Government would have done the same.
We have not been through a high stakes poker game, Madam Speaker, or a corporate takeover, or an exercise in pure market forces competition where it's "winner take all and damn the consequences for the loser"; we have been through a democratic process, a process involving not only who gets elected but what the people out there have to say and how we can best bring that wisdom into our decision making in this Chamber. And it doesn't start at 57 per cent or 43 per cent; it starts with the desire to listen to all of the citizens of this country and synthesize what they have said and reflect it in the laws that we pass.
The Prime Minister, during the campaign, gave the people of Canada verbal assurances, and he now refuses to put those assurances in writing, and he does so
because he knows that Head Office in Washington will not back up his guarantee.
I had hoped that we were not coming here simply to watch the Government ram through its legislation while ignoring the legitimate and accommodatable concerns of the many who do not support it. They may have the power; but that does not give them the right to do it.
The people have decided, yes; but the people also spoke. They spoke to all of us, whether they voted for those on that side of the House or those on this side of the House. They spoke to us about their love for a country that is different, a country that is more just, more compassionate, and more tolerant. And they do not want to lose that, regardless of how they cast their votes.
We in this House have failed in the last 11 days to accommodate those deeply held concerns. We have missed a rare and golden moment in history, a moment we could have seized coming so soon after the campaign itself.
We still would not have a deal that I or my Party think is good for the country, but we would have had a better deal, and I am sorry that we have missed that opportunity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the Chamber and say a few words on the Free Trade Agreement. I think it appropriate, on the occasion of this my first speech in this Parliament, to thank the people of Niagara Falls for choosing me as their representative for a second term.
Of all of the riding names represented in this Parliament, I should not think that there is one that is more famous than that of Niagara Falls.
I had occasion to visit Russia with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and during that visit an official from Feningrad, on hearing that I was from Niagara Falls, said to me, through a translator- and for once nothing was lost in the translation-that while Niagara Falls is in the middle of the continent, it is heard all over the world.
I am very proud to represent the riding of Niagara Falls, a riding which has in it the city of Niagara Falls, the city in which I was born. In addition, it has the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.
Niagara-on-the-Fake boasts the only Ford Mayor in Canada. It was the first capital of Upper Canada-and
December 23, 1988

there are those who say that the capital of this country should have been Niagara-on-the-Lake. I say that with all respect to the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce.
I want to thank the 17,000 voters who returned me to Parliament. As well I thank-


An Hon. Member:: That is a mandate.


Rob Nicholson: That is a mandate, yes. 1 thank the grape growers who sent me back to Parliament; I thank the peach growers; I thank the sour cherry producers. I thank all of those in the agricultural community who sent me back with an overwhelming majority. In fact, I extend my thanks to the agricultural community on behalf of all of the Progressive Conservative Members from that area.
I see the Minister of State for Transport (Mrs. Martin) in the Chamber. She, too, benefited from the votes of all of those agricultural producers, individuals who once again stuck by the Party that has been so good to the agricultural community in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, Niagara Falls is a riding that has approximately twice as many senior citizens as is the Canadian average, and I thank those senior citizens for choosing to send me to the House of Commons. They did not listen to those who were telling them that they were going to lose their pensions and that medicare was going to be wiped out. I thank them for not believing those kinds of comments and for casting their votes in my favour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Nicholson: I also want to thank the working men and women of Niagara Falls, the members of unions, those individuals I saw at the plant gate and who whispered to me as they were going by that they were not listening to the union management and that they would vote Progressive Conservative.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Nicholson: To the members of the New Democratic Party, who purportedly represent Main Street, I can tell them that they lost the Main Street poll in Niagara Falls as well. If you want to see the people who are representing Main Street right across Canada, they happen to be on this side of the House, and I am proud to sit with them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, the people have spoken. The Progressive Conservative Party won overwhelmingly.
From the night of the election on, there have been all kinds of articles and quotes by members of the Liberal Party as to how well they had done; that they had gone from 38 seats to something like 82 seats.
All I can say to them is that if they are happy about the way they did in the election, then we are happy for them as well.


An Hon. Member:: It sounds like an NDP win: a moral victory. A moral victory in an immoral campaign.


Rob Nicholson: A moral victory, yes. I say to the people of Canada, if you want to see a moral victory, check out the win of the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mrs. Martin). She had a moral victory on election night and she should be very proud of that.
Madam Speaker, we all know what a difficult election this was. Everyone who participated knows that those who oppose the Progressive Conservative Party and who oppose the Free Trade Agreement used every tactic at their disposal in an effort to defeat us. But it didn't work-and I think that reflects very well on Canadian democracy. When all was said and done, The Toronto Star didn't get to pick the next Government of Canada. The people of Canada got to decide that.
For those who like to analyse these things, let me try to describe where I think the Opposition went wrong. I am quite sure they are not going to take advice from a Progressive Conservative but I am going to give it to them anyway because it is the truth.
I admit there was a point in the election where they had many people scared. Why they lost it was, that on each successive day of the campaign they said something more and more outrageous. That played into my hands and the hands of every other Conservative candidate. As they did that, after a while people said: "That is impossible, we do not believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) or the scare tactics of the NDP". In the last two weeks the support built up over the campaign by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) returned to where it belonged, the Progressive Conservative Party. When the Opposition have their policy conferences they should think about that. They could not scare people enough to have them reject a deal which is very good for them.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
The approach was always the same. They came up with a new scare tactic saying: "Say this is not in the agreement. Show us where in the agreement it says this is so". I remember in the last week of the campaign there was an article in a very famous Canadian daily newspaper which said: "Tenancies are threatened. Nowhere in the Free Trade Agreement are tenancies protected, therefore the Free Trade Agreement must threaten them". That was the logic but that is obviously not the case. We could say there is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement that says Christmas comes on December 25, therefore that must be threatened as well. I suppose you could say there is nothing in the FTA that says the Liberal Party will ever win another federal election, therefore they must be in a position to lose the election.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Probably true.


Rob Nicholson: The Hon. Member has been in politics longer than I, so I bow to his opinion on that.
Then after digging up these scare tactics they would say every time that we should go to Washington and get assurances that our social programs and so on would not be touched. I would be ashamed to be part of a Party and Government that went to Washington or anywhere else to have our social programs guaranteed. That is not necessary for a sovereign country like Canada.
The election brought out fundamental differences between our view of the country and the view of the Opposition. Just prior to the election the former Member from St. Catharines, Joe Reid, a man who served his country ably in war and peace in his years in this House, invited me take part in a debate in St. Catharines. The subject was the Free Trade Agreement. A union leader from the area was a speaker. We were talking about the Auto Pact and he made the point that the reason the big three automobile producers were locating companies in Windsor is because of the threat of tariffs under the Auto Pact.
There is a minimum production requirement in Canada in the Auto Pact. What you probably have not heard in this debate is that the production of automobiles in Canada far exceeds the minimum requirement. As a matter of fact, nearly 30 per cent of all automobile production in North America now takes place in Canada. However, it was the belief of the NDP, in this case through the union leader, that tariffs were forcing that production in Canada. That is absolutely wrong. That would be a terrible reason to start locating plants. Plants should be located where they make sense.
The practice of the NDP is to underestimate fundamentally the kinds of products we can produce and our competitiveness. I said then and I will say again that the reason plants locate in Canada, and I am speaking about the area of the country I know best, the Niagara Peninsula, they locate there because it makes sense, because we have reasonably priced power, we are well situated in the North American market, we have a skilled workforce, and we build a tremendous product. Yet you do not hear that in the debate from the other side. All they want to do is tell you how in some American states the minimum wage is $4; then it went down to $3 and $2. I guess they are working for free somewhere in the U.S. now.
That kind of thing ignores the facts. I will tell you the facts because I know you have not heard them too often with respect to automobile and parts production. It is less expensive to build automobiles in Canada than to build them in the Great Lakes states. It is considerably cheaper to build them in Canada than it is to build them in the southern U.S. You have not heard that tonight. They continue to underestimate our ability to compete. We are asked by the Liberals to believe that we cannot compete with a people with whom we have successfully competed for 200 years. It is just not so.
Let me talk about some of these big bad American companies. I listened to some members of the NDP talk about how terrible the American corporations were. I will say to them what I said once to the Leader of the NDP. If you do not want foreign investment in your ridings, send it down to Niagara Falls. We will welcome it in the Niagara Peninsula. I know the NDP are people of principle, so tell these companies the truth, you do not want them, and you can send them down to the Niagara Peninsula. We always welcome new industry because it is a tremendous area in which to locate.
Recently, the Secretary of State for External Affairs visited my riding and we went to Thorold and visited one of the auto parts plants there. Because of all of the statements by the Liberals and the NDP about our ability to compete I asked people in that company if they thought the auto parts that they were making can compete with the Americans. They said: "Not only can we compete with the Americans, we compete with the world. Do not listen to all that nonsense about how we cannot compete in the world". Yet that is completely lost on members of the Liberal Party who are here tonight. There is nothing second-class about Canadians or the products we produce.
December 23, 1988

If anything, this debate has set the course for the next four years in this Parliament. The Progressive Conservative Party is talking about the future and what we can do. The members of the Opposition have served notice that for the next four years their job is to seek out every negative on the Free Trade Agreement. No matter how small or spurious, that is their mission. That is what they will be doing.


John V. Nunziata: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Della  Noce@: Go out for a haircut. You want my comb?


John V. Nunziata: In the spirit of Christmas-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: It is almost the day before Christmas and I was wondering if you could ask the Hon. Member, in the spirit of Christmas, if he could be just a little less partisan than he has been.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the Hon. Member will take heed and listen to the Hon. Member.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I was just saying that members of the Opposition have served notice of what they will be doing for the next four years, that is, concentrate all their efforts on seeking negatives in the Free Trade Agreement no matter how small and how spurious. I guess that is why they are there and we are here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Nicholson: I bless them if that is what they want to do. Go ahead and do that for the next four years. However, whatever else it is, it is not vision. It is not courage. I say particularly to the new Members in the House, if they want to see vision and courage start to listen to the speeches of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on that note I would like to close-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Rob Nicholson: Before I do I would certainly like to thank all those individuals who came all the way from the Yukon to hear me speak. I certainly appreciate that.
I would like to conclude my remarks by quoting the words of a great Canadian Prime Minister who said this-


John V. Nunziata: Pierre Trudeau?


Rob Nicholson: -on March 16, 1987, about the Free Trade Agreement. He said: "This is a building block of greatness. What the House is considering today is the future of Canada. It is an act of faith in Canada. It has often been said that young men have visions and old men dream dreams. This is the day for Canada. This is a day both for visions and great dreams. It is a commitment to the future of Canada. It is a commitment to the youth of Canada, to our unity and to our integrity as a nation".
With those words I entirely agree.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise in the spirit of Christmas to talk about the subject matter that is before us, that is, the Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Before I start I wish to thank the residents of Surrey North for their support and their faith in me. Surrey North is one of the four new ridings in British Columbia. It is a riding created out of parts of two ridings previously held by Conservatives. It is a typical suburban community. It has a higher proportion of single-parent families than any other area in the Lower Mainland. It has lower average incomes than other communities on the lower Mainland. It has a large ethnic community, particular of Indo-Canadian background. It is a community that has been changing dramatically in the last five years.
Some 60 per cent of all the growth in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia in the last five years has been in Surrey. It used to be a community that was made up of homeowners. Now, north of 104th, 44 per cent of the people are renters. Between the Newton area and 104th Avenue 40 per cent are renters. It includes the old neighbourhoods of Newton, Walley, South Westminister, Bridgeview, Johnson Heights, Fleetwood, Pinehead and Port Kels. It has some industry, but basically it is a residential community. It is very typical of Canadian suburban communities.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that community elected me because the people living in it are diametrically opposed to this trade deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: People in the community are vulnerable to this trade deal. They are not the big multinational corporations. They do not sit on the boards of directors of multinational corporations. They do not own them. The industry that is there is mainly lumber mills and small manufacturing. They were frightened of this trade deal.
Somebody said that consumers will not be hurt by this trade deal. Let me just read to Hon. Members some excerpts from a letter I received over the course of the last four days from a business in my community, Western Cablevision. Western Cablevision has 111,000 subscribers, not only in Surrey but in Langley, Clear-book and Abbotsford. It also has the areas that cover Fraser Valley West and Fraser Valley East. I have not seen the Members from those ridings raising this issue in the House.
With the free trade deal what will happen is that the cost to those television subscribers will go up. It will go up because the free trade deal insists that they must compensate the American broadcasting systems for distinct signals. What is so peculiar about this, which we in British Columbia are beginning to understand, is that the Tories developed a definition of distinct signals and included it in the trade agreement. It means that Toronto does not have to pay. Montreal does not have to pay. None of the eastern regions have to pay. Just British Columbians will have to pay.
One of the reasons that 19 New Democrats were elected in British Columbia is because that is one of the major things in this trade deal. There will be a negative impact on British Columbia. Any benefits will be to Ontario and Quebec.
I wish to talk about a fundamental part of the trade deal. The trade deal will curtail our ability to be involved in the direction of our economy. We can no longer direct and influence foreign investment. We no longer will have the ability to decide what is going to take place in our country in terms of economic decisions. These decisions will be made in American boardrooms, not in Canada.
We have to begin to look at some fundamental facts about Canadian job creation and Canadian industry. I want to read to Hon. Members some of the statistical
information with respect to job creation in the last number of years. Between 1978 and 1985 there were 872,300 net jobs created in Canada. Of those 849,000 were contributed by Canadian-owned firms, while at the same time the American firms contributed to a loss of 8,900 jobs. Other foreign companies contributed to a loss of 14,400.
Let us go back to consider the statistics. Canadian firms created 849,000 jobs. American firms lost us 8,900 jobs. Other foreign firms lost us 14,400.
That is a fundamental change that will take place as a result of this trade deal. We will no longer be able to control capital which will be used to take over our firms and fold them as in the past.
Another interesting aspect of job creation is to compare small business and large business. Out of
845,000	jobs, 99 per cent of them were created by small businesses, which are businesses employing less than 19 people. Large firms, those with over 100 employees, had a net loss of 50,000 jobs in that same period. The free trade deal will benefit large corporations, particularly American multinationals, and will be a disaster for small, independent Canadian businessmen.
The arrogant Tory Government has done nothing to deal with the question of dislocation. It simply said that it will form a blue ribbon committee to make some recommendations on adjustment programs. However, that blue ribbon committee has become a blue ribbon bust because it has done nothing.
The workers who will be mostly affected by dislocation will be older workers. If we recall the downturn in the economy in the early 1980s, we will know that older workers did not get back into the workplace. There are no adjustment programs for them now.
As well, women with families will not have the capability to retrain, go back to school or move to different locations. If you lose a job in North Surrey, you cannot move a family to get a job in Courtenay.
The Government said it would support job strategies. Its record is different because the budget of the Canadian Job Strategy since 1984 has dropped from $2.2 billion to $1.7 billion. There has been a cut of about $500 million, which, in real dollars, is a loss of nearly $1 billion since it was elected. Yet it still says it is committed to readjustment programs.
December 23, 1988

We must also consider one of the hidden problems in this trade deal. There will be tremendous pressure on the Canadian Government to equalize the American and Canadian dollar. It has already begun. The Canadian Manufacturers Association-a group that no one can say supports the NDP-conducted a survey of manufacturers about the competition they would be facing based on the rate of exchange between the Canadian and the American dollar. With an 80-cent dollar, 31 per cent said they would be at a competitive disadvantage. At 82 cents on the dollar, 36 per cent said they would be at a competitive disadvantage. At 85 cents on the dollar, 67 per cent said they would be a competitive disadvantage.
Mr. McCain of McCain Foods in New Brunswick is someone who knew this very well. He said that all those talking about free trade with the United States may be singing right now when the dollar is at 80 cents, but when it goes to 82 cents or 83 cents they will be closing down their businesses. He also said that since he owned a big multinational corporation he could move his capital elsewhere, and he has already begun to do so. But he went on to say that, unfortunately, his workers and his agricultural producers could not move.
As a result of this trade deal we have lost the ability for the Government to participate in the direction of the economy. We hear much talk about the strength of the Japanese economy. The Government is a major player in economic decisions within Japan. In fact, it directs industry as to where it will invest and what it will develop. It directs industry about how it will compete nationally and internationally.
I had the opportunity to live in Japan on a couple of occasions. In 1980, the Japanese Government became concerned that American and West German computer companies were getting the upper hand. It announced that it would put $865 million toward the industry and directed the industry to match that grant toward developing a computer within five years that would be
10,000	more times powerful than the existing computers. That is how we got the personal computers. The initiative and direction came from the Government. It was not a free market direction.
This trade agreement will mean that capital will flow to where profits can be maximized. The businesses do not care about social costs. They do not care about social responsibility. They do not care about the impact on workers, their families or the community. If a company in Canada is making a profit of 50 cents but can make 52 cents by going to the States, it will do so. The fact that a whole community is put out of work or
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the country is seriously disadvantaged will mean nothing.
We have heard about the impact on social services and health care. My background is in administration in social services and health care. I have been a special consultant for the last number of years and I can say that anyone who tells me there will not be a negative impact on social services and health care is simply not telling the truth.
Marshal Cohen, President of Molson's and past president of Olympia and York Enterprises, former Deputy Minister of Finance, is reported in The Globe and Mail as stating clearly:
... of course the free trade agreement will affect Canada's social
programs, and will force the Government to cut back or drop some.
That is what people who are knowledgeable about the issue are saying.
There are three areas in which free trade exposes our social services and health care programs to attack. The first is that American corporations will attack programs as an unfair subsidy. We are left with defining subsidies over the next five to seven years. Americans have already said that they want our regional programs, our social programs, unemployment insurance and medicare defined as subsidies. The Government tells us to trust it, those items were not on the table and it would never surrender our social programs.


Mr. Turner (Halton-Peel):: That is right.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: When the Government was negotiating the trade deal it said it had two objectives it wanted to achieve. One was a guaranteed access to the American market-


An Hon. Member:: We did.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: You did not get it because you are still under American countervailing laws and future American countervailing laws.
The second objective was a binding dispute settlement mechanism. It did not get that.


An Hon. Member:: We did.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: How does the Government expect Canadians to believe it when it asks them to trust it with respect to subsidies? I guess not.


An Hon. Member:: You are a windbag.

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I would rather be a windbag and be truthful than be dishonest about it.
There is also pressure from Canadian companies to cut social programs and health care. I just want to tell Hon. Members a few little things about what the Chamber of Commerce has done, that great friend of socialism. The Chamber of Commerce, in a letter written during the election campaign to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) with regard to regional development and social programs, said that this agreement would not affect its existing programs, and that the Chamber of Commerce has no fear whatsoever that our social or developmental programs will be affected by the FT A, and it has said so repeatedly.
A week after the election, what happened? The Canadian Chamber of Commerce says, of course we have to have a commission to look at the high cost of our social programs, and it called on the Government to reduce spending on social programs in order to reduce the debt.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has said the same thing. It said that Canadian manufacturers face tough battles with foreign rivals who pay lower wages and do not have to pay unemployment insurance premiums. Canadian corporations, during the election campaign, were saying they would not put any pressure on the Government to reduce social spending or programs. Within a weak after the election, they were demanding that the Government cut social programs and spending as a way to reduce the deficit. We in the New Democratic Party have better solutions for reducing the deficit, including not spending $20 billion on nuclear submarines.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The people didn't buy it, though.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: In Surrey, British Columbia, they bought many things.
The third area in which there will be an impact on social programs and health care is privatization. One of the things that we in British Columbia are beginning to understand, and all Canadians will begin to understand, is that with a right-wing Premier like Bill Vander Zalm, the leading edge in privatization, followed by Grant Devine, soon to be followed by many other conservative people right across Canada, the B.C. Premier has been privatizing highway maintenance and such things as health care and social services, including our mental hospital.
Under Article 1402 and 1403, American corporations have a right to run those services here, and they also have a right to bring their personnel here. Not only will the for-profit American corporations come up here to run our health care and social services, but we will lose jobs because they will be bringing up their own personnel.
The Conservatives keep saying that the agreement does not affect social services, but let me just read a list of the professionals who can come here without proper visas. They include accountants, engineers, scientists, physicians, dentists, nurses, psychologists, teachers, economists and social workers, and they will take jobs and turn-


Mr. de Jong:: The lawyers were able to exempt themselves?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: That's right. They were able to exempt themselves. This free trade deal, coupled with the drive for privatization, will take our health care system into a whole new area.
I have had the opportunity to travel around the world to look at health care systems, and I know what the American health care system is like. We want nothing like that in Canada.
Another thing I have told the residents of Surrey North is that I will not be like the silent nineteen from B.C. for the Conservatives-


Some Hon. Members:: Time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I recognize the Hon. Member for Manicouagan.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Canadian public.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know it is Christmas Eve, and it may be that the Tories are in a more giving mood. I was hoping that the Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Langlois) might let me have a chance to make a speech since I did not complete my maiden speech in this Parliament. I know that the previous Hon. Member for Manicouagan would have given way to me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Manicouagan has the floor.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that my
December 23, 1988

speech will be short, so he will have a chance to speak after I do, tomorrow morning at four o'clock.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to tell the House what the men and women of my riding of Manicouagan think of the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that on November 21 the people of Manicouagan voted to give the Conservative party a renewed mandate. In 1984, voters in the riding had given the Prime Minister a majority which was more than comfortable by any standard and they did so again this time, and just as resoundingly. The riding of Manicouagan, Mr. Speaker, stretches westward to the town on Franquelin and along the Cote Nord to the town of Blanc-Sablon, also encompassing Ungava Bay communities to the north of Kujuuak.
Manicouagan then, Mr. Speaker, is a riding of vast expanses and those who live there are hard working people who, over the last 35 years, have contributed to the nation's economic development. Through their work in iron mines, in the forest and fishing industries, they have contributed, over these years, hundreds of millions in personal and business income tax dollars. These hard working men and women have met challenges in the past...

-and they are ready now to face a new challenge in strongly supporting free trade.

In my riding, Mr. Speaker, three sectors will benefit from the Free Trade Agreement: these are mining, forestry and fisheries.
The mining sector, iron mining more specifically, has been the engine of economic growth in the western part of my riding. Year after year since 1953, Mr. Speaker, millions of tons of iron ore extracted from Mont Wright, in Quebec, and Wabush and Labrador City, in Labrador, are shipped to steel mills in Canada and the United States. In the last few years, iron ore shipped from the ports of Sept-Iles, Pointe Noire and Port-Cartier has met with heavy competition from Brasilian ore.

The Free Trade Agreement will first contribute to protect our exports of iron ore to the United States. Second, large tonnages, millions of tonnes of iron ore, are shipped from Sept-Iles, Pointe Noire and Port-Cartier to the Canadian steel mills of Sidbec at Tracy,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Quebec, and to the mills of Stelco and Dofasco at Hamilton, Ontario.
We all know that every year our Canadian steel industry sells great quantities of its steel product to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, we also know that the Americans regularly apply special tariffs and quotas on the steel products they import when they feel that their own steel industry is threatened. Most of these measures are aimed at steel goods from Asian countries in Asia but these restrictive measures also apply to Canadian steel.
The Free Trade Agreement will protect our Canadian exports against these restrictive measures and quotas imposed by the American Government. The mechanism provided for under the Free Trade Agreement will exclude our steel exports from the special tariffs imposed by the American Congress. They will make it possible for us to increase our steel exports to the United States, because our products are more competitive. By selling a greater amount of their products to the United States, our steel industry will use more iron ore from the North Shore, thereby ensuring more stable jobs and additional new jobs for the young people in my riding.
As mentioned earlier this week the danger to our iron ore and steel exports to the United States does not come from some small non-unionized mills located in the southern United States but from large non-unionized steel mills operating in Korea, Japan, India, and pretty soon now from China. That is from where the dangers are coming, not from the United States. Stelco, our largest and oldest steel manufacturing firm, knows that. Dofasco also did not hesitate to purchase the Algoma plants at Sault Ste. Marie. These people are not afraid of free trade. Members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties from the Hamilton and from the Sault Ste. Marie areas should know about that, Mr. Speaker.

The workers in Havre-Saint-Pierre also voted massively for the Free Trade Agreement. Mr. Speaker, these people from the North Shore know that the titanium ore which they mine from the Quebec soil near Allard Lake is used in the manufacturing of a great many products, including paints and alloys.

December 23, 1988
Canada-JJ.S. Free Trade Agreement

Where is the biggest and the closest market for those products? South of the border, Mr. Speaker, that is where it is. The workers of Havre St-Pierre know that, and that is why they strongly supported us on November 21.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents who are employed in the pulp and paper and forest industries all voted for free trade. They saw in this Agreement new opportunities. The pulp manufactured in Port-Cartier is used to make products for hygienic and medical purposes. The Free Trade Agreement will open wide the doors to the American market by eliminating tariffs on these products. These tariff reductions will make our products more competitive, thereby consolidating the jobs for the Cascades plant workers in Port-Cartier, as well as forest workers in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, the Free Trade Agreement will also benefit the fishing industry which is very important in my riding. The fishermen, the operator and workers of the fish processing plants see new opportunities in the Free Trade Agreement. They are already considering setting up new processing units for highly specialized products in the area of preserving, vacuum packaging and deep freezing fish ready for retail store shelves. I understood the concern expressed by the fishermen in my riding when I heard the half-truth spread by the Opposition parties about the impact of the Free Trade Agreement on the fishing industry. But the fishermen have come to realize that the Agreement is not a threat for their industry, but that it will increase its growth potential.
Mr. Speaker, they know that their industry is world class, Canada being the greatest exporter of fish and fish base products in the world. They also know that the United States absorb in full 60 per cent of our fish exports.
The Canadian fishing industry employs more than
120,000	people and plays a key role in the economies of our coastal provinces, of certain areas of Quebec, of Northern communities and of the coastal communities of Manicouagan.
In the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, for example, approximately half of the 1,300 fishing communities rely exclusively on the fishing industry. In the Northwest Territories, communities have come to rely almost exclusively on commercial fishing. That is the case, Mr. Speaker, in the area of my riding which lies between Kegaska and Blanc-Sablon.
There is no doubt that the Free Trade Agreement will benefit the Canadian fishing industry and that it will have a beneficial impact on communities which depend on this industry's prosperity.
Through the Free Trade Agreement, Canada and the United States have agreed to phase out over a 10-year period the tariffs which presently apply to fish products, thus giving Canada a considerable advantage over its major competitors. As customs tariffs are phased out, Canadian processing industries will be able to increase their production of finished products. We will then no longer export only raw or semi-processed fish, since we will be able to produce finished products at competitive prices, thus creating jobs.
Consequently, many regions in this country will be able to fully develop their natural resources. Product diversification and processing activities give rise to new jobs and create a strong economic base for the many fishing communities which are presently in a vulnerable situation.
The Free Trade Agreement will increase the value added to products by processes such as canning and preparation of ready-to-eat foods. Since the market for processed foods is growing rapidly, this sector represents new potential for growth and job creation that will result from the expected increase in exports of these products.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition has tried many times to make our fishermen believe that many of our social programs like unemployment insurance will be affected by this Agreement. The Free Trade Agreement has absolutely no effect on social programs in Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, even the Americans recognize that social programs cannot be subject to countervailing duties and when they tried to take such action against the unemployment insurance program, from which most fishermen benefit, their own trade tribunal threw the case out.
These social programs were never on the negotiating table and never will be in the future. Canadians attach as much importance to universal programs as our Government does.

The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) has been very firm concerning our social programs during the negotiations. He has on several occasions made the commitment that Canada will never sign an agreement
December 23, 1988

that will endanger our social programs. Even if the Americans wish to discuss this matter during the next round of discussions, they will be told that this subject is "off limits".

The Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States will benefit fishermen as much as processing industries.
The economic viability of a fishing industry depends on the availability of resources, the quality of the raw material and a good return on investment.
As the processing industries gain a larger share of the American market, Mr. Speaker, demand for processed fishery products will increase. This greater demand in turn means a higher return on investment from fishing.
This Agreement meets these concerns and gives the Canadian fishing industry an opportunity to strengthen and improve the vital role it plays in the Canadian economy.

New jobs and new opportunities are there around the corner for the fishermen of Manicouagan, for their families and for the future of their children. Opposition Members from the Maritimes and Newfoundland also know that, but political blindness prevents them from seeing the real benefits of the Free Trade Agreement for the fishing industry.
We have heard through the debate the question of mandate.

My mandate in the riding of Manicouagan is very clear: there were 36,000 on the electoral list, of whom
28,000	voted. The NDP received 4,000 votes, the Liberal Party 6,000 and the Progressive Conservative Party 18,000, Mr. Speaker.
That is my mandate to support the Free Trade Agreement. Tomorrow, I will return to my riding and I will meet my fellow citizens over the holidays with my head held high and with pride. I will speak to them proudly about the historic decision made here tonight by the Government of Canada in ratifying the Free Trade Agreement with the United States. I will speak to them with pride for having participated in this historic event by supporting Bill C-2 without reservation.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House tonight at 12.30 a.m., on December 24, one of the last speakers to take part in this great debate, a debate and discussion that will probably go down in history as one of the longest and greatest debates ever to take place in Canada. This debate has and will likely shape the future of Canada.
I come here with mixed feelings. First, I would like to reiterate the feeling of probably most of the new Members who came to Parliament in the last few weeks, and all of us in the House, the feeling that we have after winning an election, and the feeling that we have walking up to the front of this great building, not as a tourist as many of us have in the past, but as a Member of Parliament. But when I returned to the riding of Prince Edward-Hastings I said to my constituents that it was a feeling to which I could not put words. I know everyone else who sits in the House has felt the same way at one time or another.
It is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight to represent the constituency of Prince Edward-Hastings. It is a unique riding. It has a large agricultural base, a large industrial base, a large tourism industry, and we have in our riding the Air Transport Group headquarters for the Canadian Armed Forces. We are also fortunate to have the Tyendenaga Indian Reserve, a reserve of 1,500 to 1,600 Mohawks belonging to the Bay of Quinte Band.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the voters in Prince Edward-Hastings for placing their trust and faith in me to represent them here in the Thirty-fourth Parliament. I promise to fulfil that trust and faith with honesty, integrity, and enthusiasm.
My riding is made up of all of Prince Edward County in Ontario, the City of Belleville, and the three southern townships, including the County of Hastings.
I happen to live in Prince Edward County, and I suppose that I am a little biased, but it, as well as the whole Quinte area, is a great place to come from. We are cut off by a man-made canal in Prince Edward County, and frequently are mixed up with Prince Edward Island. We are also proud of Prince Edward Island, and this Party is really proud of Prince Edward Island now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Vanclief: We in Prince Edward County have shared ourselves with different constituencies over the years, sometimes to the east, sometimes to the west, and

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
sometimes to the north, as we are now. I note with pleasure that it has not been since the year 1908 that the Prince Edward County portion of my riding has been represented in the House by a Liberal. That is 80 years, and I am proud to be the Liberal they chose to break that span.


Some Hon. Members:: hear, hear!


Lyle Vanclief: We live in a great country, one that is envied by everyone else in the world. We have a tremendous resource of many nationalities, and a geography and climate that provide us with one of the most varied bases of natural resources, agriculture, fishing, manufacturing, mining, and logging. Many countries in the world cannot boast of all of those.
I would like Hon. Members to take a moment and think about my next statement. No matter what we sit on, no matter what we wear, no matter where we are, and no matter what we look at, there are four creators of wealth in the world. Those are fishing, mining, logging, and agriculture. There is nothing on the face of the earth that did not come from one of those. We have all of these in Canada, and it is our background and privileged duty as Members of the House of Commons to protect the strength of all of them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lyle Vanclief: If all of these are not strong, our economy will not be strong. I do not have the time tonight to discuss all of them, but I would like to discuss some of the concerns of the people in Prince Edward about how some of these are connected to the Free Trade Agreement that we have been debating for the last two weeks. I know that it is too late to make changes, but I wish to express their thoughts. I promised I would. They asked me to, and I would like to take a few minutes to do so on their behalf.
We have been told that this is a commercial document, that it can be changed in six months if it does not go well. Is this any way to instil confidence in the people of Canada? If this deal does not work, it will be very difficult to correct. I liken it to scrambling an egg and attempting to get it back in the shell.
I say to Members opposite that it better work, for the sake of Canada.
Donald Macdonald recommended further trading arrangements with the United States. He did not recommend this one. He said that there should be no deal unless we had the protection from further ability of
the United States to place countervail duties on Canadian goods entering the United States, and that we should have a level playing field. I agree with him. I would not be as concerned about this deal if we had that, but we do not have a level playing field. Unfortunately, this deal does not provide us with that benefit.
I have had a fair bit of experience in my life with the process of negotiations. I do not feel that this agreement was well made. From my experience, no matter how hard one party works to make a deal or an agreement, if another group or party looks at it, they look at it with different eyes, and they look at it in all fairness. There is always room for improvements. There is no such thing as the perfect deal. However, we have been told that this is a perfect deal. The Government has stated that it is a perfect deal, "trust us".
About a year ago now I attended a meeting in my riding chaired by the former Member for my riding who sat on the other side of the House. We had a considerable discussion about the agreement. It was a good discussion.
However, he continued to tell us that there really wasn't anything wrong with the deal. I finally said: "Fess up, Jack. There is no such thing as a perfect deal. There is no such thing as a one-sided deal."
However, I guess I must have been mistaken, because the U.S. Congress took less than a day to pass it. They think it is a good deal. The answer back from Mr. Ellis, on my asking whether there was anything wrong with this deal for Canadians, was: "Well, I can only make one comment, Mr. Vanclief. The grape growers in Canada are S.O.L." And I think, Mr. Speaker, that stands for "sure out of luck"-but I am not sure.
That type of answer, Mr. Speaker, did not then nor does it now, assure the residents of Prince Edward- Hastings or the people of Canada generally that good times are ahead, as we are being told by the Government of the day. We want some reassurance, and not just the statement: "Trust me."
In fact, we see very little in this deal that is concrete enough to make us feel reassured.
And then we hear people like Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. Trade Representative who negotiated this deal, make the following statement, and I quote: "The Canadians don't understand what they have signed. In 20 years they will be sucked into the U.S. economy."
December 23, 1988

Canada is already the most foreign-dominated of any industrialized country in the world. With the FTA, we give up the right to screen any new American investment. Under this agreement, by 1992 we will not be able to screen or control takeovers of any corporations in Canada of a value of less than $150 million. And I note, Mr. Speaker, that that would include nearly 90 per cent of the corporations in Canada. We have handed the U.S. a Gold Card and told them to charge it. They will buy Canada. They will own Canada-and we will have lost control of our own country.
Big businesses like this deal. Why wouldn't they? It is full of the loopholes which corporate Canada had in mind when they encouraged it, when they pushed for it-and pushed for it they did, especially in the last few days of the election campaign, when they realized that the majority of Canadians had seen through their scheme and had realized that their corporate success in the future in North America-I didn't say Canada; 1 said North America-was going to be on the backs of the average Canadian.
That is when they started to buy the ads; that is when they started to buy Canadians. And that is when they, in the short run, bought Canada, and Canada will suffer for that in the future.
We all know what economic union means. It points to an economic build-up in certain areas of that union. History has shown that where economic power goes, political power will follow-and that has been true for centuries the world over. It may not happen for three years, or five years, or ten years, but it will happen. Mark my words, eventually it will happen. And the centre of the economic power in North America will not be in Canada but somewhere in the United States; and the centre of the political power will not be in Canada but in Washington.
I am sure that there are some in the U.S. Embassy right across the street looking at us right now and saying: "Give us time, we will have that building, too."
They did it in Hawaii starting in 1876, and finishing the process by making Hawaii a state in 1950. They did it in Puerto Rico starting in 1927, and now they control all aspects of Puerto Rican's defence, its foreign policy, its postage, and even its currency.
Is that what we want?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lyle Vanclief: No, not ever.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about Alaska, then.


Lyle Vanclief: I should like to now say a few words about energy. We are told we can compete. Yes, we can compete-but how successfully can we compete?


Mr. Della  Noce@: Read Luigi's letter.


Lyle Vanclief: The one main thing we had over the U.S. in terms of being able to compete successfully was our supply of energy. We had it. They wanted it. And they got it.
They do not have the resources to draw on; they need ours. That bargaining point alone at the negotiation table should have gotten us a better deal on the environment, and perhaps even an acid rain treaty.


An Hon. Member:: We didn't have good negotiators.


Lyle Vanclief: We have agreed to share our energy with the U.S. They have not agreed to buy it. They will only buy it if they cannot find a cheaper source anywhere else in the world.


An Hon. Member:: It is called world price.


Lyle Vanclief: Once our energy sector gears up to supply the U.S. market, who is going to hold them at ransom?-the U.S. buyers.
I would like to have a little more time in order to discuss the other concerns, including the concerns that my constituents have about subsidies. And I know they are more concerned after the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) yesterday, when questioned on subsidies, said: "We don't know whether the negotiations to find a definition of 'trade distorting subsidies' will be successful or not. In the history of the world, there has never been a successful negotiation to that end. But we will give it our best effort."
We sure hope that he will be successful, Mr. Speaker. If he isn't, this deal will not be successful. It rides on that.
Let me turn now to a few comments about agriculture. As I said earlier, it is the largest single industry in my riding.
I should like to state at the outset that I am a firm believer that as goes agriculture, so goes the economy of any country. The dairy farmers and all of the farmers in my riding are concerned and worried. They are being told that their supply management marketing board is protected. That they don't quarrel with. But what they

December 23, 1988
Canada-JJ.S. Free Trade Agreement
also know is that the market that they supply is not protected-and that is really what it is all about.
They know very well that raw products, dairy products are cheaper south of the border than they are in Canada, and they know that as time goes by and the duties are eliminated, those processed products can come into their markets and compete directly with them.
While their marketing board may be protected, if there are fewer demands for what they have to sell, what good is their board?
We wanted to propose numerous amendments to the free trade legislation, with the hope that the guarantees inherent in those amendments would provide our farmers with answers to their concerns. The Government wouldn't allow those amendments. It moved closure.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Lyle Vanclief: First it closed its mind, and then it closed the House.
We wanted to propose amendments that would ensure the continuation of our marketing board system, the protection of the Canadian Wheat Board, the protection of our supply management system, control over the importation of processed product so as to protect our poultry and horticultural industries.
All of the proposed amendments, if adopted, would have buffered the approaching shocks that will be faced by Canadian farmers. But no way. We couldn't even be heard, let alone vote on them. The Government doesn't want to consider any amendments. It wants to let the chips fall where they may, and it says again: "Trust us."
Well, I guess we are going to have to do just that. We only have 11 more minutes in which to debate this measure. But I promise Canadians, and I promise the constituents of Prince Edward-Hastings, that we are going to watch and we are going to keep track.
I am proud to be a Member of this place representing the voters of Prince Edward-Hastings. As a Liberal, I am for further trading arrangements, but not for this deal. I had hoped that, at the very least, our amendments would have been adopted so as to help ease the pain that is about to be inflicted on many sectors of this country.
We didn't get that, and so we will watch and we will monitor. As we have said, this part of the debate has only begun.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are getting very close to Christmas and it is a tradition in this House that we take a moment to pause and say thank you to all the people who work so hard to serve this place so well. I would like to do that.
We have a new group of Pages who have served us very well. We have the Table Officers, all of the protective staff, our Hansard people, those who do the camera switching, our lobby staff, office staff. They have all been working very hard for the last two weeks and we need to recognize the contribution they make and that, without their efforts over the many hours we have been here the last two weeks, none of us would have been able to perform as well as we have.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Point of order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Mississauga East (Ms. Guarnieri) on a point of order.


Ms. Guarnieri:: Mr. Speaker, I am a new Member from Mississauga East, and since the Government has declared closure I will not have the opportunity to speak.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!


Albina Guarnieri: I would like the unanimous consent of this House to deliver my maiden speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: No!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister for International Trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr.-
December 23, 1988


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I heard an extremely reasonable request-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on a point of order?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I heard an extremely reasonable request from-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -a new Member from Mississauga. I did not hear the Chair. Perhaps the Chair did not-


Some Hon. Members:: Your light is off, Sheila!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I heard a "No". I did hear a "No"?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would you like to hear it again? The Hon. Minister for International Trade.


John Horton McDermid: That is the biggest bunch of sore losers I have ever seen. Sour Grits!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Scrooge!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 'Tis the season to be jolly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You are not going to be heard, Crosbie. Let the Hon. Member for Mississauga East (Ms. Guarnieri) speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) on a point of order.


Mr. Langdon:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has already spoken for an hour and forty-five minutes in this debate. I would like to support-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Minister is speaking on the amendment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister for International Trade.


John Horton McDermid: Sit down and shut up, Copps.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Hon. Member for Mississauga East be now heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Out of order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Minister had begun his speech and the motion cannot be heard. The Hon. Minister for International Trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Tobin:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte (Mr. Tobin) on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is a votable motion.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker-


John Horton McDermid: Now we understand why you lost the election.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Now that the Member is in his seat I will recognize him.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Of course, Mr. Speaker, every Member of the House always respects the Speaker's wise rulings because he has demonstrated over the last number of years in the Chair his great fairness in this Chamber. I submit, and I am sure the Clerks can verify this, that the Minister for International Trade had not yet said a single word. A proper motion has been put that the Hon. Member for Mississauga East (Ms. Guarnieri) now be heard. The Minister had not yet uttered a single word in this place. I submit the motion is in order.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) on a point of order.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, could I comment-

December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Steven W. Langdon: -on this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will come back later to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Axworthy). The Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think it first should be noted that a motion such as that which the Hon. Member for Hamilton East made cannot be moved on a point of order. I would therefore suggest that the motion is out of order. However, I would also suggest that the request from the Hon. Member for Mississauga East (Ms. Guarnieri) to speak was a request for unanimous consent from the House-


John Horton McDermid: And you did not get it.


Steven W. Langdon: -to be heard. I ask that the Speaker put that question to the House of Commons for the sake of fairness since the Minister has already had one hour and forty-five minutes to express his point of view.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg South Centre on a point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to try to help you out of a difficulty-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I notice there is not a disposition to allow a Member from our side to speak. I also notice that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) is finally in the House and I would like to move that perhaps he be now heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 57, at this time it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill now before the House. Accordingly, the question is the following one:
Mr. Crosbie, seconded by Mr. Lewis, moved that Bill C-2, an Act
to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the
United States of America be now read a third time and do pass.
In amendment thereto, Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre), seconded by Mr. Gauthier, moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the
word "that" and by substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be not now read a third time, but that the bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for reconsideration of clauses 3 through 150, inclusive.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Anderson	Crosbie	LangloisAtkinson	(St. John's West)	LarriveeAttewell	Darling	LaytonBeatty	DeBlois	LeblancBelsher	de Cotret	(Longueuil)Bernier	Della Noce	LewisBird	Desjardins	LittlechildBjornson	Dick	LoiselleBlackburn	Dobbie	Lopez(Jonquiere)	Domm	MacKayBlais	Dorin	MaloneBlenkarn	Duplessis	MartinBosley	Edwards	(Lincoln)Bouchard	Epp	Masse(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Fee	MayerBourgault	Feltham	MazankowskiBoyer	Ferland	McCreathBrightwell	Fontaine	McDermidBrowes	Fretz	McDougallCadieux	Gerin	(St. Paul's)Campbell	Gibeau	McKnight(Vancouver Centre)	Greene	McLeanCardiff	Guilbault	MitgesCasey	Gustafson	MonteithChadwick	Halliday	MooreChampagne	Hawkes	Mulroney(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Hicks	NicholsonBagot)	Hogue	NowlanChampagne	Holtmann	Oberle(Champlain)	Horner	O'BrienCharest	Hudon	O'KurleyChartrand	Hughes	PlamondonClark	Jacques	Pronovost(Yellowhead)	James	RedwayClark	Jelinek	Reid(Brandon-Souris)	Johnson	ReimerClifford	Joncas	RicardCole	Jourdenais	RichardsonCollins	Kempling	RobitailieCook	Kilgour	Roy-ArcelinCorbett	(Edmonton Southeast)	SchneiderCote	Kindy	ScottCouture	Koury Landry	(Victoria-Haliburton)


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Crosbie)
which was	agreed to on the following (Division No. 19)
 YEAS Members	division:
Anderson	Blenkarn	CampbellAtkinson	Bosley	(Vancouver Centre)Attewell	Bouchard	CardiffBeatty	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	CaseyBelsher	Bourgault	ChadwickBernier	Boyer	ChampagneBird	Brightwell	(Saint-Hyacinthe-Bjornson	Browes	Bagot)Blackburn	Cadieux	Champagne(Jonquiere) Blais	(Champlain)
December 23, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Charest	Jacques	Red wayChartrand	James	ReidClark	Jelinek	Reimer(Yellowhead)	Johnson	RicardClark	Joncas	Richardson(Brandon-Souris)	Jourdenais	RobitailleClifford	Kempling	Roy-ArcelinCole	Kilgour	SchneiderCollins	(Edmonton Southeast)	ScottCook	Kindy	(Victoria-Haliburton)Corbett	Koury	ScottCote	Landry	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Couture	Langlois	ShieldsCrosbie	Larrivee	Siddon(St. John's West)	Layton	SobeskiDarling	Leblanc	SoetensDeBlois	(Longueuil)	Sparrowde Cotret	Lewis	St-JulienDella Noce	Littlechild	StevensonDesjardins	Loiselle	TardifDick	Lopez	ThompsonDobbie	MacKay	ThorkelsonDomm	Malone	TremblayDorin	Martin	(Rosemont)Duplessis	(Lincoln)	TremblayEdwards	Masse	(Quebec-Est)Epp	Mayer	TremblayFee	Mazankowski	(Lotbiniere)Feltham	McCreath	TurnerFerland	McDermid	(Halton-Peel)Fontaine	McDougall	ValcourtFretz	(St. Paul's)	Van de WalleGerin	McKnight	VankoughnetGibeau	McLean	VenneGreene	Mitges	VezinaGuilbault	Monteith	VienGustafson	Moore	WeinerHalliday	Mulroney	WilbeeHawkes	Nicholson	WilsonHicks	Nowlan	(Etobicoke Centre)Hogue	Oberle	Winegard-141Holtmann	O'Brien	Horner	O'Kurley	Hudon	Plamondon	Hughes	Pronovost
NAYS Members	Althouse	Axworthy	BlackAngus	(Winnipeg South	BlackburnAssad	Centre)	(Brant)Axworthy	Barrett	Blaikie(Saskatoon-Clark's	Belair	BlondinCrossing)	Bellemare	BrewinBenjamin	BroadbentBerger	ButlandCaccia	Kilger	PickardCallbeck	(Stormont-Dundas)	ProudCampbell	Kristiansen	Prud'homme(South West Nova)	Langan	RideoutCatterall	Langdon	RiisComuzzi	La porte	RobichaudCopps	LeBlanc	RobinsonCrawford	(Cape Breton High-	Rodriguezde Jong	lands-	RompkeyDuhamel	Canso)	SamsonFerguson	Lee	SkellyFinestone	MacAulay	(North Island-PowellFisher	MacDonald	River)Flis	(Dartmouth)	SkellyFontana	MacLaren	(Comox-Alberni)Foster	MacWilliam	SpellerFulton	Maheu	StewartFunk	Manley	StupichGaffney	Marchi	TaylorGagliano	Marleau	TobinGardiner	Martin	TurnerGauthier	(Lasalle-Emard)	(Vancouver Quadra)Gray	McCurdy	Vanclief(Windsor West)	McGuire	VolpeGuarnieri	McLaughlin	WaddellHarb	Mifflin	WalkerHarvard	Milliken	WappelHarvey	Mills	Whittaker(Edmonton East)	Mitchell	WoodHeap	Murphy	YoungHopkins	Nault	(Gloucester)Hovdebo	Nunziata	YoungHunter	Nystrom	(Beaches-Woodbine)-Jordan	Ouellet	111Kaplan	Pagtakhan	Karpoff	Parker	Karygiannis	Peterson	Keyes	Phinney


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: Pursuant to the Order the House adopted earlier this sitting, this House stands adjourned to the call of the Chair for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to Bill C-2, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.50 a.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 30, 1988