1988-08-16

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today, on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), to table in the House the Tribal Class Update and Modernization Project, or TRUMP, Remission Order.
This order remits the customs duties and a portion of the federal sales tax paid or payable on goods imported between January 1, 1987 and December 31, 1993, for use in the updating and modernization of four Tribal Class destroyers for the Canadian Navy. It is estimated that the order will remit $28 million in customs duties and $3.5 million in federal sales tax.
The tabling of this order is in line with the Government's commitment to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to increase accountability and openness with respect to the use of the remission orders.


PETITIONS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to Petition Nos. 332-4867 and 3324939, and, Mr. Speaker, I move:
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Orders of the Day.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if there might be unanimous consent from the House to permit the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee to deposit a report from the committee immediately prior to entering into debate on Bill C-130.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. At first glance one would wonder why the Members of the House who are not supporters of the Government should help the Government out of a difficulty that it has created for itself by its arbitrary and abusive approach to the proceedings of the House. The Government has created this problem by moving in a pre-emptory and arbitrary manner that the House proceed to Orders of the Day before the stage could be reached-


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of State has put a proposition to the House. I know that the Hon. Member for Windsor West would want to give the Chair some indication of whether or not that proposition has support. Perhaps a number of Members in the House might very well want to make certain commentary on many things, but I would ask the Hon. Member to assist the Chair.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The issue is, while we are always ready to assist the Chair, should we be assisting the Government out of a difficulty that it created for itself. I am ready to say that we will give consent because the report in question is a report of the Human Rights Committee. I understand that it deals with important issues involving the plight of older workers in the country. I want to ensure that the country realizes that if there is a problem that we now have with respect to tabling the report of the Human Rights Committee, it was created by the Government for itself and for the majority of Conservative Members of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Mr. Riis:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, August 15, consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and the amendments of Mr. Axworthy:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-130 be amended by deleting Clause 6.
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to move a motion under Standing Order 117. I move:
"That, in relation to Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage, and two sitting days to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the second day allotted to report stage consideration and on the second day allotted to third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment."


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on a point of order, and then I will hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the motion made by the Hon. Deputy Government House Leader is out of order and cannot be received by you and be put to the House. Why do I say this, Mr. Speaker? In attempting to move a motion for time allocation under Standing Order 117, the Deputy Government House Leader is doing something from which he is precluded because a majority of representatives of the Parties in this House has reached agreement for allocation of time under Standing Order 116.
The Standing Orders have three provisions for the allocation of time. Standing Order 115 applies when all three Parties, or whatever number of Parties there are in the House, have reached agreement. This is clearly not the case here. Standing Order 116 applies when a majority of representatives of the Parties of the House have reached agreement. Standing Order 117 applies when an agreement cannot be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 or 116.
August 16, 1988

It is very clear from a letter read into the record yesterday by the Deputy Government House Leader that an agreement was reached and continues to be in place among and on the part of representatives of a majority of the Parties of the House. Therefore, the requirements for Standing Order 117 have not been met, and that Standing Order cannot be used as long as the agreement to which I have referred is in place.
What the Minister on behalf of the Government can and should do is to make a motion to give effect to the agreement between the representatives of a majority of Parties in the House. The Minister, as a Minister of the Crown, has already met the basic requirement for the application of Standing Order 116 because yesterday he rose in the House and stated that a majority of representatives of the several Parties had come to an agreement with respect to the allocation of time. The Minister may not have intended to do this, he may not have realized that he was doing it, but in fact he did so when he rose and read into the record the letter signed by myself and the House Leader for the NDP. 1 say to Members of the House that it could well be argued that it is the obligation of the Deputy Government House Leader to rise and move a motion to give effect to that agreement reached by the representatives of a majority of the Parties in the House.
He may say that Standing Order 116 states only that the Minister may propose a motion without notice, but 1 submit that this is one of those occasions well recognized in the parliamentary and the general law when "may" can only mean "shall". Otherwise, the Standing Order would have little sense or purpose or effect because it starts out by saying, and I think I have already made this point:
"116. When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, the Minister may propose a motion, without notice, during proceedings under Government Orders, setting forth the terms of the said proposed allocation;"
And so on. I have already said, and the record is clear, that the Minister from his place in the House did state yesterday that a majority of the representatives of the several Parties had come to an agreement with respect to the allocation of time for the Bill in question. Therefore, the subsequent words of the Standing Order can only have meaning if the word "may" in this case is interpreted to mean "shall". There is therefore an obligation on the part of the Deputy Government House Leader to move a motion, to give effect to the agreement which was reached between the representatives or a majority of the representatives of the several Parties in this House.
The Deputy Government House Leader may say that the real meaning of Standing Order 116 is that a representative of the government Party has to be part of this majority. I say that this should not be the interpretation-and it is clearly not the
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
interpretation-because Standing Order 116 provides that once the motion is put there has to be a debate for up to two hours in which anybody who wants to can speak for up to 10 minutes, and then there is a vote. It would seem to me that this was clearly intended to provide a safety valve so that representatives of the Government-even if a Minister on the government side moved a motion-could get up and argue against it, and there could then be a vote. If there is this safety valve, the fact that a representative of the government Party is not one of the majority of representatives should not preclude the motion from being properly put.
In any event, even if Your Honour should find that the motion cannot be put unless the Minister of the Crown wishes to do so, I submit that the motion the Deputy Government House Leader wants to put under Standing Order 117 cannot be put, because his opportunity to do so has been pre-empted by the agreement reached by a majority of representatives of the several Parties in this House, pursuant to Standing Order 116.
Therefore, on the basis of what I have just put to you, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Minister's motion is completely out of order. I think we also mentioned yesterday that the notice of that motion was defective because it did not state the number of days the Government proposed to allocate for the report stage and third reading of the Bill. However, quite apart from that, on the basis of the arguments I have just given, I submit that it is completely out of order for the Deputy Government House Leader to move the motion under Standing Order 117. He is precluded from doing so, so long as the agreement reached between the majority of the representatives of the several Parties in this House remains in place. Therefore, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot accept the motion, the motion cannot be put, in an effort by the Government to obtain the order that it wants with respect to the allocation of time for the remaining stages of Bill C-130. The motion, for the reason 1 have given, is out of order and I hope, in the interest of parliamentary democracy, Your Honour will accept my arguments and in fact formally rule that the motion is in fact out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to lend support to the points made by my hon. colleague, the House Leader for the Official Opposition by suggesting that the motion put forward by the Deputy Government House Leader under Standing Order 117 is out of order. Standing Order 117 reads:
"117. A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 115 or 116 in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee,"

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
And so on. First of all, I want to deal with the particular motion put forward by the Deputy Government House Leader. Your Honour will remember that not long ago under Standing Order 115 the House used 115 when we were dealing with Bill C-72, the official languages Bill, because at that time there was agreement between the representatives of all Parties involved. At the moment, of course, that would be representatives from each of the three federal political Parties.
When the Deputy Government House Leader indicates that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 115 or 116, I simply want to submit that half of that is correct; that under Standing Order 115, no, there was not unanimous agreement among the representatives of the three Parties, but such is not the case under Standing Order 116. Standing Order 116 says:
"116. When a Minister of the Crown, from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill,"
And so on and so forth. Such is not the case. As my hon. colleague, the House Leader for the Official Opposition, has indicated there was an agreement. I understand that there is some question about the appropriateness of the agreement in terms of the necessity for this length of time, but I want to indicate that the Deputy Government House Leader thought it was appropriate to read into the record yesterday so it was perfectly clear that there was an agreement between two of the three representatives of the Parties represented in the House of Commons.
It says, simply, "we wish to inform you that our respective parties are prepared to agree on an allocation of a further" number of days.
There was an agreement between two of the three representatives of the political Parties of Canada, that we were prepared to agree on an allotment of time at both report stage and at third reading stage.
I also wish to submit that under Standing Order 117 there is obviously an obligation for the Minister introducing that motion to point out the appropriate time that would be allocated at each stage. I want to submit that, as I read Hansard, that certainly was not the case yesterday. It would make, if we like, another reason for considering this initiative by the Deputy Government House Leader to be out of order at this time.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank both the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap. I will now hear the Hon. Minister of State.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I submit that both arguments made by my hon colleagues opposite fail. The first argument fails because Beauchesne's sets out the notice and we are within the terms of that wording. The second argument fails because the exact wording of Standing Order 116 refers to a majority of the representatives and my hon. colleagues opposite have misread it, though I am sure the misreading of it was well intentioned. I submit that we have met the notice requirements and that the motion is in order to be presented and proceeded with at this time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a small point of clarification. In dealing with the matter of whether or not the notice he gave yesterday for a motion under Standing Order 117 was in order, my hon. friend made reference to Beauchesne's. I would like to draw to your attention that the edition of Beauchesne's that we use predates by a number of years the adoption of the Standing Orders on time allocation. I respectfully submit that whatever Beauchesne's said about a notice or the form of a notice, it could not possibly apply by way of a precedent to these Standing Orders because they were not in effect at the time this edition of Beauchesne's was prepared.
Second, I am informed that in every case to date since the Standing Orders went into effect, the notice required under Standing Order 117 did include the details of the time allocation to be sought in the motion for which the notice was a foundation. I wanted to make that small point of clarification.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate very much the Hon. Member for Windsor West's continuing assistance to the Chair on these sometimes difficult issues. I will look at Beauchesne's, but it seems to me that the latest edition of Beauchesne's may have come out after the change in the rules. I think I am right on that, but I will have a look at that and I will take into account the other point the Hon. Member made.
I have listened very carefully as well to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) who is always of assistance to the Chair in these matters. I will give his remarks considerable consideration.
I think the Hon. Minister of State has divined my sense of this and has indicated that the Government will not be surprised if I reserve for a few hours to give this the consideration it needs. I want Hon. Members to know that I have done some considerable work on this, but I will return at three o'clock to make a ruling. In the meantime, we will proceed with the Orders of the Day.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have just checked the date of publication of the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's. I think you are right. It did come out after the Standing Orders, but again, I am told that all the precedents involving the use of Standing Order 117 did give the details of
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the motion to be sought. I had wanted to say immediately that you are quite right in what you said about the edition of Beauchesne's and its timing.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West. The question of when the edition came out takes nothing away from the argument, and I want the Hon. Member to know that I will give it the consideration that I ought to give it as I will give to all of the arguments that have been made.
Resuming debate.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the arguments which have been placed before the public of Canada in respect to free trade do not really conform with reality. I think they should be referred to more as scare tactics with political motivations. They involve the pursuit of power rather than the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of what is in the best interests of Canada.
I am in particular disagreement with the concept that in any way, shape, or form the culture of Canada will be altered by virtue of a free trade agreement. Culture is something which government cannot legislate. We have tried on occasion to legislate morality in conformity with the faith the majority of the House has supported. We have tried to create legal structures which would implement our belief in the morality we would like to see sustained in this nation, and we have failed. We cannot, no matter how hard we try, legislate culture. That is something which is always in a state of transition and always in a state of change.
While historians may depict a reason why there has been a change in the culture of any particular area of the world, I do not think they have ever pinned it down to a particular piece of legislation, particularly as it relates to trade.
Culture is something which prospers in prosperity. It never advances in a period of recession. This Bill in intended to create prosperity in this land and I believe that it will. Any argument, political or otherwise, to the contrary certainly will be negated by the study of history as to when culture thrived, be it art or whatever, and when it failed to develop. It needed money and sponsors, which is what I hope a prosperous Canada will generate, in order that culture may indeed thrive.
We have heard representations that our entertainment industry may not thrive. I say, as I have said before, that at such point in time as the entertainment industry of Canada chooses to present the entertainment which Canadians enjoy, it shall then prosper. As long as there is an alternative to what is produced in Canada it shall be in competition with the listening audience, the viewing audience, or the reading audience in this land as it is elsewhere.

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
If one wishes to look at the independence of Canada, every nation in the world has, to one degree or another, committed itself to trade arrangements. No other nation in the world has accused itself or its Government of surrendering independence by virtue of pursuit of better business for more people in the jurisdiction in which the trade pact has been made.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and I have been in accord on a number of subjects, particularly in respect to transportation. However, as to his remarks and his complaints about the transportation system, particularly as it relates to rail in Canada, until such time as both the Crown corporation and the publicly held corporation decide that they want to be competitive in the transportation industry, we shall be poorly served.
Unfortunately, the rates which go north and south are usually more beneficial to Canadian traders than are the rates which go east and west. That is the difficulty that both eastern and western Canada have in trade locked into an East-West pattern for this nation. It is fine for the centre, but it is not applicable to the best prosperity which we could obtain in either eastern or western Canada.
I am amazed that one who is so dependent upon the livestock industry of the West, as is the hon. gentleman from Regina, would hold such a position in respect of this item because north-south is a way for the fringes of Canada to trade.
There will be certain industries in this land which may not prosper as well as they have under this structure. However, I submit that the natural resource industries, in particular, and the technical industries now have a market which they can reach and that there is a challenge to Canadian government to ensure that the taxation system of Canada is competitive with that of our trading partners.
We must keep that competitive. If our taxes exceed the taxes which entrepreneurs or labourers would experience in other jurisdictions, we cannot provide the world market with our goods and services. We must recognize that there is an international competitive world in which we trade. Whether it be with the Pacific Rim, the United States, or the European Economic Community, we are in a world of trade, not in a nation isolated in an igloo, and we cannot prosper under that perception of our trading responsibilities.
It has been stated that the American law in respect to trade will still apply. It has been ignored that the Canadian law in respect to our trade with the United States will also still apply, and this is important. The other facet is that there is to be an international tribunal. Our fate is no longer to be decided by a single political thrust from our neighbour to the south. Rather, an international tribunal will discuss the difficulties which we may experience in whatever item of trade may be concerned. In our experience, particularly in lumber and potatoes, we have been the subject of a political decision rather than a legal or a trade agreement schedule. That is wrong.
Surely we have responsibility. I said that government must not tax excessively. We must have beneficent, ambitious, and competent management in the industrial life of this country. We must be in pursuit of markets. It is said that we should seek the Pacific Rim. We have been seeking markets in the Pacific Rim and we have been expanding, but in no way have they ever accommodated the degree and volume of trade which this nation needs for its prosperity.
We have been and shall continue to be in pursuit of all markets, but if we do not give notice to the world that we, as the European Economic Community, as Australia and New Zealand, and as, to some degree at least, the Pacific Rim, are a unit of trade; that we are a market of trade; that we are in pursuit of fair trade and equitable trade, then we will find ourselves in the same position as all those trade agreements which have been made by the coalition, which has actually been in existence for quite some time, whereby all the laws of the United States apply to GATT and all the laws of the United States apply to Canadian trade. They have and, yes, they still do, but future law cannot amend the treaty. That can only be amended by negotiation. That has been the traditional international structure in which we have traded by treaty for a good many years.


Mr. Langdon:: That's not true.


Fred Alward McCain: I hear a little chirp over there. I would like to quote the Right Hon. Winston Churchill in his response to some remarks. I think this is very applicable to the type of remarks which have been emanating from both opposition Parties. "The Hon. Member is never lucky in the coincidence of his facts with the truth". In another situation of a comparable nature Sir Winston Churchill said: "I should think it hardly possible to state the opposite of the truth with more precision".
With that, Mr. Speaker, I leave this subject matter because never has the opposite of the truth been presented to the Canadian public by its political representatives with more precision than it has been done by both opposition Parties. That is a disgrace to both of them and it is not the leadership which Canada needs from either.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will enter the debate by taking up the point made by my hon. friend who has just spoken and for whom I have very great respect. The remarks he made illustrate one of the main reasons it is essential that there be more debate, more discussion, and more exposure of the terms of the free trade agreement which is dealt with by the legislation before us.
My friend said that we should not be worried about future law because from the time the trade agreement was signed future law does not apply to it. He referred with some affection and pride to the binational dispute settlement mechanism which is pioneered in this particular agreement and, of course, validated in the legislation.
August 16, 1988

1 would like to challenge him on his assertion. I regret that 1 do not have a copy of the free trade agreement with me in the House, but 1 know the article number by heart because 1 have read it frequently at meetings that I have attended. I refer my friend to Article 1902 of the free trade agreement which provides categorically-


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Perhaps 1 could supply the words to the Hon. Member:
"Each Party reserves the right to change or modify its antidumping law or countervailing duty law, provided that in the case of an amendment to a Party's antidumping or countervailing duty statute-"
There is notification that the party is so included.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, fortunately or perhaps unfortunately, I only have a copy of the Agreement in French, but since the Parliamentary Secretary has asked me, I would be happy to read it for him. Part one of article 1902 reads as follows, in English:
"1. Each Party reserves the right to apply its antidumping law and countervailing duty law to goods imported from the territory of the other Party. Antidumping law and countervailing duty law include, as appropriate for each Party, relevant statutes, legislative history, regulations, administrative pratice, and judicial precedents".

As the Member for New Brunswick who spoke before me said, that makes it very clear that the existing law of each country applies. The Government achieved absolutely no success in eliminating or reducing or moderating existing countervail and anti-dumping law.


Mr. McDermid:: Go on and read about the GATT.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am coming to the future.


John Horton McDermid: Read the whole section. Be honest.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am delighted to accommodate, as I always do, my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary. However, I would like to do it in my own way. I look forward to what he has to say.
Subsequent to the signing of this agreement, the United States Congress passed very far-reaching additional protective legislation, protective of American trade from competition from abroad.
The Government made no secret of the fact, and we know that the Canadian Government and its very competent ambassador in Washington tried extremely hard to exempt Canada from that new legislation, because the new legislation gives additional powers to the President of the United States to punish the trading partners of the United States who, in the American view, violate their standards of fair trading. The
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Government tried to exempt Canada from that law and was unsuccessful.
If my friend, the Member from New Brunswick who just spoke, was right, why would the Canadian Government have worried about that legislation because it was passed after the trade agreement was signed? The answer is found in Clause 2 of Article 1902, a clause which makes it clear that legislation passed after the signing of this agreement affects this agreement. Therefore we as a country did not manage to achieve any reduction of countervailing and anti-dumping legislation in the United States at the time this agreement was signed.


John Horton McDermid: Neither did they.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: But we also did not manage to get ourselves exempted from future measures like the one I just described even though a very valiant effort, made which was certainly supported by all Members of the House was made to try to get us exempted.

Part two of the article in question, which I have here in French, reads as follows, in English:
"2. Each Party reserves the right to change or modify its antidumping law or
countervailing duty law ..."

In other words, the United States can add anti-dumping and protective measures additional to those in effect when this agreement was signed, provided conditions are met, and when those measures are passed they apply to the Canada-U.S. trade-


John Horton McDermid: Is one of those to apply to GATT?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes.


John Horton McDermid: Do you support the GATT?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I support the GATT.


John Horton McDermid: The protection is there. Get serious.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My friend is telling me that the protection is there. If the protection is there, how did the Americans get away with the legislation-


John Horton McDermid: Tell them about the binational dispute settlement mechanism.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Now I will come to the binational dispute mechanism. This dispute mechanism-


John Horton McDermid: You have not read all the conditions yet.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They are here. I only have another minute. I can see that there are conditions, but these conditions do not prevent the United States from imposing what, in its opinion, are valid countervail and anti-dumping measures against us.

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: Not inconsistent with GATT, and you support the GATT.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We do support the GATT.


John Horton McDermid: You are arguing against yourself.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am not arguing against myself. I think 1 should take the floor and continue to make my points. The final reason why these motions ought to be accepted is that the binational dispute settlement mechanism does not open the United States to free Canadian trade.
The impression that the Government wants to give to Canadians about this agreement is that a business in my riding will be able to go into an American city or anywhere in the United States, make sales, deliver and so on, in the same way that it can any place in our country. That observation is not valid because countervail and anti-dumping legislation do not apply when my constituent makes sales in Winnipeg and in Windsor.


John Horton McDermid: Is your constituent a fair trader?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My constituent will trade in the United States the best he can. The point the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to make and achieve great satisfaction from is that the binational dispute settlement mechanism somehow or other will carry my constituent through the objections that can be raised on an American countervail and anti-dumping basis. This is not the case.
I would ask him to be big enough to admit that all that mechanism does is assure that American law and Canadian law will be applied objectively and impartially. I am prepared to say that that never bothered me because I always respected American jurists in the same way that 1 respect Canadian jurists.
These are two countries characterized by fair arbitrations, by fair court procedures. The binational mechanism is interesting. It is a world model because it does provide for impartiality and objectivity, but I took those for granted. I think most Canadian traders did.
What we do not take for granted is countervail and antidumping which is a tool available for American interests to protect themselves from people in my riding who want to do business in the United States because they think the Government has won for them protected, unlimited and equal access to the American market as they have in Canada. These motions become even more important. I commend them to the House.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Motions Nos. 5, 6, and 8 which would delete Clauses 3, 4, and 6. I will attend only Clause 3 which states the general purposes of Bill C-130.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has referred previously to Clause 3 which sets out the purposes of the Bill. It is
interesting to note that among all the purposes cited there is nothing here about creating more jobs for Canadians. If our Party had been foolish enough to enter this kind of deal, among the purposes of this Bill and the agreement that it seeks to implement would have been the purpose to increase the availability of jobs and the opportunities for Canadians to assure a secure future, to ensure that the comparative advantages and the resources that we have would be used to enhance, as I cited yesterday, what most Canadians consider as a definition of Canada not only for the present but for the future. One of the worst aspects of the statement of purposes is the identification within the statement of failures of the trade agreement to achieve the purposes which are cited.
Let us examine those. The first purpose is as an objective to:
"(a) eliminate barriers to trade in goods and services between Canada and the United States."
I see nothing in the free trade agreement that would do anything about the barriers to softwood lumber, to shakes and shingles, to hogs, to specialty steels, to the impediments that are presented to the free trade of goods and services represented by the new trade legislation, which other speakers have indicated will apply to Canada and from which we have not achieved any exemption. Clause 3 goes on to state:
"(b) facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free trade area established by the Agreement."
Will this free trade agreement make level the field that is made unlevel by the 20 per cent higher costs in energy that Canadians have to pay? Will it eliminate the great transportation costs that we face when in this country? Will it eliminate the barriers to conditions of free competition which are imposed upon regions of the country, victims of past failures, to achieve economic development, the kind of economic development that is now substantially prevented by this legislation through concessions made by the Government to the Americans? The clause goes on to say:
"(c) liberalize significantly conditions for investment within that free trade area."
This is one area of purpose that has been achieved. It certainly does liberalize investment and the acquisition of Canada by the Americans that not only makes it possible for them to accumulate our industry and our services, it permits them to control the means of investment through the provisions with respect to financial institutions. I have to concede, Mr. Speaker, that purpose (c) will be substantially achieved to the detriment of Canada and its future.
Let me come to subparagraph (d) which reads:
"-establish effective procedures for the joint administration of the Agreement and the resolution of disputes."
Nobody really believes the dispute settlement mechanism will achieve that. As a matter of fact, we can look forward to
August 16, 1988

even further opportunities for harassment of Canadian traders. By the time the disputes are settled, the victims will already have suffered the effects of American countervail and antidumping provisions.


John Horton McDermid: You should have heard testimony at committee.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Finally, subparagraph (e) reads:
"-lay the foundation for further bilateral and multilateral co-operation to expand and enhance the benefits of the Agreement."
Nobody believes that; no outside observer believes that. Probably what we have done with respect to the service area has created an opportunity for the use of this area of investment for a new kind of colonialism of which Canada is the first victim.
It is shameful that this piece of legislation has to be rushed through the House by virtue of closure. There have been observations made about this kind of activity on the part of the Government. Let me read an interesting quote. Imposed upon us is that:
"-we have to hold our noses and pass whatever this government brings to the House, and pass it quickly. This comes from a closure-crazed government, a government which suffers from the crime of parliamentary bestiality. It cannot wait to force these kinds of things through the House."
Who said that, Mr. Speaker? Who went on to say:
"It is a betrayal of the parliamentary system to add to the betrayal of the people of Canada, who have been betrayed in gasoline prices. They have been betrayed in heating oil prices. They have been betrayed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
They have been betrayed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). Now they have been betrayed by the House leader of the government."
This same, up until now, anonymous commentator who has been so right about the circumstances which face us now went on to say:
"Today we have a parliamentary system of government without any checks and balances and without the separation of powers. The Prime Minister has a group of docile sheep in his caucus who keep him in power, no matter what he is doing. They just say, "Baaa, sir, baaa, sir, pass it through the House, sir".
As long as they do that, he has absolute power. This Prime Minister has absolute power as long as the majority in his caucus give him that unlimited power. They are so busy with their noses in the patronage trough and the power trough that they neither know nor care what happens to this Parliament, and we can expect nothing from them."
He goes on to say, and this is relevant in the present circumstances, this very erudite and observant commentator: "Where are the people with the grapes in their district?"
Finally, he said:
"Where are all the defenders of the people on the other side of the House? They are going to come out of their trough in a few minutes. They will hear the bell and will have to break away from whatever trough they have their noses in at the moment. They will have to come into this House and say "Oink, oink".
They will have to say "Aye, aye". They will have to say "Yes" to the stampeding of Parliament, to rushing this bill through the House. They will
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
have to say "Yes" to the gutting of Parliament. They will have to do the
dirty work that the parliamentary assistants, assassins and eunuchs have
asked them to do."
That was the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) who identified what this Government is doing with its imposition of closure in an attempt to hide from the Canadian people the rape of Canada.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, these three amendments before us in this group on the trade bill, Bill C-130, enable us to point out some of the very serious dangers in this Bill. Motion No. 5 would delete Clause 3 in the Bill. That would have the effect of deleting the statement of purposes. That would be a distinct improvement if it were done, but I want to mention particularly two of the purposes that seem to me quite misleading or misworded as they stand.
In Clause 3(b) it says one of the purposes is to:
"-facilitate conditions of fair competition within the free trade area
established by the Agreement."
We have heard a great deal in the past about the need for having a dispute settlement mechanism. We now find that we do not have one, not of the sort promised to us by this Government. We do not have one that protects us against non-tariff trade barriers, against countervail, and against anti-dumping laws passed by the United States in the past or in the future. All the dispute mechanism does is tell us, if it is carried through, whether an American law was fairly applied. We could have a two, three or four year process of dispute while Canadian exporters to the United States go down the drain and find at the end of the judgment that the American law, while we might think it an unfair law, nevertheless was fairly applied, that is, applied in the way it was intended and, therefore, we have no complaint and no remedy.
There are many manufacturers in Spadina in the clothing industry who are seriously worried about this Bill, particularly because of this aspect of the Bill. They have spoken out against it, including some who originally favoured the negotiations, took part in the negotiations, and at first said that it was a good deal. They then found it was a bad deal. They are threatened, for example, by the prospect of restriction of Canadian imports into the United States depending on where the Canadian manufacturer buys its fabric. That has been objected to strongly by Mr. Nygard who was the chairman of the SAGIT and who took part in these negotiations. He even recommended that his industry, not his company but the whole clothing manufacturing industry, be removed from the free trade agreement for that reason, but of course his recommendation to the Government was ignored.
The result of that sort of failure in the negotiations with the United States was illustrated some months ago when a clothing producer in Ontario was negotiating a loan with a bank, had gone through all the stages up to the point where he was told: "Okay, go and see the manager next week and he will

August 16, 1988
Canada- U.S. Free Trade Agreement
sign the loan". He went, but in the meantime the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had been on television talking about winners and losers and mentioning the clothing manufacturing industry among the losers. When he got to the bank manager the bank manager said: "Did you hear the Prime Minister Sunday night on television?" "Yes," he said. "Then you don't get the loan". In other words, the bank manager believed the Prime Minister at that point in saying that the clothing manufacturing industry would be a loser and therefore of course not fit for that banker to lend money to.
There are other industries in Spadina which are worried about this deal as well because the trouble in it goes far beyond the clothing industry. We have a very large set of service industries. The service industries have been opened up to foreign takeover according to purpose number(c) of Clause 3 to liberalize significantly conditions for investment in that free trade area.
In other words, American firms can come to buy up Canadian firms. They can come and buy up large chunks of Canadian banks, much larger than they could before. It should be said that Canadians can go buy up Americans which is still small comfort, still small protection for those Canadians who do not happen to be extremely wealthy. In fact, there have been thousands of sales already by those who believe that this deal is a certainty, people who have decided if you can't lick them, join them. Instead of moving bodily to the United States they have simply transferred their assets to the United States to be protected from the people who would take them over, to surrender instead of resisting. We do not intend to surrender.
In the analysis done by the Bank of Nova Scotia we are shown that industries can be classified according to that bank's predictions as to which ones are likely to gain and which ones are likely to lose. In its general classification it states that the resource industries which employ between 300,000 and 400,000 people have a favourable risk factor of four. They are at the top of the list. They will do better than anybody else by this deal. The manufacturing industry which employs 2.25 million people has an unfavourable risk factor of minus one. In other words, they stand to lose. Agriculture, likewise, which employs nearly 500,000 people has an unfavourable risk factor of minus one. They stand to lose. The service industries employing 7,710,000 people in Canada have a risk factor of minus two. That is a lot of service jobs that can go down the drain.
We have many, many services, whether it is computer processing, whether it is management of hospitals, management of other health facilities, funded by the public through a health insurance system much better than the United States health insurance system, covering all the people instead of only some of the people. The management of this, according to the trade deal, can be taken over by the American hospital management corporations that have a record for cutting services and cutting staff in order to increase their profits. Those are the people that this trade deal invites to come to take over key sections of the Canadian health system as the
process of privatization is led by this Government and by other Conservative Governments, and perhaps by other Liberal Governments in Canada.
These are not the only industries that are at risk. There are some that worry us very much in Spadina where we have the hospitals, many other health care institutions, and the garment industry.
The Bank of Nova Scotia has done a much more comprehensive job. It has also pointed out that industries rated at extreme risk, minus four, include light cotton apparel, foundation garments, automotive heavy truck assemblers, automotive small parts producers, food processing of fruits and vegetables, railway freight car assembly.
This is the judgment of a bank which will be controlling a significant share of investment in these industries. These are the ones that this bank in its own interest finds vulnerable and put in danger by this Bill.
Therefore I would urge the adoption of these amendments.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members that Motions Nos. 5, 6, and 8 have been grouped for debate and will be voted on separately.
The question is on Motion No. 5, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
August 16, 1988


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 8, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
________________________18361


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the Algonquin Indian people of Barriere Lake in the Province of Quebec are vigorously protesting a hydroelectric project designed to encourage further development activity in the La Verendrye Wildlife Reserve.
The Algonquins of Barriere Lake, some 450 persons, have a 59-acre reserve located in the middle of the La Verendrye Park. Clear-cutting of timber is already devastating this sanctuary.
To add insult to injury the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. McKnight) has offered to advance nearly $4 million of the band's capital funds to Hydro Quebec for this project. The Barriere Lake band says: "No". The Minister of Indian Affairs says: "Get out of my way".
How long will we go on imposing our will on the first citizens of this country? We must cease trampling on peoples' rights simply because they are few in number, terribly poor, and without any political power or influence.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, if you, I say with respect, any Member of the House, or any citizen of this country habitually pays your credit card bill scarcely thinking about it, break the habit, stop, check your statement. Two per cent of all credit card statements are wrong through human error, computer glitches, and fraud.
Customers are well advised to check their statements against their receipts because of such errors as billing for charges that were not made, incorrectly identified charges, charges for items that were returned or were not accepted, and late billings.
In view of the large number of people affected and the large amount of funds involved, I intend to bring in legislation that will limit the liability of customers and ensure that genuine complaints are honoured.



August 16, 1988



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, a group of people from Glace Bay who work for Highland Fisheries recently occupied the offices of the Premier of Nova Scotia. They occupied those offices because they are worried about their jobs, and no one will give them a straight answer.
Clearwater Fine Foods, which owns the plant, closed it on June 21. It said at the time that the move was necessary because it did not have enough quota. The federal Fisheries Minister went to Glace Bay to meet with union and community officials. He told them he would meet with the President of Clearwater Foods, John Risley, and that he would try to get the plant opened by August 1. The Fisheries Minister also said repeatedly in the House of Commons that Clearwater had plenty of quota.
August 1 has come and gone and the plant is still closed. John Risley is still saying that Clearwater does not have quota. He even said that present groundfish management plans have clouded the future of the plant.
The people of Glace Bay want to meet with John Risley and the Fisheries Minister at the same time. They want some straight answers, and they want their jobs. Glace Bay has already lost important jobs in the mines and heavy water plants. People deserve some straight answers from their last major employer, Highland Fisheries.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, every day the Scott Maritimes Limited Pulp and Paper Mill in Pictou County dumps millions of gallons of waste into Boat Harbour in Northumberland Strait. The wastes are only treated mechanically before being discharged. The result is that waters in Boat Harbour have been virtually deprived of oxygen and are contaminated by polluting by-products of pulp and paper production. The Canso Chemicals Chlor-Alkali Plant, operated by C.I.L., Scott and Domtar, is a source of mercury pollution here too.
During the past 22 years 12 studies have been conducted by the federal and provincial Governments, but no action has been taken to stop the pollution. The people of Pictou County do not want any more studies or tests; they now want action.
We urge the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and the Minister of Fisheries and Ocean (Mr. Siddon) to use Section 33 of the Fisheries Act and prosecute Scott Maritimes
Limited whenever a violation occurs. The Government must start to practise what it preaches.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, last week I had the pleasure of representing the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) at the Prince Albert National Park to unveil a plaque to honour the Wilder family from Washington State.
The park preserves the memory of one of Canada's most famous conservationists-Grey Owl. Recently Edwin and Margery Wilder bequeathed to the Prince Albert National Park real estate valued at more than a half a million dollars, the largest donation ever made by private citizens to a Canadian national park.
This money will be used to maintain and preserve the Grey Owl wilderness area in perpetuity, thereby ensuring that the Grey Owl legacy continues to enrich future generations.
I am hopeful that more citizens will follow this example and join in the preservation of Canada's natural resources by supporting our national parks.



FINANCE


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has not made it clear to the people of Canada that after the next general election he plans to introduce a national sales tax, probably something in the 15 per cent range, so that after the next election, when people go out and buy school supplies, they will be paying this new federal sales tax; when they buy their children's toys, they will be paying the new federal sales tax; when they buy their kid's bike, they will be paying the federal sales tax; when they go out to a restaurant, they will be paying a tax on the restaurant meal; when they buy hockey tickets, they will be paying this new federal sales tax.
They will be paying a new federal sales tax every time they buy a new home or pay for home repairs. When they go bowling, they will pay the new federal sales tax; when they have their hair done, they will pay the new federal sales tax; when they go to a movie, they will pay this new federal sales tax; when they pay their child care, they will pay this new federal sales tax.


Ms. Copps:: Isn't anything free?
August 16, 1988


Nelson Andrew Riis: When they pay for their legal fees, they will pay the new federal sales tax; when they fill out a will, they will pay the new federal sales tax; when they have their tax return completed, they will have to pay a federal sales tax on top of that; when they go to the dentist, they will have to pay a federal sales tax; when they have their oil changed and their spark plugs changed, they will have to pay a new federal sales tax; when they have a music lesson, their children will have to pay a national sales tax. It goes on and on and on. You can plainly see that there is a national sales tax on every business service in the country.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, the Rouge Valley system, located in York-Scarborough, is the last significant wildlife area remaining near Toronto. The area has a rich and diverse ecology, supporting a wide variety of birds, fish, mammals and reptiles. Regionally, rare plants and several important archaeological sites are also found in the valley.
Most of the land in the Rouge Valley is publicly owned. However, both the conservation authority and the provincial Government have indicated that they want to sell the land to private developers for luxury housing, and Metro Toronto has indicated it thinks the Rouge Valley would be the ideal site for a new dump.
Environmentalists in Canada and around the world have recognized the importance of the Rouge Valley ecosystem. Since local and provincial authorities appear unwilling to preserve the last remaining wildlife area near Toronto, it is time for the federal Government to indicate that it would be prepared to manage the area as our first Canadian heritage park.



FISHERIES


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Newfoundlanders, no matter where they lived, were shocked and angered by the response of the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), Newfoundland's sole representative in the federal Cabinet, to questions raised in this House about the disastrous inshore fishery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador this year.
The Member for St. John's West calmly informed the House that he had toured St. John's West and found no evidence of an inshore fishery within that primarily city riding and, therefore, there was no problem in the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The fishermen and fishermen's families in Newfoundland, whether they are in Burin-St. Georges, represented by the Minister's colleague, whether they are in Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, in western Newfoundland, Humber- Port au Port-St. Barbe, whether they are in Labrador, know that there is hunger in their communities today and that fishermen's families are reeling from the double bang of low prices and an absence of fish in many communities.
They want a compassionate, caring, and sober response to the reality that besets them. Just as we properly and rightly responded to the need of farmers, primary producers, we must respond to the fishermen of Atlantic Canada today.



WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION PROGRAM


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, let there be no question about it. The Western Diversification Program introduced in August of 1987 has been a resounding success in its first fiscal year of operation. Western Canada has made great strides forward in diversifying its economy as a result of this federal government program.
To date there have been 503 projects approved with over $345 million being allocated to the western economy. These results represent jobs and prosperity for all regions of the West. This program has also demonstrated the commitment of the Conservative Government to the economy and the people of western Canada.



AEROSPACE INDUSTRY


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives are playing politics with the decision about where to locate the headquarters of the new Canadian space agency. Having gutted the National Research Council by spending cuts in 1985 and having ignored his election promises to expand research and development in Canada, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is now trying to attract votes in Quebec by promising that the space agency will go to Montreal at the same time as he tries to hang on to votes in the Ottawa area by endlessly deferring the final decision.
The fact is that, while the Government has delayed this announcement, the work of the space agency has been taking place in the national capital area for the last two years. As an Ottawa Member, I think that the space agency should be located in the national capital region because this is where the work has been taking place. I also think that a competent Government would have made this decision two years ago rather than used it as a political football.

August 16, 1988
People in Montreal and in Ottawa threw the Liberals out over the issues of favouritism and patronage in 1984, and I do not think they want the Conservative Government doing the same thing in 1988.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) outlined his policy on child care and criticized ours as "scatter-gun", "spending money in all kinds of ways", and said "it's all quite irrelevant". He promised to save Canadians $4.1 billion, and to change maternity benefits from 15 weeks to 28 weeks. However, he could not elaborate on either the savings or the costs of these changes. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) quickly added that the maternity benefit changes would cost the Government nothing since they would be paid for by the employees and employers.
As the parliamentary task force of which she and I were members concluded, her "nothing" happens to be $1.8 billion over the next five years. His "irrelevant" includes $2.3 billion of tax savings for Canadians.
That is the NDP for you, Mr. Speaker. A $1.8 billion expenditure is nothing and a $2.3 billion tax saving is irrelevant. That is how NDP Members are going to help ordinary Canadians. They will label all expenditures irrelevant and all savings nothing. With them in control, as Manitobans well know, ordinary Canadians quickly become less than ordinary and a lot poorer.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, hats off to the personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces who have worked so hard to put the United Nations Iraq-Iran military observer group together over a period of just a few days. Our professionals in the military community have once again proven that they can put a team together in short order, and they will once again display Canadian good-will and effectiveness at peacekeeping to the world at large.
The 495-person UN peacekeeping contingent was put together at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa and includes
about 350 from that base, about 50 from Calgary, approximately 20 from CFB Kingston, and about 40 from reserve units across Canada.
Canadian peacekeeping had its beginning under the wise guidance and initiative of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister when the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was Prime Minister of Canada. Our Canadian service people will once again display their diplomacy, their professional soldier qualities and their ability to handle political problems and difficult challenges.
Canada and the world will be well served by the Canadian Armed Forces as they proceed to take over their observer and communications UN peacekeeping duties in Iraq and Iran, and this Parliament of Canada wishes them well as we express our appreciation to them.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada claims to be open to all who wish to join and participate. However, it is evident that this is a shallow and hollow claim. Let us examine the present situation in Quebec.
In that province a small clique determines who may and who may not seek a nomination. Ridings are reserved for different ethnic groups and candidates. Presently, Dr. Dery, who has signed up 1,400 members, is being denied the opportunity to seek the nomination in the riding of St. Laurent because it has been reserved for an as yet unknown parachute candidate.
The Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) continually states that the Party is open to grassroots participation. However, the present situation in that province contradicts him. It is very apparent that democracy is only empty rhetoric to the Liberal Party and the reality is that only chosen friends need apply.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-NIAGARA GRAPE GROWERS

Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, at least in the Liberal Party there are people who want to run for nominations in Toronto.
August 16, 1988

I have here a four-quart basket of sour grapes that unfortunately the rules prevent me from delivering personally to every single Conservative on the Government side. However, I do have some farmers here from the Niagara Peninsula who know that the Government has victimized the grape and wine industry as a result of the trade deal, but for heaven's sake do not wait for the election to deliver on a pay-out package to those farmers who are hungry, who are going bankrupt, who are losing their jobs, and facing marital stress as a result of the Government's sell-out on the trade deal.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised those farmers would be compensated. They are here in the gallery today. They want to know where their compensation is. Or, are all they are going to get from this Government is another bunch of sour grapes?



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, contrast if you would, Sir, the disgraceful and undignified free for all in Toronto with the much more genteel way of choosing Liberal candidates in Quebec. In the latter case special reserved places are held for the chosen few, carefully selected by the high party brass, while the common Liberal yobs are told to shut up and keep quiet. The only common thread between the two situations is the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Turner) complete impotency in dealing effectively with either.
Is it any wonder, Sir, that electors in both Quebec and Toronto will be turning out in record numbers to vote Conservative in the next election?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As we all know by now, last weekend the Prime Minister met with the Premier of Quebec and at the end of the meeting came out with a statement giving a guarantee of federal funding for an aluminum smelting project in his own riding. We now learn from a letter written by the Premier of Manitoba to the Prime Minister that the Premier of Manitoba also had a meeting three weeks ago with the Prime Minister and an aluminum smelter was discussed at that time, but with a
Oral Questions
difference. The Premier of Manitoba came out empty handed, no guarantee, no assurance, no support.


Mr. Masse:: How do you know that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Because Mr. Filmon says so.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Nonsense.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the question is one of fairness.


John Horton McDermid: What did you do with Alcan?


Lloyd Axworthy: Even though poor Mr. Filmon could not get an answer, I wonder if we can get an answer today from the Government to our request.
Is the Government prepared to say today that it will offer a guarantee for the exact amount of support and funding for an aluminum smelter in Manitoba as it offered for the same smelter in the Prime Minister's riding in Quebec?


Mr. Holtmann:: Naturally.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first that what we have here is a level playing field.


Sheila Maureen Copps: A what?


Robert René de Cotret: A level playing field. If we have a project in one region of the country or the other, we will deal with the project on an equal and equitable basis, whether it be Manitoba or Quebec. I would like to quote from the statement of the Prime Minister who said:
"Yesterday in Montreal, I met with Premier Bourassa and we discussed the proposal to build an aluminum smelter that is now under study by an international consortium. Of course, the final decision will be made by the investors but the Premier and I agreed to promote Sept-lies as the site for the proposed smelter. The federal government is monitoring this project's progress with great interest. This project, being studied by international investors of solid reputation would create many jobs and have a considerable economic impact on Sept-lles, on the North Shore and on all of Quebec. This is another example of how a stable political climate and open markets attract private investment."
That is in no way suggesting that we would not consider a similar project for Manitoba. Obviously we would.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this is the same Minister who, when asked similar questions about a year and a half ago about the CF-18 project, gave us assurances that there was no political interference. Yet every document since then has pointed out that the Prime Minister's hand was in that area.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL FINANCIAL COMMITMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in a statement which was printed today the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro said that in order to ensure that the private investment for the aluminum smelter would take place in Manitoba the Government of Manitoba has requested up to $150 million of subsidies.

August 16, 1988
Oral Questions


Mr. Crosbie:: Better luck next time.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Conservative Minister for Manitoba is contradicting the Conservative appointed Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro Board.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: That is not what I said.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is too bad that the Conservatives cannot get together and agree on these simple facts.
Mr. Ransom has said that it would take up to $150 million. Is the Government prepared to answer that question? Are you going to give the commitment that there would be that kind of funding?


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to address their questions through the Chair. I hesitate yery much to interrupt, but that is the rule. The Hon. Minister.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that we are working with a level playing field. We will look at any request from Manitoba in the same way as we would look at a request from any other province or any other region in this country. There is no difference in that respect. I do not understand why the Hon. Member keeps on insisting that we have a request that we do not have, and that we are not prepared to look at it. We will look at that request in a very serious manner.
In a letter sent by the Deputy Prime Minister very recently we stated very clearly-


Some Hon. Members:: When?


Robert René de Cotret: Following questions on the issue. We said again that we will look at the project. There is no problem there. It is a level playing field for anybody. It is the same for everyone.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister says we are working with a Jpvel playing field. The rules of that level playing field apply very differently to the people in Manitoba than to people in another part of Canada. We have the CF-18 case before us and we know how biased the rules are on that level playing field.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says the Government will look at a project in Manitoba but the Prime Minister gave a guarantee for the project in his own riding. I want to know why the difference. Why the guarantee for a project in his own riding and only an offer to look at the project in Manitoba? Why the difference? Why do you not play fair with the people of Manitoba?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the premise of the question is totally false. I will quote again: "Of course the final decision will be made by the investors but the Premier and I agreed to promote Sept-Iles". The final decision will be made by the investors. That is what the Prime Minister said.
If there is a request made in the case of Manitoba, that request will be analyzed and decided upon according to the same rules that apply throughout the country from Newfoundland to British Columbia.


Lloyd Axworthy: The same rules as on the CF-18?


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-NIAGARA GRAPE GROWERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade and concerns the impact that the Prime Minister's trade deal has had on the grape growers of the Niagara area of the country.
Over 16,000 jobs are dependant on this industry. Farmers were promised operating loans which they have not been able to get. Land values have dropped precipitously since last December. Grape growers are forecasting about 50 per cent of the price they got last year for their grapes. The industry and the whole region are in chaos.
Can the Minister for International Trade tell these grape growers when he is going to announce a program to compensate them for the loss of the industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the grape growing industry of Ontario had problems long before the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was negotiated. It had a problem because of the finding of a panel of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which Members of the House know was made earlier this year.
That industry have had problems for a number of years because there has been a surplus of lower quality grapes produced in Ontario every year that has required a program of government assistance to get rid of the surplus. These problems are present in the Ontario industry.
The Government has entered into an agreement with the Government of British Columbia for a grape adjustment assistance program in that province. There are negotiations under way at the present time between the Government of Ontario and our Government to try to devise a similarly satisfactory agreement for the grape industry in Ontario.
August 16, 1988

These matters are proceeding. It takes the two Governments to reach a satisfactory adjustment program, which we hope will be accomplished. We are doing our share.


Sheila Maureen Copps: 


John Carnell Crosbie: We are taking the initiative and we hope a generous and adequate program will come out of the consultations between these two Governments.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE-TAX QUERY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Government does not know what it is doing on this adjustment program. The Minister of Agriculture admitted last week that he did not even know whether the adjustment program would be subject to income tax. That is a pretty important issue for these producers.
More important, the producers in Niagara want to know if the Government is prepared to give at least the $156 million of assistance that was forecast to be their losses to cover even half which is forecast to be taken out of the industry, plus assistance for the other half. Will the Minister give a commitment that at least $156 million will be provided to take 11,000 acres out of production and state whether or not that assistance will be taxable? Will he give at least that amount of information today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would only hope that the hon. gentleman would make some representations to the Government of Ontario-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gauthier:: Pass the buck.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Whose trade deal is this?


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is your trade deal.


John Carnell Crosbie: -a government to which he is very close, to encourage that Government to do the right thing and be as generous in this approach as the Government of Canada.


Maurice Brydon Foster: It is your trade deal.


John Carnell Crosbie: The basic problems afflicting the Ontario grape industry are as a result of the GATT panel report-


Maurice Brydon Foster: That is bull.


John Carnell Crosbie: -that found provincial liquor board practices to be unfair trade under international trade rules.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sour grapes, Crosbie.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is the GATT approach that the Official Opposition favours. That is where the main problem arises.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is totally false.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are prepared to do our share, and a very generous share, of assisting the Ontario industry. We need the
Oral Questions
help and assistance of the Ontario Government. Put some pressure on the Ontario Government.


Maurice Brydon Foster: That is totally false. The free trade deal went out first.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Horton McDermid: Get your facts straight.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Stop spreading manure.


Mr. Speaker:: I might just say quietly that the Hon. Member for Algoma will undoubtedly have another occasion to pursue this matter, along with his colleagues. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Regional Industrial Expansion. How can he claim with any degree of intellectual and political honesty that the Government is creating a level playing field when the Prime Minister, according to the quote which the Minister himself read to the House, has agreed to promote Sept-Iles as the site of an aluminum smelter? Does the Minister believe that investors who, he claims, will make the final decision, exist in a vacuum? Does he think that they do not read the papers or pay attention to the House of Commons? Does he think they will not notice that the Prime Minister has agreed to promote a certain location? Is that what he calls a level playing field?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be very, very clear on this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: We would like you to, too.


Robert René de Cotret: We will give equal consideration to a request that could come for a smelter in Manitoba and one that could come for a smelter in Quebec. I would like to make it very clear that these are not competing projects. I do not know where the Hon. Members opposite got that idea.
We will give equal consideration, fair consideration, to both projects and both projects could go ahead.
I really fail to see the point of the argument which the Hon. Member is trying to raise, Mr. Speaker. It will be a level playing field and both could go ahead.

August 16, 1988
18368______________________________
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER PROMOTE MANITOBA SITE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Government continues to maintain that there has been no request from Manitoba, no proposal. But that simply is not the case.
If the Minister is serious about this level playing field, will the Prime Minister be making a statement to the effect that he is prepared to promote, to use the words the Minister used here in the House, Manitoba as a site for equal consideration? We know what equal consideration means. We got that with the CF-18.
Is the Prime Minister willing to promote Manitoba as a site in the same way that he is willing to promote Sept-Iles?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member keeps on referring obliquely to the fact that there is a kind of competition here. There is no competition. It is not a question of Manitoba versus Quebec. There can easily be two smelters. There is easily the potential for two smelters and we will consider both requests on an equal basis. Everybody will be treated equitably in this question. There is no difficulty with that.
All I am saying is that we will wait until we have the full documentation on both projects and, if they both go ahead, so much the better. It will mean more jobs throughout Canada.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion.
On what basis does he make the claim that there is no competition between these two proposals? Does the Minister have a study that is available to the House and to the various Governments that shows the rationale behind the Prime Minister's statement in Quebec and the rationale behind the Minister's statement here today that there is no competition?
Is there any intelligence behind this, or is it just the electioneering of the Prime Minister in Quebec, Mr. Speaker?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the Hon. Member opposite is against this kind of project anywhere in the country.
We are going to deal with the requests that we receive when we receive them, on an equal and equitable basis. We must have the requests in before we can give an answer, and we do not have them.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that these requests will be dealt with equitably whether they be in Quebec, in Manitoba, in B.C., in Newfoundland or in any other province in this
country. There is room for more than one. We have no problems with that. It is a level playing field. We will look at the requests as they come in and hopefully we will be able, through the initiative of private investors in this area, to create more jobs throughout the country again.


FREE TRADE
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade and is further to the questions I asked him yesterday about the 131 victims of the spirit of free trade who were laid off by the Simonds Company.
This morning, the workers read the Minister's advertising, which says, "Let's be prepared to take advantage of free trade. Canadians are getting ready for free trade and the Government of Canada is there to help them."
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 131 Simonds workers, what is the Canadian Government prepared to do for those who are losing their jobs because the plant is being transferred to the United States, according to the good principles of free trade? What is the Government ready to announce for these workers?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as I surmised yesterday the Hon. Member's facts were entirely wrong. The company in question, which is known as Simonds Industries Inc., has four plants.
It has two plants in the U.S. and two in Canada. For reasons of economy and efficiency the company has decided to close one in Canada to consolidate operations in the east, and to close one in Portland, Oregon, consolidating its production in the west in the company's plant in Vancouver, B.C. The company will end up with two plants instead of four, one in Vancouver and one in the United States, rather than having four plants.
In addition, I am told that Toronto will be the location for a new warehouse and distributing centre for the company as well as being the site of the Canadian head office, and that a president has been appointed for the Canadian company.
It is a complete tissue of fabrication that the plant in question is closing because of any connection to the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Tell the truth. If you are going to go to the people, start to learn to tell the truth.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think that is some consolation prize for the 131 unemployed workers to know that there will
August 16, 1988

be a warehouse in Toronto! If that is the kind of economy he wants to build, that is not what we want!


REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT AND EARLY RETIREMENT PROGRAMS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in advertising paid for by the Government of Canada with taxpayers' money, the Government offers assistance to victims of free trade.
What I am asking the Minister is: What else has he to offer these 131 unemployed workers? Having a warehouse in Toronto will not feed their families next week.
I want to know from the Minister where the adjustment programs are. Where are the early retirement programs? What is he offering these families, instead of stupid answers like those he has given us since yesterday?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, all of our government programs will be available to assist anyone laid off as a result of this decision of a private company to consolidate its operations in the interests of the over-all company's productivity.
Operations will continue with one plant operating in western Canada and closing one in the western United States, one plant operating in Massachusetts and unfortunately closing one here in Canada. It has no connection with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which is not even in effect yet. It is not suggested by the company that it has any connection, and the hon. gentleman deliberately distorted the facts when he brought that up. No amount of subterfuge can conceal the fact that you do not wish to tell the truth. You are following your Leader. You do not want to tell the truth.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor.


GRAPE GROWING INDUSTRY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade who spoke against a closure motion in 1981 when he was not a Minister. In the course of that speech against closure he said:
"Where are the people with the grapes in their district? They do not care what happens to the grape industry-"
Let me ask the Minister as he sits there with grapes on his desk, is he not the person who now doesn't care about the grape industry in this country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that three years ago the European Community made a complaint to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, loved and supported by the Liberal and New Democratic opposition Parties. They love the GATT.
Oral Questions
They hate the U.S.-Canada relationship but they love GATT and all 96 countries that belong to GATT.
The European Community laid a complaint before GATT that our provincial liquor board practices with reference to liquor and wine were unfair and discriminated against those competing from outside. During the three year period a GATT panel found against a Canadian province, Ontario, and the rules had to be changed-


Sheila Maureen Copps: After the trade deal was announced.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and the protection given to the grape growers by Ontario and other provinces has to end. It does not matter whether the U.S.-Canada agreement never goes through. If it never sees the light of day, grape growers in Ontario are in trouble. We are doing our best to help them, not Members opposite who do not give a darn about them.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that is totally false.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: The agreement which was signed with the United States came first. It also put a much faster situation into place to which grape growers had to adjust.
Why is the Minister trying to distort the facts in front of the country? Why is he trying to distort the facts in front of grape growers who are here and who will be able to tell him and tell the country that he is wrong?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite would not be able to tell the truth if it came up and smacked him right in the chops. He would not recognize it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sit down you buffoon.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Why do you not clean up your act?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister is getting very close to crossing the fine line between colourful language and accusing another Member of not being able to tell the truth, which is pretty close to saying that the Hon. Member is doing something else. I ask the Hon. Minister and other Hon. Members in this Chamber to restrain themselves.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we are subjected to a campaign of untruthfulness from persons who, whether or not they know it, are telling untruths.
Three years ago the European Community took Canada-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Quit lying!

August 16, 1988
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: -to the GATT. The GATT found that provincial practices on pricing, listing and distribution discriminate against imports of alcoholic beverages and are inconsistent with GATT rules. We have to go back to the GATT by the end of 1988 to report how we are now complying with international GATT trade rules which both Parties opposite support. So the grape growers of Ontario and British Columbia are in difficulty in large part because of the GATT to which 96 countries belong and to which we cannot afford not to belong. That is the truth. Those are the facts, whether you are capable of realizing it or not.


EDUCATION
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Last October nearly 600 people representing students, labour, industry, and educators met in Saskatoon at the National Forum on Post-Secondary Education. I am aware that the Minister's predecessor met with provincial Ministers at a later date.
Can the Minister tell this House what type of follow-up action students and educators can expect from him since he has recently assumed this portfolio?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Saskatoon Forum called for closer federal-provincial co-operation on post-secondary education. We have achieved this. I met the Ministers of Education of Canada in Quebec last June. We have also met many groups representing colleges, universities, professors and teachers. That was the first time ever that consultation involving both levels of government took place.
We must also recall that the Saskatoon Forum called for action on post-secondary education. We are now tackling specific issues in co-operation with the provinces, for example, improving accessibility to student aid, increasing support to university research, and supporting better research and information on post-secondary education.
I intend to have another meeting with provincial ministers next fall. This is just a start. Contrary to the past we are now creating a new partnership with governments and with the private sector on post-secondary education.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Minister of Fisheries. Yesterday the Minister dismissed reports of an inshore fishery failure in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador by saying that all is well in the Minister's own riding of St. John's West and therefore all is well in all of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to ask the Minister whether he has managed in the last 24 hours to shed that callous and, I suggest, arrogant attitude, to discover that inshore fishermen on the Burin Peninsula on the south coast of the province, inshore fishermen on the Labrador coast in the north, inshore fishermen in the Straits of Belle Isle and, indeed, elsewhere in the province are having a very difficult year this year and are in desperate financial straits.
Given that the Minister has probably had 24 hours to recognize reality rather than the fantasy of his own visit to St. John's West, will he now say to the fishermen, primary producers, that help is coming from the federal Government? Or is he telling them all to move to St. John's West?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Member said that there was a disastrous failure of the inshore fishery in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador this year. That is absolutely untrue.
Here are the figures. The over-all landings and landed values for the Newfoundland region for the period January to July have increased over the same period in 1987. Inshore cod landings and values are estimated at 90,000 metric tonnes so far this year and $40 million, compared to 59,000 metric tonnes and $28 million in 1987. Capelin landings and values in 1988 show a dramatic increase with 78,000 metric tonnes compared to 32,000 last year, with landed values up to $28 million from $7 million. Total crab landings have gone up by a $2 million increase in landed values.
There is no disastrous failure. There are some areas in which there has been a poor fishery. Where there has been a poor fishery and if the fishery does not improve-and we are only half way through the year yet-this Government, as always, will be prepared to bring in special measures of assistance to help, through employment programs or otherwise if that is necessary. But the over-all fishery in the Newfoundland inshore fishery this year from the facts, from the figures-not from the fiction-is far better than it was last year. The hon. gentleman should stop getting up in this House with specious nonsense and falsehoods.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, is that not just like the Hon. Member for St. John's
August 16, 1988

West? He calls his corporate friends to get the total landings, but he does not bother to inform the House that the price of fish is half what it was last year and fishermen's incomes are halved. Many fishermen have had no landings whatsoever in significant areas of the province. I am not interested in the statistics-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -I am interested in people, fishermen and their families.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member can complete his question.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is a straightforward one, a very straightforward one. Given that fishermen are primary producers, just as farmers are primary producers, and given that the price of fish is half what it was last year, and in some areas there have been no landings whatsoever, will the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, and in particular those in Newfoundland and Labrador most severely affected, be treated exactly the same as the farmers of the country and be offered financial compensation? It was right and proper in the case of farmers. We saluted it. It is right and proper in the case of fishermen. Why will you not announce it?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I just gave the figures to show the increase in landed value of the fish caught this year. In cod it is up from $28 million, compared to the first six months of last year, to $40 million this year. The fishermen are getting $40 million so far this year rather than $28 million-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The fishermen are not. They are getting half the price. You are lying to the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: -for the landed value of cod. In capelin it is up from $7 million to $28 million. In crab it has gone from $8 million to $10 million. We have a program, a Newfoundland inshore fisheries agreement, infusing $60 million into the fishery over the next five years. We are spending $10.7 million this year in capital projects in harbours, and infrastructures.
In any particular area where there is a disastrous inshore fishery we will continue to assist as we have done in past years. The over-all inshore fishery in Newfoundland this year is better than last year. The hon. gentleman is totally and maliciously wrong in what he says.
Oral Questions HEALTH


LEAD CONTENT OF GASOLINE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health who will know that evidence is mounting and is coming from a variety of sources that lead in quantities smaller than heretofore thought is harmful to human health, and particularly to the development of children.
Will the Minister admit that the Government's plans to reduce the lead in gasoline are too little and too slow? Will he announce that the Government will speed up the removal of lead from gasoline to improve the health of Canadians, especially children?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has indicated, the Government of Canada has put forward a program to remove lead from gasoline by 1992, and the responsibility falls particularly within the Ministry of the Environment, but not exclusively.
Recently a study was presented to the Minister of the Environment and myself respecting the program for lead removal by 1992, as well as the effect of lead on the development of children, especially infants. The Department is examining that information, and I have asked for recommendations relative to that report.


CHILDREN'S EXPOSURE TO LEAD
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The latest estimates are that half a million Canadian children are at risk from present levels, and indeed these may be low estimates given the harm that lead does to the development of children.
Will the Minister confirm the figure that half a million children are over-exposed to lead and that their development might be harmed, or does the Minister have another figure that he could give us as to exactly how many children are being harmed by exposure to lead today?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot dispute that figure or confirm it. It was in a report that was given to two Departments and, as I already mentioned, to two Ministers.
I wish to tell the Hon. Member with respect to lead removal, and I am not putting forward that other action might not be considered with regard to gasoline, that also lead soldering in containers, especially containers for baby food and infant formulas, is being examined.
I have asked my Department for further recommendations following not only that report but other work that has been done in the Government respecting lead poisoning.

August 16, 1988
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACCELERATE LEAD REMOVAL DEADLINE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and it also concerns leaded gasoline. I wish to obtain from the Minister an answer that would indicate to us whether he is willing to accelerate the deadline for reducing lead in gasoline from the planned date of 1993 to 1990, as it was originally indicated as a feasible and possible date by the Royal Society of Canada. Is the Minister willing to give us that commitment today?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give that commitment. As I said to the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood, that report had been given to us. The effective date is December 31, 1992.
The Minister of the Environment and I have asked our respective Departments for further recommendations, and I cannot go beyond that at the present time.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Will the Minister at least indicate to the House when he will report to the House indicating his decision in light of the additional study that he has requested, considering the fact that a number of studies that have been conducted on the subject north and south of the border indicate that lead is a very poisonous element in human blood?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure that we understand the manner in which the word "study" is being used. I did not ask for a further study as to the validity of lead poisoning. The evidence is quite clear, and that is not the argument, but rather if changes were to be made, or additional steps to be taken with respect to lead poisoning, what would be the various administrative details that we would have to consider, plus any other considerations. It is in that area that I have asked for further information rather than a further study confirming what we already know in terms of lead poisoning.
In light of the objective of the federal Government to have some 50 per cent Canadian ownership in the petroleum industry, I wonder if the Minister, as the Minister in charge of energy in this country, and considering that Texaco Canada is now for sale, can tell us what he is doing to ensure that this corporation is Canadianized in order to restore some of the balance and meet the objective of the Government that 50 per cent of the petroleum industry is Canadian owned.
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the statistics published by the Petroleum Monitoring Agency show the direction in which the petroleum industry is going. Some years it may be going in one direction and other years in another direction, but this does not in any way affect the objectives and goals pursued by the Government of Canada with respect to the Canadianization of the upstream component of our petroleum industry. As for Texaco, Mr. Speaker, for the time being this is a private transaction that will take place in accordance with the regulatory system existing in this country, especially if it includes investments in Canada.
\ English]


ROLE OF INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that control of the petroleum industry in this country by Canadians has declined by a sharp 13 per cent in two years, which is very significant, is the Minister now contemplating giving any special instructions to Investment Canada to ensure when Texaco Canada-which is foreign controlled-is sold, that it is sold to Canadians in order to Canadianize the industry?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, that is not exactly the way business transactions are handled in a free enterprise country. If there is any reason for Investment Canada to be consulted and to intervene, this will involve the co-operation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister responsible for Investment Canada.


SALE OF TEXACO CANADA
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. I am sure the Minister is aware that last Thursday the Petroleum Monitoring Agency published a report that stated in the last two years Canadian ownership in petroleum has declined by some 5 per cent, and Canadian control in petroleum has declined by some 13 per cent.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of International Trade. Today Canadians were shocked to learn that the Government increased the free trade advertising budget by an additional $6 million after public opinion polls indicated that


August 16, 1988

an increasing number of Canadians were against the Prime Minister's trade deal.
If the Prime Minister's trade deal with the United States is so great why must we spend another $6 million to convince ourselves that surrendering our sovereignty to another country is in our best interests? How can the Prime Minister justify this? How can the Minister justify this?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is an example of the type of devious tactics that are being used by hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. gentleman's question comes from a report in The Globe and Mail today which received the information under the Freedom of Information Act. It refers to last year's budget for free trade communications where a special audit was done that gave us the assurance that all tax dollars were spent properly. As the House knows, last year a total of $16 million was spent. The article and the information detail and outline what was spent. The free trade printing cost $6 million.
Every inquiry and poll in Canada shows that the public wants more information on the free trade agreement, and by golly we are going to see that they get it. They got it last year, and it cost money to print; and they are going to get it this year, so that they will get the truth, the facts, and not the deceit and deception of hon. creatures like the hon. gentleman opposite.


Don Boudria: It has been said that the opposite to the truth has never been stated with greater accuracy, and that would apply today.
[ Translation]


COST OF TRADE AGREEMENT-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT JUSTIFY EXPENDITURES
Don Boudria: I would like to put a supplementary to the Minister. So far, the Prime Minister's trade agreement has cost Canadians a total of $44 million: $20 million for the negotiating team, $14 million for advertising and now another $14 million to convince Canadians that handing over their sovereignty to the United States of America is in their best interests.
How can the Minister justify this kind of spending? How can he justify spending taxpayers' money on advertisements of the kind referred to by the Hon. Member for Shefford earlier today, in which Canadians are asked to believe statements that are utterly false?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. gentleman asked me about the Hon. Member for Shefford. I have in my hand a Canadian Press report wherein a Granby Simonds official, J. P. Patry, said there is no connection between the plant closing and the trade deal. Patry, the plant controller and a native of Granby, also said he would have no stake in protecting the parent
Oral Questions
company since he is one of the 131 workers who will be laid off.
The hon. gentleman, knowing of this statement by this official who will be laid off himself, got up in the House with deliberate deception and suggested that the Granby plant was being closed because of the free trade agreement-deliberate deception of the Hon. Member for Shefford, deliberate.


RAILWAYS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Deputy Prime Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the survival of Montreal's south shore commuter railway line. Since the line between Beloeil and Montreal's Central Station is suppose to close on August 31, is the federal Government prepared to pay the cost of a moratorium on the closing, to give a federal- provincial task force time to examine ways in which these lines can be maintained on a permanent basis, with the support of the federal, provincial and municipal governments?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet would not be in a position to make a decision like that at the moment because, under the new National Transportation Act, there is a process the NTA goes through. A railway applies to abandon. Anyone who is interested can appear at public hearings. The NTA then has certain guidelines it can follow in determining whether a line is economical or uneconomical. It can be kept on. Interested parties can purchase the short railway and run it themselves. A huge number of possibilities can occur under the new National Transportation Act that Parliament recently passed.
As well, over-all the railways are limited to a 4 per cent reduction each year. Change is inevitable in certain instances simply because the dynamics of Canada are changing vis-avis railway and other methods of transport. Parliament put a 4 per cent maximum on the reduction and I thought that was pretty wise.


RETENTION OF RAILWAY SERVICES FOR SUBURBAN AREAS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
M. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: The Parliamentary Secretary says that change is inevitable. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary never travelled on one of these trains from Montreal's south shore. They go back to 1925, have no washrooms or heating and are among the oldest trains in this

August 16, 1988
Oral Questions
country. Will the Government make a commitment to maintain commuter railway services in the Montreal region? If so, will the federal Government participate in a joint program with the Government of Quebec and Montreal region municipalities to maintain these commuter services and thus prevent the closing of the Saint-Hilaire line which will otherwise disappear on August 31 ?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate moment there is no doubt that the Government will be prepared to consider any type of combination of possibilities. If an area is in trouble, it is because people are no longer using the service, whether it is VIA Rail service or traffic service, because they have often moved to other modes. That is the reality of the market-place.
CN finds itself in a position where some one-third of its lines carry over 90 per cent of its traffic. That means that two-thirds of its lines are carrying only one-third of its traffic. It simply cannot carry that on and be competitive with the trucking system that is becoming very sophisticated in Canada.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-ONTARIO GRAPE GROWERS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. Recently the Minister announced an adjustment program for the grape growers of the Province of British Columbia. Why has the Government not made a similar adjustment for the grape growers of the Province of Ontario?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this Government is fully committed to a policy and a process of consultation with provincial governments and with producers, wherever they may be. We are pleased by the results of those negotiations with the Government and the producers of British Columbia. As the Hon. Member for Erie has indicated, the results were announced some time ago when a package of some $28 million was announced.
I want to make it very clear that there is an offer on the table with respect to the difficulties the producers are encountering here in the Province of Ontario, difficulties which they are encountering for a variety of reasons that have already been discussed at some length during Question Period today. The federal Government has put an offer on the table. The provincial government is currently looking at that offer and I would hope that there could be a resolution to this problem in the not too distant future. In fact, I would hope it would come very soon.
I would also point out that we as a Government are fully committed to the process of keeping producers informed, wherever they may be, including the producers who I understand are here today. I also understand that Department of Agriculture officials have announced that they would be happy to meet with the producers to whom the Hon. Member for Hamilton East has referred, but I regret that apparently that offer has not been accepted.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is false, Mr. Speaker, that is false.


An Hon. Member:: That is a lie. That is a lie.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know who said that, but it does not help the Chamber and it does not help the Speaker. I will not pursue it further, but please, it is not necessary.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Government, and in particular the Minister of National Defence, used to grandstand all over in Canada and in NATO circles telling everyone they were going to bring on stream 10 to 12 nuclear powered submarines by the year 2012, 24 years after this Government will have been defeated. The rhetoric has really cooled of late and silence seems to be the order of the day. The Government has long passed the date it said it was going to make an announcement.
Is the Government now prepared to admit that it was wrong and that it will no longer proceed with this ill-conceived idea?


Mr. Bud Bradley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very serious question, as he is well aware. I would be interested to know if the Hon. Member is now showing that he no longer supports such a move by the Government of Canada to modernize Canada's Armed Forces.
I think the Hon. Member will find that it is Canada's intent to modernize its navy and to provide its navy with the best technical equipment available. I think he will also be aware that the Minister of National Defence stated very recently that the announcement would be made soon.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, that answer is the square root of nothing. The Hon. Member knows that I support the Armed Forces and the refurbishing of them. However, this Party does not support nuclear submarines.
Will the Government proceed with this $8 billion ill-conceived purchase of 10 to 12 nuclear powered submarines or will it not? That is the question. Perhaps the Parliamentary
August 16, 1988

Secretary could come to the answer, stop the grandstanding and tell the people of Canada where he stands.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to tell the Hon. Member where I stand. I stand with this Government in supporting Canada's Armed Forces and in replacing their ill-equipped vessels which were given to them and not replaced by previous Governments. We will provide the navy with the required weapons systems.
I notice that the Hon. Member says that he supports but his Party does not. I wonder if he supports a submarine program or if he is talking through his hat.


Mr. Speaker:: That concludes Question Period.


PRIVILEGE
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I feel I must raise a question of privilege, because during Oral Question Period the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) let his emotions get the best of him and finally impugned my motives. Mr. Speaker, I think we should realize that every statement made in the Simonds case is connected with the concept of free trade, and even the company itself has made statements to the effect that in future it would cover the North American market from its plant in Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, I did not want to mislead the House, far from it! I think that the arguments put forward by the company, by the Opposition and even by free trade supporters ... I would like to quote to the Minister what was said by, the PQ MNA for Shefford: "Manufacturing of knives and tools will be transferred to Fitchburg, Massachusetts in ...


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but if he wants to raise a question of privilege, the Chair must have a very clear position. I would appreciate the Hon. Member's co-operation.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make my position any clearer: It is that the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) be asked to have the strength of character to withdraw the fact that he questioned my motives or that he said we voluntarily misled the House.
I can say one thing, Mr. Speaker. Not only was it not done voluntarily, but we did not mislead the House at all. The Minister refuses to face the facts, and instead of reacting like a hard-hearted nouveau riche, he should realize what it means to those 131 people to lose their jobs.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member says that he did not have
Privilege
this information or he did not deliberately mislead the House, then I will accept that. However, he certainly did mislead the House, because I have just cited a person working in the company at Granby who was quite clear in his position. He is one of the persons being laid off, and he said that there is no connection between the plant closing and the trade deal. If the hon. gentleman said that he did not know about that at the time, fine. I will withdraw my suggestion, if there was one, that he deliberately misled the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West and I note that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is rising, I want to advise the House, and I think that I should do so, that I have a fairly complex question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Halifax West, and I will be hearing that as well. In the meantime, I will hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention-and I usually notice this during the Question Period-to raise a point of order on what I consider to be the use of unparliamentary language by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) during the Question Period.


John Carnell Crosbie: Give me some examples.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to draw to your attention that at one point in the Question Period the Minister for International Trade used the words "deliberately distort" with respect to a question posed by a Member on this side, and later in the Question Period he used the words "deliberate deception" with respect to remarks made in the Question Period by the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).


Mr. Speaker:: Once again in order to assist the Chair, the Hon. Member cited two instances, do they occur in the same exchange between the Hon. Member for Shefford and the Minister? I only ask that because the Minister has risen and said that if he contravened the rules he withdraws. I just want to know where we are here.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am talking about two separate instances in the Question Period, separated by some minutes of time. The Hon. Minister for International Trade, in responding to the Hon. Member for Shefford, did make some comments about the second instance to which I referred, concerning the Minister's use of the words "deliberate deception". He said, "If the Member for Shefford now says that he was mistaken, he", that is the Minister for International Trade, "withdraws the words 'deliberate deception'".
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is unparliamentary for the Minister for International Trade to use the words "deliberate deception", whether or not there was an explanation given by the Hon. Member for Shefford which the Minister found satisfactory. Even if the Hon. Member for Shefford had not said anything, it would have been improper and unparliamentary for the Minister for International Trade to use the words "deliberate deception".

August 16, 1988
Privilege
If you look at page 106 of Beauchesne's, you will see-


Mr. Speaker:: I can assist the Hon. Member. I do not need quotes from Beauchesne's. I accept the proposition that the Hon. Member for Windsor West is putting to me. He is a Member with very great experience in this House. The use of words "deliberate deception" is just like calling somebody a liar. I accept that. I do not need any quotes from Beauchesne's.
Would the Hon. Member complete his comments, please, for the assistance of the Chair?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I also want to ask you to give attention to the use- earlier in the Question Period on a separate occasion-of the words "deliberately distort" by the Minister for International Trade. This has also been ruled on several occasions by distinguished predecessors to you, Mr. Speaker, to be unparliamentary. I therefore respectfully call on you to insist that the Minister withdraw, unequivocally and unreservedly, those words.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate those comments from the Hon. Member for Windsor West. The Hon. Minister has already, I think, dealt with at least part of the complaint, but I would hear the Hon. Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let us get this quite clear. I believe that there is a deliberate campaign by the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party deliberately to distort and deceive with reference to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. That is my position.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Now, if Your Honour feels that to say that is unparliamentary, I will withdraw it in this Chamber but I will repeat it outside the Chamber. There is no doubt in my mind that it is a campaign of deliberate distortion and deceit that is going on in this connection.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Minister to do this to assist the Chair. Whatever the Hon. Minister may think about the strategy or tactics of another Party, that may well be his or somebody else's opinion, but in this Chamber we cannot use those words about a Member. Perhaps the Hon. Minister could assist the Chair in making it clear that, whatever he may think of the strategy or tactics or pronunciations or campaign of another Party, he is not applying those words to any Hon. Member in the Chamber.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make your task difficult, so I therefore withdraw the words that you say offend the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East.



Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am also rising on a question of privilege, and it deals with a false statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Clark). I am not going to debate the substance of most of what he said because most of what he said is certainly in my mind not true, but he definitely stated a falsehood about me when he said that my office had refused to have a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).
In fact, the facts are as follows. We contacted the Prime Minister's Office to see if we could have a meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) so that he would follow through on his promise to the grape growers. He bounced us off to the office of the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Agriculture was unavailable. We suggested that if a mutual time could be set up in the future for a meeting between the grape growers and the Minister of Agriculture, the grape growers would be very happy to come back to Ottawa. So, please, do not spread falsehoods.


Mr. Speaker:: I wanted to say something on the past exchange. I understand that it is one of your colleagues who has been here for a good many years, and at times we all perhaps go beyond the mark, but I do want to thank Hon. Members for the way that they have dealt with this matter, and I thank the Hon. Minister for his complete withdrawal. I should have made a point of that before hearing the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. I apologize to Hon. Members and to the Minister for that.
However, I am now listening to the complaint of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, and I recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary in reply.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be most useful in exchanges such as this one if various Members involved were to wait until they had a chance to see the "blues" in order to verify what was and was not said. Having said that, however, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has risen and I think to some degree has put words in my mouth, but I will let the record speak to that itself.
What I said-and I chose my words very carefully-was that we as a Government were very much committed to a process of consultation with provincial governments and with producer groups. I reported to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Agriculture officials had offered to meet with the grape growers who had been referred
August 16, 1988

to earlier in the Elouse by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East, and that offer had been declined.
Mis. Copps: That is totally false.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can assist the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and the House. I will look very carefully at what Hansard reports. If it is appropriate I will come back into the Chamber with this matter. If I need any further assistance from Hon. Members I will call for it.
The Hon. Minister on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to object to the production and sending of these sour grapes which were sent to me during Question Period. If we are going to start throwing fruit around during Question Period we will not be having very fruitful Question Periods because the grapes of wrath will seize the House.
Are we going to permit the production of these kinds of exhibits? A rotting salmon was brought in at one time, or was it a mackerel?


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, we saved 400,000 spawners.


John Carnell Crosbie: You did? I do not know whether this will save the grape industry, but I do not believe this should be carried around the House by pages, and not with notes.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why do you not read the note?


John Carnell Crosbie: The note says: "Please tell the truth and help the trade victims". That is an allegation that I do not tell the truth, but I am not going to bring it up because we have had enough of that today.


Mr. Speaker:: I am terribly grateful to the Hon. Minister for not bringing it up.
The Chair noticed that there was a basket of grapes in the House some time ago. Messages were sent to the Member who seemed to be the owner of the basket of grapes. The basket of grapes was then put underneath the Member's desk. How the grapes got from there to the Hon. Minister i do not know, but I must say that the Hon. Minister is absolutely right. It is not according to the rules to pass grapes or other things like that back and forth across the House, and most certainly it is less than elegant to send notes such as the note of which the Hon. Minister complains. The note was, I take it, a private communication and was not brought to the attention of the Speaker.
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy situation in which to raise a question of privilege which I honestly believe has grave merit. It was with some regret that I gave you notice and now seek a hearing on the question of privilege I described in the notice which, as you know, involves the actions of serving officers of the Canadian Forces.
As I indicated to you in my notification, the basis of my claim is a violation of my privilege as a Member of Parliament by reason of the gratuitous interference in the performance of my duties and what I honestly believe to be an attempt to intimidate me to prevent me from investigating and commenting upon what were apparent acts of violence reported in the media as a result of a court martial under the National Defence Act.
The court martial involved two members of Maritime Command, then Petty Officer Timothy C. Farler and then Master Seaman Ryan M. Buttar. This case attracted wide regional attention as well as national attention. Members of the House of Commons will know that in yesterday's Quorum, circulated to all Members and to many other people connected with the Parliament of Canada, there was a report of this case and the surrounding circumstances originally published in The Globe and Mail. 1 do not need to convince you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of wide and serious concern.
I believe there is a clear prima facie case disclosed in published media reports, particulars of which appeared in The Daily News of Halifax on August 11, 1988, and I have provided you with a copy of that publication. At this time I do not have access to the transcript of the remarks as reported in the court martial, but I have made attempts to ascertain from persons in attendance at the court martial that the report in The Daily News is a reasonably accurate presentation of the thrust and tenor of the remarks made by serving officers in the court martial.
If you affirm my view that there is a prima facie case, Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, prepared to present a motion requesting reference of this matter to the appropriate committee, which I assume is the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedures.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you recognize a substantive difference between the question of privilege I now raise and the matters of privilege which you have just witnessed in this Chamber. If you will allow me the time, I would like to begin by reviewing what I consider to be the relevant considerations.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the Hon. Member for Halifax West that I have received material from him. I take this as a very serious complaint and want to assure the Hon. Member that I will listen very carefully to his entire submission. The Hon. Member.

August 16, 1988
Privilege


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, first, to relate the facts to Your Honour and to put them on the record of the House of Commons, there was, in the City of Halifax, a court martial proceeding which resulted in a conviction, if that is the appropriate term, of then Petty Officer Timothy Farler. The punishment which was imposed on Petty Officer Farler was a demotion of three ranks with a recommendation of immediate promotion to the next rank.
In commenting to a journalist on this matter I indicated my view, which I do with some sense of pride as well as concern, that the punishment did not fit the crime, that had that kind of offence been prosecuted in a civilian court the punishment would have been much greater. I do not see why 1 should hesitate to express that view. The cruelty involved in the actions of Petty Officer Farler was evident to all involved.
As a result of making those remarks certain events took place. For the purposes of Your Honour's consideration you merely need consider the events which took place with regard to a subsequent court martial of another member of the Canadian Forces whose name 1 have just indicated.
In that proceeding counsel for the accused seaman argued before the court martial that as a result of the remarks I made, and the publicity attendant upon the court martial, the charges should be dismissed as a fair trial or a fair court martial, if that is the proper terminology, could not be had.
As I understand the authority one should quote from the article, and I do so as follows:
"-Halifax West MP Howard Crosby jeopardized a court martial in Halifax yesterday by trying to contact a chief witness before the trial, a defence lawyer charged yesterday.
Defence lawyer Lieut. Guy Phillips said Crosby has tried to contact Leading Seaman Paul Jack Mishak, chief witness in the court martial of Master Seaman Ryan Michael Buttar. That, coupled with media reports on a prior court martial of Leading Seaman Timothy Charles Farler, means charges against Buttar should be dropped, said Phillips.
Mishak, 22, testified at Buttar's court martial yesterday that a friend had received a phone call, asking him to contact "a Mr. Crosby".
Rather than return the call, Mishak consulted his superior officer who told him not to talk to Crosby."
There are the facts, Mr. Speaker. However, the relevant consideration is that I made no attempt whatsoever to contact any witness and I certainly made no attempt to contact Leading Seaman Mishak. In fact, quite the opposite, I was contacted by a person and I avoided any further involvement in the inquiry.
For a serving officer of Canada's Armed Forces to rise before a court martial and say a Member of Parliament does not have the right to speak out on a matter of wide public interest involving national defence and the Canadian Forces is totally wrong and without any justification. To accuse a Member of Parliament of contacting a witness for apparently improper reasons is a serious allegation which should not be disregarded. If untrue, it raises questions about the motivation of the officer who made the allegation. What is the purpose? I suggest to you that on the face of it, it is to intimidate the Member of Parliament, to say butt out, this is an affair for
naval authorities, a court martial, and you should not concern yourself with what is regarded as military justice.
I said in Halifax and I repeat in this Chamber, not for one moment will I butt out of what I consider to be a serious matter involving the health and welfare of individuals in the Canadian Forces and one of interest to all citizens. We know, you and I, that civilian law governs in this country, not military law or their version of discipline in the Forces.
I do not want to impute ill motives to everyone involved in the situation, but it is certainly worthy of close investigation. Let me tell you why. While that officer, Lieutenant Guy Phillips, was prepared to make the suggestion in the court martial that I was interfering in the process by making remarks which were published, as well as the media who exercised their rights, the same officer made no comment on an article published in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of August 11, 1988, signed by Rear Admiral H. T. Porter, in which he said the sub affair was an isolated incident, not to worry. That did not affect the outcome of the court martial. That did not bring to the attention of the officers involved that they need not treat this matter too seriously because it was an isolated incident in the mind of Rear Admiral Porter as published in the newspaper under his signature. However, the chance remark of a Member of Parliament, repeated to a journalist, published in the paper, does affect the court martial. Now do you get the picture, Mr. Speaker? Now do you begin to wonder what is going on in this court martial? What are these people up to? Are they trying to intimidate a Member of Parliament? Are they trying to say courts martial are the business of the military and they do not want any civilians interfering?
I think this relates very directly in a very serious way to every Member of Parliament. I will tell you right now the next time around I will do exactly the same thing. If 1 think the punishment meted out to a member of the Armed Forces by a court martial or by anyone else is not in the public interest, I will say so. I am not going to be told what to do by any lieutenant in the Navy or any other serving officer.
I want your backing on this, Mr. Speaker. I want you to stand up on behalf of all Members of the House and say civilian law governs in this country. The laws enacted by this Parliament are what govern. We are the ones who have to see that they are implemented and enforced to the benefit of all Canadians.
I want to point out that one reason we are talking about courts martial is because of a recent decision of the courts of Canada under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which now makes courts martial public hearings. We can expect this in the future. We, Members of the House of Commons as well as members of the public, will know what takes place in courts martial. We will see and judge for ourselves what constitutes military discipline. If I think the cruel treatment of a seaman in the Canadian Navy by a petty officer and a master seaman is not properly punished, 1 am going to say it.
August 16, 1988

I know you have ruled in other cases. I have been up in this House on previous occasions raising questions of privilege. I know about the Quigley case. 1 know you said that privileges are for a Member of Parliament and not for Mr. Quigley. He is punished for contacting a Member of Parliament, not to worry. You saw what happened in that case. The ruling was that it was none of Parliament's concern, that Mr. Quigley was punished by loss of employment by the Deputy Minister because of his involvement with Members of Parliament. Time goes by, he is reinstated, and then fired again for what I consider to be an inadequate reason.
You, Mr. Speaker, are not going to answer the question in the way you did in the Quigley case, in my humble opinion, because if you set it up so that no one with a problem, in the Canadian Forces or the federal Public Service, can contact a Member of Parliament for fear of recrimination or sanctions or fear of getting into difficulty, then you will indirectly have destroyed the ability of Members of Parliament to function in the performance of their duties.
I could quote authorities to you but, as you said earlier, there is no need, the situation is clear. The obligation is to present a prima facie case of a violation of a Member's privileges. I think I have done that. The facts are there. In my view they indicate a violation of my privileges as a Member of Parliament in a very clear way. It is an attempt to keep me from communicating with a person with whom I have a perfect right to communicate. The reverse also is true. In this case I am referring to Able Seaman Mishik and he was, according to the reports, told not to communicate with me.
Has anyone in this country the right to tell any person not to communicate with a Member of Parliament? Is that not a violation? Is there not something wrong with that? Can you say that if you allow that to occur it will not affect the rights of Members of Parliament? I think it is obvious that we cannot tolerate this kind of abuse. We as Members of Parliament have to decide whether we have duties to perform. If we make that decision, we have to have the capacity and the right to perform those duties untrammelled by anyone's view of what we should or should not be doing. We are going to be judged by the people when we run for office. Do not let us be judged by any other authority other than those that we endorse and condone.
In conclusion, I want to make this point. If you tell me as a Member of Parliament that I do not have protection, that I do not have the force of the Parliament of Canada behind me when I inquire into what I believe to be a case of injustice, I do not have that ability and authority, then tell me because I will not do it. I will not stick my neck out in these situations. Why should I if I am not going to receive the support and endorsement of my peers in the House of Commons represented by you?
1 ask you to review carefully the things you said in the Quigley case and come down on the side of Members of Parliament and their right to investigate without fear of molestation, hindrance, interference, or obvious attempts to denigrate them in the eyes of the public.
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should say to the Hon. Member for Halifax West and other Hon. Members that I have listened very carefully to the relation of events which has been brought before the Chair. I do not have in front of me the written reasons in the Quigley case, but I seem to remember that it turned on the question of whether or not the Hon. Member who raised the matter had in fact his capacity to act as a Member of Parliament abridged or restricted in an undue way. If that had been the case, it would of course have been within the definition of privilege.
I believe what I decided at that time was that the Hon. Member's capacity to function as a Member of Parliament had not been in any way impaired by whatever happened to Mr. Quigley. I bring this to the Hon. Member's attention, but I will look at it very carefully and will reread the Quigley case. There may be a distinction between what happened in that case and what happened in this case.
I advise the Hon. Member for Halifax West that I shall reserve and I shall look with very great care at his submission.
I think I can say something, at least as a Speaker and as a lawyer, that there is no property in a witness. In this case, the Member of Parliament says that he not only never did, but did not even try to speak to a witness. Even if he did, there is no property in a witness. That is not like phoning a judge. That is not like tampering with a witness, bringing undue or improper influence on a witness. To speak to a witness is a right, not just of a Member of Parliament but a right of any Canadian. I say this because I am concerned about the thought pattern that has been related by the Hon. Member and I think that ought to be clearly understood. There is no property in a witness. There is no law in this country that says a Member of Parliament or an ordinary private citizen cannot talk to somebody who happens to be a witness in a case.
What the law does not allow is tampering with a witness, putting undue or improper influence on that witness, or in some way pressuring, persuading or doing or not doing something, that would influence that witness' capacity to tell the truth, whether that be by threat or by seduction or by whatever other means.
I say to the Hon. Member for Halifax West, who has clearly said in the House today that he did not contact the witness, that even if he had there is nothing wrong with that.
I am concerned about the matter that the Hon. Member has brought in front of me. I say to the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members that the question the Chair must decide is whether the Hon. Member's privilege has been abridged or wronged. As I say again, that comes down to the question of whether what has happened affects the Hon. Member's capacity to carry on as a Member of this place. That is the question I will have to decide. As the Member for Halifax West who as a good lawyer well knows, I will have to do that on the basis of the procedural law of this place.

August 16, 1988
Speaker's Ruling
1 do say to the Hon. Member that whatever I may decide he most certainly has a justifiable complaint and, as other Members will always find in a case like this, the Chair will listen very carefully.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT SPEAKER'S RULING CONCERNING ALLOCATION OFTIME TO CONSIDER REPORT AND THIRD READING STAGES OF BILL C-130
Mr. Speaker:: I have a decision to render.
Yesterday the Honourable Minister of State (Treasury Board) (Mr. Lewis) gave oral notice of a motion for time allocation for the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-130 the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, pursuant to Standing Order 117.

The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) then rose on a point of order to argue that the notice was defective because it failed to specify the number of hours or days to be allocated. This morning he further claimed that the Minister could not proceed because agreement had been reached under Standing Order 116 "by a majority of the representatives of the several parties".
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has supported the Hon. Member for Windsor West in both the arguments and took the position that the Government House Leader was precluded from resorting to Standing Order 117 because of a declared agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party on a specific number of days for debate at report stage. That is, the agreement between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party indicated that they had agreed on 150 days at report stage and on 200 days at third reading with respect to the free trade Bill and, as they argued, as required in the Standing Order.
I will first address the issue relating to the deficiency of the oral notice. The basis of the argument against that notice was because it did not specify the amount of time to be allocated for further debate. The Chair has carefully reread Standing Order 117. When it deals with notice the Standing Order employs the words "and has given notice of his or her intention to do so". It appears to require only notice of intention and not notice of the text of the motion per se.
Furthermore, I can point to two precedents, on May 3, 1988 and June 3, 1988, when the same notice of intention was given without specifying a number of days. I should point out that I bring both these occasions to the attention of the House, not necessarily to suggest that just because it has been done once it
ought necessarily, to legally be done again but to bring the matter to the attention of the House. I do not take those two incidents as the basis of a legal, procedural precedent, but I do bring them to the attention of the House.
I remind Hon. Members that at the moment the motion which may eventually be proposed to the House by the Chair is one that has been proposed by the Hon. Minister. A point of order has interrupted that process. I am considering whether or not the Hon. Minister's motion is acceptable. If it is acceptable, then it would inevitably be proposed by the Chair, and the motion that might eventually be proposed to the House by the Chair is required to be specific and to provide for at least one sitting day for report stage and at least one sitting day for third reading. I think that comes from any clear reading of the rules.
1 must therefore rule that the Minister has properly given notice of his intention and that his action was in keeping with the House's usual form.
The second point the Hon. Member for Windsor West argued this morning is more complex and simply restated is: Is a Minister of the Crown precluded from invoking Standing Order 117 if a majority of the Parties, not including the Government, states that it has reached an agreement under Standing Order 116?

The first sentence of Standing Order 116 hears repeating:
"When a Minister of the Crown from his or her place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill..."

I have read carefully the words "representatives of the several Parties". The Hon. Member for Windsor West has stated that those words mean the three Party House Leaders, but the use of the word "representatives" is open to considerable interpretation and could mean a majority of the members of each Party or, indeed, even a majority of the Members of the House. I think the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap will remember that earlier I may have made a comment in that direction. I probably should have used the counsel of the seniors from whom I learned to do court work who always said that it was wise, a judge who did not comment while listening to an argument. In any event, these words have never been clarified.
I have to say now, after having given both Hon. Members' submissions careful consideration, that I would tend to agree with the view that the words mean the House Leaders of the several Parties or their appointees, for no other definition is practicable since there is no former mechanism in the Standing Order to determine the majority of a larger group of Members.
August 16, 1988

That being said, I am not sure I can agree with the Hon. Members for Windsor West and Kamloops-Shuswap that two Parties in opposition alone can form the basis of an agreement that would compel a Minister of the Crown to act under Standing Order 116. Just so the Hon. Members and the public understand, if that proposition were accepted by the Chair it would mean that two opposition parties, or three opposition parties, or whatever number of opposition parties could form an agreement to decide on how many days of debate would continue on any given Bill, and the Government would thereby be bound by that agreement. All three Standing Orders, that is 115, 116 and 117-and they all deal with the question of how to handle the time allocation at various stages of debate on a Bill-in their opening sentences clearly leave the initiative of announcing any agreement or no agreement to a Minister. It is my view that a Minister must be party to any agreement and that rising in his or her place under Standing Order 115 or 116 to take any initiative means that he or she is supportive of the proposed proposal for time allocation.
Standing Order 117 provides for a Minister to act if there is no agreement and, as I stated on June 6, 1988, the Chair must take a Minister's declaration at face value and cannot judge the quality of negotiations or of any proposals that may have been made. In this case I was not even asked to judge on the quality of the negotiations because there is a document that indicates the arrangement at least had been entered into with two of the Parties in the House, albeit, not that of the Government.
As a consequence, I have to rule that the notice was in order and the motion is receivable.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That, in relation to Bill C-I30, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage, and two sitting days to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the second day allotted to report stage consideration and on the second day allotted to third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind Hon. Members that this is a debatable motion, and I will hear Hon. Members.
Time Allocation


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to explain fully the Government's position and to explain why we are moving to time allocation in this particular instance.
There are four or five reasons. First, it is fair to say that there have been numerous statements by Opposition Members that they have intended from day one to delay the Bill, the legislation, as long as possible, not to correct or amend but to delay as long as possible at any cost.
Second, I would point to the manoeuvres by the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party to trade power by the elected representatives of the people for power by the Senate in asking the Senate to delay forever the Bill, or at least until a general election is called.
Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to the delays in the past week or so. In fact, last Wednesday the entire day was wasted by votes on the introduction of Private Members' Bills to which government Members were naturally pleased to assent because we hold the view that every Member should have the right to introduce his or her Bill and have it read for the first time.
I also refer you to last Friday's recorded division on whether or not the House would move to the business of the day and thus debate of Bill C-l30 at report stage. As well I refer you to yesterday from eleven o'clock in the morning until one o'clock when the Opposition pulled the same manoeuvre by introducing a Private Member's Bill and then having the last three rows of the New Democrats say "no" and the first two rows say "yes" in order to trigger a recorded division and waste the time of the House.
I also refer you to the remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party on the CBC radio program The House on July 23, when the point was made by the interviewer that the New Democratic Party was opposed to free trade. The interviewer said:
"Yet watching the debate in the House of Commons and elsewhere, the message seems to be lost on people."
In reply the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) said:
"I think that around here amongst politicians because it has been debated for so long and we know the arguments in one sense on both sides so well that there can be amongst journalists, amongst some MPs, some jaded, "I've been through this so many times" perspective."
Those words are very helpful from the Leader of the New Democratic Party in making the case.
Yesterday, as soon as the bell rang on the first vote to see if we would introduce and print a Private Member's Bill, I went to the House Leaders of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party and asked them if they could give me some idea of the amount of time required at report stage and at third reading stage in order to dispose of the Bill. That was an honest bona fide effort to elicit a reasonable timetable from the Opposition as required under Standing Order 117. I received the following letter from the coalition Party. I have read this letter into the record, and it is very specific. It says that the two Opposition Parties:

August 16, 1988
Time Allocation
"-are prepared to agree to an allocation of a further 150 days to the report stage and 200 days to the third reading stage of this Bill."
The letter is dated August 15, 1988. While it is a coalition letter, 1 would not want my friends in the New Democratic Party to think that they are on equal footing with the Liberal Party in this coalition. I would point out that it is a Xerox copy of the signature of the House Leader of the Liberal Party but that it is an original of the signature of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I do not want my friends to think that in this coalition one is exactly equal. The are in it together just as they were in the national energy policy together. However, it is not an equal footing. If my friend from the New Democratic Party wants to then consult, we can perhaps give him some advice as to how he can bring himself up to equal so that he can sign original copies too. I would be glad to do that at another point.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this letter is an embarrassment to the democratic process. It is a mockery of democracy. It is an embarrassment to efforts to negotiate in good faith. I think it is a fundamental error.
If my friends opposite had wanted to place the Government in an awkward position, they would have given us a reasonable proposition. I ask my friends opposite how we would have responded if the argument had been five days at report stage and five days at third reading. Then we would have had to argue that two days at report stage and two days at third reading is reasonable. But my friends made the argument for us when they said 150 days at report stage and 200 days at third reading.
I point out another piece of advice that I give my friends. In my office when, as one does on occasion-and we all do it-I write a letter in a fit of temper without thinking it through my office staff will come to me and say: "Mr. Lewis, do you really want to send this letter out?" I take another look at it in the calm of the moment and I say: "You are probably right. I should not send out this letter". That did not happen across the way. They rushed into this and gave us the entire case, the entire case that they are not serious about this Bill, that they are not serious about this Parliament.
I say this to my hon. friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The critics in this case have made an honest effort, I would expect. They sat at committee hearings. They spent time on this Bill. I suggest that the critics who sat in committee on this have been undercut by their House Leaders. They have been undercut because they have made a mockery of the effort that my hon. friend made at committee. I would expect that there is some disappointment. For example, my friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry was quoted in The Ottawa Citizen as having said last week two weeks at report stage. Why did that not come in the letter? Why was it not suggested that there be two weeks at report stage, as my hon. friend is quoted as saying? No, we got 150 days at report stage. There
has been a breakdown in communication between the Parties opposite. I suggest it is an embarrassment to every Member who has debated substance in this House. I think that it is unfortunate.
We regret that it has come to time allocation on this Bill. We regret that. But the substance of the issue of free trade has been debated over the past two years. One could even go back farther than that. I think Your Honour would find that other speakers are going to go back to the 1978 report of the Senate committee, the report of the House of Commons committee and various other committees and refer to those in their arguments. The issue of free trade has been before the House for a long time. The issue before the House now is whether or not this Bill properly implements the free trade agreement. We suggest that is what this debate is about at report stage. That is what this debate is about at third reading.
We have moved the motion of time allocation with a view to moving this through the House in order that the issue can be sent to the Senate for approval. We hope, obviously, that the appointed and anointed Liberal Senators will withdraw their embargo of any further discussion as dictated by the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party. We hope that we can get on with what the House and the duly elected representatives of the people have decided in this case, that is, what was decided at second reading-that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States should be implemented by way of Bill C-130.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed one of the greatest acting performances of all time in the House of Commons, the visage of pained innocence on the Deputy House Leader who seemed to say: "The devil made me do it. The Opposition forced me into calling closure. Something that I would not dare to do in my wildest nightmares I had to do because I had no choice".
Let us look at the facts. On every single step along the way on this trade agreement the Government has imposed a restriction on Parliament. At every single stage of the Bill there has been closure. At every single stage there has been a clear decision by the Tory majority to restrict debate, to restrict travel, to restrict exposure and to restrict examination. The Tories said that they did not want this Bill, this legislation, this agreement to have the open, honest, accountable judgment of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I take you back two and a half years to the original communication strategy paper by the Cabinet of the Conservative Government. Let me quote from that communication paper. It states that: The strategy should rely less on educating the general public than on getting across the message that the trade initiative is good". In other words, it is a selling job, not information, not examination but a selling job.
August 16, 1988

The paper goes on to state that the public support generated should be recognized as extremely soft and likely to evaporate rapidly if the debate is allowed to get out of control. Two and a half years ago the strategy was set. It was: "Do not let the people know. Keep it in darkness. Keep it restricted. Keep it confined. Keep it under cover. Oh, it is okay to spend $30 million or $40 million in propaganda. We can sort of get all the printing presses wound up. We can get all our Conservative public relations firms into the trough putting forward all kinds of bright messages. But for goodness sake don't let Parliament have the right to examine what we are going to do-$35 million and $40 million of PR propaganda for five or six hours of debate at report stage looking at 77 amendments".
What that basically says is that this is a Government that has replaced Parliament with a rule of propaganda. Today, when we spoke in Question Period about the victims of the trade agreement, the grape workers in the Okanagan and in southern Ontario, the manufacturing group in Granby, and all the other workers-the 186,000 workers that the Economic Council of Canada has described as going to lose their jobs- we see that there will be victims. But the most serious, the greatest loss will be the integrity and sanctity of this Chamber itself. The greatest casualty of the Canada-U.S. trade negotiation is the Parliament of Canada. It is an institution that is central and integral to our identity as a country but which has been abused, manipulated and tortured out of its rules, out of its procedures and out of its proper operation simply to support the maniacal and fanatical obsession to get this deal into place according to the timetable set by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
The Prime Minister, who has a natural gift for counterfeit, has bestowed that same endowment on his friends and allies. All the Tories have now become true believers. I weep. I came into Parliament at a time when there were some great Conservative parliamentarians, for example, Ged Baldwin and Walter Baker, people that one could look up to as Members who would defend the rights of the House. What a sad and sorry lot sits across from us now. Ged Baldwin and the late Walter Baker must regret that they ever used the word "Progressive" Conservative because it has been so corrupted by the present Government. It has been corrupted in part by the agreement itself. The Conservatives have abandoned their traditions, their beliefs, and their commitment to defending the sanctity of this country, and in so doing they have trampled on the rights of Parliament.
The Deputy Government House Leader has stated that there has been enough examination, and "Why would people want to debate more than nine or ten hours on the trade agreement?" It is a document which the Government itself states is the singular most important piece of legislation in this administration.
When I was Minister of Transport in the previous administration, we brought in the Western Grain Transportation Act. It was an important piece of legislation affecting western Canada, but not nearly as comprehensive or extensive as the
Time Allocation
trade legislation which covers 26 other Acts. The Western Grain Transportation Act was debated for 58 hours and 30 minutes at report stage alone, and 37 hours at second reading. That amount of time is four or five times what the Government has allowed the House to debate on the trade legislation. The Western Grain Transportation Act was a Bill of significance, but not nearly of the consequence of the Bill in front of us. To feign that somehow "the devil made them do it" and that the Government has now been forced into bringing in time allocation is sheer hypocrisy and deception.
We knew what we were up against. In a rare moment of lucidity when he was not blustering and bluffing his way around the country, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), said out straight: "I am not going to let this Bill go more than two or three weeks". He is the Minister responsible. We do not see him very much, but we are told that he is responsible.
The fact of the matter is that the Government has a timetable. It had a timetable from the beginning. The Minister for International Trade announced the timetable, and that the timetable was that the Government was going to complete this Bill by the third or fourth week in August. That is what the Minister said. Well, the Government is on its timetable, but in achieving it the Minister and the Prime Minister have been prepared to torture and twist the rights of the House, and that is shameful.
In attempting to achieve a win on the trade agreement the Government is prepared to lose in the surrendering of Parliament. In the classic words of the old play: "They stoop to conquer". They reach down to a level in order to get what they want most of all. We will have some opportunity to argue whether or not it is worth it, but surely to goodness do Members of the House, particularly on the government side, not recognize the damage and the travesty they are doing to an institution that they took a sworn oath to uphold? Do they really think that Canadians will buy their argument for allowing three or four days of debate on second reading?
Do they really think that Canadians will buy their argument for allowing three weeks in committee? The committee was not allowed to travel outside Ottawa, it had a restricted number of people who could come before it, and it was not allowed to talk to individuals, only organizations. Now at report stage there are 77 legitimate amendments accepted by the Chair, therefore designed to be relevant, but the Government will only give us four days to debate them. Does the Government think that the Canadian people will buy a piece of legislation that affects the Bank Act, investment, energy, agriculture, the service industry, and customs duties, and that we are to be allowed to debate that in all its stages in four days and consider that to be a proper and honest expression of parliamentary view? It is impossible. We know now that it will be impossible to get to anywhere near all the amendments and allow Members a proper opportunity to express themselves on important amendments dealing with the changes in this country.

August 16, 1988
Time Allocation
The two opposition Parties have some 70 Members, and we recognize that we are a minority. We recognize that we cannot carry the day, but simply because we will fail to carry the day in the House it surely should not mean that a minority has to stop advocating its point of view. Surely we recognize the rights of minorities in this country, whether they are Liberals or New Democrats, to have a voice, and to be heard, and to speak for what I think is a majority of Canadians. I believe in the House that we speak for the majority of Canadians on the trade agreement.
Whether we are a minority or a majority our voice is being snuffed out, the rights of Canadians are being denied, and Parliament is being trampled on by a Government that is so suffused with the appetite for power that it has forgotten its obligations and rights to recognize the most fundamental principle that we must honour in the House is the rights of democracy and freedom of expression, and those are what the Government is turning the lights out on in this House of Parliament.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, once again this is a very dark day for Canada's Parliament. This is a closure-crazed Government. Time and again over the last four years the Government has brought in the heavy jackboot of closure. It brought it in on the drug Bill. The people of Canada were speaking out against the initiative of the Government regarding prescription drugs and we see the results in rising prices. The Government brought in closure on the Air Canada Bill, the refugee Bill, the immigration Bill, and the Official Languages Act.
The Government has assumed because it has 208 Members that it can do anything it wants. We saw it with the Standing Orders which govern the behaviour in the House in terms of regulation. Government Members tossed them out the window and said: "We don't have to follow any Standing Orders. We can make up our own. We have the majority. We have the jackboots on in this democratic system". This is a closure crazed Government.
It brings in its parliamentary assassins. For example, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) is one of the major assassins, then there is the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski), the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis), and the Parliamentary Secretary, and the other Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid). They are parliamentary assassins because they are making a mockery not only of Parliament, but they are democratic assassins. They have said to the people of Canada: "We are going to thumb your nose, Canadians". The fact is that seven out of ten Canadians, 70 per cent of the people of Canada, have said time and again that they want an election on this trade deal before the Government jams it, rams it, forces it, and rushes it through the House of Commons.
What does the Minister for International Trade say to them? "Poof, we don't care about 70 per cent of Canadians. We know better. We have the majority. We have the muscle in
the House of Commons and we can do anything we want. We are going to jam this legislation called the free trade deal down your throats, Canadians".
The people of Canada are just waiting to get back at the Government. The people of Canada are just waiting for the election to be called. Everybody in the country is saying: "Call an election, Prime Minister. If you have the courage of what you say in the House of Commons regarding the trade deal, if you believe what you say, then let us debate it for the two months of a general election, and let the people decide whether or not they want to proceed".
But, no, this Government does not believe in democracy. After all, why should we be surprised? This is the Party that shut down the House of Commons for 16 days. Its members rushed around and said: "We are not going to come into the House of Commons, we are going to close it down. We don't want any more debate". That is the Party that abused Parliament.
Once again we are seeing what happens when it decides to hold hearings across Canada before anybody sees the trade deal. Can anyone imagine anything so silly, so peculiar, and so dumb as the Minister for International Trade stating that hearings would be held across Canada for one day in every major city before anybody sees the trade deal?
That is exactly what they did. They said: "Well, we have had hearings across the country". Well, they have used closure at every single stage of this Bill. Then the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) came to the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray) and to the House Leader of the New Democrats (Mr. Riis), and said: "Listen, could we cut a deal? Can we agree to wrap up the debate in a few days?" What does it take for these people to understand what we are saying? We are trying to say that we are not going to facilitate the passage of this legislation.


An Hon. Member:: Tear it up.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This is bad legislation for Canada. This is unCanadian. This is undemocratic, the way that they are approaching this. We will not have anything to do with it. Do not ask us to cut a deal behind the scenes.
How do we get through to these thick-headed monsters called Tories across the way? We wrote a letter and said: "Well, listen, we want to spend the next two years debating this trade deal". Maybe they will then get the impression, the picture, that we do not want to co-operate to facilitate a deal that we think is not in the best interests of Canada. Finally, they caught on. They realized that we were not prepared to facilitate the debate. They caught on that we were not prepared to make a deal to jam this through before the people of Canada have had an opportunity to indicate their position on the trade deal.
August 16, 1988

I will be sitting here in a moment, waiting to hear the speech of the Minister for International Trade, while he explains to the people of Canada the fact that seven out of ten Canadians want an election fought on this deal before it passes in the House of Commons. I am going to be listening with interest to what he is going to say when he says: "We do not believe in that process, we do not have to go to the people of Canada before we jam this through the House of Commons".
1 look across now at the Minister for International Trade and at his colleagues. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said to the people of Canada that he was against the trade deal. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) told the people of Canada, in 1983, that he was against the trade deal. Then the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that he was against a trade deal with the United States. That is what he said. The people of Canada made the mistake of believing the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not say what he was really feeling.
I want to say to the Minister for International Trade that I do respect him for being honest with the people of Canada. I remember during the last campaign where he said to the people of Canada: "We can't tell them what we are going to do, because if we told them what we are going to do, they would never elect us". He was dead on. Now they know what they were going to do; they were going to sell out this country, they were going to give away Canada. The people now have figured out that that is the hidden agenda of this Government. The minute that they have a chance to walk into those polling booths, they are going to make an "x" and this Government is going to be history.
I want to simply say that the Minister for International Trade has finally realized that we do not want to be part of any process that jams this trade deal down the throats of Canadians. He may want to use that approach, and he is using that approach, but we are not going to be part of that process in any way, shape or form.
If he wants to introduce closure, muzzle the Members of Parliament and jam this legislation through the House of Commons and then some time in the distant future call an election to see what the people of Canada think about it, I am afraid that the people of Canada are going to send a very clear message. Then the Minister for International Trade will finally have his way. He will then, as a defeated Member of Parliament, ask to go to the United States to become an American citizen, because that is what he wants to do. That is what he wants all of us to do. He wants Canada to become a fifty-first state, a territory of the United States. That is what he wanted when Newfoundland was coming into Confederation. He went out with his family and he said: "We do not want to join Canada; we want to join the United States". A few years later, he is finally having his boyhood dream of being an American citizen. He can even still live in Canada.
Time Allocation
When the people of Canada have an opportunity to register their view on this-and they will-unfortunately this Government will have ignored their requests to have a chance to indicate their position on this trade deal before it passes the House of Commons. They do not have a mandate to jam this legislation through the House of Commons. The Prime Minister said that he was against the trade deal. It was never even mentioned during the last general election, not once. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade did not mention it once during his campaign. The Minister for International Trade did not mention it once during the campaign. The Prime Minister of Canada did not mention it once, and they are jamming through the House of Commons the most important piece of legislation that this country has ever seen. Those are the words of the Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is not a difficult or a complicated matter. This present Government of Canada has a two-track trade policy. One, of course, is to negotiate in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade to try to improve our trading access to the 96 partners of GATT, particularly with emphasis on the Pacific Rim. We are pursuing that. The conference of the Uruguay Round will be held in Montreal in December. We all hope that there will be some progress. It is very difficult. There are 96 countries involved.
The second arm of our trade policy is to secure better and more assured access to the U.S. market. They take 80 per cent of all of our exports. A third of all the wealth of Canadians every year comes from our exports. A quarter of the wealth of Canadians every year comes from our trade and our exports to the United States of America.
We have secured an agreement after two years of negotiation. It started in June 1986. The elements were agreed to in October 1987. They were made public then. The full text of the agreement was made public in December. We have had that for eight or nine months, whatever the period is. The agreement was signed on January 3, 1988. We had Senate reports in 1982 and 1987 that we should enter into a free trade agreement with the United States. It has been studied in the Senate and in the House of Commons on many occasions. I will not go into all of the details. They are already on the record.
This present Bill has been studied and debated longer than the debate in the United Kingdom Parliament, when in the United Kingdom they decided to join the European Community. The debate there was a shorter debate than we have already had in this House. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) said: "Let the people decide". The problem is, Hon. Members in the two opposition Parties were never satisfied with the decision that the people made in 1984. The Liberals do not think that the people of Canada should be allowed to have any other government than a Liberal government. They would not accept the verdict of 1984.

August 16, 1988
Time Allocation
In 1984, the people decided. The Canadian people elected the Mulroney PC Party and they elected them for a five-year term. That Government is legitimate and is entitled to be in place, to govern this country, to bring forward this policy and to have it enacted with its majority of the House of Commons, as a result of the election of 1984. At some point in that five years the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) decides when there should be another election, if he has a majority, and he has a majority today.
The Liberal Party is not satisfied. They think that they are destined to govern Canada forever. If they are not elected by the people of Canada, as they were not in 1984, then they think they will govern Canada through their majority of appointees in the Senate. It was people like Senator Kirby, Senator Kenny and Senator Fairbairn, all from former Prime Minister Trudeau's staff, people who are going to be in the Senate for the next 30 years. Do the people of Canada want these Senators deciding what government policy is to be until the year 2018? Senator Kirby will be there until the year 2018. There would be a Liberal majority in the Senate, if they all lived to be 75, until the year 2008.
Are we to be governed by the Liberal Party no matter who the people of Canada elect to form a majority in this House? That is going to be a crucial question in the election. The Leader of the Official Opposition said: "Let the people decide". Well, he should decide by beginning to tell the people the truth. When is he going to start telling the people of Canada the truth?
We are going to see that he starts telling the people of Canada the truth. He had to be corrected by Premier Bourassa the other day. Premier Bourassa said that Turner was wrong on trade. He made a stupid statement about the stock savings plan in Quebec. Premier Bourassa said: "I do not want to intervene in the federal election, but if I have to be personally involved, especially to re-establish the facts, I will do it". I will venture to guess that Premier Bourassa is going to be very busy in Quebec establishing the facts, when the Liberal Party and the NDP Party go to Quebec with their distortions, their inaccuracies and their rumours, as they will be doing during the election campaign. He is going to have his hands full if he wants to keep the federal Liberals truthful. They are finding it very difficult to do that on their own.
Last October, almost as soon as the FTA was made public, the Opposition announced that they would tear up the deal. The official Liberal Party. The line was: "Tear up the deal". Never in Canadian history has there been such a silly and juvenile position adopted by the Official Opposition. Since then they have constantly complained that they have not had time to study and debate it. Why do they need to study and debate it when last October they said that they would tear it up? Why are they studying and debating this Bill when they say that when they get into office they are going to tear it up, even though they only have to give a six month notice to terminate the agreement anyway? It is hypocrisy, pure and
simple, for members of the Liberal Opposition to say that they want to further study and debate this Bill. They made their decision months ago when they said they would tear it up.
When we sought to table Bill C-130 this spring, the Opposition, and mainly the New Democratic Party, blocked the tabling of it for three weeks with a series of procedural points, all ruled out of order by the Speaker. Why did they do that? Simply to obstruct. They do not want to study and debate the Bill, they want to obstruct the Bill. They want to kill the Bill. They want to guillotine the Bill. They do not want to discuss and debate the Bill.
While protesting that we are supposed to be seeking to ram the legislation through Parliament, opposition Members tied the House up with measures like recorded votes on first reading of a Bill to proclaim hockey as Canada's national sport. Why are members of the NDP doing that? They did it this week as well. It is simply to obstruct.
Even though both opposition Parties are committed to tearing up the deal-the Liberals want to tear it up, the NDP want to tear it down-they have moved over 100 amendments to the implementing legislation. Why would they move 100 amendments to legislation they say they will tear up? It is simply to obstruct, naturally.
When we sought to establish a reasonable time frame in which to conclude the debate on Bill C-130, what did members of the Opposition propose when we asked them how many days they thought would be reasonable? They proposed 350 sitting days, almost two years of House time. They suggested that we should debate this for two years. Why? Simply to obstruct.
Now, when we propose to conclude consideration of this legislation, those who have done nothing but obstruct say that they want more time for study and debate. They do not want any time for study and debate, their minds are closed. The poisonous vapours of their machinations and distortions are radiating across Canada. They do not want to study and debate the Bill. They are not interested in the Bill. They want to tear it up. They want to get into power and they want us out of power. It is just as simple as that.
Opposition Members do not believe that the people should ever decide to have a Progressive Conservative Government. That is why they are calling on the Senate to do their dirty work for them, to try to stop passage of this Bill. In this debate, members of the Opposition have shown nothing but hypocrisy, deception and deceit from start to finish.
What of the debate itself? Have opposition Members proposed to deal seriously with the free trade agreement? Who has heard a serious opposition speech on tariffs, procurement, financial services, the rules of origin, border measures, agriculture, investment, energy, services, temporary entry for business persons or binding dispute settlement? Has there been one sensible paragraph uttered by a Member opposite on any
August 16, 1988

of those important, vital matters? Nothing at all, nothing but attempts to distort. Nothing but sweeping charges without any basis in fact, just charges that the FT A will force Canadian society to become like American society. There has been no proof, just charges, charges that everything that distinguishes Canada from the U.S. will be swept away, all our social programs, regional development, agricultural supply management, cultural policies, all are going to be imperilled. This is not debate, this is trying to spread alarm with broad, general, silly statements.
This is what Le Devoir had to say about that in an editorial of August 12:
ft is difficult to take seriously the Liberal amendment recommending that the free trade legislation be amended so that it not undermine Canada's social programs, including health care insurance, unemployment insurance, pensions, minimum wage legislation, labour legislation and maternity benefits.
This rhetoric has a hollow ring to it, because none of the programs mentioned is even remotely jeopardized by the (free trade) agreement.
The Winnipeg Free Press, the hon. gentleman's home paper, does not think much of him. This is what that paper said about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) on August 9:
There is room for honest disagreement over the likely effects of free trade on Canada and Canadians. The point at issue in Mr. Turner's approach to free trade is not one of honest disagreement but of simple, deliberate distortion.
John Turner these days has a liking for slogans. "Let the people decide" is his latest. Before the people do decide, he might direct another slogan to himself: "Tell the people the truth."
That was the Winnipeg Free Press, not the words of a partisan Member of this House, not the words of an active politician. That is the impartial judgment of the Winnipeg Free Press.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Minister's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has the floor.


Mr. Rossi:: You are a phoney, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are a phoney and you are a dummy. You are never up to speak.


Carlo Rossi: You are a phoney and you did not even read the report and you are a bluffer. You are a big bluffer,


John Carnell Crosbie: You do not even get up and speak. Let us have your maiden speech.


Carlo Rossi: I would rather not speak than tell what you are saying.


John Carnell Crosbie: All you do is grovel from your seat.


Carlo Rossi: Big blabber-mouth, shut up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, order. Both Hon. Members are out of order. I would like to hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when I listened to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) ranting and raving, I was reminded of the story of the lawyer who looked over his brief and wrote beside one paragraph:
Time Allocation
"My case is very weak here. When I get to this point in court, I'm going to yell like hell". That is obviously what has happened here.
All the Minister for International Trade has done with his ranting and raving is to confirm what a weak case the Government has in its attempt to force through a motion to choke off further debate on the Bill to implement the trade deal in only four more days. He has also confirmed, through his ranting and raving, just what a weak case the Government has when it says that it has negotiated a deal with the United States that deserves the support of the Canadian people.
The Deputy Government House Leader, in introducing the Government's motion, attempted to paint a picture of sweet reasonableness, of a true desire to have a useful debate and to give a reasonable period of time for that debate. However, he was soon undermined by the Minister for International Trade who tore away that veil of reasonableness with which the government House Leader attempted to cloak the real position of the Government.
The Minister for International Trade made clear that the Government had no intention, from the very beginning, of allowing a reasonable and proper debate on this trade deal in the House, or of allowing a reasonable and proper debate on this trade deal throughout Canada by the Canadian people. The Minister for International Trade has made this very clear, and in this he has certainly told the truth.
The Minister for International Trade has in fact taken issue with the very desire of Members of this House to have any debate at all on this measure. He said in effect that he and his Party won the last election and therefore they can do whatever they want until the next election. He said that he and his Party have been allowed to form a one-party state, a form of what he might consider to be a dictatorship, benevolent perhaps but a dictatorship all the same.
The fact is that this was not what the Canadian people thought they were doing when they, perhaps with good intentions but now intentions they may well believe were misguided, elected the Minister and his Party to office. The idea of having the trade deal that the Minister's Government negotiated with the United States was never mentioned once during the last election campaign. In fact, the only thought that Canadians might have had about the issue during the election was that it would be the very last thing that a Government led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) would ever attempt to do. I say this because when that Prime Minister was running for the leadership of his Party, he made very clear, in rejecting the support of the current Minister for International Trade for free trade with the United States, and I think I recall his exact words, that it would undermine our sovereignty and he would have none of it at that time or at any other time.

August 16, 1988
Time Allocation
I think it is very clear that whatever Canadians had in mind in voting for the Conservative Party, it was not because they wanted to give it a mandate to negotiate any kind of comprehensive free trade deal with the United States. Therefore, 1 do not think it is very credible for the Minister for International Trade to say in this House that because his Party won a majority in the last election it can push this trade deal through this House and down the throats of the Canadian people without any real or meaningful debate or study. That is what he is saying to this House but I do not think Canadians agree with that in any way, shape or form.
The Minister and his colleagues claim this matter has been debated for over two and a half years. However, the Minister himself made clear that could not be correct because he said the negotiations for the deal started two and a half years ago. The elements of the deal were tabled in the House on October 6, and the full text of the deal was made available only last December. He then said, and this is perfectly true, that the Bill to implement the deal was only presented to this House last May 24. That means that whatever was going on over the past two and a half years, it was not debate in this Parliament or in this country on this trade deal which Bill C-130 asks us to accept and put in force to damage this country in perpetuity.
If the Minister and the Government really had any intention of allowing a proper debate and a study of this Bill, they would not have choked off debate on second reading after only five days. They would not have choked off committee proceedings after three weeks. They would not now be trying to choke off report stage and third reading debate after only four days. Apart from the committee hearings, that means they want to allow only eleven days of debate in the House of Commons on what is the most important measure to come before Parliament in the history of this country. It speaks to the very future, the very existence of this country in days to come, but for them eleven days is too much. The Minister talked about the decision of the British Parliament on the entry of the U.K. into the European Common Market. If I am not mistaken, before that debate there was at least one election and one referendum.
The Minister and the Government are afraid to let Canadians decide in a general election whether they want to have this deal and that government. The Government knows that if there were ever to be an election, as there must be before this deal goes into effect, the Canadian people will say no to this deal because they know it means the undermining of their future and the future of their children. They would say no to this deal because they know it is the product of an incompetent and inept government and is a prime example of its lack of sincerity and credibility.
We have said we believe there must be an election with a resulting majority vote for the Government before this deal can be implemented. That is why we have asked our Senate
colleagues not to block it, not to defeat it, but simply to postpone a final decision on this matter until the Canadian people have had a chance to speak in an election. That is why in our response to the inquiry as to whether we would agree to time allocation on this Bill we said there should be a sufficient number of days allocated, yes, over 300, to bring the debate past the time when this Parliament must end so there could be no final decision on this measure until the Canadian people have had the chance to speak during an election.
Let us be very clear that in approaching the opposition Parties to see if there could be an agreement on time allocation, the Minister was only going through the motions. As the Speaker made clear in a ruling earlier today, the statement of the Minister on behalf of the Government that agreement on time allocation could not be reached has to be accepted at face value. It cannot be looked at, it cannot be probed. Therefore, it is clear from what the Minister for International Trade just said in the House, the Deputy Government Leader, in spite of what he said in opening this debate, was only going through the motions, and the Government never intended from the beginning to allow a proper study, a proper debate, either in this House or in this country on its trade deal.
Why not? Because it knew that the more this measure was studied, the more it was understood by the Canadian people, the less the Canadian people would like it, the less the Canadian people would want it, the less the Canadian people would support it. That is why the original strategy was to try and slide it through without the Canadian people knowing what it was all about. That is why every step of the way the Government attempted, unfortunately with success, to choke off debate so the Canadian people would not have a full understanding about how damaging, how harmful this trade deal is and would be to them and future generations.
The Government may be able to abuse the opportunity given it through its majority to force this measure through this House but I say it will not be able to play that same game with the Canadian people. The Canadian people are already on to what the Conservative Party is about and we will join with the Canadian people to make sure they have a chance to pronounce themselves in an election. I am confident that when they do so they will reject this deal and they will reject this Government because both the deal and this Government are harmful to Canada and its future.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, when we listened to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) a few minutes ago, we were treated to an example of why in recent polls we find that politicians are held in about the same esteem among Canadians as convicted sex killers. Politicians continue to plummet in public esteem because of people like the Minister for International Trade.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, shame!
August 16, 1988


James Ross Fulton: I will tell you why bringing in closure at this point in time is so inappropriate.


John Horton McDermid: Look at your performance last week.


James Ross Fulton: Let us take a look at where those same cabinet Ministers on the other side stood in 1984 on free trade. Let us look at what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had to say, because the Government has no mandate whatsoever to be proceeding with this legislation, let alone damaging the rules and the reputation of this House by bringing in closure in this way.
Here is what the Prime Minister had to say: "Canadians rejected free trade in 1911, they would do so again". "It affects Canadian sovereignty and we will have none of it". That is what he had to say four and a half years ago. What about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)? This is in 1984:


John Horton McDermid: In 1983.


James Ross Fulton: In 1983.


John Horton McDermid: Early 1983.


James Ross Fulton: "Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally." That is the Minister of Finance.


John Horton McDermid: Read what the Minister for International Trade said.


James Ross Fulton: What about David Crombie, the former Secretary of State? He said: "It is silly. Our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not America's weak sister". What about a friend of all Members of this House, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Hees): "An examination of the facts as they are today gives a clear indication-"


John Horton McDermid: "As they are today".


James Ross Fulton: -"that a move towards free trade with the United States would not be a good thing for this country from either the economic or political point of view". Who else? What about the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark): "Free trade raises the possibility that thousands of jobs could be lost. Before we jump on the bandwagon of continen-talism we should strengthen our industrial structure so that we are more competitive". There you have some of the key actors on the government side.
There are some very critical things you have to obtain in a democracy. You have to obtain a mandate for major platforms that you are going to implement. The Progressive Conservative Party not only did not try to obtain such a mandate, they never pursued it during the election campaign, in their literature, during the leaders' debate or anything else. In fact, exactly the opposite impression was pushed through to the Canadian public. The former Prime Minister, the Member for Yellow-head, the present Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance all said exactly the opposite.
Time Allocation
Canadians should be concerned about what is going on on the floor of the House of Commons today because the Government is now starting to hurry on with its agenda again. It spent $16 million on propaganda last year. A good chunk of it was turned into toilet paper because it was so bad that they could not convince a dog catcher that it was a good idea with all the crap and so on that was being published by the Minister for International Trade.
Let us not forget that during that same time period the former Minister for International Trade, when she was on the West Coast said that people would be able to go from anywhere in B.C. to Washington and bring back all the stuff they wanted and would not have to pay any more customs or duties. Within a few hours, of course, it had to be said that that was not really true. However, the headlines had been made, the propaganda was spread.
What kind of propaganda are we going to get this year? We know that it will cost more than $16 million. The Minister for International Trade fudged on the figures in Question Period today, but we know it will probably be $30 million, $40 million, or $50 million in propaganda. Canadians need to know. Parliament is important because it focuses the debate and gets information to the media and the constituencies across the country.
Canadians are finally asking the critical question: Where did this idea come from? A couple of year's ago the Conservatives were all opposed to it. Both opposition Parties are opposed to it and most Canadians want an election. Three-quarters of Canadians want an election on this issue prior to it going through the House of Commons. The Government is acting with a knee-jerk response to a very small group.
Canadians are wondering where this idea came from. It has finally been tracked down and Canadians are now starting to talk about it. The Republican convention is taking place in the United States right now. The idea came from the United States. President Reagan was talking about this more than a half dozen years ago. It was one of his main Republican planks for re-election as President of the United States.
In addition, the large multinational corporations in the United States and Canada support this idea. The present Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), when he was the Minister of Employment, said that it would affect 800,000 workers in the short term. When the present Minister of Finance was the Minister of Employment he estimated that up to 500,000 Canadians could lose their jobs because of the deal.
The Government wants to close off debate on this issue. Closure was imposed when it was originally brought in. There were three weeks of hearings and now four days have been allocated for debate.

August 16, 1988
Financial Administration Act
The President of the Canadian Manufacturers Association has said that it is simply a fact that as we ask our industries to compete toe to toe with American industries we in Canada are obviously forced to create the same conditions in Canada that exist in the U.S., whether the unemployment insurance scheme, workers' compensation, the cost of government, the level of taxation or whatever.
The Canada West Foundation says that free trade between our two countries will inevitably lead to wages being equalized between Canada and the United States and that this will occur since the high-cost producer will not be able to compete against a lower-cost producer if goods are traded freely.
Nine U.S. states have no minimum wage, In Texas the minimum wage is $1.40 Canadian an hour. I will give you a graphic example of what happens when some tariffs are taken down. Ten years ago there was a protective tariff on home appliances made in Canada. Fridges, stoves, percolators and all those kinds of things were made in little GE and other plants in Canada. When the tariff was in place, 80 per cent of home appliances purchased in Canada were made in Canada. The tariff was taken away and 10 years later 80 per cent of the home appliances purchased in Canada are made in the United States in states like Texas where the minimum wage is $1.40 an hour.
Canadians ask what this means for them. We know that our social programs are threatened. Medicare is clearly threatened. I have yet to hear a single Member from the government side, including the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), give a speech nailing down point blank that they will not be affected. The Government will not put up speakers like that on social programs; unemployment insurance, Canada pension, medicare, or workers compensation.
We know that 36 million Americans do not have any health insurance of any kind. I will not even talk about the Maquiladora zone between Texas and Mexico where workers are paid 65 cents an hour. They produce commodities, put a U.S. label on them, and bring them into the Canadian market. Companies making widgets in Canada will pay $8 an hour or $7 an hour but will have to compete against a widget producer in Texas who only pays $1.40 an hour and does not have to pay for any health benefits, lay-offs, or anything else.
If Canadians think for one moment that the one-fifth of goods traded between Canada and the United States which have protective tariffs are going to survive, they are dreaming in Technicolor because the widget producers in the United States will make it almost impossible for those kinds of widgets to be produced in Canada.


John Horton McDermid: Total mythology.


James Ross Fulton: We always hear the Parliamentary Secretary saying it's mythology and the Minister for International Trade saying that all the Members of the Opposition are involved in deceit, untruth, and everything else. We will see, Mr. Speaker. We want an election. We are going to get an election and Canadians will throw the Progressive Conservatives out of office in this country for good.
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, since the ways and means motion was tabled on May 18, 1988, by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie), we have had more than 130 hours of debate, including more than 90 hours of testimony before the legislative committee by witnesses from practically all walks of life. I refer only to what transpired in Parliament, because I think it would be frivolous to include all the seminars, briefing sessions, press releases and other kinds of public debate we have had for over two years across this country. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop this ridiculous farce designed by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) to obstruct debate. Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are sick and tired of the incredible ravings of the Opposition, and that is exactly what we have been hearing today.

There is more to it. It is also a question of honesty, especially when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is calling to let the people decide.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED REPEAL OF SECTION 17 The House resumed, from Monday, July 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Redway:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of repealing Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act and require that all remission of taxes, fees or penalties be submitted, each year, to Parliament for approval.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the motion was last before the House the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Dorin) had the floor. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow).


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak tonight on Motion 101 during Private Members' Hour. Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act and Section 101 of the Customs Tariff, which is the new tariff remission authority, allow the Government to respond quickly and selectively by Order in Council to rectify inequities and anomalies in the tax and tariff regimes. This important flexibility would be lost if these remedies had to await parliamentary debate and approval. Most remission orders provide relief for individuals or single companies in very specific and non-reoccurring circumstances and, as such, are not really appropriate matters for parliamentary consideration.
August 16, 1988

Parliament did grant the Government authority to remit taxes, fees and penalties by order in council mainly in recognition of the need for quick and selective action where the application of general laws and regulations are having unintended or undesirable results in particular cases. Since most remissions fall into this category, the raison d'etre for the authority is still valid and it would be inappropriate at this stage to rescind the order in council authorities.
I want to relate a problem that we have in Calgary and southern Alberta that really calls for a faster and more efficient system to rectify unfair duties and tariffs, especially on the conversion side. Let us start at the beginning. Before January 1, 1988, a great deal of equipment utilized by drilling contractors and petroleum service companies in the oil patch came into this country duty-free by virtue of statutory concessionary tariff items. Approximately a year and a half ago, the customs tariff was amended to adopt an international system of numbering. In that conversion, or slotting of all the items into one group during the redrafting of the schedules, there was a mix-up. For some reason, everything duty-free on the petroleum equipment side of the page on the schedule was missing.
In effect, when the harmonization system came into effect on January 1, a lot of oil field equipment and apparatus such as well logging equipment, well perforating equipment, seismic instruments, pressure maintenance or other formation pressure improvement equipment became subject to a 3 per cent to approximately 10 per cent duty. This represents tens of millions of dollars in duty, all because of a mistake. I would like to see fast action on that problem. This equipment is vital to the oil industry. It is vital to the drilling contractors and to the Petroleum Service Association of Canada.
During 1986, when oil prices fell from $35 Canadian a barrel to some $15 or $16 a barrel, the industry came to a slowdown. More than three-quarters of the drilling rigs in western Canada were put out of operation. When the drilling rigs are not operating, the service companies also become inactive.
Progressive Conservative Government policies and programs have been able to assist the medium and the small sized producers by providing incentives to go back to explore, drill, develop and produce. We are working our way out of a very slow time, when over 40,000 in the Province of Alberta were laid off as a result of that slowdown in the oil and gas industry.
As a result of a mistake with regard to the harmonizing system that was put into effect on January 1, the drilling contractors who are importing some portions of equipment, as well as the petroleum service industry, are now faced with an unfair duty that they should not be paying at all. I have been working to rectify this mistake and I believe the process should be much faster.
Financial Administration Act
The implementation of Motion No. 101 which would repeal Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act would require all remissions to be submitted to Parliament. It would create further delays because, unfortunately, the parliamentary system sometimes can come to a crawl, a standstill and indeed, a dead stop. Companies and people need to be assisted in the most efficient and quickest way possible.
Today I understand that these conversions and remission proposals go through a review committee where they are thoroughly reviewed, as they should be. Once they have been approved by the committee, they go to the Minister who reviews the details and recommendations. They then go to Cabinet, and once they have been reviewed by Cabinet they finally receive an order in council. This is extremely important for either the remission or conversion to go through.
I also want to pay a compliment with regard to the remission order with respect to an excellent equestrian area in Calgary called Spruce Meadows. Some time ago they were able to purchase some specialized timing equipment for international events. The equipment had to be purchased overseas and there was a large duty factor on it. Through the assistance of the Department and the committee review of this particular issue, we were able to have the duty remitted, mainly because Spruce Meadows does entertain international equestrian teams for international events. This is an area where fast action took precedence, and I want to compliment the Department.
That is why it is important for Section 17 to remain in the Act. If it came to a parliamentary review, it may take many months to be put on the agenda, and many hours of debate may slow many companies and individuals to a point where people may be put out of action.
I am pleased to speak on this motion today and hope that Section 17 will remain in the Act. I hope the entire procedure can be speeded up so that everyone who has duties or tariffs that prove to be unfair or injurious can have them remitted as quickly as possible.
Let me say on behalf of drilling contractors and petroleum service people in the riding of Calgary South and Calgary generally that their proposal has been approved and is in the Minister's hands today. I believe the system that is in place provides the most efficient service.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to speak to motion No. M-101 in the name of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), who is also a member of the Public Accounts Committee which in the past made a study of this question and reported to Parliament on the remission of taxes, fees or penalties.

August 16, 1988
Financial Administration Act
First of all, Mr. Speaker, to make sure everyone understands what we are talking about-fiscal matters tend to be so complex that even the experts get confused-I would like to quote Section 17 which allows the remission of taxes or penalties. Mr. Speaker, I will now quote Section 17 which provides: "The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, whenever he considers it in the public interest, may remit any tax, fee or penalty".
Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about repealing this section which currently allows the Government, on recommendation of the Governor in Council, in circumstances when it is in the public interest or economically preferable, to forgive income tax owed to the Government by a company, an institution or a private citizen.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, the Public Accounts Committee drafted a very detailed report on the question, after the Auditor General of Canada's reminder on March 31, 1985, in connection with the income tax remission granted to Hudson Bay's Oil and Gas Company Ltd., a subsidiary of Dome Petroleum Ltd., in February 1985.
Mr. Speaker, the report contains a number of recommendations. For instance, the Public Accounts Committee recommended under No. 7 of its report tabled in the House on October 28, 1986: The tabling in Parliament of all income tax remission orders; the preparation of an explanatory note, to accompany each remission order so tabled, outlining why the remission order is in the public interest; the reference of all remission orders so tabled to the appropriate Standing Committees; and the prior approval by Parliament of all income tax remission orders exceeding $20 million in value.
Mr. Speaker, we have here a recommendation by the Public Accounts Committee which says that income tax remissions should not exceed $20 million, and we have a motion that says that the Government should consider the advisability: "of repealing Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act and require that all remissions of taxes, fees or penalties be submitted, each year, to Parliament for approval".
Mr. Speaker, I believe Parliament has the right to review all tax remissions. We have income tax legislation that is clear and specific, with whose provisions all Canadians, whether private citizens or corporations, must comply. If the Government, and I think the Government has a right to make that decision, if the Government considers that it is in the public interest, it should grant remission of income tax or penalty or interest or whatever, but I also think that the Government should provide Parliament, in a report or through the Auditor General. . . that was actually how the whole thing started, how we found out about the problem, when the Auditor General reported he had been unable to obtain the requisite information on this transaction.
I recognize the fact that the Government is entitled to act under Section 17 but I also think this section should not always
be kept secret in the case of such transactions, and I don't think it should be left up to the Government or to the corporation but to Parliament, which represents the people of this country, which represents all taxpayers who have a right to know all the details and what the justification was ... in other words, if the Government makes this decision, it should at least let taxpayers know, through Parliament, what its reasons were for making the decision. I think that this would let us give the Government an opportunity to take the appropriate action in the public interest and then call the Government to account for what it has done; it could report directly to Parliament or through the Auditor General's report so that we could know whether the reasons why such a remission of tax, interest or penalty was necessary.
I believe that the same goes for all the other recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. For example, I quote the recommendation in Section 9 of the Public Accounts Committee report: "Your Committee recommends that the Minister of Finance in future ensure that income tax remission orders do not deal with any matter currently before Parliament." This is to avoid conflicts of interest, etc.
So, Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need a Section 17 to allow the Government to make tax remissions if it sees fit in the public interest, but at the same time, the Government must account for its actions and report to Parliament.
We have a tax system-and I said at the very beginning that it was a very complex system that no one can understand- that gets more complex from time to time, especially these days, and every time we want to improve it, every time we talk about tax reform, Mr. Speaker, this system becomes more complex.
In the 1970s, we had a tax reform and it was really six months after the new Tax Act was passed-there were so many amendments that it was impossible to figure out. Nearly twenty years later, we have another tax reform, which is even more complex.
Why are the tax laws so complex? The reason is the Tax Act does not concern only taxes. If we just said, "Taxes must be paid, period," fine. But the tax law is meant to take account of the regions. Each region has its own needs. Different sectors of our society have needs. So we have a tax system that addresses particular social, economic and political situations and thus creates all this complexity and exceptions. Often, there are very specific cases, individual cases in the public interest that relate to regional economic development, so the Government, for the sake of regional development and in the public interest, grants tax exemptions or waives an interest penalty, but I think that like any democratic government, after taking such action, it must report to Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this is the distinction I make in this debate between the motion to repeal and have Parliament approve all remissions and the Public Accounts Committee report that sets a limit of $20 million on transactions.
August 16, 1988

One need only explain why, in our budget process every year, the Minister of Finance must maintain strict secrecy. The reason is that transactions affecting our economic system might lead to speculation. If people knew beforehand, they could take advantage of it. That is why, at the same time as we ask the Government to allow tax remissions, we ask that before accepting them, they be considered in Parliament; I think that it would take about the same amount of time. It is a matter of passing a Bill. I think that we often have to act quickly in such cases, because of the economic effects. It is better if the public is not informed in advance.
But once the action is taken, once the tax remission is granted, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for any democratic government to report to Parliament-that is the least it can do-and give the Auditor General all the information when the books are audited; the Government must act like any good householder or corporate citizen. When the auditor arrives at the company's office, he must be provided with all supporting documents and all the reasons why a particular action was taken, why such a transaction was approved. And the same goes for the Government of Canada, Mr. Speaker. In this case, in the public interest, I agree that it should continue to be allowed to remit taxes, provided of course it is in the public interest, in accordance with Section 17, but once such action is taken, at least once a year, it should report to Parliament, which represents the people, so that Parliament can judge on behalf of Canadian taxpayers whether the Government has acted in accordance with Section 17 of the Act, under its mandate; it is on this precise point that the Canadian people can judge the Government.
So on that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks and of course I hope that at the end of this debate, my colleagues can deal with this motion so that we can perhaps send the Government a message to make an amendment and find a solution between outright repeal and setting a $20-million ceiling, so that the Government can grant tax remissions but must report them to Parliament when it does.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it is always a useful exercise to have a debate about the expenditure of public funds or the non-collection of taxes which we are talking about here when we are considering Section 17 of the Financial Administration Act. Section 17 allows remission orders to be made either to say that people do not have to pay a certain tax which they would normally have to pay, or to rebate those moneys to them either conditionally or unconditionally once the taxes have been paid. As parliamentarians we always have to keep a watchful eye on the financial dealings of the Government. That is one of our prime responsibilities.
I want to say this in respect to the proposition put forward by my colleague from York East (Mr. Redway). My heart is
Financial Administration Act
with the Hon. Member but my head is with the existing Section 17. It would be nice to say that Parliament should monitor every particular expenditure of Government immediately before it is made, or look at every particular remission order before it is made. But in actual fact I do not think that is possible. There are hundreds if not thousands of remission orders made annually, and if Parliament were to scrutinize every one of those in advance, we would be doing very little else. However, occasionally, and I might get back to this later in my remarks, a very political one or one involving great amounts of money can slip by. If we could isolate those particular remission orders and have a parliamentary debate on them before they took place, that would be the ideal situation. How we would do that I do not quite know.
Both the existing Financial Administration Act and the Hon. Member for York East recognize that there has to be a provision for remission orders. There has to be authority in legislation for the making of those remission orders. That authority, under the existing legislation, is Section 17(1) which states as follows: "The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Treasury Board, whenever he considers it in the public interest, may remit any tax, fee or penalty". If we were, as was suggested, just to get rid of Section 17, then we would have to re-examine the Financial Administration Act, or some other Act, to put back that authority. Presumably, that is recognized by my colleague from York East.
However, were we to act on his recommendations we would then require an additional stage in the process by which remission orders are granted. There would be a necessity for parliamentary consent, and I presume that that would mean the passage of a special Bill. Annually, or as the need arose, Parliament would be presented with a Bill listing these various remission orders that the Government proposed to make. That Bill would then have to go through the proceedings in this House and then over to the other place and receive Royal Assent the same as any other Bill. That could be a very time consuming process. For people on the government side of the House I can see a difficulty there in that it could take a great deal of time away from other government business which ought to be debated and which should be debated here.
There has to be provision for public and parliamentary scrutiny. It would be wrong if that provision did not exist. It exists to a certain extent in the present law. If we cared to examine Section 17(8), we would see that it states therein that a statement of each remission order of $1,000 or more granted under this section shall be reported to the House of Commons in the Public Accounts. So each year for those remission orders in respect of the previous year presentation is made to the House of Commons by way of the Public Accounts. Of course, that goes to the parliamentary committee which can study it in detail. Thus there is provision for scrutiny.

August 16, 1988
Financial Administration Act
These remission orders are listed and made available to parliamentarians and the public at large so that they can be examined. If a parliamentary committee so chooses, it can call witnesses before it to say why a particular remission order was granted. It has wide-ranging authorities in that respect. So there is that element of parliamentary control that exists within the current system.
Also, as with any other Order in Council-and remission orders have to be made by way of Orders in Council-there is an obligation that these be published in The Canada Gazette. In this way any subscriber to The Canada Gazette can take the current issue and look at what remission orders are in the process of being granted. Sometimes it makes very interesting reading. However, I doubt very much if many people actually read them. If a parliamentarian had reason to question a particular remission order, it would be available to him at the time of publication in The Canada Gazette and could be brought up in the House.
I think there is in respect of most remission orders an adequate system of public and parliamentary scrutiny and that we need not necessarily go the full route suggested by the Hon. Member for York East in order that parliamentarians might do their work respecting remission orders.
I was going to go into a whole list of types of remission orders with which I am familiar, in particular the canned baby carrots remission order. Because I have only a minute or so remaining, I will not get into the details about canned baby carrots and the taxation thereon.
On balance, Sir, if we were to adopt the resolution before us we would have a little more public and parliamentary scrutiny, but we would tie ourselves up in a series of knots and loss of time. We would not be able to get these remission orders through in time. They are often badly needed, for example, by the marketer of canned baby carrots, or by some of the examples given to us by the previous speaker.
That, Sir, is my contribution to this great debate.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on Motion No. 101 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). My feelings are not unlike those of my colleague who just spoke, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). I have a lot of sympathy for what my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East, is attempting to do, but I have some difficulty with the practicalities.
Before I launch into a few comments, I would like to indicate the high respect I have for my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East. We know him here in the House as an ardent and earnest Member of the House. In his capacity as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts he has brought to that committee a high degree of inquisitiveness and, as my colleague the Hon. Member for Western Arctic pointed
out, a desire to make sure that the funds spent or the taxes not collected are indeed done in a wise fashion.
Under Motion No. 101 my colleague, the Hon. Member for York East would like to have remission orders of various types, whether they be for taxes, fees, or penalties, brought to the House of Commons. We must acknowledge that due to the work of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts there is a new procedure, as was alluded to by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic. The Government now publishes a document every six months. The first one came out recently, and represents the six month period ending March 31, 1988. It documents those cases of remission orders that have been approved by Order in Council in the six months preceding March 31. This is an innovation and it gives Parliament an opportunity to see the reasons why certain funds are being remitted and the circumstances that lead up to that.
For example, in glancing through the report in front of me, it is reported that the Lions Club in Riverside was building homes for handicapped persons. It had to import stoves and ovens that could not be obtained in Canada. They had remitted some $9,940. This was a reasonable thing to do considering the charitable nature of the work the Lions Club was doing in Riverside.
I was even more interested when I turned to the next page and found an example in my own constituency of Oxford where we have been blessed with the building of a large CAMI plant. It is an automotive plant, the largest of all plants being built in Canada under the combined efforts of an American and foreign manufacturer. In this case it is General Motors and Suzuki.
Much of the work going into that plant involves equipment and machinery being brought from Japan, or outside the country. In order for the plant to be competitive with foreign vehicles which would compete against the plant in Ingersoll, the Government has wisely seen fit to remit a significant amount over a period of three years to allow that company to bring in this equipment which will make it more competitive in the manufacture of automobiles.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that a company which will employ somewhere between 2,000 and 2,400 people in my constituency will be a significant addition to our economy. I would think that the amount of money being remitted through this remission order of some $12 million will be more than recaptured by the sales that this company will produce as a result of manufacturing certain automobiles here in Canada, and also exporting them abroad.
There is another interesting problem in my constituency that relates to remission orders, but more in the area of taxation. It comes as a result of the plight of certain tobacco growers at the present time. The tobacco industry is in a downturn. As a result many tobacco growers have found themselves with an immense debt to banks or other financial institutions, often hundreds of thousands of dollars, and sometimes more than the value of their property.
August 16, 1988

When they go through certain negotiations with the banks, other financial institutions, or the Farm Credit Corporation, it sometimes happens that they are granted certain concessions in terms of repayment. There are provisions under a program instituted by the Department of Agriculture whereby assistance is provided to some tobacco growers who are able to get out of growing tobacco and into some other line of work.
As a result of a combination of factors, it may end up that, because of reductions in moneys owing to a financial institution, the Income Tax Act requires that the taxpayer, the tobacco grower who is in considerable difficulty, has to pay a significant amount of tax in one year when he has not received any money and is grossly in debt to the institutions. Yet at the same time he is expected to fork out a significant amount of money to pay tax on what is deemed to be income in his case. If significant hardship can be demonstrated, a remission order can certainly be requested, and one would hope at times that that might be granted by the Government.
I agree with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic that it would be very desirable to have Parliament scrutinize this type of activity where we give Canadian manufacturers concessions. However, to do so, and to bring it before Parliament in each and every case, would certainly be unrealistic, and would add to the burden we already have in the House. When one considers that yesterday we were asked to spend 350 days debating one Bill, one can realize the impracticality of bringing forward dozens of remission orders, whether they be for customs tariffs or income tax.
I applaud the Hon. Member for York East in what he is attempting to do in terms of bringing more openness to the financial aspects of government. However, I do feel I have to oppose this motion in light of the practicalities of the whole problem.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
I believe there is unanimous consent to suspend the sitting until six o'clock?


Carlo Rossi: There is unanimous consent to adjourn until six o'clock.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.40 p.m., the House will suspend sitting until 6 p.m.
At 5.40 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


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


[Stage Direction]
The Hbuse resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That, in relation to Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage, and two sitting days to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the second day allotted to report stage consideration and on the second day to third reading stage consideration of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) just before we adjourned temporarily for Private Members' Business, the right hon. gentleman should tell the people the truth. It is a very surprising performance for a man, who was once regarded as a man of integrity, to take phrases from one part of the agreement and to apply them to another, distorting the real meaning of the wording and simplifying the application of yet Others.

He should tell them the truth, Mr. Speaker. I would like to expand on that, if I may. Last Thursday, on August 11, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) rose in the House and proudly claimed that under the terms of the agreement, the Government of Quebec would no longer be able to promote investment by Quebecers in Quebec companies. Mr. Speaker, he was referring specifically to the Quebec Stock Savings Plan, better known as the QSSP.
I certainly would not want to question the intelligence of the Right Hon. Member with respect to his reading of the agreement. However, Mr. Speaker, I strongly question his ability to understand the wording without distorting the real meaning. His statement was a reflection on the integrity of the Premier of Quebec, a fervent supporter of the agreement who is well aware of the benefits it will provide for Quebec, and the Leader of the Opposition has proven once again that he has no compunction about resorting to tactics that rely more on rhetoric than on the truth.
If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had done his homework and had read the agreement, he would know that the investment provisions do not apply to investment portfolios, and that as a result, various levels of government are entirely free to establish investment promotion programs like the QSSP.

August 16, 1988
Time Allocation
If the Hon. Member has trouble with my interpretation of this provision, perhaps he will accept the interpretation provided by the Premier of Quebec whose irony was apparent on the weekend when he made the following statement, and I quote: "At some time in our lives, we have all made statements based on facts that are not altogether accurate". Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bourassa said these words during the closing ceremony of the sixth convention of the Youth Wing of the Quebec Liberal Party which was held in Sherbrooke on the weekend. At the same convention, militant youth members of the Quebec Liberal Party endorsed a resolution to support the free trade agreement, despite intrusive action by more than 150 delegates from Mr. Turner's party who were sent by his Quebec lieutenant as mercenaries to try and dampen the enthusiasm of Quebec's young Liberals. However, these young people are not as easily taken in as the Leader of the Opposition would like to think. They know that the agreement is a ticket to the future that will give them access to jobs commensurate with their interests and capabilities.
There are others, Mr. Speaker, like the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), who are lost in their nostalgia for what Canada was like during the last century and who turn a blind eye to this country's potential for the twenty-first century. Mr. Garneau refers to a possible amalgamation of Canada with the United States and spreads fear and panic with his so-called nationalistic tendencies. He says he is fighting to keep Canada independent, but he refuses to understand what this country is all about, a country that has prospered because of its exports. Mr. Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that Canada is and always has been a strong country with a distinct identity, and to claim it is on the verge of being assimilated is an insult to the very people who built this country. He hides all too readily behind the alleged values of sovereignty which to him is the same as protectionism. He forgets what his own leader said, and I quote:

-yielding to protectionism under the guise of economic nationalism is self-defeating for Canada. This country has always prospered under freer rules of international trade". Why is it essential to tell them again and again that the way of securing Canada's sovereignty and culture necessitates a strong economy capable of offering to Canadians security, prosperity and a future based on their hopes and aspirations?
It is because they do not envision Canada's future.

How will these same detractors answer Quebecers, Mr. Speaker, if the United States imposes import restrictions on electricity? Will they answer that to save Canadian sovereignty, they preferred to sacrifice more than 8 per cent of Hydro-Quebec's total income? Have they explained to Quebecers, Mr. Speaker, that electricity is not yet covered by international
trade agreements, that the United States can impose restrictions without incurring the sanctions provided by GATT?
The free trade agreement provides that neither Canada nor the United States can impose duties or other charges, import quotas or any other quantitative restriction on energy imports, including electricity, from the other country, unless an exception is recognized by GATT.
Have they explained to Quebecers, Mr. Speaker, that a strong protectionist tendency is now growing in the United States and threatens the viability of our trade with our largest trading partner? Have they told them, Mr. Speaker, that our country's economy is heavily dependent on foreign trade, that more than 30 per cent of our national income and over 3 million jobs depend on this trade?
No, Mr. Speaker, they just raised fear by using false pretexts! In particular, they suggested that Canada would lose power over its water and the legitimate right to control this natural resource. They spoke of our lakes and rivers eventually drying up, but what was really drying up was their own ideas.
Our Government, Mr. Speaker, has removed any controversy by amending Bill C-130, because again they had spread doubt and fear.
And they have done even more by their acts of omission. They have intentionally not said that their leader was and still is the only leader of a national party to have suggested using water as a bargaining tool for greater access to the American market. In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on December 9, 1965, Mr. Turner said, and I quote:

-and if some day we can agree to the sharing of this continent's water by offering some of our water for export, we might want at that time to insist that if water is to be considered as a continental resource, markets should also be considered on the same basis. We might wish to export-not for money-as we sold power under the Columbia River Treaty, but in return for access to your market".
[ Translation]
History definitely has its ironies, Mr. Speaker!

We have heard an entire litany of myths, allegations and innuendoes regarding this free trade agreement from the Leader of the Opposition. We have yet to hear any reasonable arguments, any rational debate for substantive opposition from Mr. Turner. The quantity of his material is prolific but the quality of his debate is pathetic.
The people of Canada want to know about free trade. They do not need more simplistic argumentation without any basis of fact. It is time for Mr. Turner to either articulate a real reason as to why he cannot support this agreement, or he should admit that his opposition is based on nothing more than political opportunism, and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,
August 16, 1988

since you are indicating that my time is finished, that Canadians will remember.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in bringing in closure to stop this debate on free trade, after only two days of debate at the report stage of the proceedings, the Government is committing a total affront to parliamentary democracy. Here we have what the Government claims to be the most important piece of legislation to be presented in this Parliament, and it has allowed five days of debate at second reading. Now, after two days of debate at the report stage, it is going to allow two more days at report stage, which is four days of debate at report stage, and then it will close down the debate with two days of debate at third reading.
In addition, the Government also imposed closure in the legislative committee when it only allowed three weeks of hearings for witnesses. There was a large demand for witnesses, not only to hold hearings here in Ottawa but all over the country.
With this most important piece of legislation, the Government has imposed closure at every stage of proceedings. The debates have been of very brief duration. As I said, there was five days of debate at second reading, three weeks in committee to hear from witnesses and groups representing the people of Canada, and now there will be four days at report stage and two days at third reading.
The Government has said that imposing closure is justified because the opposition Parties have already made up their minds. They say that the Liberals have already made up their minds, they are against the agreement. The NDP Members have made up their minds, they are against the agreement. Since the Members of both Parties in opposition have made up their minds, why bother continuing with the debate? The Government completely misunderstands the purpose of debate in this House.
No one presumes for one minute that by debating issues in this House, we will convince government Members to change their minds and vote with the Opposition. We know that the Government has 211 Members and the Opposition has about 70 Members. We know that we will be out-voted on every issue on every occasion.
The purpose of debate is not to convince Members on the other side that they should vote with us; the purpose of the debate is to elucidate what is being debated for the benefit of the public outside the House, the great Canadian public, the citizens of Canada, so they will understand what we are debating. If we are limited to only four days on report stage and two days at third reading, we will not have time to explain to the Canadian public the faults of this particular legislation. Nor would the Government, if it were interested, have the time to explain the good points about the legislation. I say "if it
Time Allocation
were interested", because it is obvious from this debate, both at second reading and at report stages, that government Members are not really debating the details of this agreement. They are debating theoretical free trade.
Time and again. Members have said what a great thing free trade is and what it will do for Canada. However, they are not debating this very specific agreement with the United States. We in the Opposition, on the other hand, are debating the specific details of the agreement. To do so, we need time. That is why it is a travesty of parliamentary democracy that the Government is closing down debate after such a short period of time.
We are not interested in convincing those people over there. We would like to, but we know that that is a lost battle. With these many amendments, we are trying to bring to the attention of the Canadian public the failings and faults of the legislation so that Canadians will better understand it once we have an election.
I mentioned that we are interested in the details of the legislation. In addition, we take the position that the Government had no mandate for this legislation at the time of the election in 1984. It was not mentioned during the election campaign of 1984. As a matter of fact, the only words we heard from the leading figures of the Government prior to the election were spoken in 1983 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said:
"Canadians rejected free trade with the United States in 1911. They would do so again in 1983. Canada must increase its share of total world trade, which has dropped by 33 per cent in the past two decades."
What did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) say in 1983? He said;
"Bilateral free trade with the United States is simplistic and naive. It would only serve to further diminish our ability to compete internationally."
What did the former Secretary of State, David Crombie, say? He said:
"It's silly. Canada must improve relations in trade with the United States, of course. But our natural destiny is to become a global leader, not American's weak sister."
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) said similar words. Before the election campaign of 1984, these were the positions of the leading figures in the Government. During the election campaign of 1984, nothing was said.
In 1986, they started negotiating this agreement following the Shamrock Summit between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister in Quebec City. They started negotiating this agreement without any mandate, and then in October of 1987, we received a 35-page Elements of Agreement, which we were given little time to be debated. I believe there was a short one or two-day opposition day debate on that. Then in December, we received the 1,400-page full free trade agreement, and we had three days to debate that. We had three days of debate on a 1,400-page agreement a few days after it was sent to our offices, but the debate was not on the legislation. We only received the legislation in May of this year, a few months ago.

August 16, 1988
Time Allocation
A few moments ago, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) was accusing the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) of not telling the truth with respect to this agreement. He said that the Leader of the Opposition distorted in a serious way the terms of the agreement, and he referred to his recent questions with respect to the Quebec investment plan. I must say to the Minister of Labour, though he has left the House now, that he himself should practise what he preaches. He has distorted the words of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition at no time said that the Canadian version of the agreement prevented the Quebec Government or the people of Quebec from having their particular stock promotion plan. What he said was the following:
"Nevertheless, the official statement or official interpretation by President Reagan says, on page 86, that a province shall grant investors from the other country the same favourable treatment granted investors from that province.
President Reagan is saying that the Government of Quebec cannot use special measures to encourage Quebecers to invest in their own province."
I read the response of Premier Bourassa. In his response, he did not refer to the American interpretation. He once again referred to the Canadian agreement and he also referred to the present plan and not to future plans.
When the Minister of Labour and the Minister for International Trade start accusing the Leader of the Opposition of distorting the truth, they should practise what they preach. They should not distort what the Leader of the Opposition said as recorded in Hansard of August 11, 1988, at page 18199.
Earlier this afternoon, the-


John Horton McDermid: You're choking on that.


Mr. Allmand:: Yes, I am, because I have a cold. I am doing my best, and I wish you would accept that.


John Horton McDermid: You are choking on your own words.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary does not have very much to say so he is trying to bug me about my cold.
Earlier this afternoon, the very rambunctious Minister for International Trade was launching forth, as he usually does, with all sorts of wild statements. Of course, he referred to the proposed action by our Party to delay the passage of this Bill in the Senate in order to force an election so that the people could decide whether or not they want this agreement. It is our policy that since there was no mandate for the free trade agreement with the United States in 1984 and since it is such an important matter that will change the fabric and the nature of this country so much, it should be decided in a national election. We have decided that in order for that to happen, since we are massively out-voted in the House by the large government majority, we will delay the legislation. We will not defeat it but delay it in the Senate so that that can occur.
The Minister for International Trade, of course, was very critical of that. He started making fun of the Senate and referred to the fact that Senators are not elected and were mostly appointed by Liberals. At the beginning of this Parliament, and as a matter of fact, on May 9, 1985, in response to challenges from opposition Parties to reform the Senate, the Government finally put before this House a motion to reform the Senate. That motion to reform the Senate provided that money Bills that were sent to the Senate would be passed automatically after 30 days and non-money Bills that were not passed by the Senate after 45 days would be automatically passed.
The Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister to proceed with the legislation and said that he would support it, but that was never done. This motion to reform the Senate died on the Order Paper and was never passed by the Government because the Government did not have the political will to reform the Senate.


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


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here waiting to get in on this debate because I have listened to members of the Opposition moan, cry, weep and complain about time allocation on Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement. They say we have not had time to debate. I am going to try to cover some of the points that the opposition Members have raised.
How can we take them seriously? First, the Right Hon. Leader of the Liberal Party said, yes, he would form a coalition government. Then, no, he would not form a coalition government. We have the Leader of the NDP saying, certainly, we will form a coalition. Yes, we have seen the first signs of it. Here it is in a letter to our House Leader. Our House Leader said, let us have an orderly debate, let us have time allocation here, come back with your ideas on time allocation. Here is what they came back with. They proposed, and both the Liberal House Leader and the NDP House Leader signed this, that there should be 150 days of debate at report stage. Then they had the audacity to suggest another 200 days for third reading.
How can you treat the Opposition Parties seriously when they bring in this kind of nonsense? They are talking about over two years of House time in debate. They are talking about ignoring day care, ignoring tax reform, ignoring the refurbishing of the Armed Forces, ignoring a myriad of issues we have to debate in this House. Now they are moaning and groaning because we have limited the debate.
August 16, 1988

They say we have not had time to debate. Let me just give you the figures on second reading alone. The Liberal Party put up 22 speakers on second reading. Their critic spoke three times. Four Members spoke twice. Yet they say they did not have time to debate it. Not only did they have that many people speaking, but on the third day of second reading they ran out of speakers. Let us take a look at the NDP. Twenty of them spoke, eight of them twice, on second reading. Their critic, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), spoke three times. They ran out of speakers on the same night. Do you know who carried the debate to make sure it went the whole five days? The Conservative Party carried the debate. They could not carry it that night, they ran out of speakers, and we kept the debate going. Now they are moaning and groaning because we are going to limit the time for debate. That is total nonsense.
They are saying we do not have time to discuss this with the public. We are ramming it through. The free trade debate has been going on in this country now for over three years. The agreement was signed January 2 or January 3 and this legislation has been before the House since May. All we have seen since May are stalling tactics, not genuine debate, not serious study of a Bill.
I have to give the NDP Members full marks. They stood up and said what they were going to do. They were going to obstruct and do everything they can to stop the debate, not to have a serious debate. They do not want to sit down and inform the public of what this is all about and how important it is to Canada. No, they just want to obstruct.
They say we need a lot more debate. I was reading something rather interesting the other day about the debate in the British Parliament over joining the European Economic Community. The total time taken to decide that important stage of legislation dealing with the decision to enter the European Economic Community took a total of 18 hours. We have been debating this for hours and hours and hours. Some days have involved extended hours, and every day of extended hours is like two days of debate. Members opposite fail to mention that in their great moaning and groaning about the lack of time to debate.
When we finish report stage debate we will have had a total of five days of debate, three of which will be extended hours so that is basically an extra three days of debate. When third reading comes along it will probably be two days of extended debate, so that is really four days. The Opposition Members could not sustain the debate on second reading and there is no reason to think they can do it on third reading. We are into well over a couple of hundred hours of debate in one form or another, yet Great Britain debated entering the European Economic Community for only 18 hours.
Then we have to deal with the red herrings the opposition Members bring up. They say we did not have a mandate. 1 keep hearing we do not have a mandate to negotiate this agreement. I went back just to take a look at the commitments that the Conservative Party made during the last election on
Time Allocation
trade matters. One of them was to develop stronger trading relations without limiting the access of developing nations. That is exactly what this agreement does. Another plank in the platform was working toward a reduction in world trading barriers. What is this all about? Reduction of trading barriers. That is exactly what we are talking about. That is what we campaigned on.
We campaigned on assisting our service industries in penetrating foreign markets. That is what this agreement does. Most of the two million new jobs needed in Canada in the 1980s will be in the service sector. We campaigned on creating a framework in which that sector can better compete worldwide. What are we talking about? That is exactly what this agreement does. We campaigned on working closely with provincial Governments and regional industries to develop local initiatives that will both increase exports and develop stronger regional economies. That is out of our campaign literature and that is exactly what this free trade agreement does. We campaigned on economic renewal in this country and part of that, 1 must say, is the free trade agreement. We have a mandate.
Let me just wind up by saying this. The Opposition Parties love to go around and quote the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and some of the candidates for the leadership, but since that time we have had a royal commission on the economy report to Parliament recommending free trade. We have had the Economic Council of Canada report recommending free trade. We have had the C. D. Howe Institute report recommending free trade along with other independent thinkers in this country, including the business community, both small, medium and large.
That evidence was presented to the Government. When it was, we made a decision to get an agreement. If that evidence had been presented and this Government had not acted on it, we would have heard the moaning and groaning and crying from across the House. They would be asking, why are you not paying any attention to the evidence presented to the Parliament of Canada? We did pay attention and that is why we brought in this agreement. That is why it is a good thing for Canada.
We will be debating this issue over the next period of time. Time allocation is necessary because the Opposition is not interested in debating the facts.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak, particularly following the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid). He took a lot of time to tell us that the proposal which was put before this House by the House Leaders of the two opposition Parties was unrealistic. Perhaps it was. However, we must remember that Bill C-130 is not an ordinary Bill. It is an omnibus Bill which will amend 27 other Bills.

August 16, 1988
Time Allocation
In the House of Commons it takes anywhere from 10 to 15 days to amend a Bill. If you multiply 27 pieces of legislation for amendment by 10 days each, that is 270 days. At 15 days each, that is 405 days. If we debated each of the Bills that we are amending through this omnibus Bill for 15 days, it would take us 405 days.
Allow me to list the Bills that are going to be amended. They are: the Canada Agricultural Products Standards Act, the Department of Agriculture Act, the Bank Act, the Broadcasting Act, the Canada Wheat Board Act, the Copyright Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Canada Grain Act, the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, and the Income Tax Act. We have been trying to amend the Income Tax Act for the last year and a half and have not done very well; it is still on the Order Paper. Along with amending 26 other Acts we are going to amend this Act in four days.
The other Bills to be amended are: the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the Investment Canada Act, the Investment Companies Act, the Loan Companies Act, the Meat Import Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the National Energy Board Act, the Seeds Act, the Standards Council of Canada Act, the Statistics Act, the Textile and Clothing Board Act, the Trust Companies Act, and the Western Grain Transportation Act.
Many of these Bills have been before the House for 25 to 30 years and they are being amended by this piece of legislation. Had this been done methodically, as the Government should have done it, we would have had 27 different Bills.
No one can tell me how the Acts affecting my area of concern, agriculture, will be affected by this legislation. We needed to hear witnesses on every one of the agricultural Acts which are being changed. Instead of that, witnesses on agriculture were given a mere couple of hours each in which to comment on the Canada Agricultural Products Standard Act, the Department of Agriculture Act, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Seeds Act, and the Canada Grain Act. It is not unrealistic to suggest that this legislation should have taken a year or two to get through this House.
Democratic government operates well only if it operates with the consent of the governed. That is an accepted basis of democratic governments all over the world. That does not mean that a government receives a majority one year and then forgets about the people of Canada for the next four years. It means that the government keeps in contact with the people of Canada daily and ensures that it knows how they are reacting to the legislation being put before them.
We know how the people of Canada are reacting to this legislation. Seventy per cent of the people of Canada think there should have been an election before these 27 Bills were amended. A large portion of the population, approximately 51 per cent, disagrees with this trade deal.
When I ask people on the street about the free trade deal being pushed through the House of Commons they tell me that they do not understand what it is about. There is not enough
information out there to inform them on what it is about. They do not believe what the Government is telling them and they do not believe what I am telling them. They want to know the facts from a non-political point of view.
I tell people that they are going to have to choose a government on the basis of whether or not they want this free trade agreement. Just because they do not know enough about it does not mean that they will not vote on it. I ask them how they will vote on it and they tell me that since they do not know very much about it they will vote against it. Very few people who do not know what this free trade deal is about are willing to take the chance and, in a leap of faith, vote for something which will affect them they know not how. They do not trust the people who are telling them that it is good for them.
"This country could not survive with a policy of unfettered free trade". Sounds familiar? "I'm all in favour of eliminating unfair protectionism where it exists. This is a separate country. We'd be swamped. We have in many ways a branch-plant economy, in many ways, in certain important sectors".
That quotation comes from an interview of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) by John Gray in The Globe and Mail in June of 1983. The Prime Minister said, "All that would happen with that kind of concept would be the boys cranking up their plants throughout the United States in bad times and shutting their entire branch plants in Canada. It's bad enough as it is". The people believed the Prime Minister when he said that in 1983 and they elected him. But he has sold his electors down the river. Canadians have not given their consent to this legislation. We should not have to go through it in the time to which we are being limited by this closure motion.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there are very few things that have happened to me in my years in this House that have made me as proud to be a Canadian and a Conservative as this trading agreement. It is one of the most significant achievements we have been able to make in this Parliament. It is significant because of what it will do for Canadians, whether they are rich or poor, young or old. Every Canadian will have a higher standard of living as a consequence of this free trade deal because prices will go down.
History tells us that when small nations have entered into singular trade relations with larger nations, it has resulted in more and better paying jobs for the smaller nations. In every case, the smaller nation was very dependent on the larger nation prior to the trading relationship. Today, when the United States sneezes, we catch a cold because 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States and one-third of our jobs relate to exports. We are affected by protectionism in the United States.
August 16, 1988

We can expect increased productivity in the future from free trade, which will help us capture a larger share of the European, Japanese and other markets in the world. In 20 years we can expect that about 65 per cent of our exports will go to the United States, with 35 per cent going to other places in the world. We will be less dependent and less threatened by our relationship with one country. Therefore, free trade will result in lower prices, more jobs, better paying jobs and less dependency on the United States.
We have witnessed the filibustering tactics of the Opposition for over two years. In September, 1984, there was a massive change in government. We achieved the largest majority in Canadian parliamentary history, not because we were so wonderful, but because people understood that those who had been governing this country were not getting the job done. The Liberal Party really learned that because its members were almost wiped out.
The only reason the Liberals are filibustering today is that they do not want us to complete the job we were elected to do in 1984, which is to straighten out this country, get control of inflation and put 1.5 million Canadians who did not have jobs in September, 1984, back to work. We have made progress, but our target is for 2 million, 2.5 million and then three million more Canadians with jobs. The free trade agreement is a big piece of that agenda.
Canadians voted for change. Both opposition Parties stand consistently in the House seeking to go back where we were before, when Canadians were out of jobs, our standard of living was dropping like a rock, and prices were rising like balloons. Interest rates were 22 per cent and 23 per cent. Those were the results of the policies of those two Parties. We must not forget it.
This agreement is good for Canada and every Member in the Opposition knows and understands that. Yet they waste the time of this Chamber, at about $500,000 a day. Every dilatory tactic by the Opposition costs Canadian taxpayers another $500,000 in wasted money.
Yesterday the Opposition asked for Parliament to continue for another 350 days of debate on this issue. Such a debate alone would cost Canadian taxpayers $175 million in order to listen to the kind of speeches we have been hearing. Do Canadians want to spend $175 million of their money on this debate?
They do not want an election when we have kept our commitments. The Opposition wants to stop us from keeping our commitments in the hope that Canadians can be persuaded to go back to the old ways of unemployment, high inflation and so on. In addition, the Opposition has been somewhat sneaky about this. They stand up to say that they have not had much time to debate the free trade agreement.
Time Allocation
Let us examine this situation and compare June, 1987, with June, 1988, when we were trying to begin the free trade debate. In June, 1987, we dealt with 23 Bills and three other major issues in this Chamber. In June, 1988, we were only able to deal with 14, 11 of which were dealt with in three days. In June, 1987, there were no dilatory motions and phoney votes on the introduction of Private Members' Bills. This June, there were 19, which, at an average of an hour each, represented six of the 21 sitting days in this Chamber. It cost Canadian taxpayers $3 million to watch us vote and hear the bells ring in the month of June. That took us into extended hours, with overtime for the House of Commons staff and so on.
Our first Ways and Means motion related to this legislation was first brought into the House on May 18. The opposition Members argued on procedural grounds right through to June 8, before we could even bring it into the House. That took three weeks of House time when they could have been debating if they sincerely wanted to debate the free trade issue.
We have made an assessment of this. There were eight opposition days on free trade before we got anywhere near this stage. There were two government motions and four days of debate in March and December, 1987, representing 12 days of debate on this issue in this Chamber in 1987.
The Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade spent 120 hours in hearings. In normal parliamentary days, that is equivalent to 40 days in substantive time.
At the committee stage on this Bill, there were 87 hours of hearings, 59 witnesses and 350 submissions. That is the equivalent of 29 days of parliamentary time. There were 12 days of debate in equivalent time on the second reading stage in this House. There will be the equivalent of seven days in terms of report and third reading stages.
I have added these numbers, which come to a total of 341 hours which Members have spent on this issue. In terms of normal parliamentary days, it represents 114 days at an average of three hours of substantive time per day. This Chamber will have spent 114 days on this issue, which is enough.
Canadians elected this Government to govern. They wanted better health care, they wanted inflation under control, they wanted better pensions, they wanted more fairness in the system. They wanted the economy strengthened and they wanted jobs to be created. We have done that for them as rapidly as we could over the last four years while straightening out the mess we inherited. This is another piece in that process and I am proud to look forward to 10 minutes from now when I can vote for time allocation so that this Bill can get out of the Chamber and into the Senate. Hopefully those unelected people in the other place will see the wisdom of bowing to the will of the democratically elected Members of this Parliament.

August 16, 1988
Time Allocation


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it was very discouraging to hear a speech like that and follow the Parliamentary Secretary on his cheap accounting of parliamentary time and how it is used.
We all believe-unfortunately the Parliamentary Secretary does not-that the House of Commons is a place which distributes information to the public because the public has a right to get it. The public after hearing different partisan voices, then makes up its mind. That is what this place is all about. It is not a place where you count dollars and cents to determine how long a debate should go because it is costing so much. It is a place, instead, from which the public can make up its mind about what is going on. The facts speak more than the empty, pathetic rhetoric of the Parliamentary Secretary.
In this debate, which was introduced in May of this year, not a year ago, not six months ago, but in May, in this Chamber on second reading we have had some 26 hours of debate and at report stage we have had some six hours and 24 minutes. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that an unreasonable length of time on a piece of legislation which, as the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) has indicated along with others, covers some 27 pieces of existing legislation that will have to be changed as a result of this measure? Is it an unreasonable length of time to have 26 hours on second reading and only six hours and 24 minutes on report stage debate?
The sad and unfortunate fact is that when you are in government and you are embarrassed, you call closure. When you are in government and you do not know how to deal with the arguments of the opposition, you then bring in closure. In other words, when you run out of arguments and do not know how to deal with the arguments put forward by the opposition, you invoke closure. That was typical last Friday when we dealt with the question about why in an international agreement Canada is not defined in the opening clauses, not even included, while the United States is. This document mentions Canada and the U.S. all the way through. It was sad to see the weak defence which the Government put forward explaining why Canada had been forgotten in one of the major opening clauses.


John Horton McDermid: It has not been forgotten, and you know it.


Mr. Caccia:: The Government is embarrassed, uneasy and will impose closure to move ahead.
The Government has forgotten to seek the advice and information essential to make sure this agreement is in the interests of Canadians. I refer specifically to the environment.
This agreement is a bilateral one. All the points which the Parliamentary Secretary made earlier would refer to multilateral, global agreements. This one is not one of those. When the talk began, the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council
raised a number of interesting questions and brought them to the attention of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) and through him to the Government. For instance, it said that Canada's freedom to impose environmental regulations and to yield subsidies and tax incentives to pursue the social goals of a clean environment and sound resource management must not be restricted by any freer trade agreement.
Did the Government take any cognizance of that? It did not. Did it launch any study of this point? Unfortunately, it did not. The Advisory Council went on and made another point. It said there will be pressures to reduce costs. In the absence of uniform standards and inevitable enforcement there could be pressure from Canadian firms or firms wishing to locate in Canada to reduce the short-term costs of production in Canada by reducing expenditures for pollution control and for sound long-term resource management. Did the Government pay any attention to this point made exactly two and a half years ago? No, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately not.
The Advisory Council made another point in this paper. It asked whether a free trade agreement achieved either bilaterally or multilaterally would require Canada to adopt another nation's environmental legislative and management approach. Was that explored? It was not. We ended up, as in the case of pesticides, with a notion that we should harmonize our regulations with American regulations. We know who will harmonize with whom. It is not the bigger with the smaller, it is always the smaller with the bigger because that is the way harmonization works out.
I see you are getting impatient with me in terms of time, Mr. Speaker. There are three other major points-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am never impatient with the Hon. Member.
It being 6.56 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 117 have expired.
Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
August 16, 1988


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to say that I actually thought that it was a 30-minute bell. I came in late.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Resign!


An Hon. Member:: Resign as House Leader.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is only Tuesday. It is August 16 and it is not a full moon. Could I have just a little order so that I can hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did want to say that had I made it in time, I would certainly have voted for democracy and against this particular motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not have to say that that was not a point of order.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-130, an Act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States of America, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 9 will apply to Motions Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).


Lloyd Axworthy: Isabelle Langdon McCurdy McDonald (Broadview- Greenwood) Murphy
Nystrom
Penner
Prud'homme
Rossi
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Young-29

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to apply to lands, resources, and waters claims by aboriginal peoples under an aboriginal claim."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall affect programs to protect the environment or conservation of land, resources and waters."
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new special adjustment programs to help firms or workers adjust to the changes brought about by the implementation of the Agreement."
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after lines 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new regional development programs."
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs, including medicare, unemployment insurance, daycare, pensions, minimum wage laws, labour laws and maternity benefits."
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-130 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 3 the following:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new cultural programs by future Canadian governments."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this group of amendments that were moved will put the Government to a test. It will challenge the assertions that they have made over the past two years. The important parts of the Canadian national fabric; environment, aboriginal rights, regional development programs, cultural programs, are in no way affected by this agreement. We have heard the guarantees, assurances, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). That great counterfeiter has provided every kind of guarantee that one could ask for.
Now they have a chance to prove it by voting for these amendments. Now we will really see if they are prepared to live up to their word. There is a very important precedent for supporting these amendments. The Government said that during the course of the last month or two, because of a concern raised in the country about the issue of water, they would move an amendment to the legislation for greater certainty. For greater certainty they moved an amendment to ensure that water was excluded in the legislation.
We have here five amendments which say that for greater certainty we want to ensure that cultural programs, regional
development programs, and adjustment programs will not be affected. So if the Conservatives can support an amendment for greater certainty on water, then surely they will have to support these amendments for greater certainty on issues that have raised similar doubts and skepticism in the minds of many Canadians. It is very simple. They vote for these amendments, they support them, then, in part they will have taken away much of the doubt that exists, so they can say that at least in the legislation we have made our case clear and we know.
In my own generous, charitable way I am trying to help the Government. I want to give Government Members the means by which they can convince Canadians that they are prepared to stand by their word.
I have a suspicion, though I do not want to be too skeptical, that Government Members may not vote for these amendments. If they do not vote for them, then we will know that all those assurances are simply the kind of misrepresentation we have had from the time this agreement was first announced. We will not be able to trust them any longer.
I would like to deal with one particular amendment. My colleagues will deal with environmental issues, social policy and aboriginal rights, but I want to deal with adjustment. We know how important that is. The Economic Council of Canada has indicated that some 186,000 workers will be dislocated by this agreement.
Before the committee we heard testimony from the food processing industry, one of Canada's largest employers, indicating that close to 60,000 workers could lose their jobs as a result of the free trade agreement. The printing industry, a highly skilled industry, a small business industry based in every city across Canada, estimated that 10,000 workers could lose their jobs. The same is true for the textile, clothing, machine and electrical fabrication industries.
There was very substantial testimony from members of industry groups indicating that they will be directly affected by this agreement. Companies will close down. Workers will lose their jobs. It is very clear that adjustment programs will be required.
What has been so curious is why the Government changed its mind about so-called adjustment programs. The Prime Minister, before a big convention in Ottawa, said that there will be a big adjustment program, not to worry. The then Minister of Employment and Immigration indicated that there could be up to half a million workers affected. All of a sudden, about a week later, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister started changing their tune. We are used to that. We are used to them changing their tune on a 24-hour cycle, but surely not on something as important as someone's job being put at stake.
August 16, 1988

We began to understand why this is so. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance recognized that bringing in the kind of adjustment programs that would be required would be contrary to the agreement itself. They recognized that the Americans would exercise their right under the agreement to take trade action, according to U.S. trade law, against any industry.
As an example, we know that the applications for assistance by various industries under our regional development programs are now being screened by the Department of External Affairs to determine whether or not they live up to the conditions of the agreement. Already, before the trade deal is even in place, bureaucrats are providing a filter to determine if programs passed by this Parliament, in its sovereign right to help regions or workers, are acceptable. They are being censored by DRIE and by the Western Diversification Agency. Those agencies admit to that.
In the committee, I posed a question to Ambassador Ritchie who was testifying before the committee. I said that the assurances given by the Government were that the adjustment programs would not be affected. Ambassador Ritchie went on to say, as recorded in issue 22:24 of committee testimony, the following:
"The difficulty would of course arise with targeted assistance to particular firms or particular industries. There the jurisprudence, if one can qualify it in such a way, is ambiguous and would leave open the distinct possibility that certain forms of assistance could be attacked under Canadian law or under American law.
In addition to that, it should perhaps be noted that there are a number of
other forms of adjustment assistance or measures that could be presented as
adjustment assistance which would be contrary to the agreement-"
The most knowledgeable bureaucrat, the one who negotiated the agreement, now admits that adjustment programs for industries would in fact be contrary to the agreement. That seems to be a pretty compelling argument for how we are limiting our independence as a Parliament. Programs already passed by Parliament will be subject to the discipline of the trade agreement with the Americans.
We saw a very clear example of that in the softwood lumber case. The Americans challenged the right of provincial governments to impose a certain royalty scheme because they said that it was an unfair form of government subsidy. The Government of Canada agreed with them, and as a result, we imposed a $600-million tax on ourselves.
Perhaps more significantly, by accepting that judgment and not challenging it at the GATT, we accepted the precedent that this kind of direct assistance to industries could be considered an unfair trade act on behalf of Canada. We surrendered before the battle started. We gave up those rights before the battle even began. That precedent established in the softwood lumber case is now being applied to all other kinds of Canadian exports.
Let me give Hon. Members another example that should give real cause for concern. Under the American implementing legislation that is being examined by Congress today, Congress
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
is taking upon itself new powers to monitor all Canadian exports to determine if there is a subsidy. The Congress will not require U.S. industries to do the work themselves, the U.S. Government will pay for it. By monitoring it, it is prepared to take action against any Canadian exports. The Congress has acquired a brand new trade power.
One of the great ironies of the free trade deal is that after two and a half years of negotiation, we are ending up with tougher U.S. laws. The writing is on the wall. If there is any attempt by the federal or provincial governments to provide direct assistance to specific industries to meet the needs of the dislocation that will be caused by the trade agreement, we will be subject to American attack and the Americans will have the power and precedent of the agreement to point to. That is why they are backing off. That is why they are in retreat on this issue.
This amendment, along with the several others in the grouping on culture and social programs, is here to put the legislation to a test. If there is any question in the minds of Canadians about just how strong and unalterable an impact this trade agreement will have on the right of Canadians to make decisions for themselves, the test will be tonight when this vote is taken. When Government Members rise to vote against this amendment, it will be a confession of guilt. It will be an admission that we have already surrendered our right as the Parliament of Canada to take actions to support workers and industries that will need assistance to deal with the dislocation that this agreement will cause.
There can be no clearer example of how we will restrict and restrain our right as a Parliament, as a government and as a society to make choices for ourselves. The victims of the trade agreement will be prevented from getting decent assistance because the Government has already sold its soul. Yet we know how crucial this kind of assistance can be.
In 1971-72, when President Nixon brought in a surcharge on Canadian taxes, we introduced the Employment Support Act which provided assistance for something like 5,000 to 6,000 Canadian companies to meet the American challenge. It kept them in business, it kept their operations going and it allowed them to survive. It was a very successful program. It has now been put in abeyance by this Government.
The Canadian Industrial Renewal Board was designed to protect direct assistance to the footwear and textile industries to modernize and buy new machinery. Again, it was a successful program and was so considered by the North-South Institute, an objective institute. What did this Government do? It cancelled the program. It let it run out.
The ILAP Program allowed for a combination of assistance to communities affected by labour problems. In the throes of the downturn of the automobile industry in southern Ontario, it kept automobile communities alive. It allowed the people to keep their jobs and to bring new industry in. What did this Government do? It cancelled the program.

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Once again, we go back to the thesis that this is a Government that is trying to introduce, under the guise of a trade Bill, its kind of 19th century economic philosophy. That is, to not permit the Canadian Government to offer decent, constructive, productive support for its own citizens. They borrowed the Republican-Regeanite philosophy from the U.S. and are trying to entrench it in a Bill and an international agreement.
The group of amendments I brought forward, which you will hear a great deal about tonight, are the ultimate test. They will show the Canadian people who is right and who is wrong in this debate. What we say is that the Government has sold out the right of Canadians to make decisions for themselves.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, despite the heavy and very expensive flow of propaganda which has come out of the Government, despite the huffing and blustering which has come from the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) and his Parliamentary Secretary, we in this Party, and a great many other Canadians, know this trade agreement is much more than merely a commercial transaction. It is in fact changing the very direction in which Canadian society has gone.
It is interesting to note how very quickly the U.S. administration and the Congress gave their sanction to this trade agreement. Why not? Like the "Open sesame" door, this agreement has opened to the United States all the rich natural resources of Canada. In a sense, we could describe it as one of the biggest giveaways in the history of the western world.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


B. Keith Penner: You have done your blustering and now we are counteracting some of it.


John Horton McDermid: You will hear from me again, too. We have to keep you honest.


B. Keith Penner: No wonder the great business corporations and those who speak for them love the agreement. Yet what about other Canadians? That is who we are talking about tonight, other Canadians who care about the environment, Canadians of aboriginal ancestry, Canadians who know they are not in a strong position to survive as employees in the new kind of society that this trade agreement will bring about, and I will describe that in a moment.
What this trade agreement seeks to do, to put it one way, is to deify the market-place. If you are a person who is ruthlessly competitive, highly entrepreneurial, if you are at all times market driven in your motives, then you may survive the stiff, vigorous U.S. competition. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) has said on more than one occasion, yes, we Canadians can compete. The trouble is that in those areas where we have been successful in competing, we have had our foot stamped on in a way that still hurts.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) mentioned the softwood lumber deal. There we were competing successfully and we know what happened. The penalty we paid because we competed successfully has now been written into this agreement and we have to live with it for
all time. I want to tell you that many Canadians with whom I speak tell me that they do not want an American market driven, commercial type of society in Canada. Many feel we have too much of that already. Certainly many of Canada's aboriginal peoples feel that way about the trade agreement. That is why the Assembly of First Nations rejected it outright. They oppose it as forcefully as they can, knowing they do not have a big voice in the Canadian political system. They have neither political nor economic power, but we give them all credit possible for the efforts they make on behalf of the First Nations and their people.
The Native Council of Canada has many serious reservations about this trade agreement. I quote to you from the committee hearings when the Assembly of First Nations appeared. They pointed out that the Government of Canada has gone to great lengths to enable people designated as nationals of the U.S. and U.S. citizens or corporations to have all the benefits and all of the protection anyone could want to operate in Canada. They may do whatever they wish with respect to trade, investment, buying and selling energy, raw resources, setting up manufacturing plants, establishing outlets for goods and services, or anything in the field of commerce. The Government has conveyed these and all other kinds of rights to people over whom Canada has absolutely no control or jurisdiction. These people are protected by this agreement, while at the same time the rights of First Nations in Canada have not been defined despite the fact they are spelled out as specific rights in Section 35 of the Constitution of Canada.
Since my time is very brief I want to limit myself to only two points and then conclude by stating to the House why we need in Bill C-130 a non-derogation clause for aboriginal peoples as proposed by my hon. friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry in Motion No. 9.
Point number one is that a totally market driven economy can be very threatening and damaging to many, and none more so than to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. A U.S. magazine specializing in trade matters and economic issues said in a very recent issue, in explaining the Canada-U.S. trade agreement to its readers in the U.S., that as this agreement evolves, choices would expand and prices would fall for consumers in both countries as Canada becomes the equivalent of the fifty-first state. That means our goods in Canada will have to be produced more cheaply in order to be sold in the U.S. Quite obviously that means a downward pressure on wages, on benefits, on various forms of government assistance to people, communities and fledgling enterprises.
That is clearly threatening to Canada's aboriginal peoples. There may be some Canadians who say, well, a good thing, too, because we give them too much. We are too concerned. However, I tell you that there are no well informed Canadians who take that position. There are Canadians who realize that our economic debt, our economic rent to the first citizens of this country is enormous. There are still a majority of Canadians who care about human rights and who care about trying to establish as much equity as it is possible to establish in a modern society.
August 16, 1988

I know that those who have been educated, trained and conditioned to live and survive in a market driven society may do well. However, there are a great many others who are going to fall by the wayside. We in the Liberal Party are concerned about those people, and my hon. friend from Winnipeg-Fort Garry has talked about that already. Marginal firms and marginal workers, when confronted with intensified competitive forces coming from the U.S., will not be able to survive. Many of those Canadians are going to be native people. They are already less well educated than the population at large, less well trained. Already they are struggling to make it in Canadian society. They are going to find life ever so much more difficult, ever so much tougher in the American-type market driven society which the Government wants to force down our throats. I say no, and many Canadians say no.
I wish the Government would give the people of Canada the opportunity to decide before we pursue this folly any further. There is an old hymn that you may remember which says there is a wideness in God's mercy like the wideness of the sea. Be that as it may, I want to tell you, Sir, that the god of the market-place has no affection for anyone except the most successful, the most competitive, the most aggressive. The aboriginal peoples of Canada have every right to fear their place in a so-called new-right market driven American type of commercial society. The Canada-U.S. agreement is going to put major decisions respecting Canada's economy and its political decisions in the hands of the market-place, and I say that that is frightening.
My second point is that this agreement paves the way for the mass influx of American capital to gain even more control over vast sectors of mining, petroleum, and other resource sectors of the Canadian economy. While it may be true, as the Government has stated and argued, that existing land claims are grandfathered and are in no way threatened by the trade agreement, it is clear that the trade agreement is entirely silent about future agreements. Large areas of Canada rich in oil and gas are still subject to outstanding aboriginal title. Canada has no right to negotiate the allocation or management of these resources until such time as a valid treaty or agreement between the first nations affected and the Crown have been concluded. Anything less, Sir, would amount to theft.
The cash and the benefits from land claims are entitlements which cede from large tracts of traditional territory given to Canada. These entitlements must never ever be regarded as subsidies. Yet, I can imagine that when these entitlements are used to start aboriginal type of businesses and these businesses begin in some way to penetrate the American market, which the Government promises is going to be open to more Canadians, agents from the U.S. Department of Commerce will begin to smell around for subsidization. We will have many of those agents in Canada. They will be searching out subsidization in
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
exactly the same way as the CIA and FBI are constantly searching out communism.
I conclude simply by saying that we must have this nonderogation clause for aboriginal people. I plead with the House to put it in Bill C-130 for greater certainty.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a set of five motions which, in a certain sense, attempt to set out as an objective or a certainty with respect to this trade deal something which is in fact very much threatened by the trade deal. In that sense they are strange motions. They are potentially contradictory motions. They are motions which I wish the Conservatives would confound us by adopting and then proving in the future that their adoption actually demonstrated that these were facts, once adopted.
However, in practice that is not the way it is going to be. In practice the various motions which are put forward here attempt to present some kind of protection for aboriginal land claims, some kind of protection for environmental or conservation programs, protection for new special adjustment programs to help workers or firms adjust to the changes brought about by this agreement. The motions suggest that regional development programs will be protected, that social programs, including medicare, unemployment insurance, pensions, minimum wage laws, and labour laws will be protected as well as new cultural programs.
Would that it could be so, Mr. Speaker. Would that it could be somehow in this terrible trade deal, simply by passing these motions, an established fact that these protections were provided. In fact, that cannot be done. It is not possible to do because the agreement itself, in fundamental ways, threatens each and every part of the areas which these motions are meant to protect.
I would like to mention the heart-felt speech of the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) whose sincerity no one in this House can possibly doubt when he speaks of aboriginal land claims. I hope very much that the Conservatives will take his speech seriously and put that clause into the Bill even though the agreement contains such threats to aboriginal land claims. It includes the threat that all local governments including, therefore, local aboriginal governments, must not offer preferences, must not have the freedom to set economic policies which will be contrary to national treatment of United States firms.
I want to talk about three of the motions within this set. First, I want to talk about Motion No. 10 which says:
"For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall affect programs to protect
the environment or conservation of land, resources and waters."
It is absolutely clear, as we found out from expert testimony in committee, that protection of water cannot simply and completely be protected by an amendment to the Act. In fact, the Liberal Party has been arguing that very strongly and I am, therefore, a little surprised to see this put forward here.

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
With respect to conservation of resources, under changes which are made as a direct consequence of this agreement we will be forced to export our resources and to export our energy even when we face situations of shortage in this country. That is a fact which no one can deny. It is a fact which the Conservative Party should, if it has enough honesty within it still, stand up and admit.
I believe that the threat to environmental programs under this agreement is immense. Under this agreement for five to seven years we will negotiate subsidies.
It does not say certain subsidies and therefore includes subsidies which are provided to assist industries in this country to become environmentally viable and stop polluting rivers and lakes as a consequence of the assistance with which they are provided. That is very much at risk as a consequence of this agreement.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Steven W. Langdon: It is very much at risk, absolutely and totally at risk.


John Horton McDermid: Total nonsense.


Steven W. Langdon: If the Parliamentary Secretary were ever to get this Act through, he would find that those are precisely the points that the United States would raise as key concerns. For instance, the pollution grants that we have given to our forest companies will be very much subject to that discussion and negotiation.


John Horton McDermid: Not true.


Steven W. Langdon: The Parliamentary Secretary says not true. Every subsidy is open for negotiation-


John Horton McDermid: It takes two to negotiate.


Steven W. Langdon: He cannot possibly say that these will not be negotiated. All he can say is that he can hope they will not be negotiated. I am not sure if many Conservatives share that hope. That particular motion is useful and important, but it runs directly contrary to the agreement itself.
A second motion suggests that new regional development programs and existing regional development programs will be safe. Let me quote from an authority, the Deputy Minister of Finance in the Conservative Government at that time who said:
"We are going to have to think differently in terms of ways to promote
economic development."
That is what he said in response to questions from Members of the Public Accounts Committee. He said:
"The Michelin Tire type of transaction is just not on any more."
He went on to say that: "We will have to find other unobjectionable ways" to provide industrial development assistance. That was his statement to that committee. What
more definite and clear-cut proof could we want than the statement of the Deputy Minister of Finance that we will have to change our regional development programs as a consequence of this trade deal?
Finally, this agreement says a great deal about health care and the future of medicare in this country. If we look at the various services that are provided under the services section of the trade deal, one sees that there are dozens of health services that are not just management services but commercial services that run medical labs, public health labs, and blood banks. All these are being open to national treatment, that is, equal treatment for American firms with Canadian firms.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, as you have noticed in the past half hour, one Member after another has brought to your attention and to the attention of people watching this debate the fronts on which the Government has failed in negotiating this agreement. It has become gradually evident when examining the Bill.
The Government has failed in protecting aboriginal rights, as the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) so eloquently put it. It has failed to protect Canadian social security programs as the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) will point out. It has failed on the front of protecting the workers and firms which will be affected by the deal, as other Members will point out.
It has also failed to protect the environment. I will briefly give a chronology of facts to show how, despite the warnings the Government was given, the environment has been neglected.
Despite the fact that the Government published a booklet for almost every activity that comes under federal jurisdiction in which to praise, promote and propagandize the virtues of this agreement, it did not do so with respect to the environment. Not one word was expressed on it. That is, in itself, an astonishing fact. It means that the Government somehow concluded that it would be wiser to say nothing either because conceptually it did not link the agreement with the environment or it felt it was too treacherous a territory on which to speak up on behalf of the Canadian environment.
Let me take you through this chronology, beginning with June, 1986, when the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council alerted the Canadian public to the fact that free trade could have an impact on the environment in Canada. Five months later, in November, 1986, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) came to our committee on the Environment and Forestry to say that although he had requested the report by the Council, he had read it and saw no links between free trade and the environment. The fact that he saw no link was, in itself, an astonishing statement.
August 16, 1988

In 1987, the Minister of the Environment for Canada endorsed the Brundtland Report, which is a very carefully crafted policy paper that speaks about environmentally sustainable development. The Americans have remained silent on this. They have not taken any position on it. Surely at that point, having committed the Government of Canada to the Brundtland Report on the northern side of the border, one would want to make absolutely sure that the commitment would not be eroded by Washington because of its lack of commitment to the very same report.
Let me take you to September, 1987, when the Minister of the Environment endorsed the report of the National Task Force on the Economy and the Environment, which is another emanation of the Brundtland Report. Let us then move to November 23, 1987, when in response to a question of mine on the Order Paper, the Government replied that the free trade agreement is a commercial accord, it is not an environmental agreement.
How blind could one be? How short-sighted can one be for the sake of lower prices, as some of the spokespeople on the other side have said, not to realize that this is not just a commercial agreement? It entails regulations and develops more and more into other measures and legislation that go far beyond commercial operations, as many Members have already indicated this afternoon in the House.
We then come to May, 1988, when an official of the Department of the Environment appeared before the Standing Committee on the Environment and Forestry to deal with the Estimates that came before that committee. We asked him if he conducted any studies on the implications of the agreement on the environment. The answer was that nothing had been undertaken because there was no need to do so. The Minister of the Environment and the Government had decided that trade and the environment are unrelated. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? It is unthinkable to have such a short-sighted, blind attitude, if I may say, toward the implication of this agreement.
Another important front that has to be covered by Motion No. 10, which I am addressing now, as proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), is one representing a major shortcoming in the legislation itself. Every Member on the Government side, when we come to vote, will have to vote for Motion No. 10. I cannot see any other alternative if Members really mean what they say about the environment. If they are serious about it, Motion No. 10 is essential to personify, to give substance to the rhetoric that we have heard over years from the Government that it is in favour of protecting the environment.
The points that have to be raised are very clear. They are not so complicated that they would not come to the mind of any observer. First, there is the question of Canada's freedom
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
to impose environmental regulations and to use subsidies, as others have already said, or tax incentives to pursue certain social goals for the clean environment or for sound resource management. This is a very profound central question and it has not been dealt with. There are some fools across the floor who can smile about this matter because they do not understand the implication. The freedom for Canada to impose or introduce subsidies and tax incentives, as anyone who has read this agreement knows, is in danger. This matter has not been studied or examined by the Government as it should have been.


John Horton McDermid: That is totally wrong.


Charles L. Caccia: Let me move to another point that is also at stake. There will be pressures to reduce costs as a result of this agreement. When you do not have uniform standards and equitable enforcement there could be pressure and, in this case, by Canadian firms or firms wishing to come to Canada to reduce the short term costs of production in Canada by reducing expenditures for pollution control. They will say: "We will come in and open up a subsidiary or a plant provided that you allow us to operate the dirty way because we want to be free to produce at the lowest possible cost in order to be competitive-"


John Horton McDermid: Come on. What nonsense.


Charles L. Caccia: This shows the ignorance of the Parliamentary Secretary-"in order to be competitive with American firms which do not have to respect the regulations which exist in Canada". That will be their argument.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Charles L. Caccia: If the Government of Canada would have taken the trouble to prove that this fear was misplaced, why did it not have the decency to produce a study which would have come to that conclusion?


John Horton McDermid: Where is your study that says it will? Don't be silly.


Charles L. Caccia: We know this pattern could develop. We know that there are certain standards and regulations in Canada which do not exist south of the border. The Parliamentary Secretary should know that. It is not just me saying it, but the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council which said it two years ago. The Government is deaf. It does not want to listen.
We have another area which the Government failed to address in protecting the environment because it does not understand the issue. The Government understands lower prices and the free market. Life to the Tories is lower prices and a free market, but the quality of life does not mean anything to them. Protecting our natural resources for future generations is like hearing a foreign language. That is why the Tories ignored the environment. If they cared they would have undertaken these studies.

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke up about the environment. Trudeau never knew what the environment was.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, all aspects of life, and the Greeks divided them up into four elements, the earth, the air, water and fire, will be affected by this trade deal. My colleagues have dealt with three of the basic elements, the earth, water and air. I want to deal with the fourth, the fire, the spirit. In other words, culture.
I want to deal with the big lie which the Government has perpetrated with regard to the supposed cultural exemption in the trade deal. We were told that culture would not be on the bargaining table at all. Clearly it was. Clearly the Americans saw a great victory. For them culture is an opportunity for making another buck. It is business as usual. It is entertainment and all of the measures that we have developed as Canadians to promote Canadian culture. To Americans this is discrimination and it is against the spirit of the trade agreement. The Americans would like to have as little of it as possible. Because Canadians are sensitive to the issue, it could not be ignored altogether. We have a double-barrelled exemption for culture. We have a whole lot of areas where cultural industries are very specifically included. I have dealt with them in other speeches.
Here I want to deal with the big lie aspects and the so-called cultural exemption. Let us look at what the Americans say they won in the trade deal negotiations on culture. Recognizing Canadian sensitivities, the U.S. has agreed that certain cultural areas are not subject to special provisions. However, the U.S. retains the right to redress any adverse commercial effects of any future cultural measures enacted by Canada. To them this is just an opportunity to make a buck. If you limit the opportunity for American corporations to make a buck in Canada, that is against the trade deal and the spirit of it, even if it is promoting Canadian creativity and the Canadian cultural world.
We have the chief trade negotiator, Simon Reisman, who has been asked about what this exemption means. The exemption is there in one clause and then there is part 2 of the clause which says there can be retaliation. If Canada does something to promote Canadian culture, the Americans can retaliate. What does Mr. Reisman say about it? He says: "There are many things we can do that would not be inconsistent with the trade deal".
Canada wants to promote Canadian culture in publishing, music, sound recordings, performance, and broadcasting in a particular way, but let us ask the first question. Is it consistent or inconsistent with what we have given away on the trade deal? Unfortunately a lot of it is inconsistent. We have some measures to promote Canadian culture. For example, we have some subsidies. We know that all subsidies are up for negotiation in the next five to seven years. Cultural subsidies are not
exempted there, not at all. We know we have some areas where there is actual protection in foreign investment, for example, in the area of broadcasting. We have Canadian ownership requirements. Canada as a society, and after some considerable thought, decided that it would be better to allow a very small minority of shares to be foreign owned in broadcasting. That is frozen, at least so far in the deal. That is one of the exemptions. But supposing we wanted to do that in some other cultural area-


John Horton McDermid: Yes, let's pretend.


Lynn McDonald: Supposing we wanted to make that choice. Supposing we wanted as a society to move forward in film distribution. As a matter of fact, we had a task force established by the former minister of culture who has moved on to other things. The report came up with a proposal that there be in film distribution Canadian ownership. Film distribution we know is massively American-dominated. The profits go into the United States, into Hollywood, to promote more American films which come flooding back into Canada. Supposing we wanted to have Canadian ownership in film distribution, a recommendation by a Conservative-appointed task force? We cannot do it in this trade deal.
We have a Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) who had a very modest Bill on film distribution to have a licensing scheme developed. Even that very modest proposal, which was not even remotely close to Canadian ownership in film distribution, had to be watered down to suit the Americans because any kind of attempt for Canadians to get back, to get control of, to use in this case people's purchases of cinema tickets, to get into Canadian production, to put Canadian writers, directors and performers to work was not acceptable. We have a great deal of creative talent here in Canada, but the money is going to Hollywood for American productions. We had the possibility of turning that around, but the Government bowed to the pressure. Jack Valenti's problem was certainly dealt with by a cowardly Minister who has lost all of the vision that she used to have.
We have another sign of the Government giving way on culture. We have a publishing policy. We do not have, unlike broadcasting, a requirement of Canadian ownership in publishing. We had a proposal by the previous Minister that we move in the direction of Canadian ownership in publishing. That was the so-called Baie Comeau policy. The Government has never repudiated that policy in so many words, but it is not implementing it. Whenever a specific case comes forward it finds an excuse such as: "This one does not apply. We cannot make it retroactive. We will start doing it in the future". We then got passed the so-called retroactive period and it simply stopped implementing it and looked for other excuses such as: "The operation was not big enough so we will not bother to apply it". We have a policy to move to Canadian ownership in publishing and it is not being acted upon in any concrete case.
August 16, 1988

We have the instance of the Broadcasting Act, a new Bill which was before Parliament 20 years after the last Bill. We have a Government which wants to reduce the Canadian content requirements in the Broadcasting Act. We had organizations appear before the committee today which recommended that we not pass this Bill because the old Act of 1968, is stronger for Canadian content. We have a Minister who puts her Canadian content into PR so she can appeal to her former nationalist friends. If one reads the fine print in the Act, one will see that that is not there.
The Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1968, was tougher because we did not have the Americans dictating the terms. We have reason to believe that the Minister had clauses removed from a draft Bill at the instigation of Americans who had a look at it and vetted it. It already includes mention of the free trade deal. Culture was always on the bargaining table. There are specific measures in the new Broadcasting Act which reflect that.
I suspect that there are a number of clauses that were recommendations of the Caplan-Sauvageau report, a Conservative-appointed task force, as well as the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, a Conservative-dominated committee. Yet we have a Government that is so base, so cowardly, so keen to do what the Americans tell it that it removes the Canadian content requirements in the Broadcasting Act to curry favour with the Americans. It cares more about them than it does about Canadian culture.
If the Government really believes what it said, that is, that culture was never on the bargaining table, and that we should be free to pursue our own cultural objectives, then it would pass this motion which would ensure that indeed there is a cultural exemption. It has no intention of doing that, however, because it has lied from the beginning. Culture was always being bargained away. Shame on this Conservative Government for doing it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister of Communications.


Lynn McDonald: Shame on the Minister. "Hon. Minister" is a corruption.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing that rattles around more than noise in an empty shell. We just had an excellent exhibition of that.
One of the things that has been said by the Hon. Member is that nothing has been done in the way of cultural initiatives by the Government. I would just like to mention some of the things that have been done, have been done because they were so long overdue.
In the field of book publishing we have invested $1,723,000.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Relevance.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope that the Hon. Member would give the same courtesy that the Minister gave the Hon. Member. I know that the Hon. Minister will be coming to the motions. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, do not hold your breath. She does not understand the word "courtesy".
In the field of film production we have invested $165 million in feature film funds.


Lynn McDonald: It is a buy-off. You are trying to buy out the culture community.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Just recently after the signing of the free trade agreement, after the agreement was tabled in the House, we introduced legislation and new policies under Investment Canada. We have brought in a $200 million package-


Lynn McDonald: Buy out and sell out.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I know that the Hon. Member does not want to see moneys go to the Canadian film distribution industry. I know she is not interested in supporting the Canadian film distribution industry. But it has been very interesting to me to see in the last week Astro Distribution Industries announce that it will distribute for the first time in a number of years 13 Canadian films as part of its package-13 Canadian films that were not there before.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of order.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, a point of order-


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


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could speak to the amendments that are on the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. McDonald) on a point of order.


Lynn McDonald: The same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not want to get involved in this particular debate with Hon. Members. I know that the Hon. Minister will get to the motions at hand. I think it would be nice if we would give her the courtesy and listen and wait and see. The Hon. Minister of Communications has the floor.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member from Toronto never really wants to hear the truth. I know it hurts her. But perhaps she will be quiet long enough to listen to some of the facts, some of the things that happened.
She has introduced some kind of a woolly-minded amendment. What I am saying is that these are measures that have been taken since the free trade agreement was signed, since this legislation was brought before the House. Therefore these are measures that prove that Canadian culture has been exempted from the free trade agreement. There is no reason or no need for such an amendment.

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Do not take my word only, Mr. Speaker, for the fact that these measures have been welcomed by, say, the Canadian film industry. In fact, they have been welcomed by people in the distribution business. They have been welcomed by those who are producers. May 1 just say, for instance, the executive director of the Winnipeg Film Group, Bruce Duggan, had something positive to say. Winnipeg has a very active film group. I know that members of the Opposition do not want to see the Winnipeg Film Group helped. But it wrote to say:
"It was with considerable happiness that we hear of your tabling of the Film Distribution bill in the House of Commons.
Congratulations!"
From Sherrin Productions Ftd. of Toronto I received this:
"Your recent announcement of more financing for independent film production and distribution in Canada is very encouraging and exciting."
1 know that the Hon. Member from Toronto does not want to help a Toronto production outfit. 1 know that she does not want to help Toronto companies. But of course that is what they have to say.
Stephen Roth, Frank Jacobs, David Perlmutter of Cinexus wrote stating:
"Congratulations on your long awaited distribution regulations. From the material available it appears the legislation will go a long way in satisfying the concerns of which we are all aware."
This was done after the free trade agreement was signed.


Lynn McDonald: Where is Canadian ownership in film distribution?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is such a thing as courtesy in this House. I would like to hear the Hon. Minister. I do not know if she is in order or not. If the bantering across the floor would stop, then I would be able to hear it. The Hon. Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) has the floor.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is indeed agreeable to hear that one can speak in the House without being shouted down by people who simply do not want to hear the truth.
The reason I am making these comments, and the reason that I am intervening, is that I do not feel that any amendment is necessary. That is what I am speaking to, the fact that I reject such an amendment, simply because the steps we have taken have strengthened the Canadian film distribution industry, and the broadcasting industry.
I heard the Member say a few moments ago that she did not want to see those aspects of Canadian content and measurement, which have always been associated with the CBC, and which will continue to be part of the role of the CBC, extended to private broadcasters in Canada.


Lynn McDonald: You do not know your own Bill. You have reduced the requirements.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member did not want to see it extended to the distribution systems in Canada. She did not want to see the whole area of Canadian content enlarged beyond the public broadcaster.


Lynn McDonald: You have reduced it.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I happen to believe that we should have a great deal of Canadian content in both our private and public broadcasters, in our networks, and in our distribution systems. When the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) says that she does not agree with this, then 1 could not disagree with her more. I want to see more Canadian content in our broadcasting system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Lynn McDonald: The Hon. Minister is quite wrong. Her Bill actually reduces the requirements for Canadian content for private broadcasters-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate and the Hon. Member did have an opportunity. The Hon. Minister of Communications has the floor.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I wish to mention a couple of other persons who have written to us to congratulate us and to urge the passage of the legislation before the House, legislation in film, legislation in broadcasting, all designed to improve and to enlarge the Canadian contents in these industries. The reason we are doing this is that these were steps that were taken following the introduction of the free trade agreement, following the time when, according to the Hon. Member, nothing could be done to strengthen Canadian content. That is absolutely wrong, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: Talk to Jack Valenti.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I hear the interjection of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. He would be one of those who would not endorse the sentiments of the Winnipeg film crew who feel the film legislation has been beneficial to them.


Lloyd Axworthy: They are opposed to the agreement. They came to the committee.


John Horton McDermid: They did not oppose it.


Lloyd Axworthy: They did.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They are the ones who wrote to say that the legislation would be helpful to them.
August 16, 1988

I have a letter here from Lauron Prouction Ltd. which states:
"I am writing in my capacity as Chairman of Lauron Productions (you may
remember us as the company which produced the film "Loyalties" which Anne
Wheeler directed) to offer my congratulations to you on your announcement of
Film Legislation and Support Programmes for the Canadian Independent
Film sector at the CFTA 40th Annual meeting."


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


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I hesitate to raise this point of order, but 1 am surprised that you have not noticed, Mr. Speaker, that there is a reasonable application of relevance that is lacking here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister has another 30 seconds to wind up. The Hon. Minister of Communications has the floor.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker. As 1 set out to substantiate, and as I can show from comments from coast to coast, the initiatives that we have taken in the field of culture, broadcasting, film, book publishing, and in postal rates, all taken since the free trade agreement was signed, have been introduced. One of the major positions is that we can show that there is nothing in the free trade agreement which inhibits us or forbids us from doing anything to strengthen Canadian culture, and that is what we have been doing.
Hon. Warren AUmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, this evening we are dealing with six Liberal amendments to the free trade Bill, all of which have the purpose for greater certainty of exempting different matters from the Bill.
Motion No. 10 states:
"7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall affect programs to protect the environment or conservation of land, resources and waters."
Motion No. 9 has similar provisions for aboriginal lands and aboriginal claims. Motion No. 11 has similar provisions for worker adjustment programs. Motion No. 12 has similar provisions for regional development programs. Motion No. 13 has similar provisions for social and health programs. Motion No. 14 has similar provisions for cultural programs. All these amendments were suggested at the committee by various witnesses appearing before the committee.
For example, the proposal to exempt aboriginal lands and claims was proposed by the Assembly of First Nations. The proposal to exempt environmental protection laws was proposed by the Canadian Environmental Law Association and the Canadian Wildlife Federation. The proposals to exempt regional economic development policy and social programs were proposed by the National Anti Poverty Organizations, GATT-FLY, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Canadian Council on Social Development, the Canadian Health Coalition, the "One-Voice Seniors", and Mouvement Solidarity populaire Quebecoise. Finally, the provisions to exempt cultural industries were proposed by ACTRA, the Independent Record Producers, and so on.
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
My point is that these motions to amend which are presently before the House came out of hearings from Canadian groups of citizens who very strongly proposed that such measures were put in the Bill. Other members of my Party, and other members in the Opposition are dealing with various of these amendments, but I want to zero in on the ones relating to adjustment policies for Canadian workers and Canadian industry.
There is no doubt that, as a result of the free trade agreement, many jobs will be lost. There have been different studies and different estimates as to how many jobs will be lost, but the fact of the matter is no matter what study is accepted, jobs will be lost. In December, 1987, the former Minister for Employment and Immigration stated that he thought approximately 300,000 jobs would be lost. The next day he reversed himself and withdrew that statement. In 1986, a study conducted by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion stated that approximtely 227,000 jobs would be lost in 17 industries. In a study tabled in December, 1987, the Ontario Department of Labour stated that 280,000 jobs would be at risk in Ontario.
The most recent report of the Economic Council of Canada published on April 13, 1988, stated that there would be a net gain of 250,000 jobs over a 10 year period, but it also stated that there would be a decline of jobs in 17 out of the 36 industries studied. The report of the Economic Council entitled "Venturing Forth", states at page 21: "It indicates clearly that without improvements in Canadian manufacturing productivity, increased United States competition could result in a net decline of output and employment in 17 of the 36 industries studied, virtually all of them in manufacturing". Further on it states: "Some firms will have to merge, others will have to close. As projected in simulation one, for example, the electrical products industry would account for 40 per cent of all of the job losses in manufacturing".
There would be serious losses in manufacturing. The report goes on to say that the employment gains would be in the service industries. It would be, for example, in clerical, sales and services, administrative jobs. We all know that manufacturing jobs, industrial jobs, are generally unionized, highly paid and have benefits and are usually full-time jobs, whereas jobs in the service industries are usually very often part-time and at minimum wage and non-unionized and without benefits. The jobs that we are gaining in this deal on the whole are service type jobs, and the jobs that we are losing are industrial type jobs.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in the agreement and in the Bill which provides for adjustment. The Government launched this whole free trade agreement, it says, as a result of the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, known as the Macdonald Report, the Macdonald Royal Commission.

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
What did Macdonald say? He recommended a free trade agreement, but he also said on page 316 of Volume I of the report: "The commissioner's assessment of the economic costs of free trade indicates that Canadian investors and employees are likely to bear relatively larger adjustment burdens than their United States counterparts. A free trade agreement should therefore incorporate explicit provisions that reflect a proportionately greater cost of adjustment that Canadians will face. It should provide for transitional safeguards which permit temporary limits on the speed of adjustment, and it should operate to smooth out the dislocation and re-employment of workers and physical capital".
That is what was recommended. It was recommended in several other reports, but there are no new adjustment programs. Not only are there no new adjustment programs but the employment and training programs that are presently in place, and have been in place for several years now, have been drastically reduced.
Since 1984, employment and training programs have been reduced by this Conservative Government by 32 per cent. Whereas the budgets were $2.2 billion in 1984, they have now been reduced to $1.5 billion. This is the kind of program that the Government said it is going to rely on to help workers and firms adjust as a result of free trade. That will not do. I pointed out very clearly that there will be serious dislocations of workers. Industrial workers will lose jobs in Hamilton, Cape Breton, Toronto, southern Ontario. Jobs will be opening up in service industries in other areas of the country.
What are we going to do with these middle-aged workers, let us say in the electrical products industry, which will be the worst hit according to the Economic Council report, workers who have spent 20 and 30 years in electrical products industries and all of a sudden they are put out of work and told: "Well, don't be too upset. As a result of this free trade agreement you can have a clerical job out west"? Or, "If you are from central Canada, don't worry. You could have a clerical job or a sales job in Quebec, if you are from Ontario".
Adjustment programs are absolutely necessary. What is surprising is the day after the free trade agreement was tabled in this House, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke to the Canadian Export Association-I believe that is the name of the association-and promised significant and massive adjustment programs. When he returned to the House the following day, we attempted to ask him questions about these programs. We attempted to ask the Minister of Employment about these programs. He said that the Prime Minister was misunderstood.
This is one of the travesties. We oppose the agreement and we think it is a bad agreement. Canada gave much more than it got. It is going to be bad for Canada's independence, identity and sovereignty. Surely, if we are going to have the agreement, there must be provision for adjustment programs. That is why
Motion No. 11, which is presently before us and is one of the six motions, says:
"For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new special adjustment programs to help firms or workers ..."
Of course, one of the reasons for that type of wording is that very often grants and subsidies to firms, to help workers, have been considered countervailable, or considered subsidies which may be negotiated away as a result of this agreement. We may not even be able to continue subsidies for workers in some cases, or subsidies for firms that are attempting to readjust, firms that will be very hard hit by the free trade agreement, whether they are textile firms, shoe firms or whatever.
I think it would be helpful to bring to your attention those firms which the Economic Council says will lose jobs as a result of this agreement. We have the rubber and plastics industry, the textile industry, the metal fabricating industry, the machinery industry. I have already mentioned the electrical products. We have the chemical products industry, the non-metallic minerals, paper products, furniture and fixtures, knitting mills and leather. These are among the 17 industries that will be hard hit.
If the Government maintains that adjustment programs will not be hurt by the agreement, then let it accept the amendment. The amendment only says that for greater certainty adjustment should not be hurt by this agreement. The Government will do no harm by accepting the amendment, but it can be very helpful by protecting adjustment programs and bringing in some new ones.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity this evening to speak on Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. I think, as perhaps the Chair, being one of the very few Government Members interested enough in this historic debate to be listening to it, that we must know that the FTA provides complete armaments for large multinational corporations and right-wing Governments to bust unions, lower wages, cut social programs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order. The Hon. Member for Davenport.


Charles L. Caccia: I apologize to the distinguished Member for Skeena for interrupting. I note that there are only two Tory Members in the House, and it may be necessary to call for a quorum.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do see a quorum. On a point of order, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would like it to be known to the House that earlier this evening an agreement was reached between the Parties, and it has just been broken by the Liberals, like they break every other promise that they make.
August 16, 1988


Lloyd Axworthy: What agreement?


John Horton McDermid: Speak to your House Leader.


William Warren Allmand: I know that there is no such agreement. I have been sitting here all day.


John Horton McDermid: Too bad he does not talk to you.


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


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the FTA provides a complete arsenal of armaments for large multinationals and right-wing Governments on both sides of the border to bust unions, lower wages, cut social programs, lower environmental standards, cut regional development funding, while simultaneously giving what is know in the agreement as national treatment, or pipeline of resources to the same multinationals for wood, water, minerals, fish and many other things.
I am going to direct my remarks this evening to two key areas covered by the motions before us, one on Motion No. 9, in relation to aboriginal title and rights. 1 must say that I find it unusual that the one Minister of the Crown, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight), who clearly under Canada's Constitution and under rulings by the highest courts in Canada, has a fiduciary responsibility to the first citizens and First Nations of Canada, has not participated in the debate and has not produced for the First Nations a report on the impact of the FTA upon those to whom he has a direct constitutional responsibility.
The movement on aboriginal title and rights in Canada since Confederation has been a sorry and sad tale. Perhaps it has been the most sad and sorry in recent decades, going back to 1971-72 with the notorious White Paper which was reversed by the Calder decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, a decision that was tied three-three. That created some movement in the settlement of comprehensive claims but that movement was turned back in 1981-82 when the Government removed aboriginal rights from Canada's Constitution. Of course, we have seen that followed by the now famed Erik Nielsen report known as the Buffalo Jump of the 1980s, a report which would bring about the total assimilation and annihilation of the first citizens of Canada. That, of course, will be followed by the 1988 FTA should it in fact be passed and implemented.
One has to have some understanding of the gravity of the situation affecting first citizens and First Nations to know why the Assembly of First Nations opposed this Bill so strongly before committee and are opposing it so strongly across Canada. This Government has not moved since it came to office on Section 35 of the Constitution, recognizing aboriginal title and rights.
In my view, there is no fair-minded Canadian who is not appalled at the neglect by governments one after another
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
which has brought the First Nations to such a state that any negative social indicator one can imagine can apply including the highest rates of suicide, the lowest rates of employment and the highest rates of incarceration. All the negative social indicators that can be found to measure the situation of the First Nations is there for all to see. The governments have a responsibility to settle comprehensive claims in British Columbia and North of 60 and to live up to the treaties in the rest of Canada. The governments have a responsibility to settle the specific claims which now number over 500.
Those first citizens who are listening this evening have to understand that a premonition of what will come under the FTA was what has gone on in Alberta with the Lubicon people. Just when the federal and provincial Governments could have moved to settle outstanding claims of the Lubicon people, the governments turned over a vast tract of land covering all of the Lubicon claim in northern Alberta to Daishowa Pulp Company, a pulp company wholly owned by Japanese. That process will accelerate, not just in Alberta but in every province and North of 60 should the FTA be implemented.
We must understand what national treatment means. The steeplechases that will have to be jumped by First Nations in order to settle comprehensive claims will be so much higher. One need simply read the FTA to see that local governments would have to follow rules against local preferences.
The First Nations have a true understanding of sustainable development. They understand the Brundtland report, the World Commission on the Environment. They understand how to properly harvest plants, animals and fish. They have a love for the land. One need only read the FTA to see how difficult it will be to maintain that traditional lifestyle.
For example, if an American corporation were to set up a large guiding and outfitting operation next to an Indian band which had a similar operation set up, it would be only a matter of a moment before the parent corporation would take some kind of countervailing action for unfair subsidies against the Indian band. I have here an excellent article entitled "The Binding Dispute Settlement Mechanism". It says:
"And since all Canadian producers are to some extent subsidized by government-run hydro, telephones, postal services, health care systems, etc., etc.-failing US firms will never run out of grounds for filing unfair trade practices suits.
Following a suit brought by the New England fishing industry, for example, the US International Trade Commission identified 58 Canadian government programs it labelled "unfair subsidies" to the Canadian fishing industry."
Let us think for just a moment about long-standing treaty entitlements and the specific entitlements of the first citizens of Canada. How long would it be before they would be challenged before the U.S. International Trade Commission? Even if they were taken before the so-called binding dispute settlement mechanism, we do know this, as stated in the article to which I just referred:

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
"-binational panels are bound only to US laws and practices whenever US firms want to challenge how we do things in Canada. They have no power to investigate, gather facts, or direct national agencies to make specific judgments. All they can do is judge whether American trade legislation has been applied properly."
The First Nations of Canada perhaps more than any other single identifiable group, stand at risk before the FTA.
I doubt any Member on the government side has read the excellent study done by the Native Council of Canada on the impact of the FTA on the First Nations and first citizens of Canada. We know that the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) has not even read the agreement, so we can be quite certain that the Minister of Indian Affairs has done nothing to date to protect the first citizens.
This motion would simply provide the kind of protection the Government says exists. If it exists, this is precisely the kind of motion the Government should accept to lay to rest the very deep, real and identifiable concerns of the first citizens.
I would like to spend a moment dealing with Motion No. 10. There is another question I want to pose. Why has the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) neither spoken in this debate nor produced for Canadians the estimate of the professionals who are working at Environment Canada of what the impact of the FTA would be?
We know from a recent Canadian Wildlife Service survey that over three-quarters of Canadians are prepared to accept a lower standard of living in order to have a higher quality and a safer environment. Yet south of the border, there has been no serious movement on acid rain. Anyone who has travelled to the Love Canal or to the Niagara Escarpment has seen how the Americans handle waste storage. They drove the locomotive from the atomic testing site to the Niagara Escarpment, simply dug a hole and drove it in. One need only go to Hanford in the State of Washington, just South of British Columbia, to see what American environmental standards are. They simply dump waste onto and into the ground.
When U.S. firms are required to install scrubbers in Canada and there are either federal or provincial incentives to do so, it would be just a blink of an eye before the parent company in the United States brought countervailing action against Canadian firms to try to reduce environmental standards. The Canadian environment stands at enormous risk from the way this agreement is worded, and any Member who truly cares and who truly speaks out on behalf of Canada's environment should support Motion No. 10 to ensure that the environmental standards that all Canadians support will be implemented, maintained and improved in the future.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Hamilton East, I imagine that there are many people who are wondering what effect this trade deal will have on social programs. Senior citizens want to know what effect it will have on pensions. Young parents would like to know what kind of effect it will have on future child care programs.
Time and again, we have heard Government representatives say that our social programs will not be touched, our social programs are a sacred trust. I remind Government Members that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said the same thing about senior citizens' pensions. We remember what the Prime Minister said. He said that senior citizens' pensions are a sacred trust.
I would like to spend a few moments outlining very specific concerns we have about the trade deal and specifically about how it will impact very negatively on social programs. As many people in the public are not yet aware, the hidden agenda of the trade deal is not to be simply a strict economic and commercial deal. It will be a committee that will spend the next five to seven years determining what constitutes a subsidy. If the committee decides that pregnancy benefits or the extension of future pregnancy benefits or unemployment insurance constitute unfair subsidies, then we will see Canadian social policy being harmonized with that of the United States.


John Horton McDermid: Where does it say that in the agreement? Show me.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Annex 1498 of the deal specifically identifies health care facilities' management services as part of the trade deal. American companies can come into Canada and establish management services for profit in every single hospital across this country.


John Horton McDermid: Only if the provinces allow them to.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Parliamentary Secretary is not interested in the facts. The facts are that the deal also includes a clause which permits the establishment of commercial blood banks in this country.


John Horton McDermid: Only if the provinces allow it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) when questioned on this issue, said: what does it matter? If people want to sell their blood, that is their business. I say, and Canadians say, that we have developed a universally accessible national medicare system because we do not believe people should have to sell their blood.


John Horton McDermid: Neither do we.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We do not believe we should be setting up a for-profit system where people in need, the sick, the poor, those at the lowest end of the socio-economic scale, are exploited.


Mr. Gormley:: What about surrogate mothers?


Sheila Maureen Copps: As a matter of fact, surrogacy, as many Government Members probably do not care to know, happens to be big business in the U.S. There are many American lawyers who make their living matching surrogate mothers with people who want children. They do it for profit. As a
August 16, 1988

matter of fact, those American companies are now eyeing Canada as a potential market. They can come to Canada, hire a Canadian mother to bear a child, and it is all covered and paid for under the Canadian medicare system.


John Horton McDermid: Can they do it now?


Sheila Maureen Copps: If my Private Members' Bill is passed, no.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, but they can do it now before the trade Bill? I see. You mean the Liberals have allowed that all these years?


Sheila Maureen Copps: My Bill says that surrogacy for profit should be illegal. However, the Government believes in doing anything for the almighty dollar. It does not care for a national health care system. It would love to see us go to the kind of system they have in the U.S. where 25 per cent of women of child bearing age have no medical insurance.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, what nonsense.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Where the infant mortality rate is 40 per cent higher than in Canada. That is the hidden agenda of this deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why do you think these companies, these big businesses, are coming to the Government to promote this deal? They would love to see a situation where we have no maternity benefits, where we have no minimum wage, which is the case in the vast majority of states in the U.S., where we do not have affirmative action, where we do not have child care programs. Those companies, aided and abetted by the Government, do not believe in the development of the social safety net which has characterized Canada.
We are different from the Americans. We extend our hand in friendship to the U.S., but we have made a conscious decision to develop a society which says we pay for national medicare. We developed a society which says we have responsibility to the poor and weak in a way quite different from the U.S.
If the Government is so sure that its trade deal is not going to affect this, why not pass a simple amendment?
I would like to read the amendment into the record. What could make it more clear? It says:
""7. For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs, including medicare, unemployment insurance, daycare, pensions, minimum wage laws, labour laws and maternity benefits.""
That is clear and apparently corroborates what the Government has been telling us. All along the Government has said that medicare will not be touched. Let us put it in the legislation by way of amendment. If the Government is so sure of its position that our senior citizens are going to be safe, then why not pass an amendment which puts it right in the legislation?
We believe that the Government will not move this amendment because it intends by way of commercial blood banks, by
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
way of commercial health management facilities which could include for-profit operation of everything from hospitals right through to health clinics, to see the harmonization of social programs. In fact, a number of people who appeared before the trade committee made exactly that point. Let us look at some of the people who came before the committee and what they had to say about the deal. One was Mitchell Sharp. There are a number of eminent authorities who understand that the intent-


John Horton McDermid: Mitchell Sharp? The senior trade adviser to the Liberal Party?


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and long-term objective of this deal is to see the harmonization, not only of economic policy but also of social policy between the two countries.


John Horton McDermid: What nonsense.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Government continues to say "what nonsense". Why not move a simple amendment to clarify the situation? Does the Government expect that the senior citizens of this country-


John Horton McDermid: It does not need clarification because it is not there.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -are to take your Government at its word? Senior citizens heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he said their pensions would not be touched. The first thing he did was to try to grab off their pensions. I am from Missouri and I want to see it written in the law.
This amendment will merely specify that medicare will not be affected by the deal. Unemployment insurance will not be affected by the deal. Yet the Government will not move the amendment because it knows full well that the subsidy panel which will be examining our social programs over the next five to seven years will put future parental leave programs at risk. It will put unemployment insurance programs at risk. It will put medicare at risk.
The Parliamentary Secretary flees because he knows that his position-


John Horton McDermid: The Parliamentary Secretary does not flee. He is going to check your facts.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -in refusing this amendment is indefensible. Look at Article 2010 and 2011, the nullification clauses. They say that any American company, once this deal is put in place, can come to Canada, lay a complaint about our medicare programs, our unemployment insurance, and demand compensation. Under the nullification clauses we will be required to pay them compensation because of programs that we have established under our social safety network.
When you talk about the over-all objective of harmonization, let us face it, do you think the Americans are going to

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
introduce medicare to harmonize with us? Who are you kidding? The Canadian system will be harmonized to the U.S. system and we will see a reduction in workers' wages. We will see a reduction in the kinds of social benefits that have characterized a different path for this country. The reason we will see that is because the Government-


John Horton McDermid: The Parliamentary Secretary is back.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -is so bent on selling out this country that it will stoop even to the point of setting up commercial blood banks. I do not want my children to have to buy their blood when they grow older. I do not want to have to buy my blood when 1 am at an age when I might need an operation.


John Horton McDermid: I would not want it either.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is the potential written into this trade deal. Otherwise, why would the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government include commercial blood banks in the annex? It is specified right in the trade deal because the whole mentality of this Government is characterized by the Minister for International Trade who said, what is wrong with selling your blood? If not blood, what is next? Kidneys? Are we going to be selling babies next? Are we going to be selling other organs?


John Horton McDermid: Are there any blood banks in Canada now?


Sheila Maureen Copps: As a matter of fact there has been established for the first time under the Conservative Government in 1987 in the City of Montreal a for-profit blood bank. I say shame, and we say shame and we cannot understand-


John Horton McDermid: You mean before the trade deal?


Sheila Maureen Copps: -why the Government would want to introduce in the trade deal a specific section dealing with commercial blood banks. It is a hidden agenda and I say to senior citizens, when you hear the Government say your social programs will not be touched, just remember what it said about pensions. The Government cannot be believed and it has to be thrown out, so let's call an election.
M0)


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to speak to this very important series of amendments including Motion Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 which call the Government's bluff about the take-over that is provided for in the so-called free trade agreement and in Bill C-130.
The rationale for the free trade agreement is that it will reduce tariffs. In fact, that is a very small part of what the agreement really is about. It is partly about giving American corporations a much freer hand than they now have in taking over Canadian resources and Canadian labour.
With regard to the Bill, these amendments attempt to protect the lands, resources, and waters of the aboriginal peoples from the agreement. They attempt to protect environmental and conservation programs for our own land and water. They attempt to protect the continuation of special adjustment programs for workers or companies which suffer under the
agreement. They attempt to protect the establishment or continuation of regional development programs and they attempt to protect the health and social service programs that we have now and the plans and hopes we have for extending them. They attempt to protect our cultural programs, present and future.
It is doubtful, even if these amendments were written in, that that protection would be given because if the free trade deal is finalized the agreement itself would give American corporations claim to all these things. Even if these amendments were written in we would, at the very best, be tied up in long court battles. The Government probably does not want to deal with these amendments because if they are passed it would be caught in contradiction to the agreement it has signed. It does not want to debate the amendments because it knows the amendments expose the take-over provided for by the deal.
I represent a constituency which has at least six hospitals, many nursing homes, and other health institutions, public and private. I want to speak particularly about the amendment which deals with social services. Motion No. 13 would add to the Bill the words:
"-nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect the continuation of
existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs, including
medicare, unemployment insurance, daycare, pensions, minimum wage laws,
labour laws and maternity benefits."
We are being told, of course that these things are not on the table. We were told that by the same Prime Minister who told us that he would never negotiate a free trade deal with the United States. His statement that these are not on the table turns out to be just as true as his promise not to negotiate a free trade deal with the United States.
In fact, under Article 1402 of the agreement any American firm can claim any rights, benefits, and opportunities in Canada which any Canadian firm has under our laws. There can be no preference given to Canadian firms and no preference given to non-profit services over for-profit services.
Under that article these firms will be able to come into Canada much more easily than they now can. The list of nearly 300 services which are expressly opened up includes the management of a series of health services including hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the aged, homes for the retarded, homes for disturbed children, halfway houses, rehabilitation clinics-


John Horton McDermid: What about homes for disturbed MPs?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Someone across the way is worried about disturbed Parliamentary Secretaries. To continue, it includes ambulance services, public health clinics, X-ray laboratories, medical laboratories and, of course, blood banks. The Government made sure that blood banks are open to the United States.
August 16, 1988

This means that as governments deregulate, privatize, and contract out services which are now provided by public servants in a not-for-profit arrangement, they will all become open to takeovers by the American corporations which have established immense financial power and expertise for the purpose of making profit out of people's health. In the United States there are corporations whose large business it is to manage hospitals. They boast that last year and the year before they eliminated 73,000 hospital worker jobs.
In case some naive person on the government side imagines that this is because Americans have become much healthier and do not need hospital care, I will point out that statistics show that many millions of Americans have no hospital care at all, that the time spent by the elderly in particular in these institutions is being reduced, and that the quality of health care in the United States is lower than the quality of health care in Canada, even though the total cost is higher. That is what the Americans get as a result of for-profit hospitals and other services. That is why they want to reduce it here.


John Horton McDermid: That is not allowed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is why the Parliamentary Secretary keeps on heckling even though he does not like it when we heckle his Minister. The fact is that when any of these institutions are contracted out or opened up for privatization, American firms, without establishing in Canada, according to the agreement, will immediately be able to underbid on those firms because they will be bidding to provide a poorer service at a lower price in order to increase their profits.
People who work at these hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the aged, and other institutions like that now provided as public service under public jurisdiction and control with responsible union relationships among their employees and responsible staffing will be replaced by for-profit groups which in the States, as I have said, have a much lower level of service. There will be wage cuts, staff cuts, service cuts, and profit increases.
If this were not in fact the case, the Government ought to be willing to amend this law in the way this amendment asks. It ought to be willing to renegotiate the agreement with the United States so as to exclude this possibility. It is clear that this amendment calls the Government's bluff and exposes its intention to open our health services to the profiteers from the United States.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the Chairman of the Communications and Culture Committee sitting in the Chair. I hope you will transmit to the Minister and the Government the views that are not being presented by a partisan politician, or someone who thinks you have done very dastardly deeds with our communications and cultural policy.
I am going to read for the record the views of the Cultural Industries Alliance which says that the free trade agreement
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
undermines Canadian policy. Those organizations and institutions have the very important responsibility for promoting Canadian sovereignty and cultural industries and the responsibility to portray a view of ourselves so that, as the Minister would say, Canadians can see each other, appreciate and grow with each other. That will not happen as a result of the work the Minister undertook. I suggest that her remarks today were completely irrelevant.
I want to read a statement on the implications of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement for Canada's identity and cultural sovereignty. It was issued in July, 1988, and was prepared by the Cultural Industries Alliance composed of the following groups: Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists; Association des Producteurs de Film et Video du Quebec; Association of Canadian Film and Television Producers; Association of Canada Film Craftspeople; Association of Canadian Publishers; Canadian Actors' Equity Association; Canadian Association of Motion Picture and Electronic Recording Artists; Canadian Conference of the Arts; Canadian Film and Television Association; Canadian Independent Record Production Association; Canadian Periodical Publishers Association; Directors Guild of Canada; National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians; Periodical Writers Association of Canada; and The Writers Union of Canada.
The Alliance states that publishers and writers have allied with actors and directors, as well as with film, television and record producers, to amplify their opposition to the treatment of culture in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The singular importance of this issue has persuaded them that they must speak out together to voice their serious concern over the long term effects of the agreement. Each member of this alliance is convinced that the agreement's so-called exemption for culture will actually discourage Canadian Governments in future from taking measures to assist the development of independent cultural industries by Canadians for Canadian audiences.
They believe that nurturing of Canadian works, which reflect and inspire uniquely Canadian points of view, is essential to this country's growth as a sovereign nation. Owing to our small population, our geographic proximity to a major power, and the extraordinary dominance of imported cultural goods, Canadians have found it necessary to provide counterbalances by introducing policies and legislation that make it possible for Canadian voices to be heard in our own country. I would like them to read the Minister's remarks about Canadian voices.
They go on to state that measures that might be taken to ensure this growth, however, appear compromised by the agreement, and it is doubtful if measures introduced in the past would be acceptable were they to be proposed in the post free trade Canada; therefore, they say, we are forced to conclude that our sovereignty is jeopardized by the agreement.

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
They say that in the past 18 months they have already seen evidence of the effect of the agreement on existing policies and policy development, including: The reduction of the capital cost allowance for Canadian films and television programs, which had encouraged production of Canadian films and television programs;
The revision of the Film Products Importation Act, which now substitutes grants for structural change. The Minister thought she could throw money at the problem and it might go away.
Third is the rejection of the Investment Canada guidelines for film distribution proposed by the 1985 film industry task force, recommendations that would ensure the orderly transfer of ownership in film distribution to Canadians which have been ignored;
Failure to apply the 1985 "Baie Comeau" book publishing policy, which promised to see the transfer of ownership in book publishing to Canadians.
Rejection of key recommendations for broadcast policy made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. These proposed measures would have significantly enhanced the production of Canadian programs for a Canadian market, and could well have had significant beneficial effects for the recording sector.
They go on to state in their document that it seems clear that the free trade agreement will alter not only the course of our economy, but by inhibiting our freedom to strengthen vulnerable yet essential cultural industries, it will also alter the course of how we define ourselves as Canadians. The agreement recognizes a North American reality, but it leaves little room for a Canadian vision. It is just like the Canadian broadcast Bill introduced by the Minister, which is a sad comment on how she and the Government view the application of a Canadian content policy.
The document states that the Government of Canada has repeatedly offered Canadians the assurance that under the free trade agreement our ability to protect our cultural sovereignty and to provide for the expression of our identity has been protected. For example, in a speech given on April 7, 1988, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) stated:
"We have a free trade agreement because this Prime Minister, this Minister
of Communications and this Government promised one thing: that Canada's
right to determine our own culture would be respected in every degree.
Without that promise ... a deal simply was not possible."
It is a shame that they did not mean what they said.
The Alliance goes on to say that the organizations which have signed this brief share fully the view expressed by the Minister that no trade agreement is acceptable which does not retain fully Canada's right in the future to take the kinds of measures it has taken in the past to develop its culture. However, they state, all of them have been forced to the conclusion that the free trade agreement of January, 1988, does not meet that test. Instead, the agreement sharply and unacceptably constrains Canada's ability to take the necessary measures in the future to provide fully for the expression of the
values, creativity, ideas and talent of Canadians throughout the country and for such activities to occur under the control of Canadians.
We have concluded as well, they say, based on decisions taken recently by the Government that the Government itself understands that its right of action is substantially limited by the agreement and has been prepared to accept those limits as a cost of the agreement.
What is the evidence on which we base these conclusions? First, we base them on the somewhat convoluted but increasingly understandable formal provisions of the agreement itself.
The key provisions of the Bill are in Article 2005. Rather than repeat those provisions, we simply note that we share the view expressed by Canada's Trade Ambassador and Chief Negotiator, Simon Reisman, that "it is rather impenetrable language". However, in a June 17 speech to the Canadian Film and Television Association, Ambassador Reisman provided considerable help in clarifying what Article 2005 means. He explained that it means:
" ... new measures affecting cultural industries would be scrutinized by both sides to determine whether they were consistent or inconsistent with the agreement."
Let us remember that American law is still American law. We did not change that.
They go on to say that Ambassador Reisman went on to state that if new measures were not consistent with the trade agreement then retaliation of "equivalent commercial value" was provided for. He expressed the opinion that: "There are many things we can do to support the cultural industries without being inconsistent".
Ambassador Reisman's view is clearly different from that of the Minister of Communications, they say. What he is saying, and what we believe the agreement says, is that actions taken in the past are exempt from the agreement, but any new initiatives are not. As a result, all of the provisions in the U.S.-Canada trade agreement which apply to the economy in general apply to the cultural industries as well, insofar as new measures are concerned.
The result is to limit drastically our ability to build our own domestic Canadian-owned and controlled companies in the cultural industries and to further enhance the development of Canadian cultural products. The one area that remains clearly open for government policy is that of direct subsidies. However, we note that the issue of subsidies is itself the subject of a series of negotiations flowing out of the U.S.-Canada trade talks and that, as as result, there is no final resolution of the subsidy issues.
Moreover, there is a need for serious legislative and structural initiatives in the cultural industries, and not just for financial assistance. They go on to state in the document that if we look at the actions the Government has taken in the recent past we see a consistent and profoundly disturbing pattern. The following examples can be cited:
August 16, 1988

First, the reduction of the capital cost allowance for Canadian films and television programs. In June, 1987, the Government announced a major reduction in the special capital cost allowance for investment in the production of Canadian films and television programs. While that reduction was announced in the context of tax reform, it reduced substantially an irritant in Canada-U.S. relations, since the capital cost allowance had always been regarded in the United States as an unfair stimulus to Canadian production. Coming at a crucial stage in the Canada-U.S. trade negotiations, this decision can only have been seen as reassuring by the United States. The second example is the revision of the Film Products Importation Act.
The third example is the rejection of the Investment Canada guidelines for film distribution proposed by the 1985 film industry task force. Fourth, a backing away from the 1985 "Baie Comeau" policy on Canadian ownership in book publishing and distribution, which has never been put into effect. Five, the rejection of key recommendations made by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in the recently announced broadcasting policy and the proposed new broadcasting Bill-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time is more than expired. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Ms. Dewar).


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should say I am pleased to rise to speak in support of these amendments, but I am also sad to think that we are having this kind of debate and the Government has gone so far as to sell out this country the way it has.
We have heard a lot about the Auto Pact. The Government talks about the Auto Pact as free trade. Anyone who knows anything about trade knows it is very managed trade. In the Auto Pact what we have discussed is the ability to have Canadian content. The Government has eroded that, and the threat to the auto industry is very serious.
We did have a free trade agreement in 1944. It was with the agricultural manufacturing industry entered into with the United States of America. It resulted in a huge deficit in trade and farm machinery. Canada is one of the world's greatest agricultural countries yet we do not manufacture any of our own tractors. That is a specific example of the industrial end of Canada in the future.
More important, I would like to take a few moments to speak about the social policies which the Government is so anxious to say are not in the agreement and have not been touched. We have to look very seriously at the implications. We know that the Government would not get into any kind of discussions about what subsidies are. I am mortified to think that Canadians have negotiated an agreement which leaves everything until later on, later on, later on. I would not want
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
the negotiators negotiating anything else for me because they have not defined what a subsidy is. They say we will get around to it in the next five to seven years. If the United States will have the kind of clout with the government negotiators in the future, we will not have very much say. When we look at what it is costing us in Canada as far as delivering our comprehensive health care system is concerned, which has all sorts of warts in it which need to be improved, we must realize that it happens to be one of the best health systems in the western world and is something of which we should be proud.
The biggest cost per car of General Motors in Detroit is not the steel costs nor the labour costs but the cost of Blue Shield and Blue Cross. It costs General Motors $650 per car in health care delivery.
We know in this country that our labour unit costs have been low because health care costs are built into what it is to be a Canadian and to live in this country. Certainly there is absolutely no reason that cannot be identified as a subsidy when we are talking to industries in the next five to seven years. The insidious part of this is that it is not clear. It is left ambiguous so that we are left as victims with no guarantee about our social policies.
What happens to our unemployment insurance, Mr. Speaker? This is something we thought was a reasonably good program. Again it has its problems. It needs improvements and constantly in this House we review it and try to make it better. We know that people are kept at work and not allowed time off because companies keep trained staff on call while cutting payroll costs. In Canada, 80 per cent of unemployed workers receive unemployment insurance up to 60 per cent of their wages. In the United States only one-quarter of the unemployed receive such benefits, generally at less than 40 per cent of their earnings. Those are the kinds of comparisons we are talking about.
For the Government to say that our social policies are not involved is a lot of nonsense. It says very clearly that we have to harmonize our programs and harmonization means to make things the same. If we are going to make them the same, we have to look at what that means. The greatest treasure we have in Canada is our children. When we talk about their future we have to think about their education. It is very clear that we in Canada have chosen to spend more on elementary and secondary school education per child than in the United States. Is that considered a subsidy?


John Horton McDermid: No.


Marion Dewar: It is not defined. You do not know. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to think he knows but at the same time he has been unable to write that into the agreement. The Tories are not honest enough to let the Canadian people know how they are eroding the whole society. It would not be bad if it were just their own lives they are hurting, but they are

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
hurting the lives of future generations of this country and that is totally unacceptable.


John Horton McDermid: You do not know what you are talking about. You have not a clue.


Marion Dewar: The Parliamentary Secretary likes to think it is nonsense.


John Horton McDermid: Show me.


Marion Dewar: We know that we have to harmonize. We know that we spend more on education. As a matter of fact, the only way we have been unable to get Canadian texts and programs into our education system has been by nationalist regulations. It was nationalist regulations that forced large companies like PrenticerHall to set up branch plants in Canada so that Canadians were finally able to interest these companies in creating distinctly Canadian products especially designed for Canadian educational systems. It seems to me that that does affect our children. We know from now on what we will have to do is to treat the Canadian and American companies-


John Horton McDermid: Who purchases those things?


Marion Dewar: Those books are purchased by the Canadian book companies because they are forced to print in Canada. That will no longer be possible. That is the kind of thing about which we are very concerned. I do not think a Government that only looks at the bottom line and profit really cares what happens to children or social programs. It does not really care about the resources, the future and the environment of this country. But a lot of people in the House, people in the gallery, care very much and that is why they are here.
We are not going to stand for this. We know this Government will not get re-elected. We recognize that we will be able to stand proud and tall as Canadians. I said at the committee today that we would never see this agreement implemented. I firmly believe that from the bottom of my heart. I know the people in this country will not stand for it. Our fathers, mothers and ancestors have worked too hard to give us a value system, a society and a country of which we can be really proud. We are probably looking at the meanest and cheapest social network in the whole western world south of the border, and yet we say we want to harmonize our programs with it?


John Horton McDermid: Where does it say that in here? That is poppycock.


Marion Dewar: We will not do that.
Let me quote someone who was a Member of Parliament here to whom I always looked up and I think many Canadians did also. Tommy Douglas used to say:
"The measure of a nation's greatness does not lie in its Gross National Product, in the size of its gold reserve, or the height of its skyscrapers. The real measure of a nation is the quality of its national life ... what it does for the least fortunate of its citizens, and the opportunities it provides for its youth to live useful and meaningful lives."


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is it that several times you called people to order when they interrupted the Minister but you never call people to order when they interrupt opposition Members?


Felix Holtmann: Because they are not important.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to speak in this important debate concerning motions numbered 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
My remarks will more specifically concern motions 12 and 13, and especially Motion No. 12, which reads as follows:
"For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect or preclude the continuation of existing or the establishment of new regional development programs."
... and now for Motion No. 13, which reads as follows:
"For greater certainty, nothing in this Act shall be interpreted so as to affect the continuation of existing or the establishment of new Canadian social programs, including medicare, unemployment insurance, daycare, pensions, minimum wage laws, labour laws and maternity benefits."
Mr. Speaker, I listened to all the previous speakers, and I think it is rather astonishing that what we propose in the way of amendments is relatively simple, in the circumstances. The Government is saying: There is no problem, there will be no consequences. What the FTA will do is create jobs and boost growth in this country, and there will be no consequences of any kind.
What we want to do in the House today is improve the Bill by adding a few simple sentences. These additions would provide guarantees that in the circumstances I think are altogether essential, reasonable and indispensable.
We are told that the FTA will have no impact on job creation or regional economic development... so they say! But if they are so sure and spend so much time saying they are so sure, I wonder what their motives are. Why not include guarantees in the FTA so that Canadians know what to expect?
Mr. Speaker, in a survey, American manufacturers were asked what they felt were the ideal conditions for setting up a company. According to the findings of this survey, a good business climate in the various States depended on the following conditions, ranked as follows: low taxes; low union membership; low insurance rates for work-related accidents; low unemployment insurance benefits; low energy costs; and fewer days lost as a result of work stoppages.
Mr. Speaker, if the same survey, evaluation or analysis were made in Canada, the conclusions would obviously be the same.
I think this is the kind of language we can expect from entrepreneurs, from industry, from those who create the jobs. It is quite normal and quite reasonable for a company to want to cut costs. So what will happen when the FTA is implemented? There will be three consequences, Mr. Speaker. There will be howls of "unfair" from the Americans because our conditions will not be the same as theirs. This could affect us in various ways. There might be demands that we "harmonize", over time, various programs that are characteristic of our way of doing things, as opposed to the U.S.

August 16, 1988

However, there is also another possibility, and frankly it worries me, Mr. Speaker, because I talked to various business people, to the people who create jobs, and they often tell us that their American competitors pay an hourly wage of $3, $4, $5 to produce exactly the same goods they are making in Canada. Secondly, he tells us that the labour component of products made in Canada is 30, 35, 40 or 50 per cent of the total.
Mr. Speaker, you have to put yourself in this businessman's place. Obviously, if he cannot have conditions similar to those in the United States, he will be very tempted, very interested, to simply liquidate his business and take an option on some land in the United States, so as to benefit from the almost total lack of social measures on the American side. Who will pick up the tab, Mr. Speaker?
Unfortunately, I have a riding whose survival depends on regional economic development. Before the redistribution of the electoral map, I had 60,000 people in my riding, in 60 municipalities. The largest town had a population of 6,500. Fortunately, with redistribution, I will have 67 municipalities, of which the largest has a population of barely 13,000. Given that, the economic survival of my riding depends on regional development policies and is directly related to them.
In the past, we have seen the benefits-the tremendously positive and essential results-of a regional development policy. In 1982-83, we Liberals put forward a program called Canadian Industrial Renewal Board. It enabled us to develop the Sherbrooke region. This program made it possible to create thousands of jobs, which obviously had a beneficial impact on a riding like mine.
With the treaty before us, Mr. Speaker, we risk losing any regional economic development program.
I think it is interesting and very important as well to recall some figures that I think speak for themselves. You will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to refer, for example, to some self-explanatory numerical data.
We are told that only 25 per cent of the unemployed in the United States receive benefits under all the government and federal programs, as well as supplementary and expanded benefit plans .. . Only 25 per cent! The corresponding figure for Canada is 85 per cent. In the United States, our southern neighbour, unemployment insurance benefits amount on average to 8 per cent of the average wage. In Canada, this average is 40 per cent and even exceeds it in some circumstances. Here we have figures, and I think that to make a case, nothing beats having figures to refer to, real, concrete, actual statistical data.
I think this is a good example of what distinguishes us from our American neighbours. And I also think it is a very good indication of the potential risk of this kind of agreement as a result of transfers of labour and companies that will tend to follow the laws of the market place and set up operations in those states across the border where the minimum wage is
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
much lower and social benefits are far fewer, thus creating an incredible situation in this country. We will lose dozens of companies that will move to the United States, because of the markets and because of the fact that our production costs are much higher, so that companies that stay in Canada will see their premiums for social benefit increase considerably, and so forth. There will be a time when thousands of people are laid off.
Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect I find very significant, and that is the minimum wage. I think the following figures speak for themselves. In Canada, all provinces have a minimum wage policy. When we compare the situation in the United States, we find that nine states have no minimum wage policy; twelve states have a minimum wage of less than S3; and Texas, with the third highest population in the Union, has a minimum wage of SI.40. In Canada, only Alberta has a minimum wage of less than $3. In all other provinces, the minimum wage exceeds $3.
Mr. Speaker, I am not a businessman but, on the basis of this information, if I had to start a business in which the wage component was at all significant, I would be very interested in setting up operations in the United States. The minimum wage is half what it is in this country, there are no social programs, and I am close to my markets. Mr. Speaker, what happens to Canadians who are looking for a job, especially in disadvantaged regions like mine?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, what we are debating tonight is a series of amendments which, if the Government believes what it is saying about the agreement and is not actively misleading the Canadian people, it should be willing to accept by virtue of the same logic used by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Crosbie) when he justified bringing in an amendment with respect to water exports. He said that the agreement did not affect water exports, and because it did not affect water exports he wanted to make that absolutely clear against what he called "false opposition charges" by bringing in an amendment to the legislation to make it clear that it did not affect water exports.
We continue to believe that it does affect water exports because we know that, in spite of whatever amendments might be moved here, it is the agreement itself which will be the final determiner of what is contained in the agreement and what is not contained in the agreement. But by using the same logic used by the Minister for International Trade with respect to the amendment concerning water exports, I see no reason why the Government could not have risen tonight, in the form of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. McDermid), to accept these amendments. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary was not rising to accept these amendments.

August 16, 1988
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement


John Horton McDermid: You will never know.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Parliamentary Secretary says that we will never know. I would be very surprised. He spent the evening heckling people who spoke in favour of these amendments. Surely if the Government were going to accept these amendments then we might have expected a little more courtesy from the other side than we have received.


John Horton McDermid: Just keeping you honest, Bill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: What are these amendments, Mr. Speaker? They are amendments that have to do with aboriginal land claims, that would provide that the deal does not affect the special relationship that aboriginal peoples have with the Crown and the federal Government. It seems to me to be a reasonable amendment, not only in terms of the logic of the Government's arguments with respect to amendments, but also with respect to the fact that the Government, in my judgment and in the judgment of aboriginal peoples, has no right to enter into a treaty with another nation that would abrogate rights which they have by virtue of their treaties with the Crown. Surely we would want to make that absolutely clear. Surely it would be an elemental principle of justice in terms of the relationship between native peoples and the Canadian Government that we would want to see enshrined in the legislation implementing the free trade agreement.
Another amendment has to do with the whole question of environmental or conservation programs. If the Government insists, as it does, that this amendment does not affect environmental or conservation programs, what on earth could be wrong with an amendment that says so? What could be wrong with an amendment that makes explicit what the Government itself argues is already the case, unless what the Government argues is the case is a matter of interpretation, or a matter of trying to sell the agreement politically when the Government knows full well that many of these types of programs could come to be the object of negotiation between Canada and the United States.


John Horton McDermid: It is protected under the GATT. It is in the GATT and these are GATT rules.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary is foaming at the mouth again.


John Horton McDermid: It is already there.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: If it is already in the GATT why not reinforce it by having it in this agreement? I do not see any problem with that, but obviously the Government does because it does not want to offend what the United States obviously understands to be a different interpretation than what the Government is attempting to lead the Canadian people to believe with respect to this agreement.
Motion No. 11 states that the deal does not stop the establishment of special adjustment programs to help victims
of the deal. There is confusion on this. At one point the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that there would be massive adjustment programs. Then almost the next day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated that this would be handled by ordinary adjustment programs, programs that are already in place. One begins to wonder whether the massive adjustment programs talked about by the Prime Minister, and it is interesting that he thinks there will have to be massive adjustment programs, are actually possible within the agreement, or whether they would not violate the spirit of the agreement itself. The agreement states: "Let the market-place decide". We over here state: "Let the people decide", but over there they say: "Let the market-place decide". If the marketplace decides, a great many people will lose the jobs they now have. That is what the agreement states. Perhaps that is why the Government will not accept this amendment that would make it clear that adjustment programs are permissible within the context of the agreement.
Another amendment that the Government refuses to accept has to do with making it clear that regional development programs are not affected by the deal. How many times have we risen in the House and asked the Government about the effect of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement on regional development programs and government Members have stood there, full of sound and fury signifying nothing and stating that the agreement does not affect regional development programs? If it does not affect regional development programs, what on earth is wrong with an amendment that explicitly states that this legislation and the agreement which it implements do not affect regional development programs?
Finally, with respect to the whole question of social programs, the sleeper in this agreement, and it is too bad that not very many Canadians understand as yet what I call the "sleeper" in this agreement, is the commitment to negotiate over the next five to seven years what constitutes an unfair trade practice and what constitutes a direct subsidy. This is a real danger in this agreement. It is in that process, a process which has yet to unfold, and a process which can only be judged in terms of the negotiations which have gone on so far, and in which negotiations Canada has emerged as the loser, that we will lose the social programs that we have now.
The Parliamentary Secretary and others say that this is hysteria and fearmongering, but there is a logic to this fear. One is only paranoid when he or she is afraid of something that is not there. We are trying to say that there is a real danger to Canadian social programs as a result of the commitment to negotiate over the next five to seven years what constitutes an unfair trade practice. There was plenty of testimony before the Standing Committee on External Affairs
August 16, 1988

and International Trade to that effect by businessmen themselves. Regardless of how the Parliamentary Secretary and I may disagree on the eventual outcome, nevertheless business people appeared before the committee and said that whether or not one had to pay health care insurance for one's employees was a factor in deciding competitiveness.
That is all one needs to know. One does not need to be able to predict accurately whether or not that will result in specific changes to our programs or to American programs. The point is that what was formerly our business, and our business alone,
Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
what kind of health care system we have, will become the business of the negotiations between Canada and the United States, and that is unacceptable.


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


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

Wednesday, August 17, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers