1992-03-24

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today decrying the incidence of violence in our society.
The petition is signed by numerous residents of Kingston and Odessa, Ontario. There is one signature from Oshawa and one from that very fine community of Willowdale, represented so ably in this House by the hon. member for Willowdale.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act in order to ensure that crimes of violence against the person are properly dealt with in the courts.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the member for Vancouver Quadra. He has received and asked that this petition be put forward in due form.
There are seven pages of signatures on behalf of the women in his area and others, and men as well, protesting the fact that the GST applies to sanitary napkins.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the House which was prepared and signed by residents of east metropolitan Toronto and area, bringing to the attention of the House increases in the incidences of violent crimes.
The petitioners are asking the House to consider that and also to reform the Criminal Code, the Parole Act and the corrections act so that these serious problems of violence in our society may be addressed directly by the House.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of railway employees who were suspended for accidental violation of the Canadian rail operating rules and are presently being unjustly penalized under sections 28 and 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon Parliament to take immediate steps to specify that accidental violation of the Canadian rail operating rules do not constitute employee misconduct under sections 28 and 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition. The petitioners, again from British Columbia, point out that the sale of lapel buttons depicting a Caucasian male as being in the minority, breeds racial intolerance. This perpetuates racial stereotypes and that practice ought to have no place in a country which prides itself in its multicultural fabric.
The petitioners are urging Parliament to take immediate steps to end this racist initiative.

Supply


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 206, 220 and 230.


Mr. Gardiner: Since 1989, how much money has been spent by or reimbursed by the government for designing logos for the Canada 125 Corporation and (a) what companies or individuals received contracts for this work (b) what was the amount of each contract (c) how many logos were designed and paid for by the Canada 125 Corporation?


Hon. Robert R. de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Since 1989, $71,845 has been spent for designing logos for the Canada 125 Corporation.
(a)	Publi Studio and Vision 4
(b)	$18,550 to Publi Studio and $53,295 to Vision 4
(c)	Two.


Mr. Gardiner: Are any departments or agencies using the Canada 125 logo for any purpose and, if so, are they paying any fees or other monies for permission to use the logo, and if so, (a) how much has been spent by each department or agency today, and (b) how much is budgeted for future use?


Robert René de Cotret: As of February 19, 1992 a total of 49 federal departments and agencies have requested the non-commercial use of the CANADA 125 logo. They have requested the use of the logo for newsletters, various publications, displays, exhibits, envelopes, brochures, banners, posters, et cetera.
The non-commercial use of the CANADA 125 logo is available to all at no charge. No federal department or agency has paid or will be required to pay any fee or other moneys for the use of the CANADA 125 logo.


Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst): Since 1985-86 to 1990-91 inclusive, how many person-years have been eliminated as a result of privatization or other departmental re-organizations where they are no longer counted, but indirectly paid through operations?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Between 1985-86 to 1990-91 inclusive, total person-years controlled by the Treasury Board were reduced by 12,377. Departments and agencies achieved these reductions through a combination of various measures including reorganization, changes in program delivery, discontinuation of activities, contracting out and devolution to other levels of government or Indian bands as in the case of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The number of person-year reductions associated with each of the different measures adopted by departments/agencies in achieving these reductions is not available.
It should be noted that in determining the reduction of 12,377 person-years for the period 1985-86 to 1990-91, appropriate statistical adjustments were made to authorized levels for all years where person-years were simply decontrolled, as in the case of RCMP uniformed employees in 1986-87. These adjustments permit a consistent comparative analysis of changes over time.
Privatizations in the Crown corporations area account for a reduction of 41,614 employees in the period post 1984-85 to 1990-91 (exclusive of other reductions through efficiency gains). The number of 41,614 applies to number of employees and not person-years.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its failure to be completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
March 24. 1992

Supply
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today condemns the government for its failure to be completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
All those who have followed the debates in the House of Commons in recent weeks and months will be fully aware of the absence of adequate information for the Canadian people about the goals and objectives of this government in the current North American free trade discussions. That situation has arisen despite the fact that the all-party committee of this House has called repeatedly on the government and in the strongest terms to make available information about its purposes in being a participant in the North American free trade negotiations.
The motion before us today must be seen against the background of course of the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement. It is not often in life that one gets a second chance. Fortunately, Canada has been provided with an opportunity to correct some of the shortcomings and inadequacies that are clearly embodied in the free trade agreement during the current Canada-Mexico-United States negotiations.
Only the most sanguine among us would argue that the existing United States-Canada free trade agreement has lived up to its promises, certainly the extravagant promises made by the government in 1988. The government's central justification at that time and subsequently was that secure access had been won in the U.S. market despite the increasing United States protectionism. Since then, however, there has been a whole series of more specific trade disputes, from Honda automobiles to softwood lumber. All of those and others have demonstrated just how tenuous and arbitrary that access to the U.S. market remains. Indeed, those trade disputes have underscored what we in the opposition have claimed all along, namely that the eleventh-hour agreement negotiated by the government was essentially unfinished and seriously flawed.
The shaky dispute settlement mechanism that was embodied in that eleventh-hour agreement was no substitute for a binding agreement between the two countries in such areas as subsidies, countervail and content requirements. Unless a clear definition of the rules of trade were to be established, Canada could not
hope to enjoy what it sought in the talks, that is a truly level playing field with the United States.
Likewise, only the most obtuse would argue that this argument has adequately prepared Canada for the free trade agreement, not merely the Mexico-Canada-United States agreement but the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement.
Despite the explicit recommendations of the Macdonald royal commission, among many other studies, virtually no attempt was made by this government to link trade liberalization to a comprehensive program of domestic reform. There is no adjustment assistance programs of the required nature for business or for labour, let alone real social reform.
Those were the initiatives which would have enabled Canadians to help manage the transitions and dislocations which inevitably accompany greater trade liberalization.
Equally, little headway was made by the government in the removal of interprovincial trade barriers, barriers which to this day hinder Canadians from realizing their full potential in export trade. They hinder Canadians in realizing the potential of larger and more effective corporations and more effective employment of our labour force to ensure our entry into not only the United States market but global markets which are becoming so evident a feature of the international landscape.
The government continued to pursue a conflicting domestic agenda. An expansionary fiscal policy was combined, quite perversely in my view, with a tight monetary policy. That is to say Canadian industry was gradually handicapped with high interest rates and an over-valued dollar at the very time that Canadian exports were trying to penetrate the U.S. market. The two policies, fiscal and monetary, were in direct contradiction. On the one hand, the government sought freer trade with the United States, and at the same time pursued a monetary policy which not only resulted in higher interest rates but so drove up the Canadian dollar as to render a good number of Canadian exports to the United States and elsewhere non-competitive.
After the experience of the last three years, one would have thought that by now the government might have learned from its past mistakes. Given the fact that the existing free trade agreement was badly fumbled, one would have thought that the government might have

March 24, 1992
Supply
approached this new round of negotiations with a strategic game plan; one which at a minimum would have set out Canada's national objectives; one which would have outlined how Canada will challenge and exploit a North American free trade agreement; one which would have laid down a concurrent program of domestic adjustment to help Canadian businesses and Canadian workers to compete effectively in the markets to the south and, indeed, on a global basis.
Finally, one might have expected this government to explain to the Canadian people how North American free trade fits into a wider global trade strategy for Canada.
In short, in all these and in other areas Canada is in real need of a collective response to the end of the post war era and the emergence of economic globalization. Unfortunately, no such plan has been brought forward by this government in response to the circumstances of the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement or of the proposed North American free trade agreement.
The best that Canadians have been offered by this government are bald platitudes about how free trade with Mexico naturally will lead to more jobs in Canada, better opportunities for Canadians and greater investment in Canadian industry. This is the same kind of thinking which assumed that a policy of tearing down the walls and rolling back the state will, unaided, ensure growth and prosperity. This abiding faith in the market's invisible hand has not proved sufficient over the past three years and there is certainly no reason to think that it will prove any more adequate today as we face a North American free trade agreement.
For this reason four central points must be addressed by this government:
First, we need a clear and open statement from the government about its specific objectives in the current negotiations. For example, will a subsidies code be part of the trilateral agreement; will the dispute settlement mechanism be comprehensive and binding; will this agreement include an accession clause to open the door to other potential partners in the western hemisphere; and finally, is this government prepared to hold the line against U.S. demands in such areas as culture, telecommunications and investment?
All these questions are being left unanswered. They are pressing and increasingly pressing, but the government makes no effort to explore and develop them with the people of Canada.
Second, we need to develop a national plan for exploiting the opportunities presented by global freer trade. Many sectors of the Canadian economy exhibit the adverse effects of having evolved behind protectionist walls. Those factors that are common to such industries include a reluctance to innovate and upgrade; a failure to reach and expand beyond a domestic market; an increasingly narrow product range, especially in the export sector; and an aversion to foreign and domestic rivalry.
All this suggests that we in Canada need to change our mind-set about global economic integration. At a minimum, we need a domestic economic environment more conducive to export-led growth. We need to identify those sectors where Canada does, or should, enjoy a competitive advantage and focus our collective energies in these areas. We need to encourage Canadian business to form trade consortia, joint ventures, to gain an early foothold in foreign markets including, for example, the Mexican market. Finally, we need to educate Canadian business about foreign markets including, in this case, Mexico, its economic climate, its culture and, of course, its language, by building linkages among our educational institutions and the private sector.
Third, we must respond to the whole adjustment challenge. Canada remains, unfortunately, without a comprehensive adjustment assistance program for business and labour. Although this was a cornerstone of the government's 1988 free trade package, it was a cornerstone that it failed completely to put in place. The government, for its part, argues that there are already adjustment assistance programs in place, well over 200, it tells us, dispersed among the various provincial and federal jurisdictions. Yet, the very existence of these unconnected ad hoc programs is an argument for consolidating the system and making it more successful.
More to the point, current unemployment figures, over 1.4 million Canadians out of work or 10.2 per cent of the work force, attest to the failure of these programs to help Canadians to adjust. There can be little doubt that our labour intensive sector, such as textiles, will be
March 24, 1992

seriously exposed by a North American free trade agreement.
By the same token, there is every indication that our advanced industries could suffer from labour and capital shortages in the very near future. Are we going to wait until the market's so-called invisible hand works its magic or is there something that the government can do to help the economy respond to market signals? The answer, of course, is a massive and determined program of adjustment assistance which this government has singularly and completely failed to provide.
Fourth, we need to develop a global trade strategy without or with the North American free trade agreement. Canada's growing links with Mexico are part and parcel of our growing links with the world economy as a whole. Yet, the present government has done little to address these fundamental trends. A much vaunted Pacific Rim initiative has yet to progress beyond the rhetorical stage. There has been virtually no attempt, public or private, to exploit the major opportunities presented in the European Community in 1992, nor has the government seized the opportunity of the opening up of eastern Europe as a possible trade option for Canada and, more important, as a back door into the European Community.
As far as Latin America is concerned, the government has failed to formulate, let alone implement, a trade strategy except in reaction to the recent United States and Mexican initiatives, not its own trade initiatives, but initiatives forced on it by the United States and Mexico.
This passive approach to globalization raises serious questions about the direction of Canada's trade policy. It is for that reason that we sought in the motion today more information, open and candid discussion with Canadians about the government's goals and objectives in its trade policy.
For example, a strictly continentalist free trade arrangement will, by definition, make Canadian industry even more focused on the United States market and overly susceptible to the fluctuations of the U.S. economy, such as the current United States recession.
Supply
Canada's growing trade deficits, the imbalances that we really must correct are with our partners overseas, especially with Asia, not with the United States with which we continue to enjoy a surplus.
The deteriorating competitive position of the U.S. economy, together with a growing ascendancy of Europe and the Pacific Rim, raise serious doubts as to whether North America is still the benchmark against which Canadian industry must measure itself.
Developments in technology and transport are effectively diminishing geographical barriers, especially for the high value added industries of the future such as telecommunications and financial services. This should allow Canada to be part of a global and not merely a continental economy.
Finally, rising protectionist sentiments in the United States together with indications that its first priority is enhanced trade links with the hemisphere-the current Mexico-Canada-U.S. trade negotiations is merely the first step-raises the question of whether Canada is drifting into a U.S. dominated trade bloc and perhaps a new continentalist form of protection, and thus away from the global economy.
These are all serious issues which the government has yet to address. In its failure to offer Canadians a full account of why it is Canada is participating in the North American free trade agreement and what it is that we seek in those negotiations, the government is merely underlining its bankruptcy of policy to cope with the fact that a global trading and investment world has arrived.
We see a reflection of this in the government's current and expensive policy of sending a group of people across the country to consult on its so-called prosperity initiative.
All Canadians know what has to be done. There is no need for another year of consultation with Canadian people to know that adjustment assistance has been a principal failure of this government. It has rolled back the trade barriers in North America with the U.S.-Cana-da Free Trade Agreement. It now contemplates doing so with regard to Mexico as well and possibly with some

March 24, 1992
Supply
other western hemisphere countries, but it offers no reassurance to the Canadian people, Canadian workers or Canadian business that the necessary changes Canada must undertake as it moves from a resource dominated economy to a value added economy are in place to make that transition and to make it in a way that will assure jobs and affluence for the Canadian people.
The failure of this government has been in its lack of candour and open discussion with the Canadian people about what it is that it seeks in the trade negotiations and in its failure to help Canadians adjust to the challenges presented not only by the two free trade agreements under discussion today but in the current Uruguay round of the GATT that effectively presents many of the same challenges with which these two trade agreements confront Canadians.
There is an essential role for the government to play. There is an active role for the government to play, and it is past time that this government came forward with a comprehensive program to assist Canadians to take full advantage of the globalization of trade and investment which is taking place across the world today.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound -Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague berating the present free trade agreement and the proposed North American free trade agreement.
I am quite sure he will agree that the free trade agreement we entered into gave us some special privileges over and above our many other trading countries. He is also aware, I think it was three or four years ago, that the American trade deficit was as high as $175 billion. Again, if my memory serves me right, I believe there were between 300 and 400 pieces of legislation in the United States Congress either to prohibit imports, to limit them, or to put a higher tariff on them or a quota.
It certainly has not turned out as well as Canada wanted, but we are in a much more preferential position than a great many of our trading partners and other trading countries. If the existing one is so bad, why are these countries clamouring, and one might say drooling at the mouth, to try to get the same deal?
My colleague can also rest assured that our government, in working out a deal for the North American free agreement, is certainly not going to give anything away.
It is going to be a deal that is acceptable to us and advantageous to us.
I would appreciate the member's comments with respect to the free trade agreement and what the Americans would have done if we had not had that. At the present time we have a special disputes tribunal which gives us an opportunity. I think he will agree that if we did not have that any decision by the United States department of commerce, or whatever it is, would just be a fait accompli and we could do nothing about it.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the government member's assurance that in the Mexico-Ca-nada-U.S. talks nothing the government will do will jeopardize Canadian interests.
The point I want to make is that in seeking a reassurance of Canadian interests in such a discussion it is also incumbent upon the government to match the removal or reduction in trade barriers with a dynamic and comprehensive program of assistance at home.
This government in its commitment to withdraw from the markets, as it would itself term it, has not provided that assistance to Canadians.
On the member's second point with regard to secure access, I would ask him whether he is saying in effect that the bottle is half full or half empty. I cannot think that in the light of the prolonged discussion of the pork issue, and more recently the problems that have arisen over softwood lumber and Honda automobiles or Japanese built automobiles in Canada, he can think that we have in effect secured that access which we were promised we would have within the free trade agreement.
I would suggest to him that the evidence in the case for example of the Honda autos is one where the United States has concluded that by harassing-and I believe that I use the Prime Minister's word-a Japanese company making automobiles in Canada it hopes to ensure that future Japanese or other foreign investment is directed into the United States itself rather than into Canada, or possibly in the North American free trade agreement into Mexico, by demonstrating that if an investment is made in either of those other two countries or particularly in Canada, the harassment will lead the foreign investor to conclude that he might as well have invested directly in the United States in the first instance.
March 24, 1992

I would suggest that is not an effective and secure access system to the U.S. market. The dispute settlement mechanism is prolonged. It is clumsy. It does not provide in the end for binding decisions unless the two parties have reached prior agreement that the decision will be binding. It does not deal effectively with U. S. countervail as it is called in the business. The effectiveness of how to contain the problems of U.S. reaction to Canadian trade initiatives has not been resolved by this agreement. It is for such reasons that we on this side of the House have called for further discussions with the United States to ensure that those aspects of the agreement which are flawed be identified and resolved.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, on occasion this Chamber is allowed to be political. I do think that-


Some hon. members:: No, no.


David Barrett: I do think that every four years it is expected of us to go back to the people of this country and say honestly and openly what we would do-


An hon. member:: We are going five.


David Barrett: You are going five out of fear, five out of fear.
Beyond the Constitution this debate is perhaps the most important debate of any in this country prior to the next federal election. It is therefore incumbent that every party clearly state what its position is on these issues.
The Conservative Party without fail has been consistent in its position, one which I oppose vigorously. That position was vigorously opposed as well by the then leader of the Liberal Party in the last federal election, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Since that time the Liberal Party, which is now leading in the polls and is expected to stand up and say exactly where it stands on this issue through this speaker and other speakers, has failed to define exactly what its position is.
My question is very clear. Why did they abandon the position of the member for Vancouver Quadra? Why do they spend all their time criticizing the Conservative government by way of nuance, different faces at negotiation, but with exactly the same goals in mind?
There is no doubt that the Liberal Party has adopted the Conservative agenda. It has reinforced the Conser-
Supply
vative agenda to the point where one has to ask this question: Why is the United States bullying us now in these areas? It is because the Liberal Party has adopted the same position as the Conservative Party. The Americans see them leading in the polls and there is no official opposition proposal.
That party has abandoned the position of the member for Vancouver Quadra and it owes an explanation to the public of this country as to why it has abandoned that position.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I am always amused to hear these facetious little sallies from my friend from British Columbia. However I would ask him a couple of questions in response, and then I will try for a moment to put his mind at rest.
If we want to talk about where parties are, where is the New Democratic Party on the question of trade? We have on the one hand the member saying, as I believe he does, that in the highly unlikely event the NDP were the government it would abrogate the free trade agreement immediately and, second, that it would withdraw from the current negotiations with Mexico.


David Barrett: That's right.


Roy MacLaren: In an interview with The Financial Post his leader said: "No, we will not do that. We would in fact renegotiate the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement".
And his colleague from Yorkton-Melville said: "Oh, well, we don't like the GATT any more, and if we were in government", highly unlikely though that might be, "we would withdraw from the GATT".
What planet does this party live on? What planet, what world does the NDP inhabit?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time for questions or comments has now expired.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate on behalf of the government and perhaps to put a few of the issues inherent in this motion in their proper context, but not to intervene and mediate the obvious lovers' quarrel between the two opposition parties.
The member for Etobicoke North makes two points really. One is that there is not enough information about the government's objectives that we have taken to these over-all North American free trade talks. The second is that we have not put in place sufficient adjustment

March 24, 1992
Supply
measures to prepare our own economy and our own people for the impact of a general North American free trade agreement and the impact of changes that are occurring throughout the world.
I will dispel the myth about not enough information, not enough consultation. I will leave it to my other colleagues for the rest of the day to dispel the myth about a lack of preparation and adjustment measures.
My hon. friend is quite right when he says that the magic of old, the invisible hand of Adam Smith and many of the things that we relied upon in the past to regulate the economies of our own countries, of our own jurisdictions and those of the world, that these old rules no longer work. The magic no longer works. Indeed, the economies are very much influenced today by very powerful global forces, forces over which not one single nation, one single powerful jurisdiction as there may be, has any control.
I would like to put in context the background against which we have made some of these decisions, first of all, to enter into a free trade arrangement with the United States and then to quickly respond when we discovered that the Americans were looking to expand these kinds of arrangements south to Mexico to make sure that our own interests would not be adversely affected.
We live in a new age. It is called the technology age or the information age. There are megatrends that sweep around the planet in microseconds, trends that no one has any ability to steer or to influence to any extent. That is the first context. No one will be able to hide, protect or shelter themselves from these forces of which I spoke.
The population of the planet has doubled in the last 150 years. It will double again in the next 75 years. Anyone who is under any illusion that this trend will not have a very profound and very serious impact on the way we do business with one another, the way we rearrange our own lifestyles, our own quality of life, is very naive.
Since our travels to space we have a keener awareness of the fragility of the planet, of the finite resources that we are using. These resources will have to be shared, not with 4.5 billion but perhaps with 7 billion to 9 billion people in just 75 years from now.
Perhaps it is also because of the fact that peace has broken out. There is no longer a major confrontation between the superpowers. This requires major adjustments in the economies of some of the more powerful countries, particularly the United States and the Soviet Union, an economy which was in the main based on defence production.
All of those things will have a very profound impact on the way we do business. It is an impact, as I said, that will come down on us, which will affect us whether or not we stick our heads in the sand. These are trends that have to be responded to, that have to be faced and managed.
As I said earlier, not even the most powerful among us of the nation states has any capacity to control these trends. Capital moves throughout the world without restrictions in seconds.
Investment decisions are made by corporations that are more powerful today in their global context than most nation states in the world. Investment decisions are being made on the grounds of perhaps less stringent environmental and human rights standards in one part of the world as compared to another.
So there is a call for a new world order. It would have been heresy 10 years ago for a president of the most powerful nation on earth, the United States, to admit and to show readiness to surrender much of the sovereignty of the United States to a new world order.
Why is that? The reason is because of the facts that I have mentioned. Not even that most powerful nation on earth has any control over these new developments. No one will be sheltered, no one will be excused from making the tough decisions that have been made in our country to prepare ourselves for these new events.
Perhaps the changes are so profound that even the political institutions, including our own, may well not be suited to cope with these new developments. We have to prepare ourselves for this concept of a new world order, this concept of globalization.
One of the unfortunate features in our system, and it is not just in the British parliamentary system but most traditional political systems of a free market economy, is what the opposition parties see as their role to stop progress. I am not being critical here. It is an inherent
March 24, 1992

part of our political system. They see it as their role to stop progress at any cost. That is one part of their role. The other part of their role is to lament the fact that there is no progress. That is part of our system and we have to live with that. But I hope the people who look in on some of these debates are fully aware of that.
In developing our own policy and our own strategy, obviously we were inclined to look at the European experience. As we looked around the world we discovered that anywhere free trade has happened things happen quickly and all the developments, in the main, are positive.
In Europe there is the European Economic Community, a consortium or strategic alliance of nations. They fought and killed each other for thousands of years for all kinds of reasons and all of a sudden they have come together to talk about free trade, economic and industrial integration, about a single standard throughout Europe. They go further. They talk about political integration. They are talking about surrendering part of their sovereignty to a larger order, in this case the European Economic Community.
Why would they do this? Well, perhaps they are better students of history and they have a longer history than we have here in our own country. They can think back to the dark ages. Incidentally, countries in eastern Europe tend to relive the Dark Ages by pursuing selfish, parochial interests. Europeans have overcome that and there are good reasons for it. They know that only through that kind of combined strength and by putting aside our parochial interests can we cope with these new trends that are at the same time a bit frightening and daunting. It is human to resist change, particularly such profound changes but of course they are also very, very exciting.
Europeans also know that unless they get their act together, unless they break down the barriers and unless freedom breaks out in eastern Europe there could be an influx of 30 million refugees into the central European space. All of that has to be considered.
It is against that background that this government has established a trade policy and a consultative process that is broader in its scope and deeper in its coverage than has ever been initiated by any government in the history of Canada. That is not an over-statement. It is a consulta-
Supply
tive process that involves Canadians from all the geographic regions of our country and from all walks of life.
Contrary to what the opposition claims, there have been most extensive consultations. A year before we even considered monitoring and entering into these trade discussions to expand the Canada-U.S. free trade deal to include Mexico, there were discussions with the provinces, labour and business. The SAGER were reorganized and sectorial discussions and studies were carried out in agriculture, finance and investment. Incidentally these studies were tabled with the standing committee. That happened way back in October of 1980. They have been available publicly for one and one-half years.
Early in 1991 the government published a document entitled "North American Free Trade-Securing Canada's Growth Through Trade". On April 25,1991, prior to the commencement of the negotiations and our participation in them, the Minister for International Trade spoke at the Financial Post conference. All of us remember that speech where he laid out clearly what our intentions and objectives were in expanding our trade prospects.
After all, it had become apparent at that time that the United States intent was certainly to enter into some kind of an arrangement with the Mexicans. There can be no doubt that all of us, particularly here in this country, would be affected by that.
I am often amused by some of the gloomy predictions that particularly come from the New Democratic Party about how we would be pulled down to the Mexican standards. Our workers, instead of earning $13 an hour would earn $1 an hour and all our environmental protection laws would be scrapped because we would be pulled down to the Mexican standard.
I have two thoughts here. First of all, if that were so and the United States entered into an agreement with Mexico, with Canada sitting on the sidelines, and the United States got pulled down to the Mexican standards, whom would we trade with?
Our auto workers would be eating bark off the trees if the Mexican standards prevailed in the United States. The fact of the matter is, of course, that whenever you have such an arrangement everything polarizes to the highest common denominator.

March 24, 1992
Supply


David Barrett: That is nonsense.


Frank Oberle: My friend says it is nonsense. I do not know how much he travels. I do not travel that much, but I know that with regard to Portugal, if you had been there 10 years ago and you were to visit Portugal today, you would see what I am talking about.


David Barrett: They have a social charter.


Frank Oberle: Absolute nonsense. The workers are earning a wage that is equivalent to the standards throughout Europe. The environmental standards have increased and lo and behold, everybody is happier. It was very intelligent the way that it was all planned. The Europeans keep taking in new countries, as they can afford it.


David Barrett: They have a social charter.


Frank Oberle: They have a social charter, but my hon. friend of course thinks that all the ills would be solved by just writing out a social charter and the very next day everybody would be happy, just like everybody was happy the very next day after we had a human rights charter in the last Constitution. It is not that simple.
These predictions of doom and gloom are just simple nonsense.
We cannot ignore the dangers on the one hand, as I said, and the opportunities on the other that present themselves as we enter into these discussions, and that would have presented themselves if we had not entered into these discussions.
Let us put the North American market in its context. There are 360 million people, the most powerful trading block on earth, with a gross domestic product or an economy that exceeds $6 trillion. Mexico has 85 million to 90 million people who will be added to this trading block. Mexico will be the spring-board to extend our trading arrangements beyond our hemisphere to the south.
Our objectives were clearly spelled out by one of Canada's chief negotiators in a speech on June 3, 1981. He clearly spelled out what the objectives are that he has been told to pursue at the talks. He and his colleagues made 26 major speeches in the country. These are all public documents. Our major objective is the elimination of tariffs, of course. That is the basis of any free trade
agreement that is negotiated between any two partners, protecting intellectual property rights, dispute mechanisms, rules of origin, better definitions of rules relating to subsidies, all of these kinds of things, some of which perhaps, as we know today, are a bit weak in the Canada-U.S. arrangement and there is the potential now for us to strengthen those.
Immediately after the launch of the talks on June 12 of last year, situation reports had been issued and published to all stakeholders. Three thousand of these reports have been published. So what is the opposition talking about? As I said, the SAGITs have been reorganized. A broad spectrum of interests have been involved in the negotiations: business, academics, labour, environmental groups.
If the hon. members opposite were really interested in these objectives, they had only to attend the briefings that were organized by the subcommittee on external affairs and international trade. Read any of the many speeches I have mentioned by the minister and the chief negotiator or spend a few minutes pursuing one of the three situation reports that have been published and tabled.
Had they taken any of these initiatives, they would have learned that Canada has five broad objectives in the NAFTA negotiations. I will spell them out just so there can no longer be any doubt. First, barrier free access to Mexico for Canadian goods and services while developing tariff phase out provisions and safeguard mechanisms which reflect Canadian import sensitivities. Second, improved access to the United States markets in such areas as financial services and government procurement. Third, improved conditions under which Canadian business can make strategic alliances with North America to better compete with the Pacific rim and the European Community as well as other parts of the world not so critical. In unity, there is strength and by getting ourselves competitive in our own hemisphere and our own environment here, we will be stronger to approach the markets of the rest of the world, which are so terribly exciting and ensure that Canada remains an attractive site for foreign and domestic investment. That, too, is important. Finally, the establishment and expeditious dispute settlement mechanism.
March 24, 1992

The record of the government is unequivocal. We consulted with Canadians before we decided to enter the NAFTA negotiations. We have consulted continuously since the negotiations were launched last June. We are continuing to consult on an ongoing basis with the provinces, with the representatives of business and labour, with academics, with environmental interests and with the many Canadians who wish to air their views and have input into these discussions.
We have consulted with our colleagues in the committee to which they have access and in which they really set the agenda.
The objectives of Canada's negotiators have been known for almost a year. The broad consultative process solicits a two-way flow of information.
In short, the motion placed before this House by the opposition does not accurately reflect the facts and it should be withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker, a final word. Instead of condemning the government for having the courage to do some of these things that may perhaps be a bit daunting and frightening, in approaching a path that is still shrouded in the mist of what the future might bring, they should celebrate the fact that we have a government that has a clear fix on the future and is clearly attuned to the horrendous changes and the excitement that is happening throughout the world today.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the minister and I want to direct my remarks toward one area of the free trade proposal or policy or agreement. It has to do with that specific area relating to foreign investment.
For many years we have welcomed foreign investment in this country, but when we were the government, we had a review mechanism whereby we would encourage foreign investment.
We would like those foreign investors to not just set up a distribution warehouse and sell their products when they come to this country. We would like them to set up a manufacturing operation so we would not be just hamburger flippers. We would have some skilled jobs for our people.
Supply
We would ask foreign investors to put some of their money into research and development so we could develop innovative products in Canada. That system worked for years and years. We built up a manufacturing base in this country to rival anything in the world.
When this free trade agreement came along, it was basically written into the agreement that we would take unlimited foreign investment, but it would also be unfettered foreign investment. In other words there would no longer be any conditions attached to investing in this nation.
As a result of that aspect of the free trade agreement, numerous companies have basically shut down their manufacturing here. They have used their offices here basically as distribution houses, warehouses and sales agencies. Does the minister think that specific chapter of the free trade agreement is working the way it was originally designed? If companies withdraw their manufacturing, they are certainly not going to do R and D. Does he not agree there is some room to review that aspect of the free trade agreement?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if he used the standard of perfection to assess the early stages of the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, I suppose my hon. friend is right.
The agreement is not perfect. There is room for improvement. As I have pointed out in my speech, there is now an opportunity to make these improvements. At the same time I would also point out to my friend-as is the case in all such cases, particularly if you study the European experience-these agreements bring with them the need to adjust and restructure our own economy. Strengths have to be built upon and we must have the courage to de-emphasize those areas where we just cannot be as competitive as we would like to be in a new trade environment and in the markets.
It has been the tradition in our country in the past to protect an industry in trouble usually with government grants and handouts. You keep it artificially alive. I readily confess to my friend who supports the previous government and its policies that the forest products industry for which I am responsible is undergoing a very serious period of adjustment and restructuring. It has to happen not just because of the agreement with the

March 24, 1992
Supply
United States, but because of this concept of globalization.
In the early 1980s during a period of recession, his government opted for a pulp mill modernization program. One half billion dollars were spent propping up companies and plants that had really outlived their usefulness. You cannot make a 50-year-old paper machine compete in today's market and technology. It would be like trying to make a space shuttle out of a DC-3. If the government had the courage to face those necessary adjustments at the time, the industry today would not be in the situation it is in.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am somewhat disappointed in the minister's words. He is talking about the Dark Ages and his words were written for him, I would presume, by the office of the Minister for International Trade.
We on this side of the House brought this opposition day forward to give the government an opportunity to explain to Canadians what it was doing in this deal. I must say I have all these studies and reports the government put out. I must tell you they do not tell Canadians a heck of a lot about what is going on in these negotiations.
Today's Toronto Star reported: "Leaked document reveals massive three-way trade deal". I was at all the briefings with the Minister for International Trade when he came to the parliamentary committee. I was at the committee hearings. Quite frankly, we did not hear a lot of the answers.
We did not hear what the costs and benefits would be to Canada. We did not hear whether or not the government would sign a deal that did not have a dispute settlement mechanism. We did not hear that the government may withdraw a snap-back provision.
We did hear in these reports that horticulture in Canada was in danger of disappearing under this deal. I wonder where the Minister for International Trade is. Why is this minister here speaking on behalf of the government if he does not have the answers to all these questions?


Frank Oberle: It was not the Minister for International Trade who chose this particular topic for today's opposition debate and motion.
The minister is away on very important business. If the opposition were really interested in having the minister here, someone could probably have telephoned his office to determine whether he would be available today.
I would also like to tell him that nobody ever writes my speeches, ever. I write my own speeches, and in fact I pride myself in doing it. That is why they are sexist.
I do want to say, in fairness to my friend, I am pleased at least one of the opposition members has read some of the reports and has attended some of the meetings. I have a message for my hon. friend from Etobicoke North who said there has been no information out there. Perhaps he can consult with his colleague and avail himself of the reports and discussions out there.
When you enter into negotiations, of course you cannot predict with an absolute degree of certainty what will come out at the end. There is always compromise, give and take. All I can tell my hon. friend in terms of certainty is that no agreement will be signed unless it is beneficial to Canada.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from British Columbia and his points of view with respect to this opposition day motion.
I do not know if the hon. member had the opportunity to read Business Week magazine, a U.S. weekly. It discussed the very issue of trade between United States and Mexico. It highlighted the auto industry in this particular article, and I would urge everybody in this House to read it.
Many U.S. companies are now moving to Mexico in a significant way. This article compared the wages and quality of work of an individual working in a Mexican plant for Chrysler with an auto worker in Detroit. The Mexican worker received $87 per week to weld an automobile, while the worker in Detroit received $16 an hour.
We can no longer argue that Mexico is incapable of producing a high quality automobile. In negotiating any kind of trade agreement, is there not somewhat of a danger that the manufacturing industries we have devel-
March 24, 1992

oped in this country, including the auto industry, may move to Mexico?
Mercedes-Benz is contemplating building a plant in Mexico because it believes Mexicans are as capable as anyone of producing a quality automobile. I only wonder because if we go into this trade-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The period has now expired, but I will give one minute to the minister.


Frank Oberle: We have to be so concerned about precisely that. We were concerned when the news first reached us that there were definite intentions to develop an agreement between the United States and Mexico. For us to sit on the sidelines would have been folly at the extreme. What impact would such an agreement have on our automotive industry, our energy sector, our forestry sector, and the other manufacturing sectors?
We need to be part of this thing. In the first instance we need to monitor what is happening and participate very effectively when the opportunity arises. We will be affected by any kind of an arrangement anywhere in the world, and particularly by what is contemplated between the United States and Mexico.
It is very critical for us to be part of the negotiations and part of the deal, if there is one.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the question addressed to the minister by my friend from Manitoba, the art expert.
The member from Manitoba very clearly sees a significant problem here. We are going to enter into an agreement with a low-wage partner without any social contract such as the one that exists in Europe relevant to worker safety, health care and the environment. That is number one.
Number two, the member has clearly shown an area of concern where the United States is already bullying us. The Honda decision we are struggling with now is over content. This is the harbinger of exactly the kind of pressure the Canadian market will get if we sign the NAFTA without identifying the rules of origin as well as who owns the existing plants once the deal is signed.
The Japanese or Koreans have been enticed to invest partly in the automobile industry here in Canada. There
Supply
is nothing in this draft agreement to stop them from closing down their factories here once the NAFTA is signed, moving to Mexico and having access to their market under the proposed agreement.
The auto pact is being assaulted daily by the United States-I did not interrupt the minister but I am glad he is interrupting me because he is beginning to understand the United States' pattern of behaviour on this issue. The Honda ruling itself is a signal to other investors offshore that if they come to Canada they will be bullied by the United States, so they should move to either the United States or Mexico.
Why do I say that? Because it is the existing pattern.
I want to further point out to the member that if this agreement had a basic salary component so a low-wage partner would be forced within a time frame to reach the same level as the United States and Canada, massive reinvestment of capital would not be taking place.
Again, I want to give him a specific example. In its recent announcement of closure of plants in the United States and Canada, General Motors also gave a tacit indication of where it is headed. It is headed to Mexico. The Moraine engine plant has closed down. It is going to Mexico and the Mexicans are efficient, capable production workers just as we are in Canada and the United States.
I want to warn the House this member has touched a nerve that is exactly the crux of these questions and he has a perfect right to question the minister. The bottom question is why in the world are there no adjunct discussions about the environment, health and safety, and wages?
You have a perfect question, and that is the question you will find in your constituency when you go home. Canadian people are not stupid. They have to make a political decision about who is at the helm of the ship of this nation. They are disappointed in this government. You are suffering, as you know Mr. Member, at 11 per cent in the polls, but the Canadian people are even more disappointed in the official opposition. It has fallen into the trap of saying it will do the same thing as the Tbries only better, without demanding a restructuring.
I delivered myself of those comments by way of thanking that member for his intervention.

March 24, 1992
Supply
I want to correct the record on two accounts before I go into my main discussion. First of all, for the member of the Liberal Party who wanted to know the official position of the New Democratic Party, I read this letter of December 3, 1991, into the record.
To the editor of the Financial Post, 333 King Street, Toronto, Ontario:
Dear Editor:
In your October 26th edition you publish extracts from a lengthy and wide-ranging interview between myself and Diane Francis. On page 1 of the same issue, Ms. Francis draws some conclusions from the interview, among them that the New Democrats have softened their position on the free trade agreement. This conclusion is not accurate. Our party continues to oppose the deal and maintains the position that it ought to be abrogated.
She goes on to say "in six months", and that's our position.
I know that the member will now correct his impression because he is aware that newspapers make mistakes, sometimes even mistakes with the Liberal party.
Here is the position, here is the letter. At the end of my speech I will table this letter so that the member will not be succumbing to the temptation to repeat a canard that is not of whole cloth.
I do want to go on to the Liberal's position and I want to deal with it. On October 22, 1991 my colleague from Burnaby-Kingsway, in an opposition day debate, moved a motion which included the words "that this House urge the government to discontinue immediately Canadian participation in the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade negotiations".
A subamendment was moved by the Liberal Party to that motion eliminating that particular section of our motion about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the Liberals actually voted against a very motion similar to the one, not exactly the same, as we are discussing today.


Mr. Dingwall:: That's stretching it.


David Barrett: Shocked, Mr. Speaker? Well, stretching it, all right.
All right, let us get it straight. We are the only party on record that says we will abrogate the free trade agreement and we are opposed to the current discussions with Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Let us put that straight.


Dennis Joseph Mills: What about your leader's position?


Roy MacLaren: What about withdrawing from the GATT?


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I know I cannot use props but if I could I would hold this up and point to the Liberals' action on our motion. But I will not violate the rules of this House.


David Charles Dingwall: What a distortion.


David Barrett: I read the letter. I will send you a copy and I will table a copy to the House as well. Here is her letter and here is our position, and I will send you an autographed copy because I know you will treasure it.
I want to address myself to a number of areas that are of deep concern to the New Democratic Party.
Number one, I want to say that it is, in my opinion, the responsibility of the Official Opposition to make itself clear so that we stop being bullied by the United States. I believe that because the Liberals have softened their position they have given the Americans a home run and they are taking it. With the Liberals now leading in the polls, and the Americans knowing they have taken a foolish position of renegotiating the deal, they can bully all they want because it won't matter whether the Liberals are in power or the Tories are in power.
I do not believe that the Liberals understand exactly what they have done by saying they will renegotiate. They have not thought that position through. It will take five years to renegotiate the existing FTA. Five years, Mr. Speaker. In that time all the damage that has been done will be totally finalized and there won't be anything left to renegotiate.
The Americans also have a different political system. It is not simply a matter of renegotiating with the President and his cabinet, or the executive. That is one step. Once you are through there then you have got to go to Congress and they will take their pound of flesh; then you have to go to the Senate and they will take their pound of flesh. The Liberal position is a recipe for disaster, compounding what is wrong over here. That is why their former leader, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who understood the American system, who understood American politics, said that if the Liberal Party were elected they would abrogate. People voted for the Liberal party in the last federal election for that abrogation position and let no voter be misunderstood when they demand that position again. Renegotiation by the Liberals is, in fact, a just endorsation of what
March 24, 1992

the Tories have done. There is no other position that can be taken to deal with this issue.
We did have a fundamental difference in committee. The Liberals put a minority report in, and I have a copy here, which opens by saying in effect that we have to be at the table. Then they go on to say: "We would like this, we would like this and we would like this". It is a naive position that their caucus succumbed to for whatever reason. Nonetheless, I was forced much to my regret to put in a detailed, in depth criticism and non-support of the government's position on behalf of my party.
Two of the things I quoted in my minority report need to be repeated in this debate. They are quotes from the leader of the opposition in Mexico, whom many people suggest won the election as Mr. Salinas did win by fraud, as attested to by international observers. By the way, we are dealing with a country that has a violation of human rights that does not meet the standards of the Prime Minister. Even the Liberals acknowledge that. They included that in their amendment to our motion last October.
The Mexican government is harbouring within its system human rights abuses that are without parallel in North America. Over 80 social activists, church activists, religious community activists and trade unionists have been murdered under the Salinas government administration when they made an attempt to rectify unjust labour conditions, horrible environmental conditions and the kind of usury that is taking place in terms of loans for those people in Mexico.
Here is what the leader of the official opposition said, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, the son of the most famous President in Mexican history, a name that rings with pride throughout all of Mexico and I quote what he said in a speech in Vancouver.
Referring to the United States he said: "Their free trade agenda is simple and narrow. Mexico will sell its cheap labour in order to attract foreign capital while in turn will guarantee the survival of one of the last remaining authoritarian political systems in Latin America".
If this government believed the words of the Prime Minister of this country, we would immediately walk out of those negotiations. Are the words of the Prime
Supply
Minister hollow about his commitment to human rights? In my opinion, in this instance they certainly are, as documented by Amnesty International.
What is the alternative? I go on to quote Mr. Cardenas: "We maintain that trade must be seen as an investment of development and that a new kind of development model must be at the core of any continental trade negotiations".
I also quote: "We believe that an alternative agreement should include a social charter and be based on common standards for labour, social and environmental rights".
Is there anyone in this House who is opposed to that? The Liberals would not be. The Conservative backbenchers would not be. It is only the intransigence of this government's negotiation position by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs that excludes standards for labour, social and environmental rights.
Is this House aware of the incidents of foetal deformity in Brownsville, Texas, as a direct result of the lack of pollution control standards just across the border in the Maquiladora program?
This government spent $50 million on the external affairs committee and services of the committee. It was not enough. A great deal of work has to be done, but not one penny was spent on committee members to go down and see the Maquiladora in Mexico. Not one cent.
We have gone to Russia and solved all the problems in Russia and left the mess for Boris Yeltsin to clean up. We have gone to Czechoslovakia and solved their problems. There are a few left there. We will probably be going other places in the world, as we must go, but not one trip to the Maquiladora to see the horror of what is happening to children and women in those working conditions that Canadians are being asked to compete with under the NAFTA agreement.
There is not one constituency in this country that would stand for the working conditions that exist in the Maquiladora program and not one member of Parliament, regardless of party, would support those kinds of working conditions if they existed in Canada. Yet this government insists on signing an agreement with a country that abuses children on these jobs, that has no

March 24, 1992
Supply
health and safety standards and, as far as environmental standards, not one vote would be given to anybody in this House if they supported those in this country, and yet this government wants to sit at the table with Mexico.
Send the committee, it will not do it. Send members of the committee, it will not do it. To my knowledge, I am the only member of this Chamber who has gone to Mexico, met with senators and discussed with them the problems that they are faced with.


Robert (Bob) Speller: That is not true.


David Barrett: To my knowledge.


An hon. member:: It could be limited.


David Barrett: It may be limited on this subject, but certainly the committee. I would welcome those who have done the same as I have to stand up and tell this House what they have seen, what they have heard and why they would then be opposed to this agreement.
This government is driven by a corporate, colonialist agenda that has no place in a modem society. The Liberal Party is just as much at fault as the government is on the North American free trade agreement. The only clear position that should be taken on this issue is to walk away from the table, start all over from square one and let the people of this country know exactly where we stand.


David Charles Dingwall: Did Bob White tell you that?


David Barrett: One last comment to my very good friend from British Columbia, who has served that province earnestly and with dedication all these years. Despite a disagreement of philosophy, I have admiration for his public service to my province of British Columbia. During his own speech, the member who is the Minister of Forestry said that it was difficult to get Canadian industries and pulp and paper to upgrade their equipment.
The minister spoke specifically about upgrading paper-making machines. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to that minister, that one of the reasons for the delay in capital upgrading of paper-making in this country is tied in directly with the long-term goal of moving peeler logs and chips down the coast into Mexico and closing our own pulp and paper plants because the
environmental standards, the capital costs and labour costs in Mexico are zero compared to what is the case here in Canada.
If one is to believe the document that is quoted today in The Toronto Star, one is to accept the fact there is an agreement on intercontinental transportation that would eliminate any barrier whatsoever on the moving of chips, pulp and peeler logs. Pulp can move now, but chips and peeler logs would go.
The provinces have the right to control the export of logs. Why was the question of whole logs thrown in with the softwood decision? It is my opinion that the United States is attempting to lever this government into a position of dropping the 14.5 per cent tariff on softwood if the government takes away the right of the provinces to control the export of peeler logs and chips. Farfetched, Mr. Speaker? Not at all.
Louisiana Pacific, a major forest company in the United States, within the last two years has closed down its sawmill in northern California, relocated it lock, stock and barrel into Ensenata, Mexico and has moved every single one of its publicly granted logs in its redwood forest holus-bolus down to be processed in Mexico. Louisiana Pacific is again in the front line of the same kind of moves.
I hate to make these kinds of predictions. It is not because it is malice on this government's side. You have a choice between stupidity and cupidity. Because of the goodness in my heart I prefer to take the word stupidity rather than cupidity. That is the reality. The Liberals failed the people of this country after John Timer left. This government has had open ground to go wherever it wants. I am telling you that in New Brunswick, in the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, every single long-term job that is affected by peeler logs, chips and pulp is threatened by moving to Mexico.


David Charles Dingwall: You don't know your history.


David Barrett: My dear friend says I do not know my history. It is because I read history that I discovered the sell-out that is taking place in this country.


An hon. member:: Ancient history.


David Barrett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and my last word is that I would advise my Liberal friends in this government to read the works of Professor Harley Shaiken of the University of California, San Diego.
March 24, 1992

Mr. Shaiken, who is an expert in communications and trade with Mexico and the United States, has written a thorough examination of the impact of the Maquiladora plants on the Ford Escort and the Volkswagen Jetta, both imported into this country from Mexico, high quality workmanship, high quality performance by those automobiles, the automobile workers getting one-fifth of the wage that comparable Canadian auto workers get in Quebec and Ontario. This is a sell-out and this government is too stupid to understand it. And the Liberals think that by going back on the fence they can win an election.
I say this. Let the election be called on this issue. Let the people of this country decide. Not the smoke and mirrors in this Chamber, but let the people of this country decide who is fighting for the working people, who is fighting for Canadian sovereignty. It is not the government and tragically it is not the Liberals. We are left alone in the struggle but we intend to maintain it.
Mr. Speaker, if you will let me put my amendment, I move:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
and therefore call upon the government to withdraw from the negotiations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions or comments, the hon. Minister of Forestry.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I just want to very briefly reciprocate my hon. friend's generous comments about my public service. I have no less respect and admiration for his exemplary service to the people of my province and the people of Canada.
In fact, in this whole debate there is very little difference in the kind of concern that my hon. friend and I share, except of course to say that he perhaps thinks he has a monopoly on virtue, concern and compassion for the people of Mexico.
Let me ask my hon. friend: Would it be better for the Mexican people, for the people of the Maquiladora region, if the car plant had not gone there, if instead of getting one-third of the wage of the Canadian worker they would get no wage at all as they used to? Would that be the better solution? Would it be the better solution to just build a fence around Mexico and shut them out because they are too poor themselves to afford the environmental standards that our industry has paid for
Supply
and built, because they are too poor to get access to a job?
Or would it be better for the workers of Mexico to have the borders thrown open and to give them access to the prosperity that we have enjoyed through a free market economy, through private enterprise? Perhaps the one-third of the wage that a worker in the Maquiladora region earns right now, in five years from now, will be one-half and I predict 10 years from now it will be equal to that of the Canadian worker.
My friend really does not have compassion for the people in Mexico and for other poor regions of the world. His compassion is with the Canadian unions. That is who writes the policy for the New Democratic Party. They are the Luddites of another age. They are the people who build a wall around our country and say: "Everybody in the world has to buy everything we can produce, but don't you dare import something that may require us to compete". That is the philosophy of my friend. Despite all my respect for him, it is terribly misguided.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before giving the floor to the hon. member, I will take under advisement the amendment moved by the hon. member but it would be appreciated if he would indicate to the Chair the seconder of that motion.


David Barrett: The member for Kamloops, Mr. Speaker.
I welcome the questions raised by my good friend. It is a rare opportunity that my good friend from British Columbia and I have this exchange in the House. I welcome it based on his sincerity and my position defined by him to see whether or not it is sincere.
I refer the minister to what the leader of the opposition in Mexico said, and I repeat:
We maintain that trade must be seen as an instrument of development and that a new kind of developmental model must be at the core of any continental trade negotiations- We believe that an alternative agreement should include a social charter and be based on common standards for labour, social and environmental rights. Likewise a continental pact of this nature would strengthen our internal struggle for democracy and propitiate a significant improvement in the situation of human rights of Mexicans.
This is a Mexican politician who is making this appeal and he has to make an appeal for votes. If the simplistic view of the minister is all that would prevail in Mexico,

March 24, 1992
Supply
then the leader of the opposition would not even be elected.
There is an alternative to what this government is entering into. You do not have to accept any single deal that is placed on the table. That is what I am afraid this government has done. It has not done its homework. It has never displayed any impact studies, sector by sector. Where are they? I asked the minister in this House to table the impact studies and I never got them. I never even got an answer.
Furthermore, when you go to a table to negotiate, you negotiate from your strengths. No one would deny the right of Mexicans or Central Americans or South Americans to participate in a self-driven international new global economy where dignity and respect for sovereignty is what is the first condition.
That applies to us. When it is suggested that I am saying that a wall should be put up around Canada, I do defend the right of the province of British Columbia to control the export of whole logs. If the minister feels that that right should be dispensed with then that means the capital investment we desire and have shepherded in British Columbia, both public and private, because remember, those forests are God-given to the people of this country, not planted by the Conservative Party, not by the Liberal Party, not by the New Democratic Party. None of us can be sanctimonious about God's work, but we have a responsibility to be prudent in dealing with those resources that were God-given.
Why would we agree to ship out whole logs and peeler logs and chips?


An hon. member:: We are not.


David Barrett: My dear friend, that is the pressure that is coming. Those are the kinds of barriers that this minister is suggesting we have to drop in the new global economy. I tell you this. The record of this government indicates to me that it has no national philosophy on energy, oil, natural gas, forest products, all the way down the line. That is what we are defending. That is what Mexico is defending. We should not be reduced to their standards. We should join the fight to bring them up to ours.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. member that I do not feel verbosity really does anything for this debate. I have
been involved with the hon. member in this issue for a couple of years now. In fact, I have been to Mexico to talk to Mexican senators about it and I do understand the dangers of going into an agreement like this.
Quite frankly, I would like to ask the hon. member, who spent most of his time attacking my party on this issue, where he was during the last election and where his party was during the last election. As I was out on the campaign trail fighting for Canada, fighting for Canadian sovereignty, his party was somewhat quiet on the whole issue of free trade.
I would say to him that the only reason we have a free trade deal today is because his party spent all its time attacking our former leader, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, instead of attacking the free trade deal. Those are the facts.
I want to ask the hon. member this quite honestly because we in this party have taken a serious look at it. We realize the position we are in, being in opposition. Quite frankly, although I do agree that there are major flaws in such an agreement and there are dangers in such an agreement, I do have to say I agree with my party that we have to be at the table.
We have to be at the table because this government did not put in a position last time in the free trade deal that allowed this mess to happen. It did not put in an extension clause, so any government in the world that wants to come into free trade can now come into it. We have to be there to renegotiate it all.
I ask the hon. member, knowing what he does about this deal, how can he say that we cannot be at the table? How are we going to protect Canadian farmers? How are we going to protect Canadian workers?


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, who is at the table? Not the Liberal Party. Who is at the table? Not the New Democrats. Who is at the table is this government and its agenda. Its agenda excludes the very things that you say should be included. Why in the world would you support its position on negotiations and then turn around and say that we may have to renegotiate?
The order of the day, my dear friend, is to say that we want no part and parcel with this government that is so stupid that it has not even included the subjects you raise.
March 24, 1992

If the Liberal Party were at the table that would be one thing. If the New Democrats were at the table that would be another, but do you trust this government? Are you asking me to trust this government?
Furthermore, on the suggestion of the attack of your leader I think it is well known and I want to reiterate it. I make no apologies for the fact that the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and I are very close personal friends. We have an agreement: I will never vote for him and he will never vote for me. But we are good friends and I ask the member to show anywhere in the record where I attacked him.
As for my own role in the free trade debate, I said consistently "praise for John Turner" even in my own election campaign as I supported my own leader, Ed Broadbent. I will show the member where I said publicly how much I admired John Turner's position. Not many politicians can do that.
I am at the stage of politics where I can do that. I came out of retirement because of this issue. So do not suggest to me that I attacked John Turner or the Liberal position.
I want to tell you in conclusion that the Liberal's position is mistaken, absolutely mistaken. It gives succour and comfort to all of the forces that are out there supporting this agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time for questions or comments has now expired. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex.
I would appreciate it if he would indicate to the Chair whether he has split his time with another member.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for York North.
I think it is a very appropriate time to have an opposition day on this topic. I want to commend my colleague from Etobicoke North for the motion he put forward, the motion that this House condemn the government for its failure to be completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
Supply
I listened intently to the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and I hope that they will realize now that it is the government that is the target in these negotiations. They are the ones that are doing the negotiating. It is not the Liberal Party and I hope they will not make the same mistake again as was made in 1988 when their leader attacked the Liberal Party because we were ahead in the polls at the time. Of course they were desperately trying to grasp on to straws like a drowning person to maintain their place as one of the opposition parties in the House of Commons.
The negotiations that are being conducted at the present time are similar to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. This government is not telling Canadians what it is getting them into because the government itself does not know because it has not done its homework prior to these negotiations.
For example, I just want to give you the fact that in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement it was not until this past month that the Minister of Agriculture finally got a handle on what subsidies and supports are received by United States farmers and food processors. A working paper was published entitled "Assistance Programs for U.S. Agriculture and Food Processors".
It is well known that the U.S. farmers, particularly grain farmers, get about a third to one-half of their income from government subsidies. Yet this government did not pause to look into this. It is only after the fact that it has become known. Now we look at the hardship being inflicted on Canadian farmers and the millions and millions of dollars in subsidies we have had to pay out to them to even remain in business.
The study states the main purpose was to provide information which might be useful in the development of rules for the use of government subsidies as envisaged in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. Yet this study was published three years after the agreement came into effect. The study was not even commissioned until after the free trade agreement was signed.
Is this how one negotiates with a stronger adversary, by waiting until after the ink on the contract is dry before investigating the strengths and weaknesses of one's adversary?

March 24, 1992
Supply
I would suggest not. I am appalled at what has happened since that trade agreement came into effect. Some 49 food processing plants in Ontario were closed, 83 across Canada, and thousands upon thousands of jobs were lost, jobs that have moved south of the border and now may even move farther south.
It is evident that the government has not been master of its own timetable. Canada has responded to an accelerated agenda largely set by Mexico and the United States. This has contributed to a situation where the government has not only failed to consult the Canadian people and the Official Opposition but has also failed to provide a clear and thorough analysis of the conditions that Canada has placed on its participation, what substantive goals it seeks, and how it proposes to reach those goals.
When this government plays to the corporate agenda it makes a mockery out of this parliamentary system and of the democratic process itself.
There are several areas that I am deeply concerned about as associate critic for trade and associate critic for agriculture. Our premise is that the free trade agreement really ignores the reality of the agricultural geography of North America. Our contention is that with respect to agriculture the free trade agreement is fatally flawed. The reality of Canadian and U.S. agriculture is such that a level playing field is an impossibility. Mother nature dictates that. Furthermore, it is an attempt to impose a model solution that will ultimately undermine the vitality of our industry in Canada.
There are three basic contradictions in the assumptions of the free trade agreement. The first contradiction applies to a more open and secure export market. Canadian agriculture is based on an inherently inferior physical base which plays the major role in reducing over-all productivity by as much as 50 per cent compared to the U.S.
The second is in respect to the protection of domestic production under supply management. While it is true these arrangements are presently sanctioned under article XI(c) of the GATT, they are clearly trade distorting in the bilateral context of the free trade agreement. It is the free trade agreement that is putting pressure on the GATT. If in fact article XI(2)(c) is not maintained, enhanced and clearly spelled out, this will lead to the demise of the poultry and dairy sector in Canada.
Considered together these lead to the conclusion that the free trade agreement will amplify the inherent distinction between the two systems and tend to erode the evolved ones such that Canadian agriculture may not only be less discrete but may decline to become merely the extensive margins of a North American system.
In Canada, 2 per cent of our crop land falls in the highest thermal category versus 81 per cent in the United States. Some 24 per cent of our crop land falls into the adequate moisture category versus 57 per cent in the United States. I submit this translates into a startling situation whereby the United States alone has 130 times the crop land in optimal agroclimatic conditions than Canada has.
Now the government adds a new dimension that allows for us to compete against a nation that does not have the same standard as we do. DDT is still used in Mexico. It has been banned in Canada for many years. There are many other chemicals, pesticides and herbicides we are not allowed to use here in Canada. When they are banned in Canada it means that we have a zero tolerance level. Is it the same for our imported foods? I suggest not. Our regulations indicate that we have minimum levels of standards that allow products into this country produced under conditions entirely different from what we have in Canada.
We had to read about this agreement in The Toronto Star this morning. I had a sneak preview last week in a small newspaper out of Michigan headlined "The opposition to Mexican free trade grows". It spells it out very clearly. Of course The Toronto Star this morning told Canadian people exactly what was happening. It is very evident when I mention the number of food processing plants that closed in Canada.
I want to just go on a little further. The relocation of U.S. food processors in Mexico always disrupts the lives of American workers. Many Americans who have worked in the food industry have lost their jobs and have received no compensation or retraining.
I want to quote a statement by the president of the National Farmers Union, Mr. Easter. He said:
Consumer prices, however, will remain at constant high levels even though the quality of food will erode as more chemicals are used. The corporations are going to Mexico because they can make higher profits there.
March 24, 1992

I am appalled at the lack of environmental safeguards in the agreement. It makes a mockery out of the green plan. Why do negotiators not demand that both the United States and Mexico measure up to our standards in terms of automotive emissions, the use of pesticides, herbicides and chemicals that I referred to a moment ago?
Today the Government of Canada has no loyalty to the Canadian people; only to the transnational corporate interests. Rather than leading by example and purchasing Canadian products, we were appalled just recently about the purchase of Canadian needs in the U.S., particularly the order for U.S. built locomotives for a Crown corporation in Canada, Canadian National.
I am also appalled that the purchase of carpet for one of the buildings of this institution was made through a U.S. firm.
When the government talks about Canadian standards and talks about the advantages of buying Canadian, I suggest that it should lead the way. It should show the example. It should maintain our standards here in Canada. If we are going to have free trade with Mexico, let it come up to our standards. Let it bring its wages up to our standards and let it bring its standard of living up to what we have here in Canada for the benefit of all of North America.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan - Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in hearing the hon. member speak about how the agricultural and agrifood area will be affected by the North American free trade agreement and, to some extent, how it has already been affected by the free trade agreement.
I was particularly interested in his comments about the food processing industry. It is in that area I would like to direct my question to him. The area that I represent, Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, is a producer of fresh fruits and vegetables. It is also an infant grape growing and wine making area.
Given his comments on what he has been able to read about the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement, I wonder whether in fact he sees the death of our agricultural industry with respect to soft fruits, grapes and vegetables and whether in fact there is any hope in the future for the food processing industry which has already taken major body blows and is down now at eight count and may well be there for the full ten
Supply
count. I wonder if he might comment and give his view of that under today's tripartite negotiations.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because I indicated in my address that 83 food processing plants have closed in Canada since January 1989 when free trade came in.
In Ontario where a lot of the soft fruit is grown, as well as in British Columbia, 49 food processing plants have closed and 5,635 jobs were lost. Many of these are gone forever. When this government came into power one of the first things it did was to go through a process it called standardization of regulations. In some cases it meant that the regulations we had in Canada in the food sector, which were among the most stringent in the world, were watered down to compare to that of our neighbours to the south.
I mentioned the fact that many of the pesticides, herbicides and chemicals currently used in other countries are not allowed in Canada. This will have a dramatic impact on our whole system as grade standards and so on are brought down.
I noticed that even the labour rates in the U.S. that are being paid to workers in the orchards and the fruit and vegetables business are very low compared to those in Canada. The writing is on the wall unless we as Canadians step in and insist that our industry be protected and our standards be upheld.
In Mexico the minimum wage rate has dropped by almost 60 cents an hour in the last 10 years. The minimum wage rate is now 59 cents per hour. In the Maquiladora area the rate dropped from $1.36 in 1980 to 99 cents an hour in 1989. In the manufacturing sector there was another massive drop. Those rates are going the wrong way. If we were bringing those workers up to Canadian standards we would not have any fear. But for Canada to enter into an agreement such as we have, an agreement that will undermine the viability of our industry in Canada, I believe it is time that we as Canadians made sure that food production and food processing be made a national security item in Canada.
In 1935 the U.S. Food Security Act was brought in for this very purpose. It was was to protect American workers and their food production sector. We need the same thing in Canada. I think it is high time we got on with it.

March 24, 1992
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before debate is resumed, the Chair wishes to announce that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops is in order. Resuming debate on the amendment. The hon. member for York West, for 10 minutes.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise for my allotted 10 minutes to speak to the motion put by my colleague and neighbour, the member of Parliament for Etobicoke North. I commend him for suggesting:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to be
completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and
objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
I commend the member for Etobicoke North because the debate this morning on the floor of the House of Commons to be viewed by Canadians on all three coasts could not have been better timed. As this debate has already pointed out, we had to rely this morning on The Toronto Star, as have Canadians, to try to learn what the Government of Canada has been dealing with in terms of the other two countries, namely the United States and Mexico, with respect to a North American free trade agreement.
With all due respect, it is a shame that we have to rely on one of our newspapers to begin to enlighten not only Canadians but elected Canadians who are supposed to deal with issues on behalf of the 26 million shareholders of this company called Canada.
The question ought to be: Why is the House of Commons not seized of the issue? Why is the House of Commons not debating the parameters of what it is that Canada should be pushing for or what Canada should not be encouraging? Why is the House of Commons on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast to coast not giving the green light or the red light to this government? What is democracy all about if we talk about it, preach it and the Prime Minister exports it to the Third World countries? He makes great speeches abroad about the ability of people to exercise their democratic franchise. Yet back home, on an issue that is fundamental to
the livelihoods of all Canadians, there is silence and ignorance. When there is silence and ignorance, whether it is true or not, there is certain to be fear of the unknown at the very least.
What is the reality today with the existing free trade agreement? There is fear and consternation because we are seeing job losses every day. We are experiencing plant closures. We are witnessing movement of goods, capital and factories southward from our border. We are also witnessing no transition programs.
Do you remember the Prime Minister during that 1988 campaign, which was largely a single issue campaign, saying: "At the very worst, Canadians, there will be people displaced by this free trade agreement. There are bound to be transitional difficulties". But for those difficulties he said: "This government will have the best transitional programs in the western world". Ask a 55 year old worker in your riding or mine who has been put on the unemployment or welfare line because the free trade agreement has dramatically altered his lifestyle by closing a factory. Where are those transition programs for that 50 year old worker?
Those programs are called unemployment insurance. After you have exhausted unemployment insurance it is called welfare. After welfare it is good luck. Those are the transition programs this government has put in place since the free trade agreement.
Canadians are asking themselves where the rewards of the free trade agreement are. Where are the rewards this Prime Minister supported, by third person advertisements in the name of these great multinational corporations? The Business Council on National Issues sent letters to employees saying that if they did not get behind the free trade agreement, their jobs would be in peril. Canadians have a right to know where those rewards are today as a result of the free trade agreement. Are there more rewards or more problems as a result of that free trade agreement?
That is the context of the current reality. Add to that Investment Canada, which basically means it is wide open for foreign investment. This party has never been against foreign investment, but the definition of foreign investment to the Tories equates foreign investment with foreign take-overs and we feel that is wrong.
March 24, 1992

Our foreign policy no longer seems to be a Canadian one. It is tied more to the orbit of the United States, as friendly and as good neighbours as they may be. We have airlines looking to the south and perhaps a government decision upping the percentage of foreign investment.
Canadians are not only worried about losing their immediate jobs; the country is aggravated by the free trade agreement. There is fear we are losing the ability to control our own future and our own destiny. The decision-making power seems to be flowing away from us with each and every decision this government makes.
Now we are supposed to blindly give a free ride, a blank cheque to this government to negotiate a North American free trade agreement. Can you imagine? Without any information and with the results clear as day on the free trade agreement, Canadians can only respond with a certain amount of genuine fear for themselves and their nation. The Toronto Star tells us today it is no minor tinkering. The document that was leaked, in terms of the working document Canada is working on, talks about no restrictions on importing goods that were processed in Mexico.
Think about that. If unemployment lines are now stretching, what is it going to mean if Mexicans will be able to export to our country, without any hindrance, when their labour rates are 59 cents an hour?
Government members talk about harmonizing truck, rail and bus transport, but our rail system has been gutted already. Our truckers have been virtually thrown off the road after they have been deregulated because they cannot compete with the Americans. Yet shipping, where we can compete the best, is oddly enough not part of that. The trade agreement only covers areas where we cannot compete.
Telecommunications is going to be opened up. The textile industry is going to be opened up. There may be a complete ban on compulsory licensing, which has permitted generic drug firms in Canada to survive and prosper and keep the cost of prescription drugs at a reasonable rate for Canadians. That will be impossible.
They also talk about a dispute mechanism in the North American free trade context similar to the bilateral one
Supply
which is not working. They expect Canadians to be silent. Are Canadians not supposed to ask this government when it was given the green light to move on these things? What about involving the average citizen, the average Joe, who does give a damn about this country and his or her place in it?
Our party is not as dogmatic as our friends to the left here. This country is a trading country. The Liberal Party has always been a freer trade party. If there has been any history of building walls, it is the party that sits on the government side that has done it. We reserved the right in the last election and we reserve the right again in the next election to say that a deal at any cost is not a deal worth signing. Therefore we bring principles to what should be in or out of a trade agreement. We believe we should be at the table, otherwise who will be protecting and advancing our interests? We believe we should be righting the wrong and using this NAFTA as a way to right the wrong of the FTA.
Canadians must be part of the equation. They cannot be told at the end this is good for them. Canadians must decide for themselves, in conjunction with their Parliament, what is good for themselves, their children and the future of their country.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me intervene in this debate by making a comment and asking a question of my colleague. I was very much interested in the content of the words he delivered and the passion with which he spoke.
As my colleague already knows, we in the Niagara Peninsula and specifically in the Welland-St. Catharines and Thorold riding have been devastated by this free trade. First our grape growers were virtually wiped out, and the member for Lambton-Middlesex made reference to this in his talk before. In the last week we have had 3,000 layoffs and that is directly attributable, in my opinion, to the free trade deal with the United States. These layoffs were from General Motors in St. Catharines.
We are now trying to regroup in our area and do something for the men and women who were laid off, but if we persist in going ahead with this free trade deal with Mexico, it will prove to be as much of a debacle as the free trade deal is and was with the United States.

March 24, 1992
Supply
The hon. member has mentioned the ordinary citizens of Canada should have some say in this. In my opinion they were coerced in the last election. They were frightened into voting for this government and for a free trade deal. Upon reflection, they know, as we know, this has not been a good deal for our country.
I put the question to the hon. member, my colleague. In your view, will the Mexican free trade deal help or hinder the auto trade in Canada? Will the Mexican free trade deal, like the American free trade deal we have, help or hinder our farmers in this country?
Could he address himself to those two groups?


Sergio Marchi: I would like to thank my hon. friend and colleague for his comment and question.
If the free trade agreement is the benchmark by which this government will conduct itself at the table for NAFTA, we should not only worry about the auto and the agricultural industry, we should worry in general. Since the trade agreement with the United States has been consummated, every poll has pointed to the great dissatisfaction of Canadians, and of the many constituencies that have been affected.
It should be a strong signal to this government that if Canadians do not believe or have confidence in the trade agreement that was negotiated, it should be incumbent on the government to right that wrong by taking Canadians into its confidence.
Can you imagine a country like Canada having energy not only on the table but in the free trade agreement when a country like Mexico at least had the vision and courage to tell the Americans, even before coming to the table, that energy is not up for discussion? That is to say at least they have delineated a point of no return. They drew their line in the sand.
I am not sure what our Prime Minister's line in the sand is, because quite often he governs as if he thinks he owns this country; as if it is a private commodity up for discussion. It should be brought home to him that he does not own this country. This is not his country to play with. This is not his country to experiment with. This is a country he happens to be guiding on a temporary basis, on behalf of Canadians and in their best interests. He
owns nothing. But he owes it to Canadians to deal with the NAFTA deal better than he did the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. He and the government he leads must learn from their mistakes.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: I am
pleased to be able to take part in this debate today.
I would like to commend the hon. member for Etobicoke North for introducing this motion today and providing the House with the opportunity to have this debate. I have a high regard for the hon. member. I have read many of his articles and have heard him speak. It is too bad his party does not listen to him once in a while.
The debate today is about the question of Canada's trade negotiations with Mexico, but we should also recognize we are involved in trade negotiations with virtually every country in the world, on a bilateral basis as well as through the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, the current Uruguay round.
These negotiations have enormous implications for all Canadians. It is good to have a day like today where we can express our views and put some comments and facts on the record so Canadians will have an improved knowledge of just what it is the government is trying to do.
I would just like to offer a quote from the C. D. Howe Institute. It said the following with regard to why Canada should participate in these Mexican-United States- Canada trade talks: "By participating, Canada may gain greater opportunities to trade with a newly outwardlooking 85 millions strong market. By standing aloof, Canada risks losing growing Mexican trade to U.S. based companies and losing investment to the United States because only U.S. based firms would have tariff free access to all three markets. If Canada is to be constructively involved in negotiations, it is important that Canada be involved from the beginning".
We are involved from the beginning. We are involved because we want to increase Canada's trade with not only the United States but Mexico and the rest of the world. Canada is the world's second most dependent nation on trade, second only to west Germany.
March 24, 1992

As a trading nation we must be constantly vigilant, looking for new opportunities. We always have to be looking for new opportunities because there is a continuing, if I can use this word, attrition of old opportunities because the world is a changing place.
When we think about trade, opportunities and even lost plants, and we had a lot of discussion this morning about plant closures and how that affects people, the fact of the matter is plant closures do affect people, unfortunately usually in a negative way because at least for a period of time they will be out of a job until there is some other opportunity at some other new plant.
Plant closures have been a fact of life ever since we have had plants, ever since the industrial revolution in the 1700s. The reason we have plant closures is because over time products become obsolete as new and better ones come into the marketplace.
We do not have too much of a buggy whip manufacturing industry these days or an anvil industry or industries that generally support the horse and carriage largely because something new came along called the automobile.
The fact of the matter is those people who were manufacturers of carriages probably had to find new lines of work and new jobs. What we have to recognize as a government and as a country is that the environment needs to be such that new opportunities can be taken advantage of. We allow new plants, new products, new technologies and take the benefit of them rather than trying to hold on to obsolete products and obsolete plants.
The world is better off with these new technologies. These new technologies are often superior goods and services. They also allow fewer people to produce the same volume of goods and services. Who would want to go back to the days of the pick and shovel in constructing roads? I do not think anyone would. That large machinery and equipment that we use in road construction, forestry, mining and all our industries means that we get the same production or more production from a fewer number of people. What that means is that for a time certain people are displaced from their jobs.
If we create the new opportunities, take advantage of the new technologies that are available, we can find new jobs for those people that are both more productive and
Supply
more rewarding at the same time and probably with a greater wage or greater standard of living than we have had in the past. That has been the story of the world for close to 300 years now and there is no real reason to think it should change.
Fighting change, as the NDP would propose through its motion here today, is simply counter-productive.
I would like to speak briefly about some of the opportunities that are available through trade with Mexico if we can negotiate a proper agreement. The president of the World Bank described Mexico's own economic reforms going on there as: "One of the most ambitious, courageous and determined programs of economic reform and institutional change recently undertaken by any country".
In 1988 Northern Telecom's telephone equipment sales to Mexico were worth $4 million. In 1989 sales were $27 million. Sales for 1990 were estimated at over $60 million, and anticipated 1991 for over $100 million and 1992 probably even greater. Mexico has only 6 million telephone lines to serve a population of 85 million. In the next 10 years over $10 billion will be spent on telephone equipment.
Canadians just happen to be the most prolific users of telephones in the world, which probably has something to do with our climate. We therefore have become good at developing telephone systems which we can sell throughout the rest of the world.
A Mexican company has awarded Spar Aerospace a $16 million contract for communications systems used in earth stations and satellite dishes. Air transport equipment sales are expanding rapidly. We have already sold Challenger jet aircraft. Additional sales are anticipated in the future. Mexico City plans to spend about $100 million on public transportation. Canadian companies stand a good chance of participating in this equipment purchase and in getting contracts. Mexico must feed more than 85 million people. Canadian exports of dairy breeding cattle are rising and Canadian farmers anticipate further sales of other dairy and grain products.
All of these are new opportunities. They are opportunities to replace certain plants or certain other economic activities that are becoming obsolete in Canada with new and growing and exciting opportunities.

March 24, 1992
Supply
That is what the government is attempting to do in negotiating this deal. We recognize that over time certain plants and processes become obsolete. New technology to allow us to develop pulp and paper, for example, has allowed northern Alberta to become one of the growth areas in pulp manufacturing in Canada.
Its new technologies have now made it possible to harvest a resource that heretofore had simply been regarded as wasteland. What that does is enable us to bring on this new technology, probably the most pollution efficient plants in the world, or at least in Canada. This means, however, that in order to meet those standards other plants in Canada are going to have to adjust, adapt, and themselves invest in new technology to meet those very strict standards that we are trying to bring into Canada with regard to the environment.
As we know, all Canadians consider the environment to be important. They want those standards, but only through technology can we meet those standards and keep our environment safe.
Some people have said that in Mexico they do not have nearly the same environmental standards and Mexico will become a pollution haven. I would like to address that. First of all, I would like to inform members of the House, in case they are unaware, that the environment is a national priority for Mexico. The government has increased eight-fold its spending on the environment in the last decade and would like to spend more. As we all know, it can only spend more if it has more. It will only have more if it can earn more. One of the ways it can earn more is through increased economic opportunities and trading opportunities.
When we look at Third World countries we all say that we would like them to become self-sufficient on their own or at least be able to become less dependent on foreign aid and be able to bring their standards in regard to pollution and the environment up to something more equivalent to ours. We then turn around and deny them an opportunity by keeping trade barriers on products that they can produce and sell in our markets. Sure we are attempting to protect our own jobs, but at the same time we are denying them opportunities. We are denying them opportunities to increase their incomes which
would then allow them to increase their imports of products that we can provide for them.
It is not productive for us to restrict trade. In fact, it is productive for us to open up trade because with this new income that they have, they will be able to buy more goods and services from us and give us new opportunities for more technologically advanced industries to produce the products and goods and services that they need.
Earlier on the Minister of Forestry spoke. He addressed the question of wages and the fact that some people have said that the wage cost in Mexico is lower than it is in Canada by a substantial amount. That is true, but that is not any reason to try to restrict trade.
Wages generally represent a relatively small part of the total cost of production, on average between 12 per cent and 15 per cent of the cost of production of goods. Less than 2 per cent of the goods Canada buys abroad comes from Mexico in spite of Mexico's lower wages.
Wages are not the only component that goes into the manufacture or product and therefore not the only component that goes into the eventual price. It can be a factor. However, one is presuming when we compare the relatively higher wages in Canada to those in Mexico that those wages are going to stay where they are.
I would suggest that the exact reverse is what will happen and is what we want to happen. We want those people to become involved in the production of goods and services that they can export to the rest of the world. That will allow them to have increased wages for their workers, an increased standard of living, to provide the kinds of money that are necessary to increase their transportation systems, to address economic priorities and social programs which are so badly needed in a country like Mexico and to bring up their environmental standards closer to the industrialized world.
What we are saying is that by allowing them increased opportunities for trade, not only are they going to be able to increase their own economic development, their own standard of living, but through that increased income that they are going to have, they will be able to offer new trading opportunities for Canadians because we still will have the goods and services that they will require.
March 24, 1992

It sounds as though we should try to determine where those opportunities might be and how we can take advantage of them so that we can ensure in Canada that we are not somehow restricting our own companies, our own private sector, from taking full advantage of trade with Mexico or for that matter with the rest of the world.
I think that some of the initiatives that have been taken so far are helpful in that direction. I think the government has been trying to use the private sector through information seminars. I will not list here all the things that go on through documents that are produced by the government outlining potential trade opportunities throughout the world. It organizes trade missions such as we have seen.
Recently, we saw a trade mission, led by the Minister for International Trade, to Japan. It opens up new opportunities and contacts for Canadian businessmen. I think these are the kinds of things through which the government can play a constructive role.
I would think that we would want to see increased trade delegations to Mexico to increase the opportunity for Canadians to go on these trade missions, to develop new contacts with industries in Mexico and to allow trade opportunities to be developed.
One of the problems we have in Canada, being a relatively small country compared to the United States, Japan or Germany and having somewhat smaller businesses if you like, is it is not always completely economic or at least affordable for a smaller company to go on its own trade mission to Japan or to Mexico, to finance itself and to try to find the contacts even though the markets may be there.
One of the things that the government really can do to be helpful to business is to provide these opportunities, to lead the way and to lead delegations that can meet their counterparts or the people in these other countries. After that initial contact, most Canadian businesses are resourceful enough to further develop those contacts and put them into a form of trade, either importing or exporting, that benefits Canadians through the acquisition of new products that we can use.
Supply
They can be economic products, less costly products if you like for consumers but those contacts can allow us to find new markets for our own products that we can sell to produce income and jobs for Canadians.
Trade has been shown over the last 300 years, ever since the industrial revolution, to be something that benefits all economies. Talking about maintaining barriers and restricting trade is simply an attempt to take us back 300 years. Frankly, it seems to me that members of the House here should be addressing how we can develop those opportunities and use Canadian expertise and technology which we know we have.
We know we are capable of producing goods and services that are as good as any other in the world. We can develop and use that to trade with the world, and not look for ways to impinge trade or maintain trade restrictions.
I want to thank the hon. member for Etobicoke North for proposing this motion today and for selecting this topic for debate because it is an important one. It is one that everyone knows during the last election involved considerable discussion. Probably the next one will too. I think it is healthy that the House had this opportunity today. I thank him for that opportunity.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I wish it was all as simple as the member for Edmonton Northwest tells us it is.
You may not know and I believe it is the case that the member has also called for reducing the unemployment payments to the 12 per cent of Edmontonians who are now unemployed. He has called, I gather, publicly for eliminating the corporation tax as well.
In short, I do not think he really understands the problems that go on with most families that live in his constituency or in mine. In a questionnaire that I sent out last summer to all constituents, of those who replied, about 60 per cent were opposed to a free trade agreement with Canada, Mexico and the United States. About 30 per cent were sympathetic or in favour and 10 per cent were undecided.
In view of the present state of the Canadian economy which many people think has been exacerbated by the

March 24, 1992
Supply
workings of a very badly negotiated free trade agreement with the United States, I wonder if the member will tell us whether he thinks his government has the intelligence, the will or the knowledge to negotiate a good agreement now with Mexico. It has been so secretive about it that we have to read in one of the newspapers this morning as to what it is likely to have in it.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond to both of those points.
The first one was with regard to unemployment insurance. What he says is essentially correct. Unemployment insurance has become perhaps the single largest expenditure of the federal government these days. It is in the range of $20 billion.
Following the premiers' conference on the economy which was held recently, the premier of Ontario called for spending on infrastructure and public works, one of the premiers called for increased training for workers and some premiers called for other things such as reduction in taxes.
I suggested that what we should really be doing is rather than spending $20 billion a year on unproductivity, that is not working, we should perhaps try to use about one-quarter of that to see if we could not put it into some of those things the premiers had suggested. I even outlined in my remarks what we might direct it at.
I suggested to get some of these projects going, we would direct one-third toward public works or capital works as the premier of Ontario was suggesting. That could be matched by the provincial and municipal governments.
I suggested we put one-third into employee training. It seemed to me employee training was far more sensible than employees waiting around for jobs that are not there. I suggested at the time some job creation initiatives as well as some employee retraining would be a more productive use of unemployment insurance payouts.
With regard to the question of whether or not we can negotiate a deal with Mexico given the record of the deal with the United States, I think that this just shows we can get a pretty good deal. I would like to remind the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast that prior to the last
election he was having some concerns as to which party he was going to represent.
In making his announcement that he was going to run as a Conservative candidate, he stated that the reason he was going to do so was that he felt the free trade agreement with the United States, on which the election was based, was so important for his constituents and for western Canada that he would support the Conservative Party to ensure that the free trade agreement was supported and would come into place.
It is a little strange now that he would question whether or not based on our record we have the skill to negotiate an agreement with Mexico when, during the last election, he campaigned vigorously suggesting that this agreement was a very important agreement for Canada.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member has not read my book Inside Outer Canada, but if he would be good enough to read it he would see why I changed my mind on the free trade agreement, as many Canadians in his constituency and mine have also done. The fine print and the practice has turned out to be very different from what many of us were lead in good faith to believe would be the case before the election.
I would ask the member to indicate whether he thinks the free trade agreement with the United States has turned out as well as he was hoping. Again, I would simply put on the record the fact that he is correct that I did feel it would be in the interests of Canada as a whole, and Edmonton in particular, but since then thousands and thousands of jobs have been lost across the country.
I am not saying that free trade was the only cause, but certainly many Canadians in the hon. member's constituency and mine believe that a badly administered and a weak-wristed implementation of the free trade agreement has caused this country's economy to suffer enormously because of it.
We all have the right to change our minds on the basis of new facts learned or new things seen.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will say yes, we all have the right to change our minds on the basis of new facts and information. I do that quite often. Frankly, that is the reason we have public hearings, committee hearings and things like that, to get the new information
March 24, 1992

which sometimes turns out to be different from what we thought.
If we were not prepared from time to time to change our minds, there would be no point in holding these hearings and discussions and we would not be serving our own constituents or the Parliament of Canada and the Canadian people very well.
As to the question of whether the free trade agreement has turned out as well as one would hope, the answer is that we know we have had a recession in Canada. We also know that recessions come along from time to time. As far as I know, for the last 500 years we have had recessions. The business cycle is somewhat unpredictable. Therefore, the recession has made it difficult for a number of companies to adjust and in some cases it may have been aggravated by the free trade agreement.
We also knew going into the free trade agreement that there would be substantial changes taking place in the economy, both job losses and job gains. I would say to the hon. member that in my opinion we have had more job gains than job losses. I know that has been true in my province of Alberta. We have had more job gains than job losses.
Yes, I think it has been a good deal on balance and it will be an even better deal once the economy of the United States starts to grow again. They have also been through a recession and once new opportunities for increased exports come about, the free trade agreement will be seen as a great deal and a much improved situation.
I would just like to end by saying one more thing. He said that after the election he determined that some of the things in the fine print were maybe a little different than what he had thought.
It seems to me for somebody who is going to be campaigning it is an admission that he did not bother to read the fine print. Maybe everybody does not have to read the fine print, but people who are campaigning on a substantive issue in a serious way should try and do the best they can to inform themselves of the facts. The fine print was there, it was available and the agreement was all out there.
Supply
I am not sure that I would want to say: "Look, I have to change my mind because I did not bother to read it". It seems to me that the Minister for International Trade got into some difficulty just because he said something similar and the opposition was quick to jump on it.
I am not sure that should be taken as an excuse. However, I do acknowledge that from time to time we should be prepared to change our minds. That is why we are here, to gain information and to do the best job we can for the country.
I believe the free trade agreement with the United States will prove to be an agreement that no one is going to want to tear up in the future.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, there were allegations a little bit earlier from one of the members from British Columbia that the child labour laws were going to be broken by this new free trade deal. I am in favour of having laws which protect our younger people from going to work at too early an age.
My question is very specific and it is direct. If there is no protection for children in this free trade deal, would the member who has just spoken be prepared to go ahead and sign this deal anyway?


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very good question. I must say that I have very little knowledge of the question of child labour laws in Mexico. I would agree with him that we should have laws to protect children from exploitation. We should encourage all other countries in the world to do the same thing.
I would just like to point out one thing, however. In poor countries one of the reasons children are exploited or have to work is because in poor countries there is not enough income within the total economy and within the family for the family to survive. As a result, people often go to work at a very early age rather than getting an education and training which would further them as persons.
Through this agreement we are trying to provide opportunities for increases in employment and opportunity, in economic development, in increased wages for the Mexican people in the hopes that they will have an increased standard of living and will be able to deal with some of their social problems.

March 24, 1992
Supply
This agreement would probably help to alleviate some of the conditions the hon. member has suggested exist there and which I take at face value.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, the motion currently before the House which has been introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Etobicoke North could not be more timely nor could it be more relevant. It comes at a time when Canadians are deeply concerned about a great many matters affecting us all. It comes at a time of uncertainty and uncertainty is the greatest enemy that we face in this country.
By uncertainty, I am speaking of economic and constitutional uncertainty and of the uncertainty Canadians have now with regard to their government and some of their most sacred institutions. Canadians wonder whether those truths, which were once held to be self-evident, are being abandoned in the name of such ill-defined terms as globalism and rationalization.
Canadians are not afraid of change. However, the question that we must grapple with is how best to prepare Canadians for change. Some would argue that this should be the government's top priority and that brings us to the motion that is before the House.
To many Canadians, the North American free trade agreement is a frightening prospect, not because Canadians are afraid of competing with the United States or Mexico or anyone for that matter, but rather because Canadians have seen firsthand what the U.S. free trade agreement has done to our economy and to our national psyche.
Canadians have developed a very deep mistrust of this government. They remember the 1988 election when they were asked to decide on the basis of the then proposed Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and to choose between two diametrically opposed positions.
In many cases, the debate which followed was conducted with neither honesty nor forthrightness. Rather, it became emotional, in some cases irrational, with accusations and innuendoes being hurled around about people's motivations and their integrity and financed by a third-party campaign which raised serious doubts about the fundamental basis of our democracy.
Since that election, the promises of the government about the successes in our economy which would ensue as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement have not coincided with the experience of Canadians.
Canadians have seen time and time again and have read in their newspapers that Canadian companies are closing down and moving to the United States. Although the government has repeatedly tried to argue that these job losses, these plant closings were not related to the free trade agreement, they were related to something else, it has not assuaged the concerns of Canadians, particularly those who found themselves unemployed with no chance of re-employment.
Canadians have also seen the United States not respect the terms which purportedly they had negotiated in the free trade agreement. We have seen it recently with softwood lumber; we have seen it even more recently with the Honda decision.
Canadians are now once again seeing a familiar pattern emerge with the North American free trade agreement. They see a government that is unwilling to divulge its agenda with regard to its negotiations with the United States and Mexico. When Canadians attempt to learn their government's priorities with respect to these negotiations they are stymied. They are told that these negotiations are too sensitive for public discussion or for public scrutiny.
The result is nagging doubts about whose interests this government truly represents.
Canadians are thus held as captive audiences, forbidden to see what is unfolding on the stage until the principal actors deem it appropriate. Canadians must follow the process as best they can through politically coded messages coming from the Minister of Finance, the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister. They are left to wonder and to worry.
Or worse, Canadians find out what is happening through press leaks or through reports coming from agreements being made available to legislatures in the United States or in Mexico, not through the forthright expression of a government willing to come clean about what interests it is pursuing in these talks and what the government's bottom line is and what it is negotiating for and on behalf of Canadians.
What can this government do to address this uncertainty which has shaken the confidence of Canadians so dramatically in recent months? Here I would refer to the motion that is before this House. I would argue that this government should be completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and objectives in the current North American free trade talks. Those are the words of the motion that is before this House today. It is an
March 24, 1992

expression of the absolute failure of this government with respect to these negotiations.
Surely this government can do this much to restore the faith of Canadians in their system of government by coming clean with their elected representatives and by telling the Canadian people through the Parliament of Canada what it is negotiating on behalf of Canadians and keeping Canadians informed every step of the way. That is the exact opposite of what this government has practised since the North American free trade negotiations were initially disclosed and discussed more than one year ago.
The government must begin to address those concerns which Canadians have about their own lives, those of their families and how this deal might impact on them. For instance, in this morning's Toronto Star it is reported that where the new North American free trade agreement is concerned, "there appears to be no specific protection provided in critical areas of the environment, health and safety standards and workers' rights".
Does this mean that Canadian workers will be competing against Mexican workers in the Maquiladora region who earn less than one dollar an hour and live as virtual economic slaves? Is this whom we will be competing against? Is this what Canadian workers will be faced with? It seems to be no longer a question of "if". There are already Canadian companies in Mexico taking advantage of these virtual slave labour conditions. Is this what rationalization means? Is this competitiveness?
Surely this government can indicate to Canadians today whether these standards will be tolerated in a North American free trade agreement. The answer should be self-evident. Yet, this government remains strangely silent. What exactly is going on with these negotiations?
On the environment, can our government not say that there will be no deal unless we receive commitments of environmental protective standards not only from the Mexicans but from the Americans as well? Surely this government can do no less.
What about agriculture? If I read the bracketed text of the North American free trade agreement, in agriculture it proposes that the agreement will call for allowing the Mexican government to subsidize the exporting of the production from these factory farms purchased by inves-
Supply
tors from Europe, Japan, the United States or any other country, land owned by small farmers in Mexico. The agreement will allow the Mexican government to subsidize the exporting of the production of these lands into the U.S. and into Canada. Effectively, this means that family farmers in these three countries would be seriously harmed under the terms that are in this proposed text.
Is this the text that the Canadian government is about ready to sign with the United States and with Mexico? At the same time, as they are preparing to negotiate, all the while protesting their fidelity to article XI of the GATT, they are preparing to say that Canadian supply management programs are effectively about to be abandoned to this Uruguay round.
In any case, the very least the government can do is let the people know that our interests, our standards of living will not be abandoned in the name of competitiveness and rationalization.
We are not scared to be competitive but we want to know that this government is on our side.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with both interest and admiration to my distinguished friend who has developed some of the considerations involved in this debate with his usual skill and insight.
At the risk of some mild caricature, we have heard today one party, the government party, advance the proposition that everything is fine: "Trust us, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement is a flawless agreement and equally the North American free trade agreement will bring immense benefit to Canadians". On the other end of the spectrum we have heard our colleagues from the New Democratic Party embrace their usual protectionist stance, looking for some sort of fortress Canada which does not actively seek export markets or engage in the challenges of globalism in both trade and investment.
Somewhere between those two extreme poles the member who has just spoken has developed a position which is worthy of some further discussion. I would seek his comment particularly on how this government has failed to act on providing the assistance to Canadians to accept the challenge of freer trade and to benefit from the reduction and removal of trade barriers around the

world. I would ask him whether he sees a need for active government involvement in providing the assistance to Canadians so that they can make a reality of a global trading environment.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague for his question and to compliment him on the contribution that he has made to defining a middle ground and a middle road for Canada in the pursuit of a trade policy.
Key to this middle road is active government intervention in order to enable Canadian firms and Canadians generally to be competitive on a global stage. We accept the phenomenon of the globalization of economic activity, but we are saying in this party that the federal government has a key role to play and an active role to play, for example, making sure that Canadians are trained and educated to meet the global challenge, that Canadians are not protected necessarily in the means of preventing them from adjusting, but that adjustment measures are in place to enable Canadians to transfer from occupations that become redundant as a result of moving toward more globalized trade and into activities that Canada may be able to benefit from.
Strangely enough the government promised with the free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. that there would be generous adjustment mechanisms. We have not seen that. As a result, Canadians have found themselves without the proper training and without the proper adjustment assistance as we have paid the price, certainly in the first three years of massive adjustment, combined with a recession which has resulted in Canadians questioning whether or not this government is on its side in terms of preparing Canada for the economy of the future and I suppose contributing to general fears and protectionist sentiments which are growing around the world.
If the government is prepared to embark Canada on a more globalized trading footing, it has to take a responsibility to ensure that Canadians are ready to meet the challenges that lie ahead. That at the same time means that we are not, as the New Democratic Party is so quick to do, turning inward and sticking our heads in the sand and denying that we cannot have agreements with other countries. Surely we can. At the same time these agreements have to recognize environmental standards that must be maintained, that Canada and other countries must work toward health and safety standards, and
that our labour force has to be allowed to adjust to the new realities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil -Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, it has been several months since the government first became aware of the fact that an association called Amities autochtones hors reserve had been issuing so-called Indian ID cards. The cards, which are readily available for $30, supposedly entitle the holder to tax exemptions and other benefits related to Indian status.
What has the government done since September 1991 to prevent further proliferation of these phoney cards? What charges will be laid against the leaders of associations that have swindled Quebecers and the government? How does the government intend to recover thousands of dollars in unpaid taxes, while the real victims are the hundreds of business people who innocently broke the law because the government, whose responsibility it was to inform them, failed to do so?
The appropriate departments failed to deal with a situation that was their responsibility, not that of these businessmen or of the card holders who felt they were entitled to tax exemptions simply because one of their relatives had Indian blood.
In concluding, I would urge the government to organize an ad campaign to inform the public about the rules that apply when an Indian shows his card off the reserve. The integrity of bona fide Indians and our governments is now under a cloud, a situation that must be corrected as soon as possible. The departments have a duty to act quickly.
March 24, 1992


ALICE HOUSING
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, Alice Housing in Nova Scotia provides housing and support services for women and children who have fled abusive situations. As one of the oldest of these projects, Alice Housing is understandably in need of repairs.
The co-ordinator approached CMHC for funding through the next step housing program only to be informed that second stage housing is not eligible for grants under this program. Funding cannot be used to assist existing units even if they are in danger of collapse.
As the situation now stands, the cost of repairing 17 units is equivalent to that of creating one, just one, new unit of second stage housing.
I ask that the minister reconsider his department's regulations. The loss of such a vital service would be a step backward in the struggle to eliminate violence against women and children.


LOBSTER FISHERY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, lobster fishermen on the Northumberland Strait in my riding strongly support the Department of Fisheries and Ocean's policy to increase the carapace size of lobster from 2.5 inches to 2.75 inches over a period of four years. They wish to send a very clear message to DFO that there should be no deviation from this conservation measure. In fact the fishermen from Mal-agash, Pugwash and Wallace established the standard themselves several years ago, as I stated in my statement in the House on April 3, 1990.
If the fishermen are prepared to set this stringent conservation standard, DFO should totally support this measure and I urge them to do so.


FAMILY PLANNING
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrat government in British
Columbia has decided that women, not politicians, not hospital boards, will make decisions about the number and spacing of their children.
B.C. is funding clinics and ensuring that hospital boards cannot refuse to provide abortion services. It is providing $300,000 to support education and information on family planning. It has established a task force on access to contraception and abortion.
Sadly, some members of the Liberal, Conservative, and Bloc Quebecois do not agree. They clearly do not understand how important it is for Canadians to have the information and education they need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. These members deny women and men access to birth control information. Because of them, women will continue to need abortion services. These misguided members defeated Motion No. 44 on family planning.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, it is now recognized throughout the world that the environment is everyone's concern and that all governments should assume their share of responsibility for it.
Here in Canada, the recent Supreme Court decision in the Oldman case reflected this state of affairs. What is even more important is to have the wisdom to realize that the environment goes beyond artificial geographic boundaries.
Bill C-13, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, passed last Thursday by the House of Commons, is in tune with this new planetary consciousness which tells us that we must respect our physical surroundings and live in harmony with our environment.
With this new law, we will be able to take account of the foreseeable environmental consequences of our projects and activities and to make enlightened decisions in the spirit of sustainable development, which has become a world priority.

March 24, 1992



Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, on the first anniversary of the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill, it is fitting to remind ourselves of some basics. First, that the term "sustainable development" is more than just a slogan.
If governments mean what they say they have an obligation, now greater than ever, to prevent accidents, catastrophes, spills, overfishing, overcutting, over-farming, desertification, you name it, all the excesses our society has been prone to committing.
The Valdez oil spill, now a symbol with Love Canal, Bhopal, Chernobyl, reminds us that we have the capability to destroy the very foundation of our society, the environment, without resorting to nuclear arms.
While the threat of nuclear war is fading, the degradation of the environment continues. The transition to an environmentally sustainable world will not be easy, but it is the best option we have.


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, March 21 was the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. It was a day and is a day to promote racial harmony across our great nation. The theme "Together we are better" should be stressed in workplaces, communities, families, and in schools.
Though things are changing there are still many examples of discrimination occurring every day. For instance 90 per cent of placement agencies in this country are asked by clients to reject workers because of their skin colour. This is completely unacceptable.
Let us celebrate our differences while promoting equality for all. If we do not stop racism, who will?


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the Cape Breton pensioners' association has requested that the Cape Breton Development Corporation release information on retirement packages that are available to management and employee personnel.
The pensioners' association wants to utilize this information to make a case for the enhancement of benefits presently paid to retired employees who were not part of management.
Officials of the Cape Breton Development Corporation told the association that they will not be given this information and they should hire a lawyer if they want to obtain it.
The corporation is not covered under access to information, so it would seem that this group will have to undertake a lengthy legal procedure in order to obtain information that should be freely available.
Since this is not a matter of national security, I urge the minister responsible for the Cape Breton Development Corporation to instruct officials responsible for pension plans at the corporation to release this information. The workers have a right to know.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-13, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, was drafted to a large extent by Canadians themselves. They have clearly indicated that they want the federal government to change the way it conducts environmental assessments and to meet its responsibilities.
Three series of public consultations took place in the past four years. Bill C-13, adopted on third reading last week, responds directly to the needs and wishes expressed by those who came forward to give their opinions.
The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act will give every one of us the opportunity to express our opinions on federal government decisions concerning developments that could change our lives and affect our environment for good or ill, in accordance with our commitment to sustainable development.
March 24, 1992

Constitutional questions must be settled at the constitutional table and environmental issues must be dealt with by the environment ministers.


LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has just recognized publicly Louis Riel's role as a founder of Manitoba. That is hypocritical and outrageous! The memory of Louis Riel is being used to promote constitutional reform.
Louis Riel struggled to give his people a country. He was driven out and hanged for that reason. On Saturday, March 15, I went to St. Boniface. I wanted to denounce the contemptuous attitude of the government, which uses a martyr's memory in such a low way. I am proud to belong to the same tradition as Louis Riel. I will never accept his name being used to manipulate Francophones and native people.


DESTINY 92
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this month a successful career fair was held in Chilliwack.
Called "Destiny 92", it was hosted co-operatively by the Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce, the Chilliwack School District, the University College of the Fraser Valley, Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack, the Chilliwack Public Library and ECIC. This was Chilliwack's first ever career fair.
Large crowds of people of all ages attended. Many were young students while others were mature adults curious about a career change or upgrading. As well as displays by sponsors, there were displays from a variety of fields ranging from police, fire-fighting, trades, and significantly high tech and service industries. In short, if the job exists it was represented at this fair.
My encouragement goes out to those who attended to learn about career choices.
My congratulations go out to Roy McLoughlin and his committee of organizers for a job well done. Thank you
5. 0. 31
Cottenwood Shopping Mall for making the space available for this important career fair.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian gas producers have been keeping a nervous eye on the huge potential of the Mexican gas industry.
As Doig's Digest has noted: "Mexico's proved reserves, strategically located to interconnect with the Gulf Coast pipeline network linking Texas with U.S. markets, stand at 73 trillion cubic feet. In comparison, Canada has remaining marketable established gas reserves of 79 tcf, which includes 11 tcf in the Mackenzie Delta/Beaufort Sea area".
Mexico can produce in volumes, at prices, and with a proximity to markets which could place Canadian production, especially from frontier or difficult sources, at a severe disadvantage.
The government must do nothing, such as abandoning regulatory control of pipelines, that would throw our domestic market open to cheap Mexican gas. The result would be a devastation of the western and northern petroleum industry similar to that visited on Ontario manufacturing by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Hon. William Winegard, the Minister for Science, announced significant funding for the three federal granting councils.
The budgets for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Humanities Research Council and the Medical Research Council will increase by 4 per cent a year for the next four years. Funds for research and university training will thus increase by $321.5 million between 1992-93 and 1995-96. The new funds will give the councils the room they need to plan their activities and give more support to research and training.

March 24, 1992
Oral Questions
That is very positive for the scientific research community. It is another example of our government's efforts to stimulate scientific research.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in the days, months and years to come women implanted with potentially dangerous breast prostheses will come forward for help. They will ask that their implants be removed.
Dow Corning, the implant manufacturer, simply does not care what happens to Canadian women and has offered no money to help them. The federal minister of health says that the provinces should fund removal through our medicare system. But some provincial governments are unwilling to help.
In Manitoba the minister of health said that women with implants for enhancement purposes should seek removal costs from the manufacturer.
Canadian women trusted in this federal government when they assumed that the breast implants had been tested for safety prior to approval. Now they are caught in a tug of war involving the industry and federal and provincial governments.
I urge the minister of health, who guarantees the safety of these implants, to play a leadership role and assure Canadian women this government's lack of vigilance will not cost them another $3,000 when they seek to have these implants removed. Canadian women should not be made to suffer.


TEACHERS' STRIKE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, you and I know that any strike by Ottawa high school teachers is strictly a matter for the province of Ontario.
I am not taking sides in this fist-fight between the Ottawa Board of Education and its 1,000 teachers. But what worries me, what is filling the parents with doubts and fears is what should concern the federal government. What happens to those grade 12 and 13 students especially, who are caught in the middle of this dispute,
just as they are on the final approach to entrance requirements for university.
If the two sides in the OBE strike hunker down for a three to four week siege, I want the minister responsible for universities to alert those institutions that highly qualified, innocent victims need some special exemptions to carry on their education.
Surely, it is up to the federal government to help these young people to go on and build the Canada we all love.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['I know the hon. member is anxious about that and I will do everything I can to report to the House tomorrow.']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
For months we have been asking the government for progress reports on the negotiations between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Today, thanks to Action Canada, we were able to obtain documents that the government refuses to show to Canadians.
The document, which was prepared last year, contains 500 pages in which the economic future of all Canadians is hanging in the balance. Contrary to what the government told us, this document will take precedence over the agreement it signed a few years ago with the United States.
I wish the minister would tell me whether it is true this document will replace the free trade agreement we signed with the United States a few years ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I am quite sure that he put some considerable thought into his question.
There is a debate going on today and I remind the House of the consideration of an opposition motion:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to be completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
The difficult task I have, on behalf of all of you, is to make sure that questions that are asked do not come within the wording of that motion.

I think the first question is acceptable, but I am asking hon. members to keep in mind carefully that I am bound by the rules as we all are.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, first let me just put one of my hon. friend's comments in context. He said: "Where the economic future of all Canadians is hanging in the balance".
Trade with the Mexicans is about $2 billion or $2.5 billion which compares with our trade with the Americans of $256 billion, or the total size of our economy which is up in excess of $700 billion.
We should put this all in context. The specific question that my hon. friend has asked is whether a free trade agreement with Mexico would take precedence over the free trade agreement with the United States. The answer is no.
We have said on many, many occasions that if there are to be any changes to the free trade agreement with the United States that they would have to be improvements on that agreement. They would also require the agreement of both the Americans and ourselves.
My hon. friend can be assured that if there are going to be any changes to the free trade agreement with the United States, they will be very, very carefully reviewed and would only be agreed upon if they were improvements.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question of the minister. It is related to this new development that we have today.
It is a very comprehensive document that covers a lot of the areas that were covered before. In this document, it is indicated that the government decided many months ago that this deal with Mexico will be in place by January 1, 1993. At that time, this government, which does not have much legitimacy in Canada being at 12 per cent in the polls, will be in the fifth year of its mandate.
Will the minister give a guarantee to this country that the government will not sign this deal before we have an election in Canada?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I should remind my hon. friend that his predecessor drove an election on free trade and did not do very well in it. I would talk to my hon. friend before jumping to that sort of conclusion.


Mr. Peterson:: Call an election, Mike.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If it were my decision, maybe yes.
The question that my hon. friend has posed though is about the date for the coming into force of a free trade agreement including Mexico and the United States.
The date would be put in as an objective, but we have said all along that the timing for an agreement would be driven by the agreement. The agreement would not be driven by the timing.
We want to ensure that we get a good agreement. Depending on the timing of that agreement, it might come before or after an election. Who would know?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the minister has recognized that as far as he is concerned, he would rather have an election before.
In an election before, this time this government will be judged on what it has done. Last time, it was making promises. Now we know that it has not delivered, and Canadian workers are paying a terrible price for the free trade deal.
Will the minister tell his Prime Minister that if the government trusts the Canadian people, it will go to the people first. This time, you will be out of office.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me again put things in perspective here.
An election on a free trade agreement involving 75 per cent of our trade might have been an appropriate thing as the Leader of the Opposition and his predecessor had felt it would. But to have an election that is fought on the basis of less than 1 per cent of our trade surely is a bizarre suggestion.
Is my hon. friend suggesting that other economic issues, the issue of national unity and the issue of social policy are not important, that we should be fighting an election based on 1 per cent of our trade? That is ridiculous.

March 24, 1992
Oral Questions


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the health of the Canadian automotive sector which is central to our manufacturing base has rested largely on the auto pact.
It is now clear that the United States is demanding the elimination of the auto pact in the current trade negotiations with Mexico and Canada. Why is this government negotiating a trilateral agreement which does not preserve the terms of the auto pact?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the basis of my hon. friend's question.
We have said all along that our objective in this negotiation is to preserve the auto pact. Our objective is that if there is to be any change in the terms of the auto pact, it would be replaced by something that was equal to or better than the auto pact.
My hon. friend should also be aware that the reason automotive trade is on the table is that currently there are exports by Mexico into Canada of about $1.4 billion of automotive products. It is only $100 million the other way. The reason that is so is because of the auto decrees of the Mexicans which basically result in one-way free trade. They get access to our market duty free; we do not have access to their markets. One of our key objectives in the free trade agreement with the Mexicans is to get better access to their markets.


Roy MacLaren: I see how
effective the automotive provisions of the free trade agreement are in the case of Honda. The minister knows perfectly well that in the current Honda dispute, the United States is exploiting the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and I use the Prime Minister's phrase, to harass Canadian exports. Moreover, it is no secret now that the United States is seeking higher content requirements in the current trade negotiations.
Can the minister tell the House why his government is negotiating an agreement that will make major changes to the rules of origin and content requirements for automobiles?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Honda problems and the problems with
CAMI have pointed out some clear problems with the interpretation of the rules of origin.
We have chapter 18 consultations under way under the free trade agreement to try to resolve that problem. We have set an objective, as I have said in the House on a number of occasions, of clarifying the rules of origin for a North American free trade agreement so that we would avoid the problem. That means setting the rules in advance and making sure that they are clearly understood and transparent so that we would avoid the problems we have now.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, following on the answer from the Minister for International Trade, should there be an election on the Mexico trade issue, we would hope that the Liberals' position was as clear as the last time when they ran in the election.
Referring to the draft text that the Leader of the Official Opposition spoke about today, my question to the Minister for International Trade is it appears in that document that Canada is now going for a system of tariffication on its small agricultural production in terms of supply management, eggs, poultry, et cetera. This is in direct contradiction to the government's statement that it was seeking to strengthen article XI.
Which is the position of Canada: the one in the draft agreement or the one stated by the government publicly? One was secret and one is public. Which one is accurate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First of all, let me draw some point of agreement between my hon. friend and myself.
The position of members of the Liberal Party in the last election was clear. They opposed the agreement. Right now, it is not clear and I think my hon. friend and I would agree on that. They say they would renegotiate. They do not say what they would renegotiate. If they cannot renegotiate, they do not say they know what they would do. So it is a little bit of a shell game by the Leader of the Opposition.
I wanted to respond specifically to the question of my hon. friend on agricultural objectives in the NAFTA as it related to the supply managed sector.
March 24, 1992

The position, as I stated in the House just a few days ago, is that we are seeking clarification and strengthening of article XI in the multilateral trade negotiations. That position is identical as far as the negotiations with the Mexicans and the Americans are concerned.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for answering the first part of my question and leaving us all in confusion about who is answering for the Liberals but, nonetheless, we will wait for that.
My second question concerns the draft NAFTA agreement. There are further threats to Canadian jobs in the generic drug industry, textiles, telecommunications, auto parts, transport and now we are looking at new threats in the energy sector.
I ask the minister this question and I have asked it before. Has the government done any impact studies on these areas that I have mentioned and, if so, is the government prepared to release those impact studies so Canadian citizens can see exactly what we are facing in this agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has raised five specific industries. I think my hon. friend is also well aware that the results of the NAFTA are not known. We do not know what the end result will be in these five areas.
I can tell my hon. friend our objectives. I would be happy to go through these one by one if my hon. friend would come to committee and ask me these questions. Then I could provide him with our specific negotiating objective, as I have been prepared to do at previous meetings, but my hon. friend has not been prepared to ask those types of questions.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I asked for the impact studies, not for conversation.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Barrett: It appears in the document that has been presented publicly as the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade draft bracketed agreement that there will be an assault on provincial sovereignty.
I want to ask the minister if he is prepared, under that agreement, to shift any of the authority of the provinces
Oral Questions
to control their own resources. Specifically I want to ask about peeler logs and chips. Is it the position of the Government of Canada that if it signs an agreement with the United States and Mexico that the provincial governments would no longer have the authority to control the export of whole logs, chips or peeler logs from their respective jurisdictions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have two comments on my friend's question.
My friend referred to a draft bracketed text and that makes my point for me, because it is a draft text. It has the views of three countries reflected in it. It is bracketed. It means the words that are in brackets are not agreed upon. So the document that my hon. friend is referring to is a very preliminary document.
The position on matters that relate to the resource policies of the provincial governments will only be decided in full consultation with the provinces themselves. At this point there is no proposal at all to make any changes in the export of logs.
My hon. friend is well aware that we have weekly discussions with the provinces on all aspects of the agreements and it is on that basis that our policies are developed.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this report is not about scoring cheap political points at the expense of the Liberal Party. The NDP did not understand that in the last election and apparently still do not understand it.
What is at stake here is the future of Canada. I was pleased to hear the minister responsible for trade say in this House that he personally would like to see an election. Unfortunately, his document shows that his government is trying to ram this deal through before we have a chance to go to the people.
Given the minister's comments in the House today, will he make a recommendation to the Prime Minister of Canada that no deal be signed until we go to the Canadian people?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend reminds me of a statement made in the 1984 election-there she goes again. Time and time again, my hon. friend stands up and distorts what I have just said about five or ten minutes ago in this

March 24, 1992
Oral Questions
House. I never said that there should be an election. I said maybe that is an idea, but I did not support it.
What I did say is let us put this into context. Why would we call an election simply on one issue, an issue that is related to 1 per cent of our trade and a good deal less than the size of our economy, when there are so many other issues.
But what I do wish to ask the hon. member, if she is so anxious to get into a debate on trade, when is the Liberal Party going to state what it would renegotiate? And if it cannot renegotiate, what is its position going to be? Are we going to have it ripped up again?


Sheila Maureen Copps: The minister is not here to ask questions. Right now you are here to answer them.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member can put her question in a more polite form.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps saying that this document has no connection with trade with the Americans and Mexico. In fact, the document discusses free trade in telecommunications, a position that is not shared by this government.
My question for the minister is this: Considering that this document will wipe out farmers in Quebec and across Canada and that it supports tariffication of our agricultural products, unlike the policy announced publicly by this government, is the minister prepared to recommend that a federal election should be held before the document is endorsed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, clearly my question to the hon. member struck a raw nerve end. I do not think she wants to talk about the trade policy of the Liberal Party.
My hon. friend referred to telecommunications. This is a proposal that has come from the Americans. But just
because they put forward a proposal, does that mean we have accepted it? No, we have rejected it.
My hon. friend raises a question concerning farmers. She waves the text in front of us. I have not seen a copy of the text. I have not seen that document. That may be the Liberals' policy on pharmaceuticals in 1969 for all I know.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the document in the section on agriculture, under heading "Canadian Proposal" it says that we are provided for. Tariff equivalency resulting from conversion of non-tariff barriers shall be reduced in accordance with the schedule under the proposed agreement on the Uruguay round.
How could the minister let his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, go in front of 20,000 farmers, swear that this government would fight to the last breath tariffication, when this minister had already given away the store, the farm and the country under the NAFTA proposal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there is no giving away the store, the farm and the country, that my hon. friend huffs and puffs about. We have not made any proposal in that direction at all. That is not the Canadian position.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. This is the man who wants to be trusted but who gave us the free trade agreement that betrayed every single trust of Canadians because they have lost their jobs.
I want to ask this question. Why is this government making the same mistake twice? Why in this proposal are we agreeing to a dispute settlement mechanism which has no subsidy code to it, therefore once again making Canadians vulnerable to U.S. trade law, to U.S. harassment, to U.S. intimidation, under a new deal that will give no help whatsoever in solving disputes?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and I have a fundamental disagreement on the free trade agreement with the United States. My hon. friend ignores the fact that
March 24, 1992

exports are up under the free trade agreement with the United States, in spite of the fact that we have a recession in the United States. My hon. friend neglects the fact that the trade surplus between Canada and the United States is up 10 per cent again in spite of the recession in the United States.
There have been benefits. I can give my friend a list of companies which have been major beneficiaries. I can give my friend a list of industries that have been major beneficiaries of the free trade agreement with the United States.
My hon. friend talks about the fact that we do not have a subsidy agreement. We do have a subsidy agreement in the Uruguay round negotiations, in the Dunkel paper that was brought forward on December 20 last year. It is our intention and it is agreed upon that if that is what is the final agreement on the Uruguay round, it will be transferred to the free trade agreement with the United States and I would expect that to be the case with the free trade agreement with Mexico as well.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Minister for International Trade that while trade between Canada and Mexico may be 1 per cent, trade between Canada and the United States is much greater. It is that aspect that we are really concerned about.
My question for the Minister of Transport deals with Canadian Annex 402.1 transportation services, which states that land transportation services, like truck, bus, rail transportation, land site aspects of port activities, freight forwarding, customs brokerage and maintenance and repair of commercial land transportation equipment are given up under the North American free trade agreement. As the minister knows, all of these sectors are vulnerable. They cannot even compete today.
I want to ask him, as the minister responsible for protecting transportation in this country, how he can allow such an agreement to be written.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I remind my friend that any of the negotiating positions we are putting forward in the NAFTA are developed with the provinces and with the industries concerned.
Oral Questions
In this case we believe that if we are going to be trading between Canada and Mexico and using our truck transportation services to move the product, surely we want to give our trucking industry the same benefits as their competition. That is what we are trying to achieve. That is the objective that we have in the negotiations, so we can keep the trucks full of cargo going from Canada down to Mexico and back.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Minister for International Trade that almost a year ago we had truckers parked on Parliament Hill, we had truckers parked on bridges connecting Canada and the U.S.A. because they said at that time that they could not compete and they wanted a better deal.
I want to put my question to the Minister of Transport who has responsibility for transportation in this country. How can this government give up our trucking industry, our rail industry and all of our other service industries, including land site activities of ports. We know that if they cannot compete today without a free trade agreement, they are not going to be able to compete if there is one. They are going to go down the tubes. They are going to go south of the border. You have got to stop it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend does not acknowledge in his question the fact that we have responded. We have dealt with a number of the questions that the truckers expressed to us when they were here on Parliament Hill.
My colleague, the Minister of Finance, put forward a package of proposals which touched on excise taxes on fuel, on capital cost allowances and a number of other factors which have improved the competitive position of the Canadian trucking industry.
My hon. friend is wrong when he says that the Canadian trucking industry cannot compete internationally. They can compete internationally. One of the problems that they do have is high provincial excise taxes on fuel. They will not have that in the United States when they are going through the United States to Mexico and we believe that they can compete.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, this government is planning to give away, through this trilateral agreement, Canadian control of a key economic lever and a regional development tool. I am talking about our telephone industry.

March 24, 1992
Oral Questions
Why is this government allowing American telephone companies, like AT&T, access to waltz in and dominate these new evolving telephone services. The Canadian people would like to know why the government is surrendering this strategic Canadian sector.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is we are not. The American industry can make proposals to get into our basic telephone system. We have said no.
She asks what about the enhanced industiy. In the enhanced sector of the telecommunications industry, the major value-added products, the Canadian industry is a world leader. Surely she should be on my back saying: "We have to get access to the U.S. market. We have to get access to the Mexican market for enhanced telecommunications because we are world leaders there. We can compete. There is extremely good business for us there".


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the minister that Canadians want to make the decisions for themselves and they want Canadian ownership of their Canadian properties.

Why has this government already tabled a bill that would leave the telecommunications field wide open to the Americans and thus allow them to take over Canadian industries? Isn't it true that the government is implementing its trade agreement through the back door before it has even been signed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Communications tabled a bill, I believe on February 27, which reconfirms the 80 per cent ownership of that industry.
That is not the subject of negotiation.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to the Minister of Transport on the issue of the proposed NAFTA agreement and the wording in it which the Minister for International Trade has suggested will not be affected as a result of the
uneven playing field on which the Canadian transportation industiy currently operates.
The minister should know the dangers that have been raised again and again by our truckers most recently, as well as by our rail and other land transporters, have been related to the lack of an even playing field between Canada and the U.S.
Why does the minister not have some solution to this lack of an even playing field to put forward before turning Canada's land transportation industiy over to the hub and spoke where Canada will be one of the weak spokes on a U.S. hub?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I just commented in response to a question from the New Democratic Party that we have made some changes to the tax system which affect the competitiveness of the Canadian trucking industry. I think my hon. friend should be calling on some of the provincial governments to match what we have done in order to build upon those changes and help build the level playing field that he is looking for.
As far as the objectives that we have in this proposed agreement with the United States and Mexico, our objective is to enter into any changes in trucking or other land transportation relationships which will strengthen the industiy here in Canada.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, let us continue with transportation and go from land to water.
The government knows that in the Jones act, the United States has a major element for protection of important parts of its transportation network. We now know that the government is willing to give up on our land transportation to continental pressures.
How can the government be so cavalier about Canada's land transportation system in the face of very severe U.S. protectionism on the water?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would refer back to an answer I gave in the House two or three months ago, I said that one of our objectives is to break open the Jones act. That is one of the key objectives of the policy?.
March 24, 1992

Oral Questions



William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and it refers to the fixed link which will have a very dramatic impact on the economy and provide a tremendous boost to all of Atlantic Canada.
I wonder if the minister could give us an update on the status and outline the economic impact. Also, will the opportunity be made available to the Atlantic region?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I realize, and the House realizes, the interest of my hon. colleague in this project.
I am not a prophet but I can say to him that I do believe that if we can perhaps overcome some of the obstacles and have the enthusiastic support of the Atlantic premiers, this project will provide considerable numbers of jobs during construction. It will obviously enhance tourism and regional economic development.
I believe that with the co-operation of our government and the provinces, this will be a substantial and perhaps very tangible project that will help the economy of Atlantic Canada in years to come.


FALSE INDIAN ID CARDS
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
Hundreds of business people in Quebec and Ontario failed to charge taxes on items purchased by holders of false Indian ID cards, fraudulently issued by an organization called Amities autochtones hors reserve.
Since the real culprits are the federal departments that failed to take immediate action to deal with this swindle, which has been going on at least since September 1991, could the minister give the House the assurance that instead of harassing these business people, the Department of National Revenue will inform Canadian businesses of the rules that apply when a genuine Indian makes a purchase in their establishment off the reserve?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to assure the House that we do not harass anybody. In fact, yesterday's headlines and an audit report confirmed that tax collectors are being nice. "Thx men gentle, a federal audit finds". In fact, we have become a gentler and a kinder department than the one we we inherited from those hard-headed Liberals.
Specifically, I would like to answer the hon. member by saying that the simple presentation of a native ID card does not exempt anybody. Exemptions of the GST are only allowed for purchases of goods or services on the reserves or if the delivery is made to the reserve.
I will conclude by saying that there is an extensive educational and consultative program with aboriginal people on reserves, as well as across the country, for the benefit of all business people.

OLYMPIA & YORK DEVELOPMENT LTD.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, once more it appears this government is answering the bugle call of Bay Street, calling for a bail-out for bad investments.
It seems the market is quite happy to have the government intervene when the wealthy few play Monopoly with taxpayers' money.
My question is for whoever is answering for the Minister of Finance today. It seems Olympia & York, the Monopoly tycoons have over-built on their version of Park Place and are being forced to restructure an estimated $20 billion, of which more than $2 billion is owed to Canadian banks.
Will the minister assure Canadians that the banks will not get any special tax breaks nor be allowed to write off real estate speculation on the backs of Canadian taxpayers.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, the government has had discussions with national financial institutions and international financial institutions together with the Government of Ontario in assuring that there will be little disruption in the financial markets. I believe that is the

March 24, 1992
Oral Questions
role of the federal government. No decisions have yet been made. Discussions are ongoing.
I will be pleased to inform the hon. member and the House if any decision is made in the near future.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister of corporate and consumer affairs.
Our experience has been that when Canadian banks have a $2 billion haemorrhage, they turn to their domestic blood banks.
Will the minister immediately order his department to closely monitor bank service charges so they are not used as a blood transfusion for Olympia & York?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, as far as the banks are concerned, I would have preferred the hon. member to congratulate us on getting the banks to reduce interest rates on credit cards. This is something the hon. member has been demanding for months, and there has been a significant reduction. I would have preferred that.
However, as far as the hon. member's question is concerned, my department will monitor the situation very closely. Since no decision has been made so far, we will look at the situation very closely, but since no decision has been made one way or another, I have nothing to report at this time.
stance to the so-called top priorities. I want to ask the Minister for International Trade, what happened to health? What happened to safety? What happened to the commitment to the Canadian environment and to the international environment? What happened to the rights of Canadian workers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is well aware of the fact that we made it clear right from the start that we were not negotiating the matters he refers to as an integral part of the trade agreement.
We have some very extensive discussions under way on the labour standards, on environmental regulations, on environmental protection and enforcement, on a parallel basis with the Mexican administration. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, was in Mexico quite recently in support of our efforts in this regard. We have had discussions with the labour movement in Canada as to how best we should conduct these discussions and negotiations on labour standards. That work continues.
I might say to my hon. friend that it is being effective in drawing out some agreements. My colleague on the environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced something quite recently to assist the Mexicans in enforcement. My hon. friend is well aware that the problem with the Mexicans and the environment is not environmental standards. It is in the enforcement of those standards where we are determined to give them every assistance we can.


TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The Minister for International Trade will know that the Prime Minister has repeatedly said, as well as members of the cabinet, that the top priorities of this government in negotiating a trade arrangement with Mexico and the United States included the protection of the environment, protecting health standards, protecting safety and workers' rights.
In this 408 page document released today by the Action Canada Network, there is no reference of sub-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, despite the honeyed words of the Minister for International Trade that we are entering into some kind of inconsequential agreement, it is now clear that this is a massive, broad and sweeping agreement as outlined in the document released today.
It includes transportation, telecommunications, agriculture, foreign investment and much more. I want to ask the Minister for International Trade, given the comprehensive nature of this agreement which will entrench the Canada-U.S. trade deal, whether he believes this government at this stage of its life, at its current level of support among the people of Canada, has the moral authority to obligate future governments to try and untangle the mess this government attempts to create once again in matters of trade with third parties.

March 24, 1992


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to the free trade agreement with the United States.
If my hon. friend would study the facts and look at some of the industries that have done well under the free trade agreement with the United States, he would not make these sweeping accusations, these sweeping denunciations of the free trade agreement.
If he had looked at the agriculture sector, if he had looked at the wine sector, if he had looked at the high technology sector, he would see that there are substantial improvements in the competitive position of Canadian companies. If he would look at some of the companies that have been successful in the ladies fashion sector, seeking out market niches in the United States and doing very, very well as a result of the access that they have to that market. It is this sort of blanket denunciation-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we have to move on.

OLYMPIA & YORK DEVELOPMENT LTD.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance in the absence of the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the minister confirmed that discussions were under way about the Olympia & York situation with the Government of Ontario, financial institutions both domestic and international as well as the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.
Since it has been reported that the Canary Wharf project of London, England is a major factor in the Olympia & York situation I ask the acting minister this question. Is the government discussing solutions in this situation not only with the Bank of England but also directly with the British government itself? If not, will Canada be taking this step as well?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the banks are acting to
Oral Questions
stabilize the situation with the company both in Canada and internationally.
Our discussions are ongoing together with the province of Ontario. To date they have not involved the Government of Britain.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Could the acting minister inform the House in greater detail about the role of the NDP Government of Ontario in this Olympia & York discussion?
Furthermore, will the minister confirm to the House that his priority and that of the government itself is to bring about a private sector solution to the Olympia & York problem?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that the discussions which are ongoing with the province of Ontario are designed to stabilize the financial markets.
The answer to the second part of the question regarding a private sector solution is yes.


Mr. Speaker:: There will be two questions: a single question from the hon. member for Bramalea-Gore- Malton and a single question from the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
With the recent announcement of the proposed privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson International Airport, the government has found a way to save millions of dollars in financing terminal modernization and management.
Will the government provide Pearson with some relief by turning the moneys it hopes to save toward the development of alternative airport infrastructures in the region, or will the burden continue to fall on Pearson and the surrounding communities even after the airport's 28 million passenger capacity has been reached in the late 1990s?

March 24, 1992
Supply


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the member has asked that question because it gives me the opportunity to remind him that the environmental review panel on the additional runways at Pearson is still outstanding.
When we have this report, and depending on what is decided through that report, we will re-examine the master plan for all southern Ontario airports. At that time we will be able to determine what financial arrangements are possible.


McDonald commission


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. We all read in the media about part the testimony of a senior RCMP officer who appeared before the McDonald commission.
Eleven years after the commission's report was tabled, Canadians are still waiting for the publication of seven chapters of the report, which deal with some very interesting items, including the theft of PQ membership lists, a bam burning, and so forth.
My question is this: Why is the government so reluctant to release seven chapters that undoubtedly contain the answers to the serious questions that are now being asked?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise my hon. friend that the McDonald commission looked into all of the allegations at the time and considered all of the evidence.
At the present time, unless there is some new evidence, the government has no consideration to opening up any new investigations.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Lefteris J. Papiniko-laou, member of the Greek Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


WAYS AND MEANS
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to amend the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of the motion.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering whether you had an opportunity to review the point of order that I raised last Thursday regarding a statement made in this House by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member is anxious about that and I will do everything I can to report to the House tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren (p. 8670), and the amendment thereto of Mr. Barrett (p. 8685).
Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today on the topic of North American free trade. It gives members of Parliament and the Canadian public a better chance to understand the deal, as difficult as that may be, given the secretive nature of the negotiations.
I wonder where the cabinet is today and where they have been on this issue. Other than the Minister of Forestry, no other member of the cabinet has spoken on this issue today, or even been here so far for the debate. Given the importance of this deal, I cannot see what could be more important for these ministers than to
March 24, 1992

stand up in public today and explain to Canadians why we should support a North American free trade deal.
The government is hoping to conclude the deal by next month and is rushing through the negotiations. As a result, the majority of Canadians have no idea what is going on. Certainly we all have the right to know. The House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, in its report to Parliament entitled "North American Free Trade", said quite clearly it wanted the Canadian government to consult with Canadians on this issue.
I do not believe this government has responded adequately to the House of Commons call for this request. For instance, I doubt many Canadians realize that a deal reached with the three countries will have major implications for agriculture in this country. Obviously much time and effort has gone into pressuring the government to ensure that our system of supply management is maintained. This is essential to any country that wishes to secure a supply of food for itself.
We have been under international pressure, namely American pressure, to do away with our border protection and supply management.
The importance of a viable Canadian farming sector centres around the ability of a nation to produce its food and secure its supply of food for the present and the future.
Sovereignty and nationalism are inextricably linked to the ability of any nation to feed its people. Without a viable Canadian farming sector there can be no food security for Canadians. This is in danger in these negotiations.
Obviously there is a lot at stake both in Geneva and now at the NAFTA negotiations. In both instances Canadian agriculture is on the bargaining table. Frankly, farmers in this country do have a reason to be worried.
Although we have been given assurances by the government that it will stand by its promise to strengthen article XI of GATT, we know the importance it is placing on reaching GATT and NAFTA agreements. Once again agriculture is at the centre of the negotiations and in fact an obstacle, as some say, to a successful deal.
The Americans are insisting we move to a system of tariffication and end supply management in this country.
Supply
Given the argument I have just made for the deal, this is potentially dangerous for our agrifood sector in Canada and for Canadian farmers.
Before we rush into another agreement, the government must face some of the facts about the free trade agreement we presently have with the United States. First and foremost, the government must recognize that the free trade deal is not providing secure access to the American market as it was originally intended to do. The dispute mechanism is laughable. It is certainly not a genuine shield against American protectionism. Softwood lumber and Honda automobiles are prime examples of this. We need fair trade rules now. How can we possibly enter into a new trade agreement with so much going wrong with the present one?
What about the impact of the new agreement on the Canadian public and economy? These questions need to be answered. A federal government document indicated there was much to be lost. In fact, it said it could cost jobs and undermine some of our cultural industries. In my reading, the document shows there would be very little Canadian gain, if any.
This government desperately wants a deal, so we are naturally concerned the government would be willing to sign a potentially flawed deal just to get one. Parliament is being denied a chance to examine this proposed North American free trade agreement. We have to find copies of it in little brown envelopes just to find out what is going on in the deal. Even though the American and Mexican legislators have already been briefed, there has been no similar briefing done here. It has been leaked to many newspapers across the country, including the Toronto Star and we still know nothing about this deal. The lack of cabinet involvement in this debate just underscores this point.
We do not even know what the government's minimal objectives are. We need questions answered. What are the economic costs and benefits to Canada? Will this government be part of a trilateral agreement which does not include a subsidy code and or a prompt and binding dispute mechanism?. Canadians have a right to know. Canadians have a right to know what the government plans to do with the snap-back mechanism which would permit tariffs to be phased out over a period of time if dumping occurs.

March 24, 1992
Supply
Any agricultural package that does not include a snap-back provision between Canada and the other two countries will certainly help to dismantle the Canadian horticultural industry. How can domestic producers of fresh fruits and vegetables possibly be protected should import prices drop dramatically?
Certainly this is a real threat, given the climate and lower labour costs in Mexico which will allow them to be competitive in a North American market.
What about the inclusion of other countries? Has this government regarded the possible formation of a North and South American free trade area? Canadians have a right to know. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement did not include any rules for a third country, such as Mexico, jumping in. That is why we are having the debate today. We do not have the so-called preferential access the government here claimed during the last election and which it has claimed over the last few years. What will the cost be to Canada? Where is Canada's so-called preferential treatment? What is the government doing about a subsidy code? What is it doing on a dispute mechanism that will be prompt and binding? When is the government going to share with us in any meaningful way what is going on in these negotiations?
Earlier in the week, the minister said this is commercially confidential information. We do not want commercially confidential information. We want to know what is going on in the negotiations and what the government's bottom lines are. Canadians want an assurance from this government that it will not, once again, sell them out at the negotiating table.
The one thing for sure is that everything is apparently back on the table in these negotiations. Once again, after we have given a little here and a little there, we will end up with another flawed agreement. In other words we will end up with nothing, so let us do ourselves a favour. Let us get these basic questions answered first before we, once again, sign on the dotted line and sign our country away. Let us just think about it.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: I thank my colleague for his remarks. I noted some particularly insightful comments with respect to agriculture and the pressures that our farmers, in the broadest sense of the term, have suffered during the last few years, not only at
the GATT, but also because of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. He has also indicated this particular trade deal is being negotiated with much too much secrecy. It is unfortunate we have to get our information through leaked documents.
I have three areas I would like him to comment on. I have a particular interest in adjustment programs for workers. We were promised them in the Canada-U.S. trade agreement-the best in the world-and we know what happened. There were none.
Do we have any sense now, from any leaked document or reports in the newspapers, what the negative impact might be on the Canadian worker as a result of this Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement, this North American free trade agreement? Do we have any information at all that might be useful to the Canadian public?
Finally, I am concerned, as I know my colleague is, that environmental standards might deteriorate significantly as a result of that agreement. We know there have been some problems with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his question.
Adjustment programs are something we have been asking the government for since the last deal came in. A study was done on the whole issue which suggested there should be adjustment programs in certain areas to help Canadian workers adjust. Unfortunately the government ignored these requests.
I do not believe the government is even willing to reconsider that. I do have an idea though, from reading through the government's own documents, that these sorts of programs will be needed. The government's own documents suggest many areas across Canada will be adversely affected by this deal. I just do not believe this government has the will necessary to bring in these adjustment programs.
As I said, government documentation and other documentation, including some good work done by the Canadian Labour Congress and groups in the United States, suggest there will be some detrimental impact on Canadian workers.
March 24, 1992

Unfortunately, we do not really have a lot of work put out by the Minister of Labour, who is supposedly sitting in his position there to help Canadian workers. We have seen nothing from him. He is not even taking part in this debate today to help alleviate some of the fears of these workers. I do not get a sense the government is willing to provide any help for the negative impact on these workers.
In terms of the environment, I am sure my hon. friend has heard the questions by our colleague from Davenport who has been very concerned about the environmental impact of such a deal, and whether or not our environmental standards will be lowered because of such a deal.
I have read about it and talked to certain committees, trying to find out the government's position. The government takes the opposite view that we will raise Mexican standards to the Canadian level. But it really has no plan and has given us no policy papers or information to show how it plans to do it in the context of these negotiations. The fears are there, and I would suggest all those Canadians who are concerned about this issue-and a number of Canadians across Canada are concerned about the environment-write the Minister of the Environment and ask him specifically what he is going to do to protect Canadian environmental systems within the context of this deal.


Iain Francis Angus: I want to participate in the debate today because of what I have now learned is in the draft NAFTA agreement. The motion before us condemns the government for its lack of openness and failure to ensure Canadians had access to the draft agreement so they could make some knowledgeable decisions to help put pressure on the government for particular changes. Having read the Canadian annex 402.1, dealing with transportation services, I can understand why they did not want the Canadian public through their MPs to know. It is horrendous.
I want to read some sections because they make me very angry and I think they will make Canadians in the
Supply
transportation sector even angrier because it is their jobs that are on the line.
Annex 402.1, that is the Canadian version, called chapter 14 for the Mexican version and 05.1 A for the American version, says that "this annex shall apply to all measures of a party related to the provision of land transportation services by a national or other party. For purposes of this annex, land transportation services means: (1) truck transportation, (2) bus transportation, (3) rail transportation, (4) landside aspects of port activities, (5) freight forwarding, (6) customs brokerage, (7) warehousing except for those activities covered by chapter", whatever it is called, "financial services: (8) maintenance and repair of commercial land transportation equipment, (9) pipeline operations except for those covered by the energy chapter, and (10) courier services".
That is a very comprehensive list. The only thing that is not on the list is air. As we speak, just down the road at the Chateau the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States are working on a bilateral air agreement which will in effect deregulate air travel between Canada and the U.S.
This agreement as drafted, and I am not exaggerating when I say this, will mean the end of a Canadian based transportation system for road, for rail, road for both trucking and bus. The sheer economies of scale will dictate that it is more efficient to locate the head office, the main branches, whether it is rail or the main routes or what have you, the hubs, in the United States, serving both Canada and Mexico.
We saw that kind of pressure between Canada and the United States certainly a year go when the truckers parked their vehicles outside the House of Commons, tied up traffic in downtown Ottawa for a number days and also in Windsor and other border crossings where they literally blocked access between Canada and the United States. They pointed out rightfully how unlevel the playing field was. Whether it was because of fuel taxes, whether it was because of write-offs, and I do not care whether it is federal responsibility or provincial responsibility, the bottom line was they could not compete.

March 24, 1992
Supply
There were American truckers loading up their products, filling up their gas tanks just south of the border, travelling all the way to Montreal to drop off then-products, turning around and going back and in some cases having to be topped up by jerry cans while on the top of the bridge on the international crossing. That is unfair competition.
The minister in the House earlier today said: "But we did things for them, so therefore it is okay". Yes, they did. They gave them some tax breaks in terms of the write-offs. They also gave them some breaks on the 4 cents per litre excise fuel tax. In effect, what they have done though through NAFTA is tear up all those items of assistance that will no longer be allowable under NAFTA if this agreement were ever to be approved.
Why am I so concerned? Let me go back to when this country was formed and the reason that we developed a rail infrastructure that went east-west rather than north-south. Sir John A. Macdonald knew that if we did not have those linkages from east to west, we would very quickly be gobbled up by the United States of America. It would have made more sense to run a railway from Thunder Bay down into the Chicago area, to run a railway from B.C. down the Pacific coast, to run a railway from Toronto down to Buffalo and points south. We never would have had a country. But the reality of 1867 is the reality of today. If we do not have those east-west transportation links owned and operated and maintained and managed by Canadians, we are not going to have a country.
This agreement in effect gives American railroads the right to come and operate on our tracks. It gives American trucking companies the right to come and operate on our roads. It gives American companies the right to come in and handle our cargoes in our ports. They cannot really touch the ships but as soon as it is on land, they can do everything else.
In fact I would like to read one of the American proposals into the record. "The U.S. has proposed that such activities will include the operation and maintenance of docks, loading and unloading of vessels, marine cargo handling, operation and maintenance of piers, ship cleaning, stevedoring, transfer of cargo between ships and trucks, trains, pipelines and wharfs, waterfront terminal operations, boat cleaning, canal operation"- canal operation? Are they going to take over the seaway locks and operate them?-"dismantling of ships, operation of marine railways for drydocking, marine surveyors"-except cargo-"marine wrecking, ships for scrap, and ship classification societies".
That is what the Americans want included in the North American free trade agreement. If this Government of Canada ever says yes then you will see thousands of jobs in the maritime sector taken away from Canadians and given to Americans and eventually given to Mexicans. That is unacceptable. As a society and a country we cannot tolerate that kind of change.
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that I am sharing my time with my colleague. If you would give me the ten-minute notice so we can go into the five-minute question and comment then I will turn it over to my colleague.
There is another aspect I want to raise and again this is a proposal from the Americans. I realize I have just two minutes.
We went through a major debate in this House in this country over whether or not we should control transportation through regulations. The government of the day followed what the Liberals started before them and went for deregulation. Instead of the old means test of whether it met the test of public convenience and necessity, i.e. an economic test, we went for something else.
If the banker gave you the money, you could go and operate the service as long as you had a safety certificate.
The Americans want to include in this North American free trade agreement the following limitation: Limitations on the number of land transportation service providers in the form of numerical quotas, monopolies, exclusive land transportation service providers, or the requirement of an economic means test.
I read that to suggest that the British Columbia government could not prevent an American railroad from operating on the B.C. Railway. The government of Ontario could not prevent them from operating on Ontario Northland. That is what this would mean if Canada ever accepted it.
Mr. Speaker, I have enough here for a 50-minute speech if not more. I realize I do not have the time, but I want to say to you we thought the free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. was bad. Thank God it did not include transportation. What the NAFTA agreement is trying to do is do what the free trade agreement did not do and that is sell out the rest of the Canadian infrastructure, to sell out our transportation whether it is rail, buses, trucks, part of our ports, even our processors, our freight forwarders, our customs brokers. All of those
March 24, 1992

things are being sold out by this agreement and this government should be stopped now.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my colleague will know that I come from a province where transportation is of particular importance. I want to make sure I have understood clearly the message that he has put forward. He has indicated that subsequent to the Canada-U.S. trade agreement, transportation was not a major item, but in this NAFTA agreement it will touch virtually every sector, whether it is ports, airports, road transportation or any type of transportation. I recall in his initial remarks that he even talked about courier systems. It went that far.
I would like to ask my colleague what impact he believes it would have on a major transportation province such as Manitoba. I recognize that there are a number of other spots across the country that are equally important in terms of transportation. Clearly, Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba are extremely important to Canada and to western Canadians as a transportation centre. Perhaps he could comment.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the member for St. Boniface. There are a couple of areas that will be affected. I could use Winnipeg as an example. More appropriately, we will use Transcona as an example. Transcona has a repair maintenance facility. This is not in the part that is bracketed, not labelled as a U.S.A. suggestion or a Mexican suggestion. This is in Canada's annex, as is.
Land transportation is defined to include maintenance and repair of commercial land transportation equipment. That means if this were to be passed, there would be no prevention of CN or CP having all their maintenance work done south of the border or even further south in Mexico to the loss of thousands of jobs, whether it is in Winnipeg, Thunder Bay, Montreal or Moncton or wherever. Although I realize a lot of those jobs have already gone.
That is in this proposed agreement, that there would be no restriction on where maintenance work had to be
Supply
done. Therefore, CN as a Crown corporation could not be told: "Thou shalt repair and maintain in Canada".
One of the concerns we had yesterday with the CN announcement of the purchase of the 25 new locomotives from Erie, Pennsylvania, was whether or not there was a maintenance contract as well. We checked and no, there was not. At the very least CN has not predicted the outcome of NAFTA. But certainly that potential is there.
There are other aspects that deal with how a transportation hub like Winnipeg would operate and also in terms of maintenance. There are very specific references in here to maintenance of equipment, of mutual standards that will be used across the three countries which will affect the quality of workmanship done in Transcona. I would suspect it would be a dilution of standards as opposed to everybody coming up to Canada's high standards.
Any way you look at it, it is a rotten deal.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a short question on the transportation side of the free trade agreement.
I have always had a concern about water in the free trade agreement. I have always believed that if we were to ask the President of the United States for a protocol letter exempting water from the free trade agreement that he would probably refuse to give it to us. That would ultimately lead, in my opinion, to a position where we would be forced to abrogate the deal immediately because most Canadians believe water is not a part of the free trade agreement.
My question is to the senior member of the New Democratic Party. What is your position on water in the free trade agreement?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that water should not be part of the free trade agreement. We argued that. My colleague, the member for Kamloops, and I jointly sponsored legislation in this House that would prevent the export of water.

March 24, 1992
Supply
There is an interesting twist though because when we talk about export of water, people tend to think of the bottled variety. We have a situation near Chicago right now where a municipality is looking to divert additional water from Lake Michigan for municipal sewage treatment purposes and then, I assume, dump it into the Mississippi. Right now the IJC controls that. A separate international agreement controls that. Under the free trade agreement maybe they can take us to the dispute settlement mechanism to see how American law is interpreted.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the proposed North American free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
I take the position that this deal is not in the best interests of Canada and in fact can do more harm than good, given the circumstances of the political situation, the bargaining position of the three countries and the differing political institutions that exist in each of the countries.
We have only to go back a few years and look at the negotiations between Canada and the United States to reinforce why I am concerned about some of these problems. Canada and the U.S. had their negotiations. Canada is about one-tenth or one-eleventh the size of the United States. The bargaining positions of the two countries showed in the agreement. Politically the United States is a superpower, but of more importance, in negotiating international agreements with them, is their quite different constitution and their very much different attitude on the powers of Congress and the powers of the President.
Our government went into the negotiations with the naive assumption that the President of the United States spoke for his country in a manner not unlike the way the Prime Minister of our country speaks for this country. That is patently untrue and impossible.
The U.S. Congress holds the rights carefully to its bosom to change trade law and to be responsible ultimately for any international agreement that the United States President and his administration might attempt to negotiate.
Our negotiators, our government in particular, did not seem to be aware of what that means in the long term.
Some of us from western Canada that have dealt on a so-called free trade basis with the Americans understood how it worked. We have traded in red meats, beef and hogs for 50 years under a so-called free trade agreement. Any time we start to make inroads into their markets in a way that has a definite economic advantage to Canada, ways and means are found in the Congress of the United States to make certain that trade does not continue at the same pace. So there have always been interruptions to that trade.
After we signed the trade agreement, which the government and its proponents said would forever and ever do away with that kind of dispute problem, immediately we were faced with a pork countervail which has been resolved for the moment, but the resolution of that countervail is still in some doubt. American congressmen and American pork producers are still convinced that because two of the people involved in the countervail action had some doubts about whether American law was being adhered to, the whole process will begin again as soon as the price rises enough to make it worth while for American producers to block the shipments of Canadian pork into that country.
The phrase "according to U.S. law" is something we will have to get used to if we are going to be dealing with so-called free trade agreements with the Americans, whether it is on a bilateral basis, Canada-U.S., or a trilateral basis with Mexico, Canada and the United States.
Essentially Congress will not give up, and has every constitutional right not to give up, the right to permit any president, whether it is President Bush or Reagan or any successor, to give away by international treaty that right. It can be worded as clearly as we like in the agreement that Canada and Mexico or any other country might want to sign, but ultimately Congress can overrule that and whenever there is a dispute, ultimately it is U.S. law that must be adhered to, not the agreement.
As long as we get the ground rules straight, we will have a good ball game. We will also know that because those are the rules we will probably lose most of the innings but we will have a good ball game as long as we understand that. Unfortunately this Prime Minister and this government do not seem to understand what the rules of the ball game are.
March 24, 1992

We have seen some drafts now, thanks to U.S. freedom of information laws and the propensity of Americans to be able to get information. We also had information from some of the people in Mexico as to what was being discussed.
We could not rely on our own government to supply this kind of information. We had to go overseas to find out just what our country is saying at these talks and what we have agreed to.
Until February 21 or 22, it appears that Canada's negotiating position on agriculture, which I will speak about for a couple of minutes, was pretty much the same negotiating position that it took into the international talks at the Uruguay round starting in 1986, which was and continued to be until some time during 1990 or 1991, a policy of transferring all subsidies and all government interventions in agriculture into a tariff, in other words, tariffication.
Once again, as it was in Uruguay and in the NAFTA, this business of seeking tariffication is the official Government of Canada position. That is unfortunate because at home, under pressure from dairy producers and producers of poultry and eggs that realize that this is the death knell to their commodity production in Canada, the government is saying at GATT that that was not really its position.
It changed it some time in 1990 or 1991, and there is some paper to show that there was a memo sent at that period of time at GATT. So far, there does not seem to be any paper saying that Canada's position on tariffication is any different, except as a hard line tariffication proposal under the NAFTA.
The dairy people, the poultry people and the egg people are once again being forgotten in the negotiations because the government is following a clear, hard line tariffication stance. It is a clear, hard line that suits an economic development model that is dependent on the corporations doing all of the development, but it is not
Supply
one that fits very well the purposes of ordinary Canadians.
We have thousands and millions of people in Canada who are small business people from farmers to retailers, wholesalers and even small manufacturers. They are not covered by that kind of policy. They are left out. It is presumed they do not matter, that they cannot be globally competitive, which is the watchword or catchword that this government is attempting to follow.
Canadian farmers and small business people will be relegated to the same position that the Mexican peasant will be relegated to if the Mexican government gets its way, which is to make it possible to sell land to international corporations for agricultural development.
That may sound like a fairly innocuous matter when you live way up here, several thousand miles from Mexico, but that country has had several revolutions over those lands that are held in the name of the country of Mexico for the use of thousands and millions of Mexican peasant farmers who have no other access to land. That is their right.
It was fought for several times in several revolutions and this is the only land that the Government of Mexico has available for sale to foreign corporations.
The current Government of Mexico seems intent upon following a policy similar to this government of selling all of its assets. It appears that farmland is going to be one of those assets. The result will be very cheap land to international corporations which will probably sell fruits and vegetables into the more northern parts of North America.
As farmers in this part of the world, we will be hard pressed to continue producing fruits and vegetables at all because of an agreement that is not a fair agreement. It is set out to purposely get rid of small producers, small business people so that a theory of international control can prevail.
We do not think this is fair or practical. It makes no sense economically. It makes even less sense to people who believe in democratic principles. We think it is time these 500 pages were trashed and the negotiations ceased immediately.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with intent to the hon. member. He was concerned about small business and I appreciate his concern.
With the existing free trade agreement, U.S. law certainly applies. What he failed to comment on was that, of course, Canadian law also applies. If Canada feels mistreated, it still has the power within Canadian law to do exactly as the U.S. Congress would like to do in regard to American law.

March 24, 1992
Supply
The question I would like to ask is this. Prior to the free trade agreement, if the U.S. Congress decided to enact some law that was designed to get at some foreign country, and for a moment I will use Brazil as an example, but it could be any country because of some export proposition that is going on, Congress would pass this act which would restrict the exports from Brazil. But it did not deal with countries, it dealt with products. Canadians business would be affected by that enactment of U.S. law against some foreign export into the United States.
Canadian small business would be faced with the challenge in trying to convince the U.S. Congress that Canada and in particular its products ought to be exempted under U.S. law.
Under the U.S. free trade agreement, Canada specifically has to be named in any U.S. law in order for it to be affected. Would the hon. member not agree that it is much better for Canadian small businesses not to have to worry about being side-swiped by some act of the U.S. Congress against some Third World or some other country than it would be to enforce on Canadian small businesses, as it was prior to the free trade agreement, the horrendous cost of trying to convince the U.S. legislatures than in fact the small businesses in Canada was not the cause of their problem.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member raises a very good question.
If he had been reading and analysing the news lately or talking to the kind of small business people that I talk to in my riding where we still attempt to have a softwood lumber industry, he would know that it does not even matter whether they are forced to name Canada or not. They have no compunction about slipping the word Canada or Canadian as an adjective before the product they have decided to act against.
There had no problem naming Canadian Honda cars. They had no compunction about naming Canadian softwood lumber. It does not worry them to add that word. They can say and write Canadian and it does not seem to bother them one iota. I do not think that that clause in the agreement made any change in the attitude of American legislators and made no difference to the access of our small business people to that market.


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to take part in this debate. I am
delighted to be able to talk about the way this government has deliberately and conscientiously sought the views of a broad cross-section of Canadians on trade policy questions.
Contrary to opposition claims, Canadians' views have been critical of the way in which the government has pursued the North American free trade agreement involving Canada, the United States and Mexico. The opposition wishes to cancel Canadian involvement in NAFTA negotiations.
Hon. members opposite contend that the government has shut Canadians out of the process. In holding this view, they are frankly strangely oblivious to the well organized, carefully planned and thoroughly detailed set of consultations with Canadians that this government has undertaken for more than six years. I regret the opposition's belated awakening to the importance of the North American free trade negotiations.
If they had examined the initiative earlier, hon. members would have been aware of the extensive consultations that have taken place to date. Still, the debate today allows me to outline just how thorough that process has been.
The government has in place a broad and strong network of advisers that has helped us develop our national strategy. The heart of this network is the International Trade Advisory Committee, or ITAC. It is made up of representatives of business, labour organizations, the academic and research communities, consumers, cultural industries and environmental groups.
Its role is to provide a two-way flow of information and advice between the government and the Canadian private sector. In addition to ITAC there are 15 sectoral advisory groups on international trade, known in verbal shorthand as SAGITs.
The SAGITs bring together business, labour, academics, researchers, consumers and environmentalists who are involved in specific sectors of the Canadian economy ranging from the agrifood sector to transportation services. These groups serve as vehicles for the two-way flow of information and advice between the government and particular industrial sectors. The SAGITs are influential in themselves, but the chair of each SAGIT also sits on ITAC, which further enhances their role.
March 24, 1992

This network was not dreamed up yesterday; it was established in 1985 to provide advice for the negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It continued and still maintains a crucial advisory role in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT, and its assistance has been invaluable in the negotiations toward NAFTA.
ITAC first examined the subject of a NAFTA in 1990 as the government began to consider whether to enter into the three-way negotiations with the United States and Mexico. So hon. members can see that the government had the benefit of its advice in choosing to join the NAFTA. It is a decision that we made in February of
1991.
ITAC meets regularly with the hon. Minister for International Trade, as often as four times a year. The last meeting was in December. Many of the SAGITs meet more frequently still. Some individual SAGITs have discussed NAFTA more than half a dozen times since the actual negotiations began last June in Toronto.
The assistance of ITAC and the SAGITs has not only been useful, it has been vital. With 19 working groups within the negotiations examining often highly technical details, the government's negotiators simply cannot afford to be without expert advice. The government knows full well that for the members of the SAGITs trade is not abstract theory. Trade is their livelihood and trade policy helps to determine their future.
The government has undertaken this consultation process because it is aware of this awesome responsibility. The interests of all participants in the Canadian economy must be carefully taken into account.
Let me stress that these advisory bodies are not representative of business only. Labour, academics, researchers, consumer groups, representatives of cultural industries, and environmentalists all are also active.
The government was particularly pleased when the Canadian Labour Congress decided to join ITAC after the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989. It was unfortunate that government was unable to benefit from the CLC's wide experience and knowledge during the original free trade agreement negotiations. We were thankful for the participation of the Canadian Federation of Labour which represents an important group of
Supply
Canadian workers, especially in the important construction industry.
But a truly representative advisory network needs the involvement of the organization that represents the majority of Canadian organized labour. Although the CLC has been vigorous in putting forward its views, the government believes labour's involvement in ITAC and the participation of CLC-affiliated unions in the SAGITs represent a significant step forward to co-operate in economic decision-making.
The participation of the academic community has given positive direction to the consultations. Canadians are becoming increasingly aware of the need to adapt our education to meet the requirements of a fast-evolving global economy. Canadians also recognize that today's knowledge-intensive industries must find effective ways to turn scientific breakthroughs in laboratories into products and services in the marketplace.
In ITAC and the SAGITs educators can gauge the requirements for development of new skills. At the same time, the government can tailor its trade policy to effectively employ the skills and knowledge that educators have so carefully fostered.
The part of the consultation process that has been least noticed, I believe, is the inclusion of environmental representatives on the ITAC and many of the SAGTIk. In keeping with the government commitment to take environment into account in major policy initiatives, it was vital that environmental groups be involved in the examination of the NAFTA.
Since the negotiations began, many commentators have raised the environment as an important issue for the NAFTA negotiations. The government agrees.
That is why the agreement will ensure that any of the signatory countries can maintain product health and safety standards superior to international norms.
That is why the government has formed an interdepartmental committee to review the potential environmental impact of a NAFTA on Canada. That is why Canada has increased its environmental co-operation with Mexico announcing last week a $1 million agreement to assist Mexico in improving its environmental enforcement.

March 24, 1992
Supply
That is one reason environmental representatives have been members of ITAC and the SAGITs since last fall. Their contributions have been most constructive and the government is hoping that this new relationship will be productive for all concerned.
Through the contributions of environmental representatives on ITAC and the SAGITs, the government will receive objective advice to ensure that NAFTA and other trade policies effectively take environmental issues into consideration.
The modern economy increasingly needs close co-operation among all participants in the economy. The consultation that now takes place in relation to the NAFTA negotiations is one solid example of that. This process has won the approval of independent observers who have commented on this contribution toward greater co-operation among Canadian economic sectors.
In a study of ITAC and the SAGITs, Helen Moroz, a professor of political studies at Queen's University had this to say and I quote:
The systematic consultation between the private sector and the government appears to have enhanced the over-all attitudes among the different interests toward one another. Regular contact and the sharing of information proved to establish an understanding and trust between the participants-The process has paved the way for co-operative private sector/govemment consultation on trade-related and other matters in the future.
Perhaps not all members of the House favour closer economic co-operation to improve the functioning of the Canadian economy, but the government believes that such co-operation and the development of new strategic partnerships among all participants in the economy are keys to Canada's future competitiveness.
Closer co-operation which will in turn encourage more imaginative approaches to economic decision-making will contribute in the end to greater prosperity for all Canadians.
Hon. members of the opposition complain that these consultations do not take place in public, that yet again the government is conducting public business behind closed doors. However, the quiet nature of these discussions does not worry the members of ITAC and SAGITs. I cannot speak for all of them but the confidentiality to which they have sworn themselves provides them the opportunity to be candid and express their views without worrying that they will be heard by the United States, Mexican, or even Japanese or European competitors.
The value of advice often rests on the frankness with which it can be given.
When the government knows it is hearing the honest unvarnished views of the private sector, it is better able to act in the interests of all concerned.
I have to stress that even if the opinions expressed in ITAC and the SAGITs meetings do not make headlines, they are being heeded. The opposition charges that the public is not being consulted. But look at the list of the sectors represented by SAGIT: agriculture, food and beverages, apparel and footwear, arts and cultural industries, consumer and household products, energy, chemicals and petrochemicals, financial services, fish and fish products, forest products, industrial and high-technology equipment, minerals and metals, business and professional services, textiles, fur and leather, transportation equipment, transportation services.
I am not trying to bore honourable members. I am only trying to point out that these consultations involve nearly every conceivable corner of the Canadian economy.
The ITAC and the SAGITs do more than bring together the different industrial sectors. They also link the economic factors from one end of the production line to the other, from extraction of raw materials, processing and manufacturing, to transportation, marketing and sales.
These advisory bodies are cross-sectors of Canadian society. They include representatives of small businesses and large. They include members from small towns and big cities. They bring together people from every region of the country. They include francophones and anglophones. There are women and men. There is no sector, barely a comer of productive activity or any region of the country or any job in the private sector in Canada that is not covered in one way or another by one of these sectoral advisory groups and the International Trade Advisory Committee.
These bodies are also constantly being refreshed. The government is continuously reviewing membership to ensure it appropriately represents the changing face of the Canadian economy. An ITAC and a SAGIT member's term is two years. In making the appointments the government strives to ensure an effective mixture of new blood and experience. New ideas are always vital to the consultation process. So also is continuity to ensure that what has been learned in the past is preserved and put to good use.

March 24, 1992

When the government announced the formation of the ITAC and the SAGER consultation process more than six years ago, it was undertaking a major new initiative in communications between the public and the private sectors. The government had a plan that it knew was a good plan. But it could not have known how much the advisory network would be challenged and how it would respond. It responded well and effectively.
With the advice we continue to receive from these advisory groups, we will be able to negotiate a North American free trade agreement that serves the interests of all Canadians. When Canadian negotiators go to the bargaining table they are fully aware of the concerns and the ambitions of all sectors of the Canadian economy. That is the best guarantee that a North American free trade agreement, if it can be achieved, will reflect the interests and the ambitions of Canadians across the land.
This government is committed to consultations. Without consultations we simply could not negotiate a North American free trade agreement or pursue a trade policy of any kind. Government does not work in a vacuum. It must be aware of the needs and interests of the community at large. To do this, there is no substitute for a process of close and continuous dialogue. That dialogue, so effectively represented by the ITAC and the SAGER process will continue.
[Translation\


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, when we signed the free trade agreement with the United States, I had always, as a matter of principle, been in favour of free trade with the United States. A few years later, however, we realized that the federal government actually initiated meetings with international organizations on removing farm subsidies, mainly so it could stop subsidizing the production of grain in western Canada. That was the federal government's position here in Ottawa, and it was among the first to submit these proposals at the UN and GATT, proposals which involved removing subsidies, mainly for wheat, proposals that were a flagrant denial of the agricultural system we have had for many years in Quebec. Today, in Quebec,
Supply
we have a quota system, thanks to which we are able to produce more or less what we need.
Liberalizing trade in agricultural products means undermining a system that we have had in Quebec for many years. Simultaneous negotiations with the United States and Mexico are bound to accelerate developments that will put Quebec at a disadvantage and undermine a system that has been in place in Quebec for many years. We know that the United States is also in favour of getting rid of farm subsidies as soon as possible.
Supposedly, agriculture had not been on the table during the FTA talks, but we realized only a year later that, although the government had said that GATT would be responsible for agriculture and that it would not be on the table during the free trade talks, the federal government was putting pressure on GATT to put agriculture on the table.
I think the current negotiations with the United States and Mexico on agriculture are rather disturbing because we in the opposition have no idea what you are trying to do, and I would appreciate some clarification.


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the subsidy question was not answered at the time of the free trade agreement because the description of the subsidy was veiy difficult to sort out. It remained to be decided later what subsidy meant.
This is still ongoing, but we have supply management which is certainly part of our dairy products, eggs and milk. At the moment it is before the GATT. GATT has certainly been served notice that the Canadian government definitely supports very strongly supply management for those groups and wants to make stronger article XI.
That is something that is in the process of being evaluated and worked out at the moment. Certainly no trade agreement with Mexico will be sorted out until that has happened. What we can do there with supply management will be what we will effectively do with the NAFTA.

March 24, 1992
Supply


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the hon. member who has been speaking to us.
I want to say to her in the first place that we in the Liberal Party are very strongly in favour of freer trade. We have always been in favour of freer trade. When we were in government trade with the United States expanded considerably, so we are a party that believes in freer trade.
However, we are very much opposed to the type of free trade agreement that her government concluded with the United States. We felt that was not in the best interest of Canada. The type of policies that we had adopted while we were in government did lead to an expansion of trade but did not lead to a loss of jobs in the same way as that deal has lead to the loss of jobs in the last few years. We just do not trust the government and the ministers of the government in their negotiations with Mexico and the United States this time, because we feel as a result of what they did the last time they are very likely to do it again. That is why we are asking for full disclosure and full information on these negotiations as they proceed day by day and month by month.
When we look at the deal of 1987-88, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, we see that Canadian business is still harassed in the United States. Barriers are still put up against Canadian business when they try to carry on their commerce there. Countervailing duties are imposed. There has been a great loss of jobs in Canada with Canadian plants moving to the United States, plants closing down here, there and everywhere throughout the country. It is particularly serious in my city of Montreal and it is very serious in the Toronto area.
How can the hon. member stand in her place today in this House and say that she is fully assured as a result of the negotiations going on now with Mexico and the United States the same thing will not happen that happened in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement; that as a result of that type of agreement, if it is similar to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, we are not once again going to see plants closed down, jobs moving to the United States, Canadian tradesmen, Canadian workers and Canadian business people out of work, bankruptcies increasing, and so on?
How can she say that she is fully assured and fully supportive of that process when she sees what is going on in her own province, especially in the greater Toronto area?


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the United States is hearing from its own people about how they are being affected, how they are losing their jobs, how their businesses are being affected, and that the free trade agreement with Canada is the cause of their huge numbers and huge losses.
That is coming from the other side. This is a global problem right now. We are also in a recession. That is certainly the saddest part of it, but we are coming out of it slowly.
Another thing I must say is that we will certainly look at NAFTA having the same dispute settlement mechanism we were able to put into this free trade agreement. It has been a very sound investment for Canada. In fact we are the only country that has such an agreement with the United States, and it has proven to be very effective.
Also I must say in conclusion that this year, since the free trade agreement and with the recession in full bloom, we are still ahead. We have a surplus trade of $5 billion with the United States and that is thanks to the free trade agreement.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment.
First of all, I think the hon. member made an excellent speech. We should not be unrealistic and remain oblivious to what is going on while the globalization of world markets is taking place. If Canada does not get involved now to protect its position in the international community, especially when we realize that Canada is a trading nation that depends on exports, we will be blamed for not doing our job. Our government is doing its job.
When the hon. member for Longueuil says that free trade in the agricultural sector was a disaster because we failed to protect supply management systems, I would ask him to take another look at section 710, in which GATT article XI was kept intact. Article XI is something else. I agree it is hard for people who are regionalists to understand globalization, but when we consider what has been done and how the government is negotiating, whether we are talking about strengthening article XI or the dispute settlement mechanisms we put in place
March 24, 1992

through the FTA, I think the Canadian economy is better off as a result.
As the hon. member pointed out, market restructuring is taking place throughout the world. It is something we cannot escape. We can blame free trade, we can blame GATT, but we certainly cannot blame the federal government for trying to put in place the kind of mechanisms that have proved worth while. In the agricultural sector, for instance, we had a settlement in the pork industry thanks to the binational panel-with members from the United States and Canada-which was able to settle this dispute.
Otherwise, farm producers in Quebec and Canada would still be losing millions of dollars.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in what I consider to be far too short a period of time. I want first of all to thank my colleague from Etobicoke North for his foresight, or I should say soothsayersight, for bringing this particular motion to the House:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to be
completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and
objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
I say that it was either as a soothsayer or with great foresight, because who would have known that we would have got all this information out of The Toronto Star this morning. It is a sad way in Canadian life for Canadian people to learn through a newspaper about what is going to happen to them in their daily lives and the impact on their world of work and their world of play that is going to take place, rather than on the floor of this House of Commons where we have been calling for open and clear understanding and the tabling of documents that would indicate whether or not we as parliamentarians and we as the people of Canada found this to be a proper kind of trade direction.
All I can say is thank goodness for the media. We do not always love them, but certainly they do bring us the kind of information which obviously this government does not feel that it wants to share in the normal and
Supply
everyday way that would be expected if we could trust its judgment.
I listened to the Minister for International Trade during Question Period answering a whole series of questions. He kept repeating that we should have transparent rules and things should be clearly understood.
I listened to my colleague who just finished talking about ITACs, SAGITs and all such acronyms. I can guarantee that members of the general public of Canada who have lost their jobs, 1.5 million out of work, over 1.5 million or 2 million who are not only on unemployment but have now fallen through the cracks on to social welfare, have never heard of ITAC or SAGIT. They know this minister promised them jobs, jobs and jobs, but they also know that they are out of work. Do not tell us only about the recession. It was very poor planning by this government. It brought in wrong moves at the wrong time. That is what we got as a people with a government that does not exactly know how to plan, nor does it have a strategy for the future that will be in the best interest of its people.
As the critic for culture and communications, I look at how my area of interest is affected. It is my responsibility to question the government in this House. That is the opposition's role. If we look at the communications side, we find it extremely interesting The Toronto Star told us this morning that it was going to open up the Canadian telecommunication industry to the United States and to Mexico. It was also going to ensure that the protection of Canadian cultural industries obtained in the Canada-U.S. deal would remain in place in the new North American free trade agreement.
I would like to be able to address both of these. I will certainly not be able to do so in the time period I have now. However, if we talk about cultural industries, how can one presume that they are protected with clause 2005 which is like a notwithstanding clause? We see what happened to the book publishing industry as the Baie Comeau policy went down in flames to accommodate new considerations by this government. A proper film distribution bill would have helped the film industry in this country.

March 24, 1992
Supply
We see how a former minister, Flora MacDonald, had to water it down. Even then that film distribution bill did not get in because Mr. Jack Valenti, a very strong personality who knows how important the cultural entertainment industry is in terms of revenues to the United States, could not care less what it does to Canada or its sense of development of Canadian peoplehood, Canadian identity and Canadian unity. The mechanism that gets that information to many of those disciplines is through the communication vehicles. That includes all new forms of telecommunications which are very much impacted by this particular agreement.
Telecommunications is a vastly changing and dynamic structure within the whole world.
It is in that sector that the Americans have been trying for years to get their foot, the service sector, whether it is here through the free trade agreement or internationally through GATT. That is where the Americans want to go.
They have never accepted the fact that they did not get there through the first free trade agreement totally to their satisfaction. Now they want to try again.
One of the better ways to do that, of course, is through telecommunications. I know the minister told me during Question Period that I should read the agreement. It is 80 per cent ownership.
I would like the Minister for International Trade to maybe consult with the Minister of Communications who should both know that Bell Canada and B.C. Tel are major telecommunications companies that provide local and long distance services. Yes, they are supposed to be 80 per cent Canadian owned, but they are not 80 per cent of the telephoning universe.
It is the other part of that universe that we are concerned about that is not going to be covered, not going to be protected. It is not going to be open and where the American interests are going to be involved.
Now the minister tells me: "Do not forget, Sheila, you are very avant-garde". Canada is marvellous in the field of telecommunications. We want access to Mexico. We need to have protection right here in Canada for this evolving, dynamic sector. It will be a regional development tool. It is the research and development expertise that can be marketed around the world, but only when
we are assured that there is Canadian ownership and Canadian interest involved.
I can tell you that the resellers are much more interested in becoming stabilized in this country and in having protection and not being owned other than by Canadians. They are not the ones who are running to Mexico to get into the telecommunications business.
When they open Canadian telecommunications to the United States and Mexico, I would say it is going to have a very serious impact on the government's potential to use this as an industrial lever, as an economic tool for the development of this country, as we recognize more and more that the fax machine is fairly new to our consciousness, that the telephones that you walk around and carry are new, there are going to be other new things.
If you stop and think about our broadcast industry, how do we know what the newest kind of telecommunications technology will be that will impact on what is carried on our sets, whether it is that little set, that little box, whether it is going to be for programming or non-programming services? How are we going to ensure that we have some Canadian content?
That famous phrase "Canadian content" has one real story behind it. The story behind that is Canadian jobs. Canadian researchers, Canadian development, Canadian technology: because we are good at them, we should give them away and allow AT&T, MCI and Sprint to move in here. We know very well they would be the best and the fastest at gobbling up what could be a very good and lucrative industry for them.
We need it for us. We have enough problems with all the industries, such as the manufacturing industry, going down the tube. A lot of the industrial sectors are a challenge. They are the automobile sector, the magnesium sector, the lumber industry. What are we going to have left?
It is time for this government to be more forthcoming about what its goals are. I do not know what they could possibly be. Maybe those members all want to become part of the United States.
One of the major issues for me in communications is an assurance and a safeguard so that we can have some kind of control over the growth and development of this very new, evolving service sector and assurances that we will control it at least to 80 per cent. I do not think that that is such a terrible thing for us to ask.

When we look at book publishing for an example, film production as another example, or whether we look at the sound recording industry, I think I have made the point time and time again in this House that we are a culturally occupied country. We have to find the levers of economic and cultural development so that we can be assured of maintaining access to foreign cultural materials.
No way are we going to close that down. We do not want to close it down, but we certainly would like to have some little part of it for ourselves. We do not want three out of four being foreign in every single sphere that I just finished mentioning.
I have to laugh sometimes when I hear this government tell us how well it has protected us. It has protected us so well that it put in clause 2005. Peter Murphy, who did the negotiations, said he considered that Canadian cultural issues were a joke during the entire free trade talks. Some joke. I do not find it a joke. You do not find it a joke and I do not think Canadians find it a joke.
He went on to say that the Americans exploited Canadian concerns over losing control of such institutions as the CBC, book publishing and motion picture production as a bargaining chip.
A bargaining chip? Is that what we are to the United States, our culture, our people, our songs, our verses, our music, our books? Well, Mr. Speaker, clause 2005 shows we never got protected from the Americans in the last free trade deal. I wonder what is going to happen in this one.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member on her very informative speech. Certainly she is very familiar and very knowledgeable in the whole area.
I want to ask her a question but before I do I want to comment on this motion that is before the House condemning the federal government for not being fully open with the Canadian people about the negotiations being carried out under the North American free trade agreement.
I find it appalling. In fact it is unbelievable that the Canadian people have to learn about these negotiations through an article carried in The Toronto Star today.
Supply
It seems to me that this government is saying "trust us". The Canadian public feel they cannot trust this government after what has happened in the free trade agreement because Canadians were told all kinds of things which have not come about. For example, Canadians were told that they would have an adjustment program. There has been no adjustment program put in place.
I could go on and on but I know my time is limited in questions and comments so I want to ask a question of the hon. member.
Does the member agree that the government owes it to the Canadian people to be more forthright about the current negotiation of the North American free trade agreement?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the question.
I guess the comment from the member for Halton- Peel gave us the answer. As you were speaking so eloquently about openness, he found it rather deplorable, in fact anathema I guess, to the way we found out about it. The answer from the member for Halton-Peel was that it was planted.
It is a disgrace that the only way the people of Canada and the opposition members of this House, and in fact I would care to say most members of even the government side, even found out what was in the free trade agreement that their ministers had been negotiating was through the release of a plant. That we terrible people, or some people who have Liberal leanings, which means openness of spirit, understanding, let the public know that we do not do things in secret behind closed doors, that is the answer.
The answer is, Mr. Nader of the United States we thank you, and The Toronto Star we thank you, and certainly we give a great big raspberry to the government.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I must mention that my colleague from Mount Royal and I sit on some committees. I certainly listened to her presentation. I do not agree with it, of course. I find it very pessimistic and closed-minded for somone of her calibre.

March 24, 1992
Supply
That said, three words really struck and almost shocked me. Our colleague from Mount Royal spoke of a "culturally occupied country". I would take that to mean that our culture is like that of an occupied country. I am sure that she said more than she meant and I would certainly like her to take a few moments to restate her position on our living in a culturally occupied country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Mount Royal has up to one minute.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont. No, I did not make a mistake. I chose my words very carefully and fully aware of what I was talking about.
When three quarters of the books sold in Canada come from abroad, when three quarters of the revenue from films shown in our movie theatres does not stay here in Canada but goes abroad, to the multinationals, when more than three quarters of the magazines sold-

-through Canadian news stands originate outside of Canada-

when nine tenths of the tapes, songs, records and all that come from outside Canada, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, hon. members, that we are indeed a culturally occupied country.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on my party's motion which condemns the government for its failure to be completely open with Canadians about its plans, its goals and objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
Trade issues are of utmost importance to Canadians, certainly western Canadians. In large measure our country was built on our exportability. It is what drives the economy of much of our land and many thousands of our fellow citizens.
Yet trade is an area of public policy about which the people of Canada know less than we might. It is not because we are ignorant of its impact on our economy or our social fabric. It is not because we would rather leave these decisions to officials.
Canadians know less about trade than we ought to because this government likes it that way. It fooled many of us once before in the debate over the free trade agreement with the United States and now it wants to hoodwink the people of Canada again over the North American free trade, NAFTA.
All of us in this House are familiar with the old adage: "You can fool some of the people some of the time". Canadians will not be fooled again.
Request after request to the government to inform the House on behalf of 27 million Canadians on the progress of the NAFTA talks has been met with rejection. Such divulging would threaten the talks, they say. "Trust us. We know what is good for Canada."
My colleague for Etobicoke North has risen on numerous occasions to ask the Minister for International Trade for details on the progress of the negotiations. He has asked him for a copy of the bracketed agreement now in circulation, as my colleague from Mount Royal said a minute ago, leaked through Ralph Nader in Washington.
He along with many more on this side of the House have asked the government for even the most general of statements about progress on such items as human rights. Mexico's record on human rights, Mr. Speaker, is not what you and I would want it to be, nor in my view on democracy either, environmental standards, health and safety and the like.
No answers have been forthcoming. It seems that the government is not willing to address these issues until after the deal is done and ready to be rammed through this House with only token debate like so many other pieces of its legislation.
My colleague from Etobicoke North is a reasonable man. He would not ask the government to reveal any information that would compromise the bargaining position of our country. He is a former diplomat of stature. The member for Etobicoke North is probably far more aware of the intricacies of trilateral negotiations than
March 24, 1992

the minister of whom he seeks answers. Yet he is treated by those opposite with things like: "Don't worry, be happy. We'll tell you about the deal when the time is right".
As negotiations enter the home stretch, the time of that right is now. Having seen the economic havoc in this country in part caused by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the Canadian people hardly want to see this government sign another deal without some concrete precautions. The main issue we are talking about today is the integrity of this government, not simply the pros and cons of a North American free trade agreement. Integrity is not something Canadians are used to seeing from the folks across the way. They are more accustomed to seeing a veil of secrecy descend upon all of their schemes until it is too late to have any impact.
If this government was serious about lending some element of integrity to its trade debate, it would lift the veil of secrecy which currently shields Canadians from knowing all they must know about these negotiations.
In the scheme of things what are we to expect from this government? It has made an art form of state secrecy on very important issues. This is clear from an article on March 13 by Eric Beauchesne of Southam News. The author gave an account of how the Tories have cut funding or access to government departments and agencies and their propensity for publicizing valuable but sometimes embarrassing information.
Mr. Beauchesne wrote: "Stifling the flow of potentially harmful political information has become a Progressive Conservative government trademark".
It is unfortunate that the trademark must descend upon this issue of trade. It is an issue of interest to all of our constituents. We realize that our economic future depends on trade and we must ask ourselves how much we are willing to give up for just secure access to markets without acquiring some type of protection against the countervailing actions taken on items such as softwood lumber.
In 1990 Canada imported $1.7 billion worth of goods from Mexico, accounting for merely 1.3 per cent of our imports. The same year we exported approximately $600 million in goods to Mexico, accounting for .4 per cent of our exports.
Supply
In 1990, direct investment in Canada by Mexican firms and individuals accounted for the grand total of $4 million. That is a rather meagre figure in the scheme of things.
These are cursory figures but they say a lot about our relationship with Mexico. I am sure there are ways we can increase our trade with that country if we so desire without having to sign a trilateral free trade deal along with the United States. Why, in a most agonizing recession, does the government insist that our current free trade agreement with the U.S. must be extended to Mexico and changed? For a country that accounts for 1.3 per cent of our imports, the sky will not fall if we ask a few basic questions on the nature of the negotiations.
As a western Canadian, the priority this government has given to trade within North America does not make all that much sense. There is real work to be done in enhancing our relationship with the Asia Pacific where already four of ten residents of the planet live and where a great deal of the consumption and economic growth in the world is taking place.
The notion that economic prosperity and full employment in Canada hinges primarily on free trade with the United States, and perhaps Mexico, is based on a rather outmoded model of international trade. As the developed world lurches toward a diversified and lean approach to economic interrelationships, Canada seems content to stick with its narrow vision of continentalism.
Seeking an enhanced trading relationship with as many strategically important nations as possible remains as much a fundamental component to trade liberalization as the desire to bring down tariffs and non-tariff barriers. The fastest growing market on the face of the earth lies along the Asian rim of the Pacific Ocean. As rapid advances in transportation and communication technology have proven in recent years, one ocean is not a significant geographic barrier in the 1990s.
There are more important reasons, however, why Canada ought to devote more energy and enthusiasm toward building a more rewarding trade relationship with the Asia Pacific.
The Asia Pacific region will be home to approximately 600 million relatively affluent consumers by the turn of the century. The market will be very large and profitable for many Canadian commodities, products and services in addition to natural resources.

March 24, 1992
Supply
The advanced nations of the Asia Pacific are on the cutting edge of technology development and productivity enhancement. A closer and broader relationship with them could result in the fruits of their research and development initiatives and industrial strategies reaching the hands of Canadian firms committed to sustained and comprehensive joint ventures.
Embracing the concept of a broader Asia Pacific-Ca-nada co-operation would begin to improve prospects for diversified economic development and sustained prosperity for about eight million western and northern Canadians. Two-way transfers of technical, education, managerial and professional skills are areas offering particular promise.
A healthy trade relationship with markets in the Asia Pacific region would provide a counterweight to offset the economic and political dominance of the U.S., enhanced by the FTA.
Thousands of people now immigrate to Canada every year from Asia Pacific countries. Many of them are skilled professionals with numerous contacts and an abundance of knowledge pertaining to commercial ventures in their native lands. Many others come to Canada on student visas to attend our universities and colleagues. Many in the Asia Pacific see North America as an exceptional venue for investing capital. An Asia Pacific trade strategy must seek to persuade more ventures of all sizes to focus more attention on direct investment in our country.
Our FTA, as everybody but the government knows, has proven to be a very uneasy commercial accord, to say the least. In the three years since its implementation, it has become clear that Canada under the present agreement will either have to adapt our economic, social and political institutions to reflect those of our more powerful partner, or we can watch our once enviable manufacturing sector disappear. It is hard to see how Canada can achieve a truly global trade profile within a parochial trade bloc.
One of Canada's foremost economists, Sylvia Ostry, addressed the sorry state of Canada's competitiveness in the following way: "Pursuing a purely North American strategy cannot provide a safe haven".
Today, western Canadians, and I think all Canadians, have grown weary of a Europe-centric and a U.S.-centric approach to developing trade priorities. While our
neighbour to the south has been a valued and respected commercial partner throughout our history, our neighbours across the Pacific Ocean have redefined international economic order of the future.
Last year 80 per cent of Canada's entire export trade with this region involved the four western provinces. By comparison, the western provinces only accounted for 22 per cent of Canada's exports to the United States. Our proximity in the west to Pacific ports would be ideal for manufacturing interests and high technology industries which wish to establish factories to produce goods for export to Asia.
Japan has become Canada's second largest trading partner with a total export trade value of over $8 billion in 1990, second only to the United States. Trade officials expect Japan to become British Columbia's top trade partner this year.
As well, 54 per cent of all immigrants from Asia Pacific who come to Canada settle in the four western provinces. Many of them, as I have said, are highly energetic entrepreneurial people who can do so much to help us increase our trade with the countries they formerly lived in.
Finally, large firms in the Asia Pacific see Canada as a great venue for investing capital and purchasing securities. Yet generally speaking Canadian firms still do not seem to be aggressive enough in seeking out those sources of capital and trade. This situation persists despite the fact that $4.1 billion in direct investment came to Canada from Hong Kong alone in 1990.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time of the hon. member has now expired.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my colleague for his speech. In it he pointed out the need for Canada to diversify its trade and expand its trade, particularly into the Pacific region where there is great potential. He points out that this is a natural market for British Columbia and all of western Canada, and of course benefiting the entire country in the long run.
During the last debate on free trade, the debate on the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, we in this party expressed grave concern about the negotiations at that time because we firmly believed that that agreement as it was developing would put great pressure on Canadian social programs and would lead to the harmonization of Canadian social programs with American ones. We said that, knowing that in many American states they had
March 24, 1992

Supply
virtually no unemployment insurance, they did not have a medicare and hospitalization program, their social safety net on the whole was not as fair and as substantial as ours.
Since the agreement went into effect in 1989, we have seen substantial cutbacks in our unemployment insurance program; cutbacks under the Canadian Assistance Plan to British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. We have seen clawbacks on old age security. We have now seen the cancellation of a national day care program, and so on. The direction of social programs in Canada has gone backward and has, in fact, confirmed what we feared and the fear that we expressed in the debate of 1987 and 1988.
I want to ask the hon. member about the present negotiations with Mexico and the United States on this newly proposed free trade agreement.
Does he know enough that would assure him that our social programs, some of them that are the envy of the world, are not going to be still further under threat and subject to a harmonization that would go much broader than the present harmonization. The reason for that is in order to attract business from the United States and Mexico, we have to reduce our commitment to these things, reduce our payments for them and let people fend for themselves.
In this motion, we are asking the government to give us more information. Does he feel that on this particular point that we have enough information?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague who asked the question may not have seen the article in today's Toronto Star.
You wonder what country other than Canada on the face of the earth would have to refer to a document leaked to Ralph Nader in Washington and reported through one of our newspapers to know what is in an agreement that affects every one of us.
To my colleague for Montreal, the specific reference appears to be: "There appears to be no specific protection provided in critical areas of the environment, health and safety standards, and workers' rights". As I am sure the member knows, to become a member of the European Community, you have to accept 7 of 21 features of a social charter dealing with things like social programs and social safety nets. If I can be quite candid, and I am
speaking only for myself, many months ago President Salmas of Mexico stood a short distance ahead of you, Mr. Speaker, and he told us that Mexico had never wavered on the path to democracy. When I heard that, I almost fell off my chair.
I know he has done much. He is making improvements and I salute him for that. But I do not think that in terms of the pantheon of democracy Mexico has yet got a very privileged spot in that place.
A truly democratic system of government is one of the other requirements for membership in the European Community. I would ask those opposite to tell us whether they think that Mexico would qualify for the democratic test as applied by the European Community for membership in that other trading organization.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to make some comments on the NAFTA agreement.
Negotiations toward a North American free trade agreement are one component of the government's over-all economic and trade strategy aimed at enhancing Canada's future growth and competitiveness. The negotiations are seeking to create a North American market, free of tariffs and non-tariff barriers. The agreement would permit the free flow of goods, services and investments among the three countries. It would provide for the protection of intellectual property rights and it would establish a fair and expeditious dispute settlement mechanism. It would create a market of 360 million people, larger than the 12 countries of the European Community.
This is an ambitious undertaking. The agreement is being negotiated at a timely moment. The nations of the world are struggling to complete multilateral negotiations aimed at creating a more level playing field for exporters. As a trade dependent country, Canada will benefit from more open markets globally. While Canada currently ranks eighth in the world in the export of goods, and twelfth in the exported services, our future prosperity depends on building upon this successful track record.
This has nothing to do with playgrounds. Three million jobs in Canada are dependent on exports and are on the line. The export community has underlined the importance of a more focused approach to supporting Canadian businesses in its pursuit to global market opportunities.

March 24, 1992
Supply
The NAFTA negotiations constitute but one step in this direction. To be competitive in the world, our industry must successfully compete in North America. The North American agreement would benefit the wide range of export-oriented Canadian goods, producers and service providers.
I would like to focus my remarks on how the NAFTA will especially help smaller and medium-sized Canadian companies. With a growth population and economic reforms that have opened up its economy, Mexico is becoming North America's fastest-growing market. The country's annual economic growth exceeded 4 per cent in 1991 and imports are increasing by more than 30 per cent annually.
This offers immediate markets for Canadian suppliers of competitive products and services that are urgently needed for Mexico's modernization and diversification. Its potential as a key market is undeniable and the NAFTA will secure the access of this growing market to Canadian exporters.
The success of the recent Canadian Expo '92 in Monterrey, Mexico underscored that a wide range of Canadian firms are already focusing on opportunities created by the launch of the North American negotiations.
More than 200 firms from across Canada representing 11 industrial sectors participated in Canada's largest trade promotion ever held in Latin America. Judging from the results, participation in that show was well worth the effort. There was close to $3 million in on-site sales and an additional $80 million expected over the next 12 to 18 months.
For other small to medium-sized Canadian firms, the NAFTA will provide important opportunities to improve their competitive positions in the more medium term. We strongly believe an agreement will encourage small and medium-sized firms to form the strategic alliances in North America that can give them the needed edge to meet and beat tough offshore competition.
Japanese business success shows how a company should use the best of the resources available to it, whether those resources be domestic or foreign. A North
American free trade agreement will permit companies in all three countries to do just that. They will put into action the best of what each country has to offer.
Of course, many smaller Canadian firms have yet to discover Mexico as a market. Just as the free trade agreement encouraged some Canadian firms to think about exports to the United States, for the first time the prospect of a NAFTA has already stimulated unprecedented levels of interest on the part of Canadian firms in the dynamic markets of Latin America.
For the smaller firms focusing on the U.S.A. market, the NAFTA will add to the gains of the FTA. We will not allow the hard-fought deals made in the FTA to be reopened nor accept reductions in benefits that accrue to Canada under this agreement. But if during the NAFTA negotiations we see possibilities for improving the provisions of the FTA in ways that can benefit Canada, then we will do so.
We believe improvements may be possible with respect to such practical matters as more straightforward rules of origin and greater customs co-operation. This is not necessarily the stuff of headlines but it represents real improvements on day-to-day operations of businesses exporting within North America. These are the kinds of improvements that will benefit most small Canadian companies.
In the controversy generated around initiatives such as this one, the main purpose of our efforts sometimes becomes obscure or forgotten. It is plainly stated to reduce obstacles to trade. There is nothing base about this idea especially to a small and dynamic trade-dependent country.
Canadian negotiators will focus on dismantling Mexico's trade barriers which have hampered the efforts of Canadian exporters to compete for a slice of the Mexican market of 85 million people. They will focus on a trilateral deal which will preclude a bilateral U.S.-Mexi-co trade deal that would have created preferential access for the U.S. and stacked the deck against Canadian businesses and our economy. They will ensure that Canadian manufacturers have access to cost-efficient inputs and that Canadian exporters can forge the strategic alliances in North America needed to improve their competitiveness.
March 24, 1992

As our export statistics indicate, even small and medium-sized Canadian firms have already shown they have the know-how and ability to make important inroads in international markets. NAFTA will be another important tool to ensure that these firms have a freer environment to capitalize on.
In summary, this debate is not about playgrounds. It is real to the three million Canadians who depend on exports for their livelihood. It is real to the many small and medium-sized Canadian companies which are striving to make further inroads into international markets for the benefit of Canadians who depend on their success.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the analogy of playgrounds was quite good, except all of our playthings are being taken away.
I want to ask the member a simple question. We all recognize that the previous negotiator in the free trade agreement was Simon Reisman. The question I would ask the member is: Who is our chief negotiator now for Canada? If we went out there on the streets in any city in this country, Ottawa, Sault Ste. Marie, or in the member's riding and asked: "Who is the chief negotiator right now for Canada?" I suspect that no one would know.
I want to give that answer. The man's name is John Weekes. John Weekes made a speech on June 3, 1991. I want to give him credit because he has received little credit and little notoriety. No one knows who John Weekes is nor what he is saying about this agreement. I want to cite several excerpts from his speech and I would ask the member to comment on the content of what this person, this chief negotiator said for us. He said: "This government has introduced adjustment programs to help workers adapt to the demands of the modem outwardlooking economy". Of course, the government has not and it did not introduce any adjustment programs.
He goes on to say: "We will certainly not allow the hard-fought deals made in the free trade agreement to be reopened". I suspect that is contradictory. "Canada will be seeking improved access to the U.S. government procurement market". That will not happen. It did not happen. It will not happen.
Supply
He said: "It is evident that Canadian firms can benefit from the lower cost inputs of the Mexican marketplace". That tells me to let us go take advantage of these Mexican workers.
Finally, the piece de resistance in the comments: "The Canadian government is very conscious of the need to consult closely with Canadians". He did not say via the Toronto Star. "This is as true for NAFTA as it is with the Uruguay round of the GATT". Is this the close consultation that Mr. Weekes meant, that he would negotiate through the Toronto Star? This is quite a speech. It just flies in the face as to what really has happened in the NAFTA negotiations.
I would ask the member to comment on the speech of John Weekes, our chief negotiator.


Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his comments. I am sure that he realizes that not every negotiator is the same. Mr. Weekes of course is a low-key negotiator, an individual who likes to negotiate from behind the scenes and has been very effective at that.
I have not seen the comments that my hon. colleague brings forward which are supposed to have been from our negotiator. I am sure that Mr. Weekes is very careful in the things that he says. He has done an exceptional job to date for Canada in the negotiations at NAFTA.
I think too that he talked about a dynamic economy. I believe that is what will happen to Canada when we have the successful conclusion of the NAFTA agreement and the successful conclusion of the GATT.
We are poised to go forward on a steady and strong base here in Canada. We look forward to doing that as we have many Canadians waiting for that opportunity so the economy can expand and continue to employ Canadians in this great country.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on this opposition motion put forward by my colleague from Etobicoke North.
I would like to repeat it for those listening this afternoon:

March 24, 1992
Supply
That this House condemn the Government for its failure to be
completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and
objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
The central issue in public life today is trust because of the experience with the last free trade agreement. When I say experience I mean the results that have occurred in our economy, the job losses, the rapid deterioration of our manufacturing base in southern Ontario, the incidents we have had in terms of softwood lumber, the Honda dispute in Alliston, and on and on it goes.
There is the natural feeling that any further negotiation would leave us as a nation more exposed in any kind of a free trade agreement. How could it possibly be a benefit to Canada? How could it possibly be a benefit to those whose lives depend upon exports not only to the United States, but also to the rest of the world?
We are forgetting some of the things that have happened as a result of this free trade agreement in relation to manufacturing, not only the shrinking of the economy but also the way head offices in the United States have basically shut down their manufacturing in Canada. They have basically turned their Canadian operations into nothing more than distribution centres or marketing and sales operations.
There are so many of these incidents happening across the country that we now naturally get the feeling that there is even a greater danger as we continue with a similar trading relationship with Mexico. It is absolutely essential, if we are going to begin any kind of a rebuild on trust in any kind of a trade negotiation, that these discussions be totally open. There should not be any action that looks like we are doing this behind closed doors.
Most of us in this House know that one of the things that Canadians do not like is the fact that we seem to be tying our trade destiny to the United States.
One of the greatest assets that we have in this country is the fact that we are a multicultural nation. Over the last 20 years this country has spent millions and millions of dollars encouraging people to retain their cultural
heritage and their language. We have people who have come to this country from all over the world.
When we first started on multiculturalism back in 1971, there was an awful lot of criticism as to why we would be spending taxpayers' money and encouraging people to retain and promote their cultural heritage.
Here we are in the 1990s and the greatest trading asset that we have in this country is the fact that we have people from every part of the world, Canadian citizens, who have retained their cultural heritage and language because of this government's policies. It means they can now go to any country in the world. We do not need to have our trade policy linked and welded to the United States. Naturally we are going to continue to enjoy that great trading relationship, but we should make sure we develop some counterweights.
My colleague from Etobicoke North wrote a paper a few months ago. He suggested it was essential we build counterweights in this country to the United States.
I happen to think one of the counterweights, in terms of trade, is the fact that because of our multicultural fabric, we can send people all over the world.
About five years ago I had the opportunity to work for an auto parts manufacturer, Magna International. We had an opportunity to go to Tokyo to make a presentation to the Toyota operation. We made sure we brought a couple of young Japanese Canadians with us on that trip who were fluent in Japanese and understood the culture. These Japanese Canadians played such an incredibly productive role in our negotiations that we were able to bring back an order that was close to $50 million on our first visit.
That order created a lot of jobs in our factory here in Canada and I dare say it was because we brought Canadians of Japanese origin to that table, who had the facility of language and were so comfortable with the culture.
We can do that in every region of the world. We have had many people go to different parts of the world in the last few years from this House. We have always been able to have very special connections because there has either been someone in our constituency who was from the particular region we were visiting, or they had friends or family there. We have never really fully exploited the

March 24, 1992

linkage of language and culture that we have encouraged, promoted and built in this country over the last 20 years.
I think the government should not be so possessed and preoccupied in terms of the North American scene. It should start putting an added thrust in other parts of the world and use our assets. The owners of small and medium sized businesses need the support and assistance of government to re-establish those linkages. The mere fact they have that facility of language and culture would access us to those markets in very short order. That would allow us to have the counterweight in our trading policy that would give us a much stronger position when we are trading with the Americans.
The other counterweight when it comes to the United States is the fact we have the most fresh water of any nation in the world. It is no secret to anyone in North America that eventually the Americans are going to need our water.
We should make absolutely sure in whatever discussions go on here that water is not part of any trade deal in any way, shape, or form.
I think we would be doing a tremendous disservice to Canadians if we were cloudy on that particular issue.
I support the member for Etobicoke North's motion. There is such a low level of trust in any kind of trade negotiations going on in this country right now, that the government is going to have to bend over backward to rebuild that trust.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood that counterweights are very important and I would like to pursue the point with him.
The member was talking about his former employment with Magna Corporation. I should report to him that only half an hour ago I spoke with Mr. Frank Stronach who is a very strong supporter of referenda in this country and there are great developments on that front. But I would like to ask him about when he was employed in the Prime Minister's office.
Supply
When the member speaks to us today in the House about counterweights, he is certainly reflecting the talk, attitude and ideas of former Prime Minister Trudeau, who often spoke about creating counterweights. I recall Prime Minister Trudeau speaking about the importance of creating counterweights to the United States in the trading partnership. His government was going to negotiate a special deal with the European Community. Canada would forge these new dialogues on a north-south basis and we would build up that kind of counterweight.
At the end of the day, we saw sliding down the banisters and pirouettes behind Her Majesty at some of these meetings that were supposed to be dealing with the economic trade issues. A royal commission on Canada's future economic prospects was set up which, at that time, like most royal commissions, cost a lot of money and took a long time to finally tell us what it wanted to share with us. The recommendations were made to the Mulro-ney government because there had been a change by then. The recommendations obviously were so persuasive coming from the royal commission created by Prime Minister Trudeau that they caused the Conservative Party to reverse its historic position on trade with the United States without any real internal debate within the Conservative Party.
Could the member go back to his thinking of his time with his former employer and the policies of the Trudeau government, before he is coached by our fellow colleague from another metro Toronto constituency who has a lack of confidence in the member for Broadview- Greenwood who thinks he has to go and pull a few of these Charlie McCarthy things? I am sure the member for Broadview-Greenwood can answer this without any coaching from the member from some other part of metro Toronto.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I am happy to hear my friend from Etobicoke-Lakeshore had such a productive conversation with my former employer on referendum. Maybe he can use Mr. Stronach to have some influence on his party and its leader responsible for constitutional affairs to advance the idea of referenda in this country.
No offence to you or those in this House who believe in referenda, but we have not had a strong influence on the minister. Maybe Mr. Stronach can use his charm and maybe we will get somewhere.

March 24, 1992
Supply
I want to go back to the point the member made regarding the royal commission on the economy. My colleague from Willowdale reminded me they did call for adjustments. In other words, you did this free trade deal and you left absolutely no room for any kind of economic adjustments. The Royal Commission on the Economy agreed to free trade, but said there must absolutely be adjustments. He just sort of left those out and that is a key point.
I want to go back to Mr. Trudeau. He was not anti-American as some people try to pretend in their language and newspapers. Mr. Trudeau constantly favoured a global trading position for this country so we were not totally dependent on our American friends to the south. To this day when you travel in Europe, the Middle East-I cannot speak for South America-or some parts of Africa and speak to businessmen there, they have an image of this country and it is Trudeau. It is a good one and they saw him as a positive force on trade. To this day, we owe the former Prime Minister a great deal of debt and gratitude for his trading skills.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is rather embarrassing to see the Tories squabbling. Some are in favour of a referendum and others are opposed to the idea. However, I must say the minister has done a good job, and we support him. We wish him the best of luck with the constitutional proposals.

It would help our national unity if we had an economy that was vibrant and strong, instead of losing jobs overnight to the United States.
I would like to look at just one sector of our economy that has lost badly in the three years under free trade. It is not just because of free trade, but because of a whole raft of Tory economic policies which tilted the playing field in favour of the Americans, such as our high interest rates policies, our high dollar policies, our high tax policies and our GST. The NDP programs in Ontario are threatening to create labour strife and drive more and more jobs out of province. A previous government did not suggest or enact in Ontario the programs that are now being advocated.
Let us get back to the issue of this government's program for free trade and what it has done to our auto sector. In the three years since free trade, Canada has lost 127,213 automotive jobs in assembly and auto parts manufacturing. That is, 21 per cent of all the jobs in that industry in three years have disappeared.
Now the Tories will tell us some of those jobs have been lost in the United States as well. Of course they have. They have not lost 21 per cent of their automotive jobs, they have lost only 9 per cent of them. So you cannot blame that on the recession. The fact is we are losing jobs more quickly than they are.
They now have an opportunity with the North American free trade agreement to perhaps make some changes to the way in which we trade in automobiles. I hope they will make these changes.
I suggest they consider a North American content rule. Presently we have a free trade agreement in Canada which says you can trade free trade in automotives if you have a 50 per cent North American content. You saw what happened in the Honda case. The Americans claimed they just did not quite meet the 50 per cent level, therefore the Americans could impose taxes on cars made in Ontario and shipped to the United States.
I want this House to reconsider this 50 per cent North American content rule. Are we going to be the only free traders in the world in automotives or not? I wish we had genuine free trade in many things in this world and a level playing field but the reality is, we do not. When you look at foreign penetration of the European Community, they are now arguing among themselves whether by the year 2000 they will allow non-European automobiles into their market to the tune of 15 per cent or 17 per cent. That is the debate. In Japan, foreign automobile makers have 3 per cent of the market. What do we have in Canada? It is 37 per cent. Should we be the only free traders in a world where our competition is not free trading? This is one of the issues we have to face. Free trade may be good for consumers. It may be the right thing to do, but it is not what our competitors do. So let us not be naive.
There are ways in which we can reduce this 37 per cent penetration by foreigners of our automobile markets in North America. I really think in the interests of jobs that we have to consider some of those measures.
March 24, 1992

People will say that if we do not have unbridled competition we are going to suffer in terms of our competitiveness because we will not be as productive and we will not have the quality. We can overcome those objections by working closely with our auto manufacturers to ensure that they are world class.
I am impressed that under the threat of Japanese competition in the last few years we have increased our productivity and our quality to a point where North American vehicles are good vehicles. Let us start to get those jobs back and continue the progress we have made in terms of quality and productivity.
Are we going to have Canadian content rules, not just greater North American content rules but Canadian content rules in a North American free trade zone? If we do not, we will find ourselves in the precise position we are in today where under the free trade agreement with the United States the big three can pull their production out of Canada. They do not have to buy any Canadian parts. After the year 1998 when all the tariffs are phased out they can ship duty-free into Canada without having one Canadian job here. That is the way the present trade regime works.
In other words, the free trade agreement wiped out the auto pact. Under the auto pact, in return for participating in Canada's market we insisted that they created a certain number of jobs here. For every car brought into Canada duty free one car had to be produced in Canada. A certain degree of protectionism was offered in return for jobs.
That is what we are doing today as well under the entire concept of a North American free trade agreement. There was never any concept that we would allow unlimited free trade on a global basis. We were contemplating that we would have a common tariff against foreign automobiles. We were not going to let the foreigners come in without any duties. Therefore, we have said as a North American group that we are not in favour of free trade. We are in favour of erecting some type of barriers against foreign penetration.
Let us not pretend that we are being globalized and involved in free trade when we say as a group that we are going to erect common barriers. We have established what game we are in. It is protectionism in return for
Supply
jobs. Now let us make sure we get our fair share of jobs. That is why a common North American barrier against foreign penetration is one way of doing it. Having Canadian content is a way to ensure that we will have our fair share of auto jobs here in Canada.
I suggest that we go back to restoring what we had under the auto pact, those safeguards for Canadian jobs. We do not want to give up all auto jobs here in Canada. In return for other North American partners shipping into Canada duty free, let us make sure that they establish a certain number of jobs in Canada. Why is this important? It is because we do not have a totally level playing field right now.
The big three-GM, Chrysler and Ford-are not Canadian companies. They are located in the United States. They are subject to the pressures of the U.S. government. They are subject to pressures of unions which are far bigger. When it comes to closing plants it is highly probable that we do not have the leverage the United States does in making sure that we keep our fair share of jobs.
Let us look at what has happened in the last three years. We have lost auto jobs at two and a third times the rate the Americans have. This is why when we approach these discussions there is no sector more important than the automotive sector. I want to make sure that this government is realistic in terms of world standards and in terms of standing up for Canadians and Canadian auto workers.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, in one part of his speech the member for Willowdale was saying that he believed in free trade, a level playing field and global competitiveness. In another part of his speech he was urging that there be a common North American protectionism for North American jobs in the auto area.
I really have two questions I would like to ask him. I do not suggest that the member for Willowdale is being mischievous in the way he is handling the information. I think he seeks to be informed.


An hon. member:: Go for it.


Patrick Boyer: In responding to another member from Etobicoke, I really appreciate the resolution this afternoon. It gives us a chance to air some of these issues.

March 24, 1992
Supply
We have had all this discussion about the auto industry in North America in the context of this resolution on free trade, when all of us who read the document basically know that the free trade agreement was apart from the auto pact. I think it is mischievous to draw all this discussion about what is happening to the North American auto industry into the current discussion we are having as if there were not provisions in the existing trade treaty that govern this, and they do.
The loss of jobs in both Canada and the United States of America in the auto industry is clearly part of something else that is going on related to a recession and related to changing patterns of transportation which we have all been encouraging, frankly, in other debates in this House when we talk about the environment. It is time to square this discussion a bit.
The member is talking about this notion of global competitiveness and linking everything difficult that is happening in our country to this ogre of the trade treaty. How does he account for things that have happened in our country such as the closing of Anaconda in my riding? Machines that make nails have been crated and shipped to Poland and are now making nails in Poland from the company's operations in the United States. That is where the machines have gone and those nails are coming on to the world market. A plant in Toronto with 250 employees that made jewellery went bankrupt in the recession. The equipment was bought by an American for 25 cents on the dollar, crated and shipped to St. Petersburg, formerly Leningrad.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. Perhaps the member wants an answer.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we are in a global economy. Let us not get trapped into saying that a global economy means that there are not barriers being erected.
I have to comment first of all on what the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore said. He is usually a very intelligent, a very erudite person, an author, but he has bought into the Tory propaganda that the free trade agreement did not wipe out the auto pact.
The auto pact was not abolished by the free trade agreement. It was left there, but the means of enforcing the auto pact were taken away. Those means were the
tariffs which said that duties had to be paid if one car was not produced in Canada for every car brought in. We wiped out those duties. They will be totally phased out by 1998. They did not eliminate the auto pact in the free trade agreement. They just took away the means of enforcing it, which is the same as wiping it out. Let us not be naive. That is what this government has done.
This member said that I was in favour of free trade. Yes, I am in favour of free trade, but is he saying that in the NAFTA agreement they are not going to erect a common barrier against European, Japanese and Korean vehicles coming into North America? Of course they are. The European community erects common barriers against North American and Japanese cars.
This is unfortunately the way of the world. We are in a world that is not engaged in globalized free trade. We are engaged in a world of trading blocs. Let us make sure, first, that our trading bloc gets its fair share of automotive jobs, automotive production. Second, let us make sure that Canada within our own trading bloc has its fair share.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate today. I would like to make a few remarks off the top about some of the tenor of the debate so far today.
There has been an awful lot of fear-mongering in this Chamber. As we listened to what some of the members in the opposition were saying, a lot of us reflected back to a debate we heard some three and a half years ago during the free trade agreement negotiations with the United States. I am sure we all remember that.
I vividly remember during the last election campaign going around and people saying to me: "Well, the Liberal candidate was here a little while ago and said we were going to lose our social programs when we have free trade with the Americans". Other people told me: "We have been told we are going to lose medicare once we have free trade with the Americans". Then it was water. They said that we were going to lose control of our own natural resources including water, that water was going to be shipped wholesale from Canada to the United States if we entered into this free trade agreement.
March 24, 1992

It went beyond that. People were being told during the election campaign that free trade meant Canada would lose its infrastructure, that our whole social infrastructure would be lost. Not only that. They were told that our environmental standards would be eroded. That was a big one.
I remember the NDP television commercials with Ed Broadbent or some older guy walking beside a pond with a child. A clear message was being sent to Canadians night after night that if we signed a free trade agreement our environmental standards would go out the window.
All those free trade agreement bogymen are being dragged back into this Chamber once again in a desperate attempt by opposition people to make Canadians believe what they rightfully and forcefully rejected in 1988. That is all that has been going on here today, and I think Canadians deserve a better level of debate than that.
Canadians have been watching this debate. I am sure many of them are confused and a little frustrated by some of the things being said in this Chamber. People are being confused by the black and white nature of the arguments being put forward. Most Canadians know better. They know that the arguments are not all black and they are not all white. There are shades of grey which really dictate it. There are good things about NAFTA. There are things that are not going to be good about NAFTA. It is the role of the Canadian government now to negotiate strongly and forcefully to get the best deal possible for Canada.
I am sure a lot of Canadians listening to the debate today are a little ticked off as well by the politics of fear which are being brought into this debate. It is not logic, not common sense, not a dispassionate look at what is good and bad for Canada, but just a whole bunch of emotional rhetoric designed to frighten people. That is not what Canadians deserve.
The motion we are talking about today reads:
That the House condemn the government for its failure to be completely open with Canadians about its principal goals and objectives in the current North American free trade negotiations.
Flow did we get this particular motion today? It is typical of what goes on in Ottawa. A lot of people got up
Supply
this morning, read the headlines in the newspaper and turned it into a motion in the House of Commons.
On Sunday The Ottawa Citizen ran the second in a series of articles called "The Human Cost of Free Trade". The front page of The Ottawa Citizen had a picture of an impoverished Mexican peasant. Inside there was no reference at all to any of the particulars of the free trade agreement proposals. It was just simply how bad life was in Mexico. We all feel for Mexican peasants. We all want to make their life better. There is a body of thought that says helping the Mexicans improve their economy not only helps the Mexican peasants; it helps Canadians as well.
Then this morning we had this story "Leaked document reveals massive three-way trade plan" splattered all over the front of The Toronto Star. I saw my "Star" this morning and I was pretty interested in the story. It looked like the second coming. I started reading it and thought: "Surely I am going to have some kind of fair and balanced story".
Who leaked the document? What does the document say? What is the government response? What is the context that this happened in?
The story was written by Linda Diebel. Linda Diebel is a pretty good reporter so I expected a fair and balanced story. What do I find? I find a plant, a Ralph Nader plant, in The Toronto Star. They just swallowed it. They took it all, hook, line and sinker. They had no verification whatsoever.
We have quoted in this story the Citizen Tradewatch Campaign, which is a Ralph Nader established organization. We have the Sierra Club quoted in here. It is an American organization being quoted on the agreement.
We have Public Citizen, which is part of the Consumer Advocate Network of Ralph Nader. We have a lot of people quoted in this story. None of them are Canadian. Nobody in the government was given an opportunity to put this into context. It is a totally incredible, one-sided story.
Therefore I would like to read into the record a couple of comments which were made two and a half hours ago just outside this Chamber. They are contained in a story which ran on the Canadian Press wire about an hour ago.

March 24, 1992
Supply
I will quote verbatim a couple of paragraphs: "'A leaked version of the proposed three-way trade agreement among Canada, the United States and Mexico is simply a preliminary document and does not mean Canada has given anything away', according to International Trade Minister Michael Wilson". If somebody should know, he ought to know.
'"It is a draft text', says the minister. 'The document is a very preliminary document'." The minister adds that just because they put forward the couple of proposals contained in that article, it does not mean that Canada is accepting them. In fact, the minister has said that, for example, the proposal on telecommunications that the Americans put forward has been rejected by Canada. We are not buying it.
This particular agreement that is in The Toronto Star and printed as if it is from the Bible is nothing but a working draft negotiating text. End of story. It does not matter. Nothing in this text matters. The Americans put forward their best case of what they wanted from Canada, it does not matter. We are negotiating a deal. We can reject it.
Canadians are watching this debate based on the premise that this planted story by a left wing, activist group from the United States and bought hook, line and sinker by The Toronto Star is fact. We are here tying up the Chamber of the House of Commons debating something which is not based on fact. It is not based in fact. It is not balanced and it is not reasoned journalism. I think it is an insult to a lot of people to put up with this.
I would like to address the NDP claim in this House that somehow the federal government has been trying to muzzle members of Parliament or conceal the facts of NAFTA while U.S. and Mexican parliamentarians have had full access. That is the way the argument has been developed in the Chamber.
Let us review the facts. The Government of Canada has offered a briefing to members of this House to review not a leaked draft text, but the working text that Canada is now proposing at NAFTA.
Members of this House from the government side and the opposition side have the opportunity of being fully briefed, of having it done after signing an agreement that says that the contents will be kept confidential.
That has been put forward as a position that is diametrically opposed to that which the American and Mexican parliamentarians have been offered. I would like to review it.
What have American legislators been offered by their government in terms of having a look at this agreement? The American government is essentially sustaining the same kinds of criticisms that the Canadian government is right now, that the United States is giving confidential briefings to legislators in the United States but they are classified briefings.
The only people being given confidential briefings are members of Congress and their staffers, and private sector trade advisory members and their staffers. Those briefings are only being given to the Americans after a full security background check has been made into those people who will be at the briefing. It is just the same as that being offered here in Canada. But Canadian parliamentarians who are being offered briefings by the government do not have to go through a security check. They just have to agree that what they see will be confidential.
The NDP in this House has made much of saying Mexican senators have been getting briefings on roughly what is in the free trade negotiating documents. What the Mexican senators have been offered is not a confidential briefing. No confidential briefings whatsoever have been offered any members of the Mexican opposition.
I think what the Government of Canada has been offering in this House has been much more than either the Americans or the Mexicans have been offering to our counterparts in those legislatures.
That is myth number one which we have to address here.
Myth number two is that Canadians in general, not just Canadian legislators, have not been informed adequately about has been going on here, about what the heck the government has been doing in terms of negotiating some kind of a free trade agreement with the Americans and the Mexicans.
It is interesting to note that the government has had more than 48 meetings on the North American free trade proposed agreement since negotiations were launched.
March 24, 1992

The minister responsible for international trade has personally delivered more than a dozen speeches from Fredericton to Vancouver. In each speech-and I have read them-he details a few more elements of the free trade agreement. If you look at those speeches as a body of material, they give an incredible insight into what the Government of Canada is trying to achieve through these agreements.
The minister has personally written almost 400 letters to Canadians in response to inquiries on the agreement. The chief negotiator, Mr. Weekes, has given 26 speeches to groups of Canadians on the free trade agreement. There have been more than 2,800 copies of Situation Report distributed to Canadians who have made inquiries about the NAFTA. There have been 10 background briefings to the press since September.
The minister has appeared before the standing committee of the House of Commons seven times to answer any questions relating to the free trade agreement.
The minister himself has given a number of speeches from one end of the country to the other. Let me give members a glimpse: the Financial Post Conference on North American Free Trade in Montreal, Council of the Americas and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Toronto, the Central Canada Broadcasters' Association in Toronto, the MacDonald-Cartier Club in Calgary, Canadian-American Committee in Toronto, and the list goes on.
From one end of the country to the other the minister has been there. He has been before the House of Commons committee. There has been no attempt to avoid giving information on free trade.
I submit that the motion that the government has some hidden agenda in terms of the free trade agreement with North America is absolutely political bunk and rhetoric.
There are a couple of words I would like to say on the agreement itself.
Why are we doing this? What are Canada's objectives? Why are we even sitting at the table with the Americans and Mexicans trying to construct a free trade agreement?
Supply
The first and most important thing for Canadians, Canadian business people, Canadian entrepreneurs, is the fact that there are 80 million people in Mexico and right now the Mexicans have a lot of barriers to our companies reaching that market of 80 million people. Obviously it would be to our benefit if we could reduce some of those barriers, if we could bring them down and increase the accessibility.
Second, we need to have better access to the United States market. Much has been made today in the House about some of the problems that have come up, whether it has been a ruling on the content of Honda cars, softwood lumber, pork disputes, et cetera.
Some of the hon. members who have raised those things as examples of free trade not really helping us because we still have problems in part are right. We still do have problems. The Americans are very protectionist right now. The Americans want to protect their economy because they are in some of the same dire straits that we are in. They have a recession and an election coming up. They are using trade laws as a way of attacking some of those that are being successful in getting their products into the American market, including Canadians.
The free trade agreement, as we have negotiated it, helps but it does not do everything that is possible. As we sit down with the Americans and the Mexicans now and look once again at free trade, the way it works, the irritants, and so on, if we can possibly make that deal better and remove some of the irritants and strengthen Canada's position, then why would we not do it?
That is the second objective that Canada could have under these negotiations.
Third, we want to make the investment climate better in Canada. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with foreign investment in this country. We welcome foreign investment. It has always built Canada. Other countries are happy when entrepreneurial Canadians go to their countries and invest in their infrastructure; we should be just as happy here.
Those are the three things I would like people to remember about objectives: gain access to a market of 80 million people; tiy and improve the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement; and make Canada a more attractive place for investment.

March 24, 1992
Supply
Why negotiate a deal with Mexico? Right now it is becoming a very dynamic economy. The Mexicans do not want to be a Third World country, they want to be a first world country. It appears that with the kind of aggression it has right now, it is going to make it. As it improves its economy, as it increases the wealth in that economy, individual Mexicans are going to prosper. They are going to have more money to spend, and that is only good for us in Canada because we want to access that market.
It is clear now that Canada can really play a major role in these trade negotiations by reshaping the way the whole western hemisphere trading patterns are taking place.
Finally, globalization: it is here to stay. We cannot hold it back. It does not matter how much little Canada, with its little market of 26 million people wants to protect our own industries, we cannot do it any more. We cannot buck a trend that the whole world is moving toward. So we have to be at the table with the Americans and the Mexicans. It would be ridiculous for us to walk away. We have to be there to protect our own interests.
A question that comes from a lot of people is: "Okay, we understand that; you've got to be at the table; it would be irresponsible to take a hike, but how can we possibly compete with workers in a country where wages are so incredibly low?" I think that is a really valid question and we have to come up with a reasonable answer or else we risk losing the support of a lot of people in these negotiations.
I would say to those people who worry about that, the answer is that on average about 12 to 15 per cent of the cost of a product is accounted for by wages. It is a fairly low percentage. Less than 2 per cent of the goods that Canada buys abroad come from Mexico. So we are not looking at a very great threat here. It is a really reasonable element of the total cost of producing something that is sent to Canada.
It is also interesting to note that the biggest trading countries in the world are not low wage countries. The biggest trading countries are countries like Canada, the United States, Germany, and Japan. These are countries that have high wages now and yet they still have been able to become the great trading countries of the world. It is not the low wage countries that have been able to
take over world trading patterns. They have not been able to do it. For the critics to stand now and say that just because they have low wages in Mexico means they are going to become large trading countries does not follow. We have no experience like that.
I would like to conclude by saying that I do not think Canadians have anything to fear from trade negotiations with any country. We have an environment where we have well-educated workers, we have an excellent infrastructure, we have some of the strongest and largest financial institutions in the whole world. We have a lot in this country that puts us into a very favoured position in terms of trading with anybody in the world.
We cannot hold back world trends. We cannot stand there with our hand up to history, saying: "Stop, Canada wants off here, Canada doesn't want to be part of a globalization of trade". You cannot do it. We must press forward and the government is on the right track. If we cannot get a good deal for Canada we will not take a deal.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, let me move away from what the hon. member for Halton- Peel has called emotional rhetoric and let us get specific.
An article in The Financial Times on March 16, 1992 concerning the NAFTA talks states:
Sources familiar with the talks warn that the U.S. side-which is looking over its shoulder at a hawkish Congress-is putting forward proposals that would protect politically powerful regional U.S. industries. The Americans are out to put the boots to us," complains Stephen Beatty, executive director of the Canadian Apparel Manufacturers' Institute.


An hon. member:: Stephen Beatty? Where have I heard that name?


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Many observers of NAFTA say what little gains Canada made in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement will most certainly be lost under what is being negotiated at NAFTA.
As the hon. member for Halton-Peel well knows, Canada is already under pressure from the U.S. regarding softwood lumber and the Honda dispute. Now I hear the alarm bells starting to sound in the textile industry. In my riding of Hamilton West we have a textile manufacturer which employs 700 to 800 individuals and they are concerned.
March 24, 1992

Let me give the member an example. Presently, Canadian clothing manufacturers can sell a limited amount of clothing containing foreign fabrics to stores on Fifth Avenue in New York. They cannot sell to the U.S. in bulk clothing that has foreign components. This is why the U.S. has ruled against Honda Civics which is not right because the manufacturing takes place in Canada.
Under the NAFTA, the U.S. is considering that every single fibre resulting in the end product of clothing be North American. They are insisting that the yarn, the cloth and clothing be all North American, no foreign components allowed at all.
This is obviously very consistent and convenient for the U.S., since they have long-established links with the Mexican textile industry, providing the market with cheap U.S.-labelled Mexican-made clothing.
This is the specific question that the member is looking for because he says it is all a bunch of hyperbole and emotional rhetoric, et cetera. These are concerns of our industries in our ridings. I put it to the member: Would he not agree that NAFTA will curb Canadian access to the U.S.-Mexican market under this specific regime having to do with the textile industry?


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is a valid concern, a reasonable point and it is one which it will be interesting to see how our negotiators deal with.
I am not going to stand here and say that all the problems are going to be solved with every industrial sector.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: They had better be, that's your job.


Garth Turner: It is not my job to tell you that the government is going to solve all the problems in the country, the government cannot. It would be irresponsible for the government or anybody else to say that is going to be the case.
We are, as I said a few moments ago, in a situation where we have a globalization of trade. It is desperately wrong for Canada to try and buck that trend.
The best protection that all of our industries and those men and women in our ridings who work in the industries which are threatened from time to time can have is if Canada has trading agreements, whether it is at the
Supply
GATT or whether it is with NAFTA or whether it is under FTA, specific trading agreements which have built into them specific dispute settlement mechanisms.
Obviously, the Americans are going to try and get as much as they want out of this deal. I hope that our Canadian negotiators are ruthless and try to get as much as possible out of the deal for Canada. I think it is reasonable that the three countries as they scrap and fight over every little bone in this thing, are all ruthless and fight for their own constituencies just as we do in this House. There is nothing wrong with that. But I think we must have more dispute settlement mechanisms or else we will fall victim to American protectionism. We have very few ways of battling that right now. We are looking at a country that has an economy 10 times larger than ours.
The United States has had a tradition of protectionism. As was quite rightly said, it now has a hawkish Congress. It has a fearful president. There are a lot of forces in the United States which are really fuelling the fires of protectionism. So I think it is more appropriate than ever that Canada try to sit at a table and come up with a set of rules so that we can protect our constituents' interests.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, in 1988 I also made quite a few speeches to promote free trade. I was convinced that free trade was a good idea, and I still think so today. I also think the globalization of our markets is a good idea for industry. The big problem we had after 1988, after the FTA was signed, was this government's incompetence. Right after the FTA was signed, it failed to put in place the appropriate manpower support programs, for instance.
As soon as the FTA was signed, and this I never could understand, interest rates were raised. The Canadian dollar was also allowed to go up, which prevented small businesses from exporting to the United States. These businesses had already made certain adjustments. They had started to look for markets in the United States and spend money to open those markets.
It was a severe blow to small business, especially in Quebec, and I know what I am talking about. The problem is not free trade with the United States but the

March 24, 1992
Government Orders
failure of the Tory government to keep interest rates and the dollar down. That is the real problem. It created a terrible recession in this country, and that is why we are going to suffer the consequences for the next 10 years. The real problem is that we have a government that does not know how to run the economy.
We also wonder how come the government let the dollar rise as it did, because during the free trade negotiations, the dollar was worth about 76 cents. A few months, barely a year, later, it was up to 85 cents, enough for the former Conservative minister of trade, Sinclair Stevens, to say that there was probably a secret arrangement between the United States and Canada to let the dollar rise, because it was completely unacceptable and incomprehensible.
Will we have the same problem in free trade with Mexico? Will we have the same problem because we will have an incompetent government to negotiate after the agreement? Will we be able to enjoy the fruits of this free trade?


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, the greatest threat that Canada faces in terms of its economy, the certainty of investors abroad, and the ultimate future of Canada, is separatism. I think the hon. member across the way should be ashamed of himself for even sitting in this House.


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of the hon. member for Halton- Peel. It is obvious that free trade is going to pose veiy interesting challenges to businesses and industries in Canada. At the same time, it seems obvious that Canada cannot opt out of the world and exist as a nation behind protectionist barriers and borders serving its own needs and interests.
I want to ask the hon. member for Halton-Peel a question relating to an observation he made early in his speech that indeed the Mexican economy would flourish and benefit by a North American free trade agreement but that Canada too would benefit. In other words, I think he was saying that the pie could be made to grow larger and that there would be benefits not only to the impoverished people of Mexico, but also to Canada.
Opposition critics often leave the impression that we have to be the losers if someone else gains, but in fact common logic would tell us that through free trade and through the elimination of barriers on unnecessary bureaucracy and the creation of more competitive industries, everyone will gain.
Rather than having government policies which look after the Third World and the developing nations by spending money on foreign aid, which this country is committed to at a level of say $2.5 billion a year, I put the question to the hon. member for Halton-Peel. Would it not make much more sense to help those economies to grow and strengthen so that they would not need to rely on foreign aid from the do-gooders who think that we can afford to help the whole world by sending money. They could become truly economically self-sufficient and prosperous.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FEDERAL POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order made Friday, March 20, 1992, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

March 24, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to	NAYS
on the following division:
Members
(.Division No. 121)
++YEAS
Anderson
Atkinson
Belsher
Blais
Bosley
Bourgault
Brightwell
Cadieux
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Chartrand
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cooper
Corbett
Couture
Crosby (Halifax West)
de Cotret
Desjardins
Domm
Duplessis
Fee
Ferland
Fretz
Gibeau
Greene
Guilbault
Halliday
Hawkes
Hogue
Horner
Hudon
James
Johnson
Jourdenais
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Littlechild
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McCreath
McLean
Monteith
Oberle
Plourde
Redway
Ricard
Robitaille
Saint-Ju lien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vien
White
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Worthy -128
Andre
Beatty
Bertrand
Blenkarn
Bouchard (Roberval)
Boyer
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Charest
Clark (Yellowhead)
Clifford
Collins
Corbeil
Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Danis Della Noce Dobbie Dorin Edwards Felt ham Fontaine Friesen
Gray (Bonaventu re-iles-de-la-Madeleine) Grey (Beaver River)
Gustafson Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Holtmann
Homing
Hughes
Jelinek
Joncas
Kempling
Landry
Larrivee
Lewis
Lopez
MacKay
Marin
Masse
McDermid
Merrithew
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Porter
Reimer
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
"Rimer (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle Vezina Vincent Wilbee -Assiniboia)
Winegard
Allmand
Angus
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Baker
Belair
Berger
Black
Boudria
Brewin
Callbeck
Catterall
Clancy
Crawford
Dingwall
Duceppe
Ferguson
Flis
Foster
Gaffney
Gardiner
Gray (Windsor West)
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hopkins
Jordan
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kristiansen
Lapierre
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacAulay
MacLaren
MacWilliam
Marleau
McCurdy
Mifflin
Mills
Nault
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Prud'homme
Riis
Simmons
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Stewart
Taylor
Venne
Wappel
Wood
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-99
Althouse
Arseneault
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Barrett
Bellemare
Bevilacqua
Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Breaugh
Butland
Campbell (South West Nova)
Chretien
Comuzzi
de Jong
Dionne
Duhamel
Finestone
Fontana
Fulton
Gagliano
Gauthier
Harb
Heap
Hovdebo
Kaplan
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) Lee
MacDonald (Dartmouth)
MacLellan
Manley
Martin (Lasalle-limard)
McGuire
Milliken
Mitchell
Nystrom
Parent
Peterson
Proud
Rideout
Robinson
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Stupich
Vanclief
Volpe
Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

March 24, 1992
Private Members' Business



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
establish a national task force to discuss national standards of
education.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion I have put before the House and which I am asking the House to support calls for the federal government to establish a task force to discuss national education standards.
The motion arises from extensive research that has convinced me that education is directly linked to competitiveness. Canada's education system needs to be overhauled to make us better able to compete in a changing world economy.
The key to competitiveness is productivity. The productivity of a nation is closely linked to the literacy levels of its citizens. This is especially true today.
The acceleration of technology and the globalization of trade is changing the workplace and placing increasing demand on the work force.
Current skills are devalued and new ones are created at an alarming rate, but Canada's education system is not keeping up with the demand. A high percentage of our work force is illiterate to some degree and unable to cope with new technology.
Tomorrow's workers are graduating from education programs that no longer equip them with the skills required for meaningful employment. The secret of improved productivity is to improve the skill of the average Canadian.
In the 21st century, natural resources, capital and technology will move around the world. A nation's strategic asset will be the skills of its work force. Literacy and human resource development are therefore central
to Canada's economic development, and our competitive future as well.
We need to ensure that Canadians are able to cope with the challenges of a changing workplace. One of the most important ways we can do that is to establish national education standards.
Several broad trends are serving to strengthen the ties between literacy levels and productivity. For example, in an advanced economy, there is steady growth and jobs requiring reading and communications skills. Economic structures are changing with the fast growth of high technology and the relative decline of natural resources and traditional manufacturing.
As you know, Canada specializes in resource related goods. In the 1950s and 1960s, this gave countries an edge in the world market. Today, however, there is a great emphasis on high-tech manufactured goods. Resource commodities are being replaced by information and knowledge-intensive goods.
In this new knowledge-based world, trading advantage depends more on acquired knowledge and skills than on a wealth of natural resources. Canadians are losing ground to industrial competitors who are better than they are at manufacturing, inventing, designing and marketing.
Economic structuring means that the nature of jobs is changing. Firms are reorganizing in order to cope with the increasing international competition and market diversification. In both the manufacturing and service sectors of the economy, these trends imply greater demand for information and communications skills, as well as analytical abilities. Companies, for example, are trying to reorder production so they can respond more quickly and with greater flexibility to market shifts. The changes are placing increasing demand on workers to be able to handle varied tasks, respond to unexpected situations, communicate with other workers and management and train more extensively in the use of special technologies.
Jobs with low literacy skill demands are disappearing. In a report entitled "Workforce Literacy: An Economic Challenge for Canada", the Hudson Institute estimates the fastest growing occupation will demand math skills, verbal and communication skills and management abilities. Jobs in blue collar areas, assembly work in most primary industries will be much harder to find. In
March 24, 1992

addition, Canadians will have to be able to learn new skills throughout their working lives to keep up with continual technological change.
According to the Hudson Institute, workers' skills and specialized knowledge become obsolete in about three to five years. Just a decade ago, skills stayed current for seven to 14 years.
The Department of Employment and Immigration predicts that many low-skilled jobs will simply disappear. High school dropouts could comer 46.7 per cent of the job market in 1986. Between 1989 and the year 2000, only 37 per cent of new jobs will be offered to those with less than grade 12 education.
Globalization of the economy also affects productivity. Traditionally, Canadians have lived in a relatively insulated environment created by a history of market production. The current trend toward trade revitalization is placing increasing pressure on Canadian workers.
lake, for example, the free trade agreement. It was designed to enhance wealth through productivity. Inevitably, low productivity jobs will be replaced with those demanding proficiency in basic skills. Yet, even as the demands for literacy and basic skills are increasing, the supply is diminishing.
We are facing a demographic revolution that is depleting the labour market. The availability of workers will decline in the decades ahead. Two-thirds who will be in the work force in the year 2005 are already in the work force today, according to the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre. If this is true, companies can expect tight labour markets. Employment and Immigration figures indicate that in 1986 51 per cent of the population was between the ages of 15 and 34. By 2001, that figure will drop to 40 per cent. However, the percentage of those between the ages of 35 and 54 will increase to almost 50 per cent by the year 2001 compared to 38 per cent in 1986.
Given the declining birth rate, employers will be less able to rely on new young graduates to meet their skill requirements. Until recently, employers have counted on educated young people to bring up-to-date specialized skills to the work force. The pool of highly qualified and highly skilled youth is expected to decline by nearly 25 per cent over the next 10 years.
Private Members' Business
Along with the need to provide quality education in schools and universities, it is obvious there is also a need to further educate the existing labour force.
In many ways, the Canadian education system is superior among countries with advanced economies. Proportionately, only Denmark and Norway spend more public funds on education than Canada. According to the 1991 World Competitiveness Report, the Canadian government spent $1,350 per capita on education compared to economic contenders such as Germany and Japan which spent $820 and $1,080 per capita respectively.
Traditionally, Canada is also committed to accessibility and fairness in education. Only the United States has a higher percentage of youths between the ages of 20 and 24 enrolled in colleges and universities. However, there seems to be a huge gap between input and output. Canada has the lowest productivity growth of the G-7 countries and a miserable score in key factors of international competitiveness.
In a 1991 survey of 23 countries conducted by the World Economic Forum, Canada ranked poorly in many criteria used to determine competitiveness. The forum looked at factors such as growth of exports, spending on research and development and quantity of skilled labour force. Canada ranked 20th in categories such as export of manufactured products and new business generation and ranked 15th in the availability of skilled labour.
International comparisons generally show we are investing enough to remain competitive as long as the skills our students learn are relevant and applied well. Despite high participation rates and high levels of funding, some of the results of our educational systems have been disappointing. The shortfall is most evident in areas such as literacy and numeracy skills and vocational training.
Nearly 40 per cent of adult Canadians have difficulty reading, writing and doing basic maths tasks, according to a survey of literacy skills used in daily activities. The survey was conducted by Statistics Canada in 1989 on behalf of the National Literacy Secretariat. This study pointed out that literacy is not a problem affecting small, marginal sections of the population. It is a central issue determining the competence of the work force. Estimates vary widely, but it is conceivable that about

March 24, 1992
Private Members' Business
one-third of workers could do their job better if they were able to use basic reading and writing skills better.
The problem of literacy extends beyond a lack of basic skills. Literacy is a dynamic concept related to the evolving needs of the work force. As the demands of most rewarding jobs rise, the definition of functional illiteracy expands. The literacy survey focused on the ability of people to use their information processing skills. The study suggests the largest problem is with those who can read very simple messages, but are not able to apply these skills to complete complex tasks. Companies are using increasingly complex equipment. Instead of taking verbal instructions from a supervisor, workers now need to read, question and respond to printed instructions from a computer. A wide variety of communication needs constantly emerge in business and can also be classified as literacy related. These may include courses offered in the work place on blueprint reading and business writing.
Employee illiteracy has had quite an impact on Canadian business. In a 1990 study conducted by the Conference Board of Canada, 70 per cent of surveyed companies identified a significant problem with illiteracy. The major challenge facing employers was adjusting to rapid market change. Training and retraining become extremely difficult if employees lack the skills needed to absorb and analyse material.
The study also found that illiteracy hinders companies from bringing in new technology such as computers or high-tech equipment, increases the error rate for input and production processes, increases productivity losses and reduces product or service quality.
The Conference Board study also addressed a number of myths surrounding illiteracy. It found, for example, that first generation immigration affects the illiteracy rate by only 2 percentage points. Indeed, the net impact of first and second generation immigration is positive. According to a demographic review published by Health and Welfare Canada, immigrants, both new and traditional groups, have a higher average level of education compared with those bom in Canada.
However, illiteracy strikes all ages but the older generation, in particular, is hit the hardest. A key finding of a Statistics Canada survey is that poor literacy is not limited to select groups of the unemployed and marginalized youth who have dropped out of school. Poor literacy is also found in a significant segment of the older employed adult work force.
For example, only 6 per cent of those between the ages of 16 and 24 have dysfunctional reading levels and only 7 per cent of those between the ages of 25 and 34 have this problem. But this percentage rises to 14 per cent of those between the ages of 35 and 54 and peaks at 36 per cent in the group aged 55 to 64.
It appears that literacy tends to deteriorate over time, partly because individuals do not continue to use their skills sufficiently. This finding has serious implications for an aging work force facing sharply increased training needs.
Those already in the work force will have to leam new jobs and/or new skills to keep up with the global economy. If a large segment have poor literacy skills, the situation will be grave.
Illiteracy is also expensive. The Canadian Business Task Force on Literacy estimates the cost of literacy to society as a whole at about $10 billion a year. It also estimates the cost of illiteracy to businesses at about $4 billion a year in lost productivity, accidents and direct training efforts.
Adult job training is key to increasing basic and technical literacy. There is a vast amount of untapped potential in the Canadian labour force but Canada lags far behind many other countries in adult training. The average Canadian worker participated in 6.7 hours of formal training in 1988. By contrast, an Australian worker received 17 hours; a Swede receive 170 hours and a Japanese 200 hours. Only one-third of Canadian companies provide any training to their employees at all.
In a Conference Board survey, 75 per cent of companies reported problems with basic employee literacy, but only 24 per cent had policies or training programs to deal with the issue.
Currently Canada spends about $5 billion on adult training, roughly one-eighth of the amount invested in formal education. And we are facing other countries that are increasing their investment in work force training. Germany, for example, has increased its expenditure by 45 per cent in the past three years. In Japan, companies are still increasing the time devoted to training. This large shortfall in adult training is clearly unacceptable in competitive terms.
March 24, 1992

One other major problem is the dropout rate. Nationally 30 per cent of Canadian students drop out of school, in some parts of Canada that number rises to 70 percent or more. According to the literacy survey, high school completion is key to every day reading skills. For example, 60 per cent of Canadians with only elementary schooling, or without any schooling at all, have very limited reading skills and have difficulty with written materials.
I would like to make a comparison between Canada and some other countries around the world when it comes to our standing on social programs. We will look at the output of that spending.
For example, in the United States they spend 5.3 per cent of their GNP on education; in Canada we spend 7.3 per cent of the GNP on education; West Germany spends 4.4 per cent, and Japan 5 per cent. So Canada spends more than any one of those four countries on education.
The United States spends 4.6 per cent of the GNP; West Germany spends 6.3 per cent; Japan spends 5 per cent; and Canada spends 6.6 per cent on health care.
While we spent more than any one of those four countries on social programs, the results are not very encouraging when we look at the dropout rate.
In Canada, for instance, only 72 per cent of youth aged 17 years are still in school; while in the United States 87 per cent are still in school; in West Germany 89 per cent; and Japan 94 per cent are still in school.
This information was compiled by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
So, Mr. Speaker, after bringing those statistics to your attention, one would suggest that there is room for improvement.
The motion before the House today calls on the government to establish a task force to discuss national education standards. This would involve consultation with the provincial governments and other sectors of Canadian society. Some of these could include incentives to motivate students to complete their education; improve standards in the core subjects of math, grammar and the sciences; strategies for the training and retention of teachers; methods of assessing students across Canada; regular professional development programs for educators; closer links between employers and the education
Private Members' Business
system; and support for disadvantaged young Canadians. I am sure there are many others that we could add.
Learning has become the key to economic success in the new global trade environment. This has made literacy a major economic issue; it is increasingly viewed as essential to economic performance. In order to be competitive, nations need a work force with a high degree of average functional literacy. But no society can have high quality output without high quality inputs.
I would like to close by saying that the only way to get a high standard of quality is to set national quality standards. The problem has already been well documented. Now it is time for the government to take action to implement long-term educational strategies that can help us tap the full potential of our most valuable resources, our intelligent and competent population.
This House could give leadership to the government by agreeing to this motion today.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and to Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the House today and address the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre to establish a national task force to discuss national standards of education.
It is generally agreed that education has an impact on a country's prosperity, an impact that is felt at all levels of our society and by all its members.
It has become a cliche to say that we live in a constantly changing world. What is unusual in our history is the rapid rate of change we have seen during the past two or three decades.
Before, we could afford to believe that that we would always be able to adjust fairly easily to any changes that would occur.
In Canada, it was felt that our considerable reserve of natural resources would guarantee us an enviable and prosperous standard of living. Today, we see that is not the case. We must now realize that our standard of living will depend less on what we have in the way of natural resources or on our ability to process those resources, and increasingly on knowledge.

March 24, 1992
Private Members' Business
Canada, one of the foremost exporters of energy and primary resources, has gradually had to surrender economic power to industrialized countries that have left us far behind in areas like innovation, design, manufacturing and marketing. The increasing globalization of markets has changed the rules of competitiveness. With the creation of large economic and political blocs, whether we are talking about the European Community, the prosperous countries of South East Asia or the new Commonwealth of Independent States of the former Soviet Union, Canada is now facing competition that will become even more fierce in the years to come.
During the past decades, science and technology have become so important to the progress of a country that they must now be considered essential to of our economy, and indeed its prime assets.
Compared with companies in many industrialized countries, Canadian companies invest very little in research and development and rely less on advanced technology. No one will deny that our future prosperity will depend largely on education and training.
This is not the first time the government has considered these issues. In 1986, it made certain commitments that over the years would bring about considerable progress in this field. In 1987, the federal government and the provinces took part in a national seminar on post-secondary education which identified the basic premises for decisions that colleges and universities in Canada will face at the turn of the 21st century.
In 1988, this government introduced a scholarship program for outstanding graduate students in natural sciences, engineering and related disciplines. In the following year, the minister of science established the Network of Centres of Excellence Program, involving universities and hundreds of researchers across this country.
Aware of the important impact of a healthy environment on the quality of life, the environment minister announced in 1991 that $51 million would be spent over a period of six years to help Canadian universities put together a program for funding research and training in environmental studies. And that, Mr. Speaker, is only a fraction of our government's contribution to education.
Whether it is through the Department of the Environment, the Secretary of State, which is very interested in the teaching of official languages, or Statistics Canada, which collects many statistics on education, the federal government has overlooked nothing in making its contribution.
Nevertheless, it recognizes above all that education is an exclusive provincial jurisdiction and it has even suggested that they be responsible for labour force training from now on. That is why we are working with all the provinces and territories, both informally and in specific activities.
Year in and year out, the Government of Canada invests nearly $11 billion in training and education. We definitely consider it an investment because the real dividends it will pay in the form of better education will have a major impact on the standard of living of all Canadians.
We have a considerable interest in education and we believe that this interest must be matched with concrete action and effective measures. With this in mind, last year we launched a dialogue with Canadians, the Prosperity Initiative, on the best ways to meet the challenge of competitiveness.
We know how closely inter-related education, job creation, competitiveness and prosperity are. The Prosperity Initiative deals with these issues in national consultations held by a steering committee representing governments, business, labour, the scientific community, teachers and individuals.
The working papers resulting from these consultations recognize that our technical and scientific achievements are behind those of our competitors, that we do not give knowledge the importance it deserves and that companies do not invest enough in labour force training. This initiative seeks to set priorities for action, especially in the following areas: the implementation of a national strategy of excellence in the field of knowledge in order to acquire the skills necessary to face international competition; giving knowledge the importance it deserves among Canadians; better preparation of young people to enter the labour market; search for ways to encourage young people to take mathematics and science so as to better face international competition in a world that is continually being changed by technology.


March 24, 1992

We firmly believe that the success of such an undertaking depends in large measure on partnership. Let us have no illusions that the government alone can see the Prosperity Initiative through.
The working paper called Learning Well-Living Well clearly states: "This strategy must recognize the different strengths, needs and concerns of all stakeholders- investors and managers, workers and unions, educators, governments at all levels, and individual Canadians. It must also be a strategy that recognizes that actions are necessary at many levels in our society-at the level of the firm, the industry sector, the region and the country as a whole".
We have thus laid the foundation for joint action that will be the key to our future prosperity and well-being. Along with this initiative, we think that it is up to the federal government to encourage excellence and provincial initiatives to increase Canadians' skills and knowledge.
That is why national education standards seem desirable. That is also why we must praise the proposal of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. These standards could be used to set criteria for improving the quality of education in all regions of the country. They could help us better meet the requirements of the labour market and they could be adapted to international standards and encourage the recognition of diplomas throughout the world and thus give rise to the beneficial exchange of skills between countries. In this spirit, the Prime Minister said three years ago that he would like to see national education standards rivaling those of our keenest competitors.
At the same time, he recognized that provincial jurisdiction in this area must be respected.

A task force on national education would be an excuse for failure to act precisely at a time when we must act quickly, at a time when federal and provincial governments are working closely together.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. Your time has expired.
Private Members' Business


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am really quite pleased to see that a connection between education and economic development has become almost a matter of conventional wisdom in this House.
However, the debate in which we are engaged right now must be a terrible disappointment to those who are watching and to those who share a true concern that action be undertaken to improve the situation in our nation with respect to skills and education.
It is not unusual to hear a parliamentary secretary utter irrelevant statements designed for no other purpose than to make the government's inaction look good. It is rather difficult however to deal with the situation in which the proponent of the motion has hardly indicated what the meaning of the motion is.
I would congratulate the member for Ottawa Centre for his rather detailed analysis of a number of facts with respect to competitiveness. It bolsters the case rather abundantly already made that if Canada is to compete effectively, if its productivity is to be enhanced, then what we really should be doing is increasing the opportunities for skills development and educational development among our workers. This is the reason just the other day I proposed a motion in this House that there be established a national council on education.
I am entirely puzzled by the interpretation the member has placed upon his own motion. I will read the motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
establish a national task force to discuss national standards of
education.
I would suspect that 90 per cent of the people reading that motion would interpret it to mean that there should be a national task force to develop appropriate means of testing in some direct or indirect way the level of performance of students in this country.
It is a position which has some legitimacy. It is a position that has been supported by industry. It has been supported by school boards across this country. It has been advocated by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Most important, it has been looked at rather closely by the ministers of education in the provinces.

Private Members' Business
The result has been the development of the school achievements-indicated program which is designed to evaluate the performance of Canadian students, at least to measure the performance of the schools in providing students with essential skills in mathematics and in communications, reading and writing, as I understand it. This was achieved through a great deal of debate and controversy but nevertheless it is in train.
We might address that issue but I want to return to what the member for Ottawa Centre said ever so briefly, that there should be a national task force to look at teacher performance, a number of functional issues in the schools, student performance, the level of science teaching, mathematical skills, and so on to the extent that I really quite lost sight of the focus.
I wish that he had spent more time on his specific proposal and less time on documenting further what is already self-evident.
As if to make matters worse, as I said at the outset, the government member stood up and said that the government did all of these things with respect to its prosperity initiative. Everybody in the country knows that the prosperity initiative has been a lot of sound and fury signifying and amounting to nothing. There is not a single bit of evidence that the government has in fact taken its prosperity initiative seriously insofar as it concerns education and training.
When we were talking about a national educational council, I pointed out that education must involve everything from day care to universities, as well as training both on and off the job. There needed to be an independent facility by which we could establish leadership in respect of the provinces and the various jurisdictions involved in education, the kind of policy leadership, methodology leadership, standards leadership and all of those things that have been looked at very thoroughly in other jurisdictions with respect to improving education and making it more in tune with economic goals for this country.
I regret that the hon. member has not addressed the issue as he propounded it more thoroughly. I had a glimmer that in fact what he was proposing was something akin to the national council on education which I proposed the other day. If that is so, then I strongly support this motion.
In all fairness members of this place, of which there are few in attendance, certainly do have the right to expect that a proposal brought before this House be brought with sufficient specificity that we would understand what the proposal is and not a somewhat redundant analysis of the sort that we have already heard.
I am sure the member does, however, share the view that what really is at issue most fundamentally has been the gross inaction on the part of this government, if not its irresponsibility with respect to everything that has to do with what we are talking about here with respect to creating an opportunity environment for Canadian citizens.
It has in fact cut contributions to post-secondary education. It has in fact made it more difficult for students to attend colleges and universities by virtue of higher tuition fees and by virtue of less accessibility to those institutions. It has cut by $200 million in the last two budgets the funds available for the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
Just the other day the minister had the nerve-no, I take that back; he had no nerve at all. He sneaked in here on Friday to announce a program for summer employment support for students. He did this on a day when it would not be noticed because, in fact, what the government had done was it contradicted its prosperity agenda once more by making it that much more difficult for young people to attend post-secondary education institutions. He has the nerve to come in here and talk about what this government has done to improve the situation with respect to training, skills development and education.
If the hon. member for Ottawa Centre shares that view and if the hon. member for Ottawa Centre wants to see this government do something, no matter what it is, to indicate a real commitment to improving opportunities for Canadians, then I agree with him. I am sure that we will both continue to fight to get something besides nonsense out of this government.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the motion.
Certainly the motion put forward by my hon. colleague across the way deserves serious consideration. Canadians are certainly very well aware that in today's competitive world, the higher their level of education, the better their chances will be of enjoying a comfortable living.
March 24, 1992

If the purpose of my hon. friend's motion is to encourage discussion on national standards of education, then I am pleased to inform him that the government is already attempting to do that. The consultations that now are taking place are part of the prosperity initiative that was talked of earlier and it was announced by the government in the Speech from the Throne on May 13.
To quote from that speech: "Canada's ability to prosper in a global economy will be determined by the level of Canadian educational achievement, by the sophistication of our management skills and by our attitudes to work and to change. In the dawning knowledge age, how well we live will depend on how well we learn".
To quote one other passage from the throne speech that also addresses the hon. member's motion: "The time has come to reach a national consensus on performance, goals, partnerships and the priorities for learning. As part of my government's new agenda for prosperity, a discussion paper on learning will be published to stimulate and focus discussion on education and training".
The government fulfilled that promise on October 29 of last year. That was the day the Minister of Employment and Immigration released a discussion paper entitled Learning Well, Living Well which is an essential part of our prosperity initiative as a government. The paper identifies the challenges to learning that Canadians faced during this decade. We all agree to that and I agree with my hon. friend across the way on that. It focuses on the importance of developing a learning culture both at home and in the workplace. It suggests various ways of setting up a system of lifelong learning so that Canadians can acquire the skills needed for their very important working life.
On that same date last October, hon. members will recall that the Minister responsible for Industry, Science and Technology and International Trade tabled a discussion paper entitled "Prosperity through Competitiveness". The minister's paper zeroes in on the four areas we believe will help us to compete more successfully as a country.
First, it is science and technology that includes research, development and technological innovation. The
Private Members' Business
second deals with improving investment in Canada's enterprises and being much more innovative.
The third component addresses the need for an integrated domestic market as a base for Canadian businesses to compete internationally and globally. The fourth area talks about the necessity to open and exploit new international markets.
These two papers are now the focus for consultation, as my hon. colleague knows. It is being managed by the private sector steering group. It is not being managed by the government or government members. The group's members reflect a broad section of Canadians. In September it is planning to produce a plan for action for governments, business, labour, educators, scientists and, of course, ordinary Canadians.
These measures have been undertaken because the future economic health of this great country depends on our ability to compete internationally. That ability will be determined by our level of skills and education. Therefore, the prosperity initiative is closely linked to international competitiveness and learning.
My hon. colleague knows that education falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. That is true and the federal government fully accepts that. Nevertheless, we are all Canadians. If we are to function as a strong and viable nation, then we must work in partnership; a partnership of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments; a partnership of business, of labour, of educators, of parents and students; in sum, a partnership of all Canadians working to ensure the future prosperity of this magnificent land. In other words, we are all moving toward the same goal and I know my hon. colleague's motion means the same, to have a better chance of meeting it.
What we are talking about here are goals, something that we can set our sights on so we can survive and prosper in the 21st century. That is why the prosperity initiative has helped define this discussion by suggesting several Canada-wide goals of excellence; for instance, cutting illiteracy rates in half; ensuring that 90 per cent of Canadians obtain high school diplomas or the equivalent by the age of 25; doubling the number of post-secondary graduates in mathematics, the sciences and engineering, and the quadrupling of training provided by employers to their employees.

March 24, 1992
Private Members' Business
Already, consultations are taking place. For example, more than 150 town hall meetings have been held across our country in small and large communities. The national steering group is also consulting with the national associations and they are seeking expertise from individuals. Cabinet ministers are meeting with representatives of their client groups.
These discussions are being driven by the private sector, not by the government. My hon. friend will be familiar with another example of how consultations have resulted in a new partnership that is working toward national standards. I am referring to the Canadian Labour Force Development Board and I think he referred to that.
Hon. members will recall that the board is comprised of 22 leaders from business, labour, education and training institutions and social action groups. This independent body determines its own priorities and hires its own staff. The board is studying the issue of training and occupational standards. This is extremely important. It means the partnership is working. It sets the tone for a productive relationship between the public and private sectors.
This is not just at the national level. They are now consulting with their local constituency groups, the provinces and the territories to set up a network of 50 to 75 local boards across the country. That initial meeting in my area will take place on April 22, and my community is certainly looking forward to it.
As well, Employment and Immigration is working hand in hand with the private sector bodies to develop occupational standards.
I want to say to my hon. colleague we are certainly in agreement. I certainly agree with his concern and interest in education and educational standards and with his interest in giving Canada's people, from infants to adults, the opportunity to receive education or retraining. It is important in our country today to build upon a solid base of educational expertise and make sure more people have the opportunity for enhanced education and training. Then they will have the kind of incomes we want Canadians to receive and the country will be in the kind of competitive situation we want it to be in.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be standing here in this House this evening to discuss and debate this particular motion which deals with the possible setting up of a national task force to discuss national standards in education.
My colleague from Ottawa Centre is to be commended not only for his address, which reminded us of a number of points that were particularly important to Canada and Canadians today, but also for having undertaken this initiative.
I think it is important, as I begin this particular discussion, to indicate that if we want to set up a task force we must involve some of the key stakeholders from a number of different communities to help us come to grips with this particular problem, so no decision has been made initially. The idea is to have a group of people come together to attempt to work out a solution, therefore national standards need not involve testing or the evaluation of teachers as was suggested. It really could be a statement of goals, objectives, skills for development, something to set one's sights on, as my colleague has just mentioned.
I also want to say in a positive way, I do not want to be partisan on this issue, that the government's intent was really quite noble and there are a number of initiatives out there. In fact, I have said before, perhaps in a moment of passion, the rhetoric was fine, but where was the action? It is not simply the action in terms of the various commissions and groups that have been set up, but where are the concrete results that will bring us to having national standards or goals or objectives or call it what you will?
The other thing I want to mention initially is that it is important for us to recognize that education, almost any way you would define it, is a provincial constitutional responsibility. We accept that, but I also want to say, as strongly as I can, that we are looking for co-operation, not imposition. Surely co-operation is possible and I will come to that later.
One of the questions we must ask is why? Some of my colleagues have answered why from their perspective. Let me tell you why from my particular perspective. There are no real transferable standards in this country if one looks at the whole.
March 24, 1992



Take, for instance, our universities. If as a university student I want to transfer to another university to take the same program, the credits I already have would not be recognized.
The same applies to community colleges. For instance, if I had a university degree and I wanted to go to a community college, or if I had a college degree and I wanted to go to university, I have no guarantee the courses I had already taken would be evaluated at the same level by another university or college. It is even worse when you leave the province. This kind of situation exists within each province, and of course it is worse when you go to another province.
In high school for instance, it is very difficult for a student to transfer from ninth grade in one province to ninth grade in another province. The same applies to grade schools.

You would almost think that the trades might be simpler. It is for a number of trades where they have the red seal stamp of approval, that is, where groups have got together and decided what it is that constitutes that particular trade and what one must have in order to practise that trade elsewhere in Canada. But that is not a large number if one looks at all of the trades.
Even in the professions this is a problem. You cannot go from one province to another in a number of professions without having to jump through a whole lot of additional hoops and hurdles.
We must ask the question: Is this really absolutely necessary? Is it functional? Is it something that helps us as a country? I suspect it does not. I have not even raised the question of apprenticeships. We have many that exist in certain provinces that do not exist in others. If you wanted to transfer from one particular program to another, it is extremely difficult and very, very complicated.
This is a labyrinth and that is being kind. We need to bring some sort of order into it. What we are really seeking, at least I am from my particular perspective, is to try to make it much more logical.
When we talk about productivity, competitiveness, globalization, we see other countries reaching out. They
Private Members' Business
have different languages, different systems of education, different traditions and cultures. While we have significant differences in our own nation, those differences are in many instances not as large as they are in other nations. Surely we should be able to do that.
Let us look at Europe. There is increasing co-operation. In some of the Asian countries we see the same thing, as well as in a number of other countries in the world. We want people to be able to practise law, dentistry, carpentry, be a mechanic, a teacher, a pharmacist or do any number of things and be able to go from one area to the other more easily, without having to go through a lot of extras that are particularly debilitating and discouraging for people who have studied.
One of the problems we have in Canada is a lack of co-operation on a number of fronts. I have just completed a report with the co-operation of colleagues. It was less than perfect. We knew that. But we now see the premiers coming in with their own solutions and I wonder what is going to happen to this country in the final analysis.
On the economic scene there is a meeting being held now, or very shortly, and there are people coming in from different parts of the country with their solutions. If we look at social issues such as the provision of quality health care, we get different solutions from different parts of the country. In education there are different solutions from different parts of the country. There is very little meshing, co-operation, understanding, trying to streamline, trying to agree that we can do something in a way that can be portable from one area to another.
The question we have to ask is who speaks for the whole of Canada on those issues, whether they are economic, social, constitutional or educational. I could name a number of other areas such as the environment. Who speaks for the country? Who speaks for Canadians and puts Canadians first?
We are discussing tonight an issue which attempts to ensure that Canadians wherever they study, at whatever level, can take that learning, whether it is knowledge or skills, use it in another setting and be rewarded appropriately for it and be given the credit they deserve. That is what we are talking about. That is what it is all about. I could speak for a long, long time, but I shant. I would simply like to come to the end of my remarks by saying:

March 24, 1992
Private Members' Business

We find examples of co-operation throughout the world. In fact, countries whose economy is particularly stable and strong are countries where people have learned to work together, to co-operate. That is what I want for Canada. I do not want to impose a federal vision, but I want Canadians to get together and try and find flexible solutions that respond to the needs of all Canadians.

You will have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that this is a simple, straightforward motion. I think all my colleagues from each of the parties have been in general agreement with its direction and thrust. Therefore I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, for unanimous consent of the House for acceptance of this motion.
There is no vote. It is not binding. It seems to me that if we are sincere in what we have said, we ought to give this motion unanimous consent.

I therefore seek that unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since no more members wish to speak, the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 7.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 25,1992