1992-12-01

Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women, entitled "Foetal Alcohol Syndrome: From Awareness to Prevention".


WORLD AIDS DAY
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, today is World Aids Day, an annual occasion when all countries and all the citizens of this world are asked to consider the impact of this terrible disease and co-ordinate their efforts in finding better ways to fight HIV infection and AIDS.
The World Health Organization has chosen community commitment as its theme this year, to emphasize how important it is for all communities to take action to fight AIDS, both nationally and internationally.
The HIV AIDS problem concerns health care authorities in particular. However there are also broad political, social, economic and legal implications, as well as some major consequences with respect to human rights and this applies to all countries.
According to the World Health Organization by the year 2000 as many as 40 million people will be infected by HIV and nearly 10 million people will be living with AIDS. Canada is fortunate to have certain resources and therefore has a duty to contribute to international efforts by working with other countries.
We have taken on that responsibility in a number of ways, in addition to our ongoing support for the WHO Global Control Program on AIDS.
Canadians have become leaders in the activities of international bodies such as the Global Control Program on AIDS and the WHO advisory council on HIV and AIDS.

The Canadian International Development Agency plays a key role in Canada's response to the AIDS pandemic. CIDA provides AIDS related assistance through contributions to the global program on AIDS and direct assistance to developing countries.
The International Development Research Council supports AIDS related research in developing countries. Canada also contributes to the global response to HIV AIDS through the expertise of our medical and scientific communities. One contribution that has received worldwide recognition is the development of a simple inexpensive test for the presence of HIV in infants. This test which is now used world-wide requires only a drop of dried blood to test for the presence of the virus.
Our expertise is also shared through the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control at Health and Welfare Canada which acts as a WHO collaborating centre for AIDS research.

We must not only continue to support international efforts but carry on the fight against AIDS in this country. AIDS is a preventable disease.

December 1, 1992
Routine Proceedings
The national AIDS strategy will give the government and its partners the resources to continue to provide Canadians with the information they need to make healthy decisions and adopt the kind of behaviour that will protect them against HIV and AIDS and protect others as well.
We must continue activities that focus on teenagers and pursue efforts to encourage behaviour that will reduce the risk of contracting or transmitting HIV. We must continue to ensure that people who are living with HIV or AIDS can count on the support and concern of the community.
[English ]
Canada's national AIDS strategy has emphasized the importance of partnerships and collaborative action at all levels in achieving our common aims. It has also recognized the importance of ensuring strong active communities in addressing HIV AIDS issues in Canada. The AIDS community action program of the National AIDS strategy funds community efforts in the areas of prevention, care and support.

This government has promised to renew the national AIDS strategy and I will make a public statement in this respect very shortly.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, once more Canadians and citizens of the world dedicate today as World AIDS Day. It is right and proper that we make this dedication to continue to reflect on the continuing impact of this disease on people and how we can help.
In Canada alone AIDS had killed over 3,000 Canadians by early this year. One in every 10,000 Canadians is living with the disease and one in every 1,000 Canadians, that is nearly 30,000 Canadians, is infected with the virus.
Among the thousands of Canadians who have died from AIDS in the past 10 years is one man from British Columbia known as Dr. Peter. With a television camera he chronicled the courage it takes to live and die with this terminal illness, finally succumbing a few weeks ago. As television viewers we could share with him and his family the fear and horror of this disease, a scourge that is killing tens of thousands of people yearly throughout the world.
From this one Canadian we go to the dying in Africa, the epidemic proportions of the HIV infection in Asia, to the continuing tragedy in Canada or to the babies born throughout the world with HIV, with this hated virus.
The minister said: "Canada's national AIDS strategy has emphasized the importance of partnerships and collaborative action at all levels for achieving our common aims. It has also recognized the importance of ensuring strong active communities in addressing HIV AIDS issues in Canada". He also went on to say that he intended to make an announcement on renewal of the AIDS strategy soon.
I would like to remind the minister that only four months remain before the current funding commitment on the part of this government expires. The people who work for those infected and taken ill by AIDS remain in limbo. They do not know when to renew the leases on the premises they are using or what programs they have to commit to the people that they serve. Why does the minister hesitate?
I would like to remind the minister that on November 13 of this year the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian Association for HIV Research, the Canadian Haemophilia Society and the Canadian Public Health Association jointly brought to the attention of the minister their proposal on the need for a renewed federal commitment against AIDS.
They have asked for a commitment on the part of the government of slightly over $55 million per year for the next five years. A positive response on the part of the government to this proposal will be the ultimate test of federal leadership and commitment. It will be the ultimate measure of the government's dedication to World AIDS Day.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on this World AIDS Day to call upon the government to renew on behalf of all Canadians our commitment to fight this epidemic both in Canada and globally.
The figures on the impact of AIDS globally are staggering. Some 100,000 people a year die of AIDS, a toll which is expected to rise to over 400,000 by the end of this decade. It has been estimated that by the end of the decade some 40 million people will be living with HIV and some 10 million will be living with AIDS. Jon Gates of the Canadian Council on International Co-operation, himself a person living with AIDS, has pointed
December 1, 1992

out that this was one of the major challenges facing the global community, particularly in Africa and Asia.
In Canada over 30,000 people are living with HIV and according to the most recent figures over 4,000 people have died of AIDS. Today in art galleries, theatres and other cultural places around Canada we are commemorating a day without art to remember the tragic loss of so many cultural workers to AIDS.
We salute the families, the lovers and the friends of those who also feel the pain and helped to bear the crushing burden of this disease. We know as well that over 80 per cent of those who have died of AIDS in Canada to date have been gay men. For this reason I want to underline the importance of the unanimous recommendation of the Canadian AIDS Society, and indeed many others, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation so that in addition to the terrible pain of this disease the sting of discrimination does not have to be faced as well.
AIDS is a preventable disease and we desperately need funding to fight it. Its community organizations are on the front lines. Indeed people living with HIV and AIDS have been central in this struggle. As Don De-Gagne from the Vancouver Persons with AIDS Coalition has pointed out: "We do not want to be anybody's patient or client. We have firsthand experience with cause and treatment of AIDS. We have to be involved at the highest level of research and decision making".
As the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian Association for HIV Research, the Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian Haemophilia Society have all pointed out, it is long overdue for this government to renew and increase its commitment to the battle against AIDS.
We have just learned today that the numbers are significantly higher than had previously been estimated. Perhaps as many as 11,000 people are now living with AIDS. It is essential that there be adequate resources to deal with this struggle. In fact the groups that are involved in the front lines have said it will cost some $55
Routine Proceedings
million per year. That is less than the cost of one helicopter.
I appeal to this government to recognize its moral responsibility, not only to those who are living with HIV and AIDS, their families and loved ones but to all Canadians and all those around the world suffering and living with AIDS. There has been too much pain and suffering.
It is time our government ensured the resources which are necessary are there. We need resources to support those who are on the front lines, in communities such as Thunder Bay, the AIDS Committee of Thunder Bay or in larger communities, la ville de Montreal, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal and elsewhere. We must have the funds, and I appeal to this minister to not only renew but to increase the level of funding in this struggle against AIDS.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the co-operation of the House in making a brief comment which I am sure members will appreciate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent to give the floor on this statement to the hon. member?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: The recognition of World AIDS Day by the House of Commons provides a unique opportunity to bring to national attention a particular case of a brave couple who are suffering.
Today in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, as my colleague from Halifax will have noted, there was a disclosure by Randy Conners and his wife Janet Conners that they are victims of AIDS by virtue of his use of Factor 8.
I want to call members' attention to this. By making this disclosure publicly, by focusing attention on their case, Mr. and Mrs. Conners will help us overcome any animosity or any negative attitudes among Canadian people. Mr. Conners has discovered that by the use of a drug in a very innocent way to correct a medical condition, he contracted the HIV virus that has blossomed into AIDS. His wife now has the HIV factor and they face a very difficult and uncertain future.

December 1, 1992
Routine Proceedings
By sharing their difficulties with the public I know they will attract a great deal of support to the cause which hon. members have addressed today and help us overcome any difficulties that are obstacles in the way of resolution of this problem. We all ought to congratulate and honour Mr. and Mrs. Conners for their contribution to a successful campaign against AIDS.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a solemn matter of national importance.
This Sunday, December 6, will be the second year that Canadians will observe a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women. The date marks, as colleagues know, the third anniversary of the tragic death of 14 young women at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal.
This terrible event shocked Canadians so profoundly that we have been transformed by its horror. We have looked violence against women in the face and we have been confronted by our own reflection.
In declaring December 6 as a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women, Parliament challenges Canadians not only to remember but to act to prevent violence against women.

Canadian men and women realize that violence against women is not only a cause but a consequence of women's inequality. Full and complete equality cannot be achieved if women are threatened with violence every day.

Thankfully Canadians are also acting to end such violence by charting a course for fundamental social change, building upon the many years of efforts by women's groups across this country, operating in small towns and large cities. Not only women but men are joining in this cause to make these changes.
In the House today a number of our colleagues are wearing white ribbons as part of the second annual campaign to publicly signal the concern of men against violence against women. I congratulate the organizers of the white ribbon campaign for their courage and their dedication in helping us achieve a common goal.
I am pleased also that so many of the provincial status of women ministers that I have been working with over these years are also joining in this concerted effort. They have been making various announcements and providing additional resources for shelters and sexual assault centres and counselling.
On behalf of all Canadians, the Government of Canada has also taken action. Our focus is on the area of education and prevention, and during 1992 a number of important initiatives have been undertaken. I cite specifically the work of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women. That panel has travelled across the country and heard from more than 4,000 individual Canadians representing 1,500 organizations. In its progress report published in August it reported that the magnitude of violence against women across the country is even worse than we have so far documented. It also recorded the strong desire of women for prevention become a priority.
In its very work the panel itself has been a catalyst for change. It has enabled women in many small communities to speak out for the first time on violence and for the communities to start to take action to deal with that violence. I anticipate receiving the panel's national action plan early in the new year. That plan will help all governments and organizations chart our course on this very important journey toward ending violence against women.
Another very important initiative which my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, announced recently, and I had the pleasure of joining in that announcement, is the establishment of five innovative federally-funded centres of excellence dealing with family violence and violence against women. These centres, which are based in British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick, really bring a whole new focus. They bring together front line experience with research expertise to really answer some of the underlying questions, provide support to front line workers, and contribute to enduring solutions as well.
December 1, 1992

Legislative initiatives are also important. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has brought forward two important initiatives this year, including the passage of stricter gun control legislation, the firearms amnesty, and the new sexual assault legislation which legally defines consent in sexual relations for the first time in Canada. This legislation really is a world leader.
Perhaps the most overlooked and under-valued part of the contribution of the federal government has been the $136 million family violence initiative. Many people are not aware of the tremendous range of activities that are being conducted as a result of these efforts that support front line workers in my own province. Mosaic Success, the B.C. Association of Transition Houses, helps them work on education and prevention projects at the grassroots level; work with immigrant and visible minority women; work to train women to actively support victims of wife assault, for example; work in a multi-disciplinary program at the Vancouver General Hospital to identify, treat, refer and provide follow up for battered women who visit the emergency department.
It is not only governments or organizations that can bring about the fundamental changes that are required. Individual actions by all of us are required. As the federal Minister responsible for the Status of Women I am calling on all Canadians to contribute to this change. As parents, educators, employers, community activists, and policy makers in this House each of us has both a role and a responsibility to prevent violence and change the attitudes and behaviours which give rise to the many forms of violence against women in our communities.
Let us honour the memories of all female victims of violence in Canada. Let us honour that memory by acting individually and collectively to put an end to violence against women in all its forms throughout Canadian society.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is three years ago next week since a gunmen killed 14 young women at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. We remember them, we grieve and we mourn, but most important we must maintain our anger. While it may be more comforting to dismiss this man's actions as those of a deranged individual acting at the margin of society, doing so only blurs the link between individual actions
Routine Proceedings
and societal values, between individual beliefs and societal responsibility.
We are angry and we must maintain that anger because three years later one in ten women is still battered by her male partner. We are angry because 40 per cent of assaulted women were beaten for the first time during their pregnancies, because one in four women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, half of them before they reach the age of 17.
We are angry and we are frightened because 32 per cent of male American university students say they would rape a women if they thought they could get away with it. If the word rape is replaced with the words sexual assault the percentage increases to 50 per cent.
The daily eulogies in our newspapers are even more poignant reminders of unspeakable acts of violence. In my own province of Nova Scotia nine women have been murdered so far this year by men they once loved. Three of those women were murdered while peace bonds, unenforceable, were hanging over the heads allegedly of the men who killed them.
Violence against women in all forms, emotional and psychological abuse, sexual harassment or sexual assault, continues to be experienced daily by women precisely because for so long too few have spoken out against it.

Each one of us has a responsibility to address the issue of violence against women. We must unequivocally denounce sexual discrimination, harassment, violence and, even worse, murder.

Conjugal violence has been considered a domestic issue and all forms of violence against women were considered to be women's problems. This myth is not yet shattered but it must be. It is not enough only to state this; we must provide those engaged in the struggle the means to achieve this goal.
The actions we must take include the mandatory training of judges in our judicial system and a stronger enforcement of peace bonds. The actions we must take include providing money for shelters and counselling programs and harsher sentences to those convicted of violence against women.

December 1, 1992
Routine Proceedings
We must end the economic discrimination which leaves many women with few or no alternatives to ending an abusive relationship. Any solution to violence against women will be as multifaceted as the problem itself. The first step is to stand up and state one's opposition to violence in all its forms. The next step is to take one's convictions and act upon them. We have heard the statements made. It is now necessary to act.

We will remember.

Let there be no more symbols.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, today we stand to commemorate the lives of women and girls that have been lost to hatred and violence. We stand to remember the 14 young women whose lives were senselessly ended in a classroom in Montreal three years ago. We also remember the two women who are killed every week in Canada by their husbands or partners; over 100 each year.
I have a list of names of some of the women who were killed at the hands of those who claimed to love them. Even though it is only a partial list for this year, it is far too long to read in the short time allotted here in the House for statements on violence against women.
My emotions and the emotions of many in this House are always close to the surface at this time of year. But today I want to focus on hope for the future and hope for change. Let us imagine a world in which women and girls are safe in our homes, in our schools, on our streets and in our work places. Let us imagine that women never have to fear for their bodies or for their lives. I want to share that vision and work together for positive change.
I am pleased that the members of this House supported my private member's bill to establish December 6 as a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women. I think it is important to mention that the bill passed with unanimous consent of this House because only if we as parliamentarians and society as a whole work together to eliminate violence will we be free of it.
Last night I looked over many speeches I have made about this issue and found a litany of woe. I found horrific statistics, painful experiences and criticism of government inaction.
This year the Status of Women minister has issued a fact sheet on federal activity on violence against women. It mentions funding for shelters through the Canada Assistance Plan which has been capped and decapitated by this government for the past several years. It mentions the women's program funding that has been reduced by millions of dollars over the years. It mentions the panel on violence which is spending $11 million according to the recent government estimates. On top of the millions for this study, there are more millions for research. Yet we continue to see cutbacks in services that provide the direct assistance abused women and their children so desperately need. We have been told to expect more cutbacks this week. It is difficult to be hopeful.
The B.C. government last week announced $10 million to help eliminate violence against women. The bulk of that funding is providing much needed services across the province, including 10 new sexual assault centres and help for aboriginal communities in dealing with the pain and prevention of violence. Funding has been set aside to assist groups which face additional barriers in accessing services and problems which magnify their experience with violence, such as aboriginal women, women with disabilities, women of colour, older women, prostitutes, lesbians, poor women and women who are living in isolated areas.
Although December 6 is our national day on violence, November 25 was an international day on violence against women.
We have seen an increase in the number of refugee cases brought to our attention by women facing deportation, even though they fear for their lives as a result of military or domestic violence. Canada does not recognize persecution on the basis of sex as a valid ground for refugee status and refugee board officials are sometimes insensitive to the perspectives and lives of women.
Since September I have called on Canada to recognize and help women in fear for their lives and hold an inquiry on women and the refugee process to identify the structural problems within the refugee system.
December 1, 1992

Violence against women is a global problem and we must have a global outlook on the issue.
Women commit a small minority of violent crimes and yet are as likely as men to be the victims of violent crimes and more likely to be victims of sexual and spousal assault. Something must change in our society.
A few things have changed already. People are now more aware of violence. We now have ribbons and monuments and memorials, but it is time to do something beyond the symbolic. I have outlined in other speeches what individuals and groups in our society can do to reduce and eliminate violence against women. The government has heard many times what should be done, not only from me and other members in this House, but from women's organizations which have been working on this issue for over 20 years.
The hopeful part is I do believe it can be done. It will not be done tomorrow, but the wounds can heal and we can teach our children to respect each other. We can break down the inequality and racism which divides us and oppresses some of us while assigning privileges to others.
All of us have the right to be safe and have social and economic equality in our society. It is sometimes difficult to look beyond the necessary crisis management of services at the long-term solutions to violence. Changing the structures of power and inequality in our society will reduce violence. Ensuring that every child has enough food, opportunity to learn and grow and a loving home free of violence will reduce violence. Changing the definition of masculinity to include gentleness rather than power over others is essential.
These are tall orders and will come about only with hard work, commitment and a willingness to change. We must reach a stage of development world-wide in which women and men of various races and all nations look at each other as free and equal human beings and not targets or not objects of hatred and derision, not any less or any more than ourselves.
Our Parliament has declared December 6 a national day of remembrance and action on violence against women. It is a day to honour the lives of 14 young women
Routine Proceedings
who will never again greet a friend on a sunny day, never laugh, cry, hope to honour all the women who are killed in Canada at the hands of male violence.
We must see the action in the title of that bill. We must see concrete action by this government and action by all in society to finally end this cycle of violence. Only then will we truly honour all of the women who have died.


CANADA-JAPAN INTERPARLIAMENTARY GROUP REPORT ON THIRD ANNUAL MEETING
Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to report on the third annual meeting of the Canada-Japan Interparliamentary Group. This interparliamentary group was formed in 1984 through the efforts of the Prime Minister and former Prime Minister Naka-sone of Japan.
The organization has now completed three annual meetings whereby members of Parliament and the diet have exchanged and come to know one another. Our organization has grown like trade between Canada and Japan. Japan is now Canada's second major trading partner.
It also focuses on the changing world, the new world where growth and development are taking place throughout Asia. We have only established a Canada-Japan parliamentary association. I am pleased that former Prime Minister Nakasone is now forming an umbrella group of Asian parliaments. That umbrella group can lead us to our future and our new destiny in the Pacific.
I urge that all members of Parliament support the growth and development of interparliamentary associations in Asia. We are very proud of the work that has been done and the success of the meeting this year, made particularly successful by the hon. member for South Shore and Don Oliver, members of our organization that in fact have sponsored and taught the Japanese more about eastern Canada, moving them across the country.

December 1, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I am very pleased to present this report and look to future successes of this and other Asian parliamentary organizations.


SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table today the seventh report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations.
Through no fault of the committee, the fourth report of the standing joint committee tabled earlier this year contained erroneous information on a financial matter relating to the central registry of divorce proceedings fees order. That erroneous information had been furnished to the committee by officials of the Department of Justice.
Following the tabling of the report, the Minister of Justice informed the committee of this fact and undertook to provide the correct information. The minister has done so and the committee is now relaying this information to the House in this report.
In closing, the report acknowledges the minister's apology for her official's failure to provide accurate information and in turn the committee expresses its regret for any inconvenience caused to both Houses of Parliament.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent -Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 4,741 citizens. This petition which comes from my riding also covers the Montreal area.
This petition is from our seniors who point out that pensions should be indexed to reflect their needs adequately.

The general cost of living index today does not accurately reflect the true financial needs of our seniors. An overwhelming number of our seniors is living at or below the poverty level.
We ask Parliament to urge the government to re-evaluate Canadian Old Age Security pensions so they truly reflect the real needs of our Canadian seniors.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition this morning on behalf of a number of constituents and others throughout western Canada who are aware that the Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade deal does not exempt fresh water.
They are also aware that there is a present plan to divert water from the North Thompson River which is a tributary of the Fraser River system in central British Columbia in an effort to sell the fresh water in the San Diego, California area.
They point out their opposition to this and are asking the government to reintroduce legislation which was never proceeded with that would prohibit this. They are asking the government to take action immediately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to present this morning on behalf of constituents on a number of issues.
First of all, I have a petition which is signed by residents not only of my constituency but also a number of constituencies in Ontario and Nova Scotia.
The petition notes that in March 1986 the Conservative government agreed to take whatever measures necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination within federal jurisdiction.
It also notes that the government has yet to introduce a legislative amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act a number of years after the promise was made, despite the fact that a number of provinces have acted on
December 1, 1992

this. Indeed the Canadian Human Rights Commission has called for this action.
Therefore the petitioners call upon the government and Parliament to bring forward immediately an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which is signed by residents of British Columbia from Langley, Surrey and Kamloops and a number of residents of my constituency.
The petitioners note that two young Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison. They have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons and discrimination in sentencing and parole. They note that the only relief available from these severe punishments is for Canada to request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: My final petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by hundreds of residents of Burnaby-Kingsway and communities throughout and even beyond British Columbia.
The petitioners point out that Stephen Ogunwuyi, a young Nigerian, was awaiting trial for having been implicated in an unsuccessful coup attempt against the unelected President of Nigeria, General Ibrahim Baban-gida. They note that he managed to escape from Nigeria and make his way to Canada. He has applied for refugee status. His life is at risk if he is returned to Nigeria.
Therefore the petitioners urge that the Minister of Employment and Immigration allow, on compassionate and humanitarian grounds, Stephen Ogunwuyi to remain in Canada.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to offer to the House several
Routine Proceedings
petitions signed not only by constituents within my own riding of Northumberland but also Canadian citizens from across this country. They are very concerned about Canada's involvement in the Three Gorges Dam on China's Yangtze River.
Canada was involved in a feasibility study and the petitioners are concerned about the fact that so many people in China would be displaced if this project were to develop and the very serious environmental impacts it could have on the area.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to refuse to participate in or provide technical assistance, loans, grants, guarantees or subsidies in any form for any aspect of the Three Gorges Dam project from this day forward.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Christine Susan Stewart: My second petition, Mr. Speaker, is from Canadians who are very concerned about the situation in Rwanda and the deterioration of human rights there.
The petitioners urge the Canadian government to apply pressure on the Rwandan regime to immediately stop killing innocent Rwandans. They urge the Canadian government to stop economic aid and other forms of assistance to the current Rwandan regime. They urge the Canadian government to support the EEC resolution on Rwanda issued on February 20, 1992 in Santa Domingo.


BILL C-86
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity- Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure and honour to present a petition.
The petitioners are residents of Canada, all law students at Osgoode Hall, and petition the House of Commons that they are concerned with many of the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act in Bill C-86.
In particular, they strongly oppose the wide powers given to immigration officers at ports of entry as well as the provisions relating to the country of first asylum which would allow newcomers to Canada to be removed from Canada without a hearing or a right to council.
Therefore the petitioners, call upon Parliament to urge the government to withdraw these amendments.

Supply


FRESH WATER EXPORTS
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in the House today signed by residents from British Columbia on the important question of the diversion of water to the United States.
There are two proposals that these people in British Columbia are concerned about. One is a current proposal to divert the North Thompson River into the Columbia River system for eventual piping to California. The other is the proposal from the North American Water and Power Alliance program which plans to have a conference in mid-February in California to start promoting this plan.
These British Columbians urge the government to state categorically that it will not permit our freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A. and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Nelson Andrew Riis: That this House reject any North American free trade agreement.


Mr. Angus:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Just before we commence the debate on the opposition motion, I wish to advise the House that my caucus in each of its allocated time slots will be splitting the time between two members. There will be a 10-minute speech followed by five minutes of questions and comments.
Then there will be another 10-minute speech followed by five minutes of questions and comments before we rotate to the next party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(a), because of the ministerial statements Government Orders will be extended by 32 minutes beginning at one o'clock.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today asking that this House reject any North American free trade agreement and on which we will have a standing vote is an effort by the New Democrats in the House of Commons to state categorically that we oppose completely, totally and unanimously the Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade deal.
This government's neo-Conservative corporate agenda which is designed to support Canada's largest corporations and the most powerful and privileged in Canadian society has obviously failed Canadians.
The most obvious reflection of that is if Canadians were asked whether their lives were better today than they were when the Progressive Conservatives assumed office in 1984, the response of 99.9 per cent of Canadians would have to be: No, my life is not better today and the future looks bleaker than ever before.
The evidence of that is woefully obvious. It is reflected in those 1.6 million unfortunate people who have lost their jobs and are desperately seeking employment today. There are the two million Canadians who are seriously underemployed and working a few days a week or a few hours a day. There are the two million Canadians who are presently living in this country below the poverty level.
We have over 6,000 bankruptcies every month, month after month after month. We have a farm and a fishing crisis and we have seen the deindustrialization of the country.
It is also reflected perhaps most aptly in the statistics that in 1980 Canada had one food bank. Today there are more than 400 active food banks in this country. This is a reflection of the ruin that this corporate agenda has brought to the people of Canada.
We have seen what the neo-Conservative corporate agenda, including deregulation has done now to the transportation industry. We have privatization and we have seen what that has brought to a whole number of sectors in terms of massive lay-offs.
December 1, 1992

The GST is ruining any hopes we had of a consumer led recovery from the recession. It has devastated the small business sector.
We have seen serious, callous, thoughtless cutbacks that have brought pain and suffering to an increasing number of Canadians. There is the erosion of the principle of universality of social programs and an extremely biased tax structure in favour of the large corporations and the wealthiest people of the country.
The cornerstone, however, to this corporate agenda, this Conservative agenda has to be the notion of free trade. It is embodied first in the Canada-U.S. trade deal and now it is embodied in the Mexico-United States-Ca-nada trade deal.
The reality is that we have seen the reshaping of Canada as part of a continental order. There has been the turning over of everything to the marketplace where the toughest, biggest and meanest survive. There has been a shift of power from national, provincial, local and regional governments to the powerful corporations of the country.
That limits our ability as governments and as Canadians to have some say in the future of our country, to have some say over the direction of the economy. Increasingly now the decisions about the economy of Canada are being made in Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York and soon, in Mexico City, Guadalajara and the Maquiladora zones in northern Mexico.
I think this is best reflected in a number of quotes, not from the New Democrats but from others. I go back to our Prime Minister before he took office. He seemed to be speaking much more thoughtfully than he did after 1984. He said:
Free trade with the United States would be like sleeping with an elephant. If it rolls over, you're a dead man.
And I'll tell you when it's going to roll over. It's going to roll over in a time of economic depression and they're going to crank up those plants in Georgia and North Carolina and Ohio, and they're going to be shutting them down up here.
Up here means Canada. In other words, the Prime Minister was right on when he spoke in a very honest way to the people of Canada. He said: "Free trade as a notion means that our plants close in Canada. They reopen or expand in the United States, particularly the southern United States". Now we can take that one step further. They will be moving even farther south into Mexico.
Supply
Ronald Reagan, upon signing the free trade deal with the United States, had this to say:
This agreement will provide enormous benefits for the United States. It will remove all Canadian tariffs, secure improved access to Canada's market for our manufacturing, agriculture, high technology and finance sectors, and give us additional access to Canada's energy supplies.
Ronald Reagan went on to congratulate our Prime Minister on the signing of this agreement for the obvious gain for the United States which he represented.
I refer to one of the major trade officials in the United States, Clayton Yeutter who had this to say:
Canadians don't understand want they have signed. In 20 years they will be sucked into the U. S. economy.
A little closer to home, Frank Stronach, chairman of Magna International announced plans a few months ago to move his plant to Mexico. He had this to say:
Profit means money. Money has no heart, no soul, no conscience, no homeland.
On the west coast Jimmy Pattison, Vancouver millionaire and industrialist, had this to say:
Free trade with Mexico is coming-. We can manufacture in Mexico and ship to Vancouver, including duty and freight, cheaper than we can manufacture in Vancouver.
He went on to say that he planned to move operations to Mexico.
It is obvious what is going on. This government has decided to deindustrialize our country. This government has decided to integrate us into an economy where we will attempt to harmonize our regulations, laws and standards with those of the United States and now with those of Mexico.
On behalf of the New Democrats in the House of Commons, we abhor the process now under way in terms of dealing with this very critical piece of legislation, the economic constitution of this country, which will determine for generations the laws and regulations in terms of the basis of our trade.
This government has allowed five hearings in Canada. There have been no hearings in Toronto, the industrial heartland of the country, no hearings in the province of Saskatchewan and no hearings in the north. Five hearings to allow public input on the most important trade deal this country has ever faced is unconscionable. It is something that as New Democrats we think is completely inappropriate. As a result we will be conducting our own public input sessions across the country in the days and weeks ahead.

December 1, 1992
Supply
I want to mention two things. As we attempt to harmonize our situation with Mexico, let us recognize that we will now be seeing increased pressure for our men and women to approximate wages and conditions found in Mexico; to be more specific, in the Maquiladora zones.
I quote from an excellent publication entitled Take Back the Nation: "The Maquiladora workers, two-thirds of them are women, have been described as unspoiled labour. Companies hire and fire at will and weed out unproductive or troublesome workers. Women are routinely dismissed when they become pregnant. The burnout rate is five to ten years and very few last past the age of 25. Help wanted signs are everywhere. It is not uncommon for a facility to see its entire work force turn over in a year".
It goes on to say: "Low wages would not attract the world's national corporations to the Mexican Maquiladora area but because companies are able to bring with them sophisticated industrial processes and equipment, workers are turning out quality goods and high levels of productivity. The traditional sweat shops still exist but modern efficient plants are increasingly the norm". Business guru and Claremount University professor Peter Drucker says: "It takes three years at the most for Maquiladora zone plants to attain the labour productivity of a well run U.S. or Japanese plant even turning out highly sophisticated products. The gains to the corporations from this high productivity at low wages are dramatic". We are not talking about simple labour here. We are talking about sophisticated plants that can compete anywhere.
In closing I simply want to say that this is a dastardly trade deal.
This goes against everything we believe in terms of the Canadian economy and hope for the future, particularly as it deals with fresh water. Fresh water was not exempted from the Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade deal. Other areas were explicitly exempted. This means we are now agreeing as a country, or our government is agreeing on our behalf, to sell fresh water to the United States and Mexico. This is something Canadians have indicated very clearly they cannot and will never accept.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops on his opening salvo in this very important opposition motion today. I want to ask the member a question about something he has had some experience with. It relates to the closing comments in his speech and the whole question of water under the North American free trade agreement.
The member knows there is a current proposal on the North Thompson River in his riding, and it touches mine, to divert water into the Columbia River system for eventual export into California. The headlines in the morning newspapers from the trade hearings in Vancouver indicated that a witness appeared there and pursued the whole question of water under the North American free trade agreement.
I would ask the member to expand a bit if he could in terms of the question of water under the North American free trade agreement. In the previous House prior to the 1988 election the government was under a great deal of pressure during the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement negotiations. It introduced but never passed, perhaps purposely, legislation to make very clear the question of water exports from Canada. I believe it was Bill C-156. I would ask the member what his views are on that legislation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's questions.
All Canadians were rather astonished when the government introduced at first reading only the Canadian Water Preservation Act. If that act had passed Parliament it would have at least sent a very clear signal that we were concerned about the future of our fresh water. Hopefully it would have prohibited very explicitly any sales to the United States other than bottled water and so on.
However the government did not proceed with legislation. In other words, it created a phoney war. It introduced the legislation but did not proceed with it even to second reading and committee stages. That gave us the first clue.
December 1, 1992

The second one was the fact that while we had a memorandum of understanding with the United States regarding softwood lumber we did not have one regarding water. There was a lot of pressure for the government to have a memorandum of understanding with the United States which would specifically limit the provision of the FTA to bottled water only. But that did not happen.
Now, after the negotiations have been concluded with the Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade deal, we notice that in the tariffs there are long lists of exemptions: school buses, all sorts of bits of machinery, all different sectors like cultural industries and some medical services. They are very explicit and do not apply to the provisions of the Mexico-Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
We wonder why water was not exempted. It was obvious the government was prepared to exempt a number of items but water was never clearly exempted. For that reason we are very suspect. While saying one thing the government has actually initialled an agreement that will result in something quite different, that is the ability of entrepreneurs to sell Canadian water to the United States or to Mexico.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I point out something my hon. friend has just said which is quite contrary to the truth.
Like the FTA, NAFTA will have implementing legislation to underscore the government's policy on water diversions or exports. He knows perfectly well that the policy of this government has been stated and reaffirmed in the FTA legislation. Water diversions or large water exports are simply not acceptable under the FTA. That is very clear.
My hon. friend said that NAFTA, and FTA presumably as well, goes against everything the NDP stands for. Yet we have seen under the free trade agreement with the United States an increase in manufacturing products, an increase in value added products, precisely the sorts of things I thought the NDP stood for. The NDP is calling for increases in the amount of value added we do within Canada. That is precisely what the FTA has encouraged. The tariffs on those products in the United States have gone down, providing Canadian products with greater access and a preference in comparison with other countries exporting into the United States. This has resulted
Supply
in a clear increase in the amount of export activity, up
10.5	per cent in the first nine months of this year.
I should also point out that The Globe and Mail of last Saturday indicated that the share of manufacturing goods going to export markets has doubled from 40 per cent to more than 80 per cent, clearly a fulfilment of an objective I thought was one of the NDP policy approaches. It is something we cannot just wish for. We have to put in place the policy environment to allow that to happen. That is precisely what the FTA and now the NAFTA will do. Could my hon. friend comment on that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to take the first point my hon. friend raised, he said we should have faith and trust the government when it says Canadian water is not for sale. He did not refer to the provisions in the text that would protect water.
This is the same government that said our social programs were a sacred trust and dismantled a number of programs: family allowance, pensions and so on. This is also the government that said it would never sell Air Canada and we know that Air Canada was sold. In other words, to ask Canadians to trust this government when it says it is going to do something is asking a little too much, to be fair to my hon. friend.
My hon. friend also said that enabling legislation would include comments regarding water exports. He knows full well, as does everyone else, that the international trade deal we will enter into, if it passes, will take precedence over legislation at a provincial or federal level.
I will provide an opportunity later to my hon. friend, particularly when we get to Question Period, to point out explicitly-I guess this is a notification of what is to come-that water is exempt from the trade deal, which he has said to me on a number of occasions. I will provide him with an opportunity during Question Period today so he can be very explicit to point out those sections of the Mexico-Canada trade deal that say water is exempt. He will not find them in there and he knows that.
The latter part of his question refers to what he says is increased trade with the United States. He knows full well that over all the United States wanted access to our raw materials and our resources and it has received it. If he looked at the increase in trade prior to the FTA and afterwards, he would know that things were healthier prior to the signing of the FTA.

December 1, 1992
Supply
He would also know that the FTA has been at a tremendous cost to Canadians. Literally tens of thousands of jobs-we could say hundreds of thousands of jobs with no exaggeration-have been lost in this country permanently. Men and women who at one time had decent incomes at $15 or $17 an hour to raise their families and provide for economic growth in the country are now selling hamburgers at McDonald's for $5.50 an hour. That is the kind of economy we have moved toward.
We in this party oppose that approach. It has failed us by all accounts. We want nothing to do with the notion of turning over everything in our country to the free market, which is a nice way of saying turning over everything in this country to the law of the jungle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I took for granted that hon. members gave unanimous consent to extend that five-minute questions and comments period.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution reads:
Thai the House reject any North American free trade agreement.
We have to admit that we had some difficulty with the wording of the agreement. We know where the government side is going.
It is good to see the minister here. We know his course; we know the direction they have set. However, we are a little concerned about the Official Opposition. We are not sure if it is going to be on side with this or not. We have used the word reject because we cannot abrogate the North American free trade agreement, as it is not yet signed.
It will be interesting to see where the Liberals vote on this particular resolution. We have used a euphemism for abrogation and we are going to say reject. The Liberals might be able to weasel out of this one as they have been doing for quite a while and go on both sides.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Where is Lloyd?


Steve Butland: I know there is considerable dissension among the Liberal ranks as to whether or not they are in favour of a free trade agreement or a North American free trade agreement. Once again we have allowed them an out with this motion before the House.
I turn directly to the free trade and North American free trade agreements. I suggest this is no longer a trade deal. These are deals about sovereignty. These are deals about our water and energy supplies and the control of our own economic determination.
We say that the free trade and North American free trade agreements are so interrelated, to suggest that you can renegotiate free trade is incredulous, incredible and ridiculous. The North American free trade agreement is the renegotiation of the free trade agreement. I suspect the Liberals are saying now they have to re-renegotiate the original agreement.
The Americans would not, have not, and will not accept any negotiation of a free trade agreement because they said they are well off with this agreement. They would not even consider it. Let us be realists and say abrogation is the word. However we are into the North American free trade agreement.
What was it to buy us? Again I have to talk about free trade because of the inter-relationship. It was going to buy us access to the American market. Certainly in my riding steel rulings have always gone against the Canadian steel industry and I have belaboured that point. Things have not changed.
Have the rules of the game changed? Gordon Ritchie, the deputy negotiator under the free trade agreement who testified at the trade committee just last week said we were duped. We were duped the first time around and nothing has changed. I want to quote directly from Mr. Ritchie's remarks: "These changes reflect a considerable negotiating triumph for the American team that has obtained some but not all of their objections (thank God not all of them) but they out-negotiated us the first time around and we benefit not at all from the negotiation of the North American free trade agreement".
"On the central issue of disciplines on unilateral application of American fair trade laws, the NAFTA reflects the American negotiating agenda, not Canadian objectives". This is the negotiator for Canada. "The permanence of the new system and the guarantees of compliance are illusory. The FTA regime for unfair trade disputes has clearly not been strengthened and arguably
December 1, 1992

may have been weakened by North American free trade".
The rules of the game have not been changed. The panel decisions, games and rules by which they come up with dispute settlement decisions have not changed. These are not sandbox games; these are trade games.
The Americans say they want to take their products and go home and we cannot participate in this game with them. It is most unfortunate and most damning when a negotiator on the Canadian side says we lost. We lost two times around.
I want to talk about the environment just for a few moments. First of all, President-elect Clinton says he wants to have some side agreements on labour adjustment and environment, for instance. Our government has said nothing. It is silent on that issue. Should we not get involved with the president-elect and say: "We are with you". At the very least, if we are not going to reject the agreement, let us start processing some side deals. The environmental laws in Mexico are the most stringent in the world but no one is there to monitor or regulate them.
I have before me a report from the Texas department of health with technical assistance from the Center for Disease Control. It is from Cameron county, Texas which is on the border of Brownsville and Matamoros. The report talks about the prevalence of birth defects beyond the wildest expectations of any area, let alone in the Maquiladora zone.
I was at an environment conference in Monteray, Mexico and the government official from Mexico said: "The environment is the business of the entrepreneur, it is not the business of government". However last week I heard the president of a multinational corporation say: "Environment is not our business, it is the business of government". Government says business is responsible and business says it is government. Who is in control? Who is going to look after the environment in Mexico?
Supply
Here is the package. I would ask the minister to take a look at it because this is proof that the environment of Mexico and the United States is at risk and as a result the standards of Canada will be downgraded.
The member for Kamloops talked about input from Canadians and I think it bears repeating that there will be no hearings in Toronto, the manufacturing heartland of the province of Ontario. It has been decimated.


An hon. member:: They are afraid of it.


Steve Butland: Exactly. They are afraid of it. Parts I, II and III of the documents are not available. I just brought along Part II. We as MPs had to deliver copies of the agreement to the libraries in our cities so if Canadians wanted to read them they could. There are some diskettes out there, so if you have your computers, you can pick them up or worse still you can call Washington, D.C., because they have extra copies. I am assuming that the minister has looked after this shortfall of documents.
It is difficult reading; it is drudgery. In particular I have taken the time to read over and over again Institutional Arrangements and Dispute Settlement Procedures. It is an exercise in futility. It is an exercise in conditionals. The parties should get together once a year and if they can come to some consensus, they shall at times endeavour to agree on the interpretation and application of this agreement. They should try, they should endeavour. It goes on for about 10 pages. The time limits of free trade are of no concern to Americans. They disregard the time frames.
We urge the other two parties to reject any North American free trade agreement. We would like to be able to say in the same resolution that we ask the other two parties to abrogate the present free trade agreement. Why we are asking them to do this is very simple. It is because Canadians are saying: abrogate, reject. That is what Canadians are telling us to do, not the New Democratic Party. At the behest of the Canadian citizens let us reject.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, so far we have heard two speakers from the NDP. They have not brought much new to the debate. All we have heard so far is rhetoric about rejecting both the free trade and the NAFTA.

Supply
I would like to ask my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie a question. He requests that this House vote to reject both agreements. How can he explain why we should vote on the NDP motion when between 1988 and 1991 there was a substantial increase in Canada's merchandise exports to the United States? Records show that in 1992 we will do even better.
We are reaching all-time records of exports with the United States. Figures show that for the first three quarters in 1992 our exports to the United States are up by close to $90 billion.
I would like to ask my friend from Sault Ste. Marie why and on what basis he is requesting the members to vote against the trade agreement that we have concluded with the United States and Mexico, while statistics and figures show that we are increasing our exports to the United States and that Mexico offers great opportunity for our manufacturing sector to increase our exports to Mexico? In light of those statistics, on what basis is he asking us to reject the trade agreement?


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, it is a reasonable question from a reasonable member, so I am happy to attempt to answer it.
The government keeps referring to these statistics. Of course we all know that statistics can be used to its own advantage and I will come back to the statistics in a moment.
The reality is that Ontario has been deindustrialized. I am sure the member would concur with that. In Ontario we have lost these manufacturing jobs. Just recently in Orillia and Penetanguishene people have said: "We are going to Mexico". Do you know the reason, Mr. Speaker? Because the wages are lower. They are unrestricted now. They are coming out and saying it. For a while they would say there are all sorts of reasons but now they say labour costs are lower.
The problem with this and the statistics he indicated, as the member from Kamloops pointed out, is that there is no doubt our exports to the United States have increased, but they also increased before 1988. They probably increased in 1982. There is no change. I believe statistics would show that the percentage of increase has decreased. Also statistics show, which the member did not point out, we have become totally dependent on the United States and our exports to Japan and Europe have decreased substantially.
There is no doubt that our exports are going to
increase, but there are several giants left and all those little folks have been eaten up.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I could not let the member's statement toward business go on the floor unchallenged. He said and business is not concerned about the environment and it is not its business. He made those remarks during his speech. He should be very careful because right now there are thousands and thousands of small, medium sized and large businesses in this country that are working on environmental review systems within their corporate charters.
That kind of blanket statement causes concern with the business community. Businesses are all of a sudden taking a very intense interest in environmental concerns and we should not be knocking them in this House. We should be encouraging them.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, the member took my quotation totally out of context and put a completely different slant on the whole thing.
I did not criticize business at all. I took up one indication that in Mexico the government said the environment is the job of business. The entrepreneurial spirit will look after the environment.
One chief administrator of one multinational company said it is not their job; it is the job of the government. What the member has done is totally misconstrued and I think he does this regularly in the House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the two speakers from the New Democratic Party and there is a certain aura of unreality about the rhetoric they fly around.
I asked a question of the member for Kamloops. My colleague asked a question of the member for Sault Ste. Marie about these record exports. Let us get it on the record again. We have seen an increase in exports to the United States of some $18 billion since the start of the FTA.

In the first nine months of this year compared with the first nine months of last year, there has been an increase in exports to the United States of 10.5 per cent; a new record practically every month. On our surplus of trade, we sell more goods and services to it than it sells to us and that surplus has gone up during the same period of time.
We have increased our share of exports to the United States compared with Japan, Germany or the United Kingdom as well as other countries. We ask these direct questions to the New Democratic members and they totally disregard them. They throw some rhetoric at us saying we can play games with statistics. We are not playing games with statistics. We are reporting directly what Statistics Canada has reported month by month since the free trade agreement has come in.
There is a recent study by the C. D. Howe Institute which showed very clearly that exports have increased in most of those sectors that were liberalized by the FTA. In other words, the FTA has provided the access and the preference because our tariffs have gone down on exports to the United States and that has created opportunities for Canadian companies.
They have taken advantage of them and translated them into business as well as jobs back here in Canada. There is a University of Toronto study that said very clearly the FTA has moderated the impact of the global recession we have been a part of here in Canada. It has moderated the impact, and I underscore those points. It has contributed to Canada's economic growth during this period.
The New Democratic Party says we should scrap the FTA, scrap NAFTA, get rid of them all. What have we heard from it as a replacement? What are the alternatives? I did not hear any alternatives from the two lead speakers of the New Democratic Party. They do not have an alternative here. They are flailing away with their high blown rhetoric, saying the FTA is bad. However, when they look at the statistics they walk away from them.


An hon. member:: Do not confuse the facts.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Do not confuse the issue with the facts.
Let us look at the results here. Concerning exports to the United States, our trade surplus has gone up. During
Supply
that time our exports have gone up. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association did a survey that was released in June 1992. It concluded that Canada's export industry has prospered since the FTA There is a DRI Research Institute study that indicated 97 out of 108 Canadian industries surveyed either gained or maintained their U.S. market share.
More than half said they had not lost market share in Canada. This is not a government survey. This is a private sector survey of 99 commodity categories tracked by Statistics Canada. Exports increased in 60 of those. There are a number of success stories in high value-added products.
Telecommunications and related equipment exports to the United States are up 151 per cent. Office machines and equipment exports are up 50 per cent. Electrical machinery exports are up 74 per cent and railway equipment exports are up 126 per cent. Aircraft and spacecraft exports are up 77 per cent. Optical equipment is up 14 per cent. Tools and implements are up 39 per cent. Pharmaceuticals are up 90 per cent. Wool, a market that people said would get killed, is up 66 per cent. Thnning extracts are up by 103 per cent and so on.
There is a whole list of successes by Canadian companies in the free trade agreement.
Let me quote some studies here. I referred to the C. D. Howe study a minute ago: "Canadian exports to the United States have risen most sharply in high-end manufacturing products and in services. These broad trends are inconsistent with detractors' predictions of the FTA's impact on the Canadian economy. They do, however, fit the scenario of longer term gains to Canada put forward by the supporters".
This is not a government study. This is the C. D. Howe Institute study and it draws on experts from across the country when it comes to these conclusions.
Let me further quote from this: "In areas where they have secured better access to the United States' market, Canadian firms have been able to sustain large gains in a number of sectors", and I have just indicated a number of those successes. "It is unfortunate that this crucial information about the gains from free trade remain essentially untold". That is why a debate like this is important, and I thank the NDP for putting the motion on the floor so we can have this debate.

December 1, 1992
Supply
Let me give one example that makes it very clear exactly how companies benefit from this. Babcock & Wilcox, a company in Cambridge, Ontario that makes steam generating equipment, invited me to an announcement at which it announced $250 million worth of orders from two United States electrical utilities. To put that into context, its total sales for a year are in the order of $250 million. It is very important business for them. It has never before been very successful in the American market. I asked it what the secret was. It replied that in 1988 the tariff was 6.5 per cent; in 1993 it will be zero. It is now on a level playing field. It has the work force, the technology and the access to markets now. It can compete and is now showing it can compete with these orders.
There are other success stories like this. I was at an office furniture show last weekend and I asked people as I walked around and met the different exhibitors from Canada what their exports to the United States were. They said 65 per cent of their business, 70 per cent and 75 per cent.
This is why it is so important we have this access to the United States market. It gives these companies the ability to turn those opportunities into business here in Canada and create jobs here.
People have commented about investment. What has happened to investment? Here again the detractors said that investment in Canada is going to go right through the floor if we have a free trade agreement. Again let us look at the facts.
The cumulative net foreign direct investment into Canada in the period 1989 to 1991 totalled $15.1 billion, an average of $5.3 billion. That compares with the previous three years' average of $3.5 billion. In 1991 it was $5.9 billion. This sharp increase in this type of investment shows me two things: first, that Canadian companies are investing and restructuring so they can take advantage of the opportunities there; second, that people outside of this country have confidence that Canada continues to be a good place to do business, a good place to invest.
The CMA, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, did a survey of 325 companies earlier this year and found that nearly half the companies said they increased their
capital investments in Canada after the FTA was implemented. Only 9 per cent reduced their investments.
This indicates very clearly that the FTA has helped the Canadian economy.
Let me quote from the Canada West Foundation: "The rationale to locate investment in Canada for cost and access considerations in serving the North American market has now improved as a result of the free trade agreement".
There is a new study done by KPMG Peat, Marwick. It suggests that the free trade deal helped prompt Canadian firms to cut back on investing in the United States and put more of their dollars into Canada".
Members opposite probably saw my picture in the Financial Post the other day eating potato chips. Why was I eating potato chips? First of all, they were not potato chips, they were sun chips. This is a new product of Hostess Frito-Lay that has created 60 jobs in Cambridge, Ontario. It has access to the United States market through the free trade agreement and for every one per cent that the tariff drops-and its tariff was 10 per cent-it increases its market, the radius it can serve, by 100 miles. That has now given it the mandate to serve the Canadian market as well as the northeastern United States.
We have had some reference in the debate here to the dispute settlement system. The NDP would reject this. That is a pretty sweeping statement for it to make because I do not think it has thought about what its constituents would say about that because periodic disputes are inevitable in a trade relationship of some $250 billion a year. What is needed is a way of resolving these disputes and we have seen in the free trade agreement the panels are acting in a very expeditious way about half the time that it takes to get these resolved under the GATT.
It results in a final decision and let us look at some of the wins we have had. The red raspberry market is not a big one for most people but for the red raspberry farmers it is very important. The panel ordered the U.S. agency to recalculate the dumping duties. Non-mortgage interest is a very important win for us to help particularly the automotive sector. On live swine, the panel found that the Canadian national tripartite stabilization program

was not a countervailable subsidy. What happened? Some $10 million went back to the Canadian exporters.
It was the same thing in pork, and that was upheld by an extraordinary challenge. It resulted in $20 million back to the Canadian exporters.
I ask my friends from the NDP what they are saying to the live swine farmers, the red raspberry farmers, the pork producers who now have $20 million and $18 in their pockets which, without the free trade agreement, they would still be paying.
Let us look at some quotes here again. "The mechanism has created a system allowing for a more conciliatory, equitable, orderly and rapid resolution of disputes", said the Royal Bank in February of a year ago. It continued: "The mechanism goes considerably beyond the powers of dispute resolution in the GATT", considerably beyond the GATT. I stress that point to my friends from the New Democratic Party.
It went on to say it is superior to the GATT because it has a fixed timetable. It has increased the objectivity and conciliatory nature of the decision-making process and the decisions are binding. Countries cannot walk away from those decisions.
Have we something special that others do not have? Let me quote again from Gary Horlick, an American reporting on the FTA and GATT settlement procedures, from "The Litigant's View":
(Chapter 19 panels) are in agreement by the United States and
Canada to have binding binational panel review administrative
decisions in the two countries. This is a very unusual thing for the
United States government to agree to. Chapter 19 is considered a
huge success.
Is this a Canadian speaking? This is an American speaking, looking objectively at the way the dispute settlement system has served both countries.
He goes on to say the FTA panels' admirable performance makes them a model for other types of dispute resolution. It will be a model because there are going to be elements of this dispute settlement mechanism which, if we are successful with the Uruguay round of the GATT, will be adopted in a number of ways in the GATT.
Let me give another example. This is a report from Peter Morici entitled "A new Special Relationship-Free Trade and the U.S. Canada Economic Relations in the 1990s": "The benefits of the FTA reach much further than removing existing barriers and avoiding new barri-
Supply
ers to trade and investment. It establishes processes", the dispute settlement mechanism, "and a context for better management of the U.S.-Canada relationship".
We have seen how tariffs have come down and how that has benefited Canadian companies. Let us look at what the free trade agreement including the Mexicans would do because this is what the NDP wants to throw away. It wants to throw away all the benefits I referred to in the free trade agreement with the United States and then its says rip up the NAFTA before it is even settled, before we have even signed the agreement.
What does the NAFTA do? First of all, let me make the fundamental point that any time there is an opportunity for Canada to get good access to another market, a growing market, this government is going to be at the table looking after Canadian interests, looking at possibilities and opportunities for us to spread the markets for Canadian exporters.
My friends say we are getting too strong a relationship with the United States. Fine, then why not broaden the relationship to Mexico? Why not expand our access into the fastest growing market on the North American continent: Mexico? What they are asking of the House today is completely illogical. We are doing something here to try to spread our markets better, not focus them totally on the United States, as they are concerned about, and they tell us to reject the agreement and rip it up.
They are sitting on the sidelines and not accepting this with a market of 87 million people, a fast growing market, with a significant middle income market of some 20 million to 25 million people. The opposition says to reject that too. A market of 20 million to 25 million people is a good sized market in the context of the Canadian economy.
We are not going to sit on the sidelines and be spectators. We are going to be in there mixing it up with our trade partners, trying to get better access for Canadian companies into the United States and Mexican markets and other markets where we can get that opportunity.
Duties are going to come down. Mexican duties on average are 10.5 per cent and some go as high as 20 per cent. We are going to get those down to 0 per cent in 10 years and some of them immediately. Those immediate reductions open up opportunities on January 1, 1994.

Supply
Let me give you some examples. Mexican tariffs on passenger cars and light trucks are reduced by 50 per cent immediately and the remaining duties are phased out over five years for cars and 10 years for trucks.
We have a booklet which gives Canadian companies an opportunity to learn how they can get into the Mexican market to their benefit.
I want to just draw people's attention to these figures taken from Statistics Canada. On motor vehicle parts, our exports to Mexico in 1990 were $82 million and $153 million in 1991. In 1991 the first half to 1992 first half, again they doubled. Therefore we can compete in that market and that is against high tariffs, import duties and managed trade.
It is one-way free trade because Mexican auto production can come into Canada almost dutyfree. Of Mexico's imports into Canada last year, 86 per cent were duty free. Therefore we are opening up this market. We are opening it up for exporters. There is much improved access as far as investors are concerned.
In the face of the benefits we gain from this our detractors have said: "Yes, but you are not going to be able to protect some of the important things that you gained in the free trade agreement with the United States".
Here again we did. We got the continuation of the auto pact and the continuation of the exemption, I would argue a strengthening of the exemption for cultural industries. Canadian social services and health services are protected. Our high health safety and environmental standards and our protection against water exports have been retained.
There are the improvements in intellectual property rules, clear North American content rules which are very important for the automotive industry, greater disciplines on energy regulators and improved dispute settlement processes. We have maintained and I would say enhanced our access to investment dollars in Canada.
In closing I want to just draw-


Mr. Boudria:: Oh, so soon?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: By unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to continue, but I am not sure that the hon. members opposite can take all this good news.
Members of the NDP say they would scrap the free trade agreement with the United States. They are going to say we want to hide from the rest of the world and go back to those comfortable days of the 1960s and 1970s. Well it is folly to expect that can ever happen. The world is changing and it is changing fast. It is not going to wait for Canada to get on the bandwagon.
Government policy on this side of the House has said we have to recognize that reality. The policies we have brought in since 1984 have done precisely that. They have recognized change and tried to put the Canadian economy, Canadian individuals and Canadian companies in a position to be able to adapt and adjust to that change.
Members of the NDP say: "Let us go back to the 1960s because it was nice then". We cannot do that and NDP members owe the Canadian people an explanation as to why they want to go back to the 1960s and whether they can go back to the 1960s and what their alternatives would be. How would they manage the economy? How would they encourage Canadian companies and individuals to move into the real world of the 1990s and beyond and help the Canadian economy in that way?


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: I would like to raise two issues with the minister with respect to the negotiating position taken by his government in the context of the NAFTA talks.
The first issue is with respect to dispute settlement which he talked about with obvious pride and the fact that under the FTA there is a dispute settlement mechanism which has resulted in a number of highly publicized decisions in favour of Canada. What that of course points out is that the United States has continually and consistently used its trade law as a weapon against Canadian exports to the United States, most times unfairly, which is why the trade panels have been deciding in Canada's favour.
Given the fact that the dispute settlement mechanism is really the only defence we have against these unfair practices in the U.S., why have the NAFTA negotiators agreed that technical changes in the dispute settlement mechanism increase the likelihood of the United States
December 1, 1992

challenging decisions by the panels? Why at least did the government of Canada not stand firm to protect what we did have out of dispute settlement, acknowledging even that it falls well short of stopping U.S. subsidies for production within the United States for its domestic consumption, which is a major barrier to Canadian exports to the United States?
The second issue is that back in March I asked the minister about the U.S. Jones Act and its protection for service in the maritime sector in the United States. He said: "One of our objectives is to break open the Jones Act. That is one of the key objectives of the policy".
If the government failed to get one of the key objectives of its negotiating policy, why is the government not still at the table demanding protection for the dispute settlement mechanism and breaking open the Jones Act?
We are giving up our surface transportation to the United States. At least we should get access to the maritime transportation system.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me caution my hon. friend that trade disputes are not all one way. I have mentioned the ones we have won because the NDP has a responsibility to those people who have been participants in winning disputes to explain to them why it would scrap the agreement.
We have lost some too. It has not been a two-way street. My hon. friend asked: "Why were we not negotiating harder?" We have a good dispute settlement mechanism. I am just interpreting what my hon. friend had to say and he can correct me if I am wrong, but he said that he would like to have a greater discipline of subsidy. Fortunately that will be there in a Uruguay round settlement. I hope we will be able to report positively on that as we go through the final stages of the negotiations there.
The United States was very clear. It said it wanted to negotiate the definition of subsidy in a broader way involving all the major trading partners it has to ensure that the best possible agreement is obtained. We have agreed to that approach because it is in our interest as well to have the best possible agreement.
Supply
That is possible with the critical mass of the GATT negotiation in a way that is not possible when there are only three countries involved in the negotiation.
We tried to break open the Jones Act and get access for our shippers into the United States but we were unsuccessful.
My hon. friend says we have failed. People on the other side are saying the Americans have failed because we maintained our cultural exemption. People in the United States are saying the U.S. negotiators failed because we retained the auto pact. We retained the right by Investment Canada to screen large investments. That is part of negotiations. These were important to us. We were not going to give on those. I do not know what their strategy was but maybe the Americans said: "If we are not going to get access to the Canadian market in those areas we are interested in, we are not going to give on the Jones Act either". That is part of negotiations.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment and question the minister. We cannot let him get away with making some of the comments he has made about where the trade strategy is from the New Democrats. Here is where it is.
It is a trade strategy involving economic development and jobs. Our leader is consulting with Canadians across the country on a trade paper, the Canadian trade and investment act which we propose. At the very least it is quite unlike my friends in the Liberal Party who presented no alternative to the GST when it was brought in by this government and present no alternative now but to saddle up with the Tories on this whole free trade deal. The alternative is there. It will be a very clear choice for Canadians in the next election campaign.
My first question to the minister is on softwood lumber. This is important and relates to our debate today. We heard in evidence at the trade committee that the North American free trade agreement is of no advantage and of no gain, given the current dispute panel that is hearing the softwood issue. In fact one of the panels has collapsed due to a conflict of interest. At least as of this morning I am aware of no date that has been set for its commencement. It again pushes the resolution of this issue ahead.

December 1, 1992
Supply
The evidence was that regardless of how weak those panels are, the Americans will likely challenge us further. That point was made by another member in this House. I ask the minister to assure this House that he still has a united front from all Canadian provinces in fighting this softwood dispute with Washington, D.C. and that he will meet shortly with the trade minister from British Columbia on this very point. I believe an assurance to the House in that regard would certainly be helpful.
I differ with the minister on his suggestion that our governments back down on the description of subsidy and countervail as a positive note. I have letters on file from this minister praising the five to seven-year process. We have lost that. NAFTA is a step back for those provinces which rely on our trade and export with the United States to define that countervail and dispute settlement process. It is a step back and it is going to hurt provinces like British Columbia.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the New Democratic Party is consulting to try to develop a trade policy. Where has it been since 1987? All it has been saying is: "We are against it. We are against it. We are against it". Now it is going through this little charade sending people around the country and calling it consulting. I hope this time it comes up with a trade policy that looks forward into the 1990s and the year 2000 and beyond and not try to slide back into the 1960s and 1970s.
I agree with what the NDP says about the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is trying to ride two horses. That is clear. It does not know which way it wants to go. I will not mention those members but they are in the House today and they want to have greater liberalization of trade. Others, I think, are probably more in the camp of the New Democratic Party and, quite frankly, are not sure which way they want to go.
My friend is quite aware of the position we have taken on softwood lumber with the encouragement of the provinces including the province of British Columbia. We terminated the Memorandum of Understanding on softwood lumber and since then we have been fighting the Americans on a resolution of this dispute.
Let me remind my hon. friend that in 1986, the last time there was a dispute on softwood lumber, there was no provision to take that decision to a panel to get that dispute resolved. Now, with the free trade agreement with the United States, we do have that panel. What does the NDP want to do? It wants to scrap the panel so we can keep this dispute going on for ever and ever; make sure there is a continuation of uncertainty that the lumber industry in B.C. has to operate under, make sure that we pay thousands and millions of dollars to the lawyers as the dispute continues because we do not want to have a dispute settlement mechanism, we do not want to have a free trade agreement. Let us scrap it all. The NDP owes an explanation of its position to the B.C. forest products industry.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker I am puzzled by the motion presented to us today by the NDP.
I am puzzled for two reasons. First of all, the NDP has repeatedly said here and elsewhere that it is eager to see the sub-committee on trade hold meetings across Canada to hear the views of Canadians on the proposed North American free trade agreement.
Those hearings have begun. They are underway now. They are being conducted in five major urban centres across our country and those who wish to appear from Montreal and Toronto are being invited to appear before the committee here in Ottawa.
Having said that the NDP wanted these hearings, in the very midst of the hearings not yet two weeks old it tells us it is not interested in what Canadians have to say about the North American free trade agreement. It presents a resolution today, and this is my second source of bafflement, that says it would scrap any North American free trade agreement, any North American free trade agreement. What the public has to say is obviously of no interest to the NDP. The NDP has made up its mind. It knows what it wants to do. It is going to reject, scrap, tear up any-not just this proposed-North American free trade agreement.
So much for the NDP's repeated statement that it wanted to hear what Canadians had to say about the North American free trade agreement.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the greatest respect, I think the debate in the committee was very clear about which party wanted to have wide-spread hearings on the North American free trade agreement all across the country.


Mr. Blenkarn:: You know better than that.


An hon. member:: We are going to be here all day if we have that kind of behaviour.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the second point that baffles me in this bizarre resolution brought forward by the NDP is that it would scrap any North American free trade agreement.
If that is the position of the NDP I am glad to hear it because it reveals the NDP as a protectionist party. This is pure protectionism.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Even if it is in our interest it wants to.


Mr. Milliken:: Yes.


Roy MacLaren: It is saying whatever the content of a North American free trade agreement, the NDP wants nothing to do with it. It is going to try to build walls around Canada and seek protection from those global changes that are everywhere evident.


Don Boudria: Like Cuba.


Roy MacLaren: I have to think that the NDP has some vision of a golden age in the past when Canada benefited from its export of raw materials and seemingly benefited from the protectionism that was provided for branch plant manufacturing in Canada. That age is gone. If it ever was a golden age, it certainly is not here today.
What has happened in the world, what has happened everywhere is that change in technology has meant a global investment and trade marketplace. Global investment can move readily across the world; global trade is growing everywhere.
In the face of that the NDP would say scrap everything. Free trade is out. It does not want anything to do with anything.
The second thing that this resolution says, and it is quite evident from its tone, is that the NDP does not recognize the importance of trade to Canada. One-third of our Gross National Product arises directly from trade. The private sector is heavily dependent on exports. Canadian workers are heavily dependent on our ability to achieve secure and enhanced access to international markets.
Supply
It is for that reason that the leader of the Liberal Party said some time ago: "In today's world protectionism is not right or left wing. It is simply passe. Globalism is not right or left wing. It is a fact of life".
The federal NDP does not seem to recognize this. I am not sure, however, that the NDP provincial governments do not recognize it. Each of those three NDP governments, heavily saddled with their deficits, is seeking international markets, improved access to markets, scurrying about the world trying to drum up business for its products. I do not hear the premiers saying reject improved access, reject enhanced access to international markets as the federal NDP members are doing.
I would have thought that those two parts of the NDP would get together. I would also add that the trade critic of the NDP, who is not here today for this debate said recently that the NDP has no alternative trade policy. The NDP would first scrap the North American free trade agreement and then later announce what its policy is.
Surely the NDP does not think the Canadian people are quite that silly, to buy a pig in a poke.
What is the NDP telling us with this resolution? It is against all regional freer trade arrangements? Is it saying it is opposed in principle, for example, to the growth of the European Community or that it is opposed to the incipient regional arrangements in Asia? Is that what it means when it says it would scrap any North American free trade agreement because it violates its concept that we should put all our eggs in the multilateral basket, that is to say, into the GATT? That may be an argument if it wishes to pursue it, but let it say so clearly.
If it is going to adopt that as its trade policy, then would it answer the question of whether in turning its back on the freer access to a market of more than 360 million people, it will support the GATT, including the proposed international trade organization that is a central element in the Uruguay round now nearing completion? Is that its policy?
I do not know that it is. I do not think it is. One of its members in this House has called for the withdrawal of Canada from the GATT. The NDP would tear up not just this but any free trade agreement in North America and

December 1, 1992
Supply
at least one of its members thinks at the same time that Canada should withdraw from the GATT.
We cannot turn the clock back any more than we can turn our back on a North American market with improved and enhanced access.
Our view was from the beginning of the proposal to negotiate a North American free trade agreement that Canada had to be at the table.
We believed that Canada had to be at the table to protect our own interests in North American trade. Otherwise, among other things, if there were a U.S.-Mexico free trade arrangement and a U.S.-Canada free trade arrangement separately, only one country, the United States, would have access to the other two countries on a tariff free basis.
That hub and spoke arrangement was certainly unacceptable to us on this side of the House. For that reason, among others, we thought Canada had to be at the negotiating table. However, the result of Canada's negotiation of the North American free trade agreement is that we have an accord which is both incomplete and flawed.
I want to recall to the House that the leader of the Liberal party said some time ago with reference to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement: "The free trade agreement must be modified. A Liberal government would go back to the negotiating table to achieve the necessary changes as well as to deal with the definition of subsidies. I have always said that we would rather renegotiate the free trade agreement than abrogate it. I would expect that our American partners will join us to find solutions. It is in their interest as well as ours". That same thinking has now been transferred to the North American free trade agreement which is pending before the three countries.
More specifically we on this side of the House, in pointing out repeatedly that the agreement as negotiated is both incomplete and flawed, drew attention to the fact that it lacks a subsidy and anti-dumping code. There is no clear statement of subsidy definition. There is no subsidy definition at all or a parallel anti-dumping code in the proposed North American free trade agreement.
Second, we urged repeatedly that increased environmental protection and, perhaps more important, enforcement should be a central part of a North American free trade agreement. We looked for revised energy provisions, taking into account the varying commitments on behalf of Mexico and Canada. We sought in the context of the NAFTA negotiations improved labour standards, including the safety of workers.
We would seek, as my colleague from Ottawa South commented a few minutes ago, dispute procedures that would be more binding and effective. We have not seen that come out of the negotiations. Finally, it is a domestic issue, but we sought and have sought repeatedly on this side of the House that the government recognize that freer trade inevitably brings a degree of dislocation.
Therefore we sought and have repeatedly urged the government to match its commitment to freer trade with adjustment assistance to help Canadian workers and firms adapt to a greater trade liberalization globally. That commitment is still lacking and there is no evidence yet that this government is taking seriously the real need in Canada to provide that range of adjustment assistance to help Canadians become more competitive globally as well as in the context of the North American free trade agreement.
I have spoken for a moment or two about some of the changes that we thought NAFTA should include, but I want to draw to the attention of the House that the president-elect of the United States has been saying much the same sort of thing.
I want to quote Governor Clinton who in October stated: "As president, I will seek to address the deficiencies of the North American free trade agreement through supplemental agreements with the Canadian and Mexican governments. I will not sign the legislation implementing the North American free trade agreement until we have reached additional agreements to protect environment and labour standards".
There is the opportunity for us on this side of the House to realize our ambitions to see the North American Free Trade Agreement modified, improved, changed and renegotiated to provide for those provisions which the president-elect has in mind and the other provisions which I touched on a moment ago.

The real question is simply this: Beyond the North American free trade agreement there are forces at work. Basic issues have arisen that this facetious resolution of the NDP does not address. What are they talking about? They are going to scrap any freer trade agreement in North America. Yet, behind that movement to freer trade in North America are the same challenges that face Canadians on a global basis. What do they think we should be doing in Canada to render ourselves more competitive? I do not hear anything from the NDP about interprovincial trade barriers. Obviously we have to achieve a true common market within our own country, provide for the free movement of goods, people and services if we hope to compete effectively abroad. Are they deterred by the fact that they have three NDP provincial governments at loggerheads quite often with the federal NDP? Is that what their problem is? If it is, let them say it. Otherwise let them share with the Canadian people what their polity is, what domestic measures they think are required to make Canadians more competitive.
We on this side of the House have repeatedly shared with the Canadian people our commitment to improved education, to better training and retraining, to a greater commitment to research and development, to better science and technology support, and to the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers. These are a range of issues that are within our own mastery. They are our problems in Canada to deal with.
The motion fails to convey to the Canadian people what the NDP would do in the face of the global challenges that are everywhere evident.
For that and other reasons, I want to move:
That the motion be amended by removing all the words after the
word "reject" and replacing them with the following:
- all North American free trade agreements that fail to promote
Canadian workers and jobs, and fail to safeguard the environment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. friend's comments. I want to thank him for clarifying the Liberal Party's position that it supports the notion of free trade with some changes
Supply
perhaps to the Mexico-United States-Canada agreement it would feel comfortable going along with that. That is what he wanted to clarify. I guess he is complimenting his colleague in British Columbia wherein they had a chance to vote on the Mexico-United States- Canada trade deal and voted in favour of it in its present form, which I thought was an interesting clarification because there has been mystification around the Liberal position.
I want to clarify for my hon. friend that while his party thinks that putting all of our export eggs into the American basket is a good idea-as a matter of fact in 1988 72.8 per cent of our exports went to the United States and this past year it was increased to 76.3 per cent-presumably as time goes on this trade deal will essentially make us completely and totally dependent upon the fortunes of the United States. I think that anybody who looks around at the world economy will realize that hanging our future onto the falling American star is probably not a good idea, at least that is not what we want.
I am reading from a publication from the Congress of the United States that has done a thorough analysis of the agreement. It had this to say, and I ask my hon. friend if he would concur with the United States Congress when it says the following:
The greatest danger of NAFTA is that it could bring out the worst in each country. Hade and investment liberalization could reinforce commitment to low-wage business strategies among U.S., Canadian, and Mexican firms; destabilize the attempt to foster less adversarial relations between labour and management; weaken the commitment of U.S. corporations to train less educated U.S. workers; reduce incentives for small and medium-sized U.S. firms to construct and participate in co-operative networks aimed at fostering innovation and technology diffusion;
It goes on to say:
The combined effect would be to encourage growing numbers of U.S. firms to pursue business strategies depending on or compatible with production in Mexico.
-a low-wage path would widen the gap between workers' aspirations and the jobs available to them. It would likewise widen the gap between the rich and the poor.

December 1, 1992
Supply
Those comments came out of the examination of the Congress of the United States. I wonder if my hon. friend who just spoke would agree with those sentiments.


Roy MacLaren: If the member had listened to what I said instead of attempting to put instructions on it he would have understood the policy of our party is to seek change to the proposed North American free trade agreement in the areas I enumerated earlier. We seek change in those areas. We do so in full recognition that only in that way can the agreement work to the benefit of all Canadians.
Second, we parallel that commitment with a commitment to global freer trade. We support the current Uruguay round of the GATT. We support the diversification of Canadian trade. We seek, unlike this present government with its continental obsessions, a broader base for our trade through much more active trade promotion and development in Asia and Europe. That might include the possibilities of new institutional arrangements between Canada and Asia or Canada and the European Community, but all would be directed to that diversification of our trade base which can only bring benefit to Canadians.
However, neither of these points do I hear from the NDP, nor is there any indication it recognizes those two parallel developments: changes in the proposed North American free trade agreement and a real commitment to diversification both through the GATT and bilaterally of our trade interest will ensure Canadians have a sound and sensible international trade policy.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I was wondering if the member who just spoke understands, if he listened to the minister, this debate today is on the North American free trade agreement and not on the GATT. The minister is heavily involved in the GATT and he knows that. This party and this government are 100 per cent in favour of expanding our trade to the world. To suggest we are only in the North American basket, as evidenced by the New Democratic Party is just so much drivel.
I wonder if the member would really come clean with us. Does his party like an agreement with Mexico or does it not like an agreement with Mexico? He says he has problems with certain parts. He wants certain parts of
the agreement renegotiated. The government has negotiated and negotiated and negotiated. The question is: Do you take the deal as it is or do you leave the deal up the river? The answer is this: You cannot unilaterally amend a negotiation. You negotiate and get what you can while protecting the interests you want to protect and maybe not getting all the things you would like.
The issue really is whether we keep the agreement or not. I think it is time the Liberal Party came clean.
After all, this is really a terrible agreement. We sell $500,000 million worth of goods to Mexico. It brings $1.5 billion worth of goods into Canada. The agreement is not going to hurt labour or hurt anybody in Canada. It will only open up markets.
Surely the Liberal Party has to come out in favour of an agreement that would open up markets for Canada. We have everything to gain from this agreement and nothing to lose. Why does he not come out and say the Liberal Party is in favour of an agreement? Sure we would like it to be better, but we are in favour of the agreement.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member for Mississauga South is unable to follow the argument which I have presented today. He seems to see things in very black and white, yes or no terms.
That is not the point. He must know it is not the point. He should listen when I say our policy is to seek change and improvement to the nature of a North American free trade agreement. Now who happens along with that same basic policy? No one else but the President-elect of the United States, who would disagree with the hon. member for Mississauga South.
The hon. member for Mississauga South says: "The agreement is just fine the way it is. In fact, it is absolutely perfect the way it is." That is a reckless course. It is as reckless as the NDP saying any agreement is out of the question, however it might benefit Canadians. Those are two reckless courses to pursue.
We are saying we will seek change and improvement in the proposed agreement. It is the very thing the President-elect of the United States has been saying about the provisions regarding environmental protection, worker safety and employment standards and their enforceability.
December 1, 1992

Those two major issues must be addressed. The President-elect of the United States has committed himself to not proceed with the signing of the legislation implementing the North American agreement until such improvements and changes are made.
We will be there too with our proposals and changes. I assure those on this side of the House when this party forms the government, we will deliver freer trade for Canadians matched by domestic commitments that will bring real benefits to every Canadian.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. friend and I think he inadvertently misled the House. I know he would want to clarify what he just said when he told us the New Democratic Party was opposed to any trade agreement.
We have always supported trade agreements like the auto pact which was in Canada's best interest.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You didn't support that either.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A free trade agreement is what we oppose. That is a clarification.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I think the point raised by the hon. member is a matter of debate.
After consideration, I declare the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Etobicoke North in order.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join in this very important debate today about North American free trade and Canada's role in its trade policy with other countries, in particular of course with the United States and Mexico as is being laid out in the North American free trade agreement and the discussion we are having in the House today.
I second the motion of my colleague, the member for Kamloops, calling on this House to oppose the North American free trade agreement. That raises just a couple of questions as to where we are at with this particular treaty. What is the committee doing which is presently holding hearings into this? What are a couple of the important subject matters under the NAFTA that we have to deal with?
Supply
First of all, we now have the North American free trade agreement in our hands and that is the subject of our debate today. We expect the government to introduce some time in the spring, at least from what the Minister for International Trade has said, enabling legislation to implement and change the laws of Canada as they relate to this particular treaty. We will have a very extensive debate on that in the new year. It will be a very important debate because that is when we will see the substance of the changes made in the laws of our land because of this treaty. I suggest that is where the meat and potatoes will be.
After some debate the committee hearings have begun into the North American free trade agreement with the reluctant participation of the Liberals who supported the government and opposed holding hearings in every province in the country on this issue. It was only after some debate and argument by the New Democrats that a bit of money was expended to advertise so that people in the provinces where hearings are being held could have an opportunity to present their views on this agreement to the committee.
A very important point was made by my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, about one of the provinces that has been clearly impacted by the free trade agreement and will be impacted by the North American free trade agreement. The Liberals and Conservatives refused to hold hearings, even in the part of Ontario represented by the Liberal trade critic in the Etobicoke area, thus denying many of the people of Ontario that important opportunity to debate what many have come to say is the start of the formation of the economic constitution of our country.
I am pleased to say that in discussions in a meeting this morning with the B.C. minister of trade, the hon. David Zimhelt, the British Columbia government is certainly doing a better job than this government in allowing the residents of British Columbia to express their views and concerns about this treaty. It will be holding wide hearings into this agreement. It will be travelling throughout the province of British Columbia. I invite it and I trust it will come to the major community in my riding, Prince George, and other communities in northern B.C. so it can hear from British Columbians about this issue.

Supply
It is interesting to note the difference. We are not sure but we think we are finding out where the Liberals stand on trade. Of course, their colleagues in the B.C. legislature have made it very clear that they have voted completely in favour of the North American free trade agreement as it is, thus rejecting the views of their colleagues here in the House of Commons. I congratulate the government of British Columbia for being open about its views on this issue and for really giving the people of British Columbia a chance to participate and have their views heard.
I want to turn to two areas that are important to this debate. One is the issue that has become evident on the hearings that started yesterday in Vancouver on the whole question of water under this treaty. I am not going to get into specific concerns that were raised by Wendy Holm, who members certainly recognize as someone who has some expertise in this field.
Prior to the 1988 election, the government knew it was under considerable public pressure with the impending free trade agreement and what to do about the water issue. It did introduce Bill C-156, the Water Preservation Act, to give more certainty to the Government of Canada's views on this particular issue. We invite the government to do the same thing as we enter the next election campaign on yet another trade policy.
I now want to turn to an issue as it relates to a trade matter very important to northern British Columbia and all of Canada. It is the question of softwood lumber because it relates directly to what we are talking about with the North American free trade agreement and whether we have made any gains or losses because of this treaty. The evidence that was submitted to the trade committee hearing last week was very revealing and interesting on two points. First I asked the witness, Mr. Ritchie, deputy chief negotiator under the free trade agreement-a free trader himself-a question, and the other five witnesses later in the week, concerning the current state of the dispute panels in softwood lumber.
At least one of them has collapsed right now because of the conflict of interest, thus pushing a possible, and we only underline possible, resolution of that issue to sometime in the middle of next year. I asked them
whether this treaty, the North American free trade agreement, would give any added benefit to us now to assist us in resolving this dispute.
Every witness said it would not. They outlined what they felt was one of the losses under this treaty that is very important for a province like British Columbia in particular and the rest of our provinces that rely a great deal and perhaps too much on exports of our raw resources. That is certainly the subject of more debate as we go: the work that we can do in that particular field.
The agreement under the free trade agreement, and I have this in letters from the trade minister praising what he was able to do, was that the question of subsidy and countervail, which is what for us in British Columbia trade issues are all about, would be set aside for five to seven years with a deadline and with the negotiations and ongoing debate at the GATT to try to determine what is a subsidy, what is countervailable by each country in protecting its domestic industries.
Under the North American free trade agreement, as reported by these witnesses, the deadline for a decision has been left out and now it is for ongoing consultations to settle who knows when. As I said, I have letters from the minister praising what he accomplished in the free trade agreement and to those witnesses that was a significant setback in the North American free trade agreement. I believe it is as well because I think most members regardless of their views about trade and NAFTA and the FTA would recognize that.
At some point we have to resolve these matters. I argue and suggest that the setback we now have under the North American free trade agreement is that we will never resolve these very important issues. They will be left for some time to come to be dealt with.
The important information that these witnesses had for us in the evidence and their work they are doing with American people in Washington, D.C. and other areas were the parallel accords from President-elect Clinton.
The member for Etobicoke, the Liberal trade critic, is quite wrong. From all the evidence we have the Americans will be approving this. It is the parallel accord where we will be seeing more.
December 1, 1992

I suggest to Canadians this is just the start of our trade nightmare. We have much more to see in that area.
In conclusion, for Canadians out there who want to learn more about this issue, I offer the trade treaty itself. To get copies you can write to me so you can see for yourself what it means and what impact it is going to have in your area. It is important that all Canadians understand the importance of this particular agreement, what this government is getting us into and what options we have for the future.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the member made much of the holding of committee hearings to hear witnesses on the NAFTA. I did not interrupt him with a facetious point of order as the NDP made a practice of doing earlier this morning. I wanted to wait until now to raise this point which to me is quite mystifying.
The NDP has brought in a motion today saying that we should reject any North American free trade agreement. What does it want to hear from witnesses about the North American free trade agreement, having already made up its mind that no matter what was put to it, it would reject it?
What possible additional evidence does it wish to hear? It has shut its ears and closed its mind to any further discussion on trade issues, demonstrating clearly once and for all for the Canadian public that it is in essence a protectionist party.
We know the NDP members like to travel. Perhaps that is why they want to hold hearings. What else could they hear that would open their minds to further discussion on the topic, given the context of the motion they have put forward this morning?


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question.
As I said in the debate, maybe it is about time somebody stood up and protected Canada. I think that is an important point to be made. The hon. member asks what we are about to hear and I think my colleague, the member for Kamloops, the framer of this motion, made that very clear in the point we are making in this debate today.
Supply
He asks, and I think this is the crux of the point, why we would want to hold hearings and hear from people. There are two issues alone that I certainly welcome the member to hear from British Columbians. I am not very familiar with his part of Ontario. Perhaps he does not want the people of Ottawa to submit their views on the North American free trade agreement.
Perhaps the Liberals and the Tories did not learn this lesson during the referendum debate. Canadians know in their hearts and their minds that when they see the information for themselves they can make up their minds. In British Columbia yesterday and today water and softwood sum it up and say it all. The Liberals would deny the people of British Columbia the right to relate directly to parliamentarians, who will be voting on this particular issue, their views about how the softwood lumber issue is so important to British Columbia. The water export issue is important to the people of British Columbia as well.
Shame on the Liberals for wanting to shut down any opportunity for Canadians to have some say in the debate surrounding this treaty.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, when I hear members of the New Democratic Party talk against any free trade agreement with the United States or any North American agreement, I am reminded of the Communist system which I think is quite outdated. Communism is a protectionist system that prevents people from working freely in different countries.
I think that the best way to have peace in the world is through trade, first and foremost. It is through trade that we learn to live and work together. Their proposal seems to be completely contrary to today's reality, especially in Quebec where we have a tremendous potential with the United States. Montreal is within 1,000 kilometres of 100 million people, 100 million consumers. That is where we must do business and that is how we can make our small and medium sized businesses profitable. That is how we can raise our standard of living, especially in Quebec.
In Quebec, 18 per cent of the population is now considered poor. I wonder how we can promote our economy and create jobs if we cannot trade with the United States.

Supply
That is why I completely disagree with this NDP motion that says we should completely cut off our trade with the United States.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, there is some irony in a member of the Bloc Quebecois suggesting to this House that we are being protectionist about our country. Regardless of whichever view we might have about North American free trade or the free trade agreement, aside from some members of this House, we see Quebec playing an important and open role in this country.
The member made some references about outdated and entrenching. I suggest that in fact that is exactly what this North American free trade agreement is going to do. It is going to entrench an outdated system that we have now, a system in our economy that relies on Canada's role as the hewers of wood and drawers of water.
We will not be given the potential and opportunity for the added value components to our forest industry and other areas. It is in the big picture of things from somewhere that our job is to provide those raw resources to cheap labour in Mexico to serve the U.S. market. That is the entrenched and out-of-date system we have to change.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, all of us should think, as we debate this important subject of North American free trade, back to the period of the late 1840s. The Government of Canada at that time and the people of this country faced some very serious problems economically. There were people within the country who looked to build in Canada an economy that would serve our people, be built on Canadian resources and seek to develop this country as a place where a good society could grow and exist.
There were others who looked for an easy out. There were others who said: "We will give up the dream of an independent country and we will establish ourselves as the tail of a North American dog. We will establish ourselves as little appendages of some great North American scheme". This group was led by the merchants of that time, the most powerful business people in the community of Canada in the late 1840s.
They proposed what they called a scheme of North American annexation. They called on the United States through the annexation manifesto to come and take over Canada and create one great North American scheme that would destroy the independence, individuality, and potential for a future of this country.
Fortunately for us the annexation manifesto was rejected by Canadians. That theme and the thinking of Canadian large scale business have persisted throughout the years. There has been a viewpoint on the part of many elements in the Canadian business community that if we could just attach ourselves to the rest of North America somehow this would give Canada a secure future.
This theme found expression through the Liberal Party for many years and the Conservative Party opposed it. The Conservative Party took a position with the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. It took a policy with the attempt to develop this country which some at that time called protectionist. Those in the Liberal Party called it protectionist. It was not protectionist. It was about development. It was about developing this country, building railways to the west and bringing in new settlers and establishing new industry. It was establishing in this country the basis for an independent society that would live differently, have different values and in which the people of this country would direct what happens to us.
The great election of 1911 of course was fought on this issue with the Conservatives saying we will stand up for Canada and the Liberals saying no, we will see to it that Canada becomes part of a free trade arrangement with the rest of North America.
In that election, fortunately for the future of our country, the Liberals were defeated and the Conservatives were elected. We then proceeded to follow further a course of development in our country that emphasized building in Canada a society of which we could be proud, a society marked by national institutions like the CBC which the Conservatives brought into being, a country marked by national institutions such as an unemployment insurance system across the country, a national pension system for older Canadians which the Liberals brought into being. But always this theme persisted, this
December 1, 1992

theme of let us tie ourselves to the rest of North America and somehow that will make us better.
In the last election the Conservatives took this theme forward. They said let us have a free trade agreement with the United States, a free trade deal which was not so much about freeing trade but about tying the hands of the Canadian government so far as its ability to direct, influence and lead economic development in this country.
We have seen the result. We have seen the longest and, for Ontario, the deepest recession in this country since the Dirty Thirties. The government occasionally gets up and tries weakly to defend itself by saying well, agreed, it has been a disastrous recession but we have it somewhat better because of the trade deal than it otherwise would have been.
The reality is free trade meant that Canada went into recession first, before the United States. That has never happened historically before. The free trade agreement meant that whereas our exports in the three years before free trade went up by 7 per cent to the United States annually, our exports in the three years after free trade came into effect went up by only 4 per cent.
Whereas in the three years before we had a trade surplus with the United States of $6 billion on an annual basis, in the three years after the free trade deal went into effect that surplus dropped to an average of $4.5 billion.
Each year free trade meant more imports coming from the United States and proportionately fewer export increases to the United States. The consequence of that was lost jobs. The most recent unemployment statistics show over 200,000 fewer Canadians employed in August 1992 than at the start of the free trade arrangement. In the manufacturing sector there are over 400,000 fewer Canadians employed.
Now the Conservatives want to take us into NAFTA, a North American free trade deal which would have the effect of making the U.S. free trade agreement even worse. It would have the effect of making job losses even more certain to hit us. It would have the effect of making even more difficult guaranteed access to the U.S. market. We abandoned one of the things the Conservatives said we had to have in the previous free trade deal: the
Supply
commitment to the development of common subsidy rules between the two countries. That has been lost.
I hope the House of Commons will today recognize that we have the chance to send a message to the people of Canada and of North America that this country opposes any North American free trade arrangement. We see ourselves as part of the world. We see ourselves as being able to trade with every country. We see ourselves not as setting up special protective barriers behind which we will tie ourselves to the United States and Mexico, but as a country that is part of the world and not simply an appendage of North America.
I hope that in the end at least the Liberals will join with us in supporting this motion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued with the historical report of the member from Windsor on the election of 1911 where he complimented the Conservative Party on opposing a trade agreement with the United States and thought that the national policy developed by John A. Macdonald and continued through the last depression would be the policy for Canada. I assume then that it is the policy of the New Democratic Party to reinstate the national policy and to impose on Canadians a high tariff policy with very serious trade restrictions to build the nation of Canada in order to make sure that Canadians are treated differently and act differently than every other people in the world.
I was wondering, with this new national policy, how high does he think he will have to put tariffs? Does he think with the new productive systems that it means you can skip a tariff barrier of 10 per cent or 15 per cent? Would he advocate 50 or 60 per cent tariffs? Does he think that would be enough? Does he think, as a member of the New Democratic Party, that its goal to go to the world with high tariffs would be the way to encourage world trade or would he just abandon all tariffs? Would he abandon all restrictions? Would he not have any kind of trade agreements, just a complete withdrawal of all tariff barriers and no agreements at all?
Where does his party stand? Is it in favour of the national policy he spoke of so eloquently? Will he tell us about the new national policy of the New Democratic Party or the new dinosaur party?

December 1, 1992
Supply


Steven W. Langdon: I am always pleased to see the member for Mississauga South get up and speak in the House of Commons. I would have thought that as a member of the Conservative Party he, like me, might have looked back to the history of his party and to the history of the country and seen that the national policy in its time was an important contribution to Canadian economic development.
I certainly am willing to recognize that. If he wants to turn his back on Sir John A. Macdonald that is of course his privilege. I respect that period of history in which we in Canada decided to build our own society. How we decided to do it in 1872 when Macdonald announced the first elements of the national policy and how we do it in 1992 are quite different. If the member has not noticed, the world has changed dramatically in the last 120 years. Because of those dramatic changes, the strategies adopted in 1872 are certainly not the strategies that one would choose to adopt in 1992. One would instead look to achieve the same objectives of building an effective, independent future in which Canadians can be proud through more progressive, efficient and effective means.
These means have to include commitments such as we have under the auto pact which have helped the constituency of Mississauga South just as they have helped the constituency of Essex-Windsor, insisting that when companies have the right to import duty-free into this country that the consequence of that right is that they also have a commitment to generate certain levels of value added in this country and therefore certain jobs in this country.
We must have a commitment to fair trade for Canadians that will give us a chance to compete with the rest of the world. It is our goal not to hide away here in Canada, but to grow effectively in the future.
The problems of 400,000 unemployed manufacturing workers seem not to matter to this government across the aisle. I am proud to say that for me and my party these jobless Canadians are right at the front of our concerns and we will continue to fight for them.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to accept my hon. friend's invitation to begin my comments by going back to Canadian history and back to the 1840s, 1850s, 1860s and 1870s and share with him the fallacy of his very partial reading of Canadian history.
First of all the member reminded the House that in the 1840s and 1850s the provinces of Canada and eventually the Confederation of Canada in the 19th century were against, except for the annexation movement, free trade with the United States. There were some people who wanted free trade with the United States who called themselves annexationists.
All that is true, but the member overlooks some very important facts. If he will take a look at a recent book by Gary Wells in the United States on President Lincoln there are an interesting three pages of a visit of Sir John A. Macdonald to see the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln. Nothing appears in the book about their conversations, but what struck Macdonald when he left Washington the next day was how many American troops were amassed in Washington. All along the roads all the way back to Canada he saw nothing but troops, troops, troops.
Canada of course became a country in 1867 and this all happened during the American Civil War when the amount of troops under mobilization in the United States was over one million. Under no circumstances could Macdonald, or any responsible political leader in British North America want to have any annexation or free-trade with the United States with that particular reality.
* We then had the Fenian Raids in the 1880s. We then had the problems between the British Empire, of which we were a part, and American priorities when it came to Europe.
What I am saying is that in the 19th century it made no sense at all to have free trade with the United States for geo-political reasons or for economic reasons. For this member to go back to that period and say that is an example for us in 1990s or as we move into the 21st century is absolutely incredible. The situation now between Canada and the United States is totally different than it was 100 or 140 years ago and this is what he overlooks.
December 1, 1992

I am interested in economic historians who take up his theme of protectionism and who have examined it, especially those on the left in Canadian historiography and he would be very interested in this. Two very fine studies have been done by Robert Mailer and Glen Williams that have taken a look at the effect of protectionism as it persisted into the depression, as our friend from Mississauga South reminded us.
These two studies point out the extent of protectionism in Canada. By the mid-1950s protectionism in Canada led to the protection of a kind of oligarchy or economic elite in Canada. These distortions started to develop and we were not being competitive any more because we protected our business elite. The Mailer study takes a look at three volumes of all of these elites that were artificially kept alive through the protectionist strategy. I am surprised that the NDP wants to keep certain economic elites alive today through a protectionist strategy.
The Glenn Williams book, entitled Not for Export, takes a look at how under protectionism the Canadian market was not encouraged to export back to the British Empire or the United States. In the 20th century we started to see the rigidities and prices we were paying for protectionism. They were very high. Even historians on the left recognized this. I invite my NDP friends to read these left wing historians, Glenn Williams, Robert Mailer and others, who make it very clear there was an ossification, a paralytic, no progress kind of reality in the Canadian economy in the first half of this century. To some extent it was caused by the excessive protection we gave to various industrial groups in this country.
After World War II, and this brings us to our speech, suddenly we had movements to liberalize trade internationally. That is what is new and that is what the NDP overlooks. We have the General Agreement on lariffs and Trade, but we did not have it in 1840, 1850, 1860 or 1870. What has happened now in international commerce affecting the second most trading country in the world, Canada, perhaps more than any other country, is that tariffs have come down, quotas are disappearing, everybody is competing against everybody else.
Supply
The suggestion from the hon. member from the NDP that we can somehow hide from that is absolutely ridiculous. We could hide from it in the 1840s. We could hide from it in the 1860s. We could perhaps even hide for a few years in 1911 but today we cannot. Today we have a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. World-wide tariffs are coming down and this is a reality they have a great deal of trouble understanding.
What does this have to do with NAFTA? We have now such a liberalized trade agreement that when we brought in the free trade agreement already 80 per cent of what Canada was trading with the United States was tariff free. The free trade agreement with the United States liberalized the final 20 per cent and also gave us something we never had before and that was a dispute settlement mechanism with the United States.
That dispute settlement mechanism has always impressed me because I will never forget a conversation I had with the Japanese minister of trade about three years ago who asked me to explain this aspect of the free trade agreement. He asked me to explain how the binational panels work. I explained it. Then he said: "Just a minute. I want to get this straight. The United States is ten times bigger than Canada in terms of economic power". I said yes, but whenever there is a dispute under the free trade agreement and it goes to a binational panel, there is equality even though Canada is one-tenth its size. He said that is a pretty good deal and that he would like to get that for his country.
This is what the mechanism gives us. It gives us equality, protection and an access we never had before. When we talk about getting rid of the free trade agreement or NAFTA that kind of protection against a power ten times bigger than we are will be gone.
The dispute settlement mechanism together with the liberalization of trade into the United States has led to spectacular gains. First of all, our exports have grown from 1989 to 1991 five per cent. We are now at record exports of manufactured goods and merchandising goods. Our export levels in 1992 are running at record levels. All of this in part is because of the trade agreement.

Supply
This access clearly is paying off. Our sovereignty has been strengthened through the binational panels. It is interesting that on the binational panels of the dispute settlement mechanism, I think we have won ten and lost nine or vice versa. The United States is 10 times bigger than we are, but when we get ourselves into a dispute we do pretty well. Because we have equality, we have won as much as we have lost. That is tremendous.
Before, we were totally at the mercy of an extra-judicial process which cost millions of dollars and took years to accomplish. They could just deplete a corporate treasury to make sure that we bled to death before the agreement was settled. Under the dispute settlement mechanism now, all agreements have to be made in 315 days. Decisions have to be rendered. They have to be followed. This is an important addition to our trading relationships with the United States.
Who would not take that cup of tea if it were being offered? We did and we are very proud we did. I think NAFTA is a further building on the free trade agreement in a number of important senses. The one important sense which the member for Mississauga South pointed out quite ultimately on television when I heard him about an hour ago is that most of our tariffs are gone against Mexico now.
We have no quotas against Mexico. We started to do this as hon. members will know over 10 years ago when we started to help developing countries by removing our tariffs against their imports.
Now we have a situation in which when it comes to auto parts almost 86 per cent of everything made in Mexico comes into Canada tariff free. What is NAFTA about when you talk about Mexico? It is not about our getting rid of our tariffs. We have already done that. It is not about our getting rid of our quotas. We do not have any against Mexico. It is about Mexico's getting rid of its tariffs and quotas against us.
People ask if it has any. It does. Talk to Northern Telecom. When it wants to export telephones into Mexico, it runs into a 20 per cent tariff in quotas. Talk to our forest products companies. Talk to our financial institutions. All these are impeded in their access into Mexico today either through tariffs, quotas or outright prohibitions as exist in the field of financial services.
What is NAFTA about? NAFTA is about access to the Mexican market. I have to say that I admire the Mexicans for entering into this agreement because what President Salinas was recognizing was what I recognized at the beginning of my speech when I talked about Canadian economic history.
If you protect a small oligarchy of business leaders with huge tariffs and quotas and prohibitions against outsiders that oligarchy gets fat, uncompetitive, cannot produce and everybody suffers. He said he is going to make sure there is a breath of fresh air that blows through the Mexican economy called competition because that is what Mexico needs. That is exactly what we did when we agreed to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, when we took leadership on Uruguay and other rounds of GAIT. That is exactly what we believed in when we brought forward the free trade agreement with the United States.
I have to say that the hardest message to get across right now is what Mexico is giving up to Canada in NAFTA. I think it is important that we put this on the record. First of all, most of Mexico's tariffs and non-tariff barriers such as import licences will be eliminated in 10 years. This is quite an achievement when one thinks back to a decade ago when Mexico's economy depended on those kinds of protectionisms and licences.
Second, we are going to have a set of clear and more predictable rules of origin. This is a big problem. You want to find out what is made in Mexico, what is made in the U.S. and what is made elsewhere as well as what is made in Canada. Let us clarify the rules of origin so we know what the proper tariff rate is.
This is being made clear and more predictable. It is undeniably going to be a plus to traders and investors both inside and outside NAFTA who are seeking an environment more certain and one less susceptible to disputes.
There is something else. We all know that the economies of all industrialized countries that service business as well as consumers are growing as a proportion of our economy. In this agreement a wide range of services are now being covered in NAFTA. This reinforces the movement toward a big services liberalization package in

the GATT. As matter of fact it is kind of a living laboratory that the GATT can use to liberalize services.
Government procurement is another one. In my riding there are a number of companies that would like to sell to governments around the world: Washington and Mexico City. All three countries have agreed to a large government procurement package which covers not only goods which we are familiar with, but also services, including construction services. This will be encouraging to those who are seeking a big procurement package in Geneva. It dovetails very well with the GATT negotiations there.
Also, we have improved transparent standards, including for the first time standards for transportation and telecommunication service.
We have a stronger dispute settlement mechanism. I spoke at length about the great advantages brought to us under the FTA. It is being strengthened. Exporters and investors around the world will be reassured that their interests will be defended in a more transparent and enforceable dispute settlement mechanism.
Finally there is an accession clause providing for other countries to join the NAFTA.
These are the things we are getting from Mexico. There is something else which is also difficult to get out as a message but probably the most important. Tike the example of a Swiss entrepreneur or as I met the other day a German entrepreneur with a large manufacturing enterprise who wants to locate for North American production. He is looking at Canada, the United States and Mexico. He said to me six months ago: "If we do not have access to the Mexican market out of Canada, I am really going to have to be in either Mexico or the U.S. I have taken a look at Canada. We can be very competitive. This is where I would like to make the product but you have to get access to the Mexican market. You had better get this NAFTA".
Here we have the hon. members opposite disagreeing with any North American free trade agreement. Even one of perfection put together by Mother Teresa they would not support.
In this access to world-wide investors for the North American market, 360 million people, we can either be
Supply
left on the shelf or we can be part of it and that is what this NAFTA agreement will bring us.
Frankly people say nobody is interested in Mexico; it is too far away; there are very few business people interested. This is not the case. The Minister for International Trade has given the House numbers this morning on how many business visits there have been at the embassy. They have almost quadrupled in the past year. Tvo-way trade between Canada and Latin America exceeded $8.5 billion in 1991, up 9 per cent from 1990.
Then in the first six months of 1992 our exports to Latin America were up 15 per cent from the year before and the asset value of our investment in Latin America now tops $6 billion. We have Canadian companies. Northern Telecom employs Canadian union members, people who are going to benefit from joining NAFTA. Nova Corp., Bank of Nova Scotia, Bombardier, General Electric, Bell Canada, Systemhouse, Cominco, Alcan, Falconbridge, Petro-Canada, Noranda, Moor and Teleglobe are all redoubling their efforts in this region.
NAFTA fits in with an overall strategy for improving and increasing our exports to Latin America. It also fits in with the leadership that we are trying to give through the GATT.
Finally, it fits in with the view that Canada's sovereignty can best be protected by increasingly becoming wealthier through trade and by having a dispute settlement mechanism which gives us equality with countries we are in dispute with even though they are ten times bigger than we are or three times bigger than we are. That is what these dispute panels will do.
I find this agreement notable for what it brings Canada and notable for the opportunities it will bring us. I call upon the House to reject this motion calling for no free trade agreement ever within North America and to support the government in its efforts to build a great burgeoning market of $360 million in North America.


Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask my colleague from London West a question.

Supply
I agree with him that Canadian business could be competitive if it truly had a level playing field and a government that got off its back and was very supportive.
With respect to the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement I have to comment on the fact he says it has been the greatest thing since sliced bread, especially as it relates to the dispute settlement mechanism. He points out our sovereignty has perhaps been made more secure because we have equal representation on these binational panels.
The fact is those panels are adjudicating on American trade law and not on Canadian trade law or international trade law. I do not see how he can say our sovereignty is protected when those people are adjudicating on the basis of American trade law and not Canadian trade law.
He indicates one of the most positive steps in the U.S. free trade agreement is we do have such a dispute settlement mechanism.
Let me ask the minister why we continually get this harassment from the Americans. Most recently they have essentially taken us on with respect to steel, auto, lumber, pork, ice cream, yogurt and you name it. The minister says it is much less expensive for our businesses to have to counter those harassment tactics by the American administration.
I would very much like the minister to be able to reconcile for me and the Canadian people how we can have such a fair agreement when in fact the Americans keep taking us on with respect to those areas of trade where they obviously think we are taking advantage of them.
With respect to NAFTA, the minister says it merely builds upon what we manage to achieve through the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Why could the minister and his government not rectify a real problem in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, which is the lack of a definition for subsidy and the fact we could not get an anti-dumping code?
Those issues have still not been resolved with respect to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. They continue in NAFTA where we do not have a subsidy definition and we still do not have an anti-dumping code. If we did, Canada could protect itself from the Americans dumping stuff into our country at lower prices than
they would in their own or accusing our steel industry of dumping into the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Other members want to ask questions. I give the floor to the hon. minister of state.


Thomas Hockin: My hon. friend from London East raised a number of points. Maybe I should stand up now and start to respond to the first part.
My hon. friend and I usually get on the airplane Monday morning to fly from London to Ottawa. There is usually someone on the plane with us from Northern Telecom who tells us they want the North American free trade agreement passed, or somebody from Joh Rubber Inc. in Leamington who will have 60 per cent of their production go to Mexico if we get this agreement passed. What are we going to say to them on the aircraft about NAFTA?
Siemans Electric is expanding just outside of London. It makes motors and electronics for automobiles and is looking forward to a big Mexican market as well as American and Canadian markets. What are we going to say to these companies on the plane, my hon. friend from London East when they say they want us to join the NAFTA?
Also what do we say to Smith Industries, which has a whole series of new contracts for wheels. There is a company just outside Barrie and most of its exports will go to Volkswagen in Mexico. It goes on and on. There are just dozens of companies waiting for this agreement to put people to work in my hon. friend's riding as well as my riding. This is the reality.
He asked about American trade law. He said the problem with the American dispute settlement mechanism is they are asked to make adjudications on American trade law. Now I am not going to skate away from the point he is making because it sounds very damaging.
Let me tell about American trade law. Just about everybody who takes a look at American trade law, including academics on the left and right, says Americans trade law is a model in most fields, although not its application. The problem is Americans do not consistently enforce their own trade law.
Have you taken a look at our trade law? Compare our trade law with American trade law and tell me in what ways theirs is better. The fact is both of our trade laws are really quite good. The Americans do not enforce their trade law on a proper basis. They play all sorts of games to avoid enforcing the logic of their own trade law.
December 1, 1992

We put the binational panels in place to make sure they could not do this anymore.
That is the answer to the hon. member's question. If he threw out this binational reality and put us right back into bed with American trade law being unevenly and unfairly applied, we would be right back to where we were before 1988. We would be in deep trouble.
That leads me to his point about harassment. I believe we will always have harassment but we will have much less harassment if we have this dispute settlement mechanism. It will be able to bottle up harassment and deal with it in an expeditious way so we will have equality. Lacking that we will have even more harassment.


Brian L. Gardiner: Regardless of our views about the North American free trade agreement we all accept that President-elect Clinton has told the Prime Minister, according to what the Prime Minister said in this House, that he has accepted the North American free trade agreement as it is. He will sign it along with this government and eventually bring forward enabling legislation to implement it.
What President-elect Clinton has seemed to have suggested, and the trade minister and the Prime Minister have made reference to this in Question Period in this House, is he is perhaps interested in pursuing some of his campaign commitments by way of some parallel accords, perhaps on the environment and in particular on labour adjustment.
My question to the minister is this: If we are to expect enabling legislation from this government on the treaty as it is now, and if President-elect Clinton starts a negotiating process of parallel accords on the environment and labour adjustment, does he expect we will then see further enabling legislation brought before this House to implement any subsequent changes this government may end up having to negotiate with the new president in the United States and Mexico?


Thomas Hockin: We are talking about a country by the way when we talk about Mexico. We are talking about a country that very often has to send everybody home two
Supply
or three days a week from industrial enterprises because of excess pollution being created or brown-outs or lack of power and so on.
Mexico has severe environmental and power problems. It has a real incentive to get this right or it cannot be productive and will never be able to participate in a meaningful way in a trading relationship with the rest of us. I would hope the Mexicans would want to have a parallel accord on the environment, as well as Presidentelect Clinton, but what should we do?
We have our own course which is frankly a model for most countries and we are going to stick to that course. If we can improve it in some small way under the NAFTA arrangement and get others to improve theirs, I am very much in favour of that.
I know my hon. friend, the member of Parliament for Parry Sound-Muskoka has worked hard on acid rain. He finds a lot of this acid rain does not come from Canada but from elsewhere. He would support it too. Sure we will be there to help with any improvement, but frankly I do not think we have as much to accomplish on that front as the Mexicans and the Americans.
On the topic of labour adjustment, there was an article two weeks ago in The Economist that said no country spends more money per capita on labour adjustment than Canada. It is the same for education, by the way, and I wonder whether we are getting our money's worth. But I have to tell you on labour adjustment we have such a huge array of programs, I am sure we can deal with this one per cent of Canadian trade, which is our trade with Mexico. If not there will be some adaptations made to meet that.
The burden should not be on us but primarily on the Mexicans and the Americans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 1.32 p.m. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
The House took recess at 1.32 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, December 1 is not Just another Day, the title of a recent hit song by singer Jon Secada.
Today is World AIDS Day, an international day of action and mourning in response to the AIDS crisis. Although intended as a romantic song, Just another Day reminds us what it is like to be without someone and today we are without many people from the artistic world.
Canada's artistic community observes a day without art designed to celebrate and remember the achievements of colleagues and friends, while mourning their loss in our creative communities decimated by AIDS.
I call upon this government to do everything in its power to commit the necessary resources and to promote understanding to remove the stigma of misunderstanding about this serious disease affecting so many of our friends and families.
The red ribbons you see today are a message that our thoughts, deeds and actions are with those suffering with AIDS or are HIV positive, that we care and must find and promote the needed prevention programs against infection to stop this epidemic.
This day without art is certainly not just another day.
*
*


PATENTS FOR PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform hon. members that the Conseil du patronat du Quebec supports the bill to amend the Patent Act for four reasons.
The bill brings Canadian legislation up to world standards. Considering the importance of its trade with other industrialized countries, Canada must bring its patent legislation into line with that of its economic partners.
This bill will attract substantial investment in Canada and Quebec. Pharmaceutical companies are committed to investing $400 million in research and equipment between 1992 and 1996 which will create more jobs.
The industry is an innovative sector that is vitally important to Quebec because it invests large amounts of money in research and development and helps discover new drugs for the treatment and cure of disease.
The bill consolidates the achievements of the 1987 reform. By and large, the industry has met its commitments with respect to research and development. In 1991 R & D represented 9.6 per cent of its business volume.
We must not forget that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board guarantees that prices will not be excessive and that sales of generic drugs have increased by 100 per cent since 1987.
*


HOUSING
Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada recently reported that the current recession has hit the housing construction industry as hard as the recession of the early 1980s.
Industry analysts say it was only with the help of various government incentive programs, combined with low interest rates that home construction industry improved slightly in 1992, but it is still in a dismal state. The use of RRSPs for down payments and a 5 per cent down payment were promoted by the Liberal Party and finally introduced this year.
Despite its success, the federal government plans on eliminating the RRSP program on March 2, 1993. This is not the time for the federal government to abandon the home construction industry and potential home buyers.
There was an 11 per cent decrease in housing construction last month and interest rates are proving unstable as they continue to climb. This faltering level of housing construction is proof that the cost effective RRSP program is still absolutely necessary and the government should reconsider its decision to abandon it on March 2, 1993.
December 1, 1992



325TH ANNIVERSARY OF LA PRAIRIE


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, La Prairie, a small but important town in my riding on Montreal's South Shore, and one of the first towns founded in Quebec, is celebrating its 325th anniversary this year.
I would like to stress the hard work and incredible dedication of the municipality's organizers and volunteers and the fantastic job they have done to organize a celebration worthy of the name, by offering a program including social and cultural activities, gourmet dinners, and garden parties in period costume.
A special word of congratulations goes to the three authors and all contributors who helped write a book that makes a vital contribution to our knowledge of the history of La Prairie. Congratulations and a warm thank you to everyone in my riding.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture continues to try to change the Crow rate from a transport subsidy to a farm subsidy.
Last winter Saskatchewan farmers rejected this idea by a margin of more than three to one. The proposal then was to pay the farmers a one-time payment of about $80 an acre and have them pay all shipping costs thereafter. This money would last less than four years.
Our current cash rents in Saskatchewan are about $25 an acre. Production is about one tonne per acre and extra shipping costs for that tonne would be $25 to $28. Therefore the market value of rents would sink below zero with this proposal. That explains why Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegates voted unanimously, something unprecedented for them, to leave the rate issue alone and use other means to improve shipping efficiency.
The government should heed that good advice.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to my constituents. I have been assuring the people I represent that the national government would be able to meet certain targets for the deficit.
I told them that this year it would be under $30 billion with more reductions expected in the coming years. Until sometime around 1995, Canada would no longer be adding every year to its accumulated debt. It is now clear this is not going to happen.
We have made mistakes. We can do better and simply put, I am sorry. I believe the Minister of Finance has tried hard to stick by his word. He is an honest man. I believe no other Canadian could have done better, given the circumstance of a recession across the whole western world.
However that is just an excuse and my constituents deserve more. They deserve a balanced budget, deeper spending cuts, less borrowing, less government, more jobs, good health care, a better environment and a decent life.
I pledge to continue working for those things.


UKRAINE
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last year on December 1 approximately 92 per cent of Ukrainians voted yes in a referendum which affirmed the Ukrainian Parliament's August 24, 1991 declaration of independence.
My colleagues and I, and especially the one million Canadians of Ukrainian ancestry, were proud that Canada was the first western nation to recognize the independence of Ukraine.
Today in my riding the Ambassador of Ukraine officially launched the opening of Ukraine's very first embassy in Canada. I had the pleasure of attending this event at 331 Metcalfe Street, the new location of the embassy.
The first Ukrainian Ambassador to Canada, His Excellency Levko Lukianenko, spent more than 25 years in Soviet prisons for his belief that Ukraine would one day become an independent nation.

On behalf of all Canadians, I welcome Ambassador Lukianenko and his colleagues from Ukraine and wish them all the best with their new responsibilities in Canada.


EXTRADITION ACT
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have risen many times in this House to express my outrage with foreign criminals who come to our country and the delays in our extradition process that has kept them here as guests of the Canadian taxpayer.
Hundreds of my constituents have petitioned the government to change the Extradition Act to prevent Canada from becoming a haven for criminals fleeing justice in their own country.
Today is a satisfying day. The amendments to the Extradition Act have come into effect.
The hon. member for Peterborough must be happy. He was instrumental in making this issue a priority. I also give credit to the Minister of Justice for listening and for acting upon the petitions of thousands of Canadians.
The new act sets time limits on the steps in the extradition process. Certain appeals will be heard concurrently and charter arguments will be made earlier.
As of today, any criminal who comes to Canada and thinks he can use our Extradition Act to drag out his time in Canada for years is sadly mistaken. The wheels of government may turn slowly, but at least in this case they turn in the right direction.


WESTRAY MINE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, it has been almost seven months since the tragic Westray mine explosion took 26 lives in Nova Scotia. There have been four formal requests for a parliamentary examination into this tragedy, all of which have been brushed off by those opposite.
If the government will not listen to members maybe it should listen to Bernadette Feltmate of Antigonish, Nova Scotia who is the wife of a deceased miner. She writes:
We lost 26 husbands, sons and fathers on May 9 in the Westray mine disaster. Our elected officials in Nova Scotia and Ottawa have turned a blind eye and deaf ears to our heartache and our questions.
A provincial inquiry into possible wrongdoings has been quashed, charges of labour safety infractions are still up in the air, and an investigation into the cause of the explosion has not taken place. We as taxpayers paid $134.9 million to the company directly involved with this destruction. Surely someone must be accountable. If our government can back private industry to the tune of $134 million, surely they can afford to pay for a fair and unbiased investigation into the Westray disaster.
Please help us. We need some answers so that when our children ask us in the years to come, we will be able to assure them that we did every thing humanly possible to find out what happened to their fathers.


FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of National Health and Welfare tabled the government's comprehensive response to the report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women on foetal alcohol syndrome.
Foetal alcohol syndrome is a preventable disorder with significant consequences for individuals, their families and communities. Alcohol related birth disabilities can be prevented through education awareness that there is no safe level of alcohol exposure to the developing foetus and a commitment by communities to encourage and support a woman's decision to avoid consuming alcohol while pregnant.
At the same time, we all must become more aware of the special needs of those coping with foetal alcohol syndrome. In compiling the response, the government had the benefit of helpful advice from many sectors by way of a national symposium held in Vancouver in October. The government wishes to give a special acknowledgement to the personal energy and commitment shown by the parents and the caregivers of people affected by foetal alcohol syndrome.


CFB MOOSE JAW
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on November 5 of this year Barbara Essex went out to check cattle on the family farm near Chaplin, Saskatchewan. She did not return. The all terrain vehicle on which she was riding upset, causing a severe head injury. A ground ambulance arrived but was unable to
December 1, 1992

transport her the 150 kilometres to Regina because she could not survive the trip.
Barbara's life was saved because CFB Moose Jaw was able to dispatch a helicopter to pick her up and transport her by air to Regina. Thanks to the base rescue flight, Barbara is making a miraculous recovery.
Had this accident happened a year from now we would be mourning the loss of Barbara and not celebrating her recovery. The reason is that as of this summer, the base rescue flight is to be removed from CFB Moose Jaw.
CFB Moose Jaw is a training base for pilots. In terms of take-offs and landings only Toronto's and Vancouver's international airports are busier. The loss of the base rescue flight not only puts CFB Moose Jaw personnel in danger but is a tragic loss for the entire province.
This is termed a cost-cutting measure. The question I have for the Minister of National Defence is: What is the value of human life? Perhaps he should ask Barbara's parents.


WINNIPEG BLUE BOMBERS
Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend saw a re-enactment of that great Canadian football classic, the Grey Cup. The Winnipeg Blue Bombers represented the east and Calgary represented the west in the battle of the titans.
I am proud of the Bombers. My confidence in their prowess has never wavered for a moment. They played the game like true champions and knowing that Calgary had not won the Grey Cup for over 21 years, they played the game like gentlemen.
However, due to pressure exerted on me by the hon. member for Calgary North, I am forced to state that for this one game only, Calgary was unequivocally the better team.
Next year, I know that the Bombers will be back and take the Grey Cup again.


HIBERNIA PROJECT
Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General of Canada has shown that the federal government is a very poor manager. One example was the money wasted on the Hibernia Project. We in the Bloc Quebecois were the only members against this far-fetched megaproject.
The federal government is putting Quebec into debt at the rate of $6 billion or $7 billion dollars per year. On behalf of all Quebecers, I condemn this kind of mismanagement.


WORLD AIDS DAY
Mr. Ross Reid (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the theme for this year's World AIDS Day is community commitment.
I hope that all of us in this House and in this country will renew our commitment to prevention through education and research; to treatment through medical care and new drugs; support for the sufferers of AIDS and HIV and their families; support for those communities of professionals and volunteers that work with HIV and AIDS patients.
I hope also today we can renew our commitment to stop the discrimination against those with HIV and AIDS. All of our communities need to come together to deal with this tragedy.


LOCKPORT BRIDGE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Thanscona):: Mr. Speaker, the Lockport Bridge committee in the federal riding of Selkirk-Red River is furious that the federal government has reneged on a November 10 commitment to repair the bridge before demanding a full agreement on divestiture to the province.
This bridge will have to close on January 2,1993. It has been neglected for years by its owner which was then, and is now, the federal government. The closing of the bridge and the delay of repairs will decimate the town of Lockport, threatening 428 jobs and impeding the traditional weekend pastime of many Winnipegers who drive

December 1, 1992
Oral Questions
to Lockport on one side of the Red River and return to Winnipeg on the other.
I call on the government to stop making the citizens of Lockport potential victims in its negotiations with the province. It is a federal bridge. Fix it first, then negotiate as long as it takes.
Yesterday we heard about overpasses to be built by the federal government in Montreal because they were in federal jurisdiction. This bridge is in federal jurisdiction. If the Minister of Finance is looking for worthy infrastructure projects, the Lockport bridge should be at the top of his list.


PERLEY BRIDGE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Perley Bridge between Hawkesbury, Ontario, and Grenville, Quebec, was built in 1931. The bridge, which is 2,284 feet long, has provided this connection between Ontario and Quebec for 61 years.
Unfortunately, the bridge is old, too narrow and should be replaced. Since 1984 I have been begging this government to act in co-operation with both provinces and replace the Perley Bridge.
Let us not wait until it is too late. Let us stop dragging our feet.
I therefore ask the Minister of Finance to include in tomorrow's statement an announcement that he will replace the Perley Bridge between Hawkesbury, Ontario, and Grenville, Quebec.


CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Football League is looking beyond our borders to gain access to new markets. I, for one, would support that initiative. Legislating where a professional Canadian league can or cannot expand would be the death of the CFL.
Wayne Gretzky said it best. He said he did not want government legislation, or regulation or government money to keep the CFL alive.
Wayne Gretzky, one of Canada's greatest athletes and ambassadors, can stick handle better than any politician. He has invested in the Canadian Football League but knows that professional sports needs no boundaries. Government does not belong in the playbook of the CFL.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance repeatedly said in this House that the economy is doing better. This morning Manpower Temporary Services made an announcement. This company surveyed across the land employers in the 10 important sectors of our economy. It reports today that 87 per cent of all companies in Canada are planning either job freezes or job cuts in the first quarter of 1993.
Does the Prime Minister realize what is going on out there? If so, has he instructed his Minister of Finance to change his policy of fighting inflation at all costs for a policy of growth and job creation so that 1.6 million Canadians unemployed today can have a decent Christmas?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be making an economic statement tomorrow. I know that once the Leader of the Opposition has listened to the statement he will want to rise in the House and, to the extent that he may disagree with the Minister of Finance, offer very clear-cut, specific alternatives if he disagrees with the statement tomorrow by the Minister of Finance.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned some figures this morning. He may have been inadvertently selective in his references because he failed to note that the figures also indicated that the Gross Domestic Product grew by 1.4 per cent in the third quarter, which is the
December 1, 1992

fastest quarterly growth in the GDP since the spring of
1991.
There were stats this morning also indicating that domestic demand is up 5.3 per cent in the third quarter and consumer spending is up by 3.5 per cent.
Much more important, as my hon. friend knows as a former Minister of Finance, the composite leading indicator on a quarterly basis is now up 3.9 per cent in the third quarter. These are all elements that ought to encourage my hon. friend.
What would be encouraging as well for the House would be to hear a statement of some encouragement from my hon. friend along with some specifics that he may care to offer the Canadian people.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we made suggestions in the House, but they were always ignored by the government. According to the same study published this morning in Montreal, Quebec's main city and economic motor, 93 per cent of the companies indicated they would either lay off employees or freeze hiring during the first quarter of 1993.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether he can tolerate the fact that 93 per cent of employers in the Montreal area are not in a position to offer a single job to hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers, in a city where the situation is now desperate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I obviously share the concerns of my hon. friend about the economic situation in Montreal. In fact, steps have already been taken and more will be done, in co-operation with the Government of Quebec and the city of Montreal, to get the economy back on track.
This morning there were also some figures that were encouraging for Quebec and Canada. The leading composite index increased by 3.9 per cent during the third quarter and investments by companies in equipment and machinery increased by 30.3 per cent. Investment growth in advanced technology was 80 per cent, which is after all very encouraging.
However, the Leader of the Opposition could help economic recovery in Montreal now by asking his party to approve immediately the bill to amend the Patent Act.
Oral Questions
This bill has created 3,000 new jobs in Montreal and attracted investment worth more than $1 billion. The bill was endorsed by Quebec's francophone universities, by McGill, by the City Council of Montreal and by the Chambers of Commerce. The Leader of the Opposition should urge his troops to immediately endorse the bill on drug patents, which would help Montreal and Quebec tremendously.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that with every file we have to look at both sides of the ledger. There are a lot of poor people in Canada who will suffer a lot if the Prime Minister is not prudent in the action he wants to take.
It is very nice to be on the side of the wealthier multinationals but we have to care about the little people of Canada and we want to make sure that medicare will survive in Canada, because it is a nice way to kill it.
Yes, we favour creating jobs, but we need an economic policy that will be conducive to the creation of jobs, not fighting inflation at all costs. We are being given figures. When will the Prime Minister realize that we have not yet recuperated from the drop we have experienced in the last two years? We are not back to where we were in 1990 so we need some growth to at least get back to where we were and start to create new jobs for Canadians.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend is quite right when he says that we need economic growth and here is an indication that does not come from the government. It comes from a group that is not in any way hostile to my hon. friend. I quote: "Economic recovery in Canada that will persist through most of the 1990s may already be under way, Peter Dungan of the University of Toronto based Institute for Policy Analysis told the conference on Friday. The institute's upbeat forecast calls for real Gross Domestic Product to expand 4 per cent next year, followed by an even stronger 4.6 per cent in 1994".
My hon. friend said we have to look at both sides of the middle. He is quite right. There are some encouraging signs and there are some that are less encouraging. I do not know why it is that my hon. friend always persists in looking at those that are less encouraging. My hon. friend from Newfoundland should be impressed. I hear

Oral Questions
the Leader of the Opposition say we should not side with the multinationals. That is not what he was saying when he was on the board of directors of the Toronto-Domi-nion Bank.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister likes to quote figures. According to the report of the Canadian Welfare Council, Quebec has the highest poverty rate of any Canadian province. For two years the government has been doing a snow job to please the banks. However, there are some people the Prime Minister cannot fool all the time: 1.2 million poor people in Quebec in addition to thousands of homeless people in downtown Montreal.
Will the Prime Minister and the government promise to introduce specific measures tomorrow to deal energetically with the poverty that is devastating Quebec?


Benoît Bouchard: The government has always been as opposed to poverty as the hon. member and his party.
In the particular case of Montreal, three months ago we announced a specific measure involving $150 million in co-operation with the city of Montreal and the government.
The hon. member referred to the report of the Canadian Welfare Council. I would like to draw the hon. member's attention to the conclusions of this report. First, the committee says: "Poverty cannot be eliminated overnight. It is a lengthy process". Second, there is no easy way to deal with the causes of poverty. Saying the government should do this or that is not the answer. Third, and above all, the Council said: "This requires the co-operation of all parties, all governments, the private sector and the various organizations".
I repeat that is what we are doing and our position is that poverty cannot be tolerated. However the fact is it all takes time. While we must do everything that is necessary to be successful, we must be realistic about our goals.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: The minister is attempting to say that his government has the fundamentals right and the fact is it has them wrong.
This government must do much more than simply attempting to fight inflation or to push for jobless exports. The government boasts of having created jobs in the services sector. According to this report on the poverty profile by the National Council on Welfare, 40 per cent of the individuals working in those jobs that this government boasts of having created live in poverty.
When will this government admit that it cannot solve the financial deficit by creating an ever-widening human deficit? When will this government announce a change of course? Will it give the country a chance tomorrow?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I believe I would be impressed by the speech by the member if I had not heard his leader before.
For me the first answer to poverty is jobs, but the Leader of the Opposition does not want jobs created by big companies. He said before they do not want to hear about big companies and the pharmaceuticals. We want jobs and Canadians want jobs created by anybody, including the pharmaceuticals. We want jobs created by pharmaceuticals.
The member for LaSalle-Emard should tell his leader that is the way we fight poverty. I was not impressed by what was said by the Leader of the Opposition, nor were Canadians.


WATER EXPORTS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister who will know full well there are a number of American entrepreneurs actively promoting schemes to divert Canadian water into the United States and northern Mexico.
The Prime Minister will also be well aware that yesterday a water expert in Vancouver indicated that the Mexico-U.S.-Canada trade agreement facilitates the inter-basin transfer of water to the United States and Mexico.
December 1, 1992

My question to the right hon. Prime Minister is this. Since NAFTA explicitly exempts a number of items like raw logs and unprocessed fish, why did his government not at the same time as those negotiations were taking place make the effort to exempt fresh water so that Canadian water will not be sold to the United States or Mexico?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from the legislation that brought in the free trade agreement with the United States.
Article 7(1) says: "For greater certainty nothing in this act or the agreement except article 401 of the agreement" which is bottled water, "applies to water." Nothing in this act applies to water.
Article 7(2) says: "In this section, water means natural surface and groundwater in liquid, gas use or solid state but does not include water packaged as a beverage or in tanks".


An hon. member:: What about Coca-Cola?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me repeat: "Nothing in this act applies to water". It will be precisely the same provision that will be in the North American free trade agreement which my hon. friend will have a chance to consider in this House some time early in the new year.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it looks as though Simon Reisman's water dream continues to this very day as we now address NAFTA.
The government refers to the water policy it introduced back in 1987. The water policy says that the government will do everything possible to make sure inter-basin water transfers will never occur.
In 1988 it introduced Bill C-156 which would have prohibited inter-basin water transfers and then refused to proceed with this legislation. It knows full well that N AFTA and FTA will take precedence over that piece of enabling legislation.
My question to the hon. minister is: Will this government now show its good intention and reintroduce this
Oral Questions
legislation to prohibit water transfers? We will expedite this legislation to ensure that it passes before Christmas to give Canadians that assurance.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend talks about the NAFTA taking precedence. Let me repeat what the FTA says: "And it will also apply to the North American free trade agreement". Nothing in this act or the agreement applies to water, water being defined as natural surface and groundwater.
My hon. friend and some of the people who support him in his constituency have something in their mind that says we are going to export water or we are going to allow the export of large bodies of water. If my hon. friend could show where this has happened over the course of the last four years, I would be interested in knowing because it is counter to the policies of this government. If this provision says nothing in the free trade agreement would apply to water, could my hon. friend tell us how the free trade agreement would force us to authorize the export of water which would be counter to the policies of this government?
Please, Mr. Speaker, could you ask the hon. member to help us out here?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the minister lives up to the old adage you can lead a minister to water but you cannot make him think.
We have heard assurances from this government before, like the sacred trust of social programs and that Air Canada would never be sold. We have heard these things before.
However I am going to give my friend the benefit of the doubt. I am going to ask a question of the Minister for International Trade. President-elect Clinton has indicated that he is prepared to open up a number of parallel discussions to NAFTA. In other words, he wants to have some add-ons to the NAFTA discussions.
Will the Minister for International Trade bring comfort to Canadians from coast to coast to coast that when the opportunity presents itself to have add-ons to NAFTA he will ensure that water becomes an add-on and it will clearly be exempt from this trade deal?

Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like my hon. friend has water on the brain.
Quite frankly my hon. friend is saying: let us put water on the table, let us negotiate water. For a number of years now my hon. friend has said: "Don't put the auto pact on the table, don't put culture on the table, don't put social programs on the table". Now he is saying: "Let's negotiate water".
Where is the NDP coming from?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This morning the minister said he would soon make an announcement to renew the national AIDS strategy, but he knows that current federal funding dries up in four months. Meanwhile AIDS groups from across the country are in crisis.
Why can the minister not make this announcement today? Is someone in cabinet opposed to it?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the AIDS strategy will be over by April 1. At this time we are looking at the program. I made a commitment to renew the strategy and we will.
However, we have to consider the assessment of what we have done and what we intend to do. From that perspective, as soon as it is possible to make the announcement I will but it certainly will not be today.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the government must recognize there is a crisis today. AIDS has already killed over 3,000 Canadians and 30,000 more are infected with the virus.
Last November 13 front-line AIDS organizations asked this minister for a firm commitment of $55 million a year for the next five years. Will the minister announce today that his government is ready to allocate this $55 million immediately?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first, I said that I would not make an announcement today and I will not.
Second, the strategy is ready now. April 1993 is just in four or five months so we still have the money to run the strategy until April 1993.
Third, in the meantime if my friend wants to move Bill C-91 forward we will help other people.


PHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, reports today indicate that the elimination of compulsory drug licensing by this government will cost the Canadian health care system, consumers and provincial governments in excess of $7 billion over the next few years.
How can the Minister of National Health and Welfare possibly stay in cabinet and support a $7 billion gift for multinational drug companies at the very time that Canada's health care system is falling apart?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first, the health care system is not falling apart. The member knows that very well. He knows that our health care system is considered one of the best in the world.
Second, he still has phoney figures; $7 billion is lunacy. It is wrong. I have already said that when we talk about the cost of drugs we have to consider the number of prescriptions, of beneficiaries, and the cost of new drugs.
It has nothing to do with Bill C-91. Once again it is just because opposition members, as they were against Bill C-22, are against Bill C-91. In the meantime, a lot of the jobs his leader talked about are not being created because they are stubbornly opposed to a bill that will get Canadians working.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
The lunacy in all this are the policies this government has been pursuing for the last number of years that the Canadian public has had to pay for.
The retroactivity alone of this policy bears a price tag of over $2 billion, with over half of that $2 billion going to one multinational drug company, Merck-Frosst. When will the government stop following the agenda dictated by big multinational drug companies and start following the agenda dictated by the Canadian consumer
December 1, 1992

and abandon this obscene and objectionable piece of legislation?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing the Liberal party should consistently object to jobs being created by the big corporations. While the Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about creating jobs, members of his party are saying they are opposed to those jobs being created by the big corporations.
I think they should try to be consistent and tell Quebecers, tell the people of Montreal today that they are against investment by big companies in Quebec. Tell them right now!


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to review the letter signed by the Minister of Transport to Rhys Eyton, Chairman, President and CEO of PWA corporation, along with the government loan facility term sheet which outlines the conditions the government has demanded of Canadian in return for the initial $50 million assistance.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of State for Transport, this document seems to suggest a government that does not believe in intervention has intervened in a number of weird and wonderful ways, including a veto over the security of assets, sale of any equipment or assets and the amalgamation, merger or consolidation of the company with a non-partner. The one area the government did not ask for a veto on is the proposal by American Airlines to acquire 40 per cent of Canadian Airlines.
Why did the government choose not to ask for a say in this very important strategic decision by PWA?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, indeed there were conditions along with the loan to make sure that we as a government protected the taxpayers' investment in this particular situation.
Oral Questions
As far as the agreement with AMR is concerned, anything that comes forward on that would first have to go to the National Transportation Agency to see whether or not it would be acceptable.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. At some point in time the Government of Canada must take responsibility for the decisions or the future of the industry.
The other item that was included in this document makes it very clear that the Government of Canada wants Canadian Airlines and Air Canada to meet with the government to try to find a long-term solution to the crisis that affects the industry.
Has a date been set for that meeting? Could the minister explain to this House and to the people of Canada what proposal will be on the table from the Government of Canada to the two carriers for the rationalization of the industry?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, no, a date has not been set on that particular meeting. The discussions that will take place will look for input from the airlines themselves to see what suggestions they have as far as the industry and the growth of it are concerned.


CANADIAN NATIONAL
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, CN has announced that it will lay off 10,000 workers. This means that 70 per cent of CN workers in Atlantic Canada will be walking the unemployment lines in the near future.
What if anything is the Prime Minister prepared to do to stop the haemorrhaging of jobs in Atlantic Canada?


Shirley Martin: Madam Speaker, the announcement of the loss of 10,000 jobs came from a discussion that CN has had with its employees.
CN is making decisions for their future. It is doing what any good management team should do, and that is discussing it with the employees first.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that CN's employees did not suggest that it cut 10,000 jobs. Maybe it is time for the government to make some suggestions in its place. These cuts are the result of recession and the results of unfair taxes.

December 1, 1992
Oral Questions
CP and CN Rail are taxed 54 per cent more than U.S. carriers. Deregulation has devastated the Atlantic region.
What specific fiscal and regulatory proposals is the Prime Minister prepared to make in order to level the playing field for once?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, work has been taking place to help level the playing field in the trucking industry, the air industry and the rail industry.
If the hon. member will look at the tax structure, she will find that there are far more taxes municipally and provincially than there are federally.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, now that the media have made available to us a copy of the terms of the government financial assistance to Canadian Airlines, we know for a fact that the government sought and obtained the agreement of PWA not to seek any further financial assistance from the Government of Canada.
My question therefore is: Will the government now advise the House of the basis upon which the Minister of Justice last week promised employees of Canadian Airlines International that more loan guarantees may be forthcoming? What exactly is this government's airline policy?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, PWA and its hard working employees would have a much easier time of making their company grow and be successful if they had more co-operation and less looking for nefarious plots on behalf of the work that is trying to be done to help the employees and the company.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the terms of the loan agreement also provide that the government will be entering into further discussions with the lender to consider alternatives to address financial difficulties on the part of PWA as well as the meetings with Air Canada that were previously referred to.
I would like the government to be clear on one thing. Is it that the Government of Canada believes the
possible merger of the two national airlines is the best solution to the airline problem that confronts Canadians?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, the work that we are doing is to assist PWA and its employees who are trying to help the company. We are working at this time with PWA.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Environment. The minister of state will know that over a year has passed since the environmental hearings concerning the expansion at Pearson International Airport.
The minister will know that the report has not been out. There is at least $1.6 billion worth of work in needed construction, with construction workers out of work in Toronto, that could be done now if that report was available.
Will the minister do something to get the report out as soon as possible? Will the minister, while she is at it, organize a new statute to alter the environmental rules so that environmental hearings can be heard and reports can be out from those hearings in a month after the hearings are complete?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment process indeed is sometimes a long one in order to have a comprehensive review, to give the public an opportunity to make submissions and to allow for the gathering of information and the panel receives that information.
I am pleased to report to the member that the review on the Toronto international airport assessment is in our hands now. It is in the process of being translated and will be available to the member and to the House in the next few days.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which follows up earlier questions today on World AIDS Day. It is less than four months until federal funding for AIDS runs out.
December 1, 1992

Unfortunately, the uncertainty about continued funding for AIDS is already having a very adverse impact, particularly on community-based groups funded under ACAP.
In view of the fact that we learned today that the number of people with HIV and AIDS is far higher than previously estimated, why has this government still not made a commitment, still not responded to the urgent call for $55 million a year over five years for the Canadian AIDS Society, the Canadian HIV Research Foundation, the Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian Hemophilia Society? Why this silence when too often silence equals death?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said before and I say again that we will continue to support the national AIDS strategy after April 1. That has nothing to do with the problem we face today.
By the way, ACAP has been increased by $7 million to help community organizations to be able to fight against AIDS.
Canadians should be aware that it is a collective action by all Canadians against AIDS. We will once again support the strategy, but it has nothing to do in terms of what happens today because the strategy runs until April 1. The money is there and we are doing what was committed to be done.
I do not understand why the hon. member wants a commitment today about something which will run until April 1.


SEXUAL ORIENTATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are wondering about the morality of a government that can find $4 billion for attack helicopters but cannot find the basic funds necessary in the battle against AIDS.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister will know that gay men living with AIDS have to confront not only HIV, but too often also the virus of discrimination, fear and violence.
Oral Questions
In light of this, and in light of the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Haig and Birch, why has this minister and this government betrayed the promise that was made to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the commitment of the Government of Canada in 1986 was to do everything in its power to remove sexual orientation as grounds for discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction.
That has in fact been accomplished, as a result of the decision in Haig, and it was our conscious decision not to appeal Haig, and the changes made in the policy of the Department of National Defence. I have every intention of moving ahead with this in terms of legislative changes. As a result of some of the events over the summer, in particular the Leshner decision in Ontario and Ontario's decision not to appeal it, I want to ensure that legislation I bring forward to this House will be consistent with the charter.
I believe there is a matter before the Supreme Court of Canada that will give the government the guidance it needs in order that I may be assured I have done my duty in terms of the legislation I bring forward.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Garth  Ibmer@Halton-Peel: My question is directed to the minister responsible for small business.
It does not matter how low interest rates are or how much the government encourages small businesses to expand and create jobs if the country's banks will not make loans. Entrepreneurs in my riding are complaining bitterly that bankers will not take a risk on them. I think small business needs action now.
What is the government going to do to make the bankers get off their assets and make more loans to small business?
Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses
and Tourism)): Mr. Speaker, if I thought it would help I would give the banks a swift kick in their assets. Instead, I have passed on the very message the hon. member passed on to the banks just two weeks ago.

December 1, 1992
Oral Questions
The Canadian Bankers Association and the heads of the major chartered banks reported to me that there is a slight increase in loans to small businesses and that they have frozen service charges. That is not enough. There has to be a major expansion of credit.
The Federal Business Development Bank has increased its loan levels by 16 per cent during this past year. We are going to bring in an improved Small Businesses Loans Act, as the House knows, to do our part. All of our regional agencies are also helping small businesses. Those include ACOA, WD, FEDNOR, the Aboriginal Economic Programs and our program in Quebec. We will continue to press forward with all of those programs.


WESTRAY MINE DISASTER
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tabled in the House a letter signed by a group of Westray draggermen and the executive committee of the families of the deceased Westray miners, personally appealing to the Prime Minister to establish a federal inquiry into the Westray mine disaster.
Will the Prime Minister today demonstrate compassion and a sense of justice and rise in this House to call for a parliamentary inquiry into the events that led to this tragic occurrence?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this government is concerned with the plight of miners, not only those of Westray but also those of Devco.
We announced yesterday, by the way, an acceleration of the unemployment insurance payments to the Devco miners laid off because of the natural disaster there.
As for Westray, the standing committee on industry has taken this request and, as is its privilege and responsibility has made a decision on the hon. member's question.


David Charles Dingwall: My supplementary is to the Prime Minister.
I have in my hand, which I am prepared to table, a letter from the wife of a deceased miner, and it reads:
I was astounded to learn just how much financial involvement this government had in the whole affair, but, in retrospect, it explains why there has been such a deliberate attempt to quash any inquiry into the whole Westray disaster and the further decision not to investigate the financial hugger-mugger which took place.
I wish to table that, Mr. Speaker, for the House.
I ask the Prime Minister again, on the basis of compassion and fairness to those individuals, will he not do the honourable thing and order a parliamentary inquiry into this tragic occurrence?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know that my hon. friend will want to state to the extent that he has inadvertently misled the House, that the inquiry was quashed not by any degree of involvement by any political party or any government, but by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. As I understand it, the decision was rendered by the chief justice of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
My hon. friend can correct me if I am in error, but that decision is now being appealed by the Nova Scotia government. To interfere in any way with this appellate decision would be a very serious violation of the judicial process and is not one to which this government would subscribe.
That being said, we of course want to work very closely with the Government of Nova Scotia and all appropriate authorities to ensure that the tragic circumstances that surrounded the deaths at Westray be brought to full public attention and examination by an appropriate judicial inquiry.
That has been our position from the very beginning and the position of this government will be to a full and complete co-operation with the public authorities in Nova Scotia in respect of the examination of this very important matter.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and the constitutional proposition is that nobody, not the government in Nova Scotia and not the Government of Canada, has any right to put persons on trial in anything but a criminal law forum. That was the
December 1, 1992

thrust of the decision which the member brings to the attention of Parliament.
Is the Government of Canada willing to disclose to any vested authority in whatever forum is available its position on the matter of Westray mines, what our involvement was and what role we played? Have we anything to hide?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this very pertinent and important question by the hon. member for Halifax West is in the affirmative.


UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING FORCES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
As he knows, tomorrow the UN Security Council will be considering a proposal by the secretary-general to authorize the use of force and combat forces in Somalia, including the possibility of some 30,000 U.S. combat personnel. This development raises serious questions about the mandate of existing UN forces and the state and condition of the NGOs in that area.
What is our own government's position in relation to these proposals to begin to use combat forces in Somalia? Do we envision that our own troops who are being sent this week to Somalia will be part of that combat force? Will the Prime Minister assure this House that there will be a full parliamentary debate before any decision of that kind is taken?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, our position is to support the secretary-general of the United Nations and the Security Council in the execution of its mandate. Governments such as the Government of Canada have been asked to be helpful both in terms of supplying food and supplying peacekeeping. We have done both.
Now the secretary-general is urging a new course of action upon the members of the Security Council. We will see the results of this and listen and consult with our friends and allies and make a determination of course in consultation with members of the House of Commons.
Oral Questions
We will be happy to respond to any questions and accept any suggestions that my hon. friend has with regard to any engagement of our military assets in any way outside of the country.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's willingness to call Parliament back as long as it is clearly understood that there must be an open debate.
The Minister of National Defence said last week that he is contemplating a substantial reduction in Canadian commitments to UN peacekeeping because of a lack of resources.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: In tomorrow's economic statement, can we be assured that if necessary, the Government of Canada will re-allocate and re-prio-rize the resources necessary so that Canada can continue to maintain its international obligation as a peacekeeper? It is a very important commitment. Can we make sure that commitment will continue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all I just want to indicate to my hon. friend that I did not say that we would call the House back in any way. I never said that and I want to set the record straight for my hon. friend.
In regard to peacekeeping, Canada has been involved in every peacekeeping initiative undertaken by the United Nations with one quite small exception. Our contribution to the United Nations in peacekeeping and multilateral associations is in the neighbourhood of $1 billion a year. There is not another country in the world that in any way matches our per capita basis of this very important record.
On behalf of Canadians, we have to ask some questions in regard to the duration of some undertakings. In one case, the Canadian forces have been engaged for almost 30 years in the same spot, whereas other places around the world are crying out for assistance from Canada.
We plan to maintain a very vigorous and important role in peacekeeping under the aegis and guidance of the United Nations. We do have questions we would be happy to discuss with the House with regard to the duration once troops have been over.

December 1, 1992
Privilege


IMITREX
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health and welfare.
Under considerable pressure from the manufacturer, the migraine drug Imitrex was approved by health and welfare despite the concerns of its chief expert about its possible side effects. Now the drug has been shown to cause spasms, chest pains, and angina-like symptoms. The whole situation stinks of government interference.
My question to the minister is: Who does this government represent, the drug companies who get what they want, or the people the government is supposed to protect?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, that decision has nothing to do with the company. That drug is used in over 20 countries in the world.
When the drug was given approval under the system, the side effects were well known and were on the monograph. Instructions to physicians indicated very well the side effects for people with heart disease and asthma.
It was recommended very specifically to follow the directions and the guidelines. At the same time, the drug is considered to be the best drug in the world for the treatment of migraine. For that reason the drug is on the market in Canada. When cases were reported, the department again directed physicians to follow the instructions in the monograph of the drug.
Everything has been done according to the policy of the department to ensure that what he calls the side effects were known by those who make the decisions and the physicians.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. David Zimhelt, Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade for the province of British Columbia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege this afternoon arising out of the fact that last week, on November 26, in Question Period I raised a question with respect to the government's financial assistance announced to Canadian Airlines.
I felt it was important that the government disclose the conditions that were imposed upon the loan because this contributed both to the stewardship of public money and to an indication of perhaps what the government's airline policy truly was.
I asked the minister, as recorded at page 14106 of Hansard, why the government had not tabled a copy of the loan agreement in the House of Commons. The Minister of Transport, in addition to other comments, said:
In order to get access to mathematics and figures of the company,
we entered into a confidential agreement, which we will not divulge
until the appropriate time.
I did not make any further request for tabling of the document, although I did ask questions based on media reports as to what was in the agreement.
This morning a member of the media delivered to me a copy of Privy Council Order 1992-2447 which I was told was given, not leaked, openly to the media, attaching to it the government loan facility term sheet disclosing all of the terms and conditions attached to a $15 million bridge loan by the Government of Canada to PWA Corporation.
I understood and appreciated the reasons the ministers gave for not disclosing the details of the loan. However, I feel it is in breach of the privileges that we have as members of Parliament when we ask a straightforward question, receive an answer such as that that was given, and then discover that the very information we were seeking in this House with respect to the disposition of public money was made available to the media quietly and outside this Chamber, which I feel is at least an abuse of our privileges and at most a failure to-


Mr. Andre:: I rise on a point of order. It was obvious in
the first couple of sentences it is not a point of privilege
since in no way, shape or form was the hon. member
December 1, 1992

prevented from fulfilling his duties as a member of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. government House leader is rising as a consequence of an intervention brought by the hon. member for Ottawa South. The argument that he is about to make is it is not a question of privilege. It is certainly an argument the government House leader is open to make.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, clearly, if the hon. member for Ottawa South will examine Beauchesne he will see that in respect of Question Period there is no obligation on the part of the government to answer a question at all; none whatsoever.


David Kilgour: Come on, Harvie, get serious.


An hon. member:: Have you ever been in court?


Harvie Andre: The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast says get serious. The hon. member asks if I have ever been in court. I would be laughed out. This is the House of Commons and Beauchesne is the rule. Read the rules. It is very clear the rules of Question Period do not require-apparently the members of the Liberal Party are-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. A question of privilege has been raised by a member of the Official Opposition. I have listened to it.


An hon. member:: He has not finished.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry if I have made an error. I thought he had finished. I certainly listened to the argument. I gave the floor to the hon. government House leader and now I will hear the end of his argument.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, clearly there is no breach of privilege since the rules of privilege are very clear. A member's privileges are breached when he or she is prevented from fulfilling their responsibilities as a member in terms of coming into the House, expressing their points of view and so on.
In no way, shape or form did any actions of the Minister of Transport prevent the hon. member from asking his questions, from standing up in the House today and making his point, and indeed repeating his point by virtue of a supposed point of privilege. He has not had his privileges abused.
Privilege
In terms of whether there is an abuse of order in respect of Question Period, I humbly submit that an examination of Beauchesne will show in fact there is no obligation on the part of a minister to even answer a question, if in fact you examine the precedents.
The member for Edmonton Southeast keeps interrupting. I would suggest he read Beauchesne and he will see the accuracy of what I just said.
Moreover, there certainly is nothing to prevent the Minister of Transport or his officials from issuing any document they choose to issue at any time they choose to issue it. It is suggested that somehow the issuance of that document which apparently was issued by officials of transport-I am not sure of that or not-is somehow a breach of the member's privileges. I think a simple fair examination of those facts will show that in no way, shape or form have the hon. member's privileges been breached in this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa South is indicating he had not finished his argument. If there is something I should hear perhaps he could proceed but as a matter of fact I was rising ready to rule. I can do so but if the hon. member has something which he feels is absolutely essential for the Chair to hear, I will hear it very briefly.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I did sit down because the minister was shouting point of order.
The issue that I sought to raise is simply this. In order to carry out my duties as a critic, in order to hold the government accountable for what it is doing within this portfolio, it is necessary to assume that where answers are given, not where they are declined to be given, but where answers are given that we can rely on those answers.
In this case, the minister said that there was a reason for not releasing the document. He proceeded to do it, really forcing us to work over the course of the days between then and now in a kind of darkness about what issues exactly were out there and how to present them on behalf of the people of Canada.
That simply is the point.

December 1, 1992
Supply


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I understand the position of the hon. member, but I want to remind the House that privilege is properly raised only when something has happened that makes it impossible or nearly impossible to carry out the obligations that a member has as a member of this House.
The hon. member may have a grievance. He may have something that he wishes to complain about, but I have to say that it is not a question of privilege. For that matter, I am not even sure that it is a point of order. It is a matter that can be pursued in the House during Question Period as the hon. member did today. However, it is not a question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Riis (p. 14316); and the amendment of Mr. MacLa-ren (p. 14331).
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in rising to my feet in this debate I was reminded when listening to the last several speeches of going to Tokyo a few years ago and watching a sumo wrestling match. There were two gargantuan wrestlers in a small ring almost immobilized, grappling each other in some kind of death hug; no movement, no change, no flexibility, just total and complete paralysis and immobilization.
Listening to the representatives of the government and the New Democratic Party, they could be our equivalents of parliamentary sumo wrestlers. There is no ability to provide any change, adaptation or ability to look at the conditions as they are. We are grasped in a death hug, sweating and hugging with one another in the hope that one will expire out of sheer exhaustion.
In listening to the speech that we heard before the break from the secretary of state for minor financial
affairs when he tried to defend NAFTA, he used the same lexicon that his counterparts to the south and the Republican Party used in the last election. Stay the course. Things are great, things are looking up. It could not be better. "Look at the figures", he says. "Look at how wonderful we are doing."
Never did he take any sense of responsibility for the hundreds of files in the manufacturing jobs. There is deindustrialization going on. There was a report prepared by Professor Conklin of the University of Western Ontario that we raised in the House of Commons yesterday which quoted a series of senior representatives of corporations in Canada saying exactly that numbers of jobs were being disbanded in this country. They were moving away, never to be seen again.
Yet, there was no acknowledgement whatsoever in the remarks of that hon. gentleman that there was a problem there, a problem that was predictable because of the harmonization, because of the change in terms of the subsidiary plants or whatever it may be.
Take the Minister of Finance who was one of the authors of the original free trade agreement rushing to Washington to sign on an emergency energy agreement to get the Americans to sign on the dotted line. He said: "Look, things are looking up. Our exports are great".
The real test of the health of a nation's economic relations with another country is not its merchandising trade figures, it is its current account balance. It is the full change of money, and goods and services between countries. Look what has happened.
In 1984, we had a current account balance of plus $6.7 billion. We were on the plus side of the ledger. That includes trade, tourism, dividends, management fees and all the rest of it. In 1992, in the first six months it is minus $3 billion in the current account deficit of Canada. One of the reasons we are facing the whipsaw effect of having to buy our way through high interest rates to preserve the stability of our dollar and other exchange rates is because of haemorrhaging in our current account deficit.
Once again the government is saying that things are looking up. Things are great. Could not be better. If you are running this kind of deficit in your current account, you are making yourself a captive to foreign financial interests and you have lost control of your own fiscal and monetary policies.
December 1, 1992

How can we accept the glowing, rose-coloured picture painted by ministers opposite when we know one of the contributing reasons is a trade agreement in which we no longer have the power to set some rules about those dividends and under NAFTA it becomes even worse. We will no longer be able to set any conditions on the transfer of management fees, never mind inter-corporate transfers. Management fees are now part of the NAFTA agreement. A problem we pointed out under the foreign investment provisions of the FTA has been enhanced and enlarged under NAFTA. That becomes a good argument for renegotiating the agreement.
My colleague and others have already spoken about the other problems dealing with the NAFTA that provide serious restrictions and handicaps for this country. For a moment let us turn to our friends in the New Democratic Party and the motion they brought forward.
If the motion had said that this House is not in agreement with this North American free trade agreement, we might have had a fair and honest debate because we would be dealing with a very particular, very precise set of arrangements made between the three countries. However, what did they say? This House is being asked to support a motion that opposes any North American free trade agreement. It is the ultimate statement of protectionism. This ultimate statement is saying, we will have no truck or trade with anybody, anytime, anywhere on any topic.
Even if tomorrow the United States and Mexico through some divine intervention came forward and said: We have made a big mistake with NAFTA. We are going to offer to buy Canadian products at premium value. One does not expect it to happen but it could. The New Democratic Party would say: "No, no agreements of any kind".
In fact, under the provisions of this resolution the auto pact agreement which was negotiated back in the 1960s and fueled a major expansion and growth of the auto parts trade and the automobile trade throughout Canada would not be eligible for negotiation. We could not provide any kind of trade agreement whatsoever. What total nonsense and irresponsibility that they would preclude, prohibit any negotiation of any agreement dealing with any measure whatsoever. Even the kind of sectoral
Supply
arrangements such as auto pact which have benefited the country would be precluded under this resolution.


Mr. Parker:: Under your version.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, under my version? The fact is it is up for interpretation and I read the words specifically. It says any free trade agreement, not this free trade agreement, not free trade agreements dealing with this or that topic. It says any free trade agreement.
It puts Canadians into some great confusion about the standing of the New Democratic Party. Previously their leader in an interview with The Financial Post said on the matter of the original free trade agreement that we would have to sit down and talk to the Americans and see if something could be done about it. Representatives of the party previously talked about the need for improved, expanded agreements on automobiles.
All of a sudden there has been a fundamental reversal of New Democratic Party policy. Members of that party have always tried to say they are not protectionist. The cloak has been taken off. The mantle has disappeared. We now see them exposed in the cold, glaring light of day. They are the ultimate protectionists, the ultimate fortress builders. They do not want to trade with anybody.
We are now faced with dogmatism on both sides. We have a form of economic determinism from the right and from the left. One side is saying that the free trade agreement will lead us into Valhalla, into the land of milk and honey. The other side, the New Democrats, are saying that we can never, ever contemplate in any way, shape or form any kind of trade agreement whether it is in our good interest or not.
Thankfully I represent a party that has a pragmatic point of view, a practical point of view, that talks about opening up trade opportunities, which over the tenure of its various governments has been responsible through the GAIT for renegotiating a whole series of tariff reductions and, at the same time, being able to protect vital Canadian interests which allow Canada to be able to put forward its own industrial policies.


Sidney James Parker: Sit on the fence, Lloyd.

December 1, 1992
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: I have just heard a New Democratic member, in his benign wisdom, say this is sitting on the fence. Pragmatism is not a quality that member obviously espouses. Using common sense is something the New Democratic Party has now forgone. "Why should we consider any trade agreement and why should we be looking at the opportunity to bring tariffs down in a GATT agreement", they say. No, no, they say nothing at all, and do not deal with the problem.
Somehow we are an island unto ourselves, turning John Dunn on his head, poor fellow. They are back to the sort of fireproof house that Canadians thought they had back in the 1930s when they created one of the great depressions and when we were putting up walls, not tearing them down.
The clear alternative that we have been talking about in this House of Commons and at the forums and platforms across Canada is that we need neither the Tory position of a dogmatic, fixed commitment to continental trade policies nor the fortress-like protectionism of the New Democratic Party. What we need is a good, solid international trade agreement under the GATT. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker, we are going to get it.
We are going to have an international trade agreement based upon multilateral principles that will supersede anything that is being offered under NAFTA. It will make all those trade agreements that the Tories negotiated, at enormous costs to this country and at enormous pain and suffering to countless thousands of workers, totally irrelevant because all of the kinds of proposals that they ,say are benefits of a trade agreement we can achieve under the GATT.
We can get reductions of tariffs. We can get access to markets. We can get a subsidy code that sets out a fair, broad-based, international set of rules. We can get a dispute settlement mechanism that is substantially strengthened under the GATT which will allow us to have resolution of trade conflicts, as we should have done years before with softwood lumber and other issues. It will allow us to pursue compulsory licensing if that is the choice of the Canadian Parliament because the GATT allows for exceptions. It will allow us in cases dealing with agricultural products to find ways of protecting our farmers which we cannot do under the NAFTA agreement.
It seems to me that when it comes down to a choice, and that is what Canadians are going to be contemplating in the few months in the future, then they want a party that is based upon idealism without illusion, not illusion without idealism, as we find in the other two parties. They want to see a party that understands that a country like Canada, which bases so much of its growth on international trade, must be constantly on the lookout for new trading opportunities, for reducing barriers, for getting rules in place but, at the same time, for preserving and protecting its own interests.
Experience and history have shown that the best and most effective way of achieving that is to have new and improved, constantly evolving international trade agreements. We have supported that. We said that in 1988 when the Prime Minister and his friends were poisoning the airwaves with their ads saying there is no alternative to the free trade agreement. The Liberals were offering an alternative. We said, put the emphasis for negotiation on a multilateral trade agreement. We could not compete with the enormous weight of money that went into that program.


Roy MacLaren: The NDP has no policy at all.


Lloyd Axworthy: My colleague has said that the members of the NDP have no policy at all. No, no, they have a policy. We now see it in the resolution. Let us not have any trade agreements, they say, none whatsoever, no trade agreements, no truck or trade.
Frankly, in saying that, is it not a curiosity that the great friend and benefactor of the New Democratic Party, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, Bob White, who was for many years the president of the CAW in Canada, the auto workers, used to laud to the skies the advantages of an auto sector agreement in North America as being one of the stimulants for growth?
Now his own party, his own acolytes are now rejecting him. Where is Bob White going to go after today? Who is he going to be able to adhere to when his own people have rejected what he has been preaching as a gospel for the last 30 or 40 years?
I must say that I sympathize with Bob White because I certainly would not want to be represented by that hoard of protectionists sitting over in the rump corner to the left.
December 1, 1992

I say to Bob, we are always open for discussion. I am not saying we are going to have an agreement, but at least we are not like the NDP. We do not reject agreements out of hand. We will negotiate and that has been our position.
I have listened to the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, who is a very highly regarded member of Parliament, the former premier of British Columbia, but when we talk to him about negotiation, he goes silly. He goes into a catatonic fit as if somehow negotiation has turned into an awful word; that somehow the idea of being able to sit down with trading partners and working out mutual, agreeable common interests-


An hon. member:: Give it away.


Lloyd Axworthy: They say give it away. No. There is a difference. The New Democratic Party is not only protectionist, it is defeatist. There is a feeling it can never go to the table. It is no wonder that poor Bob White is about to reject them, because they do not even understand the basic principle of collective bargaining; that you go to the table and you negotiate and you find a mutual basis of interest and come to an agreement.
If it works in collective bargaining between labour and business, why would it not work in working out trade agreements? But no. Somehow the New Democratic Party has been captured and I know what the disease is. I know what strange virus it is. It is called 14 per cent. It is more potent than the Asian flu. It really makes your knees buckle and your stomach turn queezy when you think that you are running at 14 per cent. What do you do? You go to the barricades and you raise the flag and say: "No truck or trade with the Yankees; no truck or trade with the Mexicans; no truck or trade with the world. We will go it alone". Except their own workers will not be going with them. The members of their own trade unions who have based themselves on the idea that growth industries in Canada depend upon proper, good, effective trade arrangements will not be with them.
The case I make to you, Mr. Speaker, is that Canadians do have a clear, unmistakable alternative. They can reject the dogmatisms of the left and the right. They can get rid of the extremities and begin to look at how we can rebuild this country based upon good, serious, practical trade policies which look toward finding agreements on a multilateral basis; that we can look forward to having a
Supply
GATT agreement that supersedes the FTA and NAFTA and makes much of this kind of explosive debate that has rocked this country from one end to the other irrelevant.
We can begin working within that large international set of agreements on common codes, common dispute settlement mechanisms and work to define our own industrial strategy, our own economic policies and use it in the way that the GATT is made to be used, which is to allow countries to formulate and shape economic and domestic policies that suit their interests, that suit their geography, that suit their character, but at the same time understand that we are all part of a global economy; that we are all in mother ship earth; that we all share a prosperity based upon international trade.
That is going to be the option and choice Canadians will have in a few short months, as soon as the Prime Minister gets the courage to end his own veil of tears. Then we can come down and say to Canadians: "Let us come down to a trade policy that really seeks to open up Canadian opportunities to the world, based upon a common set of rules where nations large and small have equal rights within that agreement that is not dominated by one or two countries".
That has been a principle which has served this country well since the end of the Second World War when we helped to build the economic international framework. It has served us well generation after generation as we have brought tariffs down. We fought and we have defended Canadian trade interests.
So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you mightily for your patience in hearing me out, that the option and choice Canadians have is a real one, a common sense one, a practical one. Thank goodness it will be given that choice.
That means when the time comes, when people put their ballots in the box, we will see whether they choose to once again be seized by the entertaining spectacle of two sumo wrestlers from the left and the right grappling in a death hug, squeezing the life-blood out of this country or whether they choose a new style, a new approach to trade, one based upon experience and history that will work in terms of what is real and serious to help Canadians get jobs. That is having an international system of trade from which we all benefit.

December 1, 1992
Supply


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I just got the tail-end of the hon. member's peroration. I heard him talk about Asian flu. I heard him talk about real policy. I heard him talk about sumo wrestlers. I heard him talk about everything except the North American free trade agreement and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
He implied that our party was opposed to multilateral free trade, but I am sure I heard him say that GATT ought to have supersedence over the free trade agreement. I suppose he also means that with respect to the North American free trade agreement. I suppose that means that neither of them really ought to exist if they are going to renegotiate them.
I just have no idea where this man is going. Probably he is not going anywhere because he is doing that little dance to try to figure out which side he is on in the Liberal Party. There are those among that party who are opposed to the free trade agreement dancing on one foot and then there are those such as the hon. member here in the front seat. Actually, he is dancing on the right foot and the others are dancing on the left foot. The Leader of the Official Opposition looks like Muhammad Ali trying to figure out which punch to throw and cannot make a decision.
Where does the Liberal Party stand? It sounds like the Liberal Party is a mat under those two sumo wrestlers. I do not know. But it was about as empty a cloud of rhetoric as I have ever heard.
The hon. member's party talks about renegotiating the North American free trade agreement. In terms of what specifics? How is that going to be advantageous to us over what he has said in his speech, the supersedence of multilateral agreements such as GATT? Where does his party stand on the North American free trade agreement? What would it change with respect to that in renegotiating it?
How does the hon. member's party expect that anybody is going to understand what it expects, actually? Would he tell us what he expects will be accomplished through that renegotiation? On what basis does the hon. member think the Americans will agree to it not to speak of the Mexicans?
Let us leave sumo wrestlers alone. Let us leave Asian flu alone and all of those other things that he talked about so eloquently. Let us hear about the Liberal position.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it always gives me immense pleasure to provide any assistance I can to those who are not so much hard of hearing as difficult in understanding.
I would be more than willing to provide, if I could, what is clearly missing in the make-up of the hon. member. That is comprehension. I did spend 20 minutes saying exactly what a serious trade policy is all about.
First, a serious trade policy does not totally and completely reject out of hand any agreement such as the auto pact as the hon. member's party clearly does today.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: That is nonsense.


Lloyd Axworthy: Now, adding to his problem of comprehension is a literacy problem. He clearly cannot read his own resolution. It says that never, ever will we ever agree to any kind of trade agreement in North America. That includes the auto pact. Here is the hon. member from Windsor. Do you know who he represents?
How many auto workers would vote for the hon. member from Windsor? There may not be many left. At 14 per cent, there could not be an awful lot left. Those who are left are going to be very interested in learning, come tomorrow when the Windsor Star has on the front page: "McCurdy votes against auto pact: No longer any agreements". I want to see those clippings. Then I will take the hon. member off my Christmas list because I know he will not be around next year.
The fact of the matter is that we are clearly putting forward an alternative. That is what Canadians want. Canadians want to get away from the rigidities, inflexibilities, dogmatisms and doctrinaire approach that we have seen expressed time and time again by the right and left of this country.
Canadians want to get back to good government. They want to get back to practical judgments. They want to get back to a trade policy which understands that you can walk and chew gum at the same time, that you can have an open trade policy and still preserve your identity and
December 1, 1992

independence as a country. That is the Liberal position and I am glad the hon. member finally understands it.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to see the member from Winnipeg with the trade critic of the Liberal Party. Sightings of the two of them together are not that often.
I have often admired the hon. member, but this speech was full of smugness. It just was not up to his standard. It really was a vacuum of rhetoric that could not be supported by the Liberal trade critic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I ask for collaboration on language.

I would appreciate it if all members would co-operate. I am afraid that in the heat of the debate, some members may go too far. I would therefore appreciate your co-operation and a certain amount of restraint.


Steve Butland: I am appropriately admonished, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say that the member from Winnipeg did a study in etymology, in semantics. I only wanted to talk about the wording of the resolution. Everyone out there who is watching this knows what we are talking about.
The hon. member says that this party is against any North American free trade agreement, that it is against any agreement. He knows full well that is sophistry, it is fallacious reasoning. Would the hon. member from Winnipeg indicate whether he and the Liberal Party are for the North American free trade agreement or not? Would they abrogate the free trade agreement that is in place?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker first, let me say that I am a great admirer of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
In that admiration I only assumed he had some sense of history, that he understood the background. I thought he was an effective representative for the interests of his own community which deals very much with the steel industry.
Supply
I can recall the times when we were in government when we did sit down with the Americans and others to work out arrangements and agreements on steel. Under the terms of the resolution presented by his colleagues today, that could not be done. Therefore he better not vote for it.
It says any North American free trade deal, any at all. So here all of a sudden not only do we have the hon. member from Windsor totally and completely rejecting the interests of the automobile workers, we also have the member from Sault Ste. Marie saying he will not defend the interests of the steelworkers.
I bet you next we are going to have the hon. member from Vancouver Island standing up and saying he does not believe in selling lumber to the United States anymore. So we will build it all ourselves. Nothing would surprise me anymore but I am flabbergasted.
When it comes to the question I would simply repeat the words of my leader if he does not want the words from the hon. member, the trade critic. He said that we do not agree with this North American free trade agreement. Furthermore, our leader and our party have offered the alternative of an international multilateral trade agreement based upon principles of equity, equality, fairness, judgment and that is what is going to make this country grow.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I was just wondering if this amounts to a divorce between the Liberals and the NDP or just a short lover's tiff?


An hon. member:: This is ridiculous. Why do they get recognized when they make these stupid asinine points? NDP members have been doing it all day.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I bring to the attention of the House that such interventions are unwarranted and unnecessary and not in the spirit of the House. This is a very serious debate and the weakness of the issue, of the NDP's position has to be pointed out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: And now that both sides have made their point, I will recognize the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.

December 1, 1992
Supply


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate and discuss this very important issue. I am pleased as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment to take some time to discuss the environmental aspects of the NAFTA proposal which is being considered in the House today and will be considered in greater length probably in the new year.
In August of this year after more than a year of negotiations, Canada, the United States and Mexico agreed to the North American free trade agreement, which we generally call NAFTA, providing a new set of rules to govern investment and to govern more than what would be $300 billion in annual three-way trade.
For Canada, NAFTA means access to the fastest growing and one of the most promising economies in the world, that of Mexico, while ensuring that Canada at the same time remains a very attractive place in which to invest.
NAFTA marks the first time that a developing country has entered into a free trade agreement with two industrialized countries. It is not surprising therefore that it has raised many questions about the effects of liberalized trade on the environment. In fact NAFTA is the first trade agreement to recognize explicitly the inextricable relationship between the environment and trade and represents a very important touchstone on the road to sustainable development.
To this end the Government of Canada adopted a comprehensive four-pronged approach to integrate environmental considerations at NAFTA.
First, trade-related issues were dealt with in NAFTA directly. NAFTA sets out precedent setting environmental safeguards to protect Canada's right to set and enforce its own environmental standards and to participate effectively in co-operative international actions to address global problems.
Second, the environment was an essential element of the consultation process. The Canadian environmental community had direct input into negotiations as did business, industry, labour and other interests.
Third, NAFTA has undergone an environmental review. This is the first trade agreement in Canadian history and the first major economic initiative to have undergone such a review.
Fourth, environmental co-operation among Canada, Mexico and the United States has been intensified. These efforts will help Mexico further strengthen its enforcement capacity and ensure effective co-operative action to protect the North American environment.
There has been much discussion about the environmental safeguards in NAFTA. NAFTA has been criticized for not including such measures as minimum and enforceable standards across the three countries. Comparisons are sometimes made with what we see happening in the European community where nations are working toward economic, and to a significant degree, political integration.
It is important however to remember that continental or global environmental protection as sustainable development is very often best pursued through international environmental agreements such as the Montreal protocol or the Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species which we normally refer to as CITES.
NAFTA is not an agreement for the economic, social and political union in North America because Canada maintains its sovereign right to protect the environment according to its own standards, priorities and values. Nonetheless, were it not for NAFTA we would not have a number of key environmental safeguards governing North American trade.
NAFTA is the first trade agreement to recognize the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection. The preamble in NAFTA explicitly identifies the promotion of sustainable development and environmental protection and enforcement as fundamental goals of the agreement.
The economic and trade objectives of NAFTA are to be achieved in a manner consistent with environmental protection and conservation.
NAFTA protects trade provisions of a number of key international environmental agreements. The trade obligations under CITES, the Montreal Protocol, the Basel Convention, and any other future agreements agreed to by all three countries will take precedence over NAFTA.
December 1, 1992

Again, NAFTA affirms the right of each country to choose the level of protection in the environment that it considers appropriate to its own circumstances and according to its own priorities. Furthermore, it affirms the right of each country to adopt standards that are more stringent than international standards to secure such protection.
This agreement provides that no NAFTA country should lower its environmental standards to attract investment. This is a far reaching provision. It can be found in no other trade agreement.
NAFTA provides for a more environmentally sensitive dispute resolution process. For example, the responding party in a trade dispute involving either one of these international environmental agreements or a measure taken to protect its environment has the right to have the dispute considered exclusively in NAFTA which among other things provides input from environmental experts and puts the burden of proof on the complaining party.
Some Canadians have expressed the concern that NAFTA may lead to large scale exports of Canadian water. Large scale exports of Canadian water would clearly violate Canada's 1987 federal water policy. Canada did not entertain any discussion of large scale water exports during negotiations of either the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, known as FTA, or the North-American free trade agreement, NAFTA.
It is important that both agreements maintain Canada's sovereign right to manage its water resources in the national interest in an environmentally sound manner. Both the FTA and NAFTA apply only to water packaged as a beverage or in tanks. For greater certainty, Canada's implementing legislation will include an FTA like reaffirmation of the exclusion of large scale transfers of water from the terms of NAFTA itself.
From an environmental perspective, NAFTA is precedent setting. It is the first trade agreement to include explicit safeguards for the environment. It provides a new benchmark for an environmentally sensitive trade policy, one that Canada will build on in future trade negotiations.
Canada's environmental community was a key participant in the formal NAFTA consultative mechanisms. Representatives from environmental organizations and environmental experts participated along with business,
Supply
labour and other groups on the international trade advisory committee, which we call ITAC, and on the sectorial advisory groups on international trade, which are commonly referred to as SAGITS.
ITAC and SAGITS report directly to the Minister for International Trade. ITAC and SAGITS members were consulted regularly and had access to both the draft text of the agreement as well as the environmental review. Their energy, efforts and ideas helped shape Canada's position in these negotiations.
Environmental groups outside the formal consultative mechanism of ITAC and SAGITS were also consulted on the environmental review, its nature, scope and content.
Again their views were invaluable in guiding the difficult and complex task of doing the first environmental assessment of a free trade agreement.
Consistent with this government's commitment to the environmental assessment of policies, NAFTA has undergone an environmental review. The purpose of the review was two-fold: first, to ensure that environmental considerations were integrated into the decision making process at every stage in the negotiations; second, to identify and document the potential effects of NAFTA on Canada's environment.
This environmental review which was released on November 3 concludes that: "NAFTA establishes a new benchmark for environmentally sensitive international trade and economic relations. The environmental provisions of NAFTA go beyond those of any previous free trade agreement".
NAFTA is not expected to have a significant impact on Canada's environment. The anticipated volume of trade between Canada and Mexico as a result of NAFTA is unlikely to significantly increase environmental pressures on Canada's air, land, water or natural resources or to add to its generation of toxic substance and waste.
Canadian business generally does not anticipate that environmental regulation will adversely affect its overall competitive position in the future. Studies indicate there is normally little competitive advantage in ignoring environmental standards as pollution abatement costs are typically small compared with total production costs and polluting companies are usually less efficient.

Supply
The review committee determined there is little evidence to suggest that Canadian companies will move to Mexico to take advantage of less stringent enforcement of environmental laws.
The concerns of Canadians on the impact of the trading environment will continue to be addressed through NAFTA as well as through both trilateral and international initiatives including the proposed North American commission on the environment.
We have been working with Mexico on an ongoing basis to address environmental problems. Under the aegis of our March, 1990 agreement on environmental co-operation, we announced in March of this year that we would be providing Mexico with an additional $1 million of environmental assistance.
Mexico has a sound environmental legislative framework and this program is aimed at assisting the enforcement. The program consists of approximately 20 projects addressing six areas: compliance and monitoring, hazardous substances and waste management, air pollution control, environmental impact assessment, environmental education, and threatened species.
Increasingly, however, we are recognizing the important links among trade, economic growth, and the environment, and the need for stronger and more effective environmental co-operation. To that end environment ministers from the three NAFTA countries met on September 17 in Washington. They agreed there was need for increased trilateral co-operation and in particular they agreed to the creation of a North American commission on the environment.
Canada's Minister of the Environment will be meeting with his colleagues from the United States and Mexico early in 1993 to finalize an agreement. The commission will ensure sustained long-term and effective North American environmental co-operation and play a vital role in supporting the environmental goals and provisions of the NAFTA.
In conclusion, NAFTA represents a milestone in Canada's efforts to better integrate the environment and economy and make sustainable development a reality.
It is the first trade agreement to recognize explicitly the relationship between environment and trade. Trade related issues were addressed in the NAFTA.
For the first time in policy making history in Canada the environmental community has had direct input into the negotiations of a trade agreement along with business, industry, labour, and other interests.
The review of the NAFTA was a precedent setting exercise, demonstrating our commitment to sustainable development by integrating environmental considerations from day one in the NAFTA process.
We will build on the progress made in the NAFTA and continue to work with our counterparts from the United States and Mexico to address environmental issues of continental concern. In addition, we will press for the environment to be a focal point for a post-Uruguay round of the GATT.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, in 1987, as a member on the government side, I had an opportunity to do some serious work on the proposed free trade agreement with the United States. I was vice-chairman of the external affairs committee and had an opportunity to travel across Canada and listen to the complaints of the people who appeared before the committee at the time.
Last week, I started attending the sittings of the external affairs committee and heard what the witnesses who appeared before the committee had to say. They are still sending more or less the same messages. Business people, the people who promote products agree with three-way free trade, while those who represent employees, in other words the unions are definitely against free trade.
People associated with the NDP said they were against free trade mainly because they would lose their political sovereignty. They imagine that if we sign a three-way free trade agreement it will restrict the Canadian government's freedom to change its policies in the future. Does the hon. member on the government side believe that signing a three-way free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States will restrict the government's ability to set policy in the future and be
December 1, 1992

harmful to the social policies we in Quebec are intent on maintaining?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the key point to understand is that this is a trading agreement that has resulted from negotiations in which environmental factors were very much taken into consideration. It is not a proposal for economic union. It is not a proposal for a political union. In that sense it is a very different kind of agreement than that which is being contemplated at this moment in Europe.
Consequently it is very clear to me as I read this agreement, as was the case with the FTA, the trade agreement with the United States, that each of the participating parties, each of the three countries in this case very clearly retains its right to act as a sovereign nation. As I stressed during the course of my remarks, it is very proper and to be expected that the countries will use their sovereign powers to enhance their rights to safeguard their environment.
What is provided for in this agreement is an opportunity for co-operation, for shared trade, for a more liberalized trade agreement so that each of our countries can benefit from access to a greater market. I recognize the fact that the impact on Canada will in many instances be less than some anticipate. What is very clear is that each of the countries, and certainly Canada included, retains the right to be a sovereign nation and there is no impact on that, no fear of that being endangered in this particular agreement.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I noted with great interest the comments of the hon. member across. I could not help but remember the last time I bought a used car. I met the sales person and he said: "Have I got a deal for you". We went to the lot and there was car No. 1 made in 1988 and car No. 2 made in 1992. Car No. 1 could only run to Buffalo. Car No. 2 had a little bit more engine and could run all the way down to Mexico.
I asked how much for No. 1 and how much for the other. He said one will cost me zip, no jobs, nothing. After four years there are almost 1.5 million unemployed. Then I asked about car No. 2. He said not to
Supply
worry about that one, it is not going to cost me a single penny.
This is what I am hearing from the member across. If car No. 1 had a little engine and a little bit of gas and it cost 1.5 million unemployed, this one has more gas and a little bit bigger engine and can run all the way down to Mexico and will probably cost us 4 or 5 million unemployed.
I heard the hon. member talk about environmental co-operation, promising the economy of the world for Mexico. The Mexicans made $26 a week. He has talked about environment, trade, environmental review and co-operation. Mexico ships the finished products on one side and opens the back door and pollutes. Does he realize what his Prime Minister and his government want to put us through?
I want to ask a simple question. Four years have lapsed. In that four years my constituents have suffered. Before he stands on his feet and gives us a song and dance, is it not time he tells his boss to call an election and put it to the people?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the House on the implications of the NAFTA and I did not realize my remarks were so extensive and far-reaching as to produce a question of this nature. I am not so sure that there was any question about jobs in the course of my remarks.
Let me make it very clear. There will be an election during the course of the next eight or ten months or whatever the time may be. It may well be that the same sense of bravado we hear in the House today, which I remember being repeated prior to the 1988 election, may well be reiterated once again. My hon. friends opposite who are so encouraged and positive today may prove to be disappointed in the future as indeed they were after the 1988 election, which of course was fought primarily on the issue of the FTA.
During the course of my remarks I talked about the relationship between environmental protection and NAFTA. I am very convinced as I stand here we have made history. For the first time in Canada, environmental protection was an integral part of these negotiations. It is a party of the trade agreement itself.

December 1, 1992
Supply
If my hon. friend is as interested in environmental protection as he should be, he should focus on that in the course of his remarks and support this agreement.


Sidney James Parker: I welcome the opportunity to question the member with regard to the environmental portions of the motion because he spoke quite extensively oh that.
I want to speak specifically about water. In Vancouver at the hearings Wendy Holm, a director of the Agriculture Institute of Canada said Canada would be powerless to restrict water exports even in times of shortages. I want to say to the member, in May of this year in my riding of Kootenay East the water on Koocanusa Lake, which is a reservoir in British Columbia was increased from 4,000 cubic feet per second to 22,000 cubic feet per second because the Americans wanted the water. Our people in that area had to sustain that kind of release of water.
Mr. Michael Walker of the think tank for the Conservative Party in Vancouver sees no problem according to the hearing. Michael Walker of the executive-based Fraser Institute, a Conservative think tank, said: "Canada has nothing to lose from increased trade in water".
There were environmental effects from that kind of draw-down on the lake. Fish two feet long were going through the turbines into the United States.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, as you know, and as was indicated during my remarks, the type of water export to which the hon. member refers is not possible under Canada's water policy. It is not possible under the free trade agreement and, as the Minister for International Trade explained in the House today it is not possible under the proposed NAFTA.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am here in the House this afternoon because I read the motion by the New Democratic Party which was on the Order Paper. I thought we would have a very interesting and very useful debate. However, to my great disappointment, we have yet to hear what the leader of this party and the party's international affairs critic have to say. I thought we would have a really serious debate,
but even the principle players did not have the courage to show up and face the House to explain what, according to the New Democrats, was so devastating about the subject of this motion.
I was delighted when I read the motion, but in all my life, I have never or hardly ever come across a motion in this House that turned out to be such a non-starter. I will read the motion again:
Let this House reject any North American Free TVade
Agreement.
I started wondering what this really meant. A number of questions came to mind.

There must be a valid reason why they made such a big mistake. If they had said we reject this deal, we could have voted yes or no. We would have voted with the NDP members on that because we do not like this deal, but they said any deal.
I read the paper the last few days and I understood very well. The Premier of Ontario made a great confession that he has so many problems running the Government of Ontario because he is vested with the problem that nobody, including himself, has any experience at all. It is evident today in this House there is no agreement of any kind with North America.
I have been around a few years. Some think it has been too many years, but we have a Prime Minister who had never been here before and look at the mess. I will not apologize for having been around for a few years. I thought about it and wondered what the words "free trade agreement" meant. I remember when I was a member of Parliament and we negotiated the North American trade agreement on the auto pact. We had long discussions with the Americans and signed a pact that created thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs in Canada. When you are in a business such as ours and represent a country that per capita exports the most in the world, you cannot build a wall. The trade between Canada and the United States is $130 billion a year. If we had a wall we could not sell to them. Therefore the notion is to have good trade deals. It is not to say that we will never have a deal with anybody in North America. That is a sign of incompetence at its best.
December 1, 1992

If Mr. Rae in Ontario confesses that then I think the NDP is bound to stay where it is for a hell of a long time.
In many ways we need a round-the-world free trade agreement. Trade is very important to our nation. This nation of ours has been built on trade. One of the reasons is that we have to sell. In my district of Beausejour, New Brunswick, and my former district which I am going back to, Saint-Maurice, we need trade. We produce fish in Atlantic Canada and we need a market for that.
When I was the Minister of Finance I negotiated with the Americans to have access for the fisheries of Canada. I managed to open the market in the United States by making some concessions to the Americans, but it was billions of dollars of market for the fishermen of eastern Canada that I opened in reducing those tariffs. That is what I call intelligent trade.
It was the same when we negotiated the free trade agreement with the United States on automobiles. We eliminated the tariffs. Before that we were making all Canadian cars in Canada and the Americans were doing the same thing. Therefore, we decided that we would eliminate the tariffs. We made the decision that there would be no tariffs, but we made an agreement which called for fair and just trade. We told the Americans we needed managed trade. We agreed to no tariffs, but we said we would keep enough protection for Canada to keep the number of jobs needed for our employees. We decided on a share of the market and a share of the jobs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Is that free trade?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, it is free trade and nobody praises it more than your friend Bob White. We did not sell the store. We told the Americans it was good for them and it was good for us.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not free trade though.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, it is free trade. There are no tariffs. You do not want a deal with anyone so you have to shut up and let me make my speech. We just wanted to show you how to negotiate when you are in government because I know you will never get there, but just in case. However, you may pass it on to Mr. Rae.
I said we wanted an agreement with the Americans. On the FTA, we told them we were not happy with the
Supply
agreement and we would have to renegotiate it. It is the same thing with the NAFTA. We are not happy with it. It is not a good deal. We need trade, but this is not a good deal. We know exactly what we want to renegotiate. We want to renegotiate, for example, the definition of a subsidy because we have to know.
Look at what is happening now in our trade relations with the Americans. Every time we try to do something in a Canadian way if the Americans do not like it they call it a subsidy. We have this problem in the production of softwood lumber. In Canada we have other ways of taxing corporations but the stumpage fee was not part of our policy. The Americans said we had to have the same rules as them. We said it was not a subsidy because in Canada we have climatic conditions that are different than in the United States and we have tax policies that are different. It is not for them to tell us how to tax our people; it is not for us to tell them how to tax their people.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If we let them do that, eventually they will claim that having medicare in Canada is unfair competition. It is not unfair competition because it is the best system in the world and, as Liberals, we will protect it.
Some will argue that because for every car built in the United States, compared to a car built in Canada, they save at least $1,000 or $900 because they manufacture it in Canada and we have a medicare system. But it is paid in another way. It is not paid by the company but by the taxpayer. It is the Canadian way of doing things.
We need a definition of subsidy and we say we will renegotiate that. Some say the Americans will not agree. They have to agree. It is part of the FTA agreement. They said that in the seven years after the enforcement of the FTA they would negotiate a definition of a subsidy so we will negotiate. We will have to negotiate what is dumping because it is related to what is a subsidy.
That is our policy and we want to clarify it. We will negotiate and we will renegotiate. That is clear, that is our clear position: first what we want to do in terms of subsidy and then dumping. There is a third thing we want to renegotiate. It is not very complicated.

December 1, 1992
Supply
The Americans signed an agreement with the Mexicans on energy that is different from the one the Americans signed with us. We want to make sure that in case of a major crisis we can keep some of our resources for Canadians first. There is nothing wrong with that.
The Americans have huge reserves for what they call "national security". They have built up reserves over the years that are owned by the states that will never be touched. They will never be available to Canadians or Mexicans. They are there for their national security.
We too need reserves for our national security but the Tories gave them away. What is unbelievable, because I have talked with some of the negotiators, is that the Americans were not asking to have a deal on energy. There was no problem for the Americans on energy. The problem was that we did not want to sell to them; it was never that they did not want to buy from us. There was no problem there. We had a policy that provided for reserves for our future. Security of supply, we called it.
The government gave it away. It is very reasonable to go back to the Americans and ask why they do not give us the same deal on energy as the Mexicans. The decided to keep control of their energy policy within the international context. There is an international agreement there, but there was no need to put it on the table in the free trade agreement.
Now there is another opportunity. The American administration is changing. We will have a president there who says "what about labour conditions; what about environmental protection?" Right on. It is what we were asking in this House for a long time.
The member for Davenport and the member for LaSalle-Emard have been asking these questions for a long time. The coming American administration is of the same view. So we have a great opportunity to renegotiate. The President-elect said he wants to renegotiate some aspects of NAFTA but the Tories want to sign right away and the NDP will not sign anything, ever.
There is a very solid, common sense position right in the middle of that. It is the Liberal position. For me, it is very important in this debate. I would offer a good
opportunity to members of the NDP because they blundered that so badly I feel a bit sorry.


An hon. member:: Don't be sorry.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They do not want me to be sorry. If they would just change one word and rather than say "any agreement" they should say "this agreement", we could vote with them because we do not like this agreement either. However to say "any agreement" I can see their embarrassment.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think we have a very good position on this matter. We understand that trade is very important for Canada. As the member from Winnipeg and the member from Etobicoke were talking about, we need globalization in a way and we need international rules. That would be best.
We have to be careful as a nation that the world is not moving in big blocs. That could be very dangerous. If the common market is to become a big bloc that would be protectionist, if there were to be in North America a big bloc that would be protectionist and if there were to be in Asia another bloc that would be protectionist, it would be terrible for the world. It is the poor of the world who would pay the price of that type of protection. I am worried about it so I do think that we have quite a good position.
For that matter, I enjoyed very much some months ago the position of the NDP that likes to claim it is so solid it never ever changes its mind. The leader of that party, as reported in The Financial Post of October 28, 1991, said: "If elected", and that is a hell of a big if, "we would sit down with the Americans and say how can we make this thing work? If not, we will give them six months notice".
Never in my life have I seen anybody take a page from my book that quickly. It is exactly our position. We would renegotiate, and if the Americans were not reasonable we would abrogate.

Those who believe we can go back to square one are mistaken. When we take power, five years will have passed since this agreement was signed and some decisions cannot be changed then. Companies that moved to the United States will not come back to Canada just because we pass a bill in Parliament asking them to. That

is not how it works. But I can understand how naive the New Democrats are, as the premier of Ontario could not have shown more clearly when he said the problems of NDP governments across the country are due to inexperience and incompetence. To that, the people in my party say amen.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to my hon. friend, the Leader of the Official Opposition clarify his party's position on the North American free trade agreement.
I have two questions. First, does the Leader of the Official Opposition believe that the auto pact is a good example of free trade? In other words, is that how he defines free trade, by the auto pact with all of its components? Second, is it the Liberal Party's position that with some renegotiation of the Mexico-U.S.-Cana-da agreement the Leader of the Opposition could see himself entering into a free trade deal with Mexico and the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, yes, because we have no tariffs between Canada and United States on cars and parts. That is free trade. We got some guarantees in that deal. That is the difference. We said we had to maintain jobs in Canada and the Americans said: "Yes, you will have it". When we look at the record over 25 years, we virtually had more work than we deserved. Sometimes it was pure luck; sometimes it was good management.
I remember when I was minister of trade and I sat down with Mr. Iaccoca of Chrysler. The member for Windsor West was there. We were negotiating with them. They wanted to put their van operations in Canada. I was not too keen on vans because they were nothing in those days. I told Lee Iaccoca he was perhaps giving us a bum rap. It turned out that vans became extremely popular and the big guzzling cars disappeared. We gained that way because we got the best part of the deal.
That is a form of free trade but with guarantees and mechanisms to repair it if it is not working. But it worked pretty well. What was the second question?
Supply


Roy MacLaren: If we improved the agreement, would you go with it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course we will improve it. If there is no possibility of improvement we can abrogate. I will do what the leader of the NDP said.


An hon. member:: Read it again.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will read it again in case the member has not read it. In an interview in The Financial Post on October 28,1991 the Leader of the NDP said: "If elected we would sit down with the Americans and say how can we make this thing work?"


Don Boudria: Who said that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Leader of the NDP. "If not, we will give them six months notice". Who said that? The leader of the NDP and I.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to support our NDP motion:
That this House reject any North American free trade agreement.
First I wish to quote from today's papers to show the attitude of Canada's elite toward working people. The Globe and Mail banner headline says: "Economy shows turtle-like advance". What it emphasizes on this page is primarily the strong points: the total value of goods and services produced grew at 1.4 per cent; there was a 5.3 per cent increase excluding inflation in spending by Canadians as final domestic demand and so on.
In The Financial Post hidden away where working people are not likely to find it unless they get to ride an aeroplane in the morning: "Employment outlook getting darker, says the study according to Manpower Temporary Services Limited. For the first time all 10 industry groups surveyed predict employment cutbacks and most industries are near or below the levels of the glum first quarter of 1982. The survey shows no end in sight for an employment drought that has lasted 3.5 years".
In other words, for the elite of this country it does not matter if the workers are unemployed, it does not matter if workers starve, it does not matter if workers do not have a roof over their head. What matters is sales and profit and somebody, at least the rich, having money to spend. If the rich have money to spend then somebody will find things to sell them. That is an illustration of the attitude of the elite in Canada.
I want to illustrate something else that shows the attitude and practice of the elite in Mexico, the people

Supply
the Canadian elite want to join up with and with whom they want to share the Government of Canada.
In Mexico there has been violent suppression of workers, unions and opposition leaders for years and for decades. In the three to four years since President Salinas was elected-he was elected in an election that was criticized by the Organization of American States for its improprieties or irregularities or fraud-over 100 opposition leaders and 20 journalist have been assassinated in Mexico with almost no police investigation let alone trial. There is very little police action to curb that sort of thing.
We now have a former member of the Congress of Mexico who has been driven to find refugee status in Canada. Mario Rojas Alba was a congressman of the Mexican congress, the national congress. He was one of the leaders of the Party of Revolutionary Democracy led by Cuauhtemoc Cardenas. While he was a congressman he was many times over the years physically attacked or burgled by people who he found, by investigation, were criminals and drug traffickers under the protection of the justice officials of the state of Morelos which he was representing in the Mexican congress.
In fact in January 1992 Mario Rojas was continuing investigations of the killing of Jose Ramon Garcia, an opposition leader of his party, the DRP, in the state of Morelos, who had been killed three years before. He finally, on a tip, went and interviewed three prisoners in the Morelos penitentiary, former policemen with knowledge of the kidnapping and killing of Ramon.
The contents of the interview were reported by officials to the justice authorities of the state of Morelos, the same ones who had been protecting the criminals and drug traffickers that were attacking Rojas. There were then further threats and attempts immediately made on Rojas' life. He asked protection of the attorney general of Mexico who provided a protective escort and eventually in his own investigation ratified the results of Rojas' investigation which showed that the police and the state justice authorities of Morelos were implicated in the kidnapping and murder of Ramon.
The attorney general of Mexico then refused to proceed against the Morelos state officials who were responsible for that kidnapping and murder indirectly and he withdrew the protective escort from Rojas. When Rojas saw what was happening, with the help of friends
he had to escape from Mexico and he has now been accepted as a refugee in Canada.
Rojas will be here on Thursday to speak to members of Parliament who are interested to know what is happening in Mexico. His case illustrates once again what I saw in a small way when I was in Mexico a couple of years ago observing the state elections in Morelos. I observed that there were practically no voting booths at which there was any secrecy of the ballot. You do not need a secret ballot. Everybody accepts the fact that the policeman standing beside the table and all the other people standing around see how you mark your ballot. That is how unfree elections are in the state of Morelos in Mexico.
It also illustrates the state condones and even orchestrates violence against anybody who opposes the government. That includes anybody who opposes the government run trade union structure which dominates the majority of the unions in Mexico. Anybody within those unions who tries to change things is intimidated. Anybody who tries to start a new union is intimidated, and some of them have been killed by police without punishment to the police.
My point is that although we do not have anything approaching the state of violence in Canada at present that they have in Mexico, the attitude of the elite says that it is all right, as long as the economy is booming and there are profit figures and sales figures, we are selling more abroad and so on. It does not matter whether the majority of the people are growing poorer and becoming unemployed.
If we form any kind of North American so-called free trade agreement with Mexico, we begin to give up control, not only of our wage levels because our workers will have to meet the conditions of slave labour in Mexico and child labour by the millions, but we also have to begin to give up control over our natural resources, our investment policies, private and public, and our technological development, including the transfer of technology into our country.
It really means, at the bottom line, that we are inviting slave labour to dominate Canada if we sign this free trade agreement as this present government and the Liberals interpret a free trade agreement. They do not mean something like GATT. They do not mean what Adam Smith meant, simply a reduction of tariff barriers or the elimination of tariff barriers. What they mean is giving the multinational corporations total control, un-
December 1, 1992

limited by any government, over the resources, the investment, the technology and the working people of our country. That is why we are opposed to any North American free trade agreement.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member and the negative reaction from the NDP about the NAFTA.
I would like to cite for the hon. member something which ties into the environmental concerns which he has. I want to talk about Sarnia-Lambton, my riding, and what the free trade agreement has meant to my community. As we know, we had a five-year count down on the free trade agreement on tariffs in the petrochemical industry. As of January we will have no tariffs at all.
Ted Newall, the CEO of Nova, said that that has meant to them something in the area of $50 million in tariffs that they have not had to pay. Of course, for that company it has meant that it has been able to invest very heavily environmentally in our area to upgrade themselves in an environmental way as have Shell, Polysar, Dow Chemical and all the other companies that are located in Sarnia-Lambton. Nova, Esso, Suncor, Dupont, St. Clair Chemical and BASF and Polysar division of Bier, a German company, are all investing very heavily in environmental updates and decreasing to zero discharge into the St. Clair River.
That is because of their business stability and exports to the United States. Ted Newall the other day in a speech said something quite profound that maybe our friends who are against free trade should think about. He said a week or so ago that 50 per cent of what we use in Canada is imported and 50 per cent of what we produce in Canada is exported. That is the kind of environment that they were all in. We need agreements that will foster and help us maintain those kinds of export situations.
Again, I am somewhat surprised that the NDP is against the enhancement of Mexican people through their own business environment to upgrade themselves in a way where they will have meaningful jobs and bring themselves to a higher level of income and economic
Supply
stability by having good stable employment and by exporting products to other places in North America. I am very surprised that is not in the minds of members of the NDP party.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: With what time the member has left me, I want to say two things.
In speaking with the hon. member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton, I have congratulated him on the work he has referred to that is being done by many of the industries in Sarnia to control pollution. I know about it from a source other than he which he also knows.
That happens to be one good example. There are many others that are not good in all countries, Canada, the United States and Mexico. There is nothing about the free trade agreement that requires Mexico to bring its very bad environmental and labour practices up to the level of Canada's environmental and labour practices.
Nothing requires it at all and therefore there will be other companies which have already sought to go to Buffalo, Alabama and Mexico to get the lower environmental and labour standards available there. That is the big hole in the hon. member's theory.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question.
The member for Trinity-Spadina has taken a very moralistic position with respect to why we should not have a trade agreement with Mexico. I wonder whether he would follow that to its logical conclusion and advocate that we have some kind of trading ban with Mexico. If so, what other countries should be included in such a ban whose standards do not measure up to ours?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have not talked about a trading ban because that is a distinctly different subject from what the government calls a free trade agreement.
The free trade agreement we have has nothing to do with Adam Smith or has nothing to do with GATT. It is essentially an attempt by the United States to control our natural resources, our investments and our technology. That is what I am not willing to give up to the control of the United States or to the control of Mexico.

Supply


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to say how very pleased I am that the New Democratic Party has put this opposition day motion against the North-American free trade agreement.
This is the first actual debate that we have had in this House with regard to his agreement that has already been signed by the Prime Minister. There are going to be a limited number of hearings which will take place across Canada. The Liberals voted to make sure that happened. They voted with the members of the government in committee to make sure there was only a limited number. I can well understand why the Liberals are feeling so itchy about the comments of the New Democratic Party. We are opposed to this agreement and we are saying so in no uncertain terms.
Under the free trade agreement with the Americans, we were told there would not be any effects on our social programs. We saw what the government did when it came back after the free trade agreement went in. One of the first things it did was to do away with the government's participation in our unemployment insurance programs because that was seen as a subsidy.
We saw it start the clawback of our Canada pensions because that was seen as a subsidy. We have seen the disallowance of our family allowances because that was seen as a subsidy. We know what the government's agenda does. We saw the government's proposals to cut back on social programs to the provinces, and directly attack our medicare to try to bring in extra billings, the American style.
We want no part of that. If the Liberals want to participate in that kind of program, we saw the losses of jobs and so on. The Liberals are saying that the NDP is against trade.
We recognize trade as well as anybody else. That is a pretty weak argument for the Liberals to be making, that any political party is against trade. We are against the American free trade agreement and we are against the North American free trade agreement. Well we should be.
I come from a riding in southeastern British Columbia where the people know what is on the government's agenda. They know the Americans are after our water. They know that Mexicans are after our water. They know what they are after. We are definitely opposed to the
wholesale sale of our water to the Mexicans. We saw what the Liberals did when they were in government in the 1960s when they signed the Columbia River treaty. That was a deal made by the Liberals.
We are paying dearly for that deal right now in southeastern British Columbia. They know what happens when you make deals with the Americans. We always seem to come out second best.
If we sign an over-all deal with the Americans and with the Mexicans with regard to free trade, we know exactly where we are going to be. We have seen that over the past three years. We have seen the lay-offs across Canada.
At CN Railway 10,000 employees will be laid off. There is talk of abandoning tracks from the Atlantic provinces to here. Do you not think this has something to do with free trade? We built a railway system across Canada. We made a decision that we were going to run from coast to coast, east to west.
All of a sudden under the free trade agreement, everything is going to start going north to south. Naturally the railways are going to defend themselves in very difficult situations. Yes, it is a direct response from free trade. The workers across Canada are paying that price.
I want to continue with the line I started with regard to the export of water. In my riding of southeastern British Columbia, they increased the flow from our reservoir in May from 4,000 cubic feet per second to 22,000 cubic feet per second. Can you imagine the environmental effects that has throughout southeastern British Columbia? Can you imagine how that affects tourism in that area? Can you imagine how it affects the environment in the area, or the people living in the area? Yes, those are the ramifications when these kinds of agreements are made without any consideration for the areas and the environment which we are trying to protect.
The free trade agreement with the Americans has been a disaster. There was talk during the free trade agreement negotiations that there would be adjustment programs to try to help these workers during these difficult times. They have been abandoned by this government. That is the kind of thing we will see if we get into the free trade agreement with Mexico under the
December 1, 1992

North American free trade agreement. It is just expanding something that has already proven to be a disaster.
This agreement must be abolished. The North American agreement must be abolished, and we must sit down and deal with our trading partners in an open way. We should not give away our whole country, all of our assets and all of our social programs just because we want to trade with our neighbours.
We can do this on an equal basis without having to sign away our country and our resources to the extent that we have done. We are a young country. We have only 26 million people living in it. We can produce. We can compete. We can do it in an open market, and we can do it through a system without making special deals with the Americans or the Mexicans.
Our premier from British Columbia has gone to the Pacific Rim and has tried to expand trade there. There are other areas of trade in which we can expand. We can do this in a way that Canadians normally do, in an open, equal, and responsible way to ensure that the programs we have in place are able to be continued and to ensure that the resources we have are going to be managed by Canadians for Canadians and not follow the corporate elite like the Liberals and the Conservatives want to do.
They want to have everything done and the decisions made by the corporations. Michael Walker, executive director of the Vancouver based Fraser Institute, a Conservative think tank, said: "Canada has nothing to lose from increased trade in water".
He told MPs that Canada has such a competitive advantage over the U.S. and Mexico where water is concerned that it could become a valuable export. "We have a superabundance of water", Walker said, "Perhaps it makes sense to export it to California and import their fruit and vegetables". Is that not something? Send our water down there so we can import their fruit and vegetables. It is ridiculous for Walker to suggest we should export water and import food.
That water is the life blood of Canada's agricultural sector. We urge members of Parliament to recommend Ottawa take three specific steps to ensure Canada retains sovereignty over its water supply.
Supply
That is the essence of what this agreement is all about. The people in my area of southeastern British Columbia know what is behind the free trade agreement with the Americans and the Mexicans and that is our water. We will not allow that to take place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Five minute questions or comments period, the hon. member for Lon-gueuil.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, we have a trade deficit with the world. In particular, Quebec has a trade deficit of around $4.7 billion a year. That is why the Government of Quebec is for free trade with the United States and Mexico. That is also why the official opposition in Quebec agrees with it. That is also why just a few weeks ago the Government of Quebec sent delegates at its expense to Quebec companies, asking them to do business with Mexico.
That proves we in Quebec have confidence in our skills and entrepreneurial and leadership abilities. We are not afraid to face North American competition, because we have enough talent and ability. We have enough natural resources and industries that can produce good products at good prices for the North American market.
That is why we in Quebec are for this agreement, even though we find it weak on the environment and respect for human rights in Mexico. But with time, I think the Mexicans will manage to improve their standard of living and quality of life. They must be given the time it takes and I think there is good will in that regard.
The main difficulties facing us in Quebec and in Canada with the Free Trade Agreement signed in 1988 are because once it was signed we let the dollar rise artificially or deliberately. The dollar was worth 78 cents U.S. when the agreement was signed. We let it rise to 89 cents at the same time as we let interest rates rise. That is why we have trouble exporting to the United States, not for the reasons mentioned by the NDP. The high dollar and high interest rates hurt the exports of our small and medium-sized businesses to the United States.
So I warn the NDP not to systematically block trade with the United States and Mexico, because it is our livelihood especially in Quebec.

December 1, 1992
Supply


Sidney James Parker: I sympathize with the member from Quebec, but the fact remains the free trade that was imposed on us by this government was created because Quebec supported this government to the extent it did. The rest of the country is bearing the brunt of that support. We have seen the results of this government. Some of the Quebec members even had to leave that government because they could not participate there.
If we are dealing with the deficit as he has said, let us deal with the deficit. Let us get rid of that one billion dollars in entertainment tax large corporations are able to write off across Canada. Let us start addressing those kinds of deficiencies. Let us not give away our country, our resources, our programs and our social programs to another sovereign nation because we are trying to deal with our deficit. Let us deal with our deficit in a sound and economic way. Let us deal with some of those improprieties that are taking place. Let us not have the large corporations tell us we must go into a free trade agreement with these other countries because they have created the problems we have at this very time.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today and, as my colleagues say, to provide some straight goods. I noticed occasionally here this afternoon, as I have been trying to follow the debate, the goods have been anything but straight.
I believe the free trade agreement is good for Canada and the North American free trade agreement will be even better for Canada. The agreement opens up a market Canada needs. It builds on the foundation we created with the free trade agreement with the United States and continues to ensure that Canada is a good place in which to invest.
Today I would like to address a number of those themes:
First, the benefits arising from the free trade agreement with the United States; second, the NAFTA negotiation process, the outcomes and what we accomplished; and, third, the anticipated benefits arising from the North American free trade agreement.
There is no doubt the free trade agreement with the United States has been beneficial to the Canadian economy. We have out-performed the United States in the bilateral trading relationship. We have gained an increased share of North American investments and North American shipments. More importantly, Canada's share of North American employment has held constant despite all the rhetoric you have heard in this Flouse today.
Many traditional Canadian industries have made inroads into the United States market as tariffs have fallen according to the negotiated schedule.
In my part of the country, Waterloo Furniture Components for example provides an impressive display of what can be done under the free trade agreement. That company now exports 50 per cent of its production to the United States and is now exporting to over 22 countries world-wide. Exports are the reason the company has grown from a metal stamping shop employing four people in 1953 to the world's largest manufacturer of computer keyboard products.
Another great success story of a traditional industry is the Ganong Brothers of St. Stephen, New Brunswick. As you know, they have been manufacturing chocolates now for something like 118 years. When the FTA was signed, the company president, David Ganong, made a commitment to restructuring the operation to meet the challenges of not only the United States marketplace but a global marketplace. In 1990 they experienced outstanding growth in export sales of 180 per cent to the United States as well as some of the other countries they have entered.
All high value Canadian industries, except printing and publishing, have made major gains in the United States' market. Every single sector except those two have made major gains in the United States' market.
Consider the case of the Cambridge division of Babcock & Wilcox in Canada. That company recently won contracts valued at over $250 million to design and produce advanced steam generators for the United States Energy Utilities. This project ensures the continuation of many jobs and adds even more to the manufacturing base in Ontario. That improved climate of the
December 1, 1992

Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was what allowed Babcock & Wilcox to move in and obtain this very large contract.
While we have traditionally run a trade deficit with the United States in advance technology products, the situation has improved markedly since the free trade agreement came into being. In particular, and I will give you some of the specifics, exports of computers, telecommunications equipment and electronics equipment grew by almost 21 per cent per year between 1988 and 1991 to reach a level of $9.4 billion this year. We experienced a 90 per cent reduction in the trade deficit for those products since the FTA came into being.
I have no doubt one of Canada's best kept secrets is that our exports have set an all-time record again this year. Is it for real? Will it last? The answer to both questions is yes, it is for real and yes, it will last because of the base we have created.
Over the last six months we have seen commitments by General Motors (Oshawa) and Chrysler at Bramalea to extend or expand production in Canada. Our export success is rooted in the elimination of tariffs and the ability of Canadian companies to be competitive. That is what this government has been trying to do and that is exactly what we are doing.
One of my favourite success stories is Linamar Machine Limited of Guelph, which was the 1991 winner of the Canada Awards for Business Excellence. It provides specialized vehicle builders and component suppliers with high precision machining. The company attributes a large measure of its success to its total quality concept. A tuition improvement program allows employees to advance in employee training over a wide range of options, including such courses as statistical process control.
It likes the FTA. It is prepared to compete anywhere in the world and is doing so very successfully. I could stand up here for the rest of this afternoon and give you company after company after company that are doing tremendous jobs as a result of the FTA. They are increasing exports and leading us out of this recession, export driven for a change.
Let me move to the NAFTA. That process began over two years ago. We had to make a decision. Is it in our best interests to participate in this discussion or not? Clearly the FTA has given us a preferred position with
Supply
respect to the United States. Some would argue, and we have heard all afternoon, we should have stayed out of the NAFTA discussions. The question for Canada was simple. Did we want a fragmented North American market or did we want one with the U.S. being the focus of two separate bilateral agreements? No.
From any kind of perspective, investment, technology or whatever, the answer is clearly no. Those who say yes have no faith in Canada or the Canadian ability to compete. We do. We believe Canadians can compete anywhere in the world and wink. That is why we said we will enter these talks gladly.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


William C. Winegard: We want to ship into the Mexican market.
Mexican exports to Canada already enter Canada either duty free or with a minimal tariff. In contrast, our exports to Mexico have tariffs of 10 per cent and 15 per cent. In some cases it has decrees against us and we cannot ship there no matter what we do.
I know I have heard the argument Mexican wages are low. So are their production capabilities in most areas. It has always surprised me when the opposition says "oh you should not have entered into an agreement with the United States because they are so big and powerful that they will run over us poor Canadians."
The same people who said that are saying we should not enter into an agreement with the Mexicans because they are so poor they will run over all these Canadians.
The North American market will link 360 million people in one free trade zone with a gross domestic product of over $7 trillion. That is the kind of market that I believe Canadians want and Canadians can compete in.
We know the negotiating process was long and difficult with two years of hard bargaining, but our positions were always reasonable. We knew exactly what we wanted when we went into the negotiations and we got what we wanted. We used the free trade agreement with the United States as the source, the base, and we made changes when necessary if we felt they were to our advantage.

December 1, 1992
Supply
People ask what Canada has accomplished. I say quite a bit. The agreement goes right to the heart of our nation as a trading nation. It provides access, competitive challenges and a fair set of trading rules. We wanted better access to the Mexican market. We got it. We focused on strengthening in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We did that as well. We wanted to guarantee our location as a place for investment in North America generally and we did that as well. We believe the North American free trade agreement will help Canadian companies take advantage of Mexico's very explosive economic growth.
Let us look at the specifics of the agreement. Let us begin with tariffs. Canada and Mexico have agreed to virtually phase out all tariffs within 10 years; eliminate the tariffs as quickly as possible subject to the various domestic problems we know exist when some kind of trade agreement is signed.
In no case did Canada agree to early phase-outs which would impact negatively on Canadian interests. We gained early access to Mexico for a host of things, including many of the things of direct interest to the people in this Chamber such as fish products, some grains, metals and minerals, fertilizer, sulphur, telecommunications equipment, machinery, medical equipment and I could go on.
The rules of origin which have always been a difficult part of the free trade agreement have been revamped to make their application more transparent and more predictable.
There have been major disagreements over the administration of the FTA rules with respect to rules of origin. The automotive sector has been the most visible one of these and we are beginning to see problems in the telecommunications industry, computers, industrial machinery and office equipment.
With the new rules of origin of NAFTA, clearly defining what is and what is not counted as value-added content, we will have a formula that everyone agrees upon, clear in terms of its interpretation and no more Honda type disputes.
Under the FTA duty drawback programs were to be terminated by 1996. To assist Canadian exporters, these are being extended for another two years. Furthermore,
a modified drawback program continues for goods still subject to U.S. or Mexican tariffs. This protects our exporters from what I call double taxation.
The safeguard mechanism of the FTA is maintained. That protects producers from sudden harmful import surges. That is still in place in this agreement. We made a very special effort to provide Canadian manufacturers with protection from a sudden influx of Mexican Maquiladora goods because this is what the industry said it wanted. This is what we have produced.
The proposed agreement also provides for the elimination of Mexican import licences that have hurt our ability to trade with Mexico for years and years and been a constant source of irritation. Those are being eliminated. The agreement also contains a very detailed provision on customs administration. This will help us not only in Mexico, but will ensure a degree of consistency in the treatment of Canadian goods entering the United States.
NAFTA also provides major improvements in the government procurement sections. NAFTA opens up a very substantial portion of the Mexican government procurement to an open bidding process. The proposed agreement covers a number of U.S. government service and construction contracts not previously covered under the FTA.
For example, the U.S. Corps of Engineers is included as is the U.S. Rural Electrification Program. Each of these provides new opportunities for Canadian manufacturers. NAFTA also provides special provision for a number of specific sectors.
In agriculture the agreement enables Canada to maintain our supply management regimes and provides us with easy access to the Mexican agricultural market. As we know, the market in Mexico for our exported food products is growing very rapidly; pork, apples, potatoes. Import restrictions on wheat, barley and potatoes are replaced with very low tariffs.
The agreement opens the highly protected Mexican energy sector. Most petrochemical trade restrictions are eliminated. Also important is the fact that energy is protected from interference by regulators: That is of particular concern, as this House knows, to the Canadian
December 1, 1992

natural gas exporters. They have been plagued by that problem for many months.
Changes in the automotive rules of origin, let me repeat, provide a higher North American content rule than we had previously. We believe that helps Canadian part manufacturers in terms of allowing them to have more chance at that big North American market. We also believe, as I said earlier, that it will help resolve some of the current difficulties between Canada and the United States over the content rules.
Let me turn in the final moments of this discussion to services. Many people forget that services now make up over 60 per cent of our GDP and almost 20 per cent of international trade. The FTA was the first trade agreement that included special provisions for services. The temporary entry provisions contained in the FTA have been now extended to Mexico.
These provisions provide right of access to business travellers and professions. They do not undermine in any way, as we kept saying during the FTA debate, our traditional immigration procedures.
On service contracts, the service provisions provide an important liberalization in the financial sector, the telecommunications sector and in part the transportation sector. We tend to forget how good Canadians are at providing these services, whether they are financial, telecommunications, consulting engineering or many other of the professions. We do a very good job.
This should help us gain access for those people which is exactly what we want.
In conclusion, let me state again that our objectives for the NAFTA negotiations were to secure better access to Mexico, to safeguard and improve the gains made in the FTA and guarantee Canada's position as an attractive investment location in North America. We have gained all of those objectives. It is clear to me that Canada wanted the FTA. It is good for Canada to have NAFTA and it is going to build on the success of one to make a success of the other.
We, unlike the opposition, believe in Canadians.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I am most interested in the speech on the North American free trade agreement.
Supply
More so, I am interested in putting a fairly broad international trade question to the minister of science. Over the last couple of weeks we have been severely impacted by the advertising by foreign financed animal rights activist groups unfairly targeting the seal industry, which has a very negative impact on Canadian citizens, particularly the Inuit citizens of this country who have suffered under the impact of this particular advertising campaign.
I know that the minister would be particularly interested because a lot of what happens with the trapping industry has to do with science and research technology.
There is a deadline that the trappers of this country face that has been imposed internationally to meet humane standards. I want to know why the government is using a go it alone policy. External Affairs made a very meagre attempt to deal with these multi-million dollar ad campaigns which are being masterminded, by the way, in London, England by the animal rights activists. Its ad campaign is $20 million. None of that money will reach the people it will severely impact on. It will not reach the Newfoundlanders who have been put down by this attempt. It will not reach the Inuit who have been severely impacted, who experience in many cases high unemployment; both groups do.
I would like to know what the government is going to do in light of the fact that there is no indication of any funding for Indigenous Survival International, the sole voice for the fur industry in this country that goes abroad internationally. Why is it that these animal rights activists have been successful in their countries in getting representatives to numerous trade commissions that have direct impact on trade policy? We allow these groups to rip the guts out of any kind of sustainable activities that these two groups undertake to survive and to struggle to survive in a very weak economy. What is this government going to do to combat this?
I would like to see the minister respond because he has a direct responsibility. Are we going to counter-attack by using an ad campaign that is as effective, that will put down these people who have precious little regard for the aboriginal people of this country, for this country and our government, and for the people of Newfoundland? I would like to know what this House and this government are prepared to do in terms of international trade to combat these people who are totally insensitive to the human species and who have put before us a question

December 1, 1992
Supply
that would make us appear to be totally insensitive to the animals. We will not pick and choose.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will find there is considerable sympathy for her position on this side of the House. She knows that. We believe that many of these ad campaigns have gone way too far. We are making representations and, although it is clearly outside of my personal jurisdiction as a minister, I will unquestionably take her representations to the two ministers most involved as soon as this debate is over and before the vote.
I thank her very much for the interjection.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Minister for Science when he was speaking on this question of the NAFTA. He made some comments on the free trade agreement and he sang the praises very loudly of the benefits of the free trade agreement thus far.
I apologize to the minister if it is harmful to his ears but the fact remains that we still have 1,700,000 people, approximately, unemployed in Canada. The minister claims that the free trade agreement has done so many wonderful things and has created so many opportunities and so many jobs. I wonder when he will admit that there are some deficiencies causing 1,700,000 to be unemployed in Canada.
He talks about training opportunities for workers that should have been there all along. We should not need a free trade agreement to create training opportunities. This government failed when it did not ensure that employers should have or will have opportunities in place to upgrade the skills of their workers and to keep up with technological change while the people are employed. The government failed to do that.
This is not going to be rectified with free trade of any kind, either North American free trade or Canada-U.S. free trade. There are no guarantees that I have heard from this minister as a result of these negotiations that Canadian jobs will be protected as a result of any content regulations.
I have heard no guarantees from this minister in his speech with regard to Canadian manufacturers having some form of legislation to ensure that they remain in Canada, so they do not remove themselves and go to the Maquiladora and manufacture goods to try to sell back to
unemployed Canadians. In essence, that is what is going to happen.
I would like the Minister for Science to make a further declaration in regard to what he has already said. I would like to ask him one final thing. Where in the North American free trade agreement is there any kind of language that would ensure we have proper opportunities for research and development in the areas needed in this country because we are in fact a resource based economy?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, I will try my best to respond to the many questions that were asked. First of all, with respect to the number of unemployed, no one in this country is pleased to see 1.5 million Canadians unemployed.
The implication from the question however is that this is a result of the free trade agreement, which I deny. This is a world-wide recession. In fact, we have many studies by independent organizations which indicate that the recession would have been significantly worse had it not been for the free trade agreement that is now in effect.
The Institute for Policy Analysis of the University of Toronto just released a study last week which said precisely that. The C.D. Howe Institute study says precisely that. There are many studies that say this has been good for Canada.
With respect to labour, wages and the guarantees, let me take the guarantees first. My colleague does not want free trade. He wants managed trade. That has always been his party's position. It takes that position because it does not trust or feel confident about Canadians. It always wants to make sure that Canadians are protected somehow because we are not good enough to compete in the world market.
I have never believed that. I do not believe it now. I am certainly not going to believe it when I see the success stories that we have of company after company making it in world-wide competition. We do not want to move backward as the Neanderthal parties would have us do. We are going to go ahead.
With respect to NAFTA and the labour component, we know that wages are one factor. As I have said previously, they are only one factor in terms of what makes a company competitive. Manufacturing ability and the technology they use, the administrative ability, the management ability, all of those things become very significant. Surely, even the NDP might agree that
December 1. 1992

Canadians are better at those things than the Mexicans. Therefore we continue to have an advantage.
In terms of adjustment, we know very well that there have to be training programs in place, not because of NAFTA or the FTA. It is simply because we are going to have industries go up and down over a period of time. We have to be able to give those people some hope and some training so they can participate fully in the job market as they wish to do.
That has always been the policy of this government. We will do our best to continue to live up to those kinds of things because we want Canadians to be out working. We do not want to put them behind the wagons drawn around in a circle like my colleagues over there would have us do.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in the debate this afternoon because many of the things which the previous speakers said are a little confusing for those interested in this debate.
The New Democratic Party's motion reads as follows: That this House reject any North American free trade agreement.

In other words, the motion that the NDP has put forward today and upon which this debate is sought to be framed is one which does not seek to go to the merits or problems of the North American free trade agreement which was negotiated and initialled in August 1992 by Canada, the United States and Mexico.
The motion does not seek to go to improvements which could or ought to be sought by the Canadian government or changes which ought to be resisted by the Canadian government in the face of argument put forward by the other parties to the agreement.
Instead, the motion is framed and set forth as a clearly protectionist resolution which I believe represents the point of view of the New Democratic Party that free trade agreements should not be entered into by the
Supply
Government of Canada under any circumstances. That is the way it has framed the debate.
People watching should also understand that we have amended the motion in order to try to frame it somewhat differently by saying that the rejection of the North American free trade agreement should occur if the agreement fails to promote Canadian workers and jobs and fails to safeguard the environment.
We are trying to focus the attention of Canadians on the essential issues that need to be dealt with by Canada, its government and its people in moving forward in this world economy, dealing with the powerful economic influence of the United States as it emerges on this continent.
I suppose all of us who were engaged in the great free trade debate of 1988 and the election campaign are always eager to resume that battle. I suppose it is not surprising in light of its position in recent polls that the NDP tries to use a debate such as this one in order, not so much to attack the government as to try to attack the Liberals because it hopes it can somehow resurrect its standing by taking support away from us.
It is important that Canadians understand that the issues at stake in developing the Canadian economy to confront the problems that are besetting us cannot be trivially dealt with in the polarized context of a debate over the free trade agreement or NAFTA simply of themselves.
In the 1988 election campaign we sought to persuade Canadians that a move in the direction of a free trade agreement with the United States was a move toward a continental strategy and there were other and better strategies available for Canada to follow.
That was the essence of our argument in 1988. Canada would not exist as a separate country in the northern half of the North American continent if a continental policy had been pursued by Canadian governments going back 125 years. In fact much of Canadian policy over that time, regardless of who was in power in the federal government sought to resist the strong magnetic pull of the United States and to build an independent Canadian policy that preserved our identity and our differences as a nation.

December 1, 1992
Supply
We always had a foot somewhere other than the continent. For many years it was our ties to Britain and the Commonwealth that gave us an outlook which differed from that of the United States. As the importance of that bond has faded over the years, the pole of the United States has become increasingly strong. Our ability to forge a policy of independence in economic terms in the world, and perhaps also in political terms, has become greater and greater.
What is needed from government then? What is needed is a counterweight strategy. It is a strategy that enables the Canadian economy to continue to grow but to resist that powerful pole from the south that seems to influence day after day more and more of our decisions.
The choice to simply follow a continental strategy that was taken by the Conservative government in 1988, is a choice that shuts down our other alternatives.
In raising this issue now in the context of the North American free trade agreement, we are right to continue to ask where the strategy for the counterweight is. Where do we find opportunities for Canada to pursue an independence in economic and political terms that will enable us to resist being sucked into the vortex of the U.S. policy? That is not in the interests of the United States.
A strongly independent Canada that may go its own way is not in the interests of the United States. We know what the U.S. strategy is and the U.S. strategy makes a good deal of sense for the United States. The U.S. strategy is to build an American trading bloc which may comprise both North America and South America to enable the U.S. to be the strongest element in a trading bloc which in itself resists the powerful influences of Asia on the one hand and Europe on the other. That is the U.S. strategy.
It is a simple, effective strategy. It is one that works well for the U.S. It is one that will work well for Japan which will be the base point of the Asian trading bloc. It is one that would work well for Germany and for France if they could combine their interests as the strongest components of the European part of that bloc.
It is not in Canada's interest because Canada as part of this American bloc is simply too weak a partner to have the role we could play as part of a broadly based
multinational trading system such as we have pursued as part of our policy for generations since the war.
That is where Canada can play the greatest role. That is where Canada's interest is and the interest that Canada shares with many other small trading nations in Europe and in Asia as well as in America. Canada's interests are best protected in a multilateral system.
I want to say a few things about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and why we need to look critically at what the government is doing. As I said earlier, our opposition to it fundamentally focused on what one might call non-trade issues in the 1988 election campaign, on sovereignty issues. However there were trade issues involved in it as well.
Fundamentally, the trade issue that was raised at that time was if the objective of the free trade agreement was to guarantee Canadian firms secure access to the U.S. market, the free trade agreement failed to do so because it failed to give Canada exemption from U.S. trade laws.
The gain we made under the free trade agreement was the power of a bilateral panel to arbitrate disputes that arose under the trade laws of the two countries. Canada has had some significant success in arbitrating cases before those panels. The decisions have favoured Canada, in many important cases. However we did not get exemption from the U.S. protectionist trade laws.
What do we gain, if anything, out of NAFTA? We have to look very critically at what the government has failed to do in this negotiation. First of all, let me say that we supported Canada engaging in the discussion. It was important that Canada's interests be protected and that Canadian negotiators sit at the table in order to do whatever was necessary and possible to preserve Canada's interests.
We should also be aware of the risks Canada faced in the event that the U.S. concluded a free trade agreement with Mexico to the exclusion of Canada. That would create a problem for Canada in attracting investment to this country to enable Canadian producers of goods and services to compete in that new zone from which we were excluded. So there were very important reasons for Canada to be at that table.
December 1, 1992

At the same time, however, we had to follow a strategy that opened up other opportunities for Canadians to compete in what is becoming an increasingly global economy. Canadians should and must understand the degree to which Canadian prosperity is dependent on trade. Canada may be a small player in world trade terms. It represents something less than about 3 per cent of world trade, but Canada's output from the private sector is close to half dependent on export trade. One in five Canadian jobs is directly dependent on exports. Another way of expressing that is that every billion dollars of exports from Canada translates into about
15,000	Canadian jobs.
We cannot afford to close our eyes to the importance of Canada's role in international trade. Nor can we afford to be ignorant of the problems that have been emerging over recent years in succeeding in that all-important trading environment. Our merchandise trade surplus fell from $19.8 billion in 1984 to $11 billion in 1991. Our current account balance has gone from a $2 billion surplus in 1984 to a deficit of $27 billion in 1991. In 1979 we had a 5 per cent share of world trade. As I have already said, it has dropped to about 3 per cent.
The signs are not encouraging for a country whose prosperity is so dependent on trade. We have to ask what is going wrong and what strategies we intend to employ to address the problems. Some of the problems are evident and relate to our ability to compete in an economy and a world which is becoming increasingly ignorant of borders and increasingly sensitive to the ability to produce goods and services inexpensively and quickly and to meet the needs of customers. In other words, innovation, research and development, skilled people and training programs have become the hallmarks of good trading countries. Canada cannot afford to fail in those areas. Instead we seem again to be focusing, if the NDP have its way, on a debate not about the crucial, basic problems in the Canadian economy, not about the problems that are evidenced by a 30 per cent high school dropout rate and approximately 35 per cent enumeracy rate among our young people, high problems of illiteracy. We are not focusing on issues of declining productivity of our work force. No, we are debating too often arcane principles of international trade law which
Supply
are no more the source of our problems than many of the other things we seem to talk about indefinitely at great length in this place.
We need to take the time to focus on what is at the core of our problems in the Canadian economy because we are going to be losing the race for markets and jobs that are crucial not only to our continuing prosperity, but in the final analysis to our future as a nation.
The free trade agreement was never a strategy to deal with any of those things. The free trade agreement was an accession to the U.S. strategy of continentalism. Why has it not created the prosperity which was promised by the government? There are a variety of reasons and there are mixtures of reasons. No one can claim that all of the job loss was due to the free trade agreement, nor can it be fairly said, as the Minister for Science tried to say few minutes ago, that job losses were only caused by the recession. The problems are intertwined.
Understand this, Mr. Speaker, that when the free trade agreement was negotiated with the United States in 1987 the Canadian dollar traded at 76 cents U.S. About a year ago in November 1991 the Canadian dollar hit 89 cents U.S., a very significant revaluation of our currency.
How on earth can one expect to implement a free trade arrangement without having concern for the relative value of the currency? How can business carry on as though currency had nothing to do with an important trading relationship such as that?
Much of the recessionary impact was felt in Canada earlier than the United States. That is not typical for recessionary periods in North America. Usually the U.S. enters recessions first. Why? Partly because we pursued a monetary policy that resulted in very high real and nominal interest rates and accelerated the decline of the Canadian economy into the recession.
We hit first. We had a high dollar which made it difficult for us to sell into the U.S. market. When the recession hit the U.S. as well and the trade barriers had gone, what happened? Instead of having a growing market on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border we had a shrinking market for domestic goods and services. As a result branch plants in Canada closed and supplies for

December 1, 1992
Supply
the entire North American market could easily be accomplished from the U.S. plants.
Why has the Canadian manufacturing sector lost somewhere, depending on whose estimate we accept, between 200,000 and 350,000 jobs over the course of the last three to three and a half years.
One of the reasons is that the recession combined with the free trade agreement has made it quite easy for production in the U.S. to satisfy the needs of the Canadian market as well as the U.S. market.
These are problems for which there was no strategy to deal with and they have exacerbated the problems of the recession in Canada.
Where do we go from here? We have been given an opportunity by the election of a president in the United States who talks about not passing the law implementing the North American free trade agreement until other aspects are negotiated. Governor Clinton said on October 4 and I quote: "As president I will seek to address the deficiency of the North American free trade agreement through supplemental agreements with the Canadian and Mexican governments. I will not sign the legislation implementing the North American free trade agreement until we have reached additional agreements to protect the environment and labour standards".
The completion of these supplementary agreements provides us with an opportunity and I hope that the government pursues it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Ottawa South. I think what he had to say illustrates the value of moving a motion like this today because this motion is directed primarily at the Liberal Party. We make no secret of that.
We would like it to become clearer to Canadians just where the Liberal Party does or does not stand with respect to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or the North American free trade agreement. I listened for 20 minutes to the member for Ottawa South and he never said what the Liberals would do with respect to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
He was very critical of the agreement. He said it was a concession to continentalism. He noted all the things it
had done to Canada, he did not say that the Liberals would move to abrogate that agreement or not agree to progressing with the North American free trade agreement.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say these things are as bad as the hon. member has just said they are and at the same time be unwilling to take the position with respect to the Canada-U.S. FTA that these are things we either need to get out of or not get into with respect to NAFTA.
What is the position of the Liberal Party? What is its strategy for counterweights, as you mentioned? It is not enough to just get up and tell us what is wrong with these agreements. We need to have the political will in this country to get out of these agreements. The fact is the recession you mentioned, the world-wide recession, is a result of 10 years of the same philosophy that is enshrined in these agreements; the neo-Conservative free market laissez-faire agenda.
That has created the problem we are in. Why on earth does the hon. member not face up to that and change the position of his party and say it will abrogate these agreements and not enter into the NAFTA?


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member had so much trouble understaBBnding what I was saying. Unfortunately the world is not as simple as NDP members would like it to be. They would like it if we could simply say, let us abrogate this, let us tear up that, let us close this off and then everything will go back to where it was before. There are many powers that governments have. One of them is not the power to turn back the clock.
What we have in the context of both the free trade agreement and NAFTA is essentially a problem of how we manage our relationship with the United States. I think even the NDP would agree that the trading relationship Canada has with the United States, being the largest two-way trade relationship of any two countries in the GATT is of vital importance to our country, to our economy. _________________________
Therefore, managing that relationship probably becomes the most important issue we have to deal with in terms of international politics and international trade. What strategy do you take to the management of that relationship?
December 1, 1992

You can on the one hand, as I suggest the government has done, simply pander to the United States. You can go fishing with the president every chance you get. You can do pretty much whatever they want.
Or you can take the approach the NDP members suggest which is essentially to be very confrontational. Instead of trying to deal with the relationship, be very aggressive and say we are going to tear up our agreement with you. We do not care who has invested based upon it. We do not care what the rules are. We do not care what is happening. We do not care what the status of the trade disputes that are currently before arbitration is going to be. We will simply abrogate the trade agreement. That is an option. I agree it is a clear option. There is no doubt about where they stand. If clarity is what you want, then clarity is what you will get from them. It is a discredited policy but nevertheless, there it is.
What we are saying essentially is far more complicated. It is more difficult to explain, but our relationship with the United States is a very complex one. Managing it is a very important issue. I think Canadians can understand the fact that over the course of time we must reclaim bit by bit the sovereignty that was lost in 1988 and assert policies-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
The first question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Members
nil
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next vote is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Allmand
Andre
Assad
Attewell
Beatty
Berger
Bevilacqua
Blackburn (Jonquiere)
Blenkarn
Bosley
Boudria
Brightwell
Caccia
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick
Chartrand
Clancy
Cole
Comuzzi
Corbeil
Couture
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Danis
Della Noce
Dingwall
Dobbie
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Ferland
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gibeau
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Guilbault
Halliday
Harvard
Hawkes
Hogue
Hopkins
James
Johnson
Jourdenais
Anderson
Arseneault
Atkinson
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belsher
Bertrand
Bjornson
Blais
Blondin-Andrew Bouchard (Roberval)
Boyer
Browes
Cadieux
Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)
Chretien
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Collins
Cooper
Cote
Crawford
Crosby (Halifax West)
Darling
Desjardins
Dionne
Domm
Duplessis
Epp
Ferguson
Finestone
Fontaine
Gaffney
Gauthier
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de- la-Madeleine)
Greene

Guamieri
Gustafson
Harb
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hicks
Holtmann
Hughes
Jelinek
Joncas
Kaplan
December 1, 1992

Karygiannis
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) Larrivee
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming)
MacLaren
Manley
Marin
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Mayer
McCreath
McGuire
Milliken
Monteith
Nicholson
Oberle
Parent
Porter
Prud'homme
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Soetens
Stevenson
Tardif
Thompson
Turner (Halton -Peel)
Vezina
Vincent
Wappel
Wenman
Wilbee
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Wood
Kempling
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Langlois
Layton
Lee
Loiselle
MacAulay
MacKay
Maheu
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski
McDermid
McKnight
Mills
Moore
Nunziata
O'Kurley
Peterson
Proud
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Rompkey
Saint-Julien
Shields
Sparrow
Stewart
Thacker
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vien
Walker
Weiner
White
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Winegard
Young (Acadie-Bathurst) -168



[Stage Direction]
Members
Business of the House
entitled "an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992" at the second reading stage;
2.	That, during such debate, the first speaker shall have unlimited time and the second and third speaker shall have equal time as the first speaker.
3.	That, on Wednesday, December 2,1992, the hour provided for Private Members' Business shall be from 10.00 to 11.00 p.m.
4.	That, on Wednesday, December 2 and Thursday, December 3, 1992, the House shall continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, but not later than 12.00 midnight, provided that no dilatory motion or quorum calls shall be deemed receivable during the extended hours of sitting;
5.	That, on Thursday, December 3, 1992, the Adjournment Proceedings be held at 6.00 p.m., at the end of which the motion to adjourn the House shall be deemed withdrawn.
6.	That, no later than 12.00 midnight, on Thursday, December 3, 1992, all questions necessary to dispose of the bill at the second reading stage shall be deemed to have been put forthwith without further debate or amendment, and a recorded division shall be deemed to have been requested and shall be deemed to stand deferred until Monday, December 7, 1992, at 6.00 p.m.
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations with opposition parties with regard to the content of the motion as read by the parliamentary secretary and I am prepared to give the consent of the Official Opposition.
nil


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I know that our House leaders agreed to the motion. However, I am sure the government would allow more than just one hour of debate on my private members' motion tomorrow night on a limit on third-party advertising during elections.
Perhaps you would like to amend the motion to allow three or four hours debate on this important issue.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House:
1. On Wednesday, December 2, 1992, the House shall, when Government Orders are called, proceed to the consideration of a bill


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I negotiated with the government House leader so that our party's leader could speak after the NDP representative in reply to the speech by the Minister of Finance tomorrow. It would seem that the Liberals do not agree. I would really like the Liberals to agree to this before I give my consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House is not the place to negotiate in public. I must put the question.

December 1, 1992

Private Members' Business

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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: moved
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should remove
the $100 excise tax on CFC-free air conditioners.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion gives the House an opportunity to debate what I think is an important issue and that is to the extent to which the tax system in this country should be used to promote certain goals.
We have often used the tax system in this country to promote certain social and economic goals. What I want to maintain by way of this motion and the arguments I make in supporting it is that we should now consider the tax system to promote certain environmental goals.
We have some history of this in the sense there was a time, for instance, with respect to leaded and unleaded fuel, when the tax system was not neutral. We argued in the House many years-I see the hon. member for Toronto Davenport here-that there should be no price differential between the two because we did not want leaded gasoline to be cheaper than unleaded gasoline. We were eventually able to achieve that and of course leaded gasoline is no longer an issue.
I am not suggesting that we eliminate disparities which might favour the more environmentally harmful product, but that we actually consciously try to use the tax system to discourage the use of the more environmentally
harmful products and to encourage the use of environmentally friendly products.
This has been called a number of things but it has generally been referred to in the eco-venacular as green taxes or the green tax movement. For instance, you could imagine a number of things from removing sales taxes on things that do not produce greenhouse gases to encourage people to use canoes and bicycles and other things that are non-polluting over things like the internal combustion engines which produce hydrocarbons which then go into the atmosphere.
What I am talking about in this particular bill is removing the $100 excise tax on CFC-free air conditioners. There is a growing consensus world-wide that many of the things we talk about in this House will become very irrelevant, at least very trivialized, if we do not address the larger, planetary environmental problems of ozone depletion. All the parliamentary and extra parliamentary talk about recession and free trade agreements, budgets and deficits and everything else will become dangerously relativized.
We must do something about a situation which seems to portend that at some point we may be dealing with a situation that could threaten life itself on planet earth. At the very least, it could threaten it with a transformation that would so change our way of living that it would not be comparable to what we now know as organized human life on the planet were it to reach a point where crops were no longer able to be produced in the way they are now or where people had to stay indoors all the time or whatever the case may be.
I think that this is just one small opportunity we have in the House-we do not have very many of them-to address the issue of ozone depletion. The bill not only provides us with that opportunity, but also with the opportunity to address some of the practical ways in which we can actually address the issue.
I go back to a time when I was just finishing my stint of three years as the NDP environment critic and it was just before the conference in Montreal on ozone when the so-called Montreal Protocol was developed in September of 1987.
I did not get to attend that conference because there was a change of responsibilities and the then member
December 1, 1992

for Broadview-Greenwood went in my stead because she became the new NDP environment critic. I took over as the external affairs critic.
At that point the world first turned its collective attention to the question of ozone depletion and developed what has come to be called the Montreal Protocol. There were people at that time who said the Montreal Protocol did not go far enough and unfortunately those people were proved right by subsequent scientific research and discovery such that a new protocol, if I understand it correctly, or improved global regulations were required to be reached just in the last few weeks.
There is some debate about the role Canada played at that conference and whether we took a strong enough position. Maybe there are some here who know more about that than I do who might be willing to comment.
Some international protocols are reached for the elimination of ozone depleting substances, the capturing of existing ozone depleting substances and their storage in the way that they are not released into the atmosphere and the production of new technologies and new products which replace the kinds of things that formerly were CFC producing like refrigerators and air conditioners, et cetera.
I am told there is a new refrigerator on the market. I think it has been developed in Germany and does not depend on CFCs. In spite of all these things we need to use the tax system as I have suggested here to encourage the development of certain habits and the use of certain products. We also need to develop a personal ethic in this country about the use of these substances.
We are all still too blase about our own personal responsibility when it comes to the environment. We can have protocols, laws and taxes, all of which are designed to produce a certain result. In the end, individual Canadians are going to have to start to make the right personal choices every time they are confronted with whether to use air conditioning, for instance, if they know that air conditioner depends on CFCs.
I have wrestled with this myself. I have a car which has an air conditioner in it.
Private Members' Business
The freon gas escapes into the atmosphere but now I am faced with what I think is a genuine decision. Do I replace the gas in that air conditioner, knowing full well because it has escaped before that it will probably escape again and therefore make a personal contribution to what I know is an accumulating and serious environmental problem? All of us confront those kinds of decisions, not every day, but certainly frequently in the course of our everyday lives.
Although CFCs have largely been removed from aerosol sprays, it is an example that existed at one time.
It may not be relevant now but I can remember as a young student preaching a sermon at Windsor Park United Church in Winnipeg. It was about 1976. I was concerned about ozone then. I remember suggesting to the congregation that perhaps we should have a Sunday when everyone brought in their aerosol sprays and we would dump them at the front of the church and renounce their use because they were contributing to the CFCs which are now in the atmosphere eating up the ozone layer.
Needless to say in 1976 this was not an idea that was well received. This was seen as the sort of, to put it bluntly, lunatic ravings of some university educated idealist who did not understand the practical realities of the world.
The practical reality of the world in 1992 is that the ozone layer is depleting because the so-called idealists of 1976, 1978, 1979, 1982 and 1983 were not listened to in time. There was always some commercial or business priority, some commercial or business practicality that had to be heeded. It may well be too late when it comes to the ozone layer, although let us all hope not.
I can remember when we first mentioned the ozone layer in this House back in the early 1980s. The member for Regina-Qu'Appelle was the first member here to raise the whole question of greenhouse gasses and the greenhouse effect. People thought he was talking about growing tomatoes, I think.
When we raised the issue of the ozone layer even back during the time of the Liberal government there was no willingness to hear about the significance of these problems at an early time. We always seem to wait until the last minute and we cannot afford to wait until the last minute when we are playing with the life of the planet, when we are literally playing with creation, to put it theologically.

December 1, 1992
Private Members' Business
We are playing God when we put our own economic self-interest or even our own convenience ahead of what we now know is the well-being of the planet.
It truly is a moral and ethical question of the utmost severity and yet it does not seem to be treated that way. Maybe it is hard to treat it that way. Maybe it is hard to go through life trying to think of things in these terms but that is what is at stake.
There is such a thing as inter-generational morality, inter-generational responsibility and what we have seen in the post-war industrialized world is a complete abdication of that sense of inter-generational morality. Everything has been measured in terms of what is best for the next quarterly profit margin, or at best the yearly profit margin, without taking into account the long-term effects of the kinds of products we have been putting on the market and the kind of damage that may be done to the environment by those products.
We cannot go back to 1976. We cannot go back to the early 1980s. The CFCs that could have been prevented from going into the atmosphere then cannot be taken back. I wish they could, but they cannot be.
All we can do now is what has to be done as quickly and as decisively as we can. That means having a massive governmental effort to replace those products in the marketplace today which are still dependent on CFCs and using the tax system, as I have suggested, in the interim to discourage the use of certain products and to encourage the use of other products.
At the individual level, as I have already said, we have to begin to place these choices before us constantly and see them for what they are, the many times we are choosing individually and collectively for our own convenience; not our necessity, not our survival, not our daily bread or something like that, but just our convenience.
What a horrible thing it will be if 100 years from now, it is said that tor the sake of comfort the industrialized world ol the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s brought into peril the entire human prospect. Yet that is what may be
said if there is anybody around to say it, if we do not smarten up and smarten up very soon.
There was a time when the children of the world, and I was one of them, felt the nuclear cloud hanging over their heads. People who were born after 1945 lived with the notion that someday they might be blown right out of existence altogether, obliterated, especially if you grew up around the Cuban missile of 1962 crisis when people were practising how to hide under their desks and head for bomb shelters and do other things. It never really leaves you.
It has sort of left because of the end of the cold war, et cetera. I was greatly relieved that young people, children, may never have to live with that threat again. I hope that is so, although I am concerned about the proliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons.
But the children today have an even greater threat in some respects hanging over them. That is the threat of environmental destruction. The nature of that threat is different because with respect to the nuclear threat we always knew that if the world could just come to its senses it could destroy those nuclear weapons. It could put them out of commission, and it would only take one day to decide not to do this any more. The problem with the environmental threat is we could decide today not to do this any more and it might still happen because of what we have done already and the unintended and still unknown effects of what we have done already.
There is lead time involved when it comes to the environmental threat. That is why it is absolutely imperative that those of us who live now, those of us who have influence now, those of us who are members of Parliament now, those of us who are cabinet ministers now, do what we must do and what we have a responsibility to do now so the people of the future can have some chance at living a normal human life.


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the private member's motion. My comments will focus largely on the consideration of economic instruments for environmental protection and how the government is proceeding in this area.
This motion proposes that the excise tax on auto air
conditioners be modified so that the tax would only be
applied to units using CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons. Ac-
December 1, 1992

cordingly this proposal represents an example of using an economic instrument for the purpose of helping to achieve an economic environmental objective. In this case the environmental objective is the phasing out of ozone depleting CFCs.
It is interesting that when the tax was placed in the first place it was to try to discourage people from using air conditioners. Apparently there is an acceptance now that this is not going to work and we have to fine-tune it so that they can use air conditioners if they are of the right type.
I think we have maybe an even bigger problem and that is to harvest the CFCs in the old car air conditioners that are so common in our community. I think there is a program in place now forcing that very issue.
The use of economic instruments for environmental protection is identified in the green plan as an important area for further consideration. There is a number of different types of economic instruments including environmental charges which are designed to increase market prices to reflect the environmental costs of certain decisions. The proposal contained in this private member's motion is one example of this type of instrument.
Another example is the emissions trading programs which are designed to create a market and price for the access to an environmental resource. Another is subsidies which are designed to encourage certain decisions that benefit the environment and still another are deposit refund systems which include the systems used for soft drink containers in most provinces.
All economic instruments work through the market to encourage producers and consumers to make choices that are better for the environment. Some of these instruments such as environmental charges work through the market by having a direct effect on the prices facing consumers and producers.
The emissions trading programs by contrast involve setting a ceiling on the total allowable emissions of a pollutant. The total allowable emissions are then allocated in the form of permits which authorize sources of the pollutant to emit up to a specified amount during a specified time period. These permits may be bought and sold. In this way a tradable permits program creates a market and a price for the use of certain environmental resources.
Private Members' Business
As stated in the green plan, economic instruments have a number of potential advantages when compared to the traditional regulatory approach which is often referred to as the command and control approach.
One of the main advantages of economic instruments is that they can achieve environmental objectives at lower cost to the economy. Changing market signals mean that producers and consumers have the flexibility to decide how best to modify their activities to protect the environment. As a result these decision makers can select the methods that involve the lowest cost given their own circumstances and the various options available to them.
A second important advantage is that economic instruments provide a continuing incentive to develop and apply new methods to control pollution. By comparison, regulations offer no comparable incentive for the user of cleaner products or processes once the regulatory requirements are met.
At the same time the green plan indicates that the practical application of economic instruments requires careful consideration. There is a number of reasons for this.
First economic instruments are not suited to all types of environmental issues. In the case of an extremely dangerous substance, for instance, the more rigorous controls of a regulatory program would be a more appropriate approach.
Second, environmentally effective applications of economic instruments can involve complex issues of design and implementation.
Third, some applications raise difficult issues regarding their potential effects on certain sectors and regions.
Finally Canada has had little practical experience with the use of economic instruments.
Recognizing these considerations, the green plan stated that the government would release a discussion paper and hold discussions on the use of economic instruments for the environment. It also stated that the government would establish a program to support practical research in the use of economic instruments in Canada.

December 1, 1992
Private Members' Business
The discussion paper entitled Economic Instruments for Environmental Protection was released by the Minister of the Environment in May 1992.
At the same time the minister announced a $1.4 million contribution to the establishment of a university based research program on economic instruments. This program is to help address practical issues associated with applying economic instruments in Canada. It also provides opportunity for training researchers and students in this area and supports the development of a research network.
The discussion paper on economic instruments presents a technical discussion of a number of areas. It discusses the criteria for assessing and designing economic instruments. These criteria include environmental effectiveness, the realization of economic benefits, international competitiveness and distributional impacts.
It discusses a full range of non-tax instruments such as emissions trading programs, users charges and deposit refund systems. It discusses a variety of tax instruments including emissions charges, input charges, product charges, tax incentives and measures that would combine environmental charges with tax incentives.
For each type of economic instrument, the discussion paper highlights some of the potential advantages and some of the practical issues in applying these instruments in a Canadian context. In general, the analysis takes a balanced approach and does not prejudge the final conclusions on economic instruments.
The release of the discussion paper has several objectives. On one hand, it is an educational document for groups and individuals interested in learning more about economic instruments. It provides an information base for advancing research and debate in this area. It also provides a starting point for seeking public input on the use of economic instruments.
The details of the consultation process are currently being developed with input from a variety of interested groups. Through the consultation process, interested
groups can provide input on practical considerations and on next steps. This approach will also increase understanding about economic instruments and at the same time help to address issues regarding the practical use of these instruments in Canada.
While the specific example of an economic instrument presented by the member today may be taken as an input into this process, it would be premature to judge this proposal as one that should be implemented. Also the proposal contained in this motion raises a number of difficulties. Examples of these are as follows.
It is unlikely to have an effect on the pace with which ozone depleting CFCs are currently being phased out. I wonder if there is a practical CFC-free refrigeration unit to use in air conditioners in cars.
It would involve phasing out the current tax over the next few years as the auto sector switches to the CFC units. Phasing out the current tax would reduce government revenues by $60 million to $70 million per year. At the present time the loss of these revenues would have adverse implications for efforts to manage the national debt and build for sustainable growth.
To sum up, the potential for making effective use of economic instruments is an area that is receiving further consideration under the green plan. While the private member's motion is one example of an economic instrument, it is not at all clear that this example in itself would provide benefits to the environment or benefits to Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I intended to make an intervention on the proposal made by the member for Winnipeg Transcona tonight, but having heard the intervention of the member for Perth- Wellington-Waterloo I cannot help but focus on the remarks he just made.
I wonder whether he has read the document he talked about extensively, namely the discussion paper on economic instruments. If the member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo had a chance to study the discussion paper on economic instruments he would not have quoted it in the House. It is an insignificant catalogue of potential measures. It has had no impact since its
December 1, 1992

publication last May, as witnessed by the fact that public consultations have not even started.
What can you consult about if you produce an insignificant catalogue of measures without any indication what the government might be prepared to consider or what the potential is of each instrument?
That economic instrument paper of last May which the Minister of the Environment produced with a one year delay on the originally intended schedule is a joke. To come into this House and say we cannot proceed on this very modest measure because it would reduce government revenue by implementing it, shows the bankruptcy of ideas on the part of the government on whose behalf the member for Perth

Wellington-Waterloo is speaking.
The hon. member gave us a beautiful speech on tradable permits and on economic instruments. Then he told us that in Canada we have little experience with economic instruments. Well, no wonder. We are doing nothing about applying them.
Year after year, since 1987, we have asked the Minister of Finance to apply certain economic instrument measures from an environmental point of view. Our requests have fallen on deaf ears.
When the announcement was made in 1990 that the government would produce an economic instrument document under the auspices of the green plan, we were very glad. It did not come out in 1991 as planned. It came out in May of 1992, as the member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo quite rightly indicated. When we saw it, it was a non-document, an insignificant catalogue.
One has to ask how on earth can we collect practical experience if we do not introduce the measures. What is the government waiting for?
The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has proposed a good measure which he explained very well. In essence, it says that the $100 excise tax should be removed on cars which are free from chlorofluorocar-bons for air conditioning. It is a beginning. It is a modest measure, but as the member indicated, it is a way of using the tax system to protect the environment and actually to enhance it. It is a way of meshing and integrating taxation with environmental goals.
Private Members' Business
When one does that, the answer is that it cannot be considered because we have little practical experience. So the question is: When are we going to get the experience?
Will the Minister of Finance in his statement tomorrow introduce some measures which will allow us to gather some, experience? We will hold our breath, of course, but I doubt it very much. Because the experience has been over the past five years that every suggestion which has been made from the opposition benches to the Minister of Finance to introduce certain economic instruments from an environmental point of view have been happily ignored.
I am therefore asking what this government has on its agenda. What is its real green plan because when ideas are proposed they are rejected?
This evening, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona gave us a good example of meshing and integrating transport and the environment. In that respect he has done us a good deed, to use his vocabulary. He is saying we should use tax incentives to encourage and drive technological change. An incentive of that nature of course would encourage the buyer to favour a car which has an air conditioner that does not use chlorofluorocar-bons.
We would not want to stop at that. We could introduce excise tax incentives in favour of cars with a lower number of cylinders and a higher performance per litre of gas and so on. This could also apply to the GST. The GST could be biased in favour of environmentally friendly products, from the bicycle to the canoe.
In other words, this concept could be applied in a variety of ways in a manner that would indicate what we are trying to do here is mesh environmental goals with taxation measures, with fiscal measures and with transportation activities using all possible instruments available.
Unfortunately this is not falling on receptive ears. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona has given a leading practical application of the concept of sustainable development by meshing a taxation measure with a transport instrument.

December 1, 1992
Private Members' Business
As I said, it could be applied in a variety of ways within the transportation sector but you would not want to stop there. You could mesh environmental goals with energy policies. You could mesh environmental goals with agricultural programs. You could mesh environmental goals with any sector of programs and policies that governments have at any level. You could do the same within the jurisdiction of a municipality if you had a council that was inspired and committed to sustainable living and sustainable growth. You could do that at the provincial level as well as at the federal level.
The sky is the limit to the scope of practical applications that could be made in integrating environmental goals with the policies and programs that exist at all levels of government.
I see that my time is up. I would like to conclude by congratulating the member for Winnipeg Transcona for his fine idea and saying to the government it is high time to move from the rhetoric and preaching to the practical application of sustainable development if the government is really serious about it.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the private member's motion requesting the removal of the excise tax on automobile air conditioners that do not use CFCs.
I support the motion as far as it goes. In fact just after I arrived here four years ago I considered bringing this sort of motion in myself because at first glance it looked like an excellent idea.
Certainly the idea of the change to automobile air conditioners that do not use CFCs is a good one. Unfortunately this particular motion cuts two ways because it also has an energy use element to it and the excise tax on air conditioning was originally brought into place to try to conserve the use of energy.
The removal of this tax, while it may benefit the environment in relation to the use of CFCs, does not necessarily benefit the environment when one considers the energy use side.
In my deliberations some time ago, I decided not to bring in a motion of this type because, as the member
from Davenport said, we need to consider more than just this particular element in this motion.
Had it gone into several of the areas he mentioned, I would have supported it. I will come back to that subject at the end of my presentation. I want to first discuss some of the actions the Canadian government has already taken in the area of control of production and use of CFCs in the past and actions that will be taken in the future.
The federal government has taken a number of these important steps to address the issue of ozone depletion. In particular, the federal government has committed $25 million of green plan funds to address the ozone layer protection program. These funds support implementation of controls over ozone depleting substances as well as several research and monitoring initiatives.
I would like to take a few moments to elaborate on several specific initiatives that have been undertaken in this program. Under the ozone layer protection program, Canada has taken action to control ozone depleting substances, including CFCs. Under this program, a number of regulations have been introduced under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act including controls on CFCs.
Certain applications of CFCs are banned, including aerosols, small refillable cans and plastic foam food packaging. These regulations represent only one of the mechanisms used in Canada to reduce consumption of ozone depleting substances.
Environment Canada has also undertaken educational programs and extensive consultations with other levels of government, industry and environmental groups and the Canadian public. One of the outcomes of the consultation was the decision to target the phase out of ozone depleting substances by sector, including the phase out of the use of CFCs in automobile air conditioners by the 1995 model year.
In addition to these regulatory and non-regulatory measures to control ozone depleting substances, the ozone layer protection program provides a national action plan for the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of ozone depleting substances.
The strategy proposed under the national action plan is to reduce CFC emissions by managing the existing supply through a comprehensive framework of education, regulation, political co-ordination and other incentives, thereby reducing the production of virgin ozone depleting chemicals.
December 1, 1992

In March of this year at a meeting of the Canadian ministers of environment, all jurisdictions committed to implementing the recovery and recycling program by the end of 1992. In addition to these actions on controlling ozone depleting substances, Canada is very active in research and monitoring activities relating to the ozone layer.
Earlier this year the Government of Canada announced the establishment of a permanent high Arctic ozone observatory on Ellesmere Island, which will contribute to domestic and international ozone research. Specifically intended to study Arctic depletion, the observatory will provide an increased understanding of how changing conditions are affecting Canada.
The observatory is also intended to create partnerships among Canadian universities and the international scientific community. In addition to the Arctic observatory, Canada is contributing to international research as a participant in a joint research prediction and impact program with the U.S., Japan, Europe, and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
In the area of monitoring, Environment Canada launched ozone watch in March of this year, which provides Canadians with a weekly report containing the most up-to-date information on the status of the ozone layer. In May of this year the UV advisory program was launched to provide daily information on the intensity of the sunlight's ultraviolet rays. Last month the federal government announced that the World Ozone Data Centre in Toronto will be expanded to include a new world data centre for ultraviolet radiation. The data collected will contribute to international scientific understanding of the relationship between UV radiation and the ozone layer.
The government is also committed to its strong and active participation in international activities designed to protect the ozone layer. Ozone depletion is a global problem that requires a global solution.
You may recall that Canada was the first country to
ratify the 1985 convention on the protection of the ozone
Private Members' Business
layer. The Vienna convention established a framework to protect the earth's upper atmosphere through co-operative international effort. Canada also played a key role in the development of the Montreal protocol to the Vienna convention. The Montreal protocol was the first accord of its kind and set up a global precedent for the safeguarding of both the environment and human health. Canada signed the Montreal protocol in 1987 and pledged to cut its use of ozone depleting chemicals in half by 1999.
In 1990 the parties to the Montreal protocol met in London, England, where they agreed to phase out CFCs by the year 2000. At this meeting Canada and 12 other nations further agreed to phase out CFCs by 1997, three years in advance of the revised protocol.
The fourth meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol took place last week in Copenhagen. I am pleased to report that the treaty was strengthened for the second time. On the matter of the CFCs, the parties agreed to phase out 75 per cent of their use of CFCs by January 1, 1994, leading to a total phase out by January 1, 1996.
I am pleased to report that this government's ozone layer protection program is successfully achieving results. The Government of Canada announced that the country had achieved a 58 per cent decrease in CFC use by June 1992. This said, the scientific evidence regarding the ozone layer continues to be compelling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize but your time has expired.
There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the item is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 7.14 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.14 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 2, 1992