1993-05-26

Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, the issue of food banks is one that clearly shows the different political philosophies and social policies of Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals.
Conservatives want to eliminate the need for food banks by ensuring that our social safety net is adequate. We want programs that enhance the dignity and self-esteem of the poor and ensure that they have financial incentives to work and pathways out of poverty.
New Democrats also want to eliminate the need for food banks. They want to eliminate the inequality in incomes in Canada by making everyone poor and chasing business and professionals out of the country. They think people want to work for fun not money.
Liberals want to institutionalize food banks, establish national school lunch programs and provide universal food programs whether people need them or not. That would be financed by a continued massive deficit and escalating national debt at the expense of future generations.


GUATEMALA
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, earlier this year Canadian government officials and parliamentarians were lobbied by Guatemalan officials on the issue of human rights in Guatemala. The timing was intended to ward off embarrassing international indictments against Guatemala at the annual United Nations Human Rights Commission meetings.
Cynically, the moment the commission meetings in Geneva ended Guatemala's level of human rights violations escalated dramatically. Returning refugee communities composed of indigenous peoples are consistently harassed and intimidated and opposition spokespersons are threatened.
Yesterday the Guatemalan government suspended human rights in the country through imposition of a state of exception. The assembly and judiciary have been suspended and the country's ombudsman is under house arrest. There is concern at the moment for the safety of Guatemalans and Canadians attending human rights and indigenous peoples meetings in Guatemala.
The Canadian government must suspend all bilateral trade and aid initiatives in Guatemala until a full international inquiry into these incidents is held and evaluated. The decades old Guatemalan government tyranny must be confronted and stopped.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-Est):: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak out against the deplorable attitude of hockey commentator Don Cherry, who deliberately made fun of francophones when he said that the people of Sault Ste. Marie spoke the right language.
You will recall that in 1990, this francophone city officially proclaimed itself unilingual English, a decision to which I strongly objected at the time.
Mr. Cherry's racist and reactionary remarks, made in reference to certain players, are quite unacceptable. What right does he have to tarnish the reputation of hockey players and francophones in this country?

May 26, 1993
In a country known for its tolerance how can we let the image we project abroad be tarnished in this way? On the grounds of free speech? That is hardly a good excuse. Madam Speaker, we don't want censorship, but we do want respect.
As I see it, the right of a person to express his or her opinions no longer exists if, as a result of it, the personal integrity of others is undermined. Racism, for instance, constitutes a violation of our most basic rights. Racism is unacceptable and should be condemned whenever it is encountered.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time is up.


NUNAVUT TERRITORY
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Inuit of the central and eastern Arctic who yesterday signed an historic agreement with the Government of Canada to settle their Nunavut land claim and to establish the new Nunavut Territory.
I am particularly pleased with this achievement because in 1977 I did what I could as minister to encourage and facilitate the advancement of this proposal, and over the years I have given it my full support.
However it is the Nunavut people who deserve full credit because for nearly 20 years they pursued this claim with intelligence, firmness, tenacity, diplomacy and good sense.
This settlement not only establishes the new Nunavut Territory but recognizes the right of the Nunavut people to control their own destiny and at the same time to be full partners in Confederation.
Now it is our job to pass the enabling legislation and to do it as quickly as possible. In this case all parties should get together and approve a plan to assure passage of these bills before the June adjournment. Cheers to the people of Nunavut.


CYSTIC FIBROSIS MONTH
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that May is Cystic Fibrosis
Month. Cystic Fibrosis, CF, is an inherited disorder that primarily affects the respiratory and digestive systems of children. At present there is no cure for the disease.
Each day includes rigorous therapy and treatment for those suffering from CF. The heartening news is that the median age of survival for CF patients has increased from under 4 to over 30.
Since 1960 the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation has been working to better the lives of those who suffer from this disease. Volunteers and financial supporters work ceaselessly to raise funds for research. The Department of National Health and Welfare is pleased to provide funding to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation through its grants to national voluntary health organizations.
I invite the members of this House and all Canadians to support the work of the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. I wish the foundation and its volunteers a very successful month.


SAULT STE. MARIE GREYHOUNDS
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, we are the champions.
The Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds have won the 1993 Memorial Cup, emblematic of junior hockey supremacy in Canada. It was a marvellous week of great hockey, great hospitality and great social events.
On behalf of the citizens of Sault Ste. Marie, we extend our congratulations to the fans and players of Swift Current and Peterborough who represented their communities extremely well.

The Laval Titans, an excellent team in Quebec's major junior league, were outstanding ambassadors for their province.

It was the Greyhounds' third consecutive Memorial Cup final. Special mention goes to coaches Ted Nolan and Danny Flynn, president George Shunock, director of operations Sherry Bassin and MVP Ralph Intranuovo.
May 26, 1993

All who participated in the Memorial Cup said it was the best ever. I am not surprised, as it was held in the best city in Canada and was won by the best junior hockey team in Canada, the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds.


TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, on May 8, an article appeared in Les Affaires under the heading: "Recession: in Quebec, 3,500 engineers unemployed".
Interestingly, the president of the Ordre des ingenieurs du Quebec, Mr. Jean-Pierre Brunet, said he did not think the recession was the sole cause of this unfortunate situation.
He went on to explain that Quebec lacked a technological culture. The government should promote technological development, but it cannot develop technology. It is up to the entrepreneurs to make those decisions, but they have yet to realize that technology is the key to Quebec's development. There is no real venture capital in Quebec, not because the money is not there, but because there is no demand from Quebec business.


NOVA SCOTIA ELECTION
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, colour Nova Scotia red.
From Yarmouth to Cape North, from the isthmus of Chignecto to the shores of Halifax harbour John Savage and 39 other Liberals have taken over Nova Scotia's historic House of Assembly.
With a popular vote of 50 per cent, 67 per cent on Cape Breton Island, the Liberals with their new leader, their new vision and their new hope are going to turn a new page in Nova Scotia's history.
The statue of Joseph Howe in front of Province House wears a smile for the first time in 15 years and all Nova Scotians are ready for a new start.
To Premier-elect John Savage and his team in and outside the legislature we say that traditional Nova
Scotia greeting ciud mile failte, a hundred thousand welcomes.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, NAFTA has done nothing to stop the slow death that supply management is now facing.
Dairy, egg and poultry farming are all dependent on supply management and are important industries in Canada. Farming is already suffering the effects of cross-border shopping, U.S. dumping of soft fruits and vegetables and now an attack on supply management.
The president of the National Farmers Union, Art Macklin, said it best when he said:
If you don't have the power to restrict lower priced imports from coming into your country, then you can't ensure you're going to be able to keep your best agricultural land in production, or to ensure you can produce a variety of foods-Once this thing (NAFTA) is ratified then control over the food system is turned over to those with financial capital.
If NAFTA turns control of our food system over to those with financial capital then we truly doom the family farm in rural Canada. For Canada to turn its basic food production over to international agribusiness is to turn over part of its sovereignty.


SIMONE ALLAIRE
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, when the Canada 125 commemorative medals were awarded, I found it difficult to select only 40 recipients, especially considering the dynamic community we have in Quebec-Est.
That is why I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the exceptional work being done by one of my constituents whom I had the privilege to meet. Simone Allaire has worked as a volunteer for about 15 years, mostly with senior citizens at the Centre d'accueil Saint-Antoine de Duberger.
I have nothing but praise for the dedication of this remarkable woman. However, Ms. Allaire feels that her contribution is minimal, compared to the tremendous rewards of working as a volunteer.

May 26, 1993
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, it is rare that political parties agree on anything but it happened in Newfoundland last week. They agreed on a resolution urging Ottawa to sink its new fisheries management proposal.
This should speak volumes to the federal fisheries minister who is going to have to answer to future generations for the devastation of the province if he proceeds with legislation tabled on May 20 proposing to give the management boards control over who catches fish and the power to penalize fishermen who break the rules.
Creating independent agencies to manage fish stocks in the manner envisaged is ill advised and is one of the worst moves a fisheries minister could make.
The government would be better advised to concentrate on positive measures by controlling foreign overfishing and extending functional jurisdiction for groundfish out to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. This would give a strong message to the 100 or so foreign vessels that are out there today while Newfoundlanders and other Canadians are prohibited from fishing their own waters.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, in the ongoing North American free trade negotiations, the Tory government had an opportunity to create labour and environmental standards for trade, minimum standards that working Canadians need. Instead, it was determined to protect only the interests of multinational companies.
The proposed trade agreement with the U.S. and Mexico is designed to guarantee access by multinational companies to the Canadian economy. Tories do not care whether Canadian workers and their families have guarantees to a safe work place, decent wages or a healthy environment. Only the U.S. government is insisting on
teeth in these side agreements over the loud objections of the Tories.
None of this comes as a surprise to Canadians. After all this is the same bunch of Tories that will spend $6 billion on helicopters rather than on their own vaunted green plan. It is the same bunch who sacrificed generic drugs and cost savings for all Canadians to guarantee increased profits for wealthy multinational drug companies.
Is it any wonder that Canadians have lost faith in the system?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
The recent case involving the steel industry has shown that the need to avoid U.S. trade sanctions is crucial for Canada. Claiming that it wants to prevent similar occurrences under NAFTA, the government refuses to apply trade sanctions in connection with environmental concerns. There may be a case for that, but the question that arises is this: Why is the government bowing to threats of U.S. sanctions in all other areas of international trade between our two countries?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend has been. I think he should stick to environmental questions. Then he might be able to follow the issues better.


An hon. member:: Not really.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is probably right.
There is no question that this government has said quite clearly to the American negotiators that we do not accept the proposal that has been discussed on trade sanctions.
May 26, 1993

We believe it is important to have some means of encouraging compliance, particularly compliance with the domestic regulations and laws of a particular country on environmental matters.
Hiking the step that has been proposed and moving into trade sanctions we think is inappropriate and we made that point very clearly to the Americans.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker,
I do not know where my colleague has been either. Perhaps he should stick to advising the minister of defence. I will explain the question once more. Perhaps there was something missing in the translation.
The government refuses to accept sanctions in the parallel environmental accord because of possible American trade harassment. The issue then is, why is it pursuing a new trade agreement which is even weaker than the FTA in terms of dumping and subsidies?
The government seeks to avoid environmental harassment by the United States. The question then is, why is the government inviting such harassment in the NAFTA in all other areas of trade between our two countries?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am having a difficult time understanding the question of my hon. friend.
He is saying we should not dispose ourselves to this negotiating stance of the United States government seeking trade sanctions, but I would have thought that he would be very supportive of us seeking agreements on the environment as we did a year ago February and as we still do.
What is the position of the Liberal Party, if there is such a position?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Madam Speaker, what is the difficulty in understanding my question as to why this agreement and the one before were such a botch? The fact is the minister is having some difficulty understanding the contradictions of his own government's position. Let me ask him another question.
As far as the environmental side agreement is concerned, the government has fudged its position on everything from the independence of the North American environmental commission to the issue of public
Oral Questions
participation in the dispute settlement mechanism. No one understands why this government wants to go ahead without knowing what the Americans' final position is.
How can the minister ask us to proceed when we do not even know what Canada's final position is?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Again, I could understand these questions coming from the trade critic, but coming from the environmental critic I have great difficulty in understanding. That is because the NAFTA is a major, major improvement over the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement in the area of the environment. It is widely regarded as being one of the best, if not the best, trade agreements in the way that it treats environmental matters.
Now, my hon. friend says that we are fudging. Is he suggesting that we just put our whole negotiating strategy right on the floor of the House of Commons?
My hon. friend asked why we are being asked to vote. The House of Commons is being asked to vote on the North American free trade agreement that was signed on December 17. This is a good agreement for Canada. We are seeking the support of the House of Commons on this through this vote so that the business people who are seeking to take advantage of the opportunities that are there are able to do so.
Let me give my hon. friend an example. Crandall Engineering has a contract with a client for Mexican construction business. It wants to know what are the rules so it can get the best advantage of that business.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, the United States administration, as the minister knows full well, is adamant that any environmental and labour side agreements must be backed up by trade sanctions. NAFTA will not be introduced in the U.S. Congress until such time as those conditions are met. However, the Canadian government and indeed, the minister today has said that Canada has made it very clear that it will reject trade sanctions.
Is the government prepared to walk away from NAFTA over this issue? Yes or no?

May 26, 1993
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: appreciate my hon. friend's interest in trade matters. I am glad to see that he has recovered his position as the trade critic, might I say by default.
The position we have taken is clear. We do not think it is appropriate to have trade sanctions complicating the relationship among the three countries on matters relating to the environment or on labour. That is the position we have taken forward. Has it occurred to my hon. friend that we might be in a stronger negotiating position if we had the NAFTA already passed?


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, that has never occurred to me. Does the minister seriously think that by going to the negotiating table with the act already passed in Canada and not in the United States and Mexico that Canada is in a stronger position? He knows perfectly well we are in a weaker position.
The United States has said that without enforceable trade sanctions it will not go forward with NAFTA. The Canadian government has said that with enforceable trade sanctions it will not go forward with NAFTA.
What is the Canadian position? Are we prepared to walk away from NAFTA if there are trade sanctions included? What is the government's position? This contradictory position makes no sense at all. Will the government walk away from NAFTA if there are enforceable trade sanctions or not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think we have a good idea why this hon. member will not be trade minister. My hon. friend is displaying very clearly that he does not know the negotiating position. He is asking me to put it on the floor of the House of Commons so that representatives of the U.S. government can report back directly what our negotiating position is. My hon. friend should know that would be quite an inappropriate thing to do.
I will say to my hon. friend and I hope he conveys this to his friends and his caucus, this is a good agreement. It is a good agreement to legislate now so that we can get it solidly in place and allow our business communities the
opportunity to plan so that they can take advantage of the opportunities that are replete for them in Mexico.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will know that Canadians are rather puzzled and concerned about why there is such haste to push this NAFTA legislation through the House of Commons, given that there are so many parts of it as yet unfinished.
During the Canada-U.S. trade talks we were told that everything was on the table, that Canadians had all the information, that everything was disclosed and there were no hidden agendas. Yet in December 1990 the former minister of industry confirmed to The Toronto Star that there was in fact a gentleman's agreement around the Canada-U.S. trade deal to keep the Canadian dollar high under pressure by the Americans.
Everything was not on the table. I want to ask the Prime Minister, given that there is no logical reason to rush NAFTA through this House, is there another gentleman's agreement? Is there information that Canadians have a right to know? Otherwise, why rush this through if there is not a hidden agenda?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Peter Pan and Audrey. Madam Speaker, to think that I rushed all the way back from hunting in Russia for this. Speaking of bores, how is the member for Winnipeg doing these days?
My hon. friend questions us in regard to haste. As of noon the bill was at report stage and I understand approximately 125 speakers have spoken on this issue for in excess of 21 hours just on this question. There were six considerable NAFTA briefings offered for the opposition. The Liberals accepted and every single one of the briefings was rejected by the NDP.
There have been dozens, literally dozens of occasions for members to participate. There is no haste here. This matter is being carefully and thoughtfully considered by the House of Commons. If my hon. friend wants to assist in the national interest, let her stand up and vote yea or nay on the matter today.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Madam Speaker. I remind the Prime Minister that there would have been no extended debate on this issue if the
May 26, 1993

New Democratic Party had not put forward a motion in order to have that debate.
I also remind the Prime Minister that the briefings offered were offered in secret. It was only the New Democratic Party that stood up and said that all Canadians should know what is in this trade deal. The Liberals can go to secret meetings if they want, but the NDP will not.

Madam Speaker, there must be a reason why the government absolutely wants Parliament to adopt the three-way free trade agreement, and it is certainly not because NAFTA will be good for the economy. Tory trade policies have lost us half a million jobs in the manufacturing sector. Again, I want to ask the Prime Minister why, considering that NAFTA has yet to be introduced in Congress, the agreement as such has not yet been finalized and our country continues to lose jobs, the government is in such a hurry to get NAFTA through Parliament?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the last quarter, exports increased 23 per cent, compared with last year. In 1992, they increased 19 per cent over 1991. We are setting record highs for exports, especially our exports to the United States, a clear indication that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States has resulted in major benefits to Canada. I assume that is why both the Quebec government and the official opposition in Quebec, if I am not mistaken, have almost unanimously endorsed the free trade agreement with the U.S. and Mexico, because Quebecers see it as a major instrument for economic development. That is why we would urge the hon. member and the NDP to drop their protectionist stance and consider the future of Quebec and Canada by voting in favour of the agreement.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks about the fact that the economy is growing and increasing but he ignores the figures, that 1.5 million Canadians are still out of work, 2.6 million Canadians are collecting social assistance and 4.2 million Canadians are living under the poverty line. The facts are clear.
Oral Questions
I would say again to the Prime Minister that clearly there is no logical reason for this legislation to be pushed through the House when we see the destructive effects of the Canada-U.S. trade deal on Canadian employment.
Why does the Prime Minister not stand up in the interests of Canadians, withdraw NAFTA and leave it to a general election to be decided when Canadians will be able to say what they think about the deal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the last time I did that the NDP did not like the result. Speaking from the majesty of 11 per cent, which I have never seen myself, I would not recommend that my hon. friend tempt me because quite frankly I am thinking about what she said.
My hon. friend says this is a trade deal. My hon. friend asks why we would pass it. My hon. friend refers to the last trade dispute which took place in 1988 when her party opposed the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.
On an annual basis Canada exported $19.6 billion more to the U.S. in 1992 than it did when the NDP opposed the treaty. In March 1993 our exports to the United States were 21 per cent ahead of March 1992. Our trade surplus with the United States reached $17.7 billion in 1992. In the four-year period since the free trade agreement was implemented foreign direct investment in Canada totalled $19.88 billion, an increase of 160 per cent in four years.
My hon. friend wants to have reasons why she should support the free trade agreement. There she has it: more jobs, more prosperity, lower interest rates and greater foreign investment. She can have that or the protectionism that she does not want because we know what that has brought in Ontario and elsewhere, and it is not good for Canada.


THE SENATE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Everybody remembers that in 1984 the Prime Minister strongly opposed the practice of the government making Senate appointments in the fifth year of a four-year mandate. The Prime Minister called such appointments "a fraud, a

May 26, 1993
Oral Questions
deceit and a sham". He said a Conservative government would "never resort to that kind of attitude".
Will the Prime Minister keep or break his word of honour? Will he refuse to make appointments to the Senate in the dying days of a dying government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has totally distorted and misstated my statement. It is there on television.
I have a mandate from the people of Canada. My most recent appointments to the Senate were representative of members of the Liberal Party. One of the most distinguished members of the Liberal Party of Quebec, a former MNA, Jean-Claude Rivest, Mr. Bourassa's chief constitutional adviser, was I believe my last appointment to the Senate.


Ms. Blondin-Andrew:: More Liberals.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "More Liberals". Wait until four o'clock this afternoon and you might get a pleasant surprise.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister may not recall his words. I think the public recalls that in 1984 he said: "You have an option".
Today the Prime Minister has an option. He can either keep his own word or he can defy the promise he gave to the Canadian people.

The point is not whether it is legal or whether the appointments are good or bad. The point is whether the Prime Minister intends to keep his word. Today, in 1993, does the Prime Minister still think that making end-of-term appointments to the Senate is as repugnant as he felt it was, or at least said it was, in 1984?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, among the people I appointed to the Senate are Therese Lavoie-Roux, former minister with the Bouras-sa government, Claude Castonguay, Solange Chaput-Rolland and Jean-Claude Rivest.


Some hon. members:: All Liberals!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think these are excellent appointments. In fact, although my Conservative colleagues may
not be happy about this, the fact is that I personally appointed more Liberals to the Senate than any other non-Liberal prime minister in Canada's history.

My hon. friend from the Western Arctic just let the cat out of the bag. Ethel made it very clear that we cannot appoint senators unless they are Liberals and if they are Liberals they are okay. Some of them were not available but others were, and the most distinguished will be appointed this afternoon.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. It concerns the appointment of another so-called distinguished Canadian, Ami Thomsteinson, to the board of directors of the Bank of Canada of all places.
Why did the Prime Minister make the appointment of Ami Thomsteinson to the Bank of Canada when his company is in default on mortgages and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, an agency of the government, could be liable for up to $6 million on some of the loans this person's company has made? How can the Prime Minister have made such an appointment of a Tory bagman from Manitoba?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, all members of the House will be well aware of the calumny and the smear of that particular member about reputations of individuals called upon to serve Canada. He is steeped in calumny. He has made smear a part of his reputation and the rest of this House will not stand for it.
Ami Thomsteinson is as distinguished a Canadian as those distinguished Liberals I have had the privilege to appoint. My hon. friend would have a little more credibility if he ceased picking on NDP appointments and Conservative appointments and celebrated the fact that there are Liberals involved. These are all Canadians ready to serve their country. They do not get rich in the process of doing it. They are here to serve Canada.
May 26, 1993


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, we can always tell the Prime Minister is in trouble when he starts accusing everybody else in Parliament instead of justifying his appointment.

I have a question for the Prime Minister. Amie Thomsteinson is a recipient of provincial Tory patronage in Manitoba. A businessman in financial difficulty for the federal Conservative Party is a bagman.
What moral integrity could lead the Prime Minister to appoint such a person, in the present circumstances, to an institution as prestigious as the Bank of Canada? How could the Prime Minister do that and how can he justify such a decision today?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I am asked how-
[.Editor's Note: Interruption in Gallery.]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Even children approve that appointment!

Even Nunziata's baby is in favour of this.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Nunziata is so ashamed of this question he moved to the gallery.
My hon. friend asks how someone like Amie Thomsteinson would be appointed. It was the same judgment whereby we appointed Ed Broadbent to the presidency of the International Centre for Human Rights; Donald Macdonald, a former Liberal finance minister, as high commissioner to the U.K.; Yves Fortier as ambassador to the United States; Amie Masters, Bryce Mackasey's former chief of staff, as chairman of Ports Canada; Ian Deans, as chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board; and Stephen Lewis to the United Nations.
Why is it that all these appointments are fine, but if we happen to appoint a Conservative it brings out the worst instincts of this hon. member, when all of these people have been appointed to serve Canada honourably and they have done it very well?
Oral Questions


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Senator Barrett.


David Barrett: -it does not behove me to get into the middle of a cat fight between these two parties over patronage, but were it up to me to appoint people to the Senate I would solve it by abolishing the Senate.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. member:: Ask for unanimous consent.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, do I have unanimous consent for my motion?
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. As the United States gets closer to an internal debate in Congress about the progress of the North American free trade agreement in its responsible political jurisdictions, this issue has become a major debate in the United States.	.
Recently the minister responsible for NAFTA, the Minister for International Trade, gave a series of interviews in the United States vis-a-vis the position of Canada and the debate in Canada.
What does the minister say to the press on questions about the internal political debate on this issue? When the press in the United States asks him these questions what does he say is the Official Opposition's position should it become government? I think we need to know that.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not see how this question is in order, but if the minister wishes to answer, by all means he may.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, they never asked.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: And if they did I would ask them to go and buy a copy of Ripley's Believe it Or Not.

May 26, 1993
Oral Questions


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I do not think that answer is good enough.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Barrett: I do not think the minister is being responsible to all Canadians and to our prospective American and Mexican partners. We have a right to know what he is saying about the Liberal Party position before we go to the people of this country. We demand that we get an answer about that.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It depends what day it is.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me take my hon. friend's question more seriously.
Elections are about choices. I say to my friends in the United States if you want a choice, vote Liberal. You can get Roy MacLaren as a free trader or you can get Lloyd Axworthy as a protectionist, but Jean Chretien, I don't know.


HOUSING
Ms.   Ethel@: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing.
The minister recently announced that our economy can no longer carry the burden of financing new social housing commitments beyond January 1, 1999. This decision will have a devastating impact on the Northwest Territories. Over 3,500 northern families already lack affordable or adequate housing and an estimated 41 per cent of the children in the Northwest Territories under the age of 12 live in overcrowded conditions.
I ask the minister, why is he trying to reduce the federal deficit at the expense of these people in need?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, this government will continue to spend over $2 billion a year on social housing.
We are not abandoning our commitment to social housing. We are simply asking our partners in the provinces and in other areas of shared jurisdiction to join with us in utilizing the savings of direct borrowing and other flexible things that Canada Mortgage and Housing
can now do because of legislative amendments to be innovative and help us find new and more responsible ways to fund social housing.


Ms.   Ethel@: Madam Speaker, one of the partners that the minister speaks of had this to say just recently.
The minister of housing for the Government of the Northwest Territories said that "these drastic cuts could be likened to rubbing salt in an open wound and furthermore housing is not a major issue to the feds because they would rather spend their money on helicopters or a million dollars to kiss the Russian leader goodbye and that in other words, that the cash strapped GNWT cannot sustain a 100 per cent funding reduction on social housing".
Will the minister recognize this critical need and reinstate federal funding to the GNWT immediately?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, we are prepared to meet with all our interest groups and our provincial partners to see what can be done under the circumstances to maintain a commitment to social housing.
The member knows, as do all members in this House, that we cannot continue to fund social housing on the same basis as we have in the past.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his report today. It is a rather gloomy report. It states that misconceptions about bilingualism still flourish in this country, that discussions of federal policy continue to generate as much bitterness as generosity, as much heat as light. To quote the commissioner: "People cannot be expected to support what they do not understand".
The commissioner further states that government inaction and delays in the application of constitutional rights perpetuate linguistic tensions.
I ask the Prime Minister honestly: How does he deal with these serious allegations?
May 26, 1993


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend knows that this is always a challenging area of our national life.
We have made good progress. For example, announcements have recently been made concerning French language community schools and colleges. We have made very significant progress in terms of bilingualism, in bringing about a constitutional amendment that guaranteed for the first in history the equality of both linguistic communities in the province of New Brunswick. By way of illustration, these are very significant and in the last days, probably an historic achievement.
While I can understand the frustration of Dr. Gold-bloom, the fact of the matter is that there are important areas of our national life where we are making veiy good progress. We will continue, with the support of all members of the House, to work toward the achievement of this very important principle.
[Translation \


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, the Conservative government has abolished the Court Challenges Program; it has reduced its financial support to the official languages minority groups; it has delayed the implementation of the school management system, and so on. Can the Secretary of State tell us, or explain to Canadians, why her government reneges on its obligations toward the linguistic minorities of this country?


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I am proud of my government's achievements in terms of the support provided to linguistic minorities across Canada.
I wish my colleague had been with me last week in Winnipeg when I announced an additional contribution of $112 million, over six years, to help francophone communities regarding school management. This, I believe, is an historic episode in Canada in terms of support provided to minorities.
Madam Speaker, one must not forget that education, among other fields, is a provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government is there to support communities. As regards the concerns of francophone communities, I believe that we have met their wishes, whether it is by
Oral Questions
providing substantial amounts of money, or with the Official Languages Act through which we have demonstrated our commitment to support francophone minorities, so that they can thrive in every field or sector of activity in Canada.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canadians were pleased to see the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development sign the very significant 10 Nunavut agreements yesterday which represent an historic event for aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Larry Schneider: There is yet one more step in this process and that is my question. Will the Prime Minister give his commitment that he will do everything he can to ensure that this legislation will be passed before Parliament adjourns this summer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very important question. Indeed the ceremony yesterday was a very moving one. It holds out great promise to the people of Nunavut for their future and for the future of all northerners.
I understand that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will be tabling the agreement immediately after Question Period. We expect legislation to be introduced by the end of the week and with the co-operation of all parties, we hope that we could pass all stages very quickly, given its importance.
I noticed that my hon. friend for Notre-Dame-de-Grace had a very important role in this some 20 years ago, in getting it off the ground and in helping nurture it. We have now reached the point where we have this arrangement that is very good for the Inuit and very good for the north.
I hope that we can count on the co-operation of all members of the House of Commons in all political parties to move this along very quickly so that it could be passed before the House rises in June.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE

May 26, 1993


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of trade.
He will remember that after the signing of the Cana-da-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, in spite of a clause in the agreement where the two parties, Canada and the U.S., agreed not to subsidize grain sales into markets of the other country, that subsidization under the export enhancement program did go on apace by the Americans. That subsidization level is now exceeding $1 billion a year.
Can the minister tell us what understandings or what arrangements if any, have been made with the United States with regard to our current markets with the Mexicans where we now export considerable grain? Will the Americans be able to use export enhancement program funds in that market?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, certainly we reject the allegations that the United States has made on our practices in relation to the export of durum wheat.
We have the support of a panel report of which I know my hon. friend is very much aware. This matter has been under discussion between the U.S. administration and our government from time to time in recent months.
I think my hon. friend would be interested in referring to a report in the Wall Street Journal today which has some discussion of the particular matter from a U.S. perspective. He might find it interesting.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Early May's softwood trade panel ruling is threatening Canada's resource industries exports to the United States with the decision that log export restrictions create a subsidy. It is hypocritical for the U.S. to have concluded that B.C.'s log export restrictions are a subsidy when the U.S. government maintains a similar policy.
Given the failure of the free trade agreement and the extension now with the government trying to ram NAFTA through the House, will the minister tell this House
that he has told U.S. authorities to keep their hands off our raw logs, that we have every right to process and manage our resources in our country?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I know my hon. friend is aware of the fact that that has been our position all along. It continues to be our position.
I know he does not want to leave any unclear impression with the House but I should remind him that the panel did not rule that Canadian log export controls conferred a countervailable benefit.
Therefore it is now the responsibility of the commerce department to support its position. That is the status of the matter now. We will be supporting the position of the Canadian industry and the province of British Columbia, his province, in particular as strongly as we can as matters proceed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
This past weekend the foreign ministers from the United States, Great Britain, France and Spain met in Washington to discuss the notion of a safe haven policy which clearly has major implications for Canadian troops.
Yesterday NATO defence ministers met, and again Canada was not present, at a discussion of whether NATO would support this proposal which again has major implications for our own forces in Bosnia.
Canadians find it very strange and unacceptable that decisions are being made in other places that have major repercussions upon the Canadian Armed Forces.
I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs this. Why is Canada not directly involved in these discussions? Why are we letting others decide the fate of our troops?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member well knows, first of all the Prime Minister has, on his trip in meetings with people around the world, discussed the situation in Bosnia and the situation regarding our
May 26, 1993

troops there. He stated very clearly what were the objectives of Canadian policy.
He also knows that I have been in regular touch with my colleagues in other countries including the Secretary of State of the United States whom I met about a week ago.
I spoke with Douglas Hurd yesterday. I had spoken to him shortly before I left for South Africa. Many of the things that were reflected in the statement that came out on the weekend are things that Canada has supported and indeed promoted, such as the war crimes tribunal and monitoring the border between Serbia and Bosnia.
I have said this before the committee and will be discussing this further again this afternoon. The meeting in Washington of the European and American Security Council members was in lieu of a meeting of Security Council foreign ministers.
In terms of Brussels and the NATO meeting, we were of course represented at that meeting. I think it is wrong of the hon. member to suggest otherwise.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the fact is we were not represented by the defence minister who should have been there to defend Canadian interests.
I want to ask the secretary of state a very simple question. With all this consultation and discussion, what is the Canadian position? Do we or do we not support a safe haven policy? Can we get a clear answer in this Parliament so Canadians will know?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I apologize as I first gave an answer to this the last time I was in committee. I will go into more detail this afternoon when I have the good fortune to go back.
The Canadian position on safe havens is very clear. We regard them as useful on a temporary basis but not as a permanent solution. Therefore we have some questions about the implementation which I have raised with my international colleagues. As I say, in the Washington proposal there are a number of proposals that we endorse and have indeed led other countries on.
Privilege
On the safe havens issue, I and the government do not want to see this as a permanent solution for Bosnia. We do not want the Bosnian Serbs keeping territory they gained by force.
In the meantime a useful purpose can be served if lives can be saved as they were by Canadians in Srebrenica and if the wounded can be treated and there can be room for negotiation to a more permanent solution.


PRIVILEGE
Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege with regard to comments made yesterday in this House by the member for Don Valley North where she suggested that I may have leaked a committee report.
Given this member's well-known diplomacy and generosity of spirit, I am sure she would want to set the record straight as I am sure she did not intend this implication.
Madam Speaker, as well as giving you notice and giving notice to the Clerk, I also gave notice to the hon. member that I was raising this point.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I had seen the hon. member in the House earlier. I took for granted that maybe she was not in her seat but was in the House or I would have postponed this matter. I will add this to what is in the file already.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member on the same matter.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I see that the member is now in the House and I would ask that the matter be dealt with now.
I rise on a point of privilege with regard to comments made yesterday in this House by the member for Don Valley North where she suggested that I may have leaked a committee report.
Given this member's well-known diplomacy and generosity of spirit, I am sure she would want to set the record straight as I am sure she did not intend the implication.

May 26, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, first of all I did not mean any specific inference with respect to the hon. member for Halifax.
What I stated was that there was a veiy small list of people that had access to the particular report. I would like the Speaker to investigate that. There is no intent at all in targeting a specific person.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's question of privilege will be taken under advisement as the Speaker said and we will come back and report.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Pursuant Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages the following documents: response of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada to the Stephenson inquest recommendations; proposals to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Criminal Code; proposals to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Transfer of Offenders Act, and related documents in both official languages.


NUNAVUT LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT
Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 32(2) I have the great honour to table in both official languages copies of the Nunavut land claims settlement agreement which was signed yesterday in Iqaluit, Northwest Territories by the right
hon. Prime Minister of Canada, the leadership of the Ibngavik Federation of Nunavut and the Government of the Northwest Territories. The appropriate legislation to bring this agreement into force will be introduced in the very near future.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 53 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, as we approach National Access Awareness Week I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons entitled "Completing the Circle: Report on Aboriginal People with Disabilities".
I believe the tabling of this report comes at a most appropriate time as we mark National Aboriginal Week in Canada. As well the United Nations has declared 1993 the International Year of Indigenous People.
Of special interest, I am honoured to present this report in a format including four different styles. One is large print, the second is Braille, the third is audio cassette and the fourth is computer disc. I am happy indeed to present these. I trust that other committees will perhaps follow suit in presenting their reports simultaneously in these various alternate formats.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests a comprehensive government response to this report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
May 26, 1993



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-437, an act to amend the Criminal Code (juvenile prostitution).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Criminal Code with respect to juvenile prostitution. Specifically, it prohibits Canadians from buying the services of child prostitutes while travelling abroad. Just as drug trafficking and aircraft hijacking done anywhere in the world by a Canadian is a crime for which people can be tried in Canada so would this act become a crime for which people can be tried in Canada.
There are far too many travellers, including Canadians, none I hope from any riding held by a Liberal or a Tory, who are creating a demand for child prostitutes particularly in countries like Thailand, Sri Lanka or the Philippines. The children involved in this trade are often sold by their parents into this occupation and they often have no other means of survival.
Since the governments of some nations refuse to crack down on the practice it seems useful that Canadians not add to the problem. In Canada and other western countries the existence of organizations and lobby groups that campaign to make the sexual practices of paedophiles legal demonstrates that this is not purely an Asian problem. The bill simply tries to make it so that Canadians who indulge in this practice abroad can be prosecuted, albeit with evidentiary problems in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Kilgour moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS



GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by many of my constituents in Ottawa Centre and from other constituencies across the national capital region.
They are extremely concerned about the unfair high gasoline prices at the pump. They attribute this to unfair practices of companies that supply gasoline to our region.
These petitioners call on Parliament to urge the government to do whatever is possible to correct this injustice.



LANGUAGE POLICY

Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of just under 30 citizens, most of whom live in my riding of Winnipeg-St. James. Pursuant to Standing Order 36 the document has been certified correct as to form and content.
The petition reflects the concern these people have regarding the language policy of the federal government. It proposes a referendum on this issue. This would be a national referendum involving all electors in the provinces and territories of Canada.
I humbly present this petition to Parliament for its due consideration.



VIOLENCE

Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several hundred residents of southwestern and south central Saskatchewan.
They are concerned by the many studies which have shown a link between violence in entertainment and desensitization to violence in our society. They are concerned that we are increasingly becoming a culture of violence and that violence has become an ordinary part of our children's lives.
Part of this culture of violence is the serial killer board game. It is a game that apparently comes with a bag of 25 babies, the point of which is to murder as many defenceless children and adults as possible.

May 26, 1993
Routine Proceedings
The petitioners request that Parliament consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials such as this game can be kept from being distributed in this country.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I also have a similar petition from people in the Cupar, Kelliher, Lestock, Leross, Tisdale, and Nipawin areas of Saskatchewan.
They point out that recent studies have linked violence in entertainment and desensitization to violence in our society, and that every year perpetrators of such violence admit that they got the idea from something they saw on television or something they had engaged in as a recreational activity. This serial killer board game, which comes with a bag of 25 babies and the point of which is to murder as many of them as possible, is not conducive to proper society.
They petition Parliament to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials such as this killer board game can be kept from being distributed in this country.



NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure under Standing Order 36 to present a petition of 725 names. These Canadians are very concerned about the North American free trade agreement because it will result in even greater job loss through trade concessions.
The petitioners point out that it will restrict Canadian governments from serving the Canadian people and protecting the Canadian environment and also point out it cannot be remedied through renegotiation. Canada's Constitution requires a general federal election before January 1, 1994, when the free trade agreement is scheduled to come into effect.
Therefore, they call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise to present a petition signed by many residents of
Edmonton and some from Calgary. They too are concerned with the North American free trade agreement. They hold that the current Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement sharply reduces the power of all Canadian governments to develop the Canadian economy.
They say that more than 400,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs have been lost since the FTA became law in 1989. They say that if implemented, the NAFTA will result in even more restrictions on the ability of Canadian governments to maintain or improve working conditions, health and safety standards, consumer protection and environmental standards or to promote job creation in Canadian industry.
For those and other reasons they call on this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the FTA's termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.



PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT

Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a further nine petitions signed by some 300 Canadians primarily from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, but also from Nova Scotia, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Edmonton, the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
Parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act have remained unproclaimed since 1986. The employees of the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and staff of members and senators have no health and safety protection under the law and have no legislated role in a common agenda for joint staff-management occupational health and safety items and employees have no legislated labour standards.
The petitioners therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to press the government to finally proclaim parts II and III of the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act.
I might just add that the answers given by the government in debate a week ago were absolutely full of crap. It is about time government members got off their butts and did something to implement the law we all passed seven years ago.
May 26, 1993



NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of residents from Elkford, Sparwood, Femie and Kootenay in my riding of Kootenay East.
It says that the proposed North American free trade agreement has resulted in even greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada and that the agreement will cause Canadians to lose more jobs. If implemented this trade agreement will result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future from assisting Canadian industry, conserving Canadian natural resources for Canadian benefit and advancing added needed social programs.
The Canadian Constitution requires a general federal election before January 1, 1994, the date on which the North American free trade agreement is scheduled to come into force.
The petitioners call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I also rise to present a petition regarding the North American free agreement.
These Canadians state that if implemented this trade agreement will result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future from assisting Canadian industry, conserving Canadian natural resources for Canadian benefits and advancing needed social programs.
They also state that the North American free trade agreement cannot be remedied through renegotiation. For this and for other reasons they call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Routine Proceedings SEAL COVE WHARF


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of residents of Seal Cove in my riding, literally hundreds of names. It must contain just about every adult signature in the community and for good reason. They have concerns about the wharf facilities there. They are insufficient in terms of the space for the number of fishermen who pursue the fishery and there is no protection from the weather.
They badly need this improved facility and I have great pleasure in presenting this petition and in supporting it.



VIOLENCE

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of presenting a petition from people in my riding having to do with violence.
There is a great deal of violence in our society. Our society has become desensitized to that. They therefore request that the Criminal Code of Canada be altered so that materials such as killer board games can be kept away from Canadian children and Canadian people in general.
I think laws have to be brought in to deal with that.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today signed by residents of my constituency from the communities of Canoe Narrows, Paradise Hill and Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners note that the current Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement sharply reduces the power of all Canadian governments to develop the Canadian economy and that more than 400,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs have been lost since the FTA became law in 1989, and if implemented the North American free trade agreement will cause even more Canadian jobs to be lost.
The petitioners call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the FTA's termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.



VOTING AGE

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of

May 26, 1993
Routine Proceedings
young people from Kamloops, Savona, Monte Creek, Pritchard, Chase, British Columbia and some of the rural areas surrounding the city of Kamloops.
They point out that Canadian youth at the age of 16 are considered mature enough to drive vehicles on our highways, enlist and serve in our Armed Forces with parental consent, leave school and enter the work force, marry and raise a family with parental consent. They point out that since Canadian youth are taught about Canadian history, political parties and the electoral process as part of their formal education, they are anxious to participate in the political process, have a vested interest in Canada's future and ought to have a say in how it is influenced by future governments.
They are petitioning the Government of Canada to lower the voting age for federal voting from age 18 to 16 years which would enable Canadians 16 years old and 17 years old to vote.



NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in another petition signed by petitioners from central British Columbia, they point out their strong opposition to the Mexico-United States-Canada trade deal that is soon to pass the House of Commons. They indicate that they believe, without any qualification, that the agreement will open the doors to enable Mexicans and Americans to buy water from our rivers and lakes.
Consequently, they are asking the government to sign a side deal which would exclude water from the free trade agreement.



VETERANS

Nelson Andrew Riis: In another petition, Mr. Speaker, signed by veterans from a variety of Legions throughout central British Columbia, they point out that war veterans have earned the eternal gratitude of their fellow citizens.
They point out that Canada's war veterans have a right to a secure and dignified retirement. They believe that a reduction in services provided to these veterans through the Veterans Independence Program or an increase in the rates charged to them for board and lodging in institutions for long-term care would constitute a breach of the covenant entered into by the people of Canada with these war veterans.
Therefore they are asking the Government of Canada to maintain the current levels of services provided to veterans throughout the Veterans Independence Program and to ensure that there is no increase in charges to veterans for board and lodgings in institutions of long term care.



FIRST NATIONS

['Agreed.\nBoard of Referees Decisions\t1988/89\t1989/90\t1990/91\t1991/92\t1992/93 (ending January 31, 1993)Total # of decisions issued\t20,234\t21,820\t24,348\t31,927\t29,031# in favour of claimants\t4,203\t4,254\t4,929\t7,541\t7,266% in favour of claimants\t20.8\t19.5\t20.2\t23.6\t25# appealed to higher Court\t1,783\t1,681\t1,778\t2,263\t2,415\nAw. time period for On average, it takes between 18 and 24 months for umpire appeals to higher Court appeals to be scheduled, heard and a decision to be issued.\nUmpire Decisions 1988/89\t1989/90\t1990/91\t1991/92\t1992/93\n(ending\nJanuary 31, 1993)\nTotal # of decisions\t1,660\t1,653\t1,778\t1,791\t1,418\nissued\n9 in favour of claimants We do not have the statistics on a continuing basis but a rough estimatewould indicate that between 65 percent and 75 per cent % in favour of claimants of umpire decisions are in favour of the commission.\n# appealed to higher 51\t49\t75\t49Court\t(1988)\t(1989)\t(1990)\t(1991)\n(Available by calendar year only)\n(1992 to December 4, 1992)\nAw. time period for This informations is not available to the Federal Court, appeals to higher Court']
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my last petition is certainly appropriate today, considering that the minister of Indian affairs is soon to table appropriate legislation in the House in terms of aboriginal people. The petitioners are citizens from throughout Canada and they wish to designate a day of recognition of Canada's original inhabitants in order to honour native cultures.
They suggest June 21 is the most appropriate day to recognize First Nations and are calling upon Parliament to enact Bill C-268 which is entitled an act respecting a national solidarity day for the First Nations of Canada.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 473 and 482.


Mr. Whittaker: With respect to the immigrant funds, (a) which funds were subject to complaint since January 1, 1989 (b) who were the principals behind each fund (c) what was the nature of the complaints (d) which funds were referred to the RCMP or other enforcement bodies for action?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Records are not maintained on the number of funds "subject to complaint".
Nationally investigation or administrative review may be ongoing on a number of files in any given period. To obtain the requested information would require an individual review of the more than 790 immigrant investor program files.
May 26, 1993

Government Orders


Mr. Samson: With respect to appeals in the unemployment insurance program, for the past five years, (a) what is the shortest time period known for appeal to (i) an appeal board (ii) an umpire (b) what is the longest period known for an appeal to (i) an appeal board (ii) an umpire (c) what is the average time period for an appeal per annum to (i) an appeal board (ii) an umpire (d) in numbers and in percentages, how many of these appeals to (i) an appeal board (ii) an umpire, were won by the claimants (e) how many appeal cases go to a higher court and what is the average time period for such appeals?


Bernard Valcourt: The answer is as follows:


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor I ask that all notices of motions of the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Board of Referees Decisions	1988/89	1989/90	1990/91	1991/92	1992/93 (ending January 31, 1993)Total # of decisions issued	20,234	21,820	24,348	31,927	29,031# in favour of claimants	4,203	4,254	4,929	7,541	7,266% in favour of claimants	20.8	19.5	20.2	23.6	25# appealed to higher Court	1,783	1,681	1,778	2,263	2,415
Aw. time period for On average, it takes between 18 and 24 months for umpire appeals to higher Court appeals to be scheduled, heard and a decision to be issued.
Umpire Decisions 1988/89	1989/90	1990/91	1991/92	1992/93
(ending
January 31, 1993)
Total # of decisions	1,660	1,653	1,778	1,791	1,418
issued
9 in favour of claimants We do not have the statistics on a continuing basis but a rough estimatewould indicate that between 65 percent and 75 per cent % in favour of claimants of umpire decisions are in favour of the commission.
# appealed to higher 51	49	75	49Court	(1988)	(1989)	(1990)	(1991)
(Available by calendar year only)
(1992 to December 4, 1992)
Aw. time period for This informations is not available to the Federal Court, appeals to higher Court



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture) moved:: That in relation to Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement, not more than one further sitting day be allotted to the consideration of report stage and one sitting day to the consideration of the third reading stage of the bill, and furthermore that 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted if required for the purpose of this order and in turn every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Shortest, longest and average time period for an appeal to the Board of Referees
Data is unavailable. The commission does, however, have a speed of service objective that 90 per cent of appeals to the Board of Referees are heard by the boards within 30 days of receipt of the appeal in the Canada Employment Centre. The speed of service for fiscal years 1988/89,1989/90 and 1990/91 was approximately 86 per cent. The speed of service for fiscal year 1991/92 was approximately 66 per cent and for fiscal year 1992/93 as of the end of January 1993 was approximately 78 per cent.
Shortest, longest and Data is unavailable for the shortest and longest time periods. On average time period for average, it takes between 18 and 24 months for umpire appeals an appeal to the Umpire to be scheduled, heard and a decision to be issued.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
May 26, 1993
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It would be nice if you all went behind the curtain to have your conversations.


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, May 25, consideration of Bill C-115, an act to implement the North America free trade agreement, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, now that tranquillity has been restored I am not sure whether it is a pleasure or not to embark on this excursion. It is a misnomer that we seem to be calling it a debate on NAFTA when NAFTA, as everyone realizes except the government, is in all probability dead.
I wonder why Canadians are looking a bit bewildered. We have been here for in excess of 24 hours now, almost non-stop, looking rather confused at another government manoeuvre to put something through the House with limited debate. The Ottawa Citizen puts it rather clearly today. It said:
The Conservative government has abused the proceedings of the House so much during its tenure that everyone with detailed knowledge of political behaviour during the period 1984 to 1992 wants reform.
All those aspiring to leadership in the Tory government these days are asking for reform. It would be refreshing if one of those contenders in the race would come forward about this time and say no to this. It would be a breath of fresh air for them to say that this is enough. I think Canadians would have great respect for any of the two or three who see themselves as leading contenders for the job who would do that. It would show sincerity and honesty.
The Ottawa Citizen also says:
Government Orders
If is the most tyrannical government in Canadian history in terms of abusing Parliament.
That is putting it very clearly. The article continues:
The Conservatives have used every possible device to enact their agenda. Despite winning a mere 43 per cent of the national vote in 1988 and undergoing steeply declining popularity since then, they have imposed their dark agenda by the most extensive employment of authoritarian methods in Canadian parliamentary history.
That paints a very clear picture. I do not think anything portrays the arrogance of the current government better than the fact that it is already in the fifth year of a four-year mandate, on its last legs, completely severed from the people that it proposes to represent in this country and on its deathbed it is trying to ram through a three-way deal with Mexico and the United States. We are only pretenders in this game because there is really no game. There is no deal.
This is just a manoeuvre on the part of this government to put something through on another hidden agenda which the Canadian people are expected to believe in and will find out about after.
We have had enough experience in this country in trying to find out what is contained in a deal afterward. It is so typical of the current Prime Minister and his wheeling and dealing.
It reminds me of the high drama that surrounded the Meech Lake accord. I remember so well watching that on a television set in Calgary in 1990. The whole country seemed to depend on whether one person got a phone call through to another person. I often wondered what would happen if the line were busy or the phones were down. That seems to be the level to which things have fallen in this country under Tory leadership.
Canadians must wonder why this atmosphere has gone on for so long, almost five years now. Extending a four-year mandate used to be reserved for critical times such as a war and so on when it was thought to be unwise to have an election. This government in its last days is trying to get another thing that it sees as an accomplishment, one more accomplishment. I think it is more likely to be a kink in its tail just before departure and maybe the nail in the coffin that we have all been waiting for.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
This is how warped the government's thinking is. Its members might look upon the GST as an accomplishment. All they have to do is go out on the street, go down Wellington Street for a few minutes, and ask how many people think the GST was a great accomplishment.
They might even think of the existing free trade agreement with the United States as an accomplishment. They should walk out and ask any of the unemployed. There are probably some of them standing out in front of the Parliament Buildings right now. Ask them if they think the current free trade agreement with the United States was an accomplishment.
I noticed an article in The Financial Post yesterday that says: "Several big Canadian firms have announced plans to expand in the U.S. Many senior executives expect more Canadian companies to move south".
The article says that Jannock Ltd. is spending $300 million and Interprovincial Pipe Line Systems announced it will spend $1 billion on expansion and acquisition in the United States. Are those accomplishments?
If this NAFTA deal we are supposedly trying to close on is to be looked upon as another accomplishment I do not think Canada can stand too many more of these Tory accomplishments.
The GST was one and the free trade agreement was another. If this is an accomplishment then the Canadian people will have something to say about that. It is just another typically mishandled opportunity railroaded through to distract people from so many other anomalies created by this government over the past five years. What is the rush and what is the real agenda here?
If the government was presenting for approval a three-way deal on which all parties could agree, something that is good for Canada, something that would be good for Canada now and in the future, something that was mutually good for all three parties, then there would be nothing but concurrence and no dispute from this side.
What Canadians do not know, the unknown, is what is wrong with this deal. Particularly when the very hub of the deal, the U.S., has very strong reservations that are
growing and is not likely to sign the deal at all. The mystery is why we are willing to sign something when the discussion has really broken down?
Our Prime Minister has been running around for about a year now with his 24 carat pen all cocked, filled and ready to sign? All he is saying is just steady me a bit, direct me to the chair, show me where to sign and it is okay, trust us. Have we ever been misled by this government before?
Pretty soon there will be the opportunity for which voting Canadians have been waiting for nearly five years now. Putting politics aside just for a minute, I cannot believe that there are not people across there, sincere honest people, who would wonder at the wisdom of signing this NAFTA deal now. This thing is yet to take shape, shapeless as we have found it right from the beginning, and is now being rushed through for some unknown reason. They are saying sign it regardless of what it will finally end up being and trust them. I do not think Canadian people are willing to trust the judgment of this government.
They have had it illustrated so many times. There is a lack of ability to arrange priorities. Look at the $5.8 billion that has been allotted to temporarily fix our DND and equip it with some helicopters, not 500 or 5,000 but 50 helicopters.
In my riding there is a stretch of broken down highway that has taken the lives of about 24 people in the last few years. Two of those helicopters would complete that highway, make it into a four-lane highway leading from highway 401, the main artery across Ontario, into the nation's capital. That is the lack of ability, capacity or the will to prioritize things in this nation that has finally caught up with Canadians.
The Canadian people will not get their priorities wrong on election day. I think we are seeing it happen in the provincial elections in this country.
We saw it again in Nova Scotia yesterday. Perhaps that is a bit unfortunate, but I think the message is coming through. The Conservative government has not provided good government, whether it be federal or provincial and the Canadian people are waiting for their chance to speak.
May 26, 1993

The priority of Canadians on election day will be to get rid of the government, send it packing, send it into oblivion. The very soonest possible opportunity to do that, the better for the sake of Canada and Canadians.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That four members of the Sub-Committee on Development and Human Rights of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Hade and one staff person be authorized to travel to Vienna, Austria from June 14 to 19,1993 in order to take part in the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democrats, we agree.


Christine Susan Stewart: On behalf of the Liberal Party, we agree.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American free trade agreement, as reported, (with amendments) by a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6.
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I was able to say yes to that earlier motion. I guess I am happy to rise on this matter. I know the House went all night last night on this bill. It is one
Government Orders
of the more fundamental bills this Parliament certainly is going to have to handle before it terminates either in June or the fall and we have an election.
I rise to obviously echo most of the things that have been said here over the last 24 hours. There is no stronger term that I can use than the obscenity of a government of which I formerly was a member forcing through a bill on a matter of such fundamental importance, the NAFTA free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico.
I was a government member when we had the fight in the 1988 campaign with free trade. Quite frankly it was the most difficult election I ever had. My vote showed it because I went from 12,000 to 2,000. Now the Liberals are licking their chops in my riding thinking they are going to bite me off whenever I run again. Of course, there was a little different tale in the wind then as far as I am concerned. But as everyone knows, at least we had a debate on free trade in 1988. We had a debate in this House.
I have great respect for the government House leader. From a government House leader point of view of ramming things through, he has done a pretty good job. However, I am going to remind him of several quotes from the record of Parliament when he chastised and criticized and condemned the then Liberal government for ramming bills through on time allocation and they only did it one or two times. However, as the member for Leeds-Grenville mentioned, it has never been done more often in recent history than by this government.
My former colleagues are having a leadership contest. I have had exposure to those and they are certainly exciting things. Goodness knows what can happen after a party picks a new leader.
Something really bothers me and frankly, it is one of the reasons I have no hesitation in sitting over here in opposition. Having been a member of that party which really tried to profess in the House and tried to practise this, it was John Diefenbaker who said that Parliament was the place for people to speak and to debate, but it is this party now in government that completely wipes the blotter book with its history and tradition. The public out there are not inert and are not stupid. The Charlottetown Accord proved that. That is the reason the public are more tuned in to some of the leaders of the land.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
I have been here for a good number of years and I see one of my colleagues who has been here a little longer than I. The rumour perhaps has been confirmed that he might be elevated to a higher place and that is good for him. That means that there are only about three or four of us who are getting close to the barrel in terms of longevity here.
I could try but I have not got the ability to say it like the former right hon. member for Prince Albert did in saying how he loved Parliament. But Parliament is a sham and a charade when we have this type of allocation of time.
When the government House leader moved the allocation order before lunch he convicted himself when he tried to recite all the debate there had been on the NAFTA bill. He spoke of meetings that had been held across the country, subcommittee meetings and different questions that were asked in the House. He even stooped to talk about the statements of members in the House and took the time of the bureaucrats to tally all that. But then he came out with his own words and said what we all know in this House, that the debate on second reading until last night had been four and a half hours.
This bill is fundamental to the future of Canada and North America. That is why I have no hesitation in saying the government is forcing this bill through now. The majority rules, there is no doubt about that. I would love to see certain reforms of Parliament that everyone is preaching about. In effect there may be some way to control the allocation and get a discretion in the Speaker.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, as you well know I had grave misgivings when this matter was moved into committee under closure and you decided you had to put the motion. I certainly was hoping the government would delay putting the motion so there could have been some more debate before it was forced into a committee. It sat only on technical evidence. It did not call outside evidence. It did not visit different parts of the country. It really just cleaned up some of the definitions of this 4,400 page bill rather than really analysing some of the pluses and minuses that go behind the bill.
We are debating this in this House today when there is going to be a leadership convention. We all know this House is going to most likely be cut off by the guillotine and perhaps not come back after the leadership convention. The first big question the new leader is going to
have to pick for the present government is whether it is going to expose itself to the House of Commons in its habit of forcing everything through by abusing the allocation rule.
I have been here under many reforms of Parliament. The allocation rule is only to be used to allocate time after there has been a good old filibuster, after there has been obstruction or after there has been a very definite effort on the part of the members of Parliament and/or the opposition in concert to really thwart the passage of a bill. You cannot say that, Mr. Speaker, when there has only been four and a half hours before closure came in to ram it into committee. Then it comes out of committee and we have it here in an all-night session last night.
I do not know who is doing what to whom, but I know what is happening. The Prime Minister is bowing off the stage. We are not sure what the Minister for International Trade is doing at the moment, but there is some rumour that he may be bowing off the stage too.
Former friends and colleagues of mine on the government side who would not debate this in their caucus should ask the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade and the government House leader if they remember when they were in opposition and used to champ at the bit in those rare times when the then Liberal government forced things through and they said things about the rape of Parliament and how people were being ignored. Have they forgotten from whence they came?
I want to read just one little excerpt from the speech of the member for Calgary Centre as he then was before he became government House leader in a debate in this House. I have so many more, Mr. Speaker. This is Bill C-78 an act to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, which caused quite a lot of controversy around here. After days of debate the government moved allocation and this is what the member for Calgary Centre, the present government House leader said about closure:
"Mr. Speaker, this motion by the government to close off debate is despicable and outrageous. It is all of those adjectives that could and should be used to describe it. But perhaps more than that, it is tragic in a real sense that more than just this bill is involved, more than just the vitally important national energy policies are involved. It is really one more nail if you will, one more bit of pressure on what little parliamentary democracy we have".
May 26, 1993

I have another quote from page 6157, but my time is just about up. Mr. Speaker, I will not presume any further. I appreciate you recognizing me because I frankly could be voting for many parts of the NAFTA bill. I must say I am upset with the drug part that is incorporated in this international agreement. I have no hesitation, in view of the process the government has used, of voting against this bill in every form and campaigning against it because it has not been fair to Canadians to do it this way.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that a member from Prince Albert stand up after the remarks from the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants because Prince Albert has always been identified very strongly with the sanctity of Parliament and with parliamentarians and politicians representing ordinary Canadians. It has been identified very strongly with integrity in political life, all of which is missing in the government's performance with respect to the NAFTA legislation.
Certainly what we are engaged in today could be called the theatre of the absurd. This is not Parliament any more. This is a total absurdity for a number of reasons.
The first is the overriding of parliamentary debate, national debate and the rights of people to have their parliamentarians debate their issues in Parliament by the action of closure that this government has indulged in again.
This is the fortieth or forty-fifth time that we have had time allocation or closure since we came to this House in 1988. The government has used closure more times in this Parliament than in the whole history of Canada to this point. Surely we need no further evidence of the contempt with which this government holds the Canadian people and the contempt it has for this institution.
To think that many of these members originally traced their political roots to the former member from Prince Albert, John Diefenbaker, really does reinforce the point that these people have strayed a long, long way from their roots and have very little sense of their own history. They have very little sense of the political
Government Orders
movement that brought them to power and kept the Conservative Party alive through the dark years until they could finally become a government. It is a legacy which they have now betrayed.


An hon. member:: He would be rolling over in his grave.


Raymond John Funk: He would indeed. The member says that former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker would be rolling over in his grave and that is indeed the truth.
This is the theatre of the absurd because we are passing a piece of legislation that does not even exist in many ways. It does not exist because this is an agreement among three countries: Canada, the United States and Mexico. Only in Canada, like the commercial says, are we ploughing ahead with this legislation before we even know what it is.
Certainly Mexico has taken the position that the legislation should go forward as it is. But the major trading partner in this agreement that no country can proceed without is the United States of America. As we all know the Americans are bogged down in their own debate on this issue. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this legislation will even be passed by the Americans. Certainly if it is passed by the Americans it will not be in anything like the form we see it in today.
What possible reason could there be for rushing this legislation through under closure to implement a piece of legislation that in the end will not even be the actual agreement which comes to the table to be agreed upon by the three countries? This really is a farce and a travesty of democracy that we are engaged in today.
The specific motion that is on the table right now is Motion No. 4 and I would like to turn to that for just a minute. It is a motion that stands in the name of the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, the trade critic for our party. I would like to pay tribute to that member because through the long months and years preceding this debate there have been many times when that member was virtually the only person of any stature going around the country alerting Canadians to the dangers which we again face through this agreement.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
I am very pleased that this motion stands in his name because as we propose to amend this particular motion, it states that nothing in this act or the agreement shall be interpreted so as to prohibit a party to the agreement from requiring the processing of raw materials or raw resources before exporting such materials or resources.
I think this particular motion really gets to the heart of one of the key issues in the whole free trade regime be it the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or this agreement among Canada, Mexico and the United States. It is the ability of our country to process our resources that is going to make our economy work in the future.
In an era of globalization with value added processing of knowledge industries, of secondary processing, it is the ability to use our resources to enjoy maximum benefits that will make it possible for us to have a functioning economy in this country in the future.
I think it is instructive to look back at the last election. I think the people in the hinterlands, the resource producing regions, understood very well at that time what the whole free trade philosophy and debate was all about.
After the last election I contemplated what I might say in that debate in December 1988.1 was trying to think of what could be said that had not already been said. I looked at the recent electoral map at that time in which the NDP constituencies were outlined in orange, the Liberal constituencies were in red and the Conservative constituencies were in blue. Looking at that map it struck me that virtually the whole map looked red and orange. There was very little blue there in spite of the fact that the Conservatives had won the government.
I put a researcher to work for half a day and added up the square kilometres per constituency for each of the parties and came out with a very interesting finding. We found that only 15 per cent of the land mass of Canada is represented by the government, while 85 per cent of the land mass of this great country is represented by the opposition.
That vast land mass contains the resource producers: the farmers, the fisher-persons, the people engaged in
forestry and the miners. These are the people who know how the economy of this country works or does not work. These are the people who dig up the raw resources and enjoy the few benefits that come from doing that. They see those resources shipped out of the country through the ports to foreign countries to be processed.
People in the resource-producing regions in agriculture, fishing, mining or forestry know that is the fundamental weakness of this country. They also know that with the control the Americans have gained over our resources through the free trade agreement it is impossible to create those kinds of structures, institutions and regulatory requirements that will allow us to use our own resources for our own benefit in the future development of this country.
Then the government promised it would bring in the finest adjustment mechanisms to compensate for the fall-out from free trade that has been seen in many places in the world. What a farce it was to talk about adjustment mechanisms. It was a farce right across the country, but it was particularly a farce in the resource producing regions and the hinterlands in this country. Many of these resource producing regions depend on seasonal employment. They depend on self-employment in the case of farmers and fisher-persons and others. In many cases there are also aboriginal communities that have structural unemployment that has gone back a long way.
What did the government do? It took the training money that used to be available to everybody in this country from the UI fund to train UI recipients. The net effect is that the training money in this country now goes to those fewer urban areas where there are enough people on UI to warrant those kinds of expenditures while the outlying regions, the hinterlands, have been nixed in the training funding in this country.
My own constituency absorbed a cut this year of about $1.5 million in training money available. It is one of the poorest constituencies in the country with 25 per cent to 40 per cent unemployment depending on how one considers it.
There are a few other things I was going to put on the record. I question again what the Liberals think: they can negotiate in renegotiating the free trade deal.

The Americans say they are after our wheat, pork, steel and lumber. If that is what we want to renegotiate with then what kind of negotiating position is that? It is a total non-starter and people should know it.
However the last thing I would like to say is that what has bedevilled us in this debate has been the division of forces and the political opposition over this agreement. I think Canadians should see that in spite of the noise the Liberals make that they are wobbling on this question. They also see that we have a national party in the field that is dividing it one more time.
If we want to stop these agreements then the only thing to do is unite behind the New Democratic Party in the next federal election.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the limited debate the government is allowing on Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American free trade agreement.
Given the significance of NAFTA, members on this side of the House and Canadians in general are not impressed by the actions of the government in ramming through this important piece of legislation.
The three days of debate allotted from report stage, third reading and passage does not give members sufficient time to put forward their constituents' views on NAFTA.
The proposals in NAFTA will alter the way of life of all Canadians. Using the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement as a guide, NAFTA's implementation will have a negative impact on Canada.
In my riding of Stormont-Dundas I have seen what the Conservative government's version of free trade means for Canada. It means high unemployment, plant closures and an exodus southward of Canadian businesses owned by foreign parent companies and a Canadian economy near ruin.
Under the FTA Canada was placed on the verge of losing its economic sovereignty. There is little talk from the present government of guaranteed access to the U.S. marketplace and the jobs, jobs, jobs that were to flow from the FTA.
Everyone knows that Canada has come out the big loser under the FTA. The U.S. used every trade-inhibiting tactic it could think of to prevent shipments to the
Government Orders
south of Canadian-made products: softwood lumber, steel, pork and the list goes on.
It did not matter to the U.S. if there was a genuine grievance or not. By slapping on increased duties and tariffs the damage inflicted on our markets in the U.S. would be done as our products became prohibitively expensive to purchase.
At the same time any U.S. companies wishing to take advantage of Canadian markets were given red carpet access.

The Liberal Party insisted that the main focus of our government during the trilateral negotiations should be to protect Canada's interests and to correct the flaws contained in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. By pretending that NAFTA represents a marked improvement, not only do the Conservatives admit to their own failure, but they prompt us to be sceptical.
The government's main objective when it negotiated the free trade deal was to secure free access to the American market. It failed miserably. Because of a lack of codes in NAFTA, our companies are once again exposed to trade sanctions on the part of the United States. Just remember what happened with softwood lumber, steel and magnesium.

In 1988 the Prime Minister promised massive adjustment programs to help Canadian companies and workers adjust to the FTA. We all know that these adjustment programs never materialized. Now under the FTA there are no programs to create jobs and to facilitate Canadian workers in adapting this new unimproved trade deal.
There are efforts being taken today at reaching side deals to NAFTA on environmental and labour standards. The Government of Canada should consider undertaking a side deal to NAFTA itself.
Hopefully something will come out of these side deals to address these two important concerns. However, given the government's previous failures one should not be too optimistic.
While the FTA's trade dispute panels have been made permanent under NAFTA, the decisions made by these panels are not binding in all cases. Moreover, nothing in NAFTA accelerates the lengthy and expensive dispute settlement process. The flaws contained in both the FTA and NAFTA will still continue to deter both fair and free trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
I referred earlier to the economic problems in my riding of Stormont-Dundas. I have witnessed the negative impact the FTA has had on communities throughout eastern Ontario and especially in Cornwall. Unemployment in the city stands at over 20 per cent with plant closures causing the loss of over 3,000 quality jobs in the last two years.
In addition, the Nestle plant located in Chesterville and Dundas county was a scene of a six-week lockout by the company when its workers refused to accept a new contract which included a so-called continental work week. This permits a company to eliminate premium pay for work done on weekends.
The company said it needed this flexible work week if it was to maintain its competitiveness in the U.S. market. Continental work weeks appear to be the norm in plants located in the U.S., including Nestle's sister plants down south. As the company exports 70 per cent of its products to the U.S., it told its employees that it would require a continental work week to hold on to its markets in the face of increasing competition, including its own plants in the U.S.
The Nestle dispute is the future face of business in Canada under NAFTA. Canadian workers will be forced to accept things like the continental work week in order for Canadian products to keep their U.S. markets. In addition, Canadian workers will continue to lose their jobs with NAFTA as they have under the FTA as companies continue streamlining operations in order to remain competitive.
It is impossible for Canadian businesses exporting to the U.S. and Mexico to produce products cheaper than those made in the U.S. and Mexico. The cost of manufacturing similar products in the U.S. and Mexico is lower and foreign multinationals know this. Today we maintain markets by the quality of our products and our business ingenuity, but there is no escaping the difficulties that are ahead under NAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is convinced that Canadians can be successful in the global economy, providing the government supports them with sound economic policies instead of throwing them to the wolfes
like the Conservatives did. We recognize that international trade is critical to job creation in Canada.

Canadian businesses, Canadian products and Canadian workers can compete with the best in the world. However this government has not kept its part of the bargain to provide fair trade and stimulate economic growth. The economic policies of the present government have consistently failed. The government has created hardship for our industries and it has led to unemployment instead of increased economic progress. The previous high dollar, high interest rate policies of this government, coupled with excessive taxation, the GST, the FTA and now NAFTA demonstrate the damage this government has inflicted on Canada's economy.
I urge the members of the cabinet of this government to take a drive down main street Canada. Come and visit Cornwall and other cities throughout Canada. The government should see the results of its economic mismanagement. Perhaps it will realize that, like NAFTA, it has failed to protect Canadian industry. It has failed to protect Canadian jobs and has failed to offer any solutions to bring about a better and brighter economic future for the country.
In conclusion, NAFTA cannot bring about a reversal of nine years of Conservative economic failure. Only a new government can address myriad problems created by members opposite. I call upon this House to reject NAFTA and for the government to go to the Canadian people in an election so that the people can get a government committed to getting Canada working again.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak on the government bill to implement the North American free trade agreement.
I believe that the government's attitude toward democracy is abominable, even atrocious and that it is most insulting to the Parliament of Canada. Why is it hustling us, why is it pressuring us into voting after only a few hours of debate on this particular bill? Why is the government rushing Canada into an agreement with the United States and Mexico when everyone knows that the Americans are not ready to ratify it this year? Everyone knows full well that Congress will not deal with this issue until late fall.
May 26, 1993

Why is the government pressuring us? We all know that the government's mandate is in its fifth year, that the Prime Minister handed in his resignation and that the Conservative Party is now looking for a new leader. In about three weeks, Parliament will probably be adjourned until fall.
Why is the government in such a rush to impose closure on the debate, preventing parliamentarians from voicing their views on the North American free trade agreement? We know that the Americans are quite concerned about some issues as they relate to the agreement. The new American president served notice to Mexico and Canada that there will be a new side agreement on top of the one agreed to by the former prime minister. We know very well that this agreement contains serious flaws, extremely damaging to the North American continent.
We need job security and we need to protect the working conditions of our labour force. It is very important that this be included in the agreement, which is not the case now. There is nothing in it on the environment. What about the government's green plan? Does it not respect its own plan? Why is it not dealing with this issue in the bill on NAFTA?

The Liberal Party is for free trade. It is for freer trade and it is also for fair trade. We need an agreement which has rules. The Liberal Party's stand on NAFTA has the following six principles to guide it.
First, we must correct the flaws in the FTA. The government should use the opportunity, with the U.S. and Mexico, to correct the flaws in the original Canada-U.S. trade deal. For instance, the dispute settlement mechanism has proved to be time consuming and costly and it is not binding in all trade disputes. The mechanism is due to phased out in seven years.
The NAFTA should also address sectors which are important to Canada such as financial services and government procurement sectors. They were not adequately treated in the FTA. Canada's principal objective in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was to secure access to the American market, and more important,
Government Orders
exemptions from the U.S. countervail and anti-dumping laws. As the Honda, softwood and steel cases have shown, that objective was not achieved in the FTA. The error must not be repeated in the NAFTA. At the same time, Canada's social, cultural and regional development programs must be secured in any agreement.
Before an agreement takes place, the government should establish comprehensive adjustment programs for business and labour. In 1988 the government promised massive adjustment and assistance programs to help firms and workers adjust to the reality of free trade. Yet in the last four years, there have been no initiatives in this crucial area.
The trilateral agreement must entrench meaningful environmental, labour and health standards. Canadian standards cannot be allowed to fall to the lowest common denominator in a North American trading arrangement. Nor should health, safety and environmental standards be employed as hidden barriers to trade.
Any NAFTA should include internationally recognized standards, enforceable through the dispute settlement mechanism. In crucial areas such as the environment, we should make the NAFTA a model of other multilateral trade arrangements such as the GATT.
The government should ensure that the agreement is symmetrical so that Canada is not asked to cede more than Mexico. For example it seems unlikely that Mexico will agree to open its energy sector to the extent that Canada did under the original FTA.
Finally the agreement should make it possible for Canada's other western hemisphere trading partners to join the trade area without delay and time consuming negotiations.

That is why I will vote against this bill that the government is ramming down our throats just as it did with the GST and the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States a few years ago. Why is this government always insisting on operating as if it were a board of directors? Does it not have any respect for the Parliament of Canada where freedom of speech should prevail? Is the government afraid to engage in a national debate with all the stakeholders?

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
It is quite obvious that the government is in a big hurry and that it wants to pressure us for the third time, after the free trade agreement and the GST, into an agreement, NAFTA, that even the United States are not ready to pass.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 2.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understood we were voting on the amendment to Motion No. 4 contained within that group.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: First we are voting on Motion No. 2 and then I will go to the amendment to Motion No. 4 and we will pass it off that way.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on the amendment to Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


An hon. member:: On division.
Amendment to Motion No. 4 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
May 26, 1993


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


David Barrett: Motion No. 8.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 28 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"10. The Agreement, except Article 1709, is hereby approved."
Motion No. 9.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 28 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"10. The Agreement shall not be approved until such time as a national referendum is held in Canada to approve the Agreement and a majority of the votes cast in that referendum indicate approval of the Agreement."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion No. 19, Mr. Kilger for Mr. LeBlanc by consent. Does he have consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no consent. Therefore there is no consent to move Motion Nos. 20, 21, 24, 25 and 26.


David Barrett: Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 242 by striking out lines 20 to 24 at page 193 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion (1)
(a)	unless the Governor in Council is satisfied that the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America have taken satisfactory steps to implement the Agreement;
(b)	unless Bill C-91, introduced in the third session of the thirty-fourth Parliament and entitled An Act to amend the Patent
Government Orders
Act, to amend another Act in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters, is repealed; and
(c)	unless compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals in respect to generic drugs under the Patent Act is re-instated through amendments to the Patent Act in a matter consistent with the 1969 amendments to the Patent Act respecting compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals."


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize you called for consent to let somebody else move Motion No. 21. We would have agreed to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for Motion No. 21 to be presented by Mr. Kilger for Mr. LeBlanc? Yes or no.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is agreed for Motion No. 21 only.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 164 by striking out lines
13 to 18 at page 122.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to see you in the chair, but regret the circumstances that necessitate you being there in the absence of our Speaker Fraser. I hope that all is going well with him.
Because I have limited time and will not be able to focus on all of my amendments, I want to do as I have done in the past and pick out one particular amendment to argue why this bill should not pass the House and how ill-conceived the bill is in terms of caring for the Canadian people.
My amendments deal with the fact that NAFTA is being used by corporate lobbyists and the U.S. government to rectify the lack of a formal intellectual property code in the free trade agreement. It is no coincidence that the first major industrial association to endorse NAFTA was the U.S. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association.
Why do I say that? It is not because it is a matter of political rhetoric, but it is a matter of fact that the earlier legislation that was passed in this House in favour of a monopoly control of pharmaceutical drugs and intellectual property, protecting themselves and giving them

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
massive access to profits goes hand and hand with this bill.
When I make the charge that NAFTA is being used by corporate lobbyists and the U.S. government to rectify the lack of formal intellectual property code in the FTAI need to have a reference. The reference I use is from page 41 of "Which Way for the Americas Analysis of NAFTA Proposals that Impact on Canada" published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in co-operation with Common Frontiers and Action Canada Network. I quote page 41: "The PMA believes that NAFTA patent provisions go beyond the draft GATT. Text on trade-related intellectual property rights lock in changes to Mexico's patent laws and cementing the proposed changes to Canada's patent legislation contained in Bill C-91".
For the second time control of the Canadian drug costs are being sacrificed by the Tories in haste to sign a trade deal with the United States.
In 1986 Bill C-22 extended patent protection for brand name prescription drugs that was passed in this House at the insistence of the United States with the support of the multinational pharmaceutical association as well as the Tory backbenchers who were obviously influenced by the multinational pharmaceutical industry.
This particular small, largely unemotional amendment back in 1986 led to the set-up of the pharmaceutical monopoly bill that was passed by this government, C-92, earlier this year and now frozen in stone forever in NAFTA guaranteeing massive profits to the pharmaceutical industry in this country, fought so vigorously by my colleague from the constituency of Surrey North. Day after day he exposed in this House exactly what kind of creeping monopoly control was taking place over the pharmaceutical industry in this country aided and abetted by the Conservative Party for Lord knows what political reason, but obviously some influence by the pharmaceutical association, particularly in the United States.
A war chest? A drug chest? Who knows, but certainly the influence was there.
I am not suggesting the government was under the influence of the lobbyists' products, but they certainly were under the influence of the lobbyists. Perhaps a defence would be that they were under the influence of
the products, but I leave that for the Canadian voters to decide.
This government has set out to enrich those companies to the point that it is estimated a minimum cost annually may reach some $400 million across Canada in extra costs for pharmaceutical prescription drug charges in this country. At a time when this government is preaching restraint, when it is cutting back on services left and right across this country, it is handing a monopoly control situation over to the international drug cartels fronted essentially by American interests.
There has never been a justification why intellectual property and pharmaceuticals should be enshrined in protection to the drug companies under NAFTA. It has just been slipped in there.
Some suggest that there may be a link to former President Ronald Reagan's closest private sector trade adviser who is Edmund Pratt, chairperson of Pfizer and Company, a leading U.S. multinational pharmaceutical drug company. Pratt was the chairperson of the U.S. Trade Representatives Advisory Committee and the chairperson on the Emergency Committee for American Exports.
The connection is there and it is obvious. There is nothing new that I am revealing here about that connection.
Furthermore, on February 26, 1992 a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills and the members of the intellectual property committee that I spoke of said and I quote: "In clear straightforward language the NAFTA must require Canada to dismantle its discriminatory licensing regime for pharmaceutical products and suspend the guaranteeing of any compulsory licences from December 20, 1990 onward". Both of these demands were met when the Conservatives tabled Bill C-91. As a consequence of that lobbying and that pressure and the direct connection between United States interests and the pharmaceutical companies this government rushed to act. It was unseemly haste.
Would it react to the unemployed in this country with that haste? Would it react to the many small businesses that have gone broke in this country with the same haste? Would it help the elderly, the poor, or the children of this country who need help with succour and comfort from the government to be totally ignored but
May 26, 1993

when the American drug companies came calling they got what they wanted?
It was a remarkable set of actions put into place by massive lobbying from the U.S. interests particularly through the letter to the U.S. trade representative, Carla Hills.
It is a shame. I repeat that I am only picking out one small part of this particular amendment that would correct these kinds of obscene favouritisms that have been shown in protecting intellectual property.
Furthermore, on page 16 of the government's own analysis of the North American free trade agreement under the section on intellectual property there is a section protecting the pharmaceutical companies and the agribusiness companies from disclosure of the efficacy of any one of the drugs or pharmaceutical products or agribusiness chemicals that they produce.
In other words they can now keep secret from public health departments any research they do on a pharmaceutical drug or a pesticide or any agribusiness chemical product, any research they have done to show that the efficacy may be harmful to people or to animals or environmentally damaging. Those documents done by those companies would no longer be subpoenable, no longer available to the public.
Let me give an example of what I am saying. The tragedy in Bophal, India, by the massive U.S. chemical interests and the death of over 4,000 people by the dispensation, somewhat illegally, of poison toxic fumes into the atmosphere killing those people in India, has led to massive litigation in India and in the United States. It was painfully slow, terribly unsuccessful, but at least there was a process for the people in Bophal, India, to go back after that chemical company.
Should this pass I warn every single Canadian citizen that we will give up the right to subpoena in court or to be made available to any public health officer the information that the company may have on the efficacy of a drug or an agribusiness chemical product.
We are saying this is not a Third World country we are dealing with here in Canada and these are not the kind of abuses we have seen catalogued to Third World countries by multinational chemical companies. A sophisticated country like Canada or the United States will
Government Orders
now be subject to the secrecy of the drug companies and any of the research they do.
I do not exaggerate. This is a fact. It is there on page 16 of the government's own summary. We are abandoning to the Canadian people access to information as to drug safety and efficacy.
Who asked for this? Who is it that asked that this protection for the companies and the lack of protection for the citizens be put in the bill? Governments never answered that question. Come to your own conclusion.
I tell you this, Mr. Speaker, God forbid should there be a major chemical incident in this country like Bophal, should there be a repeat of Minamata on an industrial disease scale such as there was in Japan, should there be a relentless effort by some irresponsible corporation to pour toxic fumes into the air, on the soil and in the water, when the time comes for reckoning they will be protected.
In conclusion let me say I do not think this government has the right to take that protection away without at least an explanation of who it is it really cares about. Children, women, men, adults, seniors or the drug companies. Whose side is this government on?


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this amendment I am doing so as a further means of stating my opposition to the NAFTA legislation. I think it relevant to look again at what has happened under the U.S.-Canada free trade deal which is being rolled over into the North American free trade arrangement.
Conservatives have been boasting about the increase in our exports to the United States in recent years. They say that this has happened because of the U.S.-Canada free trade arrangement. However 80 per cent of our exports to that country went there duty free before the U.S.-Canada free trade deal started. They were steadily growing before that time. It seems to me that most of the recent increase in exports would have happened in any event.
Also there are other factors that have been encouraging our exports to the United States. There has been the recent and long overdue decline in the value of the Canadian dollar, making our exports more competitive in the United States. There have been the lower interest

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
rates, also long overdue, which have helped reduce costs and which have also made our export prices better.
I believe claims about increased exports resulting from the North American free trade arrangement coming into effect, if it ever does, have to be taken with a very big grain of salt.
Did all the job losses and closed plants in recent years come about because of the Canada-U.S. free trade deal? Well, we have also had the recession deliberately induced by Conservative policies and what is called a restructuring of the world economy.
However I do believe that the free trade deal with the United States certainly was an important and tragic factor in the losses of hundreds of thousands of jobs and the great number of closed plants since that free trade deal came into effect. That deal did not prevent these tragic developments and in my view made the situation worse.
An example of the pressures on Canadian business created by this trade deal is, as I said earlier today, what is happening with respect to the huge Canadian steel company, Dofasco. It recently announced that it is opening a new steel mill, not in Hamilton or elsewhere in Canada, but in Kentucky. Explaining why the company decided to do this, according to The Financial Post, the company's president said locating in the United States also avoided "the problems of all these stupid trade disputes". The free trade deal with the United States did not end those disputes, it exacerbated them.
A more recent report in The Financial Post with the headline "Canadian companies head to U.S." said:
One big reason for the southern shift, executives say, is free trade.
According to a recent survey of 1,000 senior executives by KPMG
Peat Marwick Thorne, 73 per cent believe North American free
trade will cause plant closures or relocations over the short term.
In other words, the unfortunate trends that we have seen under the U.S-Canada free trade deal are going to continue. They are going to be accentuated if NAFTA comes into effect.
The godfather of the original Canada-U.S. free trade deal and the godfather of NAFTA, the present minister of industry and trade, is backing the Minister of National Defence in the Tory leadership race. That is because he believes that she, above all, will carry out most fully his
policies, the policies of the present Conservative government, measures like the GST, the U.S.-Canada free trade deal and NAFTA. The other leading contender, the Minister of the Environment, also supports these failed policies.
Even if the Conservatives use their majority as they are intending to do to force through a vote on this NAFTA legislation tomorrow, it will still be part of the black record of the Conservative government for which the new Conservative leader and all Conservative candidates in the next election will have to bear responsibility.
I have to ask again, if that is the case, why have the final vote in the House before we know if there is to be any parallel accords dealing with issues like labour standards and the environment? Will they cover all areas of concern to Canada? Will they do so in terms sufficiently serving Canada's interests? We will not know anything about this at the time the Conservatives force this legislation to a final vote by misusing their majority at 5 p.m. tomorrow.
Why have this vote, as I have said before, if we do not know yet whether President Clinton of the United States will ever present the NAFTA legislation to his Congress and, if he does, whether the Congress will pass it? Surely it is not in Canada's interest to have the Conservative majority force this legislation through the House tomorrow before knowing the answers to these questions.
Every poll confirms that Canadians do not want this NAFTA deal as negotiated by this Conservative government. However Canadians recognize that our country is and must be a trading nation. They do not want walls built around it, trying to shut it off from the world as the NDP appears to do. Canadians want, at least as a first step, efforts to renegotiate the trade deals. They believe if there are fair rules and a fair deal when it comes to trade with the United States and the world-the FTA and NAFTA are not fair deals; they are not composed of fair rules-Canadians can compete with the United States, with Mexico and with the world. For this to happen they need a federal government which will stand up for them and stand up with them in order to get fair trading rules and a fair deal when it comes to trade with the United States, Mexico and other countries of the world.
May 26, 1993

I believe Liberals have the commitment and the program to stand up for Canada and stand up for Canadians.
The government says that passing this bill tomorrow will not harm Canada's ability to negotiate side agreements on issues like the environment, labour standards and other relevant matters with the Americans and the Mexicans. It flies in the face of common sense to say that having this bill pass now will not remove some of the bargaining strength of our country. If this bill were not passed Canada could say: "If you do not make a deal that is in our interest we will not present it to our House of Commons".
Once the bill is passed this bargaining tool is gone. The government may say: "We can always refuse to proclaim it", but the government will have already tipped its hand as to the kind of arrangement it will live with. In any event, once the bill is passed changes cannot be made to react to changes in the American legislation or the Mexican legislation without bringing the bill back and reopening the matter.
Again I say it makes no sense to try to force the bill through tomorrow. Also I suggest any parallel accord will likely require new legislation in the House anyway.
If this Conservative government will not listen now and agree not to force this bill through the House without full parliamentary hearings, without full public input, without full parliamentary debate which we have not had, I ask Canadians to remember what the Conservatives have done when they vote in the election which must come in the next six months.
I suggest Canadians will remember and will vote in a way which rejects everything the Conservatives have been doing to weaken the essential fabric of Canada. I say let us commit ourselves now, in the coming election and afterward, to work to preserve and to strengthen our country and to both strengthen and renew its essential fabric.
Let us start it today. Let us continue it tomorrow by voting against the Conservative attempt to abuse the process of parliamentary government to try to get the NAFTA legislation passed this week. I urge this House
Government Orders
to vote against the NAFTA legislation in the interest of Canada today and tomorrow.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like through you to convey to our Speaker, the hon. John Fraser, best wishes for a speedy recovery.
The North American free trade agreement threatens the nationhood of Canada. It threatens the jobs of Canadians. It threatens the social policies that have made our country one of the best in the world. NAFTA is the last irresponsible ploy of a dying government which has misplaced its priorities. This government claims NAFTA will secure the United States and Mexican markets for Canadian exports. We have heard these claims before. The results were disastrous.
Canadians have lost jobs and industries. Canadian firms are moving south where they can access the same markets but pay lower wages, cheaper hydro bills and lower taxes. That is just between the more similar economies of Canada and the United States. What about Mexico where the wages are far lower and average about $2 per hour or seven and a half times lower.
What are we truly trading with the current NAFTA draft before us? It is our nationhood, our independence and our ability to define our own Canadian social policy. This includes our treasured social policies, particularly medicare which is the epitome of such policies.
This government that would sell us NAFTA also wants to sell us medicare user fees and eliminate the universal accessibility that Canadians count on as their inheritance. This is also the government that passed Bill C-69 cutting cash transfer payments to the provinces by so much that the federal government will soon lose its ability to enforce national medicare standards.
This is the same government whose subcommittee on poverty would rather redefine poverty than acknowledge that it exists in Canada and deal with it. In the meantime the committee's chairperson sends her assistant to masquerade as a poor student to steal food from a food bank. This is the same government that clawed back seniors' pensions. This is the same federal government that ended the universality of child benefits.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
This government says that its citizens must be freezing to death without clothing, starving without food and exposed to the elements without a roof over their heads before it will consider that they are poor. Canadians have to be as poor as the poor in the Third World countries before this government will recognize their need and help them. This government would like us to diminish our national Canadian values of compassion and understanding.
This is the bottom line of this federal government. This government does not have money for the poor, children, medicare, education or job opportunities for youth.
However, it has money to allow 22 or 23 contracts to be granted by the department of health and welfare. These were dubious enough that the RCMP has decided to investigate their legality. It has money to pay its friends for public relations services. It has money to allow the outgoing Prime Minister to tour the world and even pose before Mr. Yeltsin. It is willing to jeopardize the financial security of public funds. It has money for a $5.5 billion helicopter project. Indeed, this government will let our money fly out of this country to foreigners. The litany of failures in policy by this government is evident and there is also a litany of scandals which is perhaps one of its greatest achievements.
The government has a new political sculptor, the Tory convention, to create a new sculpture, a new Tory leader. Can they fool the Canadian public?
We have seen even before this sculpture is made how it will continue to fail Canadians. The two front runners articulated with pride their decision to impose user fees on Canadians for health care. The front-running candidate for the Conservative leadership, the Minister of National Defence, has called anyone who differs from her policies "an enemy of Canada".
I do not want Canadians to be arrested and to be jailed in the Toiy cell. The minister has suggested that she should have used a different, milder word but she has not altered the thought behind it.
To me that is the ultimate image of the Tory attitude of what it has been doing all along which was to impose closure on debates in the House and in committees. Now it is looking at the whole of Canada as if it were just one more committee of this government.
Does this mean that the Tories have defined the rules of the game for the whole country and that they will impose closure in debate and they will impose closure on freedom of speech? This agenda is subtle but very alarming. It is camouflaged but very apparent.
How does all of this relate to the debate before us? This government has lost the public trust. It has breached public ethics repeatedly even in its dying days. NAFTA is one more political bead in the rosary of political failures of this government. We have seen where the priorities of this government lie. Its priorities are not those cherished by Canadians. This government is not willing to safeguard medicare. It is not willing to care for the poor. It is not willing to assist the young and the unemployed to find work but it will negotiate a free trade agreement that picks up where the other one left off.
It will negotiate further limitations on our sovereignty with a country whose businesses have said Canadian medicare is a trade advantage for which we should be penalized. It will negotiate free trade with another country whose manufacturers pay workers $2 per hour. It will negotiate away all the reasons for business to stay in Canada. It will negotiate away more Canadian jobs. It will negotiate away the security and prosperity we have won over our history.
Manitoba is a small province. The surplus of Manitoba alone with all other trading areas fell by 56 per cent. The Manitoba trade deficit with the United States grew by 55 per cent and Manitoba's global trade surplus became a deficit of some 293 per cent.
I call on the remaining thread-and I hope there is one left-of sensitivity left in this government. In 1988 the government allowed the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement to wait until after the election. I would like the government not to be hasty and to at least postpone this and have NAFTA debated after the 1993 election.
The fears of two-thirds of Canadians were been justified in 1988. Sure, we would like freer trade with the United States, as with other countries of the world, but the rules must be clear. Indeed we are committed to pursuing multilateral trade which this government has continued to neglect. This government has turned its back on Pacific Rim countries and on the new Europe. It does not help our businesses in their export orientation. It has not provided assistance to small and medium sized businesses. It has only tinkered with the Small Businesses Loans Act.
May 26, 1993

This government forced the implementation of the FTA in part based on the recommendation of the de Grandpre commission but ignored and neglected the concurrent recommendations of the same commission. It ignored the recommendation that measures must be in place such as education and training assistance and other adjustment programs to ensure that Canadians remain with jobs.
Do I need to remind this government that 1.6 million Canadians are unemployed and that there are 2.6 million Canadians on social assistance? The majority of them have already lost faith and hope looking for a job. Those are the real signs of the failure of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. How can one living soul in Canada ever again trust this government? Unlike the NDP that wants a wall to isolate our country, we would like a trade agreement but we want one on Canadian terms. We want one that serves our interests as well as those of our trading partners.
The rules on dumping and subsidies must be delineated. Over the last four and a half years we have seen how the current FTA has failed without those rules being defined. We want to provide for Canadians so that they will reap the benefits of any trade agreement with defined rules and balanced provisions. With adjustment programs in place for shifts in our economy Canadians can compete as my leader has said because Canadians have confidence in themselves.
Why is this government so impatient to bind the hands of Canadians before the U.S. and Mexico have determined what the final shape of the agreement may be? Is it because the Conservative government would like to add to the legacy of failed deals it is leaving Canadians? This government created two deals which were intended to unite Canadians but only divided us. Will it also create two trade deals which were intended to make us prosper but that will only make us poor?
In a true sense it is the next government that will proclaim this agreement if it is passed today. While this is a comfort, because when we form the government we will not allow this agreement as now drafted to prosper, this member and most Canadians find the rushing of this debate bizarre, incomprehensible and irresponsible. I am groping for the right word. I would like to open my
Government Orders
dictionary but I think Canadians know and feel, as I do, the pains in their hearts that no word can define and describe as they fear for their future and the future of their children.
Therefore I call on this government to hold off for the remaining few months of its last political gasp and let Canadians decide on this new agreement as they decide on the government they want, as it should be and I trust would be with the Liberal Party of Canada.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this part of the debate.
I would like to mention, for the benefit of the Liberal member for Windsor West who spoke about the free trade agreement not having any impact, that in Cambridge there was a company, Babcock and Wilcox, that just recently made a sale to U.S. power utilities. That sale, which came to $250 million, resulted from the elimination of a 6.5 per cent tariff against Canadian companies selling into power utilities in the United States.
The hon. member for Windsor West may not say that the FTA agreement is beneficial but I can assure him that people in Cambridge are not sneezing at a quarter of a billion dollars worth of business that is coming into Cambridge.
International trade is Canada's bread and butter. Thirty per cent of Canada's GDP is related to exports. The question is to what degree do Mexico and Canada export similar products to the United States because the United States is our biggest client. Some 85 per cent of our industries export their products to the United States. Mexico is also a major trading partner of the United States.
In 1985 almost 30 per cent of Canadian exports to the United States had competition from Mexico. By 1990 almost 44 per cent of Canadian exports to the U.S.A. were similar to those from Mexico. Therefore, with or without a NAFTA Canada and Mexico are becoming greater competitors with each other to get into the United States market.
If we were to only permit a Mexico-U.S.A. agreement and not involve Canada would this not give Mexican companies more special advantages than exist today? The Canada West Foundation said this about the NAFTA:

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
Canadian direct flows with Mexico are extremely modest, but the question of concern to Canadian trade officials should be the possible displacement of Canadian exports by Mexican exports resulting from a U.S.A.-Mexico only bilateral trade agreement.
People will probably want a concrete example, and this one is in the area of auto parts. Canada exports auto parts to Mexico. However Mexico ships not only auto parts but also motor vehicles to Canada. Canada does not export any vehicles to Mexico because nobody else does. Currently under Mexican law there is an embargo on the importation of motor vehicles. Shortly we will be able to ship cars into Mexico because of recent changes made to the Mexican automotive decree and under NAFTA that will continue and the market will open up further.
But back to the parts. Right now Canadian auto part makers pay a 10 per cent tariff to get parts into Mexico. The American part producers also pay a 10 per cent tariff to get into Mexico. This amounts to about $100 million worth of auto parts business for Canadian companies that ship to Mexico.
If the NAFTA is not in existence, but the U.S. and Mexico arrange their own bilateral deal, then in all likelihood that 10 per cent tariff for American part producers would be eliminated and what will we have left then? We will have the Canadian part producers still having to pay the 10 per cent tariff to get their parts into Mexico, but the American company will not have to pay that 10 per cent tariff which would make American parts cheaper. Therefore Canada would over a period of time lose the $100 million worth of auto parts business that exists today.
That is a concrete example of why Canada decided to join the Mexicans and the United States. If it was just a bilateral agreement with the United States as the hub, that would be a tremendous disadvantage to Canadians and everybody recognizes that.
Everyone talks about why do we want to trade with Mexico, why can we not trade with the European Community. When the subcommittee on external affairs looked at the NAFTA and travelled across the country, when we were in Moncton, Connors Brothers, the people that produce Brunswick sardines made an interesting presentation. That company catches the sardines and packages them in its facility in New Brunswick. All
the value added goes into the sardine can. The company has now gone to Mexico because with some 85 million people, while not all of them are affluent, it has determined that its market size is 25 million people who are able to buy the sardine product. That is the population of Canada, 25 million people.
Brunswick is now shipping sardines and selling successfully into Mexico. The point is that it is doing it out of its facility in New Brunswick where all the value added is. It is getting into that market early. Right now it is paying a 20 per cent tariff which it knows will be eliminated after NAFTA comes into place, but it wants to get into that market now before the Americans get down there.
What happens when this same company wants to sell its canned sardines into the European Community? It has to send the raw fish to Aberdeen, Scotland where then the value added, the canning, takes place and then it can sell from Aberdeen into the European Community.
This is what the opposition is voting against. This is an agreement that allows a New Brunswick company to add value added and sell into Mexico. It will not be able to do the same thing into the European Community. It has to take the value added to Aberdeen, Scotland.
We have also had some questions from the opposition asking why it is important that this legislation pass the House now. It is important because the NAFTA comes into effect on January 1,1994. There are a number of key gains in the NAFTA over the FTA that would not be realized if the NAFTA does not come into effect on January 1. For example, the duty drawback provisions of the free trade agreement are due to expire on January 1, 1994. NAFTA would extend these for a further two years.
I encourage the members opposite to talk with some of these companies that require the duty drawback because it allows them to expand their facilities. They want the assurance that it will be extended for two years.
The FTA's non-wool fabric textile import quota expired at the end of 1992 but was temporarily extended to the end of 1993. The NAFTA will enlarge this quota and make it permanent. Without the NAFTA this quota would be discontinued. We all know of the Honda dispute. The NAFTA rules of origin resolve the prob-

Government Orders
lems that were encountered by Honda under the free trade agreement.
It is important this government sends clear signals to business that it is our intention to pass the legislation and once it is passed, then the U.S. Congress and Mexican Parliament can move on it, but Canadian business is assured that we have done our job and they can plan accordingly.
I would like to conclude with a final quote. "Ontario's chief competitors are other advanced economies that are increasing value added rather than those countries depending primarily on low-cost labour for their competitive advantage". I wanted to put that quote on the record because it came from the industrial policy framework that is being put forward by Bob Rae and the NDP government in Ontario and I thought that should go on the record.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have at least this opportunity to speak. I will do so in general and perhaps somewhat different terms in some respects than others who have spoken with respect to the North American free trade agreement and its twin the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States.
However, I could not approach this topic without observing, as others have observed, that never in the history of Canada has a government acted with such contempt for this place, such contempt for the Constitution of this country and with such contempt for the people that this government is supposed to represent. Never before in the history of this place has there been levied upon it such abuse in the form of time allocation or closure as this government has accomplished in four years of a near dictatorship which is a deep offence to Parliament, to me, to my colleagues in this party, I think to all members of this House and certainly it will be learned on election day to all of the people in this country.
It is very interesting to listen to this debate. As the Conservative member who just spoke, many on that side, as well as in the Liberal Party, continue to talk about the North American free trade agreement and its twin, the free trade agreement, as if all we are talking about are
tariffs and larger markets, prosperity to be gained through competition.
What we are talking about is something far more fundamental than this. Many have talked about the death of social democracy, the notion that says that governments should act on behalf of all of its citizens to ensure that equity and economic prosperity go together, what the free trade agreement is a part of and what NAFTA is a part of. It is a whole series of arrangements that began with the Liberal government and only culminated with the the Conservative government to free transnational corporations from any limits that might be imposed by governments, to free them from any obligations that they may have to nations or to people.
What we are creating is a situation in which transnational corporations will be free to sell, invest, build factories or move jobs wherever they choose in the interests of competition.
This is a process that began with the Liberal Party, that began with the reconstruction of the tax system so that it would benefit the large corporations and the wealthy at the expense of all the rest back in 1975, thus bringing the deficit and all of the harm that that has caused. The specifics of free trade were promoted by a Liberal who chaired the Macdonald commission.
The Liberals talk about these deals as if there were merely trade deals. I cannot believe they are missing the point. We are talking about a fundamental change in the Constitution of the country and a fundamental change among governments, corporations and people in general.
We have in these deals an accord of complete freedom to the transnational corporations to seek the lowest wages, and they have; to seek the lowest levels of taxation and support of programs to benefit the people, and they have; to seek the lowest environmental standards; and to seek the lowest health standards.
The people in my city know the results of following the possibility of moving where labour is cheap and profits are great. My city has experienced the loss of a great many factories and a great many jobs. We could talk about Kelsey-Hayes, Windsor Bumper, the GM transmission plant, and on and on.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
It is true in recent months Windsor has been a beneficiary of some significant investment for which we thank the Ontario government, a government severely strapped by the situation that has been created. Provincial governments have had their degree of freedom to serve the people severely limited precisely because the corporate agenda has been successful in disarming governments in their effort to protect and serve the people.
We hear the Liberals citing, as we have cited, the heavy toll of unemployment: 1.6 million Canadians and 2.5 million more dependent upon social assistance. Deficits plague all governments because revenues have fallen and costs have risen. Who pays for this? It is not the corporations. The Ontario government will dare not raise the taxes on companies because the companies could flee to Mexico or the United States by virtue of the free trade agreement and NAFTA as well.
They sit watching this misery in full cognizance of the purpose of the corporate agenda which the Conservatives have completed. It is nothing but an arrangement to ensure the easy movement of goods and services from Canadian plants and Canadian businesses to a larger market that will somehow benefit all Canadians, and it is not happening.
What do they say? They are going to renegotiate and make it better. Let us listen carefully to their list of items to be renegotiated. It dances around the edge. Yes, we agree that the dispute settling mechanism should be improved, that we should be exempted from anti-dumping legislation and all that. However when the Liberals say they are going to renegotiate conjures up a picture that is ridiculous to anybody in Windsor who knows anything about negotiation. I can just imagine the CAW sitting down with Ford and saying: "Hey, folks, we have a contract but we do not want to break it. We just want to renegotiate it".
Ordinarily my colleague from Windsor West is an astute person, but he was almost swallowing his words in uttering such a ridiculous concept as renegotiating without abrogating. What will they do? They are going to renegotiate. They will say: "What are the Americans going to give up?" Are the Americans going to give up complete access to our energy? As a country that has the greatest energy requirements of any industrial nation, the largest nation in the world, the coldest nation of the
world, we have given them access to our energy at our prices. Are the Americans going to give that up? Are the Americans going to give up their access to government procurement? Are the Americans going to give up the elimination of performance rules? Are the Americans going to give up access to unprocessed wood, minerals and fish?
It is difficult to imagine how otherwise intelligent people could propose to the Canadians that they are going to renegotiate a deal without abrogation.
Now they are going to say that New Democrats are trying to build walls. We build walls only high enough to ensure that trade is balanced and fair and to ensure that corporations pay their share of the benefits in infrastructure and everything else on the basis upon which they make profits.
We will abrogate the deal, and if NAFTA is approved this legislation will be abrogated. That is what the Canadian people want. They do not want wishy-washy Liberals who from one day to the next cannot figure out what side they are on because their leader cannot decide which part of the caucus he is going to follow. We know where we stand. We stand for Canadian people.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American free trade agreement.
From a personal perspective my riding is still reeling from the after shock of the current free trade deal earthquake with the United States. Companies and the people who work in them are worried and concerned that a North American agreement will only compound the problems and add to the misery of lost jobs, lost hope and lost opportunities.
At the outset I congratulate my colleague from Etobicoke North for leading the way in this debate. His speech of two months ago was crystal clear and had a great deal of the foresight Canadians are demanding from elected politicians.
It is fantastic that we can debate the true merits of a proposal without being dragged down by partisan interests. However it is worth pointing out that we in the Official Opposition are not a protectionist party like the NDP that wants to hide behind oppressive, unwieldy regulations and red tape.
May 26, 1993

We in the Liberal Party realize the facts of the real world. Canada is a trading nation. It was yesterday. It is today and it forever shall be. Therefore we must negotiate trade agreements that are in the best interests of all Canadians.
We in the Liberal Party urge the government to take advantage of the three-way trade talks to protect Canada's interest and correct the major flaws in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. After Germany we are the leading per capita trading nation in the world. It is in our best interest to have a trade deal that can best utilize our competitive advantage in this unstoppable era of globalization.
I believe Canadians can compete in the emerging global economy but weasel words and statements written by public relation experts of the government appealing to our entrepreneurial spirit and great hopes for the future are not consistent with the facts.
The government, despite its grand intentions, cannot throw our workers to the wolves but must back them up with solid economic policies. The NAFTA does not go far enough in correcting the FTA's flaws. Therefore we cannot support it. This is not a done deal.
President Bill Clinton wants action on environmental and labour standards. We certainly appreciate his support of the Liberal Party's position.
Secure access to the American market was the government's key objective in the FTA, one it failed to achieve. There is still no subsidy or anti-dumping code in the NAFTA. This leaves Canadian industries still exposed to ongoing U.S. trade harassment of the type we have already witnessed with our softwood lumber, steel and magnesium.
Once again there is a complete lack of comprehensive adjustment programs for our firms and our workers. Apparently the government did not learn the lessons of the serious economic fall-out of the 1988 trade deal.
It has no game plan to create jobs and help Canadian workers adapt to this new reality. Even with Mexico on side the government has failed to get the U.S. to allow trade sanctions against countries using low environmental standards to attract investment. Under the NAFTA
Government Orders
environmental protection will be left to a country's best endeavours. What a cop out.
Once again the government knuckled under to U.S. pressure, especially in the vital energy section. Under the NAFTA in times of shortage Canada will still be required to supply the American energy market. Mexico by contrast will retain full control of its energy reserves.
While the FTA's dispute settlement panels, formerly only a temporary measure, have been made permanent they are still not binding in all cases. Nothing in the NAFTA will speed up the lengthy and costly dispute process which was the major flaw of the FTA.
There are some good things in the agreement. The Liberals had called for an accession clause that would allow other western hemisphere nations to join the trading area without a major reworking of NAFTA. The agreement allows for this and gives each country a say over future members.
The auto industry is crucial to my riding of Kent in southwestern Ontario. It is responsible for nearly one-quarter of all the jobs in the city of Chatham. As a result I have looked at the auto parts provisions very closely. The measure to have tighter rules of origin for autos is positive.
The auto pact is preserved. There is a requirement of 62.5 per cent North American content, in two stages over eight years, for light vehicles, their engines and transmissions and 60 per cent for other auto goods to qualify for duty free access to the U.S. and Mexican markets.
New plants will have five years to reach the new content level and major plant refits will have two years. After 10 years there will be the elimination of the Mexican auto decree, which has distorted investment and restricted imports. Canada will retain its high safety and emission standards with the removal of Mexican tariffs on most auto parts within five years and on all auto products within 10 years.
We have a serious trade deficit with Mexico and that hopefully will even out over the years. However according to the Institute for International Economics Canada will be the only nation to suffer under a NAFTA. They predict that Mexico will gain 600,000 jobs and the U.S. will gain 130,000 jobs while we stand to lose 5,000 jobs.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
We are entering uncharted territory, as was outlined by my colleague from Etobicoke North. We cannot support this deal as it now stands. We think the changes to environmental and labour standards are worth while enough to block passage of this deal. It still has a long way to go in the U.S. Congress. I am appalled that the government would cut off debate so it can clear the slate for its leadership convention without the new and temporary leader being too tainted with ugly old policies.
Many of my constituents took part in the rally last weekend opposing NAFTA. I am here for my constituents and they tell me that the NAFTA as it stands is not in Canada's best interest.
A Liberal government will try to improve NAFTA. We will work hard to gain the rules that Canada requires to compete on an equal footing with our trading partners. We will give Canadians a government that backs them up with solid domestic policies and a reasoned common sense approach to international trade.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in this extremely important debate on the North American free trade agreement.
I submit that the debate we are having today is but the continuation of the one we started in 1988. In fact, the arguments put forward are the same. I was one of those who maintained at the time that it was imperative to have control mechanisms to monitor American investments in Canada. The best example I can think of is still the one where Americans would take over our banks and that would be the end of the Canadian identity.
If they control the banks, and thereby the economy, that will be the end of us, a process which has already begun in the sense that some 350,000 jobs have gone to the United States over the past four years as well as thousands and thousands of businesses.
If they control the export of profits, that too will mean the end of us because, once the Americans start investing more steadily in our Canadian businesses, profits will obviously go to the United States. We would need to monitor that. With profits flowing out of the country,
Canadian companies will certainly lack the financial resources to remain at the leading edge of technology and also to upgrade the training of our professionals, not only the workers but management as well.
It is important to point out that Canada ranks eleventh in the world with respect to management and manpower training.
It is also very disappointing to lose to the United States some of our finest brains, our best scientists and intellectuals. Which brings me to the specific matter of the deficiencies in NAFTA. I think that NAFTA seeks to impose an artificial compatibility on our three countries. First of all, the occupational health and safety standards are very different and workers protection would be disregarded for the sake of profits. Eventually, salaries will be levelled down, which means that Canadian salaries are bound to drop while those in the United States will rise until they finally match ours. Will we lower our environmental standards to meet those of the Americans and the Mexicans?
Today we can give a much more precise meaning to the term "harmonization" as President Reagan and our Prime Minister used it when they sat down to negotiate the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.
Just think of the comparisons made with respect to the Canadian UI system, the wage loss insurance in the United States and our health care system in which two or three Tory leadership candidates advocate introducing user fees like the ones they have in the United States. In the end, this harmonization is far from natural. Ultimately, our culture will be so diluted and our economy so Americanized that it will undermine our identity as Canadians and our reputation as a nation which knows how to take care of its people.
The North American free trade accord will also increase economic dependency. Let me explain. At present, we export about 80 per cent of our manufactured products to the United States.
Why should we leave the door wide open to American investment and to the migration of Canadian workers and businesses, just for the remaining 20 per cent? In the long run-in a not so distant future, considering that our balance of trade is narrowing-exports and imports will
May 26, 1993

be so closely balanced that you will hardly see the difference between the two countries.
Logic would also dictate that we concentrate much more on improving and promoting relations with countries like China, with its billion plus population, instead of limiting our focus to a small country like Mexico. In the long run, it is important to make sure that our country always remains independent and that exterior economic forces are not allowed to dictate our future economic policies to us.

The more I think of it this debate is a huge exercise in futility because this Conservative government will use its majority to force its erroneous will upon Canadians, the majority of whom do not accept this free trade agreement.
It is futile also in the sense that President Clinton, while campaigning last year, made it very clear that unless there are parallel accords on labour standards and the environment there will be no deals.
Why the rush today when the American Congress has not even been seized with this NAFTA bill? Most important of all, why rush into passing the NAFTA deal in this House when four years after signing the free trade agreement a committee has not even been struck to define the word subsidy or what criteria will constitute dumping? Both agreements rest totally on these two definitions. They are crucial to NAFTA's vitality if it ever happens.
There is also the dispute settlement mechanism which is totally based on American law.
I was talking about the subsidy a while ago. Today as soon as Americans suspect a Canadian product is subsidized they cry murder. Every time it goes to the tribunal, this allegation is judged according to American law. While it is at the tribunal some countervail actions are instituted. There is a serious time delay between the action itself and the verdict of the tribunal which causes enormous loss of revenue. The softwood lumber issue comes to mind. Today there are millions and millions of dollars in the United States still outstanding which belong to Canadian companies.
Government Orders
In my view the free trade agreement of 1988 and this NAFTA deal are both one-way streets to the United States. Businesses and jobs are lined up to go to the United States and I fail, as do my colleagues in the Liberal Party, to recognize any value that it would have for Canadians.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able speak one more time in this debate. As I am sure many who may be listening know, we are in the final stages of report stage thanks to the time allocation motion that was moved by the government earlier today.
I have had the opportunity to listen to a few of the speeches that have been given today. In particular, I have paid special attention to some of the things that have been said by my Liberal colleagues and I would like to comment on some of those things because they deserve comment and clarification.
Not so long ago a Liberal member was up on his feet. The one sentence that caught my ear was this: "The Liberals will work to improve NAFTA". He was speaking as if some day they might form the government. It is not the hon. member who is sitting there wondering whether I am talking about him. It was about two Liberal members ago.
He said that the Liberals will work to improve NAFTA. That is nice but what does it mean? What it sounds like to me is that the Liberals have no intention of not implementing NAFTA should they become the government at the time of the next general election.
What we want to hear from the Liberals and what a great many people who are opposed to NAFTA want to hear from the Liberals is not whether they are opposed to NAFTA or whether they will try to improve NAFTA. It is whether they will or will not implement NAFTA should they have the opportunity to form the government before January 1, 1994. That is the key question.
That is something that we have not heard, yet we have heard dozens of Liberal members who rose to speak. To my knowledge not one of them has said that if the Liberal Party forms the Government of Canada in the next general election then the Liberal Party will not implement NAFTA as of January 1, 1994.

Government Orders
Unless the Liberals are prepared to say that then it seems to me that Canadians who oppose NAFTA are duty bound to look elsewhere to a party that is committed to not implementing NAFTA if it forms the government. That of course is the position of the New Democratic Party.
One will not be able to improve NAFTA if one is willing to implement it on January 1, 1994 and then hope somehow that it can be changed. This is the same unrealistic and misleading position that the Liberals want people to accept with respect to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, that somehow it can be improved on the basis of some future renegotiation.
I think the member from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca said it very well pursuant to an amendment that he moved earlier in this debate. He asked the government to support an amendment that would put into the Canadian legislation the same qualifier with respect to the supremacy of Canadian law over the agreement that the Americans have in their legislation about the supremacy of American law with respect to the trade agreement.
It is that kind of thing that the Americans are not going to be willing to give up. In fact the Liberal position on this with respect to NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is not to renegotiate in any positive sense but simply to tinker with the terms of surrender.
If we get a Liberal government we will have nothing other than a Vichy regime or a collaborationist regime. This would be a phoney independence. The Leader of the Opposition would be the Marshall Petain of Canadian nationalism who will when push comes to shove do the bidding of his friends in the corporate elite and the people in the BCNI and others who always cover their bets by giving the same amount of money to the Liberals as they give to the Conservatives.
I listened with interest earlier to the Leader of the Opposition and to his attack on the NDP. What did he have to say? It reminded me of the constitutional debates in 1981 when the now Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Justice and was the official hit man for the Liberals on the Constitution.
I remember those debates, and perhaps you will too, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are just riveted by what I have to say here. Perhaps one remembers when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister of Justice and the official hit man for the Liberals on the Constitution and how everything was reduced to a simple black and white. If one had a position with respect to the charter of rights where one was considering that maybe there should be a notwithstanding clause or it should not have absolute supremacy-there were a number of nuances as to how a charter of rights might be put into the Constitution-then one was against rights for the Canadians. One was against rights, period.
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition today. If one disagrees with the position on the FTA and NAFTA then one is against trade. Now the NDP is against trade and we want to put walls up around Canada. We never said anything like that. When did we say that?
There is a difference between wanting to get rid of these agreements and putting up walls around Canada. It is precisely the opposite. What we would like to do is create a global trading regime in which the workers of one country are not played off against the workers of another country, in which the tax system of one country is not played off against the tax system of another country, in which we would have global rules that benefit the peoples of all the different countries of the world rather than the corporations that have no respect for the welfare of the peoples of the world or for that matter the sovereign elected governments of the nations of the world.
Is that building walls around Canada? Yet that is the caricature that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to suggest with respect to the NDP position.
We have always supported fair trading arrangements. Who has not? The question is whether or not the free trade agreement is a fair trading arrangement. We say no. We say that the only way a fair trading arrangement can be accomplished is to get out of the FTA and the NAFTA and that is where the difference lies between the NDP and the Liberals. We say that one is dreaming in Technicolor if one thinks that one can renegotiate these agreements.
This is not the only trade arrangement. These agreements are not the only option. That is where one is blind. That is where one is myopic when it comes to this. One
May 26, 1993

thinks that one can only deal with what one has. We like to dream a little bigger.
We like to think that in the international arena and in the multilateral trading arena we could work with others who want fair trade and not just a playground for the multinationals. We could build that kind of system at the GATT or in some other context because even at the GATT we find the United States trying to impose its version of fair trade on the rest of the world. It is not a question of the FTA and NAFTA or the GATT. Both of them have become a venue for the American world view which is trying to get rid of orderly marketing and trying to get rid of a variety of things that the Americans find objectionable but which we in Canada have found intrinsic to our social and economic well-being.
It does not serve anybody well for the Liberals, for the Conservatives or for us for that matter, to simplify the choices. We are taking a very well-defined position. We are saying that we will not be able to renegotiate these agreements to the satisfaction of Canada. The only way that they could possibly be renegotiated would be for the Americans to actually end up with more than they already have. The only way to do that and the only way to get out of this is to get out of it.
That is the position the Liberals do not agree with. Fair enough. They can say that. They can that they do not agree with that, but they do not and should not say that that implies putting walls up around Canada because that is not what we are talking about.
In fact, some could argue that what the FTA and the NAFTA tried to do was to put walls around North America, that this trading bloc way of thinking about the world is in fact a fortress mentality. Except the fortress is in Canada and the fortress is North America. It is going to be a weakened fortress because within it we will have this reality called Mexico drawing down the social and economic standards and values of the other parts of North America.
I do not think that the Liberal Party does this country any service when it tries to suggest that people who do not agree with it are into building walls around Canada. What we want is a truly global trading system, but we want one that builds up a global community. We want
Government Orders
one in which the global community is able to exercise the kind of regulation and accountability on the global marketplace that nations in the past have been able to impose on national marketplaces.
The Conservatives do not want that because they never liked the control that national governments imposed on national marketplaces. The way to get it to escape that is to have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I love the hon. member's speech, but I regret that his time has expired.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been consultations among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That clause 66 of Bill C-115 be amended by adding, immediately
after line 27 on page 48, the following:
Other remedies not affected
"(10) For greater certainty, nothing in this section affects any remedy available under any other provision of this Act or of any other Act of Parliament."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, we are the original free traders. Our original proposals on free trade throughout the history of government in this country were fiercely opposed by the Conservatives in the early 1900s.
We could have a major debate about our position on trade but I think that it is fairly academic considering it is common knowledge just exactly where each party sits with regard to the free trade agreement as well as the North American free trade agreement itself.
I want to speak about some specifics, one being our aim at amending the North American free trade agreement. It is our intention to have the side deals completed and to negotiate the best deal possible. This is no great mystery. We are not opposed to free trade and supportive of blind protectionism, closing our eyes to the opportunities available to us with our world trading partners. No, that is not our position. We want a deal that secures the appropriate provisions on environmental and labour standards.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
We have to look at this deal from my constituents' perspective, securing perhaps at a later date circumpolar trade links with the former Soviet Union, Greenland and other circumpolar nations. In fact, we have already carried out many exchanges with the former Soviet Union under various protocols signed by our governments in Canada.
My main focus in this debate is on the importance of water in relationship to this trade deal with respect to First Nations and northerners. The issue of water within NAFTA is one which could prove to be extremely critical and is an issue which has yet to be challenged. There have been growing concerns about the role water will play within this agreement, but nothing substantive at this time.
There have been concerns expressed by the Rawson Academy of Aquatic Science and other credible sources that "without an exclusion water is certainly part of the agreement. Any good or service covered by a tariff heading annexed to NAFTA is subject to the rights and obligations set out in the agreement itself. The large-scale movement of water was neither raised nor negotiated during the North American free trade agreement negotiations".
In addition, the Rawson analysis indicates that it also appears that indirect controls on water exports-by the Canadian government-are made more difficult through NAFTA's general investment and national treatment provisions. The report goes on to state that the Canadian government has recognized that water is a good.
The statement of the International Conference on Water and the Environment held in Dublin in 1992 was adopted by representatives from 100 countries, including Canada. One of the statement's four basic principles is: "Water has an economic value in all its competing uses, and should be recognized as an economic good".
The Rawson Academy report on NAFTA and water exports has made a number of recommendations that if the passage of NAFTA goes ahead without the exclusion of water, then three steps must be taken to prevent large-scale water exports.
First, there must be an exemption for large-scale water transfers added to NAFTA itself. Failing this, an
agreement exempting water from NAFTA would have to be negotiated among the parties and this agreement would have to be binding on the trade dispute tribunal or panel.
Second, water must be excluded from the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. As this agreement has already come into force, this would be best assured through a memorandum of understanding between the Canadian and U.S. governments which specifically excludes large-scale water transfers from the agreement.
Third, the federal government needs to pass legislation prohibiting large-scale water exports.
Furthermore, Rawson states the social and economic costs of large-scale water transfers would be extremely high. The cost of compensating people for loss of property and relocation of communities displaced by flooding have been given scant consideration. The burden of these costs would fall largely on Canada's native people who inhabit many of the regions that would be affected by the damming and diversion of northern rivers for water export.
We must not think for a moment that the only demand for water would come from our American neighbours. Mexico is also experiencing a shortage of clean inexpensive sources of water. With over half of Mexico's available supply of fresh water already being consumed by agricultural, industrial and urban activities, it may be safe to say that Mexico will be a net importer of water in the near future.
There has been increasing pressure on Canada to divert its northern water systems. The process of diverting the water of our northern rivers to the southern portion of Canada exists. As an example we have Rafferty-Alameda in Saskatchewan, the Oldman River dam in Alberta and the proposed Assiniboine diversion project in Manitoba.
Another example is the idea of constructing the Grand Canal. Originally proposed in 1964 and considered a good business opportunity by some today, the project would involve the construction of a dam across the mouth of James Bay, converting the bay into a freshwater reservoir and channelling the water via a series of lifts and canals to the Great Lakes and beyond.
All of those diversion schemes are highly adaptable to transferring large quantities of water across to the U.S.
May 26, 1993

There is also the whole area of just exactly what the value of water is to many of our aboriginal communities. In the area where I live we have huge bodies of water that have had a historical relationship, one that is very close to the aboriginal population. We have two of the largest lakes in Canada, the Great Bear Lake and Great Slave Lake. We have 1,800 kilometres of the Mackenzie River which flows right into the Arctic Ocean. We have many other sources of water in the Northwest Territories.
I could talk about water for quite a period of time, but I just want to make the point that this whole issue has gone unchallenged and needs to be mentioned.
With regard to the amendments and side deals that are being made, this trade deal could not only influence the use of our water but our forests as well. This is another area that is extremely important. Free trade may allow for the concentration of processing by megamills that would have no real interest in forest ecosystems.
Industrialization of the forest will result in the development of fast growing, genetically homogenized smaller trees, cropped in fast rotation, replacing our diverse forests with their potential for diverse economics. Forests and the quality of water are integrally related. Healthy forests produce clean water, adequate water supplies and allow forests to prosper. Therefore any industrial depletion of our forests is guaranteed to affect the local and continental water regime.
In relationship to this I have to talk about-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.
It being 6.45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day, in accordance with Standing Order 78(3) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and proceed to the putting of the question on all remaining motions at the report stage of Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American free trade agreement.
The first question is on Motion No. 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 8 stands deferred.
Motion No. 9 is also deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 21. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.
I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 21 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on Motion No. 29 stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 11.

May 26, 1993
Government Orders


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso) moved:: Motion No. 11.
That Bill C-115 be amended by adding immediately after line 6 at
page 9 the following new clause:
"22. The Minister designated by the Governor in Council shall submit annually to Parliament a report on the implementation and application of the Agreement."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Is there unanimous consent to allow another person to propose Motion No. 12?


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 13.


Jerry Pickard: Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-115 be amended by deleting Clause 31.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion 14.


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent to move an amendment to Motion No. 14.1 ask that the present Motion No. 14 to Bill C-115 be withdrawn and that the amendment be substituted.
I have tabled the amendment in both official languages. In no way does it change the content or the direction of the original motion. It seeks to clarify in the interests of the industry where there was an error. It is not only that we have had a bad process but we do not want to make an error that would be a penalty to the industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: By unanimous consent the hon. member for Mount Royal moves that the text of Motion No. 14 be changed.


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-115 be amended in clause 55 by striking out line 12 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"of its use, other than by a reproduction during its execution in conjunction with a machine, device or computer, to rent out the computer pro-"


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed.
Motion No. 14, as amended, agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 16 and 17 are grouped.
May 26, 1993


Sheila Finestone: Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 55 by striking out line 31 at page 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"the rental operations does not by that act alone have a motive of gain in relation to the rental operations."
Motion No. 17.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 57 by striking out line 43 at page 40 and substituting the following therefor:
"rental operations does not by that act alone have a motive of".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Motions Nos. 16 and 17 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 18.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex) moved:: Motion No. 18.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 140 by adding immediately after line 48 at page 105 the following:
"9954.1 Any food containing a residue of a chemical that is not registered for use in food in Canada.
9954.2 Any food that does not meet the Canadian food quality and inspection standards."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order No. 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Government Orders
Motions Nos. 22 and 23 are grouped.


Ralph Ferguson: Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 184 by striking out lines 8 to 10 at page 139 and substituting the following therefor:
' 'any provisions thereof, subject to the approval of the Parliament of Canada; and".
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 184 by striking out lines 8 to 10 at page 139 and substituting the following therefor:
"any provisions thereof, subject to the condition that Canadian sanitary and phytosanitary provisions are not lowered, and subject to the approval of the Parliament of Canada; and".


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 28.


David Barrett: Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-115 be amended in Clause 242 by striking out lines 20 to 24 at page 193 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion (1)
(a) unless the Governor in Council is satisfied that the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America have taken satisfactory steps to implement the Agreement;

May 26, 1993
Government Orders
(b) unless all export enhancement programs of the United States of America are removed for agricultural products bound for markets in the NAFTA countries."


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions at the report stage of the bill now before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first vote will be on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of Mr. Nault.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Jordan
Karpoff
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Maheu
Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
McGuire
Mifflin
Mills
Murphy
Nowlan
Nystrom
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Proud
Riis
Rodriguez
Samson
Simmons
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Stewart
Taylor
Volpe
Wappel
Wood
Fulton
Gaffney
Gardiner
Guaraieri
Harvard
Heap
Hunter
Kaplan
Karygiannis
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Laporte
Lee
MacLaren
Mac William
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Milliken
Mitchell
Nault
Nunziata
Ouellet
Parent
Peterson
Pickard
Rideout
Robinson
Rompkey
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Stupich
Tobin
Walker
Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-114
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 7.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
de Jong
Duceppe
Edmonston
Finestone
Fontana
Fulton
Gaffney
Gardiner
Guamieri
Harvard
Heap
Hunter
Kaplan
Karygiannis
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas) Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-( Lee
MacLaren
Mac William
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Milliken
Mitchell
Nault
Nunziata
Ouellet
Parent
Peterson
Pickard
Rideout
Robinson
Rodriguez
Samson
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Stupich
Tobin
Volpe
Wappel
Wood
Dingwall
Duhamel
Ferguson
Fisher
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Jordan
Karpoff
Keyes
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Laporte
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Maheu
Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
McGuire
Mifflin
Mills
Murphy
Nowlan
Nystrom
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Proud
Riis
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Simmons
Skelly (Comox-Alberai)
Stewart
Taylor
Venne
Walker
Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst) -116
[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Members

The next question is on Motion No. 27.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Chretien
Comuzzi
Crawford
Dingwall
Duhamel
Ferguson
Fisher
Foster
Funk
Gagliano
Gray (Windsor West)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Jordan
Karpoff
Keyes
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Laporte
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Maheu
Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-femard)
McGuire
Mifflin
Mills
Murphy
Nowlan
Nystrom
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Proud
Riis
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Stupich
Tobin
Volpe
Wappel
Wood
Clancy
Copps
de Jong
Duceppe
Edmonston
Finestone
Fontana
Fulton
Gaffney
Gardiner
Guamieri
Harvard
Heap
Hunter
Kaplan
Karygiannis
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) Lee
MacLaren
MacWilliam
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Milliken
Mitchell
Nault
Nunziata
OueUet
Parent
Peterson
Pickard
Rideout
Robinson
Rodriguez
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberai)
Stewart
Taylor
Venne
Walker
Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-114
++NAYS
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Members

The next question is on Motion No. 30.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 31.



[Stage Direction]
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Harvey (Edmonton East)
Hovdebo
Kaplan
Karygiannis
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Laporte
Leblanc (Longueuil)
MacAulay
MacLellan
Manley
Marleau
McCurdy
Mifflin
Mills
Murphy
Nowlan
Nystrom
Parent
Peterson
Pickard
Riis
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Stupich
Tobin
Volpe
Wappel
Wood
Guarnieri
Harvard
Heap
Hunter
Karpoff
Keyes
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso) Lee
MacLaren Mac William Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-femard)
McLaughlin
Milliken
Mitchell
Nault
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Parker
Phinney
Rideout
Robinson
Rodriguez
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberai)
Stewart
Thylor
Venne
Walker
Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-108
nil/aucun
++NAYS
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [Translation]
The next vote is on Motion No. 32.



[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
nil/aucun
Members
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 33.



[Stage Direction]
Mitchell
Nault
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Parker
Pickard
Robinson
Rodriguez
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stewart
Taylor
Venne
Walker
Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-103
Murphy
Nowlan
Nystrom
Parent
Peterson
Riis
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Stupich
Tobin
Volpe
Wappel
Wood
++NAYS
nil/aucun
Members
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [Translation]
The next vote is on Motion No. 2.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Mills
Murphy
Nunziata
Pagtakhan
Peterson
Pickard
Rompkey
Skelly (North Island -Powell River)
Speller
Taylor
Volpe
Whittaker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-81
Mitchell
Nowlan
Nystrom
Parker
Phinney
Riis
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stupich
Tobin
Walker
Wood
Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.
++NAYS
Members


Mr. Edwards:: Madam Speaker, I think you might find that there is a disposition to have the results of the vote just taken applied to the remainder of the amendments before us.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I understand that consent is not given.
For the time being I will declare Motion No. 2 lost. [Translation]
The next vote is on Motion No. 4.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. [English]


Mr. Dingwall:: Madam Speaker, there might be a disposition in the House that the vote that was just taken apply to Motions Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 29, 11 and 13.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would there be agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 5.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
[DOT]	(2050)
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare Motion No. 5 lost.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, many of us have been in this House for a number of hours, some of us around the clock. I think you might find there is disposition now to apply the remaining votes to the one just taken.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. I think we would have agreement with what my hon. friend has suggested with one qualification and that is that the vote on the concurrence motion be applied in reverse.


Mr. Nunziata:: Madam Speaker, I was absent for the last vote. I understand the House needs unanimous consent. I am prepared, Madam Speaker, as long as my vote is applied as my party's vote is applied over the remainder of the votes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Do I understand now that there is unanimous consent?


Mr. Kindy:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as I was absent for the last vote, if the Chamber agrees that all the votes are going to be applied as previously, then I accept.


Mrs. Venne:: Madam Speaker, with respect, I would like to point out that we would be willing to apply certain votes to the one just taken. We would vote either yea or nay, depending on the motion. If you want me to give you the list of yeas and nays, in that case we would be agreeable to this procedure.
[DOT]	(2055)


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I believe I may be able to make things easier for everyone, with the co-operation of the House. I believe there is consent for not proceeding with a recorded division on each motion presented before the House and, subsequently, on the motion for adopting the report stage. I suggest, considering the request made by the hon. member for Saint-Hubert, which is similar to the one made by the hon. member for Calgary-Northeast, that when the Chair has put the question for the last time, the parties come to the Table and indicate exactly on which motions they intended to vote yea or nay. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Miss Grey:: Madam Speaker, I would like some clarification. Normally when we do this as a time saving measure we have traditionally stood in our places and told the table our yeas and nays. You are now suggesting that we come to the table later. Is that consistent?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Yes, because of the day that we have all had. I do not mean to make it a precedent. It has been offered by our Clerk that for tonight we come to the table after and do that, just for tonight. I think that everyone agrees that it is a very good idea for tonight. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We do thank our table
officers.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
++NAYS
Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Beatty	Belsher
Bernier	Bertrand
Bird	Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais
Blenkarn	Bosley
Bouchard (Roberval)	Boyer
Browes	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Chadwick	Chartrand
Clark (Yellowhead)	Clifford
Cole	Collins
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Couture	Crosby (Halifax West)
Danis	Darling
DeBlois	de Cotret
Della Noce	Desjardins
Dick	Domm
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Ferland	Fontaine
Fretz	Friesen
Gerin	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-!les-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Guilbault	HaUiday
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hockin
Hogue	Holtmann
Horner	Horning
Hudon	Hughes
Jacques	James
Jelinek	Joncas
Jourdenais	Kempling
Koury	Landry
Langlois	Larrivee
Lewis	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River)	MacKay
Malone	Marin
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mayer	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McLean
Merrithew	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Paproski
Plourde	Porter
Pronovost	Redway
Reid	Reimer
Ricard	Richardson
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Schneider
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Shields
Siddon	Sobeski
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tardif	Tetreault
Thacker	Thompson
Thorkelson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Michael Holcombe Wilson: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:



[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]
It being 9.08 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.08 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 27,1993