1993-05-05

Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last week there was an ugly incident at the Tory leadership debate in Calgary which probably more than anything else shows how shallow the claim of politics of inclusion really is for that party.
Despite having paid admission Vickie Crowchild-Ab-erdeen, a native woman and a former Conservative member, was not only denied admission to the forum but was pushed up against the wall by PC security.
Tony Hall, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, was also refused entry. He was protesting the omission of aboriginal rights in NAFTA.
Yesterday MPs from all parties heard the chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, testify before a committee that aboriginals "only know the politics of exclusion" and what is needed is "real access to the decision-making process of government".
What does this incident tell us? Perhaps the editorial board of The Edmonton Journal is correct in saying today: "Sometimes it looks as if the Conservatives are determined to lose the coming election".


STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, May 7 will mark the nation-wide launch of the Hire a Student-Business Drive for Jobs campaign at a regional event site in each region of the country with the national kick-off ceremony taking place in Quebec City.
Employers and home owners almost anywhere in the country can call one of 400 student employment centres and ask for help in filling just about any kind of student employment opening. This student placement service of Employment and Immigration Canada is now celebrating its 25th anniversary.
Through the Business Drive for Jobs campaign four major business organizations have pledged to encourage their members to hire students. These business organizations are the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Retail Council of Canada and le Conseil du patronat du Quebec. As a result, many businesses will strike up a partnership with one of our student employment centres this summer.
Our next generation of workers is knocking on the door and I urge every employer to assist it.


DUMPING
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to prove American companies are guilty of dumping Canadian companies must initiate lengthy and costly procedures, which is totally unacceptable.
Claude Jutras, executive vice-president of the Association des fabricants de meubles du Quebec, suspects an American company of dumping its products on the Canadian market which constitutes an unlawful trading practice. Mr. Jutras feels it is unacceptable that the Canadian government does nothing to defend our interests. Mr. Jutras would have to spend $500,000 on preparing his case. In the United States, the mere presumption of dumping gets a reaction from Washington.
I think the government should drop its policy of not intervening and start helping Canadian companies defend themselves against unlawful trading.

May 5, 1993


PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in the House today are delighted with the clean bill of health given the Premier of Quebec by his physicians, which means that Mr. Bourassa has recovered.
It is good news for Quebec that Mr. Bourassa is ready to finish his term, defending the interests of Quebecers as he has done throughout his life.
Like in the case of any Canadian family that has been struck by illness, we were very glad to hear this excellent news.


FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a critical comment on the issue of this federal government's minimum wage for people 17 years of age and older.
The federal minimum wage is below that of all the provinces and the states of Kentucky, Oklahoma, New York, Idaho, Montana, et cetera. Just how low is the federal minimum wage? Would you believe $4 an hour, Mr. Speaker?
The fact that most employees in Canada are governed by provincial standards and the collective bargaining process and there are very few individuals affected by the $4 an hour wage merely aggravates the situation. The fact that so few are affected does not negate the fact that this is exploitive and unjust and makes action more necessary and urgent.
The minister has indicated to me that his staff is reviewing the $4 an hour wage policy. I ask him to immediately pursue an Order in Council to rectify this totally unacceptable situation and grant these individuals an immediate increase.


INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, governments have to adapt to meet the realities of the 1990s, particularly in the area of fiscal restraint.
Governments must be creative and innovative if we are to meet the future demands of taxpayers. In this regard, I am pleased to inform the House that the Minister of Western Economic Diversification and the Alberta minister of federal and intergovernmental affairs yesterday announced the results of a review to reduce overlap and duplication between the Governments of Canada and Alberta.
While the task will be an ongoing one, progress has already been achieved. Both ministers have asked the public to assist a joint government effort to reduce overlap and duplication by providing ideas, advice and comments directly to their offices.
I applaud these efforts and encourage everyone to participate in this endeavour.


CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Albina Guamieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, one million Canadian children will rely on food banks this month to stave off hunger while they suffer in poverty.
Parents and teachers will have to tell these children that the very Prime Minister who stood on the international stage to take credit for the UN convention on children has betrayed them yet again.
The Prime Minister will take $1 million out of funds that could be spent on hungry children for his final stray cat strut around the globe. The Prime Minister is content to have the red carpet rolled out for him abroad while children eat off the floor at home.
Perhaps his protege, the Minister of National Defence, will be able to cut the deficit because she knows how to take a trip without leaving her office.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, pity the poor Minister of Transport.
If he lets American Airlines buy an interest in Canadian Airlines International he will be accused of allowing foreigners to get control of our skies, creating job losses at Gemini, perhaps destroying Gemini itself and putting Air Canada in jeopardy.
On the other hand, if he does not let American buy an interest in Canadian and encourages a merger of Cana-
May 5, 1993

dian and Air Canada he will be accused of creating job losses at Canadian and eliminating competition.
Then if either Air Canada or Canadian should ask for financial help he will be accused of subsidizing business and encouraging inefficiency.
The poor guy, he is darned if he does and darned if he doesn't.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said in response to the Pearse-Larkin report that there would be no renewal of the aboriginal fisheries strategy this year unless there was a watershed agreement with respect to the Fraser River in particular.
Negotiations with the Americans on the Pacific salmon treaty have broken down. The fishermen are already suspicious about what the department is doing. Everybody involved in the industry is concerned that the department does not seem to be talking with any of the users, any of the people employed, or any of those who have any interest in the fishing industry in B.C.
We are heading into the next salmon season. It could be a very dangerous period if something is not done soon to get the people together, get them talking to each other, get them listening to each other, get them to agree on what is going to happen this year with respect to the watershed agreements if there are to be any, with respect to harvesting the resource, who will do the harvesting, and where it will be processed. All of these questions must be dealt with or we are going to be faced with a very serious period in the fishing industry in the province of British Columbia.


SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, sugar beets will be planted in our Manitoba sugar beet fields again this year. Sugar beet farmers have our federal Minister of Agriculture to thank for his dedication and strong leadership on this issue.
There are over 200 sugar beet growers in Manitoba and 100 permanent and 150 seasonal employees who
work at the Manitoba sugar factory in Winnipeg. These people can now breathe a sigh of relief that sugar beet farmers will be sowing their fields and harvesting their crops again this year. It is somewhat alarming that only at this late date, May 5, have sugar beet farmers been able to squeeze out of the province of Manitoba any level of support for their industry and for the large number of jobs that accompany it.
However our political leaders stood fast and strong to ensure that sugar beets will be planted this year. Once again, thanks to the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Agriculture who have sweetened the pie for many.


CANOLA SHIPMENT
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding a shipload of canola that arrived in Windsor, Ontario from France last week aboard the ship Federal Polaris. It was unloaded at a large elevator and oilseed crushing plant complex.
Southwestern Ontario soybean farmers and certainly western Canadian canola growers will be concerned about this 18,000 tonne shipment that could well undermine the existing oilseed price structure in Canada just at a time when Canadian farmers are preparing to plant the 1993 crop and market the last of the 1992 crop.
In view of the high subsidies paid to European farmers, will the government immediately report to the Canadian producers the level of subsidies provided for the growers of this product in Europe and undertake an investigation to ensure that this product is not being dumped into Canadian markets?


VIOLENCE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, the communications and culture committee will put the wrappings on its report dealing with violence in the media, particularly against women and children, hopefully sometime today if not tomorrow morning. I am personally pleased to see that this issue, stemming from my private member's motion and the petition of Virginie Lariviere, has borne fruit. I pay tribute to her again for her determination in this matter.

May 5, 1993
Oral Questions
There is a related issue that I would hope all parliamentarians could support at their earliest opportunity, and that is the matter of the importation and sale of serial killer cards and board games. I would encourage a quick resolution to this matter. I implore all members of Parliament to do their part to rid our society of this attempt to expose our children to the values of a primitive society.


LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend the Liberal leader refused to explain his clear position on the medicare issue and user fees. This should not surprise Canadians because we do not know where the Liberal Party stands on the GST, we do not know where the Liberal Party stands on NAFTA, and we do not know where the Liberal Party stands on the free trade agreement.
Today's polls indicate that Canadians want to know where their leaders stand. They want to know where they stand on unemployment. Where is the Liberal Party, where is its leader, where is its jobs plan, and where is its honesty with the people of Canada?
*	* He


VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, today I want to take this opportunity to praise the extraordinary work done by an organization in my riding, the Service benevole du comte de I'Assomption, which tries to improve the quality of life of senior citizens by preventing violence against seniors which unfortunately is a not an uncommon occurrence.
Because of the tremendous success of its "Secur-Aines" program, which received federal funding, the Service benevole de I'Assomption won the Persillier-La-chapelle award this year for the most innovative program.
I want to congratulate all volunteers and others who helped set up this project. A word of special congratulations to Mrs. Carmelle Lariviere and her team.
The positive results of the "Secur-Aines" program have shown that the concerted action of one group can be invaluable to the community and improve our quality of life.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we do not realize how fortunate we are to live in one of the finest countries in the world until we travel abroad and see what is happening in other countries around the world.
I rise today to make a statement on the question of a human rights violation in Vietnam. Vietnam is known to be oppressing its minorities, religious groups, freedom of expression, freedom of movement and so on.
I join with my colleagues in this House in calling on the Vietnamese government to respect human rights in Vietnam, to release all prisoners of conscience and to make sure that people in Vietnam have the right to freedom of movement, freedom of religion and the right to express themselves freely without any pressure or oppression.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government about economic conditions in Quebec.
Last week the Minister of Finance tabled a budget that tells us that if the economy is allowed to take its course everything will be all right. However last month in Quebec another 4,000 families became welfare recipients, so that now the total number of people on welfare in Quebec is 750,000.
If the minister's economic policies are as effective as he says they are, why is the number of welfare recipients in Quebec increasing at such an alarming rate?
May 5, 1993


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, we have been through a very difficult and long recession which has not only affected Canada but has affected all the industrial economies of the world and particularly the G-7 industrial economies.
I think the hon. member would also be well aware of the fact that at the present time four of the seven G-7 countries have double digit unemployment. With the exception of Canada and the United States, the growth potential does not look promising.
Growth seems to be reoccurring in the North American market, but I know that just recently there have been some rather disturbing figures coming out of the United States. I think that may be of a short-term nature.
The fact still remains that Canada and the United States are poised to have the best rate of growth in 1993-94 and Canada will have the best rate of growth in 1994 of the G-7 countries as outlined by the IMF and the OECD.
Furthermore, according to OECD figures Canada will have the best rate of job creation at 2.3 per cent this year and 2.6 per cent next year.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are used to the predictions of the Minister of Finance. Last year he was only wrong by $8 billion in his predictions for the deficit.

At this point I would like to direct a question about Montreal's economy to the Minister of National Defence.
At this very moment Montrealers are staging a sit-in at the campaign office of the Minister of National Defence and asking the minister to drop her helicopter program. According to them she should get her priorities straight because the cost of a single helicopter would provide 2,500 housing units for needy people in Montreal.
Since the Minister of National Defence refuses to listen to representations by opposition members urging her to abolish a totally unacceptable program, would the minister at least listen to the poor in Montreal?
Oral Questions


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the people of Montreal are also interested in their country's defence. I also think they are interested in the fact that the helicopter project provides $1 billion in investment in Quebec, especially in the Montreal region. The project will provide 45,000 person years of employment in Canada, a large percentage of which will go to the Montreal region. I think that is what interests the people of Montreal.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think this money will be wasted. If the money was spent on housing in Montreal it would create more jobs and lay some ground plans. These people are showing the minister what the politics of inclusion really means.
Will the minister change her priorities? Will she make sure that the money being wasted on helicopters to chase Soviet submarines, even though there is no more Soviet Union, will be used on priorities that will benefit the people of Canada, especially those who are in need?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, the choice is not between spending that money on the helicopters and zero. At least it is not if one believes that it is appropriate to have shipboard helicopters and search and rescue helicopters.
In order to make the point about the penny wise and pound foolish approach taken by the opposition to this purchase, my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, yesterday made a presentation about the relative costs. He, being a trusting soul, assumed that was in fact the issue before the opposition, that they were concerned about the relative costs.
It would appear however in their response to his presentation that they have no policy on the helicopters. Therefore it is very difficult for us to engage in a discussion when the Liberal Party has not indicated whether it believes we should continue to have shipboard helicopters in the navy or whether we should continue to have search and rescue helicopters to serve Canadians on our three coasts.

May 5, 1993
Oral Questions
Until we get some clarification from the Liberals about whether they are prepared to engage in those services to serve Canadians, it is very difficult to have an argument about costs.

The Liberal approach to costs is an absolute waste of funds, and I think the people of Montreal realize this.


SOCIAL HOUSING
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau -Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It seems obvious to me that we are going nowhere with the Minister of Defence.


Ms. Copps:: Absolutely.


André Ouellet: The important thing is the war on poverty. It seems that the Minister of National Defence is completely insensitive to poor Canadians.
I would therefore ask the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing to intervene as soon as possible to save the social housing and co-operative housing program in Canada. Not only did the Government of Canada always assume its responsibilities for this in the past, but we now have a government which is violating this basic right to suitable, decent housing.
I would therefore ask the minister what he intends to do to ensure that the Government of Canada will continue to fund and subsidize social housing and co-operative housing for the poor and the most disadvantaged in our society.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite, who has had some responsibility for housing in the past, knows full well that this government has continued to meet every responsibility for social housing.
Over the next five years we will be spending over $10 billion on social housing. Right now there are 652,000 units being helped under this program. We have looked after people who are handicapped, those most in need. He knows that under the budgetary constraints we have to seek new ways to be innovative to fund social housing
which we are doing. We are now able to borrow directly and pass the subsidy on. We are saving a considerable amount of money that way.
The member can be sure that we will continue to play a very constructive role in social housing and to continue to meet our responsibilities.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I certainly accept the response by the minister, but I challenge him to put his influence within the cabinet in this regard to the test. He is talking about new ways to help people with low income.
According to what we have been told by CMHC, the government is forcing CMHC to abandon its traditional responsibility in social housing and in co-operative housing.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: For helicopters.


André Ouellet: Yes, some of us say for helicopters. I want to know what the minister will do about this: The government is now asking CMHC to increase what those low-income people have to pay.

How can the minister accept increasing the rent paid by tenants of social housing to 30 per cent of their income? Is the minister sensitive to poverty? Will he ask the Minister of Finance to review this completely unacceptable directive to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask members on both sides of the House to keep in mind the time is going by and we want to have brisk questions and brisk answers.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleague is suggesting that he does not approve of the rent geared to income being raised from 25 per cent to 30 per cent.
I have certain hesitations there too, but I have to point out to him that it is in British Columbia and Ontario, two socialist provinces, and New Brunswick, a Liberal province, where this is being done, so we had better speak to some of our provincial colleagues in this regard as well.
May 5, 1993


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Once again it is clear that Canadians have expressed their view that unemployment is the issue of major concern to Canadians across this country. Such a result would only come as a surprise to a government that has ignored unemployment in this country and watched it increase without bringing in any kind of plan to address severe degrees of unemployment in this country. The European Community, Japan and the United States have all brought in jobs plans.
While there are only a couple of months left in this House, the Minister of Finance still has time to bring in a jobs plan for Canadians to give Canadians hope. Will he do that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in The Financial Post of May 1, there was the headline "GDP climbs back to strength: Economy returns to levels seen before the recession". This is very encouraging news.
Mr. Earl Sweet, assistant chief economist of the Royal Bank of Canada, said and I quote: "The fundamentals are beginning to look positive now. We are on target for growth up to 3.5 per cent for 1993 as a whole. Contributing to that growth are hefty gains in productivity, substantial job creation and a booming export market".
I agree with that observation. The data that is coming out clearly confirms it. I think it is in large part due to the initiatives that we took in the February budget of 1992, amplified in the December statement which has provided for investments in people, in capital, in infrastructure, in job training and skills upgrading and indeed in small business.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that every day we see more and more lay-offs. Tomorrow we are going to see 300 workers being laid off at the GM plant in Scarborough.


Mr. Mills:: It is 3,000.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Sorry, 3,000 workers are being laid off in Scarborough. These are workers who have been
Oral Questions
productive and who are highly skilled. Today a survey of 5,000 manufacturers indicates that they foresee increased productivity but fewer jobs.
Since this government has been in power, its economics have resulted in the real income of Canadian families being at the level of 1976 and yet the government continues to talk about a jobless recovery. How can there be a recovery without jobs?
I want to ask the minister: Why is the government prepared to accept a jobless recovery? Why will it not bring in a plan for jobs and get Canadians back working?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, the government, have said no such thing. Since August there have been 202,000 full-time jobs created. There were 48,000 new jobs created last week and with the growth numbers we expect that to continue.
The hon. member takes great pleasure in outlining the number of people who have been dislocated or laid off. I would hope in her consultations with the Rae government in Ontario that she encourages them to take steps not only to reduce the deficit but to bolster growth. I would hope, above all else, they do not attempt to fight the deficit on the backs of the taxpayers of Ontario because that would kill any semblance of recovery that is now starting to occur.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I will also mention, the minister will be happy to know, that 85 per cent of the new jobs created in Canada have been created in Ontario. I am sure the minister is pleased about that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Where?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, 71 per cent of Canadians also ask the government to increase taxes on the rich and on profitable companies. The consensus is that this would be a very good way to reduce the deficit. Why does the government choose to ignore this source of revenue? Is it because the rich are the financial supporters, friends and members of the Conservative Party?

May 5, 1993
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. member now admit there have been jobs created. Indeed I agree with her. As a matter of fact she is right that many of those jobs have been created in Ontario because we have taken steps to improve the competitiveness-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have taken steps to improve the competitiveness of the manufacturing and processing sector. Most of the jobs that are being created are related or associated directly with trade, trade with the United States of America, free trade, trade in exports which has increased by some 21 per cent.
It might be encouraging for the hon. leader of the NDP to note that Canadian industrial production is up 4.2 per cent this year over last year. Jobs are being created at the rate of 2.8 per cent on an annualized basis. The fundamentals are in place. If she can make representations to her friends at Queen's Park to tell them not to disrupt things and to tell them not to get engaged in a tax and spend philosophy then this economy-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should push on.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
As events unfold in Bosnia the situation of our troops there continues to be precarious. The commander of our Canadian forces said yesterday that peacekeepers could be targeted if there were air strikes. Yet an attempt to get any mandate or clarification of the role has been stonewalled by this government.
For the last month officials of the Department of External Affairs have refused to appear before the committee on request of the chairman for the last four weeks to give any kind of briefing because they say it is too risky and dangerous.
If the situation is so risky and dangerous in Bosnia and our troops are in this precarious position, why is Parliament not being informed? Can the minister tell us exactly when the government will present a clear, coherent assessment of the position and role of our troops in Bosnia and what steps are being taken to ensure their safety and security?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, because it has been said in this House by myself, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and by the Prime Minister, that the safety of our troops in Bosnia is our highest priority. Contingency plans are in place in order to ensure that safety.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is in Sarajevo today. She was in Croatia yesterday and Monday. She will be returning to Ottawa and will be appearing before the standing committee in order to discuss the situation with members of Parliament as soon as she returns.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister another question.
The Prime Minister has committed to the Secretary-General that we are prepared to send more troops to Bosnia and perhaps our troops will stay longer in Somalia. However the Minister of National Defence has cut ground troops by 25 per cent, is committing 50 per cent reservists to provide replacement troops in Yugoslavia, and is saying that without new money there can be no further peacekeeping commitments.
How are we going to ensure that our new troops, the replacement troops, the additional troops, are properly prepared and equipped? What changes in defence spending is the minister prepared to make to meet our growing peacekeeping commitments?
Is it not time for the minister to realize that she should be cancelling the helicopter project so that we can meet the peacekeeping commitments the world expects us to make?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. The hon. member would like us to jeopar-
May 5, 1993

dize our capacity to patrol our own coasts, to perform search and rescue operations, and to protect Canadian lives at the expense of peacekeeping operations.
We now have 10 per cent of the world's peacekeepers. Our commitment around the world in 15 locations is very considerable. What the Prime Minister said was that Canada has responded in the past and would carefully examine any request for further assistance from the Secretary-General. We are now in the process of looking at a variety of ways in which we might respond or contribute to a plan to enforce and monitor the Vance-Owen plan if it is accepted by the Bosnian Serbs and if it becomes the basis for peace in Bosnia.
There is a variety of ways we can do it that does not necessarily involve ground forces. I will be appearing before the standing committee after Question Period today in the discussion of estimates and I would be delighted to expand at length on our proposal. I will be there with officials of the Department of National Defence. I would be very pleased to respond in detail to the hon. member's question in a way that is not acceptable in the context of Question Period.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Defence whose office is presently being occupied by 100 demonstrators concerned with social housing.
Three weeks ago the president of Agusta, one of the companies responsible for producing the EH-101 helicopters, was brought up on charges of bribery. We now have new evidence that corruption charges have spread to Belgium where it has been revealed that Agusta is being investigated on more corruption charges involving another helicopter program.
Given the seriousness of these charges, will the minister do the honourable thing and cancel this helicopter contract which is costing taxpayers $5.8 billion? I remind the minister these are not search and rescue helicopters. They are to search for Soviet submarines which are no longer there.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has any evidence or any indication there is anything untoward in a helicopter contract we have entered into, not with Agusta but with Westland Industries, I would be very grateful to hear it. Otherwise he might consult with members of his caucus who have
Oral Questions
some training in the law and learn some fundamental principles of unsubstantiated allegations.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the minister wants evidence and facts. Our critic has been giving evidence and facts to which she is not listening. This is why we are asking for a full inquiry.
Since the minister refuses to cancel this $5.8 billion program for the Cadillac of helicopters, and in view of the mounting corruption charges we are sharing with her today, will she agree to open a full public inquiry into all the facts so Canadians can have the truth on this official critical issue? I am sure the demonstrators will also want this information.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to dignify that question with a reply.
Earlier this week, on Monday, The Ottawa Citizen carried an article which said that nothing would make the Liberal Party happier than if I were to be elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. Those hon. members are undermining my faith in the press.
I repeat, if the hon. member has any allegations or a scintilla of evidence that there is anything inappropriate in the contract in which the Government of Canada is involved, I would be very grateful to hear it. Otherwise he should avoid, as I said, unsubstantiated innuendo.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. member:: Lead on, Langdon.


Felix Holtmann: Hurrah, you're back, Stevie.


Some hon. members:: Steven, Steven, Steven.


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to hon. members that despite the enthusiasm the hon. member for Burnaby- Kingsway has the floor.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I thank members opposite for that very warm response. My question is for the Minister of National Defence. As I am sure the minister will agree, all members of the House deeply hope the Bosnian Serb parliament will in fact vote to accept the Vance-Owen peace plan and put an end to the appalling practices of torture, murder, rape and ethnic cleansing. I understand it is still debating that plan.

May 5, 1993
Oral Questions
Will the minister now indicate to the House precisely what contribution the Government of Canada is prepared to make in addition to our existing troops in Bosnia-Hercegovina to a peace plan should it be accepted? Where will these new troops come from? We know that 50 per cent of the troops that have gone in are reservists.
In particular, will the minister agree with the request of the United Nations Secretary-General that all peacekeeping troops in that region must be under full United Nations political and strategic control?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs has commented that troops that would be used to enforce or secure the Vance-Owen plan would be under United Nations command and control. I am not in a position to indicate specifically what we would be offering because we have not seen a request from the United Nations.
When the United Nations engages in a military activity such as the peacekeeping plan, it sets out a list of its requirements which is circulated to countries. Those countries then see what they have available that they could add to the contribution.
The hon. member will know we now have 2,400 ground troops in the former Yugoslavia, half in Croatia and half in Bosnia. We are now in the process of rotating the second RCR to be replaced by the 22nd Regiment. We are in the process of bringing home some troops. We normally would give them at least 12 months in Canada before sending them abroad again.
We are looking at other aspects of our military capacity to see what we might offer. I will discuss it at some length with the hon. member. I understand he is going to be at the standing committee and I would be very pleased to give him a fuller answer at that time.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister is aware of the fact that if the Serbian parliament rejects the Vance-Owen peace plan the United States has suggested the possibility of air strikes which our commander in the region has said could indeed make Canadian troops very vulnerable.
I want to ask for a commitment from this minister and from the government. Whether it involves an expansion of the existing commitment of troops to enforce what we hope will be a peace plan, or whether it involves a risk to Canadian peacekeeping troops as a result of the possibility of air strikes, will the minister commit that the House will have an opportunity for a full debate on this important question affecting the safety of Canadian peacekeeping troops and all Canadians before any decision is made?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is veiy important to reiterate what has been said by every member of the government and what I know would be agreed to by all members of the House. The safety of our troops is the first and foremost priority of the government and I think of all members of the House.
The Prime Minister stated yesterday that were there to be a considerable augmentation of Canadian presence in Yugoslavia as part of a force to support the Vance-Owen peace plan he would agree-and I would take the same position as I am sure all members would-that would be an appropriate opportunity or appropriate time for a full debate of this matter in the House of Commons.
We all hope the peace plan will work out, that extensive military intervening will not be necessary; but if that were the case there would be a significant shift in our involvement there, a significant call on our resources, and it would be an appropriate opportunity for us to discuss all aspects of it in the House. I would welcome that debate.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
When the minister took over his portfolio in April 1991 the youth unemployment rate was 15.9 per cent. Today it sits at nearly 18 per cent. Clearly the minister's policies are not working.
What new policies or new ideas does the minister have to put these young Canadians back to work? Clearly his old ideas are not working.
May 5, 1993


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks at the kind of programming in place to help young Canadians, he would realize that the government is spending close to $800 million a year trying to help Canadians get into the labour market.
The government is trying to help Canadians stay in school through the Stay-in-School initiative, which by the way is probably the best initiative ever undertaken on behalf of youth in Canada. The government believes in the future of the youth of Canada and not in the make-up and patchwork solutions the Liberal Party put forward for 16 years.
When we came to power in 1984 the rate of unemployment of young people was no better. It was worse because they were facing high interest rates. They had no prospects for employment which is completely the opposite situation today.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, 18 per cent unemployment among youth is unacceptable.
Yesterday in response to my question on student employment funding the minister admitted that he was cutting funding for student jobs in rural Canada.
Is the minister not aware of the desperate need in rural Canada for summer student employment? Why is the minister slashing these opportunities for summer jobs in small communities across this country such as in Fort Francis, Cape Breton county and the communities in Haldimand-Norfolk? Why is he slashing?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of slashing. It is a matter of trying to administer in a fair way to the youth of all Canada the funds that are targeted to create summer employment for youth.
He wonders about the situation in rural Canada. I am from rural Canada so I know what he is talking about. The problem is, after the recession the urban communities of Canada are not producing the same number of jobs for youth as they used to.
We are trying to rebalance the funding so that the youth of Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto, Halifax and other cities in Canada also have chances at jobs this summer. The money is not being slashed. It is being increased.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's not what Mazankowski said.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The people of the north are still waiting for funds related to the road to Coronation Gulf, the completion of the Mackenzie Valley highway and commitments for northern airports.
These represent $12.5 billion to Canada's GNP plus 170,000 person-years of employment. When will the government take action and begin to inject the badly needed funds into these projects for the north?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, a number of discussions have occurred between myself and the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Finance and the territorial government leader about committing the federal government to assist in preparing the way for a possible road to the Coronation Gulf area in the central Arctic.
One of the first steps will be to proceed this summer with a major hydrographic survey. I believe an announcement on a federal commitment to that survey will be coming forward shortly.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question on the budget and the north is for the same minister.
The Area Manager Program of the Arctic Co-operatives Limited has had its $1 million budget slashed successively and now has zero funding due to these drastic cuts. It is leaving the whole co-operative system in a very strained and critical situation.
Why does the minister not recognize the need for seed funding of the Northwest Territories co-operative sector, CEDO, and fully reinstate the funding for this valuable program which provides assistance for Inuit, Dene and Metis owned co-ops?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, historically the federal government has made a very strong commitment to the development of infrastructure, support of business organizations and aboriginal groups in northern Canada, to the extent that the Canadian taxpayer transfers some

May 5, 1993
Oral Questions
$16,000 per capita to every resident living in the Northwest Territories. That is the highest transfer to any region in Canada.
We make that commitment because we want a strong sovereign north which is economically independent of handouts and welfare support from the central government. That will be the thrust of our priorities in establishing which programs to fund in the future.


PEACEKEEPING
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
It concerns me a great deal that the morale of our men and women serving in our Armed Forces is suffering from daily negative bombast from the media and the opposition regarding our soldiers in Somalia.
Can the minister give the House an indication of the morale in our forces at this time?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members know as a result of articles in the press and letters to the editor, there are difficult situations in Somalia but that the forces there are feeling somewhat under pressure.
I think it is important to point out that they have done extraordinary work. They went into a situation where there was basically no government, no law, no police, and have rendered humanitarian assistance under extraordinary climatic as well as social circumstances.
I have received, as has that hon. member and other members of this House, correspondence from members of the airborne division in particular who are concerned about the reputation of the division. I can say that the events have hurt their morale but that they are doing extraordinary work notwithstanding.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Since there are hundreds of thousands of World War II and Korean war veterans who are aging and will need an
even greater amount of services from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and since I do not know of any Canadians who object to money spent for veterans and in fact would agree to an increase in any DVA budget since we can never fully repay them, would the minister advise the House if the government is trying to privatize the veterans' hospital at Sainte-Anne de Bellevue. If so, why and to whom? If not, why are cutbacks in services being implemented in that facility?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to apologize to the hon. member for not being here to answer his question yesterday. He did give me notice of it. I am sorry there was some confusion about my schedule, but I appreciate his courtesy in putting it to me again today in order that I may respond to it in the House.
Since 1968 the Government of Canada has been transferring jurisdiction of the veterans hospitals to the provinces as a way of ensuring the long-term viability of those facilities because it is the provinces that have the fundamental constitutional responsibility for health care. In all of those agreements the well-being of the veterans is part of the agreement of transfer.
The only two hospitals that are still under the control of the Government of Canada are Sainte-Anne de Bellevue and the Saskatoon Veterans Home.
The Government of Quebec has not shown any interest in taking over Sainte-Anne de Bellevue so under the process that we have been involved in since 1968 there are no discussions under way. There has been an indication of interest from the private sector. Nothing has resulted from it. It is only an indication of interest. We have indicated that we would keep all of our patients, our employees and veterans organizations advised of any discussions. There are none under way.
I think the important thing is that the hon. member be assured that any change in the administration of the last two hospitals that are now under federal control would involve as a fundamental priority a contractual obligation to serve the needs of our veterans and to ensure that they continue to have the same kind of service. But at this moment there is no prospect of any imminent changes at Sainte-Anne de Bellevue.
May 5, 1993


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, she did not say anything about the cutbacks there so I would like to ask the minister this.
With 36,000 veterans in the Montreal region, plus the hundreds of thousands in the rest of Canada, why are cuts being made that amount to $1.2 million annually? These cuts include the closing of two wards with 68 beds, the closing of 200 beds in Senneville Lodge, the closing of the laundry, the privatization of groundkeeping, the cancellation of the adapted vehicle and the closing of one out of two serving lines in the dietary department. The worst thing of all is the reduction from 933 veterans housed there in 1985 to 690 now.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will appreciate that I do not have the estimates in front of me. I will be before the standing committee right after Question Period to deal with these issues.
I would be delighted to get into the technical details of the administration of the hospitals. But I would repeat again that the Government of Canada is committed to maintaining services to veterans and to doing so in the most cost effective way possible. I believe the veterans of Canada are supportive of that approach.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs.
The minister will know there are some very serious concerns and objections in Indian communities regarding his proposed legislation to tax Indians that might put treaty and other lands in jeopardy.
Can the minister confirm his intentions, as is being alleged by OI Consultants of Toronto?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, there is a document being circulated within Indian communities by a group called the OI Group of Companies which alleges that somehow the federal government is trying to impose
Oral Questions
on aboriginal people new laws which would put their lands and assets at risk.
In fact any proposed options to the Indian Act are the consequence of work and proposals by groups of chiefs across Canada who want to be brought out from under the paternalistic constraints of the Indian Act.
Therefore I can categorically deny and in fact criticize the falsehoods contained in this information that is being spread throughout Indian communities.


IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns ethics in government.
Can the minister tell this House why the government rescinded the appointment of Madeleine Marien-Roy to the Immigration Appeal Board two years before her term was up only to reappoint Madam Roy the next day to the same job for a period of seven years, the maximum term allowable by law?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be paying in excess of half a million dollars as a reward for the wife of a university chum of the Prime Minister and a former secretary to the Prime Minister.

I therefore ask the Acting Prime Minister how he can justify the use of public funds to reward the Prime Minister's friends just before the Conservative Party is defeated. How can he justify that to Canadians?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Resign and let us provide the answers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member says to resign and let them provide the answers. We had 20 years of their answers, Mr. Speaker, and we are fed up to the teeth with them.
Routine Proceedings AGRICULTURE

May 5, 1993


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
He knows well that there is a wave of opposition to a continental barley market. Several renowned economists have lined up against it. So have many producer groups, including the CFA and prairie pools. There is also evidence that the barley market in the U.S. Pacific northwest is not what it is cracked up to be and there is real fear of U.S. retaliation.
In light of mounting criticism of the government's pursuit of a continental barley market, will the minister now scrap the plan or at least submit this issue to producers in a plebiscite?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the member should know that there is also a lot of support out there for the concept.
We are in the process of taking a hard look at it. We will be making up our mind fairly quickly on which way to proceed. We are looking at ways to provide producers as many options as we can find to give them as many opportunities to sell and earn more returns in the marketplace as we can. That will be our guiding principle.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, it is quite apparent that this minister is afraid of the truth. Consider two recent events. When he heard that the Wheat Board was coming to committee to oppose the continental barley market the minister put the kibosh on that. When beekeepers warned him against lifting the ban on bee imports, he refused to listen to them.
No doubt the minister will say that he is fearless. If I am right, will he then at least endorse an invitation to the Canadian Wheat Board to come to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and present its side of the barley issue? Yes or no?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, he sounds pretty good until you listen to him.
If I were to get up and suggest what the committee should do, he would be the first person on his hind legs yelling that I was interfering in the committee. The committee is sovereign and the committee will decide
what in fact it wants to do and that is what will happen in this case.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


A. Kim Campbell: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and an undertaking mentioned in this House in March 1993, I would like to table, in both official languages, documents entitled "Personal Harassment in the Canadian Forces: 1992 Survey Working Paper 93-1", "Report of the Canadian Forces Approach to Harassment in the Workplace", a letter from the Chief of the Defence Staff regarding these documents and CANFORGEN 031/93.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 48 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CRIMINAL CODE


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-431, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House that this a private member's bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda.
May 5, 1993

We know that across Canada communities have been increasingly subject to hate propaganda and racist incidents, often promoted by the increasing numbers of neo-Nazi kinds of organizations.
The purpose of this bill is threefold: to expand the definition of identifiable group, to expand the grounds for a possible conviction, and to remove the word "wilfully" so that the accused's state of mind would not have to be shown as part of the process of considering these incidents.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Ms. Mitchell 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.



NATIONAL SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT TESTS ACT


Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-432, an act respecting the establishment of national scholastic achievement tests and to amend the Department of State Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to introduce my private member's bill, an act respecting the establishment of national scholastic achievement tests and to amend the Department of State Act.
This bill would allow the Secretary of State to establish a system of national scholastic achievement tests in consultation with provincial ministers of education. Students at certain school levels would be allowed on a voluntary basis to take these tests. Results would be disclosed to the students but the Secretary of State would make results public as statistical data.
The purpose of this bill is to help students, parents and educators compare the results of educational systems across the country. In recent months we have heard a great deal from Canadians who are concerned that we are not sufficiently preparing our students for the challenges of tomorrow. This bill will establish a national
Routine Proceedings
program to help us identify and meet the needs of our students throughout their education.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Thorkelson 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.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by a number of Albertans, most of whom are resident in Calgary. They point out, among other elements, in the preamble of the petition that if it is implemented the North American free 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 needed social programs.
Therefore, these petitioners call on the 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.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of constituents from the villages of Tyne Valley, Ellerslie, Northam and Victoria West who have deep concerns about the violence against women and children in our society.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children, encourage and support women to report incidents of assault and abuse, provide assistance and support for women reporting assault or abuse.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by my constituents in the Yukon who wish to draw the attention of Parliament to their concern that alimony provisions of the Income Tkx Act of Canada currently set out that

Routine Proceedings
taxpayers who receive child support payments must include the payments in their taxable income.
They note that child support payments are made for the benefit of children, not custodial parents, and custodial parents also financially contribute to raising children. They further note that taxing custodial parents on the support payments made for children contributes to the impoverishment of children after marriage breakdowns.
My constituents call on Parliament to amend the Income Tax Act to exclude child support payments from the taxable income of custodial parents.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from close to 50 Calgarians who are petitioning the House of Commons to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading material such as the serial killer board game can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition which comes from my constituents, about 100 of them, who note that Canada has recognized Croatia as an independent state since January 1992, but has not established diplomatic relations with Croatia.
Therefore the petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to urge the Canadian government to establish full diplomatic relations between Canada and the Republic of Croatia.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by several thousand Canadians from coast to coast to coast on the subject of tests and experiments which are presently being made on animals in schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, as well as in industrial and commercial laboratories of all kinds.
These petitioners from across Canada set out a number of their concerns about these tests. They call upon Parliament to totally and completely abolish all tests and
experiments made on or using live animals in the pretext of relating observations to humans as such practices are not only cruel, unnecessary, unjustifiable, unreliable and morally wrong but invariably generate misleading concepts and dangerous results which are most damaging to the health of Canadians and citizens from every country in the world.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have another group of petitions signed by several hundred residents of the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia.
These petitioners note that the Republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina have been recognized as independent states by Canada and have met the necessary conditions for the establishment of diplomatic relations.
They note that a number of other countries have established diplomatic relations with them and that the Croatian community in Canada is denied the benefits of diplomatic relations, including representation, trade and export programs and immigration programs while residing in Canada and visiting Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina.
Therefore they call upon Parliament to establish full diplomatic relations with the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina.


CHRISTINE LAMONT AND DAVID SPENCER
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition signed by residents of my own constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway and other residents of British Columbia. They note that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison, have suffered grave miscarriages of justice and cruel and unusual treatment.
The only relief which is available to them from such severe punishment is for Canada to request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.
May 5, 1993

Routine Proceedings


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today.
The first petition is signed by residents of my constituency, the city of North Battleford and the communities of Mayfair, Turtleford, Mervin, Pierceland and Vogel, 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. They recognize that if implemented the North American free trade agreement will cause more Canadian jobs to be lost than have already been lost under the free trade agreement with the United States.
The petitioners state that renegotiating the free trade agreements would only result in further loss to Canada. Therefore they call upon the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and they recommend to government that it use the FTA's termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


VIOLENCE
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, the second petition I have the honour to present is also signed by residents of my constituency, all from the city of North Battleford, Saskatchewan, who recognize that hundreds of children, women, and men, including seniors and disabled, are killed every year by an increasing number of people who state they got the idea from something they saw or who did not grasp and respect the humanity of their victims.
The petitioners request that Parliament consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials such as the serial killer board game can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


TAXATION
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, my third petition for today is signed by a number of residents of Canada.
They state quite clearly that the goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation and they call on Parliament to reject the goods and services tax and reform the taxation system so that there is a fair tax put on all, including the wealthy and large corporations.
.(1515)


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition wherein the petitioners point out that there has never been a goods and services tax on books and reading materials. They ask the government to review its policy because they feel it counteracts the basic principle in a democracy to have people get involved and become better educated.
They also point out that artists, writers and publishers have been hurt very, very seriously by this.
Finally, they point out that it counteracts the objective of the government to increase productivity.


RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMMING
Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I have another petition where the petitioners ask the Parliament of Canada to ensure that the CRTC is extremely vigilant in monitoring the use of inappropriate language on radio and television. They point out that it verges on abuse and violence. Of course these are obviously situations that we do not want to see in Canada or that we certainly want to minimize.

Furthermore the petitioners indicated that it often goes against the principles parents want to teach their children.


RIGHTS OF THE UNBORN
Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the duty and honour to table two petitions.
In the first petition the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to prepare a response to this petition which addresses why individuals within the bodies of their mothers are not individuals with rights under the charter for Parliament to honour; or to honour Parliament's obligation under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and provide equality before and under the law and equal protection and equal benefit of the law for individuals, within the bodies of their mothers from fertilization, to the end of the birthing process.

Routine Proceedings POLISH IMMIGRANTS


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, my second petition is from residents in Parkdale- High Park and the greater Toronto area. It is a further petition to the hundreds of petitions I have tabled already about Polish immigrants who have been caught in Greece for over three years waiting to emigrate to Canada. They arrived there under the self-exile designated class which the government cancelled while they were waiting to be processed to come to Canada.
They call upon Parliament to urge the Canadian government to allow these immigrants to emigrate to Canada as quickly as possible.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of a number of people from western Canada.
While they have heard, which is true, that the government is trying to get the North American free trade deal through the Parliament of Canada quickly, they point out that while there are exemptions for certain categories like raw logs and unprocessed fish, there is no exemption for water. They are simply asking the Government of Canada to ensure, now that it is carrying on negotiations with the United States and Mexico, that an exemption is made for water to clarify once and for all that water will be protected.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, Questions Nos. 484 and 495 will be answered today.


Mr. Milliken: Is the Department of Justice considering the acquisition of a computer system to access statutes and/or case law and, if so, (a) what is the anticipated cost of such a system (b) have alternatives available in the private sector been studied (c) what studies has the government undertaken or commissioned in this regard (d) at what cost?


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: (a) The
original estimates for this project were $2,475,000.
(b)	When this project was undertaken in 1989, there were no systems or services from the private sector that could deliver all of the functions that had been documented in a detailed User Requirements Report prepared as part of this project.
The objectives were to provide department counsel and staff with a much more comprehensive range of interactive retrieval and text/information management, including the tracking of work in progress for legislative services.
(c)	All analysis and studies related to this type of service and technology were conducted within the scope of this project.
(d)	The total expenditures for the design, development and support of the Online Access to Statutes and Regulations (OARS) since 1989, by fiscal year are as follows:
1989-	1990 $772,000
1990-	1991 $464,000
1991-	1992 $759,000
1992-	1993 $192,000
Total $2,187,000


Mr. Riis: Regarding the charges brought by Mr. Glen Kealey against several persons in 1990, (a) since May 1, 1990, how many lawyers and other personnel have been assigned to work on this case or related matters by the Department of Justice, (b) is this work still going ahead today and, if so, how many people are involved, (c) who assigned the lawyers and other personnel to this file, (d) when was the minister informed and by whom?


Rob Nicholson: (a) The
private prosecutions brought by Mr. Kealey alleged offences contrary to the Criminal Code. In Ontario, the prosecution of offences under the Criminal Code is the responsibility of the Attorney General of Ontario, not the Attorney General of Canada. Two Department of Justice counsel appeared to represent RCMP witnesses called to testify at a hearing intended to determine if those named should be summoned to court, and two departmental counsel appeared in court on issues concerning whether preliminary proceedings should be heard publicly or not.
May 5, 1993

(b)	After the Ontario Attorney General stayed the proceedings, the Department of Justice had no further involvement in the case.
(c)	Counsel were assigned by their immediate supervisors (head of Ottawa-Hull Prosecutions).
(d)	The Department of Justice officials informed the minister's staff of the proceedings and they in turn informed the minister.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Nelson Andrew Riis: That this House condemns the stifling of debate through the misuse of closure by the enforcement of time allocation on NAFTA and other important trade-related legislation.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have a chance to say a few words today about the North American free trade deal. That is the trade deal that has been signed involving Mexico, the United States and Canada. The reason I am glad to say a few words is
Supply
because the government decided some weeks ago that it would stop the debate on this in the House of Commons.
Now the only way members of Parliament, the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada, are able to speak in Parliament on this is on a day when the opposition party, like the New Democrats, says it wants to provide some opportunity for debate. That is because the government has through its form of closure stopped debate on this piece of legislation, this massive trade deal which goes far beyond simply being a trade deal.
How many people in Canada, how many people in the gallery today, how many people watching television, how many people across the country know that this trade deal is being rammed through the House of Commons by this government? How many Canadians have even seen this trade deal? How many people have had a notice in their newspaper saying that this trade deal now is being pushed through Parliament by the Government of Canada and it is not allowing any further debate?
Madam Speaker, do you remember the resources that were mobilized by this government, the amount of effort made by this government to inform the people of Canada about the referendum issue? There were countless workshops, symposia, conventions, pamphlets and booklets. Copies of the deal were mailed to every single household in Canada. People were deluged with material and they said: "Why is the government sending us all of this? I cannot read these hundreds of pages of material". That was the complaint then.
In other words when the government wanted to inform the people of Canada about an issue-


Mr. MacWilliam:: Misinformed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Perhaps misinformed, but all in all it put its own propaganda slant on it. It pulled out all the resources and the stops. Canadians from coast to coast to coast were deluged with information when the government wanted to inform Canadians.
Here we have the most important trade deal being signed by the Governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. It will profoundly influence the lives of Canadians in perpetuity because this legislation takes priority over domestic and provincial legislation. This is the economic constitution of Canada. This will lock provincial governments, local governments and federal governments into the future. It cannot simply be changed because of a new government. We will have to get permission from the United States to change it. We

May 5, 1993
Supply
will have to get permission from the Government of Mexico and soon the Government of Chile as it is extended throughout the western hemisphere.
We are talking about a massively important piece of legislation. Why has the Government of Canada chosen not to inform Canadians at all about this? Why has it chosen not to allow debate on this issue? That is the case.


An hon. member:: It does not want us to know its agenda, that is why.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It does not want Canadians to understand this. It does not want Canadians to know what is in it because it knows Canadians are smart and intelligent people. If they were to read this document and the analysis, there is no way they would support this initiative by this government. They would oppose this as they oppose what little they know already. All the polls tell us that an overwhelming number of Canadians are suspicious of the deal. They do not like it. They do not support it because they have already seen the results of the Canada-U.S. trade deal.
They have seen the deindustrialization of Canada. They have seen the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of jobs migrate to the United States and particularly to the southern United States. They know that when this trade deal is signed and in place, when it passes through this Parliament and through the parliaments of the United States and Mexico, it will be as the U.S. candidate Ross Perot indicated. We will hear massive flushing and sucking sounds as the jobs are sucked and flushed down into the southern United States and northern Mexico.
We will hear one huge, sucking, flushing sound because this government is signing us into a deal that will not benefit Canadians generally. It will benefit the transnational corporations. The champagne corks will be popping on Wall Street. They will be popping on Howe Street in Vancouver and on Bay Street because the beneficiaries are the corporation owners. They will benefit because they will get rid of this nuisance called government regulations and laws.
That is what it is all about. The best thing we can do is to slowly but surely start tearing this bloody thing up. There is no law or regulation that says I cannot tear up a
piece of paper. This symbolizes what we as New Democrats believe is the most appropriate way to handle this legislation and that is to tear it up piece by piece and not proceed with it.
The minister of trade is here. I respect him as a person. I respect him as an individual. But can he honestly say as a parliamentarian who has sat on this side in opposition for many years that it is appropriate with this legislation at the second reading stage, where we discuss the principle of this bill, to allow less than four hours of debate in this House of Commons?
It was before the House for about four hours and debate lasted only a little more than two hours. It is unheard of in Canadian history that legislation of this importance would receive less than four hours of debate. As a matter of fact only two people spoke from this party before the government said: "That's enough, we have heard enough", because the people of Canada might have heard what they were saying. The people of Canada might have figured out what this trade deal was all about.
Listen to what my friends across the way in the Conservative Party said a few years ago. When the Liberals were over there they acted like the Conservatives do today. They brought in closure on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, in 1980 the Prime Minister brought in closure on the Constitution. This is what happened: The then Conservative energy critic, the hon. member for Calgary Centre said he had to be physically restrained from hitting a Liberal member of Parliament. Five Conservative members of Parliament marched up to the Speaker's chair screaming that the Prime Minister was creating a totalitarian state by muzzling Parliament.


An hon. member:: Your words have come back to haunt you.


An hon. member:: The worm has turned.


Nelson Andrew Riis: So here they are, Madam Speaker. In other words, they stormed the Chair and abused Parliament. They made this place into a mockery. They stormed the Chair and said: "We demand changes because they are using closure". There is no government in Canadian history that has used closure or time allocation as often as this government has. For it, Parliament is a nuisance.
May 5, 1993

I dug out pages and pages of what happened that day. My friend who used to be the government Whip said: "This could fly" over this closure business. He said: "It may not be possible to prevent fists from swinging in Parliament if the Liberal government attempts to use closure one more time".
Stanley Knowles summed it all up. He was the New Democrat House leader at the time. He said he "had never seen such rowdy disorder in the House of Commons for the 38 years that he had been in Parliament". That behaviour was despicable but what generated it was also despicable, and that was the use of closure.
We should not be surprised that this government wants to muzzle Parliament. We have heard the ring of jackboots around this place ever since the government members were elected back in 1984. Time and time again the stomping of jackboots in this place echoed throughout the halls of Parliament making a mockery out of this institution.
No wonder Canadians have given up because they know the government members do not listen to Canadians at all. They have their minds set on what they want to do. They have a responsibility to introduce legislation that will assist their wealthy corporate pals. That is what it is all about; it is the corporate Conservative agenda. It is called deregulation; it is called privatization; it is called downsizing; it is called laying off public servants. It is called all of those things and the cornerstone of that Tory corporate agenda is free trade. Who decides on the future of Canada? The corporate leaders decide and not even in Canada but in Hong Kong, Texas, New York, Los Angeles and Frankfurt. That is where the decisions are being made.
I have a book called Location U.S.A.. There are pages and pages of various states and cities saying: "Come to our state, here we do not allow unions," or "here it is a 'right to work' legislation," or "here there are very low minimum wages". It just goes on and on, seducing Canadian corporate owners into taking their operations down into Tennessee or Louisiana.
There was an example today in the press. We are tying ourselves into the economy in the United States. Does the minister of trade ever read the papers? Today it says that the United States figures show the recovery in the United States is slowing. We are tying our future to an
Supply
economy that is falling down. We are putting all our eggs into one basket and this government is asking the people of Canada to buy a pig in a poke. Why are we being asked to buy a pig in a poke?
We do not even know what this trade deal is going to look like because it is being altered as we speak. The negotiators are going to add things on to this legislation in terms of environmental improvements because President Clinton said he is not going to sign this deal the way it is. He wanted to add some protection for American workers. Did this government care about Canadian workers? Not a whit.
Did the Minister for International Trade say that we wanted to sit down and negotiate side deals to provide for all those men and women who are going to lose their jobs because of this NAFTA deal? Oh no, he agreed after the President of the United States brought it up, but the President of the United states said he would not sign it unless it was there. He forced this fellow into joining with him and the Mexicans as well.
Again, let us understand what needs to be done. Why are we being asked to buy a pig in a poke? Because Canadians do not even know what this deal is all about. They do not know the final form of this deal. The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca asked on many occasions: "Why are we rushing this thing through the House of Commons when we do not even know what form it is eventually going to take?"
What does this trade deal do? Have we ever heard of a government that has allowed a few days of study in committee and then wants to ram this thing through the House of Commons at report stage and third reading? No.
The very first order of business in committee was closure. Normally the government at least has the courtesy of giving the illusion that it is prepared to consider and hear witnesses in committee. However, the very first item of business was to pass an order in committee that would guarantee a minimal set of hearings, have a very reduced list of witnesses and say that the committee would complete all its business, all 4,000 pages of clause-by-clause work within two or three weeks. That is it.

May 5, 1993
Supply
If this was in the British House of Commons it would be in committee for months on end.


An hon. member:: It should be.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It should be. This will profoundly influence the future of Canadians, their children and their children's children.
What is this going to do to a few sectors? I want to ask this of my friend, the Minister for International Trade. In NAFTA he made some exemptions. The negotiator said: "Let us exempt some sacred trusts".
One of these was raw logs. Those involved with the forest industry should not feel that because raw logs are mentioned as an exemption that this is going to safeguard their jobs, the mills or manufacturing plants. It does not take much to slap off four sides of a log and send that timber down to the United States. Will it now be sent down to northern Mexico where the employees are paid 60 cents an hour? Is that where it is going to be sent?
I will mention another exemption. It is unprocessed fish for the east coast of Canada. What about the unprocessed fish on the west coast of Canada? Why did the minister not ensure that that was protected so that those Canadian fish caught off our west coast are processed in Canada? Why should we be providing jobs for Americans or Mexicans? Those are our fish and those are our resources.
I want to ask my friend again. He is going to have a chance to speak and we will be listening very carefully. One of the very first things that our Prime Minister did when he was elected was to go down to New York to say: "Just in case anybody does not quite know, our country is now for sale to anybody. It is for sale virtually to the lowest bidder. Our country is for sale. Everything is for sale. All our resources are for sale. We are not going to ask these irritating questions about what value this will be for Canada. No, we are not going to do that. We are going to put Investment Canada into place to facilitate the takeover of our economy by foreigners".
That is what this government did. The idea is that the more foreigners who are making decisions about our future then the better it is. That is an odd way to think about the future of Canada.
That is not the New Democratic Party way. That is why we are tearing up this agreement page by page. We think this is not in the best interests of our country. It is not in the best interests of Canadians now or in the future. This as our economic constitution is how we believe we should proceed.
I want to ask my friend, the Minister for International Trade, to explain when he stands up why his government refused to include water as an exempt category.
Water is the only natural resource in this country that the Americans cannot just walk in and take over. It is the only resource that they just cannot walk in and buy at will. All the others are available for them.
Having brought this to the minister's attention back in the FTA when he had a chance to negotiate NAFTA, why did the minister not place water in there as an exempt category? He knows full well that that is what the Americans want. That is what they want. They want access to our fresh water. The Americans want to buy our lakes and rivers to feed their sloppy, wasteful habits in the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. That is what they want. He also knows that he is putting Canadian workers, in terms of their futures, in jeopardy.
I would ask this of the Minister of Finance who is a wise financier. He knows a good deal when he sees one, particularly for his corporate friends. He has a choice for the future. I hope he will respond to this when he has a chance to say a few words. He can pay his employees in Canada a decent wage, say $18 or $19 an hour. Under NAFTA he can go down into the northern tier of the United States and pay $12 an hour or he can go down into Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Arizona and pay $6.50 an hour. That is for the same type of qualification, the same expertise, the same education and the same training.
This is the gem. This document is now going to allow those same corporations to go down into northern Mexico and pay their employees 60 cents an hour.
My friend wants to maximize his profits and now has the ability to locate anywhere in continental North America. He knows that that Mexican border is only 48 hours by truck to anywhere along the most populated part of Canada and a lot less time to the markets in the United States. Say he is paying his workers $18 an hour.
May 5, 1993

If he can pay them $12.50 or $6 an hour or 60 cents an hour, then we know where he is going to end up.
He is going to end up with those thousands and thousands of factories, plants and processing facilities in the Maquiladora zone in Mexico. He is going to be down there with not just 200,000, 400,000 or 500,000 employees but 600,000, 700,000 or 800,000 people exploited in that zone. Why are we doing this? To facilitate the corporate sector.
We know what the impression is going to be in Canada. We know what is going to happen because we have seen it under the FTA. The corporation owners go in and talk to the employees and say: "You have some choices. You have a number of choices. You either take a massive wage drop as we try to harmonize our wages and working conditions now with those of northern Mexico or we are going to have to move our plant out".
That is what is going to happen in the future. That is where we are. That is why I have to say to the people of Canada: Be careful. This government is trying to sneak this trade deal through the House of Commons. It is trying to sneak it past Canadians and have it soundly in place before the Tory leadership convention and before the next election is called.
I notice with all due respect to my Liberal friends that there is not a whole lot of opposition over here to this process. I remember that very important vote we had. We had a vote on second reading when we voted on the principle of this piece of legislation. I noticed that almost all of our caucus came from across the country to be here for that critical vote. We wanted to be able to say to the people of Canada that when the opportunity came we stood in our places against this economic constitution of Canada.
Where were the Liberals that night? Why did they not show up for that vote? I think my Conservative friends will agree that when the final tally came in, had the Liberals shown up for that vote this trade deal would have been defeated that night and we would not be having this debate in the House of Commons today.
Oh yes, it would have been defeated. Does anybody out there believe for one moment that the Liberals across the way will do what I am doing when they get the chance, which is to tear up the free trade agreement with Mexico, the United States and Canada? From their
Supply
behaviour in the House of Commons and in committee, they would never do it.
As a matter of fact, my good friends here from Toronto know this so well. What is a Liberal? Liberals by definition are free traders. They believe in free trade. They love free trade.
They might have a little argument with a phrase or two here. However, when it gets right down to it, have we ever heard the Leader of the Official Opposition say that if he is elected and becomes Prime Minister of Canada that he is going to do what I am doing and tear this silly deal up page by page? Of course he has not done that because he is also trying to pull a fast one over on the people of Canada.
I have to wind down pretty soon. Before I wind down, I want to say that I think what this government is doing is absolutely despicable. What this government is doing is trying to sneak, slip and rush this trade deal with Mexico and the United States through this Parliament and it is not telling anybody. It is not sending out any notices. It is not sending out any information pamphlets.
After it is all done and signed, sealed and delivered with the quiet support of my Liberal friends here for this process then the government will send out propaganda sheets and say: "Remember how great the free trade deal was?"
I am going to end now by simply saying this. For those people watching or listening they should ask themselves this question: Is life better today for me and my family than it was back in 1984 when this government was elected? If one answers truthfully then one will say no unless one is a corporate president waiting for this deal to be signed so that he can celebrate down on Bay Street with champagne and so on knowing full well that his profits are going to increase at the expense of Canadian workers and Canadian society and Canada generally.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I have just two questions.
First, I think in 1988 I had hoped that the NDP had learned a lesson. In the dying days of the campaign instead of fighting the real issue which was the trade agreement they chose instead to attack the Liberal Party. As a result of their attack we lost 20 seats in the province of Ontario by less than 1,000 votes. That attack actually gave the Tories a majority government. As a result of that attack the trade agreement is now in place.

May 5, 1993
Supply
I would like to ask the House leader for the NDP: Does he not realize that on this issue, instead of attacking the Liberals he should be uniting with the Liberals to attack a government that is bringing in this deal? Did he not learn a lesson in 1988?


An hon. member:: No. They are slow learners.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, in response to my hon. friend, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra would be shaking his head if he heard her question.
I believe the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is a vety honourable person. He said that he opposed that free trade deal and he did, but I have not heard this leader say the same thing. As a matter of fact I have never heard the Leader of the Official Opposition say once, in all of his speeches I have read and all the media reports I have ever heard, that when he is Prime Minister, if that day was ever, God forbid, to happen that he would stop the FTA and not proceed with NAFTA. He has never said it.


An hon. member:: He is not going to say it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is the reality. We can revisit history and go back and say: "Why did you not do this, why did you do that", but the reality is right now. We are about to dramatically shift the future of Canada. We are about to dramatically take the levers of power and throw them away. We are about to put more than ever the future of our country in the hands of foreign decision makers. That is why New Democrats are so frustrated and angry to sit here.
Every time we have a chance that is why we are saying that we do not want to proceed with this lunacy. We want to be masters of our own House. We do not want somebody down in Dallas, Texas or somewhere else telling us what to do.
Let me summarize. In not too long a time from now, when the Minister for International Trade wants to get a phone number he is going to dial information. He is not going to hear the usual response. He is going to hear Buenos dias. He will be hearing Spanish. If you are AT&T, if you now have the opportunity to have a continent-wide telephone system and you have a choice
between paying your operators $17 an hour in Canada, $12 in the northern United States, $6.50 in Tennessee or 62 cents in the northern part of Mexico you know full well where you are going to relocate your operation.
Look at what is happening to Canadian Airlines. It had this five acre plant in Vancouver where it maintained its aircraft. It is closing down and Canadian is opening up a 70-acre one in northern Mexico. Why is it doing that? Because it knows full well that it can pay its mechanics in northern Mexico 75 cents an hour to do the same work that the mechanics in Vancouver do for $20 an hour. That is the reality.
Why in God's name are we doing this? Why is this government so committed to driving this legislation through and destroying the future of Canada? It has a different philosophy from ours. It believes that what is good for General Motors is good for all of Canada; what is good for the corporate sector is good for all of Canada; what is good for the wealthiest of Canadians is good for all Canadians. We do not believe that.
We believe that the role of government is something else, not simply to cater and pander to those very privileged elements in our society. That is why, Madam Speaker, if you think we are a little fresh or a little angry, you are right. It is because we know that the government is pulling a fast one on the people of Canada. The people of Canada do not know this is happening and do not understand the tremendous impact that this will have on their future in a very negative way.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, I cannot help observe that we have a new phenomenon in this House. We now have Riis, the rampant, roguish ripper.
My question has to do with what my hon. friend just did. I have followed with great interest over the last several months the debate as it has evolved in this country with respect to the North American free trade agreement. Once the agreement was signed it had been out for months, it had been studied by parliamentary committees and hundreds of witnesses from coast to coast in this country had an opportunity to come and be heard. There has also been debate and so on. It has been
May 5, 1993

the most extensive consultation process, as my hon. friend knows of course.
However since the bill to implement that agreement was introduced into this House, we have not heard intelligent substantive argument from the New Democratic Party about this legislation. What we have seen is histrionics. We saw histrionics in the second reading debate. You will recall, Madam Speaker, as you were in the chair, that my friend talked about behaviour. I was not old enough to have been here when the behaviour he referred to took place some years ago in this House.
I have never seen more disgraceful behaviour than that carried on by his colleagues at the beginning of the second reading debate. They were banging their desks like a bunch of children. Then there was the hon. gentleman who put the Speaker in the position of having to throw him out for misconduct and the absolutely disgraceful histrionic behaviour.
Now we have my hon. friend, the member from Kamloops, standing up and just destroying a copy of the document by ripping it up page by page by page. I wonder if my hon. friend knows the cost to the taxpayers of the document that he just ripped up page by page by page.
My question to him is, if the New Democratic members oppose this legislation and are speaking against it, why do they conduct their whole campaign against this legislation and against this deal on the basis of demonstration, histrionics and childish behaviour rather than on the basis of sound, intelligent debate?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the member asks why he does not hear more intelligent debate on this issue. It is because his government does not allow it to be debated in the House of Commons. That is why we are not debating it. It had to be an opposition party. Today the New Democrats said: "We want to have debate on this issue so the people of Canada will know what this is all about". We set aside this day, not the government.
If the government had its way, we would not say a word on this. We flushed out the Minister for International Trade to say a few words today to the people of Canada through the House of Commons.
My hon. friend, who I appreciate is asking a reasoned question said, do I know what this book is going to cost.
Supply
Does he know what this trade deal is going to cost in human casualties across this country? Does he know of the tens of thousands of people who will lose their jobs, the tens and tens of thousands who will be underemployed because of this?
Does he know what this is going to cost? If I had my way, I would go across this country and tear every one of these deals up, every single one if I had my way. I tell him that the cost of this little document here pales, it is infinitesimal when it comes to what this deal is going to do, not just to this generation. That is not the point. That is why we call this an economic constitution. This is an economic constitution because it binds future governments. It binds these governments, as we are finding today.
The Minister for International Trade is forced to sit down with Bill Clinton to negotiate support for workers who lose their jobs from health and safety conditions. He did not want to do it himself. He did not initiate it. I did not hear a word before saying anything about that.
In response to my hon. friend, I am glad he asked the question. The cost of this document is the future of Canada.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech.
I want to ask him this. I was somewhat disappointed that the committee that is supposedly hearing people from across the country on this issue is only hearing them in Ottawa. I was very disappointed that the committee did not travel to places like Hamilton, the Niagara peninsula or my riding to hear-


An hon. member:: Toronto.


Robert (Bob) Speller: And Toronto, to hear Canadians who will be dramatically affected by some of the impacts of this legislation.
I understand and I am told by my hon. friend that members of his party actually did not come down to Hamilton when they came to see the people. I wonder if his party supported the idea that Canadians need to have a forum in which to debate this. They need to have a forum in their own community rather than just in Parliament.

May 5, 1993
Supply


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's question.
My recollection is that the Ontario government held hearings on NAFTA across the province in all sorts of communities. However, I will tell him what was very disappointing.
The Minister for International Trade will be aware of this because at the very beginning of this process, there was a letter written by my leader, our trade critics and me. It asked for the opportunity for Canadians to be well informed. I do not think it is necessary to be overwhelmed with information like we saw on the referendum and the changes to the Charlottetown Accord.
We wanted all Canadians regardless of their communities to have a chance to be informed and to express their views. That was the disgraceful part of it because the committee only visited a half dozen places in the whole country. People from Kamloops were clamouring to express their views. Thank goodness the provincial government is holding hearings in Kamloops this week so that at least people in Kamloops will have a chance to speak out to their provincial government. Did this government provide an opportunity for people in Kamloops to make presentations to the committee? No. Neither did Kelowna, Prince George and-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I regret that the time for questions and comments has expired.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, normally I start off when I participate in a debate by saying I am delighted to be a participant in this debate. However after the grandstanding by the hon. member we have just seen, Madam Speaker, you are probably just as disgusted as I am. The hon. member made all these righteous sounding speeches and statements that he wanted to discuss the substance of the legislation, the substance of the agreement, and then he proceeded to give us the garbage we have just heard here and accompanied that with the type of grandstanding he just displayed.
All we heard from him were the myths of 1988. I do not know why the New Democratic Party has not learned that the myths of 1988 are still myths in 1993. They have
proven to be myths because nothing that the NDP said was going to happen in 1988 has happened. He spoke about water. We have been hearing for years that we were going to have large exports of water, that we were going to have diversions of rivers.
It is stated in the legislation of 1988 and 1993, and it is absolutely clear, that water is not covered except water that goes into glasses, bottled water, which represents a good business for a number of Canadian companies.
My hon. friend said to negotiate on water. I know that when we negotiate we have to give something to get something. Why would the hon. member suggest that we should negotiate water when we do not have to negotiate it? What is he prepared to give up? He spoke about social programs. He said that I am going to have to sit down with Bill Clinton and talk about social programs and worker assistance. If he had read the bill that he just ripped up then he would not have made such a statement.
He says he has read the bill and now he is backing his way out of the House right now. He does not want to listen to the truth. The truth is that if he had read the bill he would see-


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have read this trade deal and I do not see an exemption for water in it. That is the point I was trying to make with my hon. friend.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows that we are now debating. This is not a point of order but a point of debate. The hon. minister has the floor.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, as I was saying before we had this specious point of order by someone who should know the rules because he is the House leader for the New Democratic Party, although we have seen that he is not a very capable House leader because he has never been able to deliver his caucus in the three or four years he has been House leader, he said that I have to negotiate with Bill Clinton on social programs and worker assistance.
Before he leaves the House I would like to draw his attention to the fact that in the legislation it specifically states that social programs and programs related to worker assistance are totally the responsibility of each sovereign government and there is no basis for discussion, negotiation or any other sort of dialogue between
May 5, 1993

the three governments on those two particular issues that he has talked about.
If he would read the legislation and stop making these grandstanding ploys in the hope that he will get on television-I know the hon. member does not get on television too often and has to grandstand to get on television, but if he talked substance, facts, and the truth once in a while then maybe he would get on television.
He spoke about wages. If he had read the paper recently he would have-so long, Nelson-seen that there was a survey done of business people. They said that wages were number nine among the elements of competitiveness that influence their decision. They said number nine, not number one, as the NDP continually try to imply.
I want to focus on this motion today and talk about stifling of debate. This is a stunning display of hypocrisy because here is a party that is criticizing the government for stifling debate. It is another example of how it twists the facts to try to convey a message to the people of Canada.
Let me point out that during the period of time, going back a couple of weeks now, that this bill has been before the committee the official New Democratic critic, who is lovingly known in Mexico as Montezuma's revenge, has not attended a single meeting of the committee other than the organizational meeting.
There was one meeting at which the New Democratic member-


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should point out that the official trade critic for the New Democratic Party is in ill health and is visiting the hospital today. I would appreciate it if the minister would consider his comments.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to hear that the hon. member is ill but I am told he has not been ill the whole time the committee has been meeting.
There was another meeting at which the New Democratic member did not ask one single question. Yesterday the New Democratic Party did not even have a person in the room for over half of the committee meeting.
Supply
The questioning of witnesses was carried on almost entirely by Conservative members of Parliament with some participation by the Liberals.
The conclusion that I have come to is that the best way to stifle debate is not to participate in debate because there have to be two sides to a debate.
Now we have the grandstanding of the House leader of the New Democratic Party today implying that there has been an active involvement of the New Democratic Party in fighting this legislation. But no, it has not even been at the committee, it has not asked questions. That is how to stifle debate, not by making these specious arguments that we just heard from the New Democratic House leader.
Another example of hypocrisy is that he said that we have not provided any information while we flooded the country with information on the referendum. There is a piece of information called "The Global Trade Challenge". There is a piece in it that describes the NAFTA. I have a document here that has information on the NAFTA.
What did we hear from the New Democratic Party, particularly from my blond friend over there? He said we were wasting taxpayers' funds, that we should not be sending out this information because it was government propaganda.
The member cannot have it both ways. Either let us send out the information and say it is right for the government to send out information or do not say that we should not send out information because he does not like what the information says.
Let me move to the substance of my speech because I want to address a point. First of all, let me thank my hon. friend for his thoughtfulness in giving me an opportunity to thank through this debate the many people who participated in the broadest consultation process that has ever been held in relation to a trade treaty.
These NAFTA negotiations involved people in industry, unions, and academic institutions as well as people right across the country.
I want to give a sense of this co-operation by quoting from a letter from Premier Rae dated March 23, 1992: "The decision to proceed having been taken", he did not agree with the decision and I respect that, "the Govern-

May 5, 1993
Supply
ment of Ontario and particularly the Hon. Ed Philip, the minister of industry, trade and technology, and his officials have participated fully in consultations with your ministers and officials. We have appreciated the care with which we have been kept informed of the progress of negotiations and the opportunities to offer suggestions about the development of Canadian positions on the range of issues involved".
These consultations with the provinces, the provinces representing their people right across the country, involve negotiations on the NAFTA as well as the current Uruguay round of the GATT. It continues under the parallel agreement negotiations that are under way right now, particularly in relation to the topics of environment and labour because they are so much in the domain of the provinces.
We have had about 100 federal-provincial meetings over the course of the past couple of years, bringing together the views of all Canadians through their elected representatives and the officials of the provincial governments, in order to develop the positions we put forward in the negotiations.
This legislation, the NAFTA, has been thoroughly debated in this House. Rarely does a day go by that it is not a topic in Question Period. There has been considerable discussion of motions, such as the one my hon. friend has put forward today. This is the fifth allotted day on which we have had a motion. There were 27 meetings of the standing committee and 203 witnesses during May and June of last year. Then the special subcommittee on international trade reviewed the agreement. That involved 124 witnesses and 29 meetings. We were in nine cities throughout the country. That occurred from November through February of this year.
It has been raised numerous times. There have been 304 questions put in Question Period, 22 members' statements, at least 14 petitions, and 5 allotted days.
For the hon. member to say we are stifling debate is nonsense. My colleague, the House leader for the government, is going to comment further on other elements of this issue.
This has been a very substantial process of consultation. It arises out of a consultation in 1985 when we were
asking people from across the country about entering into a free trade agreement with the United States. We asked: What do you want to see in this agreement and how should we manage ourselves as we go through this process?
One of the recurring themes was to have a formal, structured mechanism on an ongoing basis whereby people who had an interest or those representing interest groups would be able to feed these ideas into the process and engage in a dialogue with the negotiators. In that way they could have a real impact on the outcome of the negotiations.
Out of this flowed the process that we have now, which is the SAGFE-ITAC process. This has resulted in the SAGITs, Sectoral Advisory Groups on International Trade, which represent a range of industries, and I will give some examples in a minute, and have the responsibility of representing their sectoral and industry interests in the negotiations and providing ongoing advice on trade policy, trade development and other matters relating to trade. ITAC, the International Trade Advisory Committee, is an umbrella committee. It represents the chairmen of the SAGIT groups, but it also represents a number of other people from business, labour, and academia who are also feeding into the process.
These groups address issues directly related to the free trade agreement, then the Uruguay round and now the NAFTA. More recently we have engaged these people in a dialogue on the ongoing trade policy objectives that the Government of Canada should be following in the years ahead. This has been the main channel for consultations and direct involvement in the process.
I should also say that the process has been broader than that, with the prosperity initiative that started about six months or so prior to the completion of the NAFTA. This was a process that involved thousands of people across the country as well as industry groups on a broad range of issues. It gave people an opportunity during that time to influence the direction of the NAFTA negotiations.
If my colleagues opposite would read the comments of the steering committee on the prosperity initiative they would see how important international trade matters are. There is a broad process here. We now have 311
May 5, 1993

members of the ITAC and the SAGITs. They have held over 100 meetings in recent years and have been directly involved.
I would like to give an idea of the breadth of exposure we have had in these negotiations. On the agriculture, food and beverage committee we have heard from grain growers, the federations of agriculture, grocery products manufacturers, the Cattlemen's Association, the Distillers Association, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, the Wine Institute, dairy farmers and corn producers.
On apparel and footwear we have heard from the Apparel Manufacturers Institute, shoe manufacturers, children's wear and sports wear manufacturers, furriers, textile importers, glove manufacturers, as well as the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union.
On cultural industries we have heard from a number of publishers, the publisher of Owl and Chickadee magazines, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Rogers Communications, the Attic Music Group that manufactures discs and such things, Association of Canadian Publishers and Maclean Hunter.
On business and professional services, we heard from the Canadian Hospital Association, architects and advertising firms. On consumer and household products, furniture, toys, windows and jewellery, we heard from Sally Hall, former president of the Consumers' Association and sports manufacturers.
Other groups were the energy chemicals and petrochemicals group, financial services, banks, trust companies and investment advisers; a range of people involved in fish and fish products, forest products, high technology equipment, minerals and metals, communications and computer services, transportation equipment, transportation services, textiles, fur and leather.
There has been a broad range of consultation. It has been extremely helpful to the negotiators and to government to get the breadth of advice, the expert advice of these people. We were calling on these people right up to the final day of the negotiations. I was on the phone with some of them on the final day of the negotiations in Washington last August. It has been an active process and a process that has worked extremely well.
My hon. friend has said that this would destroy the country and the economy and that it would result in
Supply
lay-offs. I wish he could have joined me in participating in some of the trade missions and my activities as industry and trade minister in talking to companies, not the giants or the multinationals he always portrays these policies to be for, but companies with $5 million to $50 million in sales.
I will give him one example, Larkin Equipment, a $15 million manufacturer of television transmitting stations. Last week in Chile it signed an order for $15 million, equivalent to its annual sales. It was delighted because it took on three of the majors. The three companies it took on range in sales from $5 billion to $7 billion. Here is a Canadian company that is winning this business all around the world.
I can give my hon. friend another example.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What does that have to do with NAFTA?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me tell him what it has to do with NAFTA. Chile wants to join the NAFTA because it feels it is in its interest as a country to be part of the most important trading bloc in the world today and to have the increase in its standard of living that will flow from it.
My hon. friend says they are not in NAFTA today. Let us look at what is happening in our exports to the United States. Does he think the exports that increased last year 13.6 per cent just appeared out of the air? Or, did it happen because the tariffs on the products of other countries in the United States stayed level and we reduced our tariffs into the United States during that period?
We now have a real margin of preference that small, medium and large companies are taking advantage of. That is how Canadian companies are taking advantage of the NAFTA. That is why many economists in the country will say that if we had not had the FTA in place we would have had a far more serious recession. That is absolutely important, a very important part of why we are continuing the negotiations that have first of all achieved success in the free trade agreement and are now going to achieve success in the NAFTA with Mexico and the United States, and hopefully further with Chile, Argentina and other countries of Latin America.

May 5, 1993
Supply


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the supply proceedings include the following motion:
That this House condemn the stifling of debate through the misuse
of closure by the enforcement of time allocation on NAFTA and
other important trade-related legislation.
The minister of trade referred to the latter part of the motion but he did not even touch on the first part of the motion. I see he is not listening; I would like him to respond. The first part reads:
That the House condemn the stifling of debate through the misuse
of closure -
Since the government came into power it has gone time allocation and closure crazy. Just to give an example, in the period from 1988 to the present it has attempted closure 33 times, not time allocation. It failed on 18 of them and moved 15. When I was here between 1980 and 1984 the Liberals used closure too, but we used it when debate was finished. We attempted moving closure only three times and we were successful in moving it twice.
Does the minister believe it is right for a government to use closure that many times on such important issues as NAFTA and other important bills we have put through here such as Bill C-109? He did not touch that part of the motion.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question of my hon. friend. There is a very good reason why I did not touch that part of the motion. It is that my colleague, the government House leader, is going to address it directly.
Let me simply say that it is our objective as a government to negotiate a specific amount of time on each piece of legislation as part of the normal management of House activities. That works in a number of cases.
As my hon. friend knows, sometimes it does not work at all because members opposite, in this case the New Democratic Party, said they did not want to negotiate anything. In effect they told us they wanted us to impose time allocation because that way they could attack us and move this type of specious motion in the House.
That matter will be covered more effectively by the government Flouse leader.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker,
I have two questions for the minister.
He praised the consultative process the government has gone through on this bill. Of course we deny that and I am sure the Canadian people would suggest that is absolutely false. In the consultative process it has gone through I am sure the message from the Canadian people was that they were against the deal.
My first question is: Why is the government going through it when it knows the Canadian people are against it?
My second question is more to the substance of the motion today and the debate; that is the process. I am sure the minister is aware the department responsible for drafting this legislation would describe it as a legislative nightmare. It has suggested the bills now coming before the House that we are debating and passing will be affected by the NAFTA legislation and therefore will have to be amended later. There have already been a couple of books published with errata dealing with the proposed NAFTA legislation.
Does the minister not agree that the government has brought to bear on the people who are putting this legislation together a legislative nightmare which indicates the bill is being rushed unnecessarily? Why not take time, be responsible and allow the side accords if they come to anything to be brought before the House and debated in good time, rather than a week of committee hearings and I am sure a week of debate in the House of Commons?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me address those issues one by one.
Just to underscore the point I made in debate, let me say the committee is meeting right now as we are meeting in the House. Where were members of the NDP? They were 20 minutes late coming to the committee hearings. The point I make is that if one wants to stifle debate do not turn up at the committee hearings. NDP members have tried it before; they walk out and they do not participate in the House. On the very day they are talking about this government stifling debate they do not even turn up for consideration of a piece of legislation they feel is so important that they must be there fighting it all the way. They should get there on time and we might take them seriously.
The second point is that the hon. member denied that the process I talked about was effective. I hope he will
May 5, 1993

tell me what is ineffective about the SAGIT and ITAC process I described, a very important part of the negotiating process. In my speech I talked about the Sectoral Advisory Groups on International Trade, the SAGITs and the ITAC, the International Trade Advisory Committee. They were part of my speech. If my hon. friend had been listening he would have known what I was talking about.
He asked why we were pushing this through when the people of Canada were against it. I think that is what they said in 1988. They said the people of Canada were against the free trade agreement. They elected 168 members of Parliament who were supportive of the agreement on this side. They elected some people on that side of the House who were also supportive, but we will not talk about who they are.
My hon. friend says he is worried that the process is going to be a nightmare, that we are going to put this legislation through and some of it might have to be amended. We recognize there may have to be some minor amendments, but the important issue is that there are opportunities created in the United States and in Mexico by the NAFTA. Small, medium and large businesses want to be able to take advantage of those opportunities, want to put their plans in place so that they can move quickly to take advantage of the opportunities and access to the markets opening up as a result of the NAFTA.
Let me just give my hon. friend some indication of what I am talking about. In 1989 some 190 business people went through our embassy in Mexico City. There were 1,000 in 1990, 2,000 in 1991 and 4,500 in 1992. People are demonstrating a tremendous amount of interest in that market. They are going down there and saying they want to know what they have to do to take advantage of the business opportunities there. That is one of the key reasons we feel it is important to get this legislation passed and put it in the window so people can see what they are going to have to do and what changes have been made.
However, if the other two countries do not put their legislation through, the final provision of the bill states that the bill will not go into force until we have been notified by the other two countries that they are ready to enforce their legislation as well. It is a good safety check to get the legislation in place so people can plan, but we
Supply
are not committed until we know the other two countries are also committed.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister responsible a question.
I wonder why he is in such a hurry to have the NAFTA bill passed, when the Americans and Mexicans are still negotiating. In fact, right now, we are involved in trilateral negotiations in the United States. Why is the Canadian government in such a hurry to have this bill passed by the House of Commons? It seems rather illogical to me.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me be very clear here. The Americans, the Mexicans and we are negotiating parallel agreements. The U.S. legislative process is under way right now. It is different from the process in this House of Commons, but it is a process that is under way. The Mexicans have the act right now in front of their Senate so that their legislation process is under way.
The fact that our legislative process is concluding a little bit more quickly than the others is not reason for us to say: "Let us hold it back". That is because, as I said, there is that safety valve element in the legislation that it will not go into force until the other two countries notify us that they are also ready to put their legislation into force.
Let me just make one final point. My hon. friend from the NDP, as well as the hon. member who just asked the question from the Bloc Quebecois, talked about the side agreements. We started these side agreements in Canada in the negotiations of the NAFTA in February 1992 in Montreal. That was the Canadian initiative: to seek side agreements on both labour and environmental matters. We pressed these at the time but we could not get acceptance by the other two countries. Since the change in administration in the United States there is a willingness to negotiate these so now we are back on the Canadian agenda. However, for the implications that I got from the New Democratic Party that this is something that has come right out of the blue for us, this is totally wrong. We started the process back in February 1992.

May 5, 1993
Supply


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the significance of this issue I am wondering if you might find consent for another 10-minute session of questions and comments with the minister since he is in the Elouse today. I am not sure if he has anything on right now of any real importance, but I am wondering if you might find unanimous consent in the House to extend it for another 10 minutes.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am quite prepared to ask if the minister has the time and if he is willing.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Hon. members, I am delayed. I was supposed to be in front of committee for my estimates at 3.30 o.m. The time taken to help this debate here is taken out of my time in front of the committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not have consent.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I did not hear you ask.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.
Just a minute. The hon. member for Hamilton East is telling me that I did not ask. I did ask and I was told no.


Sheila Maureen Copps: By whom?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I did ask and I was told no. The hon. member for Etobicoke North has the floor.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: We in the
Official Opposition support the statement in the resolution before us today that would condemn the government for the stifling of debate through the misuse of closure by the enforcement of time allocation on NAFTA.
We came to this House believing this was a serious motion and one which carried our support. However, in place of a serious discussion we have once more been treated by the NDP to a footling, puerile and insubstantial discussion of what is in fact a very serious issue. We have also seen this little piece de theatre this afternoon which surely contributes nothing to Canadians' understanding of the debate we are now undertaking and, behind that, of the purpose and the impact of the North American free trade agreement.
We would support the motion before the House. We have seldom succeeded in having any impact in our continual and consistent urging for full discussion of
NAFTA. We nevertheless have repeatedly called for extensive or indeed exhaustive national debate on all aspects of the North American free trade agreement. We stressed in particular the need for full public participation of Canadians in this important process.
Let me quote for example from the Liberal Party's statement in the 1991 report on the North American free trade agreement by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. In that report we emphasized that: "The continuing consultation with Parliament and the Canadian people is a prerequisite to arriving at trade policy that reflects Canada's long-term interests".
To ensure that that full debate was pursued we in the trade subcommittee back in November 1992 supported wide-ranging consultation, not merely here in Ottawa but across the country.
At that time we put forward proposals to visit a large number of Canadian cities right across Canada. The response of the budget committee was unfortunately to endorse a truncated series of visits.
We accepted that knowing full well that if we did not accept the offer of the budget committee before Christmas we would have delayed the whole process until after Christmas when the question would have to be reopened.
What did the NDP do in those circumstances? The NDP opposed even the money that was allocated for visits to some of the major cities of Canada and chose instead to attempt to block any such consultation until such time as the budgetary allocation was made for a more extensive cross-country tour by the committee.
The result of that stance by the NDP would have been that we would have had no consultations prior to Christmas. We would have had no discussions in some of the major cities of Canada. It would have, in fact, prevented the beginning of even the truncated debate that we have had on NAFTA.
Similarly, in December 1992 we wrote to the chairman of the subcommittee on international trade. In light of the fact that we had been given budgetary allocations only for a limited amount of hearings, we proposed that in the new year the hearings could begin again with yet a much larger list of cities to be visited in every province and territory of our country.
May 5, 1993

We said particularly at that time that the initial round of hearings we succeeded in going forward with despite the opposition of the New Democratic Party had identified a number of major issues which clearly needed further consultation.
We said specifically that the first round of cross-country public hearings had not permitted the committee to visit all the provinces and territories of Canada. We urged that hearings should be held in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Yukon and the Northwest Territories as well as in the cities of Toronto and Montreal and indeed in a number of other cities in Canada, such as Hamilton. My colleague from Hamilton East has consistently urged the committee to visit Hamilton.
What was the response to that? Indeed, once again we in the Liberal opposition succeeded to some degree in moving forward the consultative process. We did hold hearings. We managed to succeed in inducing budgetary allocations to be made to hold hearings in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. However, the government still opposed any hearings in Saskatchewan or in the two territories or indeed in Montreal and Toronto on the grounds that anyone from those two cities who was opposed or who had comments to make on the agreement could come to Ottawa.
That was unsatisfactory to us so we in the Liberal Party proposed a motion in the committee urging that further consultations be held during the month of January. That proposal was rejected by the New Democratic Party. It was the New Democratic Party that joined with the Conservative government in opposing any additional hearings during the month of January.
Nevertheless, not deterred by that sort of intransigent attitude we in the Liberal Party proposed another motion in committee for the month of February that would have had the purpose of taking the committee, as I said, to Saskatchewan, and Saskatoon in particular, Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Iqaluit, Montreal and Toronto. That proposal was rejected by the government. The most that the committee was able to do was to go to New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Quebec City.
We were still not deterred or discouraged by the constant opposition of the government to full public
Supply
consultations sometimes with the support of the New Democratic Party. Rather, we pursued our consistent policy of urging full public discussion.
Nevertheless, the government rejected the additional hearings and when we got to the hurried and rushed second reading of Bill C-I15 we found once more that the government was applying time allocation to prevent adequate discussion of this very important legislation.
The result of this time allocation and rejection of adequate consultation has been that substantial numbers of Canadians have been prevented from making their contributions to what should be a wide-ranging and broad public debate.
Despite the urging of the Liberal Party that such provisions be made, we have groups today that are still unable to participate adequately in the discussions now before us. I mentioned the people living in various Canadian cities. I have cited the example of Hamilton where those who have a deep-seated interest in this discussion have been unable to participate, but I would also cite the example of aboriginal peoples who have not had an opportunity to present their views of how the North American free trade agreement might affect their particular interests.
The government chose to push Bill C-115, the North American free trade agreement, through second reading by using time allocation. In those circumstances we on this side of the House in the Liberal Party moved an amendment to suspend further debate on the bill for six months. We did this so that we and the Canadian people would have time to have a clearer idea, for example, of how the United States intends to pursue the implementation of the NAFTA legislation. Does it indeed intend to send the legislation to Congress at all and to seek its implementation? This is certainly a moot point in light of the U.S. budget director's recent statement that NAFTA, as it now stands, is dead-to use his words-in the U.S. Congress.
There is another major reason for seeking more time to consider all the implications of the North American free trade agreement and its impact on Canada as well as its impact on our foreign trade policy generally. It is that we would have known in more detail what it is that we can expect to emerge from the current discussions of the

May 5, 1993
Supply
side agreements-the parallel accords as they are called-on the environmental and labour standards.
The United States may pursue a third initiative and call for a parallel accord on import surges. There is discussion now on these two side accords which, if they mean anything at all, must have some impact on the nature and implementation of the North American free trade agreement.
This government may choose to pursue its legislation in the House of Commons without waiting to see what these side agreements will produce.
The United States waits. It is not proceeding with its legislation. It wants to be sure it gets the side agreements it seeks. Canada is going to rush ahead and push through the legislation without either providing adequate time for public debate or assuring itself on what it can expect in these side agreements.
Make no mistake, the side agreements are of real importance. As I mentioned a moment ago they will change the nature and directions in which the NAFTA will be implemented.
The use of time allocation in such circumstances represents in my view more than a mere disdain for parliamentary democracy, although this is no minor point at a time of increasing public cynicism about the political leadership in this country and its trade policies in particular.
It is simply bad public policy to proceed as this government is doing at a time when substantive aspects of the NAFTA package, the increasingly critical side agreements on labour and environmental standards have yet to be negotiated.
This government in its single-minded pursuit to get this legislation through the House of Commons is tying Canada's hands. It is leaving us little choice but to accept whatever the United States should decide is in its national interest, not in Canada's or Mexico's national interest, but in its own national interest in these and other important areas.
As the minister pointed out it remains technically true that even after third reading the government can still withhold proclamation of its legislation. Politically such a
step would be fraught with difficulties as the government itself surely must know.
The Liberal opposition has supported today's motion but it should be stressed that there is a critical distinction between the Liberal's and the NDP's position relative to the debate on NAFTA. The Liberal Party has a serious policy on trade and the NDP has no policy at all.
I am ready to debate that question and not engage in this little piece de theatre of tearing up papers and throwing them on the floor.


An hon. member:: It is setting a bad example for children.


Roy MacLaren: From the beginning the NDP members have rejected any idea of freer hemispheric trade. They condemned NAFTA long before its terms were negotiated and remain committed beyond that to abolishing the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement outright.
Their opposition is so blind and unrealistic. Where are they? What planet do they live on that they could move a motion in December that this House reject any North American free trade agreement? Is this NDP party so protectionist, so committed to building walls around Canada instead of enabling Canadians to participate in a new global economy that it can say it rejects any free trade in North America?
If that is its position then of course it is understandable why it does not participate in a serious debate, why it does not attend committee hearings and why in November and again in January it did not support broadly based consultations across our country?
By contrast, early in the process the Liberal Party set forth a number of ways in which the evolving North American trade relationship needs to be developed if we are to promote a truly liberalized trading agreement which implicitly recognizes the critical linkages. I want to stress that the Liberal Party recognizes the critical linkages between trade and economic activity on the one hand and environmental and labour concerns on the other.
Liberal Party members accepted Canada's participation in the NAFTA negotiations once Canada was a member of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement to take the opportunity to correct major shortcomings in the original U.S.-Canada free trade agreement, to
May 5, 1993

support what was in effect the renegotiation of that agreement and to ensure that Canada played a much more active role in shaping the evolution of North American trading relations.
We called for much tougher environmental standards. We called for much tougher labour standards. We called for those tougher labour and environmental standards back in 1991 when we first stated our position in a report of the standing committee. We called for an accession clause to make it easier for other countries to join the trading arrangement and thus expand Canada's free trade options beyond the United States.
Most important of all, we called for the inclusion of a subsidies and anti-dumping code which would put an end to the kind of trade harassment that has been eroding the so-called free trade environment between Canada and the United States. It would have introduced a desperately needed degree of predictability into our entry into the yet untested waters of a North American free trade agreement. A subsidies and anti-dumping code would have provided the Canadian people with a far greater degree of assurance than they can receive from the present North American free trade agreement.
Only the most sanguine among us would argue that the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement has lived up to the promises that this government so extravagantly made in 1988. I am not referring of course to the hundreds of thousands of jobs we were promised would emerge from such an agreement. I refer specifically to the fact that the central justification offered for the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement was secure access to the U.S. market in the face of what was seen as rising U.S. protectionism.
Despite the government's claims about the U.S.-Can-ada free trade agreement and now the North American free trade agreement, a whole series of trade disputes have arisen, from Honda automobiles to lumber. They have demonstrated just how tenuous that so-called secure access really is.
In some respects the North American free trade agreement did represent an improvement on the original free trade agreement, perhaps not a very difficult task. One of the major achievements is the access clause,
Supply
which I have already noted. It provides an opportunity for the development of a new and deeper level of a world trading order, a sort of GATT-plus if you wish in the western hemisphere. However the agreement does not specify that future membership be limited to the countries of the western hemisphere. It is intriguing that not only has Chile expressed some interest but countries as diverse as Taiwan and Singapore are also making overtures toward membership.
I will conclude this discussion now by merely recognizing that the NDP, in offering this motion today, had an opportunity to seriously address trade questions that confront every Canadian. In acting in this frivolous and superficial way on major issues, it has chosen a route that leads to sterility and rejection of everything. It leaves Canadians with no option but to develop a wall around themselves and opt out of the global world. We must all define, accept, challenge and take up the opportunity and ensure that all Canadians benefit from it.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, let me first comment on the realities of the debate on the North American free trade agreement and then deal with the perceptions that surround that agreement.


An hon. member:: Debate?


Howard Edward Crosby: Comment or question. You do not mind if I comment and question in accordance with the procedures?


An hon. member:: Not at all.


Howard Edward Crosby: The member in making his address talked about the lack of seriousness on the part of the New Democratic Party. What could be more self-evident. What he did not explain was why, given that lack of seriousness, he would ever support such a motion. The bill before the House, Bill C-115 which is now in committee, deals with the implementation of the North American free trade agreement. The pith and substance and all the elements are contained in the agreement. The bill simply implements the agreement in its details. If you reject the North American free trade agreement, as the New Democratic Party apparently does, what is the point of debating the legislation implementing it? I

May 5, 1993
Supply
do not know why the Liberal Party would support the NDP in that endeavour.
Now let me deal with the perceptions. John Kenneth Galbraith, a well-known Canadian who is renowned in the United States and Canada and around the world, said: "Canadians are concerned that free trade will impair their sovereignty and bring Canada even more dangerously under U.S. influence. This is nonsense. The U.S. influence is there, no one can doubt it, but it is a fact of geography not of trade".
I know the hon. member for Etobicoke North participated in the free trade agreement debate in 1988. I would like to know whether he was a party and privy to the allegations that the free trade agreement then, in terms of its perception would destroy sovereignty, attack Canadian sovereignty, would undermine social programs, would undermine medicare, would ruin old age assistance. Is he still pursuing those perceptions with respect to the North American free trade agreement? Now after five years have passed that medicare is in place, old age assistance, social programs are in place, does he still persist in viewing the North American free trade agreement as anything but a recitation of the rules under which all three nations will trade in the future? Does he want to continue with the perceptions purveyed by the New Democratic Party that this somehow undermines our social programs, undermines our sovereignty and thus gain support publicly on the basis of that public fraud?


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, the questioner posed a number of issues. Let me attempt to deal with one or two of them.
He quotes John Kenneth Galbraith but neglects to add what Mr. Galbraith on occasion said, and that is that although he advocated the negotiation of a U.S.-Canada free trade agreement he stressed, and stressed repeatedly, the need for a strong Canadian domestic policy to ensure that Canadians benefit from freer trade.
We have seen an absence on the part of this government of an effective and comprehensive adjustment assistance program that would have allowed Canadians to take up such an opportunity. Let me add also that Mr. Galbraith on that occasion spoke of the need for Canada to strengthen in the face of the United States' pervasive influence in our country our own cultural institutions.
What has this government done? Look at its record. It has cut the CBC allocations. It has reduced spending in the film area. It has reduced the support for Canadian writing, for Canadian publishing. It has left ambiguity in its policies on book publishing and now on magazine publishing, a whole range of issues which would have supported a stronger Canadian culture and a stronger Canadian consciousness of ourselves in the face of the freer trade agreement that was being discussed.
I think if the hon. member wants to quote John Kenneth Galbraith he should quote fully from his stance.
As for whether I thought that Canadians should proceed with the free trade agreement, no. We are engaged in some sort of historical review here. I speak for myself, but I believe I speak for my colleagues on this side of the House as well, that the negotiation of the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement was a mistake in two ways.
In broad terms, it enhanced or increased the pervasive influence of one other country in our economy, but more particularly in our society. That I think was a serious mistake. We should have remained freer traders on a global basis, not on a continental basis.
Second, this government failed to provide Canadians, as I said a moment ago, with the adjustment assistance needed to make a reality of the free trade agreement if it was determined to have such an agreement. It failed on that count as well.
The additional way in which this government failed to provide for Canadian interests in the free trade agreement was to look beyond the continent and to emphasize the opportunities for Canadian freer trade in Asia and in Europe matched with an effective program of adjustment assistance.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment and put a question.
Much has been made in this Chamber during various debates on NAFTA of the fact that the administration in Mexico City has put in place and is putting in place modem laws with respect to environmental protection, employment standards, unemployment insurance and so on; in other words to bring the laws in those two vital
May 5, 1993

areas in their country up to the standards of similar laws in the United States and in Canada.
As we also know, Mexico has had a criminal justice system and a charter of rights for some 175 years I believe. Yet we also know that the criminal justice system in that country is rotten and corrupt from the top to the bottom and from the bottom to the top.
I have discussed this with Mexicans, friends of mine who live there and people to whom I have talked to in that country who drive their vehicles after dark in fear. These are not peasants. These are fairly well to do Mexican citizens.
The question I put to my friend who just spoke I would have liked to put to the minister as well. What greater assurances do we have today that Mexico will apply and administer its labour laws and its environmental laws with any greater degree of honesty, integrity and fairness than that country has for over 150 years applied its criminal justice system? Money under the table and indeed over the table is what often counts and not the merits of the case.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, if the member had addressed the question of NAFTA in a serious way, he would have recognized that we in the Official Opposition have for two years called for stronger provisions in the agreement on environmental standards and on labour standards.
Those stronger standards which we called for in 1991 were rejected by the government. The agreement that it negotiated does not contain those broader standards, those stronger standards which we were advocating.
The irony, and it is something of an irony, is that it is the new President of the United States who has come forward with an initiative in that area. He said that he does want to change NAFTA itself but he has proposed two major and possibly three side agreements, certainly one on environment and one on labour standards.
We on our part would welcome a prospect that those side agreements about which we know virtually nothing might be the opportunity to address our concerns in respect of labour and environmental standards. Recognizing that environmental and even labour issues rarely respect national boundaries, the Liberal Party has argued that these issues must be addressed in a multilater-
Supply
al North American context. Even without a free trade agreement we should be addressing such questions.
Among other things, we who regard this as a serious debate and not an occasion for a little bit of silly theatre have proposed a trilateral commission for monitoring environmental and labour matters among the three countries with powers to make findings and recommendations. We seek a clearly defined process for developing common standards and then for harmonizing such standards upward. We want to establish an early warning system in environmental and labour disputes, one which would flag such disputes before they escalate into mutually destructive trade wars.
It is for those reasons that we took the initiative two years ago to urge stronger labour standards, stronger environmental standards in the North American free trade agreement and it is for that reason that we continue to pursue that policy and indeed a policy of seeking real substance on a subsidies code and an anti-dumping code as major changes that are needed to the North American free trade agreement.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I will be sharing the 20 minute time allotment with my friend from Saanich-Gulf Islands.
First of all I want to respond to my friend from Etobicoke. Unfortunately he is making an exit through the side accords. I hope that we are sober enough in our debate to meet with his admonishments of the New Democratic Party. I think fondly of the member. Every time I see a sparrow, I think of him.
In any event, the substance of the debate today is not to be the content because we have not been given nor will we be given enough time to debate the substance. It was supposed to be on the process. I will from time to time go in and out of process and substance. Nevertheless I think the process is important to deal with as the motion suggests.
There was not enough time for debate in the House at second reading. There is not enough time at committee level. There will not be enough time at third reading. Why? I suggest that it is not in the government's best interest to want to debate the issue.

Supply
It is the government's agenda to get this through very quickly under the much attention and brouhaha of a leadership campaign on their side. All of the attention is given to that whereas the NAFTA agreement will go very quickly through the House and Canadians will not know. I have to give the government credit because a survey that we did in my community suggested that people are more concerned about jobs and unemployment and NAFTA has gone down on the list.
If we asked them two years ago I am sure they would have said: "NAFTA is of primary significance to us and we are concerned about it". Now jobs and unemployment have risen to the top. Therefore, people are preoccupied with their very existence.
I want to say that the Ontario government had extensive hearings throughout Ontario. I do not know if the government is aware and I am sure it will not want to hear, because it does not want to hear from the average Canadian, that Canadians say: "We don't want NAFTA".
The minister was here bragging about the great consultation process, but the government did not talk to the people on the street. The people on the street will say: "No thank you for free trade and double no thank you for NAFTA".
While we are rushing headlong through this process the Americans are saying: "Not so fast. We are not at all sure that this is a good deal". The Prime Minister the other day brought forward a few names of significant Congress people and senators who are saying they are for it.
I suggest that Richard Gephardt, the House Democratic majority leader, Dave Bonior, whose speech I have here presently, and numerous people in Congress would defeat that bill today. They are saying side accords if they have teeth. The side accords do not have teeth. That is going to put the Liberal Party in a bit of a difficult situation and particularly the trade critic.
The deal will not pass. The side accords do not have teeth. Regardless, there goes the Conservative government saying: "We have got to get this through. Let's get it through before June 10" because that is D-day around here.
Just what kind of a nightmare is it? What kind of legislative nightmare is it? Look at the size of it. The very size of it is awe inspiring. That is the economic constitution of this country and we are going to debate it for a few hours. We are going to have a week of committee hearings and then we are going to bring it back in two weeks and have the third reading debate. I was flattered but to put it into perspective I had a private member's bill C-327 that had more hearings and more debate in the House of Commons than this did. As I say, I am flattered.
To put it in perspective, to show the ultimate ridiculousness of this situation, a North American free trade agreement among three countries-the government keeps saying between three countries which is a grammatical error but certainly not substance-is so significant an issue that is getting so little attention.
My friend from Kamloops pointed out that if the government had the desire and the will to inform people, it certainly would have. During the Charlottetown Accord debate and subsequent referendum, we got so much information that people rejected it. They reacted against it. They said that the government was trying to sell it a little bit too hard. Certainly the North American free trade agreement is not getting a hard sell. It is getting the softest sell that the government could possibly get away with.
The first day of committee the individual who is largely responsible for putting this together did not say so in so many words because when I asked the question he said that it was a political question and he did not answer political questions. The suggestion was very strong that this is a legislative nightmare and that is the substance of the motion today. The process is flawed. It is a legislative nightmare to attempt to put it together.
I was somewhat taken aback when he said that legislation that is coming before the House of Commons right now, that we are debating and passing, and the substance of the bill which we are debating will be changed later on because of NAFTA if it passes. Suspend one or the other. Why bring forward bills we know are going to be changed or suspend NAFTA. That is our preference. That is the kind of legislative nightmare this is creating.
May 5, 1993

At the same time, the architect of this says there are a few errors in the bill and that a few books have already been published with errata. That means mistakes, not surprising. There are lots of mistakes already present.
The poor architects of the bill are saying they have to get this done. "It is extremely difficult but we have been told that we have to get this done." There is a deadline and as a result we who are somewhat involved in this process are expected to understand and comprehend the substance of the bill.
I admit some ignorance but I am trying. Imagine what the Canadian people think of this. Well, they have no opportunity to think about it because we are not going to give them the opportunity.
We are going to put it through committee and the House before anyone can have some second thoughts about it at all so come fall whatever happens at least the legislation will be there, ready and waiting.
If this government should happen to come back, it will have its way. If these folks come back, we are not sure what would happen then. They are going to renegotiate the old deal, which statement the Americans consider laughable. They put a great deal of import into the side accords but unfortunately the side accords will have no teeth. They will have to go the side exit on the side accords because that has not worked either. They either have to implement on January 1, 1994 or not to implement. That will really put them into a situation that is untenable.
Therefore, the bottom line here is what is the rush? We know why the rush but in reality the legislative process should not be handled that way in a democratic process that we allege it to be. Restore some faith. Allow Canadians to have a look at this.
A couple of new books have been published: What's It All About, NAFTA? and The North American Free Trade Agreement at a Glance. Thank God they did it at a glance. No one is going to see it so with that I will finish.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question regarding the Scarborough van plant.
Under the free trade agreement, chapter 14, we gave people unfettered foreign investment opportunity in this country. It is something I campaigned against in my very
Supply
first speech in the House of Commons. I spoke against this particular aspect of the free trade agreement.
Now we have a situation where in Toronto, as he knows, we lost the Scarborough van plant this week. This is the week of the funeral.
Under the NAFTA I understand that the unfettered foreign investment provision would apply the same way as it does under the free trade agreement. In other words there is no rule on foreign investment.
Would it not be logical for someone in the automotive business, whether a Japanese car maker, German or for that matter General Motors, knowing that one has access into the Canadian market with $2 an hour labour available in Mexico, would that not be a much better place to invest in an automotive plant?
Therefore knowing there are no rules on foreign investment and knowing that NAFTA supersedes the free trade agreement in terms of rules of foreign investment, I do not see any reason for automotive plants ever to be built in Canada again. I want to know if the member sees it that way.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, yes I do. I thank the member for the very thoughtful question. Unfortunately the Scarborough van plant closing is almost a repetitious event in one city or another across the country but in particular in southern Ontario.
I have read comments from the big three which have suggested just what he has suggested, that they can hardly wait to get down to Mexico. I am surprised the comments were printed but they said they would be off to Mexico now. I guess the unstated word is that they would leave Canada. They would be off to Mexico now given the opportunity and certainly NAFTA will allow this even freer movement.
They said there is a problem because it leaves a bad perception and the unions will create a great deal of controversy for them. They feel that the cities that are so affected by these moves will give them a bad name, if you will.
I did not get into the specifics of what the member asked me but I suggest in principle he is absolutely right, it is happening. I think the NAFTA agreement will only exacerbate the situation simply because the people with the ability to make those moves are stating it unequivocally.

Supply


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured to participate in the debate this afternoon on this motion.
What we are talking about here is the stifling of debate and when debate is stifled we talk about a constriction of democracy. It has come down to this constriction of democracy, which is something that everyone in this Chamber should be most concerned about.
This legislation has been before this House of Commons for a grand total of four hours and five minutes. One wonders about the public's response when their elected representatives deal with such a fundamental change in our economic constitution and only give it four hours and five minutes. In fact, the Journals branch of the House of Commons said that the time of the actual debate, that is the time spent talking, was two hours and five minutes. The other two hours got lost in procedural arguments. We had two hours and five minutes to change the economic constitution of our country. We should all be ashamed of ourselves.
Debate does not just occur here in the House of Commons. It occurs out in society generally. It is our responsibility as elected representatives not just to hold forth here but to talk to our constituents and listen to our constituents. The debate ferments throughout society.
The filter through which that debate often occurs is the media. I would like to focus the first portion of my debate on the constriction of democracy on the media because they have a role here which they have not taken seriously. I will give an example.
I was down in Washington six weeks ago with my colleagues from Sault Ste. Marie, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca and Mission-Coquitlam examining the side deals on the environment and labour and meeting with members of Congress and the U.S. Senate, environmental groups and labour groups. We held a press conference on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 16. Fifty representatives of the media were there. They engaged with us and inquired about what was going on in Canada, how we saw the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and how we saw the negotiations on the side agreements on the environment and labour.
The next day, after a three-hour stop in Baltimore airport during which my colleague from Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca in better health than he is today played Nerf football with the kids in the airport, we came back to the House of Commons. My colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca was up on his feet in Question Period with a lead question on the North American free trade agreement. I was the second questioner with a question on the environment. After Question Period, as is usual, we went out to the lobby to engage with the media and not one journalist, not one representative of the media asked us any questions. When we talk about stifling of debate and complicity I think the media also have to take some responsibility.
If this trade deal goes ahead people will say: "Why did you not stop it? Why did you not tell us?" The way we do that as elected representatives is through the filter of the media.
I will give another example. That debate was introduced into the House of Commons on Thursday, March 25, an important day. It was also the day that the Minister of National Defence announced her candidacy for the leadership. I do not think that was an accident, a coincidence. It was a planned tactic to focus the media's attention on the defence minister's candidacy and away from the introduction of the North American free trade agreement into the House of Commons.
Canada's national newspaper, as it likes to call itself, The Globe and Mail, devoted five pages on March 26 to the defence minister but not one page or one word about NAFTA being introduced into the House of Commons. If that is not complicity I do not know what is.


An hon. member:: The Tories control the media.


Lynn Hunter: I am not saying that the Tories control the media.
I would now like to turn to the complicity of the Liberals on this issue. When the final vote came on March 31 there were some very interesting absences in the House. This was on the vote on second reading of the North American free trade agreement where the principle of the bill was determined. There were 37 missing Liberals. The member for Vancouver Quadra, the man who said it was the fight of his life in the 1988 election, was somehow otherwise engaged. The vote was 113 in favour to 94 opposed. At that vote 42 out of 44 New
May 5, 1993

Democrats were there. One was attending his mother's funeral and the other one was in Europe on parliamentary business.
We believe this is a bad deal for Canada. We were willing to be inconvenienced. We were willing to get here. One member flew in from British Columbia, the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. He flew in from his riding, got here at 4.30, voted at six o'clock and left at 6.40 to go back to his riding. We did so because we believe that this is a bad deal. We are willing to fight this deal.
The Liberals paired with the government on that legislation. The reason they did that is because they are acting in complicity with the government on this issue. They do not have a policy on the free trade agreement. The reason the Liberals do that is because they want to go along with the Conservative government, the transnational corporations and the media. To give credit, my own paper has done a number of editorials condemning the North American free trade agreement.
There are isolated divergences of views out there. I am not asking the media to agree with my view I am just asking them to fulfil their responsibility in putting it before the Canadian public. I am asking the so-called Official Opposition to get its act together and get a position on this issue.
We are talking about complicity and we are talking about a constriction of democracy. The constriction of democracy is happening now. It certainly will happen if NAFTA is passed because it will inadvertently constrict any future government's ability to act.
The boys are restless in the House today. They do not like it when their game is called but it has been. It is a shame to have only two hours and five minutes of debate in this Chamber on such a fundamental change of Canadian policy.
I hope the Liberals and the government are thoroughly ashamed of themselves.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I know today is the full moon. I can sense it, but I also know. It explains a lot of things.


Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Madam
Supply
Speaker, I found my colleague's speech a little bit bizarre. It sounded like a lover's quarrel, but I could not figure out the partnerships. I could not figure out whether it was the NDP against the media or the NDP against the Liberals. We were accused of being in bed with the opposition.
My point is that for all the complaints about process and not enough time here is an opportunity to discuss issues. I was surprised that my hon. colleague did not get into some of the veiy interesting and substantive issues.
I know she is the environment critic for the NDP and is interested in these issues. Today we learned that the seven largest environmental groups in the United States have come out in favour of the NAFTA. They can certainly see the benefits and opportunities, not only from the trade side but through the North American Commission of the Environment, to really do some very innovative, creative things.
Was my colleague surprised by this? I am sure she would agree with me that this is a very progressive move forward. It is one of the spin-off benefits from the North American free trade agreement.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I would caution the minister to phrase her questions in less inflammatory language.


Some hon. members:: Oh, Oh.


Lynn Hunter: On the issue of the environment, I met with a number of environmental groups when I was in Washington. There are diverse views within the environmental movement on this issue. I am sure there will be press conferences with other major environmental groups saying just the opposite in the very near future.
While we are talking about the substance, the curious thing is the Canadian government wants to pass this before the side agreements are even finished being negotiated.


Peter L. McCreath: That's not part of it.


Lynn Hunter: The negotiations are going to be extended through July. The government wants to pass this bill before we recess for the summer; before June 10. The government has a lot to answer for. How does that foster our negotiating stance when the side agreements which

May 5, 1993
Supply
are so crucial for labour and environmental concerns are going to be negotiated after we have agreed to the bill?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I could not let the debate go by without reminding the hon. member of the 1988 election campaign. I know the reason I am sitting in this House is because of John Timer and his debating skills on the free trade agreement.
Had the NDP been truly interested in shutting down the free trade agreement, they had their opportunity in 1988 and they blew it.
No one is going to buy the notion that Turner was involved in some form of complicity on the free trade agreement. In terms of my party today, my leader has said on repeated occasions that there are flaws in the free trade agreement. We are going to address those flaws immediately upon forming the government. If those flaws are not addressed there is the six-month cancellation clause. He has said this repeatedly in this House.
I do not know why the press does not report it. I do not know why the NDP does not acknowledge it. He said on several occasions that if those amendments, especially in relation to the Auto Pact and automotive production in this country are not fixed then the six-month cancellation clause will go into effect.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure both hon. members were referring to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, I finally found something in common with the hon. member who asked the question. I too am here because of my vigorous opposition to the free trade agreement.


Mr. McKnight:: No you're not. You're here because the Reform Party took a portion of the votes.


Lynn Hunter: Well I guess we all have our analysis of how we get here. I suppose we all have our analysis of how we stay here.
I know the reason why I will stay here and be re-engaged as the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands is because I belong to a party that has a position, unlike the Liberals who do not merit being elected because they are so cowardly in their position on this issue.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I really do not know what to say. We seem to be interfering in a lovers' quarrel here about who did less in the last election or who did more to get defeated. I hesitate to interfere because it was kind of neat to watch.
We are debating the question of NAFTA and the use of time allocation. I want to put it right on the record that as a former House leader, parliamentary secretary to the House leader and minister of state for the House leader, I never hesitated to use closure to stop what was nothing more than an out and out blatant filibuster. I make no apologies for it and will live with that.
The public recognizes a filibuster and an argument without merit or facts. I am prepared to go to the people and discuss closure with them at any time.
I thought it would be useful in view of the debate which has taken place so far from the other side to add a bit of further substance from this side of the House to this debate.
I am pleased to participate in the debate because it gives me an opportunity to set the record straight. There is no question that since 1984 our government has given a high priority to a reform of Canada's intellectual property laws as a component of our agenda for economic renewal. We have recognized the need for patent laws that protect ideas and innovation and attract investment. We make no apologies for those principles. Attracting investment creates jobs and we all know that.
We have had to fight every step of the way in our effort to modernize and streamline those laws. Over the years the hon. members opposite have tried in vain to halt our progress in this effort.
In the last Parliament they used every obstruction tactic at their disposal in an effort to defeat or delay the first phase of patent reform. During the last Parliament, Bill C-22, an amendment to the Patent Act was given first reading on November 7, 1986. The Liberals and the NDP in the House obstructed the bill to such an extent that it was not forwarded to the other place until May 6, 1987. That was some time allocation, some closure.
May 5, 1993

Supply
Our experience with Bill C-22 served as a warning that we could not afford as a government or a country to see a similar delay in the passage of Bill C-91, the second phase of patent reform. Since 1987 when Bill C-22 was passed, the international community has moved significantly in the direction of stronger patent protection. Canada, the only developed nation in the world with compulsory licensing of medicines was becoming more and more isolated on this issue.
The opposition parties enjoy being isolated on issues. They feel it is sort of a badge of honour to be out of step with the rest of the world and the people. We see it today. We see it in all of their policies.
We were rapidly becoming less attractive for investment in pharmaceuticals than our major trading partners. In December 1991 this growing global consensus was reflected in the intellectual property provisions of the draft text that everyone hoped would resolve the deadlock in the Uruguay round of GATT. It provided a regime for intellectual property protection which made compulsory licensing for pharmaceuticals unacceptable. Following on the GATT, the NAFTA which was signed by Canada, U.S. and Mexico on December 17, 1992 contains the same provisions.
Meeting international trade obligations was one reason for moving forward with this legislation but there are others and I want to take a minute to discuss them. We introduced Bill C-91 because it was in our own best interests as a country and as Canadians.
The pharmaceutical industry is in the process of restructuring globally. It is reorienting its operations to serve global markets more efficiently and to select the most competitive business environment it can find for investment in new facilities. The degree of patent protection provided for innovations is a critical factor. With our former system of compulsory licensing quite frankly we could not attract this kind of investment nor could we have hoped to preserve some 20,000 jobs in this sector. Bill C-91 was a step in the right direction.
However, I must say I found it distressing that many of the arguments voiced from the opposition benches during Bill C-91 were nothing but deja vu and nothing but a rehash of the tired old arguments made in the other place when it tried to thwart the government's legislation in 1987.
Back in 1987 the Liberals maintained that the amendments to the Patent Act would result in higher drug prices. Let me quote Senator Theriault who told the other place that: "By removing the competitive element provided by generic drugs in the industry Bill C-22 will undoubtedly result in huge price increases". That was June 25, 1987 on page 1403 of the Hansard of the other place.
Then we had Senator Bonnell who felt that we were encouraging the research of multinational drug companies at the expense of disadvantaged Canadians who would have to pay higher drug prices. "For goodness' sake", he said from his safe seat in the Senate, "do not take research money off the backs of the sick, the hospitalized, the infirm and the aged by increasing drug prices". That was on August 13, 1987.
In a similar manner Senator Buckwold raised the spectre of fear. That is an age-old Liberal trick. If one wants to talk about patents there is one party that has the patent on raising fear without substance. The NDP I must say-I see their Whip is here-cannot come close to our friends the Liberals in raising the spectre of fear without substance. They own the patent on that. It is not even a 20-year patent. It came with the constitution of the Liberal Party.
What did he say? That is what he said. Senator Buckwold said: "In my opinion if we pass this bill we will be doing a great disservice to the people of Canada. We will be adding to the problem of health costs. We will be denying drugs to people who would otherwise have bought them and who desperately need them". We passed it and I challenge Senator Buckwold to name one.


Mr. Crawford:: Me.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Rex, you are in such good shape we do not even need a drug for you.
This is what the Liberals in the other place said about legislation increasing drug prices. Today we know their predictions were inaccurate.
Here are the facts for all those senators from the other place. That is what they said and here are the facts. From January 1987 to December 1991 the prices of existing patented drug products increased at an average annual rate of only 2.9 per cent. That is well below the rise in the consumer price index.

May 5, 1993
Supply
Bill C-91 gives the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board tough new powers. These are some of these new powers. It allows the board to better influence introductory prices for new patented drugs. It authorizes the board to order price reductions or penalties which could compensate for past excessive prices and deter excessive pricing practices. It provides for stiff fines and imprisonment for failure to comply with the board's orders and gives the board's orders the same force and effect as an order of the Federal Court.
Again, many of the Liberals both in the House and in the other place had dire predictions such as the drug manufacturers would not double their research and development as a portion of sales as they had promised to do.
Senator Theriault said: "As far as research and development is concerned it is clear. It is not Bill C-22 which will increase its level in Canada. We have nothing but promises and commitments from the pharmaceutical industry which has never proved quite reliable. There is nothing in Bill C-22 which would compel it to meet its commitments".
Senator Bonnell added: "In the original bill there is not five cents guaranteed to go into research. That is just a promise".
We know now that the effect of the changes to the Patent Act was indeed to open the gates. Open the gates to what? It was to a flood of new investment by the pharmaceutical companies and the industry has lived up to its commitments.
In fact the fourth report of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board points out that the ratio of research and development to sales by the companies that filed patents with the board in 1991 now stands at 9.7 per cent. Total expenditures on research and development for these companies grew to $376.4 million last year. That is an increase of 23 per cent from 1990.
Where were the senators? I hope the senators will read some of these things and go to confession and do what they can to try to redeem themselves for their doubts.
Here is the one I like. Here is a Liberal senator who typifies the confidence that Liberals have in themselves and Canadians. Here is a typical Liberal senator with a typical Liberal line.
During the debates on the old Bill C-22 Senator Buckwold expressed doubts about whether Canada had the capacity to play a major role in the international pharmaceutical industry. This is a typical Liberal inferiority complex. He said: "I do not know how the government can be so naive as to really believe that suddenly Canada will become a major player in the research world". That is a typical lack of confidence in the country and in Canadians that we see everyday from our friends in the Liberal Party.
On this side we have no doubt that Canada and Canadians have the ability to become major players in almost anything that we want to become major players in. That is why we have put in place the public policy that makes it possible for the science and technology community to get on with the job.
We are not alone in our conviction that Bill C-91 is right for Canada. I want to quote from some of the testimony given before the committee hearings on the legislation.
Professor Fernand Labrie from Laval University stressed before the committee that Canada's medical sector is recognized internationally for its excellence and that it is important that its work be translated into economic spin-offs such as exports and new medicines offering better health care for Canadians. He said: "Our prosperity, quality of life and pride vitally depend upon our recognition of science's crucial role and upon a dramatic increase in our investments in scientific education and research and development. Bill C-91 is an opportunity that Canada must not miss".
I know that my hon. friends in ignoring the facts will not know that Dr. Labrie is one of several medical researchers from Canadian universities who endorses the proposed changes to the Patent Act.
There was the joint presentation by Dr. Rene Simard of the University of Montreal, Dr. Jennifer Sturgess of the University of Toronto and Dr. Bernard Bressler of the University of British Columbia. These three members of the National Advisory Council on Pharmaceutical Research made it clear that without increased patent
May 5, 1993

protection there would be no incentive for pharmaceutical companies to continue to invest in Canada. Their comments were endorsed by the vice-presidents of research of 10 top universities in Canada in terms of research in health sciences.
Let me get right at an example of how improved patent protection has stimulated medical research in Canada.
This comes from Dr. Lome Tyrrell of the University of Alberta who appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-91. He said that the research under way at the University of Alberta demonstrated the capabilities of our medical researchers when supported by industry in the public sector.
In 1986 the Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases had seven graduate students, two research associates and a budget of $500,000. Today that budget has grown to $3.5 million. The funding provided to the university has been used primarily for research on AIDS, HIV and hepatitis B.
Dr. Tyrrell's department now has 32 graduate students and 23 post-doctoral students and research associates. So much for Canada not being able to compete and Canada will not do research, which is the principle upon which Liberals approach anything. It says Canada cannot do it therefore let the Liberal Party do it. We let the research community and the pharmaceutical industry do it and they are doing it.
Dr. Tyrrell said Bill C-91 is: "vitally important for young scientists in Canada. It will give them the opportunity and potential of pursuing their research careers in Canada rather than elsewhere. Industrial support of research is important to the future of research in our country.
I have no doubt that Bill C-91 will attract investment in the pharmaceutical industry and enhance Canada's international competitiveness. We believe that the new act strikes a good balance between encouraging economic growth and protecting consumers. This legislation was developed as a result of international trends that show that stronger patent protection improves the climate for innovation and investment.
Supply
The opposition, either the NDP or the Liberals, would have us ignore the signals from the international market place. However, we as the government have refused to hide our heads in the sand. We have refused to say that Canadians cannot compete. Therefore we have proceeded with Bill C-91 in the best interests of Canadians.
What are the results? The amendments have already stimulated an increase in investment and in research and development as well as in manufacturing in Canada. In fact over $680 million in new investments in Canada for the period 1992 to 1996 has been announced by innovative pharmaceutical companies since January 1992 when the government announced its intention to adjust its patent protection system.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Where?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. colleague asks: "Where?" I will do this. I will make those facts and figures available to my hon. colleague if he will undertake to stand up and put them in a Standing Order 31 and come clean and announce to his party and to the senators that it has happened. On the other hand my hon. friend can hide his head in the sand just as the rest of the Liberals are doing.
That is why it was necessary to proceed with Bill C-91. It was to secure these new investments and reap the benefits. We could become a nation of research and development spending, new scientific and technical jobs, spin-offs into other industries and increased export sales that will enhance Canada's international competitive position. These changes to our Patent Act will encourage the development of new medicines by Canadians in Canada that hold the potential to lower health costs in the long term.
Consumers are going to be well served by the strengthened price review mechanisms for patented drugs in Canada including introductory prices for new medicines. It is also my strong belief that Canadians will benefit as well from the renewed interest and commitment across the country to addressing the whole question of total health care costs.
In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-91 moves Canada in the right direction. It is sound public policy and I believe there was ample opportunity for critics and supporters to express their views just as I agree that NAFTA did not come upon us a couple of days ago.

May 5, 1993
Supply
They have known about it for some time. There has been ample public debate. My hon. friends are desperate because they know that we are going to benefit as a country and as Canadians from this agreement. I would suggest there has been ample time to debate it. That has been proven by the public's attitude toward it. They know that the free trade agreement resulted in a $20.3 billion increase in sales, 16 out of 23-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Can my friend add? Wait a minute now. Did sales increase or did they not?


Rex Crawford: Not in my area.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The member better get on the phone to Statistics Canada and tell it that it is printing the wrong stuff then.


An hon. member:: Of course it is.


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


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative ministers really know how to deflect from the topic at hand.
We are talking about NAFTA and closure. The minister knows very well that the number one issue facing this country today is a lack of jobs, a lack of permanent jobs. That is what is killing our country.
This minister was involved in trying to help us prevent crime in our communities. The reason our crime rate is going up is because people cannot find jobs. That leads to all sorts of crimes in our streets.
Whenever we ask in this House what this government is doing to create meaningful jobs for our young people and for older people, et cetera, the answer the Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration gives is that it is not up to the government to create jobs, it is up to the private sector. They say that what the government has to do is create a responsive economic environment so that these jobs will grow and investment will grow in our country. After nine years, will the minister please tell this House where this economic environment that is creating jobs and enticing investment is.
He talks about Bill C-91. I invite him to go and visit Apotex, which our caucus did last week. Apotex will tell
the minister how Bill C-91 will drive drug prices up in our country. What distinguishes us from our neighbour to the south is our medicare system. Everything he talked about does have an impact on our medicare system.
I would like the minister to tell this House why his government is pushing NAFTA forward when there is such opposition in the U.S. Congress to it. It is pushing for side agreements on environmental issues and health and safety standards for workers. Health and safety standards for workers are part of medicare.
What is the rush? Why the time allocation? Why the closures? Where is this responsive economic environment that this government promised us 10 years ago? It is still not here and the government is driving the economy down even further.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will give a very short answer, dealing first with Apotex and generic drug producers. They have never had an original idea in their lives except to copy what people who put money at risk produce. That is number one.
My hon. friend is awfully fortunate that his critic, the member from Winnipeg, was not here when he said and I quote: "Why is the government pushing this agreement through when there is such opposition in the U.S. Congress?" We operate on what is good for Canada, not what the U.S. Congress says.
My hon. friend may operate on what the U.S. Congress thinks, but while it is jerking the strings on him it is not jerking them on us. If the member is being jerked by the generic drug producers and the U.S. Congress why does he not have a thought of his own for a change?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard.
The member talked about being jerked. If there has ever been a government that has been jerked by foreign multinationals it is this Conservative government. The people of Canada may have been fooled in the last election but it is all over this time.
I like the Solicitor General, he is one of the great members of this House. He put an offer forward in his remarks asking that if he would produce these lists of these brand-name drug manufacturers would I stand up in the House and acknowledge it.



May 5, 1993

I would say to the minister that if the $4.5 billion the brand-name drug manufacturers said they would invest in research and development, and not just by digging a hole and saying that was their investment, was put in the form of a guarantee then I would be the first person to stand up in this House and acknowledge it. However the minister knows that all of those brand-name drug manufacturers refused to put their commitment to research and development in the form of a guarantee. Most of it is speculative.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will give my hon. friend another proposition. If I provide the hon. member with the names and amounts of the investments that have been made by the Canadian brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers since Bill C-22, and he knows they have been substantial, if I provide not the guarantees but the actual things that have been done since that bill was passed, which probably would bother my hon. friend, will my hon. friend read that into the record? They have kept their word by investing in research and development at 9.7 per cent of sales.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to see a detailed list since Bill C-22, of what was committed before the bill and what actually happened. We know of several cases, especially in the province of Quebec, in which they included in the file not just R and D in terms of the total amount invested but also warehouse facilities, sales and marketing bills, and heavy duty marketing. We cannot link marketing expenses or sales staff expenses with pure R and D.
If the member can show me that they have kept their commitments since Bill C-22 in terms of pure research I would be happy to stand up here in this House. However the government knows that it cannot produce that. In fact, one of the reasons the government moved Bill C-91 forward so quickly is because it was actually being pushed upon them by most of the lobbyists who are working this town night and day. It really was not good public policy. History will show, and it will not take that long, that Bill C-91 is the beginning of the dismantling of the health care system in Canada. This is going to be a key election issue and it will be one of the reasons that many members of this Conservative Party are going to go down.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the comments of my hon. friend were so long-winded that I have been provided
Supply
with the listing of the investments made. The list includes Glaxo, $70 million on a new manufacturing facility in Ontario; Searle on January 18 made an announcement of $10 million for upgrading facilities in Ontario; Merck Frosst, $50 million on recapitalization and modernization-


Dennis Joseph Mills: R and D research.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: All right, sorry. Nordic Merrell Dow, $40 million increased research and development-


Dennis Joseph Mills: Show me the books.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -BMS, $500,000 on research and development at UBC; SKB Pharma, $40 million in increased R and D in Ontario; Merck Frosst, $15 million in research and development at UBC; Ayerst, $60 million for a new plant in Brandon, Manitoba; Eli Lilly, $125 million on research and development expansion and new manufacture-


Dennis Joseph Mills: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member would table that document. He is committed to saying that that total amount of money is pure research. Let the record show that he said that this was research. If we want to link this to his speech, I bet you dollar to doughnuts that people will discover when we ask them for the books and records and link this to research, they will find that a very small portion of it was research.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to table the letter?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table this document. It contains items of research and development and investment. If my hon. friend wants to claim some companies misrepresented their financial statements, if he would step just outside the door and make that statement we would all be there to hear it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, at no time during these remarks did I make a claim that any corporation was misrepresenting its financial statements. I made a claim that the minister was misrepresenting the notion of pure R and D. Once again this is an example of where this minister is just finagling.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this motion by the New Democratic Party

May 5, 1993
Supply
which condemns the government for stifling of debate through the misuse of closure, by the enforcement of time allocation on NAFTA and other important trade related legislation.
I agree with the NDP. This government has stifled debate on NAFTA. It has stifled debate on other important trade related legislation. It rammed through, for example, Bill C-91 which is really legislation to implement a portion of the NAFTA and which will alter dramatically the competitive environment for the production of manufactured drugs in Canada, limiting the ability of the generic industry to prevent and to stem the increases in the cost of drugs and health care by creating a more competitive climate in Canada and which actually creates major monopoly powers and rents to the multinational pharmaceutical industry.
It has stifled debate throughout the process of considering the North American free trade agreement, the agreement itself, in the form of the committees created to deal with this agreement and in the form of the legislation which is now before the House to implement that agreement, Bill C-115.
I am a member of the legislative committee that is considering Bill C-115. I am just back from a session of that committee. I would like to tell this House and Canadians what we are being asked to do in that committee dealing with Bill C-115.
We have been put under closure in the committee. That is, as far as I know, an unprecedented application of closure. It is a closure. It is a rigid time allocation of the work of this committee to deal with a very complex piece of legislation.
Bill C-115 has something like 190 pages, 246 clauses and it will alter some 29 pieces of federal legislation to implement the North American free trade agreement. Here is a copy of the NAFTA agreement. It is some 4,300 pages. It is three times the size and the complexity of the FTA. We have not had a proper debate on this agreement in this House.
This is the agreement which we are being asked in the dying days of a government which has lost the confidence of Canadians and which is in the fifth year of a mandate,
beyond the normal period, to ram through. It is an agreement that will change fundamentally the relationship and the trade environment which Canada has on this continent.
This legislation, Bill C-115, is extremely complex and we are being given the grand total of six sitting days to consider all the aspects of this legislation. Next week we will be asked to go through clause by clause to deal with all the clauses of this bill in three days. It will be brought back to the House where no doubt the government will impose closure on any amendments which we, the New Democratic Party or anyone in this House will want to introduce in order to improve this legislation to the extent that we have a chance to understand it. It is very difficult considering the extremely short time frame in which we have been asked to study it and considering the fact that the bill itself was put together in such a hurry by the officials that they had to admit in the first session that they had to introduce many amendments to their own legislation in committee.
The government has been in a hurry to rush it through, to ram this legislation through, bound by a timetable which is completely unreasonable and which is not at all necessary given the fact that our counterpart, the United States, is not at all ready to introduce its own implementing legislation and may well not even introduce this legislation before the deadline for the coming into force of this agreement arrives, which is January 1, 1994.
There is no legislative need for this haste. Not only is there no need, but the government is making a major strategic blunder, not unlike the strategic blunder it made when it negotiated the FTA-


Peter L. McCreath: Canadians did not see it that way. They elected us on it.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: They see it now. They sure see it now and they will demonstrate that in the next election. We will see how many government members come back after the next election.


Peter L. McCreath: You and I will both be here, Francis.


Francis G. LeBlanc: We
will see about that too.
On this legislation, Bill C-115, it is important for Canadians to realize just what is happening here. The NAFTA was signed by this government, by the predeces-
May 5, 1993

sor government of the United States, the Bush administration and by the Salinas government in Mexico in the latter part of 1992. There has to be implementing legislation in all three countries before this becomes law.
The new administration in Washington has expressed major reservations about the contents of NAFTA, so much so that it has demanded as a condition of submitting the legislation to its Congress that a number of parallel accords, side deals, be negotiated and agreed to before this legislation will go forward in the United States.
The United States is seeing what some in Canada saw-they have been proven to a large degree right- what is happening as a result of the FTA in Canada.
There are major concerns in the United States about the North American free trade agreement and there are some real doubts about whether or not the United States administration will actually introduce that agreement. Even if it does, we have not seen the implementing legislation. The United States made some changes to its FTA legislation which affected the spirit and the interpretation of the FTA. We got caught when we introduced our own implementing legislation on the FTA and that is what we are in the process of doing again by rushing this bill through the House.
We were told in committee that these changes are for the most part technical amendments, that there really is no need to worry, that these are basically parallel changes which have been done before and we should, as legislators and as members of this House, simply co-operate and collaborate with the government in letting this go through.
The whole process is a sham. Those of my colleagues who have been in the committee have been told to confine their remarks to the pure technicalities of the bill and are confronting officials who will talk about very narrow aspects of the bill. We cannot hear proper witnesses who are experts and can provide us with accurate evidence. We cannot cross examine the officials so we can do our job in this House. We are not given the time to do any of that.


An hon. member:: We are gagged.
Supply


Francis G. LeBlanc: We
are gagged. We are being told to ram this through. The government has its own timetable and its own agenda. It is not listening to the House. We are told to do it and we should accept that this is the case, we should accept that this is democracy, that this is good for Canada, good for Canadians, and we will be satisfied with the product once it is through.
I sat on the committee that had about three or four weeks of hearings on NAFTA itself. We travelled across the country in November and December. We travelled a little bit in February. We barely scratched the surface of NAFTA. We barely scratched the surface of the importance of this agreement for Canada and for trade policy generally.
We only covered in a very superficial way some of the sectors of our economy such as agriculture, the high-tech industry, the manufacturing sector. We did not cover all the other elements of our economy in the different regions of Canada that will be affected, some positively, many negatively and some that we are not sure how it will play out. We have barely gone under the surface of this agreement. If one examines it one realizes it is linked to a large number of other developments in international trade about which the majority of Canadians really do not have a full understanding because the developments in trade have been so rapid in the last three or four years.
There was ample time and ample work left for that committee. My other colleagues and I asked for the committee to continue its work. In fact I wrote the chairman in December suggesting we have additional hearings. We had some but we could have had other hearings.
For example we could have gone to the heartland of Ontario which has been devastated in the last four years. It has literally seen its manufacturing sector collapse and has a real stake in what kind of a trading regime we have in Canada.
We were told no we could not go, we are too much in a rush, we have to introduce this implementing legislation, we put the report on hold and we have to carry on.
The manufacturing sector in Ontario is in crisis. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost which will

May 5, 1993
Supply
never return. Perhaps we will discover a new economy emerging in the manufacturing sector in Ontario but at the moment many hundreds of thousands of Canadians and Canadian families have very little hope for the future even as we emerge from this three years long government created recession.
The NDP is right. This is a sham. There is no chance for Canadians to have a proper examination of the issues underlying this very important agreement. There is no chance for Canadians or Canadian parliamentarians to have a proper examination of the consequences that are buried in Bill C-115 and in the North American free trade agreement. We will have to wait until after this is over and pick up the pieces after the next election.
It will be another government that will pick up the pieces after the election because certainly Canadians will not give this government another chance to do the damage which it has done to the Canadian economy since the last election.
Canadians will remember when we go to the polls and these issues will be discussed. Canadians are very concerned with economic matters at the moment. They are very concerned with jobs. They see the linkages and will be voting according to what they have seen happen in the last four years under this Tory government.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, just one quick question to my hon. friend who has developed a great concern for the heartland of Ontario all of a sudden.
I want to ask him one question. General Motors is shutting down the Lumina line in Oshawa in the fall of 1993 for a year to retool for the 1995 Lumina which it will start to produce in the fall of 1994.
It has said quite clearly that when the plant reopens the new line will produce the same number of cars with some 1,400 less employees as a result of new production equipment and fewer components in the cars.
I know my hon. friend will be able to answer this. Is there some way he can find to blame that on free trade or NAFTA?


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the statistics in front of me, but what has occurred in Ontario has been a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate to virtually unprecedented levels in some parts of Ontario and a collapse of the manufacturing sector in the last four years. They are well documented. Many industries have shut down that will never reopen. All those industries have not shut down directly because of the free trade agreement but many have.
If the minister really believes the future of Ontario is rosy, the future of the Canadian economy is rosy, and that the rosiness is directly linked to the policies which his government has implemented, I would like him to explain why the Minister of Finance has predicted double digit unemployment for the next two years. Beyond that the government is not sure what will happen. Why has its predictions on unemployment and growth fallen so far from the mark since its second mandate and before it?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to my hon. friend whom I am pleased to see here. He has made a very constructive contribution to the committee, but I was quite taken aback by the comment he made about witnesses before the legislative committee on Bill C-115.
A year ago the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade heard some 203 witnesses on the subject of North American trade. A few months ago the subcommittee on trade heard another 124 witnesses on the subject of the NAFTA. Now a legislative committee is looking at Bill C-115, this document right here, not to be confused with the North American free trade agreement, a copy of which was ripped up in this House by Riis the Ripper earlier today.
My hon. friend talks about witnesses. It is my recollection that committee has heard some 40 witnesses to date. It is my recollection that he and his colleagues in the Liberal Party did not recommend or bring forth to that committee a single suggestion for a witness. It is my recollection that committee has heard every witness or group of witnesses who indicated a desire to come before it.
If I am incorrect I wonder if he would tell us exactly who those other witnesses are who wanted to come before the committee that we have turned away.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we have been given two weeks to consider this
May 5, 1993

legislation and 29 pieces of legislation which will be changed by Bill C-115. Most of the time has been devoted to trying to disentangle what these complicated changes mean, whether they are simply technical amendments or whether they actually have a substantive content, so we can discern whether or not we really have something to deal with here or whether they are just changes in terminology.
This afternoon, for example, we were asked to consider the whole section on intellectual property. My colleague over there was kind enough when we organized this committee to break down this legislation into five areas so we could consider it more logically. This afternoon we had the opportunity to deal with the Copyright Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Food and Drugs Act, the Industrial Design Act, the Patent Act, the Pest Control Products Act and the Trade Marks Act.


An hon. member:: All in two hours.


Francis G. LeBlanc: this afternoon; we had two hours for that. We had very competent and knowledgeable officials telling us that the change was a technical change and not to worry about the four pages. They contain only a technical change and they could prove it. The change meant something but they were not sure what. This is the way in which the legislation has gone through.
My colleague asks where all the witnesses are. There is no time to mobilize a proper examination of this legislation. There is no time for them to deal with the content of the changes to the implementing legislation, because that is what they are being expected to do. There is no time for us to explain to the witnesses what they have to do.
We were told on April 23, and the hearings began the following week, that this was going to be the program of the committee. Then we were going to deal with clause by clause on May 11, May 12 and May 13. Then the government could bring the legislation back after the break and ram it through despite whatever amendments or opposition or speakers we may want to put up.
This was the agenda. How could we possibly mobilize, properly inform and educate the witnesses who would have something pertinent to say on all these matters and facilitate the government's timetable?
Supply


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate if it is only for a moment, because my colleague has done yeoman service on this particular committee on behalf of all Canadians.
I think the Solicitor General who was here a moment ago wants to engage in a hide-and-seek debate on the substantive part of the deal. What the opposition wants is a full debate. It is clear. I want to refer this point to my colleague. If the Solicitor General is so concerned about answers to substantive questions-and he finally had a stroke of brilliance; he asked one today-surely as a member of Parliament, as all members of Parliament, he would want a full and complete debate.
In this motion we are talking about what the government has done over the last nine years in abusing its privileges as a majority government and overriding the rights of minorities. What the government has done in this instance, which is no different from what it has done on dozens of occasions in the past and no different from what it did with the drug patent bill, is effectively a rape of Parliament. It is a gross, unwarranted and forceful violation of the rights of Parliament and parliamentarians to have a full debate on the floor of this place and in the committees on behalf of the people who elected us, our constituents.
I want to ask my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, who has a far better respect for the traditions of Parliament than members opposite who support the abuse of closure and the abuse of the majority, what he believes this abuse of the majority has done to the image of this place as an institution and the highest court in the land in the eyes of constituents across this country.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He has distinguished himself, and all Canadians know it, in representing their concerns on the drug patent part of this issue. Many of the arguments he put before this House will be repeated in the days ahead.
To the question that he asks about the abuse of Parliament by this government, what it has done is eroded the credibility which Canadians have for parliamentarians, for their ability to represent their concerns, and for the meaningful debate which can take place in this Chamber. It does not bode well for the future of our form of representative government when people on the

Supply
opposition side know that if the government's legislation is in any way controversial it can be forced through with closure. It will not listen to any form of opposition or constructive criticism from the other side of the House and will not allow us the possibility of doing our work and properly scrutinizing the legislation brought before us. That demeans Parliament. That demeans the task which Canadians elect us to do.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, earlier the Solicitor General commented on the effect of free trade and international trade on the automobile industry but, more important, how the mechanization change in technology affected the manufacture of automobiles. The same is happening in my province of British Columbia in the sawmill industry where presently half the work force is producing twice the amount of lumber.
Because of free trade and the ability to export finished products we are seeing more and more secondary manufacturing of value added products. For example, Mitsui is producing pre-manufactured homes that are being exported to the United States, to Mexico and to Japan. I think there are many advantages.
The apple growers in British Columbia are excited about the prospect of selling their apples to Mexico. It never occurred to me that it would be a big market but apparently it is. They can sell all the apples they can grow down there.
Prior to the free trade agreement the wine producers were very concerned that they would be wiped out by California wines. The wine industry has never been better than it is at the present time. It is really due to free trade between Canada and the U.S.
I know my time is up, but I do not understand why the opposition is always looking on the doom and gloom. There are so many good things happening from free trade. They just need to look around, see the new industries, the new technologies, the things we can do in Canada that we could not do when we only had our market to look after.
Now with the whole world to trade in, particularly in North America, tremendous opportunities are occurring.
I hope he will take advantage of these opportunities in his home riding and expand the trade and manufacturing in that area.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we are not opposed to trade.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Remember what happened to the member for Essex-Windsor.


Francis G. LeBlanc: I am
not in his party nor do I have any aspirations to be in that party.
We are not opposed to this. We do not necessarily say that every article in the North American free trade agreement is bad for Canada. We know that some of the articles in this agreement are linked with articles with developments in the GATT and other agreements and that is part of a process.
The point of this debate it is not whether we are in favour of free trade or not. The point of this debate is that Parliament does not have the proper opportunity to consider the implications of changes that will fundamentally affect the lives of Canadians. That is what we are objecting to. That is why we have been pleading with this government to let Parliament do its work, although it is a little late now because the government will be gone very shortly.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to rise in this debate today about the process of legislation.
I am very intrigued with the fact that the New Democratic Party brought this particular motion before the House today. It says it is greatly concerned about NAFTA, yet every time there is an opportunity to debate it they want to talk about process.
They want to talk about how much time we are spending debating it here or there. I find it interesting that there are no New Democratic members in the House right now but they were here earlier. They started the debate. Initially we heard from Mr. Riis the ripper, who stood and at the cost of the taxpayers littered the House of Commons by tearing up a copy of the NAFTA.
May 5, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. On a point of order, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


Mr. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: The hon. member needs to be reminded, although I know he did not do it intentionally, that it is against the traditions of this House to refer to the presence or absence of other members. He just did that with the whole New Democratic Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member realizes that. I do see a member of the New Democratic Party in the House. Is there something else you want to say?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I simply wanted to inform the hon. member for South Shore that in fact New Democrats are present in the House and that we do object to the fact that he said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member should know that too. He has been around here for a long time and I wish he would not refer to those who are here or who are not. This is the dinner hour and there are television cameras outside. I do not have to reprimand him because he knows better. So please, let us get on with the debate.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I have offended the rules, although I must say I was surprised. I did not bring this subject to the House today; others did.
I assume they are following the debate very closely wherever they may be.
The minister in his opening comments referred to this motion today. I will quote it because he came out with such an excellent line. He said: "It is a stunning display of hypocrisy". He went on to say that the best way to stifle debate, which is what this motion alleges this government is doing, is to not participate in it.
The New Democratic Party says it is fighting this whole issue, yet does it take advantage of the opportunities that exist to participate in debates on this subject? That, of course, is a good question.
I presume, Mr. Speaker, if I am not allowed to make reference to who may or may not be in the House I am not supposed to say who is or is not in a committee at any given time. I am supposed to be at that committee right now. I would like to be at that committee right now. I
Supply
feel it is pre-eminent for me to be here in my place as parliamentary secretary to the minister to put a few points on the record that are very important. However I notice that after three hours of hearings which that committee held today, the New Democratic Party members who were there have yet to ask a question. That is what we have had in terms of their participation before this committee.
When there is an opportunity to participate in debate one wonders what is really lying behind it. Is it an exercise in the kind of histrionics we have seen from the New Democratic Party? The member for Saanich-Gulf Islands spoke earlier about the fact, and I take what she is saying to be true, that only two hours and five minutes were devoted in this House to actual debate of second reading of Bill C-115.
She neglected to mention that an additional two or three hours of House time were taken up with histrionics. Her distinguished and learned colleagues were banging their desks like a bunch of school children. Another of her colleagues got up and used unparliamentary language, forcing one of the best and most patient Speakers this House has ever seen to throw him out.
Why? Only he can say. I would not want to impute motive because that breaks the rules too. I did notice he made it to TV that night, even though my hon. friend from Saanich-Gulf Islands says "the media have become a Tory conspiracy in this country". Some members may not have heard her say that. I was really quite amazed. I know the Prime Minister will be interested to hear that The Toronto Star is now a Tory rag, as is The Ottawa Citizen, and goodness knows what the CBC has become. Evidently they are all part of the plot to do in the NDP.
I think the NDP members are doing an adequate job of that all by themselves. They do not need our help; they are doing a good job all on their own.
They say we are rushing this whole NAFTA through. I believe the hon. member for Kamloops used the phrase that we were "trying to sneak this trade deal through the House of Commons". Sneak it through in the quiet and the dark of the night no doubt is what he is saying. I do not know, but I wonder why, in view of that, on September 16, 1992 in this very House he said in questioning the Prime Minister: "The Prime Minister will also know that NAFTA as a trade deal is divisive, is

May 5, 1993
Supply
controversial and has major political overtones. We already know that a major government advertising program is under way to promote NAFTA throughout the country".
I recall that day. I was here that day and I am sure all members were here that day when he got up and chastised the government for providing information about NAFTA to all Canadians. He chastised the government for doing that, for propagandising it I suppose is what he meant. That information was put before Canadians so many months ago, but now we are sneaking the deal through the House.
Let us take a look at this business of sneaking the deal through the House. Earlier today the minister in his remarks talked a little bit about the process by which the NAFTA came to be agreed to from a Canadian perspective. He went through a litany of all the process that went on. He made reference to 311 Canadians who had served on the various advisory committees of the government that went into developing Canada's participation in that.
He made reference to over 100 meetings of all those committees representing every manner of organization in Canada that had an interest in trade that the minister talked about in his remarks.
We come to the matter of this bill and the process of discussion by this House of NAFTA. I must find my piece of paper because I do not want to mislead the House with inaccurate information.
As I mentioned in a question earlier last spring the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade held hearings on the subject of North American free trade, before a deal was reached, so that Canadians could make known their views on the subject. They held 27 public meetings, heard from 203 witnesses and in addition received another 95 submissions.
After the deal was signed and agreed to in August, it was made public to the Canadian people at the beginning of November and a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade had hearings. It held 28 public meetings, heard from 124 groups, 203 witnesses, received 95 submissions, 23 exhibits and held hearings in 9 Canadian cities.
We snuck it from coast to coast. We snuck it right through the country. That was hearings on the substance of the agreement itself.
In addition, I might say that NAFTA is not a subject that has failed to make its way into Hansard. As a matter of fact it has been raised on at least 237 different sitting days in this Parliament. Three hundred and four questions not including supplementaries have been asked on the subject of NAFTA and the bill has been debated on the floor of this House. There have been 22 members' statements, 14 positions and five full opposition days devoted to this subject, today being one of them.
Today the subject of debate is not the substance of NAFTA. It is not even the substance of Bill C-115. If my hon. friends in the NDP think there was not enough time debating in this House on Bill C-115, why did they introduce today, when we had several hours available, a frivolous topic on this process of discussion? Why are we today not debating the substance if that is what is needed before this House?
They only can that question because I certainly cannot. That is something I really do not know. All I can say is it seems to me there are two messages that the Canadian people are passing to the members of this House. One of them came out loud and clear in the Spicer report.
What Canadians want to see of their parliamentarians if they turn on the parliamentary channel is substance. They want to see bona fide debate. They want to see intelligent discourse, bringing out different sides of issues.
They are not interested in people trying to get on television by ripping up documents and littering the floor of the Commons or by people entertaining in discussions of parliamentary procedure to get themselves thrown out so that all the TV cameras will rush to them. They want to see Canadians acting in a responsible serious manner, debating serious issues on the floor of this place. That is one message that is coming out loud and clear.
The other message that I am getting from Canadians all the time is why do you fool around so much? Why do you not get on with it? Why do you not get things done?
It is interesting to recall that on the floor of the British House of Commons the Maastricht treaty at second reading was debated for five hours. That was it and the
May 5, 1993

Maastricht treaty was thereby approved by the House of Commons in England.
There are those who would have this House debate endlessly, forever and ever and never come to an agreement whatsoever. Then of course the government would be criticized for never getting anything done. It is great if you are in the opposition. Either way have it.
If they go, get on with it and do it, you criticize them for bulldozing. If they do not do it, or you are able to delay the process so that nothing gets done then you criticize them for not doing anything.
It is like watching the budget come down last week. What do we hear from the finance critic of the Liberal Party? Where is the deficit? You did not do a thing. There is nothing there. Then all these colleagues get up and complain because we cut here and we cut here and we cut here. Which way is it? Which side of the fence are they sitting on today? That is a question that sometimes one might wish to put.
We have also heard this. Why are you doing this legislation now? The Americans have not passed it through their Congress. The Mexicans have not passed it through their Congress. Why are we rushing ahead to do this? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not take its legislative directives from south of the border. This government brings forward legislation, enters into international agreements that it deems to be in the interests of Canadians that are going to contribute to job creation in Canada, that are going to contribute to economic growth for the benefit of Canadians. That is what motivates and drives this government.
One of my NDP colleagues today was bragging how she went to Washington and heard what everybody thinks in Washington. Guess what? We on this side of the House are more interested in what Canadians think. That is one of the reasons, for example, that we did not see any point in having Canadian parliamentary committees do what the New Democratic Party wanted and that is to send, at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer, a bunch of Canadian members of Parliament touring all over the United States and Mexico to hear what Mexicans and Americans think of this trade deal. That is not
Supply
what we think our role is. Our role is to respond to what is in the interest of Canada.
The hon. member for Etobicoke North in his remarks said: "Well, the deal is dead anyway, the Americans say that themselves". Quite simply that is not true.
We had an interesting time last week when a U.S. official, a high official of the American government, Mr. Panetta, the Director of Office Management and Budget Director and Representative, U.S. Administration, was quoted as saying that the trade deal would not pass Congress now. He used the word dead. He said it would be dead if it went up to Congress now. That is very true, I guess. I do not know but it is interesting. That was about a week ago and everybody jumped on Mr. Panetta and said that this is not the case at all. The President, for example, made the comment: "Panetta just got discouraged over battles ahead". Rather than being angry Mr. Clinton said:"I need him to get his spirits up. He just had a bad day yesterday. He got his spirits down. I want to back him up. I do not want to take him out to the woodshed".
I wonder if my hon. friend from Etobicoke North knows that on April 28, 12 Republican senators wrote a letter to the President of the United States indicating that they were going to support him all the way on this legislation. The letter is right here and if any members would like a copy I would be glad to provide it. I think the important point to bear in mind on that is NAFTA is not going right now to the U.S. Congress. NAFTA will go to the U.S. Congress in four or five months.
I recall in 1988, for example, that if there had been an election held in June 1988, this government was at 22 per cent in the polls. They would have probably been as dead as ducks too except the election was not held then. It was held four or five months later. It was held on November 21, 1988, and what happened on that day? A resounding majority re-elected this government once again because the Canadian people were not fooled by the shenanigans and the scaremongering of people on the other side. I am saying that really we have to set our own agenda and we have to follow through on that agenda.
I want to say a word or two about this committee. When the House leader for the New Democratic Party spoke he said that we put closure into this committee on the very first day. If my hon. friends from the NDP do not understand it, I think it is important that Canadians

May 5, 1993
Supply
understand the role and function of a legislative committee. The process of legislation, a bill, a proposed law is introduced for first reading and tabled in the House. Then it comes back to this place where the principle of it is debated on second reading. The House either approves of that principle or the House does not. If the House approves of that principle then the bill goes to a legislative committee for legislative study. In other words the task and the role of that committee is to study that legislation and see if the enactment of that legislation will achieve the goals and objectives set down by the government in the official speech that the government makes in introducing second reading debate. That is what a legislative committee does. Then of course the bill comes back to the House where it may be amended at report stage and it is debated finally at third reading.
The purpose of the legislative committee studying Bill C-115 is not to travel around Canada and ask what people think about NAFTA because that is not the function of a legislative committee. The function of a legislative committee is to study this legislation and see if it does what it is supposed to do. In this case its purpose is fairly simple. It is supposed to take that NAFTA deal, the big thick book that was ripped up by the House leader of the NDP today, and effect it as law. That is what is the role of our committee. Our committee has brought before it about 40 different experts who have assisted the committee in doing that.
I put the motion before the committee to plan out the committee's work in an orderly fashion. The New Democratic Party made it clear that it was not interested in the substance of the exercise. It was simply interested in trying to get as much publicity out of fighting the NAFTA as it could. It really did not care whether we got down to doing what the committee was there to do or not. That has certainly shown in the way the committee has conducted itself.
The contribution of NDP members in that committee has been somewhere between nil and extremely minimal. There have been days when they did not ask a single question.
I must say my hon. friends from the Liberal Party have attempted to participate in a very effective way, my hon. friend from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso in particular. However the most effective members of that committee, if I do say so myself, have been the Progressive Conservative members who did their homework, studied the legislation and questioned those witnesses. Anybody who doubts what I say need only examine the transcripts which are available for all to see.
No, that is not what the NDP wanted. What the members of the NDP wanted was another road show. This time they not only wanted it across Canada, but in Mexico, the United States and who knows where else. Now that they have heard that Chile and Venezuela are interested in joining as well maybe they would want the committee to go down to Chile and Venezuela and check out those countries also. I am afraid that is not the role and function of the legislative committee.
I will conclude with this last point. Closure and time allocation are instruments passed by a Liberal government. They were brought in, as they would be, by a government. Let us be frank, an opposition would never bring in a time allocation rule. They were brought in so that if there was no co-operation among the parties, they would give the government the opportunity to do what the people elected it to do and that specifically is to run the country and to carry on its responsibilities. That is their purpose.
Under 78(1) of the rules there is consultation which has gone on. Even under section 78(2), even if only one party will agree there could be time allocation. But if what you are getting back is what this government has got back time and time again, not just on Bill C-115 but on Bill C-91 and on several other pieces of legislation, no co-operation, then time allocation is there to be used.
In closing, it is interesting to note that from 1980 to 1984 this procedure was used on 18 bills by the Liberal government. Between 1984 and 1988 it was used on 16 bills by this government. Between 1988 and 1992 it was used on 21 bills. The practice is pretty standard on both sides of the House.
May 5, 1993

This motion is rubbish. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience, but I commend this legislation, which will be passed because it is good for Canada. I am sure that other members will want to ask the odd question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have three questioners: the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, the hon. member for Longueuil and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, in that order.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, your comments here are giving us the possibility to ask some questions.
We talk about NAFTA but we should also have been talking about the free trade agreement with the United States. We have to ask ourselves what it brought to Canada. Was it a positive or a negative? In my opinion it was negative because with the free trade agreement with the United States we lost about 450,000 jobs mostly in manufacturing. Therefore it was a bad deal.
To point out that it was a bad deal, our current account deficit is $30 billion. We go deeper into debt every year. This money we owe to foreign countries.
Look at this tremendous number: $30 billion. That is the current account deficit. This happened with the free trade agreement with the United States. We are losing money and we are not benefiting. Before the free trade agreement it was about $9 billion. Now it is $30 billion a year.
As far as our trade with Mexico is concerned, Mexico exports $1.7 billion to Canada and we export $0.6 billion to Mexico. The question is this: Does the hon. member believe that if we have an agreement with Mexico to have more manufacturing jobs in Canada that we are going to export more to Mexico than Mexico is going to export to us? This is the question. Can the member prove it?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief because there are other questions.
I am very tempted to ask my hon. friend from Calgary Northeast this: If he thinks the free trade agreement with the United States was such a terrible thing then why did he run under its banner in 1988? Why did he vote for it when it came before this House in 1988? Is it merely the wisdom of hindsight?
Supply
He says the free trade agreement has not been good for Canada. I would remind him that total merchandise exports to the United States have increased to record levels since the FTA came in. That is a 19.2 per cent increase. Canada's merchandise trade surplus with the United States was $17.7 billion, which is a 27.3 per cent increase over 1991.
We could go on but the time is not appropriate. He asks specifically about NAFTA. Let me tell him that since the NAFTA discussions became serious the number of inquiries on the part of Canadian companies through our trade mission in Mexico City has quadrupled.
There is tremendous interest on the part of Canadian companies in taking advantage of the opportunities for investment, money-making and the sale of goods and services to Mexico. I would invite him to stay tuned. It is going to be an exciting time watching the implementation of this agreement.


Nic Leblanc: I would have a few comments to make, Mr. Speaker. In 1988, when I ran as a Conservative, my main purpose was to support free trade. I worked very hard and made at least 75 speeches to tell people that I was for free trade. I still agree with free trade, because I sincerely believe in it, especially for the Montreal region. For example, we know that the Montreal market is within 800 kilometres of 75 million consumers with whom we can do business. It is much more profitable for us in Montreal to do business with Boston, New York, Buffalo and Toronto than with Vancouver. Not that we have anything against Vancouver, but we realized that it is more profitable for the Montreal area to do business north-south.
Basically, the big problem is what came later; after concluding the free trade agreement in December 1988, the government some seven or eight months later let interest rates climb at the same time as the dollar rose. This was very harmful to our small businesses which wanted to export to the United States. That is the real problem. Free trade is not the issue but rather the government's handling of it which prevented free trade from succeeding.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade a question which concerns Quebec in particular. When will his government finally decide to leave all manpower training to Quebec, so that Quebec can properly train the workers needed for our small and medium-sized businesses to be more productive? That is also a major problem we have in

May 5, 1993
Supply
Quebec. We cannot assert our responsibilities because the government still stubbornly insists on keeping jurisdiction over labour force training, knowing veiy well that Quebec is responsible for this field because we already have the institutions in place. All we lack is the money needed to do so properly because the federal government collects taxes but does not return the funds required for manpower training. This would enable our small and medium-sized businesses to have skilled employees which would make them more productive and help them export our products to the United States.
I ask the parliamentary secretary if he will stubbornly persist like his government in wanting to keep jurisdiction over labour force training when we know very well that Quebec can do a much better job and more economically.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, briefly I want to say to my hon. friend that the facts are there as to the success of the FTA.
The facts are also there as to the success of this government in bringing inflation under control for the first time in 30 years in this country. These are the factors that are going to contribute not only to the rest of Canada but indeed to Quebec.
As to his specific question about manpower training, I must say that I am not sure exactly what that has to do with the motion on the floor today. I am sure that if he would like to put that in a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration some day in the House he will get a more thorough answer than I can properly provide at this time.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having here today is not just about the process. It is also about trust.
It is very difficult to have any trust in this government's economic agenda when we have seen case after case where it is just not working. I want to bring this down to a concrete example.
Tomorrow in my city we are having a burial for one of the most productive and profitable assembly plants. It is the GM van plant in Scarborough, Ontario. This is a company that has made close to $2.2 billion in the last 10 years and these are General Motors numbers.
The 3,500 skilled men and women who are losing their jobs see a situation where General Motors just in the last 18 months went from hiring 6,000 people to 60,000 people in Mexico. Put this NAFTA agreement in the context of the first assembly plant to be shut down in Canadian history that has been making money. We are not talking about a loser here. We are talking about a cash cow for General Motors. We see what is going on in Mexico and this really presents a problem for people.
I believe that one of the real difficulties here is the issue of trust in the government's economic agenda and platform. I would ask the member this: If a General Motors assembly plant in his riding shut down affecting 3,500 direct jobs and another 8,000 to 10,000 indirect jobs how does he approach his constituents? How does he say: "Hey, NAFTA is great because General Motors is hiring an extra 40,000 to 50,000 people in Mexico and we are losing a plant to Flint, Michigan"? How does he sell that kind of thing?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, NAFTA is not even in place yet and he is blaming this closure on NAFTA already. That is really kind of bizarre. I would say to my hon. friend that I do not have any General Motors plants in my riding but I do have a Michelin tire plant. Before the FTA it employed about 1,400 people. Today, notwithstanding the world recession that is the biggest crippling factor in terms of plant closures, not only in this country but throughout the. western world, that Michelin tire plant is employing 200 people more than it did when the FTA was brought in.
I would invite my hon. friend to look at statistics just released by the International Monetary Fund predicting that Canada will lead the G-7 nations in growth in employment and in growth in real GDP in 1993 and 1994. That is the result of this government.


Dennis Joseph Mills: What if the Michelin plant went to Mexico?
May 5, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the people watching us know what we are talking about. As you know, the government has taken certain liberties, and I will quote the motion before the House today: "That this House condemns the stifling of debate through the misuse of closure by the enforcement of time allocation on NAFTA and other important trade-related legislation". There are three points I would like to raise in this connection.

The three points are as follows. I want to talk about the closure and time limitation because I think it is important for Canadians to know how it is being used and how frequently it has been used. I want to talk about my party's position on NAFTA and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and I want to talk about other positions, namely those of the NDP and the national party.

My first point is this: Why limit debate on what is probably one of the most important if not the most important question for Canadians in this country today? Why? I really do not understand. The government knows this bill scares Canadians. Why? Because with all the statistics and all the information the negotiators put on the table, and the different positions being taken on the matter, Canadians realize that today, in 1993, the chances of keeping one's job are not as good as they were in the past. We see men and women who are motivated, well educated and know how to handle themselves but cannot find a job, and they believe this is largely due to the government's policies. Of course there is also the recession, but it is also, at least partly, due to the free trade agreement with the United States.
People are afraid this government is more concerned about getting re-elected than about the interests of Canada's workers. Mr. Speaker, you are well aware of this, and so are my colleagues on the government side. This scares Canadians, who think: If I do not have a job-and it seems my chances of finding one are not very good-or if I do have a job which I could lose, will I not
Supply
be sacrificed because this government's first priority is to be re-elected?
Consider the budget, where we see the same approach. In this budget the party comes first. People are afraid that NAFTA is more important than Canadians and that the government's main concern is to be reelected. If this was the first time people might be patient. However this procedure to limit debate on legislation has been used nearly 40 times in four years. My first example goes back to 1988 during the debate on free trade and other bills, including unemployment insurance. The government did the same thing to the debate on the GST, a tax cordially detested by all Canadians, and then unemployment insurance again and a second time during the GST debate. These are only a few examples.
I am glad I have these notes: three pages on Bill C-81, the referendum bill, and there is more. The government imposed closure on NAFTA. This is the second time. And remember Bill C-93, Mr. Speaker, when the government was beaten because it did not do its homework. It claimed it would save money and increase government efficiency. When we asked for proof, it did not have any. What did it do? It decided it was better to stop the debate because they were being crushed and humiliated, and that is the kind of attitude that scares Canadians.
Last week, the budget was brought down. I think a budget should at least provide some hope for a country that is suffering. Canadians are suffering today, not me, not necessarily my colleagues, but many Canadians. I asked the following question: What hope is there in the budget for men and women who are unemployed? More than 1.6 million Canadians are unemployed, and some people say it is twice that many. What hope is there in this budget for the 2.7 million people who are on welfare? I also asked the following question: What hope is there for the 2.2 million men, women and children who will be fed by food banks in Canada this year? The same questions could be asked about this bill: What hope is there for the unemployed, for people on welfare, for the men, women and children who will be fed by food banks this year in Canada?
Some people say: Yes, but we have to stop talking, we have to stop the debate on this bill. We have to go ahead. I say: Sure, I agree, but let the members have a

May 5, 1993
Supply
reasonable amount of time to express their views. For instance, there are a number of questions that should have been asked: Will this bill have a negative impact on Canada's sovereignty? If this bill is passed, will it have a negative impact on culture in Canada? And we could ask many more questions that are very important to Canadians.
I referred to the use of this procedure to limit debate. And I said that this procedure had been used far too often, nearly 40 times in four years, on bills that were very important to Canadians, and I think that is very unfortunate.
I also said, and I want to get back to this, that there were still questions to be asked and answers outstanding.
There is another point that has always bothered me, a point I raised when the bill on free trade with the United States was tabled. The government knows perfectly well which industries will be affected by this agreement, if it is signed. And since the government knows which sectors will be affected, they should tell us. And then we have to tell them: Listen, what kind of training and retraining programs do you have to help the men and women who will be displaced? You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that during the last debate on the subject, the Prime Minister of Canada said we would have the best possible training and retraining programs to protect the men and women displaced by job losses. We are still waiting for these programs. What industries will be affected? What programs will be put in place to meet the needs of these people, these displaced workers? These are basic, very important questions.
Now some people ask me what our position would be if we were in power. Our policy is veiy clear. Mr. Speaker, you surely know that in the last election campaign, we came out very strongly against this bill. Five years have passed since the last election and the situation must be reviewed. We have said that we must be absolutely sure that agreed-upon regulations apply to both countries and that an arbitration tribunal will judge cases of conflict fairly. Moreover, we should ensure our sovereignty over water and energy. We should also ensure protection of the environment and of workers' rights. That is what we said. We said that if we could not obtain
these agreements, as U.S. President Clinton is now calling for as well, the deal should be cancelled.
Now some ask what the position of the left and of the National Party is. I asked them, if they were in power, would they think an agreement should be negotiated with the United States. They answered yes. Then I asked what they would negotiate. I told them to show us black on white what they would negotiate, because it is very important for Canadians to know exactly what a political party would do in this kind of negotiation with another country. I also asked them to tell me what they intended to accomplish, as well as what they intended to negotiate. Give me evidence that you can achieve such objectives. Unfortunately, I have not had any answer so far.

Let me say that the members of the Liberal Party of Canada recognize that Canada is a trading nation. We are committed to open and fair trade. We recognize that roughly one in five jobs is directly dependent upon exports. We want to secure an increased access to world markets. We believe it is dangerous to be too dependent upon one country.
We believe as well, and I can appreciate there is some difference of opinion on this, that the current government has not done as well as it should have in the first trading agreement, nor will it do as well as it should with the second agreement. The first one is the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and the second one is NAFTA.
We find it unfortunate that the NDP national party refuses to accept the global reality and, I am not trying to be unkind, builds protectionist walls around Canada because that is no longer reality today.
We deplore the fact that in 1988 we did not get secure access to the United States market. For example, there were the pork, steel and softwood lumber cases because there were no subsidies or anti-dumping codes. We do not believe we achieved a level playing-field. We believe we need to address that question.
There are a number of government members including the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade who are trying to suggest that NAFTA is a fait accompli and is not going to change. That is not what we are hearing. It is far from being carved in stone and my
May 5, 1993

friend and colleague, the minister knows that. It is still open to change if we want to change.
The President of the United States has said he will not accept the accord in its current form and I bet he does not. Since he has indicated that he will not sign it in its present form because he wants some changes to environmental and labour standards, why would we not be seeking that as well?
He has also indicated that he is considering pulling it off the fast track, which would delay the ratification of this agreement. Why are we in a hurry? Why do we not have time to discuss this? This should give us time to re-evaluate our position, particularly-and I do not say this in a partisan way-because this is an election year. Contrary to what my friends from the government side think, there could be a significant change in government and I believe there will be.
Why rush through this? This should be an opportunity to be seized to seek changes to the agreement that are essential to our vital interests. Why does this government intend to sign this off? It seems to me that if it signs it off too quickly it will be surrendering Canada's bargaining position.
We have urged this government to use NAFTA to protect Canadian interests and correct the major shortcomings of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. My colleague knows that because he is smiling. Whenever he smiles it is an acknowledgement that I am right. When the smile becomes a laugh it is an enthusiastic endorsement of what I have just said.
After eight years and two sets of negotiations that member's government-and he is one of the finer members-has been unable to achieve the principal objective of this trade policy and that is to ensure secure access to the United States market. He knows that. He knows that NAFTA does not provide a common subsidy or anti-dumping code. It does not create binding dispute panels for a quicker settlement process. It does not include environmental and labour standards of any consequence. To add insult to injury, the Tories have been unwilling to put in place a major work force adjustment package after negotiating such a deal.
Supply
That is scandalous because the last time the Prime Minister of Canada indicated, with some support from some of his ministers, that we would have the finest training programs in place. The aims of the NAFTA as now spelled out by Clinton and others have shifted in the direction more in keeping with the needs of Canadians and the needs and positions advocated by the Liberal Party.
The Conservatives must not go forward and close this deal. In its current form NAFTA is not the best deal for Canada. Canadians simply cannot afford to have another deal that will take away more jobs, particularly in a period when the economy is really quite precarious.
The Liberals have resisted efforts by the Conservative government to railroad this deal through Parliament and they shall continue to do so. We want to defend the interests of Canadian producers and consumers in the global marketplace. We shall do so.
In summary, a Liberal government would seek changes to both the FTA and the NAFTA. We need a subsidies code, an anti-dumping code, a more effective disputes settlement mechanism, agreed upon labour standards, agreed upon environmental standards and the same energy protection as Mexico.
The NDP members in the national party claim to have the only acceptable positions: abrogate and then negotiate. I challenge them to tell us clearly and specifically what they would negotiate. I challenge them to tell us specifically what they hope to achieve at the end of the negotiations.

I conclude my remarks here, and I would be pleased if someone, especially a minister, would ask me some questions.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested in my hon. friend's speech. During his remarks he said and I quote: "We haven't done as well as we should have", referring to the free trade agreement. Also referring to the free trade agreement he said: "It's not a level playing-field". That is a direct quote. He also said: "There are major shortcomings". My hon. friend confirms my reading of what he said by saying yes. He will then find it very easy to explain why with all those problems with the deal our

May 5, 1993
Supply
sales to the United States are up $20 billion over 1988 figures. Read my lips: $20 billion. Sixteen out of 23 sectors of manufactured goods have increased sales.
The next comment I want to make is about reversing Liberal policy because my hon. friend said in referring to the NDP: "It is important to know what a party stands for". The Liberal Party has had three stands that I know of on free trade: rip it up, renegotiate it and go with it. Now I know it is a moving target but I want to know what the Liberal Party stands for as of May 5, 1993.
My hon. friend will know that during the free trade negotiations it was generally thought that the wine industry would be toast after the free trade agreement. Yet my hon. friend knows that the wine industry has got its act together, processes its wine under its label and has won international awards since the free trade agreement.
It has taken fields out of production that were not producing quality grapes. It has the ability to import wine from the United States, blend it with Canadian wine and sell it. It also now has access to the markets in northern United States, specifically New York State. The wine industry which was thought to be a basket case by our hon. friends opposite is now booming and doing very well because it realized that in this world today it cannot hide behind barriers, it has to compete.
I want to know how my hon. friend would go about picking the industries in advance, giving the wine industry as an example. How would he pick these industries in advance so he could decide to put the work force adjustments in there? Within those industries, how would he divide the ones that are suffering from free trade or NAFFA from the ones that just have to restructure like General Motors when it is restructuring all of its automotive production lines?
There is a difference and I know my hon. friend will acknowledge that.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want the hon. minister to note the following. Read my lips: By many estimates three million people are out of work in this country today. Almost five million Canadians are living in poverty, most of whom are women and over one million are
children. There are 2.2 million Canadians who will be fed in food banks. There are 2.7 million Canadians who will be receiving social assistance. Now read my lips, minister: That is not a good situation.
If Canadians were asked whether or not they have lost jobs in large numbers because of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement they would say they had. They know because they are the statistics we are talking about.
The hon. member can use statistics. He and I both know he is using the statistics that favour his side. I am not going to suggest there have not been some successes; of course there have. It is not the first time but my good friend should look at the over-all situation. That is what he has failed to do.
This is a very interesting debate because the government members will talk about the jobs they create. They never respond to the following questions though: What kinds of jobs are they? Are they temporary, part-time, poorly paid, badly remunerated with no benefits? How many have been lost in the same period of time? When they say 48,000 jobs created have they looked at the other side of the coin? Selective statistics, that is what my friend has been doing.
He accuses us of changing position. I would have thought that he would have asked a more substantive question because he is a substantive person. Of course we have to change positions. Four and a half years ago is not the same as today. It was 1988 then and it is 1993 now. The thing has been in place for about four and a half years. There is a difference. That is about 54 months. I find it totally refreshing that my party is alert enough and progressive enough that it will reassess its situation.
It says if we cannot get common rules, anti-dumping codes, definitions of subsidies, protection for workers and the environment, if we cannot get-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hon. member will have an opportunity to answer a couple more questions or comments. Is the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap getting up on a question or comment or is he on debate?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: On debate, Mr. Speaker.
May 5, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Then I will come to him later. The hon. member for Longueuil and then the hon. member for Calgary Northeast on short questions or comments.


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what was said by the hon. member for St. Boniface, and I would like to say more specifically that what bothers me most about the Liberal Party he represents is that his party is a very centralist party. His party has always wanted Ottawa to control everything.
To get back to free trade, free trade as such is a good thing. I support it, and as I have said before, people who believe in the future and believe in themselves are prepared to meet this great and interesting challenge to compete on new, expanded markets. The problem with a bill like free trade is not, strictly speaking, the fact that this is free trade with the United States but the fact that it must also be supported by manpower training, regional development and agricultural programs.
Some economists said yesterday or the day before that John Crow should be fired because of his poor handling of interest rates. As you know, interest rates have really hurt exports to the United States.
Basically, the big problem is not free trade as such but the way the government runs the economy and the way the government is trying to centralize all powers here in Ottawa, at the expense of regional economic development, manpower training, and so forth. These powers must be decentralized and the provinces given what belongs to them.
It is from that perspective, that I want to put my question. If the honourable member's party were to form the government tomorrow would it continue to do what Mr. Trudeau did for many years, in other words, try to centralize everything in Ottawa at the expense of the regions and the provinces?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. First of all, we would not do what Mr. Trudeau did. He did what he felt he had to do and was re-elected several times by a majority of Canadians. However we now have a country and situations that are different. This means we have to change our approach. We have to analyse the situation and come up with creative solutions.
Supply
I believe a Liberal government would be prepared to sit down and negotiate and would be very sensitive to regional development, whether we are talking about Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, the North or the Western provinces. We are here to respond to the needs of all Canadians, and I have no concerns on that score. Perhaps I may pick up on what the hon. member said-and I know another member wants to ask a question as well-about always seeing us as a centralist party. I just want to say this is a misconception, and just because a party was perceived in a certain way in the past does not mean the perception will still be correct in the future.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. The Solicitor General gave statistics but forgot to talk about the current account deficit of Canada. In 1992 we had a current account deficit of $30 billion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must remind the hon. member that he is putting the question to the hon. member for St. Boniface and not to the Solicitor General.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member aware that our current account deficit is $30 billion and that we had to borrow $30 billion outside the country just to cover that debt?


Ron J. Duhamel: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it. I am aware that the hon. minister is an absolute expert at using selective statistics, as are many of his colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, you know that and so does the member and all of my colleagues.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the motion that has been submitted to the House by my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops. It reads:
That this House condemns the stifling of debate through the
misuse of closure by the enforcement of time allocation on NAFTA
and other important trade-related legislation.
What has been taking place in Parliament this last little while is a very serious problem. The debate on the proposed North American free trade agreement may be one of the most important questions that we as legisla-

May 5, 1993
Supply
tors face in this entire Parliament. It may be one of the most important questions that we face as a nation.
I can remember back when we were involved in discussing the rewriting of our social constitution, which took place last November with the final national referendum vote on whether or not Canadians would accept the constitutional amendments.
That debate was an exhaustive debate that took place over months. It had committees running around this country until they were blue in the face. It had this government sending out reams and reams of material. I do not know how many forests we had to cut down to supply the amount of paper that was put out in presenting the information in the referendum debate.
Canadians from one end of the country to the other were inundated with government propaganda on the referendum. It was an important question to put before the people of Canada.
What I see taking place here is on another important question. This is perhaps an even more important question than the referendum debate, which was the rewriting of our social constitution. The proposal of the North American trade agreement is essentially the rewriting of our economic constitution.
While the government spent all this time and energy trying to get information out to people on the referendum it has absolutely refused to provide similar information to Canadians in regard to this proposed rewriting of our economic constitution, the North American free trade agreement.
Canadians do not understand this agreement. They have not had an opportunity to read the agreement. There has been virtually no information put out on it.
It short-circuited the process for Canadians to receive information by not supplying them with information. Heavens, back in the fall it was almost impossible even for opposition members to receive detailed information on the proposal because the government was not even making copies of the draft text available even for those members on the free trade committee that travelled throughout the country.
The government has been remiss, has been guilty, of not providing the Canadian people with the information they need to make up their own minds. Not only has it
done that but when we got the implementing legislation into the House of Commons the government refused to provide the necessary time for members of Parliament to address the concerns involved in the legislation and to try to represent the views and concerns of their constituents regarding the proposed North American free trade agreement.
In the second reading debate on this immense piece of legislation that was before us on the most important question this country may face in a good long time we had exactly four hours and five minutes of debate.
That is the time, as we all know, when we debate the general principle and thrust of the bill. What did we get? Four hours and five minutes. When we look at the actual debating time it worked out to just under two hours and nine minutes. That is absolutely atrocious. After only a couple of hours of debate the government called for time allocation which is essentially closure; it closes off debate on this issue. We were forced as members of Parliament to call the vote when virtually none of the members of the opposition had an opportunity to address their concerns.
This government has called for closure more times in the last parliamentary session than has occurred in years of government .beforehand. If we look at the number of times the government has called for closure since coming into power, I would venture to say closing off debate has been used more times than perhaps in all the history of democratic debate in the country.
It has abused the privilege of closure and it is absolutely hypocritical for the government to do that. When we look back to when those members were in opposition we find they were the ones calling down the Liberal government at the time for using the same technique.
I want to go back to an October 1980 article that was written with regard to the Liberal government of the day using the closure motion. It states: "Conservative energy critic Harvie Andre, a prominent member in the House of Commons, says opposition members were acting out of bitterness over the time limit set on debate. Andre had to be physically restrained from hitting a Liberal MP, and five Tory MPs marched up to the Speaker's chair screaming that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was creat-
May 5, 1993

ing a totalitarian state by setting Friday morning as the end of debate on the Constitution".
The same member of this government as House leader is pulling the same tricks.


An hon. member:: Double standards.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Double standards, hypocritical, absolutely hypocritical.
Here is another article: "Fists could fly if closure tried again, says MP". I think it is from The Calgary Herald and reads: "It may not be possible to prevent fists from swinging in Parliament if the Liberal government attempts to use closure again to cut off debate on its constitutional package, Calgary West MP Jim Hawkes said Friday". This is when the member named in the article was an opposition member. It continues: "Another closure would be very, very provocative and this time there could be some violence, he said in an interview to Ottawa".
This is absolutely hypocritical. These members are now government members and ministers of the cabinet. They are using the same technique in implementing time allocation and closure on the discussion of legislation on the proposed North American free trade agreement.
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot call down the government in power and then when they become the government in power use the same questionable parliamentary techniques that stifled democratic debate. Back in the early 1980s they were accusing the Liberal government of the day of using that technique. The technique is wrong and it short-circuits the democratic process. It was wrong then when the Liberals used it and it is wrong now when this Tory government is using it on a very important piece of legislation.
The Canadian people are demanding an opportunity to listen to the parliamentary debates and an opportunity to learn about it. Not only is the government trying to cut off debate in this Parliament, but it provides no information to the people of Canada on the essence of the legislation. It is absolutely hypocritical.
On the rewriting of our social constitution during the referendum, reams and reams and mountains of paper were used to get out the information on why people
Supply
should support the referendum. Yet in the rewriting of our economic constitution, this proposed North American trade agreement that will move us into a situation of harmonizing our economy with that of our neighbours to the south, on this very important and fundamental issue, the government tries to shut the people of Canada out. The government tries to shut parliamentary debate down. It is hypocritical and it should not be allowed.
As has been mentioned in the few opportunities we have had to actually debate this bill, one of the reasons we feel this legislation should not be passed and why we are fighting so hard to make sure we have an opportunity to address our concerns is that we honestly do not believe the North American free trade agreement is in the best interest of our country and in the best interest of future generations of Canadians.
I want to refer to the very specific issue of why I believe this legislation is so dangerous. I turn to the issue of resources because as we all know this particular trade agreement goes far beyond simple tariff barriers. If it were only a matter of reducing tariff barriers there would be no difficulty and there would be no problem with it.
However it goes far beyond the reduction of tariff barriers. It involves the compromise of the sovereignty of this nation and the ability of governments, whether it be the federal government or provincial governments, to control their own resources.


An hon. member:: Water.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: The member over here says: "Water" and he is absolutely right. It is a very critical concern that I might add is being listened to very closely in some circles within our neighbour to the south.
Right now as we debate this legislation and whether or not water is actually included in it, there is a proposal just north of my riding, in the riding of my hon. friend from Kamloops, by Canadian and U.S. interests to divert a major portion of the flow of the North Thompson River, move it by pipeline into the storage reservoir for Mica Dam and then through the Columbia River system, to be piped off from the Columbia River by pipeline into the California market. This proposal has big money backing it. There are serious interests.

May 5, 1993
Supply
At a recent conference last month in California the U.S. interests were looking at the proposal of Multinational Water and Power on this North Thompson diversion as a test case for the export of water under free trade. That was admitted just last month. We can see they are watching very closely with respect to the control of Canadian resources and how the North American trade agreement and the free trade agreement, for that matter, affect that control.
The government has boasted that Canada's federal water policy prohibits large scale diversions of fresh water. The federal water policy document was drawn up in about 1986-87. It is not a bad document. It has some good policy directions. It is a policy initiative. That is all it is. There is no legislation to back it up. It remains a philosophical document. It is absolutely toothless in terms of any legislative clout.
There was a bill before the House of Commons in the spring of 1988 dealing with the question of water exports which died on the Order Paper. The government has never seen fit to bring back that legislation. There is no legislation protecting Canadian water resources from the possibility of export contracts, inter-basin transfers, diversion by pipeline or tanker export of water.
The government has also suggested the federal water policy would protect Canadian water resources from a challenge under the FTA or under the proposed NAFTA. We heard just a few hours ago one of the senior bureaucrats in government, the deputy assistant attorney general, essentially concede at committee the fact that even if we had strong domestic legislation protecting Canadian water resources, because we did not put a specific provision excluding water in the North American free trade agreement, in any conflicts between this international agreement, this trilateral agreement, the NAFTA, and domestic legislation, the trilateral agreement would take precedence. What does it mean? It does not mean diddley squat whether we have any strong legislation protecting water resources. It does not matter what our federal water policy says. If it was argued under the provisions of the North American trade agreement, and I submit that argument will take place some day, that water is recognized as a commodity or a good of trade under the auspices of the NAFTA and there was a challenge based on that, it would not matter whether we had this legislation. The NAFTA provisions would overrule the federal water policy or any implementing legislation.
There is only one way to get around it and that would be to have the exclusion for water as a commodity or a good of trade actually written into the legislation itself. And it ain't there, Mr. Speaker. We want to know why it is not there.
When we look at certain clauses of the NAFTA bill, we find there is a specific exclusion for raw logs. The government was not totally asleep at the switch, it got an exclusion for raw logs. When it comes to the trade of raw logs, no. It is written into the NAFTA agreement that Canada will not negotiate trade with respect to the export of raw logs.
We also looked at the export of unprocessed fish. It is in the agreement. The government thankfully had the foresight to say that when it comes to unprocessed fish from the Atlantic or from Quebec and the maritimes that it will not be an item of trade. Somehow the government forgot that we have a west coast salmon fishery that has really been taking a beating, but at least it protected Quebec and the maritimes.
However, those two exclusions are in the North American trade agreement, written in black and white. They will take precedence and there is no way that they can overrule on those two situations.
However, there is nothing on water. When it comes to the possibility of water exports, the North American trade agreement is absolutely silent.
The government says: "Our federal water policy does not allow large scale water exports or water diversions". I want to say that Dr. Frank Quinn, who is one of the senior policy advisors in the federal Inland Waters Directorate, has admitted that the government is now reconsidering its position on water exports. That did not come from me, it came from one of the senior bureaucrats.
At a recent water export conference in Vancouver, Dr. Quinn stated, and I am going to read the quote because I was veiy careful in copying it down: "There is every indication from comments made that this government is moving toward an export policy for water". That is pretty
May 5, 1993

scary stuff when you realize that the possibility of exports under the North American trade agreement could implement some very sweeping changes in terms of essentially replumbing the whole structure of our continent with respect to water resources. Those are not my words, those are the words of a senior bureaucrat. There is every indication that the government is moving toward an export policy for water.
The government also argues that the implementing legislation will protect us and the federal water policy will protect us. We heard the gentleman just a few hours ago in committee say that he recognized the fact that in a conflict of interest between domestic legislation or policy the NAFTA agreement would take precedence. That is not only his ruling on it. Judge Maxwell Cohen, who is the past chair of the International Joint Commission; Dr. Andrew Thompson, a Vancouver-based resource law expert; Armand de Mestral, an international law expert at I believe McGill; and Dr. Don McRae, Dean of Law, Ottawa University have concluded that conflicting domestic policy or conflicting domestic legislation does not alter commitments in international agreements such as the FTA or NAFTA.
It means that if the agreement actually provides for the possible export of Canadian waters as a commodity of trade, then any domestic policy or any domestic legislation could be overruled.
There is another document that refers to this. I do not have the title here but essentially it was a document on Canadian water resources and was written by the Library of Parliament. The document discusses the possibility of water exports and whether or not international agreements would take precedence. The law research division of the Library of Parliament says: "The question arises as to whether international conventions take precedence over Canadian domestic law. In terms of international law in the event of a conflict between an international treaty and a clause of a Canadian law, the former would take precedence".
It goes on to state: "If a dispute were resolved in accordance with the North American free trade agreement dispute settlement provisions, priority consideration could be given to the treaty or the NAFTA provisions".
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. We must go into questions or comments and I have three-


Alex Kindy: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The questioners will be the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, the Solicitor General and did the hon. member for Calgary Northeast want to ask a question or make a comment?


Alex Kindy: I want to speak to a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order. I wrote a letter to the hon. John Fraser and I would like to read a short sentence. I say: "Mr. Speaker,
I was elected as a Progressive Conservative member of Parliament on September 4 for the riding of Calgary East and re-elected on November 8 as a Progressive Conservative member for the riding of Calgary Northeast"-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood has the floor on questions or comments.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I listened attentively to the member of the New Democratic Party and I have to say that I support most of what he is saying in terms of this issue related to water.
During the last campaign in 1988-


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is not a point of order. Of what I have heard the hon. member say it is not a point of order. If he wants to make that statement, he knows it can be done tomorrow under Standing Order 31 or any other way, but not here at this time.


Alex Kindy: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have listened to the hon. member and I just find that it is not a point of order. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood has the floor.


Alex Kindy: Quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I beg your pardon?

May 5, 1993
Private Members' Business


Alex Kindy: Quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe there is a quorum call.
And there being only 15 members present including the Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not see a
quorum. Call in the members.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is a quorum. I see a quorum. The hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood has the floor on a question or a comment.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the comments that the member from the New Democratic Party made. I would like to voice support for his concern on this issue related to water.
In 1989 through the Library of Parliament I was fortunate enough to obtain the Ph.D. thesis of Mr. Clayton Yeutter who was the chief free trade negotiator for the Americans. Previous to that he was a senior adviser in the Reagan government. I was actually tipped about this Ph.D. thesis from a friend of mine in Houston, Texas who knew that we were going through this free trade exercise and free trade debate. The title of the Ph.D. thesis, which was about 600 pages long, was North American Water Management. If we go through this thesis which Dr. Yeutter spent about three or four years putting together, we can see that ultimately and eventually the Americans are going to need some kind of a relationship and some kind of access to Canadian water.
In my very first speech in the House of Commons I asked the Prime Minister if he would get a special protocol letter from then President Reagan exempting water from the free trade agreement. Of course the government side of the House never acknowledged anything. The bottom line is that the free trade agreement supersedes any legislation that is put on the floor of this Chamber or any of the provincial chambers. Time will tell that the real agenda-


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I did not appreciate that when I was raising a point of order you
did not give me the microphone. I did not appreciate it at all. I think it is unfair. You show double standards.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the hon. member finished?


Alex Kindy: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Thank you.


Mr. Dingwall:: I wish the Chair to know and duly recognize that members of the Official Opposition have great confidence in the Chair and in the fairness of the Chair.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Thank you.


Dennis Joseph Mills: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, and I know that the Solicitor General has a couple of points to make as well, I want to be on the record in support of the speech that the member from the New Democratic Party made because until we have a special protocol letter from the United States government dealing specifically with water, then the best legal advice in North America will tell us that water is in fact a part of the free trade agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eight o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 37, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Robert (Bob) Speller: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the voluntary firemen's tax exemption from $500 to $1,000.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in this House this evening to debate my private member's motion, M-580. This motion, although deemed not
May 5, 1993

votable by the house management subcommittee, recommends that the government should consider the advisability of amending the Voluntary Firemen's tax exemption from $500 to $1,000 in order to make it more meaningful in the context of inflation and their service to their community.
There is no question in anyone's mind with respect to the exceptional work done by volunteer fire-fighters all across this country. My motion attempts to recognize and pay tribute to these fire-fighters, to pay tribute to their dedication and their selflessness to their communities.
Volunteer fire-fighters serve their communities with very little compensation. Generally, they are given honorariums that cover out of pocket expenses while in the attendance of emergencies, fires or training sessions.
I am confident that no one in this House will disagree that such remuneration is worth every penny that this government now gives.
Section 6(l)(b)(viii) of the Income Tax Act exempts the first $500 of allowances received by these volunteer fire-fighters from taxation. That amount was increased from $300 to $500 for the 1980 taxation year and has remained unchanged. In 1980 very few volunteer firefighters exceeded $500 through a combination of honorariums and fire-call payments.
With annual inflationary increases in those rates the majority of these volunteers are now seeing a portion of that payment subject to tax. The Government of Canada is taking taxes away from these volunteer fire-fighters who are giving up their own time and their own efforts for their communities. For this reason, I believe that this government and this country should be proud to increase that exemption from $500 to $1,000.
Volunteer fire-fighters provide an invaluable and vital service to our communities all across this country. I believe that those men and women who volunteer their services to fight fires in communities across Canada should be exempt from paying taxes on all their fire department disbursements.
Allow me to mention some of the reasons that I hope members on all sides of this House will agree with this motion. First, volunteer fire-fighters are the backbone of the protection of a significant number of communities across this country, not only in rural areas but also in some urban centres across Canada. The majority are
Private Members' Business
well-trained in fire-fighting, rescue work, first aid, CPR and emergency operations. They are the ones who are called when there is a difficult situation that no one in the community knows how to handle.
These volunteers spend many hours in training, upkeep of their fire stations, care and maintenance of the fire apparatus and the equipment without any remuneration. They drive their privately owned vehicles in response to emergency alarms. Their privately owned vehicles are also used to travel many miles to attend training courses, fire conferences, and fire association meetings, which are all very important in the management of our local fire departments.
Volunteer fire departments are the only service organizations in a number of communities across this country. They are the ones that are out there helping young children in distress. They are the ones that are out there raising money for community arenas and community centres. They are the ones in many small towns across Canada that do the backbone of the work which keeps these small communities together and working together.
The men and women assist in charitable work. They organize and operate minor hockey and baseball teams. In some instances a volunteer fire-fighter is docked his regular pay while he is out on a fire call.
Finally in many volunteer fire departments the moneys received by the members are pooled in a fund and this fund is used to keep up the fire station, buy or construct equipment and apparatus and buy uniforms. Basically they are paying for the community with the service that they provide.
Obviously these men are dedicated volunteers and take great pride in serving their communities. I believe that we must recognize their service and contributions to not only their communities but to Canada.
More important, we as members of Parliament should encourage the spirit of volunteerism in this country. The selfless service of volunteer fire-fighters goes beyond volunteerism because these men and women provide a vital service to our communities.
In my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk there are 13 fire departments all of which support one another and I as their member of Parliament feel they do a very superb job.

Private Members' Business
I can recall how I really grasped the importance of our volunteer fire department. It was during a very tragic fire in my riding and I think you remember that, Mr. Speaker. We had a very large tire fire in my riding and it was then that I saw the men and women of our volunteer fire departments really come together and show the whole world how we in small town Ontario could deal with a situation that nobody thought could be dealt with.
The fire burned for 17 days and if it was not for these men and women who came together I believe that fire would still be burning today.
They left their jobs, homes, farms and their families to fight this fire and we all can be proud of them for doing this. I think we all realize and appreciate the dedicated teamwork and the selfless work that these men and women did on behalf of their communities in Haldi-mand-Norfolk. I think we all as a country and as a community in Haldimand-Norfolk really owe them our gratitude and respect.
To be prepared to be a fire-fighter and to do the job takes time. For example, in the Port Dover fire department in my riding volunteer fire-fighters meet every Thursday evening. They check out the equipment, do the maintenance work, do the vehicle upgrade and they upgrade their skills. Within the region of Haldimand- Norfolk once a month the department does a hose demonstration and hosts a demonstration and instruction session.
Up to five men from each department can take part in these sessions. They are continually going out and upgrading their skills because we know, in the fire department as in everything else, technology is coming fast and they have to know the new techniques and the new ways of fighting fires. The goal in these sessions is to get each volunteer trained in every aspect of the job. These are professionals and we are talking about professionals who take this job very seriously.
Volunteer fire-fighters have made it possible to provide a service to a great many urban and rural communities and municipalities that could not have otherwise afforded to pay a force. We save millions and millions of dollars across this country on a daily basis because of our volunteer fire-fighters.
There are presently 76,290 volunteer fire-fighters across this country. I hope everyone of them knows that we in this House appreciate the hard work and the dedication they give to their communities.
I have been asked to comment on how much this would cost Canadian taxpayers because it is important and I think Canadian taxpayers need to know. When this came out in 1980 and when it was $500 we found that hardly any volunteer fire-fighter used the whole $500 so it would be hard to estimate exactly what this cost would be.
However, at the maximum, if every volunteer firefighter across this country used the extra $500 it would cost approximately $38 million. There is no way in this country that every volunteer fire-fighter would use that but obviously there would be a significant amount of that used.
That is the figure that they throw out. I for one believe that that is a figure that would be well spent in making sure that this country knows, even in these hard economic times, who is providing the services that are saving us money. I think it is a good way to tell Canadians that we appreciate their work and what they are doing for this country.
"The government has argued that increasing the tax exemption would shift the tax burden from one group of Canadians to another." This is from a letter that the Minister of Finance sent to me. He suggested that somehow other Canadians would have to pay for these Canadians getting this tax exemption.
What he did not say and what he forgot to say was that right now these fire-fighters are taking the cost out of providing a service to the rest of the country. The government's attitude is that these fire-fighters are lucky to be getting any kind of tax exemption at all.
In June 1989 I wrote to the minister and outlined the invaluable, selfless service these people provide. I said that these men and women are all doing us a favour. The minister's reply was unfortunate. He said there will be no tax exemption increase.
This is why I brought this motion forward today. I did it to bring attention to this motion again. I know hon. members on all sides of this House have brought this up
May 5, 1993

before. It took me four years to get it drawn out of the opposition motions. Therefore we know how hard it is to put forward something on the floor of the House but I thought it important enough to do this.
I want to conclude. These volunteers are donating their time and they are often risking their lives on behalf of others. They selflessly and non-grudgingly fight fires and all in the name of duty. Surely we owe them more than just thanks. We owe them, I believe, a tax exemption of $1,000 for the next taxation year.
In fact, the sum should be increased periodically to keep up with inflation. This is the least that the Government of Canada can do to recognize the great contribution that these volunteers make to the country. It would offer some incentive, a small incentive, to get more volunteers, fire-fighters.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I just briefly want to add my voice to the sentiments intended in the motion of my hon. friend. That is, of course, to recognize the selfless and valuable contribution made to communities from coast to coast in this country by voluntary fire departments.
In my South Shore constituency we have about 40 voluntary fire departments and I estimate close to 1,000 voluntary firemen. I would add on top of that, and I know my hon. friend from Haldimand-Norfolk would do the same in his own area, that there are the auxiliaries. They do tremendous work fund raising for the fire departments and contribute in a very significant financial way.
I think it is very important that our communities recognize that. I know in our province of Nova Scotia one of the things the province has done is to provide a special licence plate for automobiles that firemen can put on their cars if they wish. They wear those as a badge of honour and they are pleased to have them.
In Canada for the last 20 years or so we have had the fire service exemplary service medal which recognizes 20 years of voluntary service by fire-fighters. We as members of Parliament sometimes have the opportunity to present those. It is a very happy occasion for us to go to those non-political events and have an opportunity to be with people in the community while they are having a kind of annual celebration of fellowship and good times.
Private Members' Business
As to the specific proposal of my hon. friend, in principle it is hard not to agree with it. These people give so much to the community that we could turn around and say: "Why not have the community recognize that contribution by letting them write off against their income tax an additional amount beyond that $500". Obviously, as a financial measure, it is something that would have to be studied by the government. I appreciate the fact that he gave kind of a ball-park figure as to the cost of that, but I think it is important to know that it is from a budgetary point of view a very costly thing. That is something that would have to be looked at perhaps very well, as he says.
As far as I am concerned it is well worth it to me to know that I am a little bit more secure in my community.
I remember when my mother-in-law's house caught on fire four or five years ago. It was the voluntary fire department that came and saved her house. There was serious damage. In fact Chief Harold Richardson who directed the fire-fighters is retiring this Saturday in Hubbards after many years as chief of that department and after giving a valuable service.
However, that financial implication is there. He indicated that not all firemen take advantage of the existing deduction. Perhaps to them it is because it is a voluntary community service and if there is some form of compensation by way of a tax benefit then maybe a number of them would feel it is not there.
I think this is the important point. It is important that my hon. friend brought this forward. This House and this place should recognize the tremendous contribution made to Canada by voluntary firemen and I join him in saluting those individuals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will have the following speakers: the hon. member for The Battle-fords-Meadow Lake next and then I will have the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Dartmouth in that order.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for recognizing me this evening on this important private member's initiative from the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk. He is a member with whom I have served on a number of

May 5, 1993
Private Members' Business
delegations and whom I have considerable respect for in this House.
I want to congratulate the member for Haldimand- Norfolk for bringing forward this initiative for us to discuss today. I also want to thank him for, as he put it, sticking with it through the draw process. Having had this idea for over four years here and being able to stick with it through the process of private member's draw is admirable. I very much appreciate the fact that he did it because he should be successful.
This is the type of motion that all members of this House should find extremely easy to support. In fact many members of this House should be trying to do exactly the same thing that the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk is attempting to do because many of us have volunteer fire-fighters in our communities all of whom are doing exactly what the hon. member said in his introductory remarks in serving their communities.
I want to tell the member and other members in the Chamber that in supporting today I do so for many of the reasons that have already been outlined, but also because I do support even extending some of the benefit of this tax exemption to other members of emergency response teams in our rural communities who are serving almost on a volunteer basis. They are people like the first-response personnel who quite often attend to accident victims on the highway after vehicle accidents prior to the the ambulances or the doctor arriving; people who volunteer with the ambulance corps from time to time; some of the nurse practitioners in the rural communities. Their service essentially is on a call or need basis and their training allows them to make life in a rural community much more enjoyable because we know that those people are present.
As the hon. member who initiated this motion today indicated, the premise has already been accepted, the exemption exists. In fact the exemption has been increased once in recognition of the costs associated with this as being worthwhile to the community and to our nation. At one point the exemption was $300. For the 1980 tax year. It was increased to $500. Obviously we are now 13 years going into the 14th year since that increase in exemption was allowed.
Government members, particularly those with their hands on the purse-strings, should be looking very seriously at updating and upgrading this important initiative from those 1980 levels to 1993 levels. These people do provide a valuable and vital service to our communities. They are prepared at all hours of the day or night to respond. They are among the most dedicated of the volunteers in our communities.
In rural Canada, we have a very strong volunteer base that improves the quality of life throughout those rural communities. Many of these people who are fire-fighters are dedicating themselves constantly to be ready and available to ensure that the homes of their families, friends, neighbours, other workers and other residents of their communities are safe from the ravages of fire that can begin from any number of circumstances, including natural and human-made circumstances. Their dedication has to be recognized by this nation.
The exemption that the hon. member has proposed tonight is just one of the many ways in which we can recognize the valuable service of these fire-fighters and as I indicated as well the first-response personnel and perhaps throughout the community.
I received a letter from the hon. member for Haldi-mand-Norfolk regarding this motion some time ago. At that point it was very simple for him to convince me of the value of this motion. I just want to quote before concluding so that all members of this House can benefit from the words. The hon. member in his letter says: "Volunteer fire-fighters serve their municipalities with very little compensation. Generally they are given honorariums to cover out of pocket expenses while in attendance at emergencies, fires, training sessions, et cetera. I have no doubt that their service is worth every penny".
I agree entirely. In fact their service is worth a penny and a half or even two pennies now in 1993 terms and the government should recognize that. This is a very small measure that can show the appreciation of a grateful nation to a very dedicated group of people, men and women, in particularly rural communities but in other parts of Canada. I very much support the initiative that has been put forward here today.
May 5, 1993


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join this debate in supporting my colleague. I am happy to be able to second this motion which is before the House at the present time.
The subject matter we are debating this evening goes back some years. In fact I believe in July 1982 my colleague from South West Nova raised a similar issue on the floor of the House of Commons. Thereafter on January 19, 1983 our colleague from Brampton-Georgetown who happens to be this very day a distinguished member of the Crown, namely the Minister of State for Finance, made a similar argument to my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk who has brought this issue before the House.
The subject matter is not foreign to the House. It is something that we have been apprised of for quite some time. I would hope at the end of may remarks, indeed after I hear from my colleague from Ontario, my colleague from Dartmouth and others who wish to speak, that perhaps there could be a disposition within the House in view of what has been previously said that the matter be referred to a committee for further examination. It does not commit any government or any future government to pursue this in any vigorous way, but at least it gives members of Parliament an opportunity to examine in greater detail.
For the record, I have a number of fire departments in my own constituency and I wish to list them. I think it important that I put on the record some of the volunteer fire associations and their auxiliaries which I have the pleasure of representing here in the Parliament of Canada: South Bar, New Victoria, New Waterford, Dominion, Reserve, Glace Bay, Donkin, Port Morien, Grand Lake Road, Sydney River, East Bay, Gabarus, L'Ardoise, Louisbourg, Tower Road, Main a Dieu, Mira Road, Marion Bridge, Albert Bridge, Chappel Island, Big Pond, East Bay, Birch Grove, Scotchtown, Grand River and I am sure there are one or two that I may have missed.
The importance of mentioning these is that they are self-contained in individual municipal units across my constituency which geographically is big. Population-wise it is not the size of my colleague's, the hon. member for Dartmouth. Nevertheless, members in those communities to which I have made reference hold in high regard
Private Members' Business
the fire department and the men and women who work in the fire department and more important who volunteer their service to those departments.
I want to say to the House that it is all well and good to say this is a costly measure. It is. That is why I think we have to look at it carefully and that is why I submit it must be referred to a committee for further examination.
The sense of security that many of these volunteer agencies give to our senior citizens in rural communities across this country is absolutely amazing. Not only are they called upon to fight major fires, but they are called upon to do other services for individuals, whether it be a chimney fire, a fire inside a home, a gas fire, a car fire, a grass fire which may be adjacent to a senior citizens' complex or to the residence of an elderly couple, which is very important.
It has an impact for the purposes of insurance. It also has an impact for the purposes of property taxation. If one has those kinds of facilities and amenities which are close by and particularly being volunteer, that will certainly add to the resale value of one's home.
The individuals who are involved in these volunteer fire departments need to have training, they have to go for courses and they have to be updated. They attend many charitable activities. In fact some of them are sponsored by individual fire departments. Of course, they have become over the years the centre for the community.
I realize that we are in a pinch in terms of expenditures by the Government of Canada. I think as a bare minimum we as a Parliament would do ourselves well if we allow this subject matter, as I am sure my colleague would want, to go before the appropriate committee of this House in order that we could fully examine in fact the costs that are associated with this, particularly when we look at some of the tax exemptions which are given to corporations.
I know the hon. member for Ontario will rise in his place and condemn all of those corporations that get tax exemptions, whether it be the SkyDome in Toronto or whether it be the boxes at the Montreal Forum or those special boxes that they are going to build at the Palladium for the Ottawa Senators. I know the hon. member opposite will want to get up and condemn them.

May 5, 1993
Private Members' Business
I am saying that there has to be a measure of fairness. Individuals who volunteer their time, who put their life at risk, who jeopardize their family life to give service to a volunteer fire department I believe are at least as a bare minimum deserving of this Parliament's greater examination of the subject matter which is now before it which is to give an increase in the exemption from $500 to $1,000 a year.
The exemption was changed in 1980 from $300 to $500. In effect we are living with a 13-year exemption. I am sure that if one were to take a calculator and figure it out that $500 after 13 years times the rate of inflation would not equal $500.
Hence I believe this is another reason the subject ought to be referred to the appropriate committee. In fact just the other day I was going to raise this matter with the Clerk who I know has a great interest in volunteer fire departments because he understands and appreciates the work that they do all across this land. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am certain that you do as well.
I hope we could proceed in a non-partisan way. My colleague, who deserves a great deal of credit for having brought this motion before us, would like to have the subject matter referred to the appropriate committee to have a fuller examination. On the basis of the most simple and fundamental rule of law of the land, the rules of natural justice, namely fairness, could be applied to those men and women who serve in our communities, our volunteer fire department and their auxiliaries. We should examine this in greater detail.
I hope that the House can be seized of this issue in a non-partisan way as I am sure Canadians would want us to do. I hope we can resolve this favourably, not only for the individuals in question as referred to by my colleague, but also for the Government of Canada and indeed the Parliament of Canada.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the invitation that the hon. member for Cape Breton extended to me to condemn the boxes in the SkyDome. I will be happy to comment about those things, time permitting.
I am surprised that in his presentation condemning these terrible things that exist in the Skydome, he did not condemn the businessmen in Cape Breton on whose boats I happen to have had an opportunity to sail. These businessmen deduct their boats as a business expense against their operations in Cape Breton even though their income is not derived from those boats.
I wonder if the hon. member wanted me to include those particular boats in the condemnation to which he is referring. I have sailed on them. I suspect he has too. I will be interested, when he has a chance to comment again, to hear whether they are included. I will be interested also whether those lobsters which are being shipped from his riding to my riding consistently to help the fishermen of his community are deducted as an expense or does he no longer want them deducted so that they become more expensive in my riding. I would be interested in some comments from him on those matters when he has the chance of course.
We are not here to discuss those issues. We are here to discuss in this motion a very important issue, how fire-fighters are treated in Canada with the exemption that they have and should that exemption be increased from $500 to $1,000 a year. On the surface, it appears to be a very good motion and one that has merit.
The hon. member has cited the volunteer departments in his communities. I represent three communities, the towns of Ajax, Pickering and Whitby and all three of them heavily rely on the volunteer fire-fighters to augment the full-time force. Because they are much larger communities we have full-time forces. The fact of the matter is that without volunteers, the full-time forces could not deliver the services that are required in the community.
One of the things that I think is very fundamental to this in my community is the role of the business sector in dealing with the volunteers. In my community when a volunteer fire-fighter is called to duty, he or she has to leave their place of employment, assuming of course it happens during the hours that she or he is on duty.
In the community of Ajax that I live in, and I know the same thing applies in Whitby and Pickering, those business people say to the volunteers: "Leave your job,
May 5, 1993

no problem. It is important you go. We will continue to pay you while you are there fighting fires or doing the job of a fire-fighter on behalf of the citizens" of the communities I represent.
There is no doubt about the importance of volunteers.
I am certainly very familiar with it. We can talk about that life-saving value or the asset-saving value. I have had the experience, travelling across Canada as I did in my other capacity before I was elected going into towns to find an industry to which I was going to sell some steel.
Do you know where you could find out most easily where these businesses were located or get the directions to the street that you were looking for? You could just pull into the fire hall and ask the volunteer usually on duty who could say: Yes, sir, you are looking for the A-B-C street. You just go down here, turn left, turn right and that will take you right to the company that you are looking for.
Usually I found the volunteers could also tell me about some other companies in the community that were doing similar things. I found them to be a very good resource, all of it for free. Therefore no one is going to question just how important the volunteers are in the community.
The problem I see with the motion is that we are dealing with the volunteerism only of fire-fighters. Fire-fighters are obviously very worthy of the $500 deduction that they gain. For example, in many of the metropolitan cities and certainly in the region of Durham where I reside, we now have volunteer or auxiliary policemen, which is more how we describe them.
They do not rush out in quite the same capacity as regular police forces to deal with emergency situations, but sometimes they are out on the street participating in public functions representing the police department. The citizens who walk up to this policeman believes fully that they are talking to a policeman and not to just an auxiliary policeman. Therefore these people, although not necessarily serving right on the front line, are in many cases expected to do the same work.
Yet this resolution does not deal with the issue of those people who, in my opinion, are serving in a very vital role just as the volunteer fire-fighter is doing. I use that as one example of some of the other issues.
Private Members' Business
What we are talking about here is really a fundamental principle of the tax system. When one is paid cash for services or cash or goods in return for services rendered, volunteering if that can be the example, if it is an income or if it is to replace income one must pay tax on that.
What we are doing here is taking the back door approach. The one exception that exists is how we handle fire-fighters as it is. There are other volunteer groups that continuously raise this preferential treatment and want similar benefits. Again, the only benefit that exists is for fire-fighters.
It leads to the question asked by many charities that have appeared in the past before the finance committee of which I am a member which is: "Why do volunteers not get the breaks in the form of exemptions, deductions or tax credits for donating their time whether or not they receive an allowance?"
They argue that donating time is an important contribution made by donors of money and property. This is just as important and in fact in many instances more important. We just need to look at all the volunteer groups that exist in our ridings. Those groups could not function without volunteers.
There is the local baseball association, the hockey association, the ringette association, the Red Cross and the cancer society. The list just goes on and on of organizations in this country that simply could not function without volunteers.
There should be no doubt about the value of volunteers in Canada. The question is, do the volunteers in those organizations have the right to the same benefit as the volunteers in the fire department? That is not a question I am capable of answering, to be fair, but it is certainly a question that is asked by many organizations who appeared before the finance committee.
While I fully support the point that donations of time are as important as donations of money it does not necessarily follow that the tax treatment of these two types of contributions must be identical. In fact there are justifications against providing tax incentives for donations of time. I will take a few minutes to give some examples.
From a practical perspective there would be tremendous difficulty in determining how much time was given and how much this service was worth. Would the value of

May 5, 1993
Private Members' Business
time reflect the person's regular remuneration? Would it reflect the efforts put into the work done, or would it reflect the value to society? Even if the fundamental question of how to value the time could be resolved it would unfortunately not prevent the tremendous scope of abuse created by such a policy.
There is also the problem that stems from the fact that many volunteers are seniors and students, who would in many cases receive no tax deduction because they have no income. A deduction is only relevant if people have income. Having no income or an income that is so low they would receive no credits or deductions they would pay no taxes.
Philosophically it could be argued that any scheme to compensate individuals through the tax system for volunteer services would mean that volunteer services were no longer performed for free, but were paid for to a degree by the federal government. The federal government does not pay. It simply takes the money from taxpayers and gives it to someone else. This idea that the federal government pays is really an anomaly.
There is little evidence to indicate that offering enhanced tax assistance for volunteer activities would result in a significant increase in these services. Individuals volunteer for a number of reasons, most of which are unrelated to tax assistance. I come back to those volunteer firemen because I have had an opportunity to meet with many of them in my community. I do not think they are volunteer firemen for the money they receive or for the deduction of which they get to take advantage.
Many of us in this Chamber may have volunteered prior to our election and probably after our election still serve on many committees. We serve on those committees for many valuable reasons. First and foremost, we enjoy serving on those committees. There are many ways that we can give of our time. It is safe to say that we all move around and will ultimately give of our time in those places where we enjoy giving our time. Fortunately the advantage is that while we are giving our time somebody else is benefiting.
I believe that is the case with volunteer fire-fighters. I believe they enjoy what they are doing. Yes, it is very risky and they are very professional. They have to believe in what they are doing. However I do not believe this
motion will necessarily change the pros or cons of whether they should be or not be a fire-fighter.
As for the idea of referring this to a committee, I know that ultimately tax matters come to the finance committee of which I am a member. If members of the Liberal Party at any time want to raise that in committee as a subject for consideration they can do so. I do not believe we need to refer it to that committee from this House.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to commend the member for Haldimand- Norfolk for his persistence and diligence in pursuing this particular motion. I am going to speak to the substance of the motion.
I have seen some fancy footwork in the House of Commons on many occasions but I have to say that the speech from the member for Ontario was about the worst dance I have seen in here in a long time. The member for Ontario wants to get up and praise the work of the fire-fighters and volunteer fire departments, get his little political plug in for his firemen back home and then set about to completely misstate the intention of this motion.
I recognize that sometimes some of the backbenchers on the government side, the ones who do not get to get up to the front and probably never will, have to get up and say things in response to private members' motions that they may not believe. Sometimes they should stay home instead of coming here. After listening to what the hon. member just said I think this is one of those days when he probably would have been better off somewhere else.
He just does not get the point. He talked a lot about volunteers and he talked a lot about how can we say how much money a volunteer for the Cancer Society is worth. My mother has volunteered every year since I was a child for the Cancer Society. She goes out and canvasses all over the place. She does not do it looking for money. Neither are people who work for the Red Shield Appeal. I am the general chairman in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. I am not looking for a tax deduction. The member just does not get it.
To try to get wound up in words so he can explain away the fact that he does not support the motion or the very good suggestion by my colleague for Cape Breton-East
May 5, 1993

Richmond that this be referred to a committee for study shows that he really does not get it.
We are not talking about pitting one volunteer against another. We are not talking about a motion that is meant to entice people into working in volunteer fire departments. My god, the man just did not listen to what was said tonight.
We are talking about giving some due recognition by way of an increased tax exemption to members of volunteer fire departments. That is all we are talking about.
Let the record show that we are not talking about a new exemption. We do not need a debate as to whether or not firemen should get an exemption, which is what he tried to do. It is already there. It is $500. We heard that it was increased from $300 to $500 in 1980.
What my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk simply says is that perhaps time and inflation have surpassed the $500 value mark that was given in 1980.
Let us remember when we talk about volunteer firemen, with the greatest respect for all the other volunteers in the community that build our communities and our neighbourhoods in our country, that volunteer firemen are quite different.
When my mother goes out and collects for the Cancer Society or when she goes because there is a problem at Lingan colliery or a disaster in the community she most likely does not have to worry about whether she is going to come home from that canvass. The men and women who work in volunteer fire departments have that worry every time that alarm rings.
When my mother goes out and canvasses for the Red Shield Appeal she does not have to worry about whether she will breathe in something that in 15 years time is going to cause some type of a cancer. Volunteer firemen and women do. She does not have to have her heart stop every time the phone rings. Volunteer firemen and women do.
To try to be all things to all people tonight and still spout the government line, which is a very tough line that says they do not deserve it and they are not going to get it but the government loves the job they do because
Private Members' Business
they are all electors and it has to count on their vote, is simply unbelievable.
I am very discouraged that this member, after serving a number of terms in this place, would try to pull such a stunt like that this evening this close to an election.
The member for Ontario has a great track record on supporting pieces of legislation or private members' bills and motions that recognize the unusual contribution that some people make to their community and their country.
The Remembrance Day bill was one the few bills that was passed here at second reading. It was a private member's bill, which I sponsored, to recognize the contributions of the men and women who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. It was passed by this House. It was an unusual thing. The Tories even voted for it. The parliamentary secretary to the current defence minister, contender to the Tory throne, supported it.
This member, the member for Ontario, to show what a great supporter of those types of efforts he is, killed it at committee.
I was not totally surprised when he did his little fan dance around the issue as to whether or not he believes that volunteer firemen and women should get recognized for the work they do and the risks they take. I was not surprised but I was shocked with the way that he tried to pursue it.
If he does not want to give the exemption, if he wants to be the mouthpiece here, he should have just said it and then at least we could sit down and say that we know where he stands, but he had to dance around it.


An hon. member:: The Ontario two-step.


Ronald MacDonald: The Ontario two-step.
On the motion itself, the member for Haldimand- Norfolk is quite correct. The contributions to communities that volunteer firemen and women make is unusual and unique. It is very unique.
He talked about the tire fire down in Hagersville. He talked about the efforts of those volunteer men and women at the fire department to try to protect their communities. They were working in situations where carcinogens were coming from the smoke. They did not know what they were breathing in but they did it because they are committed to the safety of their community.

May 5, 1993
Private Members' Business
They put the safety of the community and the benefit of people who they do not even know ahead of their own safety. They leave wives, husbands, sons, daughters, mothers and fathers at home. They go and put their lives on the line every single time that fire bell rings.
In my riding we have volunteer and full-time fire departments. They are supplemented by volunteer service in Eastern Passage, Cow Bay, Dartmouth and Westphal. The men and women who work at those stations are not just there each time the buzzer rings. They are there when there is a need to go into the schools and talk to the young kids about fire safety. They are there when the community needs assistance for a fund-raising drive or at the Eastern Passage-Cow Bay summer festival. They are always there. They give untiringly of themselves to build their communities.
This motion recommends something very simple. It is not telling the government we want to bankrupt it because it is pretty much bankrupt already. It is not telling the government we want to do something unusual, the principle of which has not been debated and discussed, because it has been. There is currently a firemen's tax exemption.
It says we recognize that this is a very special group of volunteers and as a Parliament there is very little we can do except increase the tax exemption. My friend from Cape Breton-East Richmond said that if we do our mathematics and take $500 in 1980 up to 1993 dollars and put the annual rate of inflation factor on that, we will probably give them the same exemption in constant dollars in 1993.
I find it disturbing that every time these types of issues come up members opposite find reasons not to do it. The last time an issue came up like this it dealt with radio licence fees and we debated it here in the House of Commons. There was a huge increase in radio licence fees.
Volunteer fire departments from across Canada signed petitions. They said that as volunteer fire departments they have to count on fund-raising activities. They have to go to the community to raise money for oxygen tanks and training because it is not always provided by the taxpayer. They have to go and squeeze it out.
When that issue came before the Parliament of Canada the members opposite said exactly the same thing: "Well, you know we think they do a great job but somebody has to pay for this", recognizing and knowing full well that the rhetoric was not only not supportable it was highly offensive to many people.
In conclusion I would like to once again commend my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk for being persistent and diligent in giving the men and women who serve in volunteer fire departments right across this country the type of recognition they deserve on the floor of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand before the House today. I too want to go on the record as recognizing the volunteer fire department. I would also like to recognize the many other volunteers in our society. For example, there are a number of volunteers in each of our communities who are running food banks.
I have visited a number of the food banks where food is received and processed. It may not be as life-threatening as some of the work the firemen do sometimes, but to me it is every bit as rewarding. These volunteers with no pay whatsoever, no stipend, no equipment issued by the community to do their jobs as volunteers are there and often ruin their own clothing packing shelves with groceries, hauling around boxes and so on.
I think it is a real shame that this sort of thing happens. I heard it today because one of my colleagues stood up in the House and I thought gave a reasoned argument to the debate. His motives were questioned. He was told he had to speak the party line and he would never have the opportunity to sit in the front bench.
All kinds of nasty comments were directed at a colleague of mine who I feel has contributed a great deal in the way he goes about his work in committee, in the way he goes about his work in the House of Commons, and in the way he goes about treating all members in a very reasoned and thoughtful manner and with a great deal of respect.
May 5, 1993

I do not think it was called for. It is Private Members' Hour and a private member puts forward an idea or a motion knowing full well he is probably not going to get anywhere. However he does it for political reasons because it may give him some profile in his community among a certain group.
This is the anomaly we have in the situation. We treated firemen in this way back in the 1980s. By the way, all those groups came to governments in the past and said that this was what they wanted. They wanted the same treatment as was being given to volunteer fire departments or members of volunteer fire departments. Only the volunteer firemen received that kind of treatment from the tax department. If we were to readdress this anomaly with firemen, it would open the door to all other volunteer groups to be treated exactly the same way as volunteer firemen.
This may not sound very significant. One might ask: Why not allow them all to come in? However, at a time when volunteerism is becoming increasingly more important in our society, the cost of this alone could be a great deal of money. I have not been able to calculate it, but one has only to look at all volunteer organizations from the Canadian Cancer Society to my hon. friend's mother who does these kinds of things. I am not saying that his mother would seek this kind of support, but the organizations would.
We already have occasions of this. When we refer to the Unemployment Insurance Act, people on the opposite side of the House have said emphatically time and time again that we should allow people drawing unemployment insurance to work in volunteer organizations and at volunteer jobs. They should be able to work in the food banks and still draw unemployment insurance, even though the law states very clearly that these people must be available on a full-time basis for work.
This may not be a tremendous load to put on the Canadian public at this time, but it could lead to a tremendous load on the Canadian taxpayer. It would be a signal to every volunteer organization that they have exactly the same rights and should be treated in exactly
Private Members' Business
the same way irrespective of the jobs they do and irrespective of how we may look upon them as being special. All volunteers are special.
As I said, it is an anomaly. It has only been done to one group. If we readdress it, it opens the door for the others. Contrary to what my friends have said, other groups have come forward to the government and other groups have written in from their headquarters to say very clearly that they wanted to be treated in exactly the same way as the firemen were being treated under the tax situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk on a point of order.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, because this subject matter is so non-partisan, as we have seen across the floor, I wonder if you might find unanimous consent to withdraw the motion now before the House and to adopt the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Finance be authorized to study
the advisability of the government amending the voluntary firemen's
tax exemption from $500 to $1,000.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret there is not unanimous consent.


Robert (Bob) Speller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure but it sounded like all the Conservative members across the floor, the member for Ontario, the member for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry. The time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being nine o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 6,1993