1993-03-25

Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, having thought the matter over and reviewed the remarks made on this subject on Tuesday March 23 as reported in Hansard, I wish to withdraw the comments that were construed as offensive.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's gesture and I hope this resolves the matter.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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 11 petitions.



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, presented to the House on Tuesday, June 23, 1992 be concurred in.
On June 22, 1992 the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, after a lengthy study which followed two studies on credit card interest rates, the previous one having been in 1989, tabled its report.
The New Democratic Party did not agree with the conclusions reached by the majority members of the committee. As a result I tabled a minority report on behalf of my caucus with respect to credit card interest rates.
We tried to make several points throughout. We were in a period when the Bank of Canada rate was dropping. Yet at the same time credit card interest rates remained up. The Bank of Canada rate was coming down. The prime rate came down and credit card interest rates stayed up. Today the Bank of Canada rate is somewhere around 5.6 per cent. The prime rate is at 6 per cent.


An hon. member:: Thanks to our policies.


John R. Rodriguez: That is another debate, I say to the minister who says thanks to their policies. That is another debate.
The prime rate is at 6 per cent and the Bank of Canada rate is at 5.46 per cent. Yet the credit card interest rate for the standard Bank of Montreal card is 16.75 per cent; for Canada Trust, 17.75 per cent; for the National Bank, 17.25 per cent; for National Trust, 15.75 per cent; for the Scotiabank standard card, 16.75 per cent; the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce card, 16.75 per cent; Central Guaranty, 17.75 per cent; the Laurentian Bank, 16.75 per cent; Montreal Trust, 16.75 per cent; the Royal Bank standard card, 16.75 per cent; and the Toronto-Do-minion Bank, 16.75 per cent.
This is a time when interest rates, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, are the lowest in some 20-odd years. Yet we have disparity between the credit card interest rates and the Bank of Canada rate.

March 25, 1993
Routine Proceedings
We were not convinced that there was a competitive marketplace out there among the banks. In fact what we have is an oligopolistic system in the financial institution sector of the economy. In other words the marketplace did not set the rates. Had the marketplace set the rates when the Bank of Montreal came in with its prime-plus card about a year ago or when the Scotiabank came in with its card which offers 10.5 per cent, one would have thought all banks would have started competing at the lower rates.
The fact of the matter is there is no competition. There is no marketplace. Read my lips, Madam Speaker: There is no marketplace with respect to the setting of credit card interest rates. What we have is legalized grand larceny on the part of the banks. If anybody outside the banking system had done that, he or she could be charged with highway robbery.
What did the committee do? It ignored the opportunity to put a leash on these roaring bandits. Actually it refused to put a collar and a leash on them.
We argued in committee that we needed to set a floating cap on credit card interest rates. Since there is no competition the only way to protect consumers as they grovel and as they forage for credit in the marketplace is by having a floating cap on credit card interest rates. This means that as the Bank of Canada rate comes down, credit card rates will come down; if the Bank of Canada rate goes up, the credit card interest rates will go up.
Right now there is no benchmark by which the banks bring down the rates. It all depends which side of the bed the president of the Royal Bank gets out on. When he looks at the overnight returns on foreign exchange profits it determines whether the rate comes down .5 per cent or stays up. We are depending on the goodness of the heart of very-


An hon. member:: Heartless people.


John R. Rodriguez: I would say more: very greedy people. On the government side of the House they hope consumers will open their wallets and start spending us out of this recession. How can they expect that when the banks have them by the neck or by any other part of the anatomy, whichever is the more effective?
We said that the only way to control them was to put a floating cap. The banks said we could not do that, that it would interfere in the marketplace. The Tories said we could not do that, that it would interfere in the marketplace.
I have never seen such a vivid example of where Tories and the banking sector were cheek to cheek and jowl to jowl on an issue.


An hon. member:: Teller to teller.


John R. Rodriguez: This government has achieved it. I give it full marks.
We have the spectacle of consumers being taken to the cleaners. We said they should not do that, that we should have a standard by which those rates will come down, and that standard has to be in relation to the Bank of Canada rate. Imagine 300 per cent more being charged. That is usurious, absolutely usurious.
These are the most profitable institutions in the country. The banks have done spectacularly well. Even when they do not do very well, even when they actually goof up as in the Olympia and York situation and even when they went down to South America and lent the money for petrodollars, who bailed them out? The taxpayers. Even when they have trouble, the taxpayers bail them out.
When it is to make sure they get the best deals going as the whole marketplace is collapsing, we make sure Toronto-Dominion gets all the choice parts of Central Guaranty. When Royal Trust was in trouble we made sure the Royal Bank got all the choice cuts from the side of beef and we left the taxpayers to pick at the bones. The taxpayers got the soup bones. Who gets the meat? It is the big banks.
Our caucus said we had to have a floating rate, that it was the only way to provide justice in the marketplace as far as credit card interest rates were concerned. In 1989 the committee recommended the floating cap. The committee at that time was led by a Tory. This time it was led by a different Tory. I am sad to say the Liberals went back on their commitment to a floating cap and voted with the Tories to produce the report that was tabled on June 22.


An hon. member:: What's new?
March 25, 1993


John R. Rodriguez: What is new? What is the difference? They all sing to the same master for their supper. I suppose at this time when we are on the eve of an election, they have to really pat the banks because they need to protect their donations and their contributions.
The other thing we said in our minority report was that all partial payments should be applied and should be fully credited to the amount owing and that the interest charged should only be on the amount owing.
The province of Quebec has legislation that says for every partial payment made the interest can only be calculated on the remaining balance. I want to mention an interesting situation. That is the law in the province of Quebec for consumers. That is the kind of law I wanted the federal government to adopt in the Bank Act. Then the benefits that Quebec consumers get with respect to credit would apply to all Canadians. I think it is an exemplary piece of legislation.
In fact, the National Bank, the bank in the province of Quebec, was following the rules of Quebec. When it joined the club, the bankers association, I bet you dollars to doughnuts the pressure was put on it to conform to the way the other banks do it. The club made the club member conform.
Therefore, it seems to me this is one of the things that we should be concentrating on, never mind trying to ram NAFTA through here in two days with limitations on freedom of speech in the House of Commons. Why do we not really deal with the things that will provide benefits to Canadians, rather than taking them away? Even now with the NAFTA as it will apply to the banking system, those will never be touched now. They will never be touched, once they are locked into a North American continental financial institution structure. That is the problem.
Therefore, we said to them: "Look, every partial payment that is made should be deducted from the balance owing and the interest should only be calculated on the balance owing".


An hon. member:: That makes sense.


John R. Rodriguez: Oh, no, they go back and charge it from the beginning, if the payment date has passed.


An hon. member:: Even on members of Parliament?
Routine Proceedings


John R. Rodriguez: Well, I know on this member of Parliament. I do not know about all members of Parliament.
I say that is the most unfair way. We suggested that all credit card issuers be compelled to calculate the interest charges in a consistent way. Every one of them should calculate the interest using the same process.
We said that there ought to be a financial services ombudsperson. That person would monitor credit card rates and the abuse of financial service charges. In all my case-load a good 25 per cent of it deals with credit card complaints and service charges imposed by the banks on their customers.
Now, what does that make the member of Parliament? It makes the member of Parliament an ombudsperson for financial institutions. The member of Parliament now becomes the ombudsperson and has to phone and try to get the banks to let up.
As I watch I notice these service charges and the credit card interest rates are often used to bail out the banks from some of their terrible investment decisions. I have watched small businessmen in my riding, small entrepreneurs who have gone hat in hand to the banks saying: "Carry me through this recession". Here are these banks, the pillars of the community. When things are going well and the money is rolling in it is happy days are here again. They break out the champagne. When the economy shrinks in the community, who are first on the Greyhound bus to Mexico? Who are first on the Greyhound bus to the Cayman Islands? The banks, closing up.
It is amazing. They are there when the going is good. When things get tough, they tighten down the hatches, but they do not tighten them down on the big guys. No, when Mr. Reichmann phoned up, he said: "Look, I need $100 million for Canary Wharf". Or is it Parrot Wharf, the bird sanctuary in London. When he said: "Can I get $100 million", the Royal Bank president said: "Mr. Reichmann, are you sure you do not want $200 million? It is the same price. You can get $200 million and we do not want to see your books. Security? We do not need security. We will take your word for it".
Now, do you see the difference? If the entrepreneur goes to the banks, the banks say: "No, you cannot have credit. You do not have any collateral. You do not have any security, not even for a $25,000 loan, not even for a $40,000 loan".

March 25, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Barrett:: "We will take your home".


John R. Rodriguez: Not even for a $100,000 loan. They do not want that.


David Barrett: They do not want his home.


John R. Rodriguez: No, they have too much real estate.


David Barrett: Too many homes.


John R. Rodriguez: The greatest landlords in the nation, the banks. That is what they are.
When the going is good, they are there. When times are tough, they do not take risks. They do not take a chance on the people who built the community. They do not have any interest, do they? They do not have any interest. That is all. They do not take an interest. They just want interest. That is the way it works.
I want to give credit where credit is due; I am not a negative person. We have probably one of the best banking systems in the world. Why do I say that? Because in fact we have a Bank Act. It is a national banking system. Parliament has the power to set the ground rules by which the banks operate. We do not have the Barrett First National Bank of British Columbia. He tried it once.


David Barrett: They would not let me.


John R. Rodriguez: They would not let him, but a different government, what does it matter? It is still a Liberal, Tory, a Liber-Tor government. He tried it once and it did not work.


David Barrett: They would not let me.


John R. Rodriguez: They would not let him, but he tried. His heart was in the right place.


David Barrett: So was my deposit.


John R. Rodriguez: Now you have made me lose my train of thought here. Where was I?
We have a national banking system. It is controlled by the House of Commons. The banks have branches right across the country. No doubt about it, it is a very efficient system. Compared to the American system, we are in the 21st century.
Why is it that when it comes time to actually make the banking system work for the country, make the banking system work for Canadians, we suddenly back off?


David Barrett: No, the government works for the banks.


John R. Rodriguez: That is the question then, why? You have given me the answer.


David Barrett: They work for the banks.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. You have got it right, brother.


David Barrett: I knew I had it right.


John R. Rodriguez: I know, that is why you were premier. I wish you were premier longer.


David Barrett: Then I wouldn't have been thrown out of here.


John R. Rodriguez: The question has been answered. The reason is because political will is lacking. Political will does not exist on the part of the two old line parties when they have been the government, the ability to make the bankers do what is best for Canada. It is the other way around.


David Barrett: You can bank on that.


John R. Rodriguez: The government works for the banks. That is how the system works.
My party said in our minority report that we believe the consumers' interests should be protected in this area. We proposed a floating cap. That seems fair to me. The precedent has been set. There are a whole host of other areas where we use the Bank of Canada rate as the departure point for other rates. We use that all the time.
For example, in the government's Small Businesses Loans Act it is 1.5 per cent above prime or 2 per cent above prime. We always use a benchmark against which we set interest rates. Why are banks allowed to gouge consumers with high interest rates?
Imagine at this time that the Royal Bank's interest card rate is 16.5 per cent. That is unconscionable. I call on members to indicate their non-support of a system that allows the banks to just go ahead and keep on gouging consumers again and again and again.
March 25, 1993


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I would like to express first of all my appreciation to my colleague, the member for Sudbury, for fighting this issue and proposing an alternative and not just being negative.
I would like to inquire from my colleague as to whether there has been any positive response from the banking community in these complaints he has made. Has any bank shown any interest in being concerned about its depositors, those people that they appeal to through massive advertising expenditures across this country? Every time we turn on the television -


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry, I must interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Sudbury on a question of privilege.


Mrs. Marleau:: I want to remind the House, Madam Speaker, that I am the member of Parliament for Sudbury and that the member when he was speaking was not referring to me. I will not be a party to this kind of obstructive behaviour in the House of Commons.


David Barrett: That is right, Madam Speaker, I was referring to the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


David Barrett: I regret that other members are not fighting the banks. I regret that other members are not demanding that their constituents have floating caps put on their cards. I am surprised that a member would get up and say she does not want any part in this. I want to tell her constituents and everyone else if that is the position of the Liberal Party, it proves that members of that party are in with this government and they want to continue this gouging system of those cards.
If I may return to my comments, Madam Speaker, I want to point out that every magazine says: "Get another card. Grab another credit card. Go ahead". I want to ask the member: How much does it cost the banks to advertise for all this gouging that goes on? Why do they not give the service they say with the claims of the ads with the sweet smile saying: "Come on in here". Do they mention in any of those ads exactly what they are going to charge on those cards? Do they tell people the truth in those ads?


John R. Rodriguez: I want to thank the hon. member for his questions. There are a couple of observations on the questions.
Routine Proceedings
First of all, just imagine right now the rates are about 16.75 per cent on the credit cards. Just ask yourself, Madam Speaker, when you put your money in the bank, what do you get on deposits? I think if you are getting 1.5 per cent now you are pretty lucky. What is the spread? That is another comparison one has to make: What the banks pay for money on deposit and what they charge their credit card customers. That is another interesting spread which I point out to my hon. colleagues. The other spread I mentioned was between the cost of money, the Bank of Canada rate and the 16.75 per cent figure.
The other question is the advertising. Of course they suck people in with the advertising. They do not say in the TV advertising what the cost of the card is. People find that out when they make the application for the card and then get the card, that is when people really find out what the rates are.
It is also interesting to point out that ranked by profit five of the top 10 companies in Canada last year were banks. Together the big five earned after-tax profits of $3.5 billion in what for most businesses was a grievously tough year.
They did very well, but 50 per cent of the people who hold credit cards issued by banks did not get any breaks. Fifty per cent of card holders do not pay off their cards on time so they carry a balance and pay these usurious interest rates. There are no benefits for them.
Where does the money go? It goes to the banks to make the kinds of investments that we have seen in recent times. We have seen the problems with O&Y, the Campeau Corporation, and the Hees-Edper group. That is where the banks have been lending their money. We have seen it there.
The banks are not prepared to take a chance on small entrepreneurs. In order for them to do so they want the government to give them all kinds of guarantees. Why does the government have to pass a bill guaranteeing returns to banks to make loans to small entrepreneurs? One would think that is the nature of banking. The nature of banking is to make an investment to make a profit. They want guarantees from the government. What do they do to their clients? They grab them by the neck and squeeze and squeeze.

March 25, 1993
Routine Proceedings
The other question the hon. member raised was initiatives by banks. I mentioned the Bank of Montreal and its prime-plus card. It used the floating cap when I was told it could not be done. It said it would charge prime plus 5 per cent. That was one year ago and I applauded that initiative. I said to the Bank of Montreal that this was a good move.
Lo and behold, the other banks have not followed. The Bank of Nova Scotia came out late last year with its special credit card at 10.5 per cent. I applauded it for the action it took in setting the card rate at 10.5 per cent. Do not get too anxious. That does not mean that we can go over to Scotiabank or the Bank of Montreal and say we have this amount owing to CIBC Visa of $4,000 and ask whether they can lend us $4,000 and then we will get their card. It does not work that way.


David Barrett: No?


John R. Rodriguez: No sir. It does not work that way.


David Barrett: Why not?


John R. Rodriguez: It is because they want to sign up new business. They are not going to give people money to pay off and finance that CIBC card at 10.5 per cent.
This is the situation. It was unfortunate that the committee did not stick by its 1989 recommendations of a floating cap. I was most disappointed to see my Liberal colleague falling in with the Tories on the committee. It was the same member on the committee who in 1989 supported the floating cap. In 1992 he had a change of heart. What had changed? Nothing had changed.
Credit card interest rates were still high and the Bank of Canada rate was down. It seemed to me that one had to ask why there was a change of heart.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is a well-known friend and supporter of Ms. Shelley Martel, the NDP cabinet minister who took a lie detector test to prove conclusively that she was telling the truth when she said she lied.
It has often been rumoured that he was the person behind that strategy. There has even been a rumour that he leaked it to the media.
I wonder if my hon. friend has discussed this very serious matter with Ms. Martel in the many strategy sessions they hold in their weekly and almost daily meetings while he is in the riding. It is very well known that they are very close and that they share strategies. 1 just wondered if he has discussed this with her.


An hon. member:: Order, Madam Speaker. This is completely out of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I fail to see the relevance of the minister's question to the issue of what is being done to consumers on credit card interest rates. The issue we are dealing with is the rates that banks and other financial institutions charge on their credit cards.
This has nothing to do with conflicts of interest by Sinclair Stevens or other Tories of the past.


An hon. member:: Or convictions for theft or corruption.


John R. Rodriguez: They have nothing to do with convictions for theft by Tory members-


An hon. member:: Or patronage.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think comments on both sides are out of order and certainly not relevant.


John R. Rodriguez: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You sat there quietly while he raised a question that had absolutely no relevance.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: My comment was that comments on both sides did not belong in this place and I could not see the relevance of the comments from the minister. After I saw that the hon. member had answered and was continuing with comments that were not particularly relevant I thought it was a bit early today to get out of the normal line of discussion in this House.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker-


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege because there were implications in the minister's remarks and I believe they must be withdrawn. I believe they impugn my reputation by innuendo and that is not becoming of a member in this House.

*ti.:

March 25, 1993

Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I think you should ask the minister to withdraw his remarks.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, in the interest of progress, and I know my hon. friend wants to remain in the House,
I will withdraw any impugning implications that I might have made in suggesting there was a close relationship between Ms. Martel and the hon. member.


Mr. Breangh:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I know there has been a small amount of frivolity in what has been done here this morning, including the Solicitor General sitting chortling that he had managed to get something on the record.
I do not want to deny the House the right to have a little exchange back and forth, but I do want to draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, that there ought to be a distinction when the Solicitor General of Canada takes advantage of his parliamentary privileges, rises in his place and puts on the formal record of the proceedings of the Parliament of Canada some remarks that outside this Chamber might well be considered matters subject to legal action.


Mr. Cadieux:: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. As my hon. colleagues are seemingly acknowledging that innuendo should not be used in the House I hope they will remember that in Question Period.


David Barrett: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Since points of order are being used for debate it is up to the Chair to determine, and we have a complaint about that.
My colleague rose on a point of privilege. There was no intervention from the Chair when that member was completely out of order. That has not been addressed by the Chair.
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to explain why that member was allowed to speak completely out of order, but my colleague was brought to order when he was responding to that member.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister has done the honourable thing and has withdrawn all comments.
We will resume debate. The hon. member for Man-icouagan had been recognized and had started his speech.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day. [English]


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Motion carried. Orders of the Day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Mr. Speaker, 214 Canadian military personnel and approximately 50 civilians are serving, the latter mostly as volunteers, in Cambodia as part of the United Nations Transitional Authority for Cambodia.\nThese Canadians are serving with distinction in a theatre where danger is a constant companion due to the growing number of land mines, the problems of deadly diseases such as falciparum malaria, the hazards of travel especially by helicopter and the constant possibility of confrontation with hostile military forces.\nThanks to the efforts of the United Nations force including the above-noted Canadians, the general election planned for May 23-25 will in all likelihood occur as scheduled. Regretfully, however, the refusal of the Khmer Rouge to co-operate in the electoral process means those Cambodians who reside in Khmer Rouge controlled territory will not be able to vote.\nMarch 25, 1993', 'The harsh reality, moreover, is that a United Nations presence in Cambodia may well be required for a considerable period of time after the May election. The premature withdrawal of UN forces from Cambodia could well lead to the renewal of the armed conflict which for decades has tragically characterized the history of this troubled country.']
Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


Mr. Blaikie:: Madam Speaker, it is quite within the power of the hon. member for Manicouagan to move that we move to Orders of the Day but the Chair is under obligation to ask who is in favour of the motion, et cetera and-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I did. I did ask if it was the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion and the only thing that was heard was yes.
Point of order, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, at least you can recognize that there may have been some uncertainty given the distance between here and there and that you may not have heard members who said no when you asked.
You could ask again and see what happens. You could at least have the decency to do that, Madam Speaker, so that we could have a vote on this if indeed there are five members who are here to force a vote.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question was very clear. The hon. member put the motion, I put the question to the House and nobody said no.
Orders of the day.


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I cannot see a point of order but I will of course listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, there is no need for the Chair to disgrace itself in this way-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am well aware that the issue we are about to deal with is a very difficult one, as it is the object of much contention and kindles passion-

The hon. member will please allow the Chair to answer some of the concerns that have been raised.


An hon. member:: Take a vote.


David Barrett: You are being stupid.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am on my feet. I would appreciate if the hon. member would withdraw that comment. That was not to me personally. I think not. Do not apologize to me but please apologize to the Chair and to this institution.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, when the Chair starts acting worthy of the respect that the Chair deserves I will start apologizing.


An hon. member:: Point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Just a minute, please. Let us go back a little bit. A motion was put from the floor. I put the motion to the House. I asked if the House was ready to adopt this motion. I have checked now with the Table and nobody at the table heard anyone say no. It might have been said but it was not heard at this end of the House. It is also the members' duty to make sure that they are heard. Certainly hon. members can do what is needed to be heard at this end of the House. This time they were not.
I declared the motion carried and the motion is carried. We will now proceed. I will now put the motion to the House.


Some hon. members:: A point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre), seconded by Mr. Andre moves that Bill C-115, an act to-


Some hon. members:: Point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am putting a motion to the House; it cannot be interrupted-an act to amend the North American free trade agreement be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Debate.



Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister of International TVade) moved: that Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American free trade agreement be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. members:: Point of order.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, with respect, you said that you may not have heard nos, so you may have been in error. Yes, Madam Speaker, you said you may not have heard. That is the point that we are making.
Two members have said they said no. If you are calling them liars, which you are not doing, you said you may not have heard it. What I am suggesting is that you put the vote, based on an hon. member's word.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I said I did not hear anyone say no, and the officers at the Table did not hear anyone either. I then made a decision, and that decision is maintained. I must say I do not appreciate the comments that are being made, both directly and indirectly, at this time. If hon. members disagree with the Chair's decision, which was made in good faith, there is a procedure with which hon. members are quite familiar, and they can use that procedure, under our Standing Orders. However, for the time being, the decision stands and is not open for discussion. The minister has the floor.
March 25, 1993


An hon. member:: A point of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: A point of order. Did you hear that?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Yes, I did hear that. The hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: A point of order, Madam Speaker. You have not answered the question of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca as to what you were calling the members who have made it clear to you that they said no when you asked the Elouse. Are you calling these members liars?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would never do anything like that. The point is not whether something was or was not said. I am saying that the Chair quite honestly heard nothing, and the same applies to the officers at the Table. So the case is closed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I do thank you very much. I am pleased to rise on debate on Bill-


David Barrett: On a point of order. A point of order. [Translation]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Are we still on the same point of order?


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I must be heard and I will ask my question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am asking a question of the hon. member. I would like to know if we are now discussing the same point of order which has previously been settled.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, this is my point of order. If members stand in their place in this Chamber and say that they had said a no that may not have been heard, is
Government Orders
their word not to be taken that they said no? I want a ruling on that.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may want to consider with some of his colleagues changes to our rules. Our rules right now say that if the nos are not heard, the motion is carried. This point of order is now settled and over with. The hon. minister. I will not hear any more.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I want to before I commence the substance of my speech today to talk about the extensive consultation that has been held-


An hon. member:: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Point of order. Point of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -prior to the NAFTA negotiations-


An hon. member:: You're going mad.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that relate to the consultative process that we have had through the international trade advisory committee, the central advisory groups on international trade, the work that we have done with the provinces, with other private sector organizations-


Some hon. members:: A point of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -consultations which took place right up until the very final stages of the negotiations.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Some hon. members:: A point of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This was followed by committee pre-study during the month of November and into subsequent months that covered 9 cities, 119 organizations and many other briefs that were received.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: It has been the subject of virtually every Question Period during this time. It has been the subject of a number of opposition days.


Some hon. members:: A point of order.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Indeed, my colleague from Etobicoke North went to the first of our ongoing conversations on the North American free trade agreement-


Some hon. members:: A point of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and we on this side of the House have tried to activate the committee again to accommodate the suggestions of the New Democratic Party to hear more witnesses, but the New Democratic Party, as we can see again today has preferred to play pure politics with this.


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Desperation politics I might say, because its members have seen where their standing is going in the polls. They are slipping out of sight. There is a very good reason why they are slipping out of sight and their fear is written all over their faces today.
We have been trying for days to reintroduce this legislation. New Democratic Party members have blocked us continually, as they are trying to do today. We must follow through with the proper parliamentary procedure of having second reading, moving the legislation into committee stage and then moving ahead with the implementing legislation.


Some hon. members:: Point of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Canada's economic prospects are brighter today than they have been for quite some time now. Economic indicators are confirming remarkable strength.
Eight and a half years ago when our government took office we recognized that the world was changing. We recognized that the transformation to a more integrated, global economy was accelerating and that Canada needed to respond. We developed and implemented a comprehensive-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Let them vote, like you should have, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The lack of respect that is being shown for this place today-


David Barrett: Do not lecture us. Just stick to the rules.


An hon. member:: Look who is talking about obeying the rules.


David Barrett: I'll take my punishment under the rules but I do not want the rules changed by the Chair.


An hon. member:: You'll take your punishment in the polls also.


An hon. member:: Well, we won't have you to sell out our country for a mess of pottage either.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will listen to the hon. member one more time, hoping that this time he will show some respect for the House, for the Chair and for the decision that has been made. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.


John R. Rodriguez: A Tory should not lecture us about respect for the Chair.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, when I stand on my feet on a point of order it is out of respect for the rules of this House and the Chair. So I find it difficult to hear the Chair say: "I hope that you respect the Chair". I respect the Chair and the rules and I will live by those rules.
Two hon. members have given their word that they said no to your question, which you did not hear. The reasonable thing to do is to accept their word and put the vote. To deny that the members said no is, in effect, to call them liars and that is not acceptable from the Chair of this House.
That is my simple point. They have given their word. They said no. An hon. member's word must be accepted in this Chamber. You may not have heard the word, you may not have heard no, but they have said they said no and an hon. member's word must be heard in this Chamber. That is standard, traditional practice, Madam Speaker. That is not an insult to the Chair.


Mr. Nystrom:: Madam Speaker, up until this point I have not intervened in the debate. May I make a suggestion I have seen happen many times in my number of years in this House. A number of Speakers, where there was some uncertainty, where there was some doubt or some dispute on both sides of the House, the Speaker would often put the question again to clarify the air.
It is with respect, Madam Speaker, that I suggest that to you. There is obviously some doubt. There are some members who are not pleased with the interpretation made. We could create a lot more peace in the House if you once again were to put the question, ask if there are yeas and nays, and then proceed in that way.
March 25, 1993

That has been done many times in the past. I think that would clear the air and resolve the situation in terms of the impasse we are in right now.


Mr. Thompson:: Madam Speaker, when the question was put, I think that most members in the House recognized that the members of the party who are objecting to the decision basically fell asleep at the switch. It was very clear on this side of the House that the Chair made the right decision. We support the decision made by the Chair. There is no question at all, Madam Speaker, in that regard.


Michael James Breaugh: Madam Speaker, I want to try to put this with the complete understanding of someone who has occupied a position in the chair in another chamber of how awkward things can get at any given moment.
I am one who said no. I did not yell it, I did not scream it, but I did clearly and with some colleagues in this corner of the Chamber say no. The Chair, it was fairly obvious to me, did not hear me, nor perhaps did the table officers. I stood in my place to make the Chair aware that I had voted no to the motion. The Chair did not see me. I understand that. This is a big Chamber. I repeatedly stood in my place to try to make the Chair and the table officers aware that I had in fact said no to that particular motion.
Forgive me, but from where I am at this far end of the Chamber it seemed like this one lonely member was being ignored. It is not a big deal, but it is quite offensive for us at this end of the Chamber to have voted no to a motion, to have attempted to be recognized quietly without any furore and be ignored. I would plead with you in all fairness to simply put the question and allow our votes to be heard.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope the Chair does not have the impression any of us enjoy what is happening here this morning.
We are here to oppose the government and the legislation the government is trying to bring before the House. We assumed a certain amount of goodwill when we moved the motion on concurrence that at some point the government would get up and move to go to Orders of the Day and there would be a vote.
Government Orders
We said no. There are people here who said no, but they did not yell no because they did not yell in the expectation that the Speaker would recognize that and move to have the vote, but people did say no.
Madam Speaker, I plead with you in the name of the Chair. It is a pointless dispute. It creates the perception, albeit I am sure unfounded, that the Chair is favouring the government in this respect.
All you have to do is call the vote. The government will win because it has the numbers. Then we can proceed to do what the government wants to do. We want the House to divide on this and the Chair's responsibility in this case is to permit the House to divide on this.
A week or so ago, we tried to have unanimous consent and the Chair ruled that a nod of the head was enough to deny a unanimous motion. Here we have members saying no, getting up and testifying to the fact they said no and the Speaker refusing to put the motion.
I plead with the Chair so the fight is not between the Chair and certain elements of the House, but continues to be between the government and the opposition on the North American free trade agreement to put the motion.


Mrs. Tardif:: Madam Speaker, I would simply like to give my perspective on what is happening now in the House.
I remember that once, when I was dealing with a specific matter here in the House, the same thing happened to me. In a discussion with the Chair and the officers at the table it was explained to me that this was not a matter that could be tabled again. Once the question is put and the answer is heard, we must accept that decision.
Just because I am a member of the government, as I was at the time, there is no reason I should be treated differently.


An hon. member:: It is a completely different matter here.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: The circumstances were identical. I had said no and other members had said no, and the same decision was applied.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, my point is that in this House, whatever happens, all members should be treated the same.


An hon. member:: I never said no.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a member desiring to assist the Chair I want to tell you I was sitting in my place here when the question was put. I was looking over to the left of me and as far as I could hear there was no response when the question was put. In the interest of helping with the work of this Chamber, common sense might dictate that the question be put at this time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not and did not, since it was brought to my attention, at any time doubt the word of members who said they did say no.

However, I assured the House that I did not hear them say I therefore declared the motion carried. At this point, since the House is the master of what it does and since I am obviously here to do what the House asks me to do, if there is unanimous consent, I am prepared to put the question again, and I would, of course, do so immediately. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have seen this kind of dispute in the House of Commons for well on 35 years, 20 years up there in the press gallery and 15 years here.
When we reach such an impasse, is it not advisable to adjourn the House for 15 minutes and let the key parties discuss how we are going to resolve this? It must look crazy to the public watching. To cool down tempers we should adjourn the House for 15 minutes and let the people involved discuss it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: What for?

I would like to read to the House a passage from Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 558, which may help
the House understand the problem we are now facing. As I said earlier, I do not doubt the word of hon. members who say they said no, and I do not think they doubt I am telling the truth when I say I did not hear them.

I think telling me I did not listen is really unfair. I did and I did not hear. This is a fact.

I then declared the motion carried. Citation 558 reads as follows:
(1) An old rule of Parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House."
That is where we are and I believe that we must resume the debate at this point. The hon. minister has the floor.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As I was saying, in 1984 we created a comprehensive plan of action that covered a range of things such as privatization, deregulation, tax reform, fiscal control as well as means of allowing and encouraging the country to look outward through the negotiations on trade access, the GATT, the free trade agreement with the United States and now the NAFTA involving Mexico.
This has resulted in a very solid basis of support for the economic activities that are happening today. I believe our policies have helped our country weather the economic storms we have had over the past two or three years, and other economists would agree. Without this program of economic reforms, the impact of the global recession on Canada would have been much more severe. Today we are better positioned than ever to catch the next wave of strong economic expansion. That is what the recent economic statistics are indicating to us right now.
The bill before us today, when passed by Parliament will affirm Canada's foresight in negotiating the North American free trade agreement. When the agreement goes into force next January with the approval of all three countries, the North American free trade agreement will provide Canadians with a strengthened base from which to tackle the rugged terrain of the global marketplace.
March 25, 1993



The removal of trade barriers with Mexico, together with the opening up of the market achieved under Canada-United States free trade agreement will give us access to a dynamic market of 360 million consumers.
NAFTA will open the Mexican market to Canadians as never before. Tariff barriers, import licences, investment restrictions, trade balancing requirements and other barriers to Canadian exporters of goods and services will be removed.
.(1115)
Mexico already enjoys relatively open access to the Canadian market. In fact, almost 80 per cent of Mexican goods now enter Canada duty-free, so today we have effectively one-way free trade.

The improvement in market access under the NAFTA is much greater for Canadian goods going to Mexico than for Mexican goods coming to Canada.
In terms of trade barriers, Canada is dismantling a picket fence, whereas Mexico is hauling down a high stone wall.
In agriculture, we realize significant new opportunities to serve the growing Mexican market for food of all varieties, from fish and processed foods to apples and barley.
In transport, trucking firms and bus operators will have new access to Mexico.
In financial services, Canadian banks will be able to make major investments in the Mexican markets and this has already started with the Bank of Nova Scotia and the 5 per cent investment it has in one of the important Mexican banks.
For Canada's high technology industries, the immediate removal of Mexican duties on telecommunications equipment will provide a major opportunity for this highly competitive sector. They cannot wait to get into Mexico. I remind you of the comment by a representative of Glenayre Electronics Ltd. who said: "TTie NAFTA cannot come soon enough for us".
The NAFTA will eliminate the Mexican trade restrictions in the automotive sector which have been major
Government Orders
impediments to the sale in Mexico of Canadian vehicles and auto parts. This will set right the current imbalance whereby, in contrast to Mexican restrictions, around 90 per cent of Mexican automotive exports enter Canada duty free.
I have time to mention only a few examples of these opportunities created by opening up the Mexican market to Canadians, but whether it is urban transportation equipment, pollution abatement and monitoring technology or oil field services and equipment, the opportunities we have negotiated for Canadians are numerous.

Improving the FTA was another of our objectives in developing NAFTA. We strengthened the system for settling trade disputes. We made the rules of origin clearer and more predictable. This will mean that disputes over the full North American content of Canadian built Hondas should be a thing of the past.
Disciplines in the agreement will help ensure that standards are not used as disguised protectionism.
Canada won expanded access to the U.S. market for textiles and apparel by negotiating special quotas that are higher than in the FTA. This will permit Canadian textile and clothing makers to further expand their export sales, which have already increased substantially under the FTA. Canadian apparel exports have increased by 150 per cent since the FTA was implemented; Canadian fibre exports have also grown by 90 per cent. Canadian exports of fabrics and other textile products show an increase of 50 per cent. NAFTA will provide even greater headroom for growth.

We also strengthened energy provisions through the NAFTA and obtained stronger disciplines on U.S. regulators from interfering with freely negotiated contracts between Canadian exporters and U.S. buyers.
We negotiated a very attractive government procurement deal and for the first time suppliers of Canadian building materials will have competitive access to U.S. and Mexican government construction contracts. For the first time Canadian service providers will have access to U.S. and Mexican government service contracts.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
Moreover the U.S. has agreed to lift the buy America restrictions on loans provided under the rural electrification administration which is a contract pool amounting to some $1.5 billion U.S. a year. Even more exciting for Canadian firms, the U.S. under the NAFTA will waive the buy America restrictions on contracts let by the Army Corps of Engineers that last year by itself ran up almost $9 billion in procurement. This new government procurement market is now three to four times the size it was under the original free trade agreement.
We entered the negotiations intent on making improvements to the FTA and I think it is clear that we have done that. The NAFTA also gives a new edge to Canada's international competitiveness. It will enhance Canada's attractiveness as an investment base from which to serve all of North America.
Canada had a choice when it entered the negotiations. We could have stood back and let the United States and Mexico sign a deal by themselves. That is something that the Liberals and the NDP probably would have preferred us to do.
However, such an agreement would have given a tremendous advantage to the United States. The U.S. would have been the only country with barrier-free access to all of North America. Under those circumstances the decision for investors wanting to gain access to the entire North American market would have been obvious: locate in the United States.
Instead we made the right decision and that was to become a full partner of the wider North American market. In addition to the significant market opening to Mexico, the provisions for services and investment will support hemispheric business planning and economies of scale. These are significant advantages in today's global economy.

Canadian industry is already responding to the potential of the new larger market in view. Canadian firms are demonstrating the entrepreneurial daring essential to any country that would be a leader in world trade. They have sent delegations in record numbers to our trade missions in Mexico, made contacts, found partners and signed deals. Our embassy in Mexico City received 4,500 Canadian business visitors in 1992, eager to find new customers and partners in that market, up from approximately 1,000 in 1990.
NAFTA is clearly widening Canadian horizons. It is giving us a bigger stage on which to demonstrate our economic expertise and leadership.

Canadians can venture into new markets assured by the growing evidence of our increasing export success. We saw this so clearly last year, which was not a big year in the world economy. World economic growth over all grew by 1 per cent. It was the slowest since 1982 but it was an outstanding year for Canadian exporters. It is the export sector that is leading the way in the current expansion.
Merchandise exports for 1992 reached the record level of $158 billion, which is an 11 per cent increase year over year. That is the largest year over year increase since 1984.
The increases in our exports to the United States alone were even greater. Sales to the United States, our largest single market, were $122 billion or a 13.5 per cent increase over 1991.
This picture continues to get better as we move into 1992. Our total exports soared to $14.5 billion in January or 16 per cent higher than the same month the previous year. Exports to the United States in January were more than $2 billion higher or 22 per cent higher than the previous year. Our world trade surplus jumped a remarkable $900 million to reach $1.9 billion in January alone. When I see figures like these I have to wonder how long the hon. members opposite can continue to criticize the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Blaming every sparrow that falls on the free trade agreement is no longer credible and gets less credible with every new report on Canada's economic performance and outlook.
It was the English historian Macaulay who said: "Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which a government can confer upon a people, is in almost every country unpopular". What he meant here was that no country ever pursued free trade without resistance from entrenched interests.
However, the single interest groups cannot fool all of the people all of the time. They can neither hide the evidence nor can they ignore it. All their diversionary tactics-we saw a lot of these this morning-and i'ear-mongering rhetoric cannot bury the truth. The benefits of the free trade agreement, buttressed as they are by the other economic reforms that we brought in, are emerging in the form of hard economic figures that cannot be denied. Evidence of the value of these policies are there for Canadians to judge for themselves. I am confident that Canadians after a fair appraisal of the facts will recognize where their best interests lie.
March 25, 1993

Look also at the composition of these exports. Canadian exports rose most sharply in 1992 in high-end manufacturing products. This is exactly what the opposition parties are saying we should have. However, their way is to snap their fingers and hope that it will happen. Our way is to remove the obstacles to these exports, the high-end manufacturing products, that are so important to our economy and watch them surge.
Where, though? They perform particularly well-and this point bears underscoring-in those sectors where tariffs have been eliminated by the free trade agreement or where they were being rapidly phased out.
Furthermore, Canada's share of a number of U.S. markets for value-added manufactured goods is growing. The amount of Canadian manufactured products as a percentage of the total U.S. market has risen and has now reached a record level. It now represents about 2.6 per cent of the United States market. That sounds like a small figure but it is not when one considers the large U.S. market. That figure represents a 20 per cent increase in Canada's share in the U.S. manufactured goods market in just a decade.
Transportation equipment and chemical, electrical, electronic and paper products are the sectors that are leading this expansion. Canada's exports to the United States of office, telecommunications and precision instruments was valued at $9.3 billion in 1991. That is up a remarkable 74 per cent since 1989 which was the first year of the FrA.
In the manufacturing sector these are the high-end products. They contain more value added by the highly skilled Canadian workers who make them and they represent the indispensable equipment of the new economy.
This is a success story that is rarely reported. Canadians deserve to hear of these results because if they hear them it will give them the confidence and the hope that we can compete, we are competing, we are winning
Government Orders
that business and we are turning that business into jobs back home.
Canada saw the first strong evidence of post-recession job growth in 1992. A net 118,000 jobs were created in that year. That pace will certainly accelerate as the recovery strengthens. Even though the NAFTA is not in effect yet, Canadian companies are already exploring the increasingly robust and dynamic Mexican market that is benefiting from the reforms of the last seven years.
Canadians and Mexicans are signing contracts and making sales today. SR Telecom of Montreal has a $13 million contract to supply radio systems to 535 small Mexican villages. Royal Plastics Group of Toronto is drawing up plans for a joint venture to produce panels needed for housing in Mexico.
Consider for a moment the $1.5 billion contract that has been negotiated between Bovar-Western Research and Pemex, a state-owned oil company in Mexico. Bovar-Western Research is the first company ever to help Mexican petrochemical firms install instrumentation control for their sulphur recovery units.
Several weeks ago we learned of a $160 million joint venture by Quebec and Spain in Canadian petrochemical production to serve the whole North American market.
Finally, there is the contract by SHL Systemhouse to supply computer services amounting to $500 million over 10 years to the Mexican department of finance.
These few examples illustrate the marvels of international trade.

The sales I mentioned represent only a small sample of Canadian successes already achieved in the Mexican market. The marketplace is doing its job.
In the months and years to come, the Government of Canada will be helping more Canadians benefit from opportunities in the North American market. Two weeks ago, I announced our Access North America Program.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
This program iollows through the recommendations in the action plan of the prosperity initiative steering group. The action plan urged the government to make greater efforts to develop markets abroad. We are doing this.
Access North America will help make NAFTA work for Canada's benefit. It will help Canadians display their products and services at a permanent trade centre in Mexico City. It will help Canadians become better acquainted with the Mexican market through a program known as NewMex.

Yet what would my hon. friends opposite do? They would deny Canadians all the opportunities of this market and some of them would tear up not just the NAFIA but the free trade agreement as well. They have no vision of their own. They have no plan of action for Canada to play an important role in the global economy. They have no understanding of the impact of their actions on the economy and no confidence in the ability of Canadians to compete and take advantage of these markets as they have demonstrated over the past four years under the free trade agreement with the United States.
The opposition parties counsel withdrawal. They do not want an active Canada involved in the world. They want a catatonic Canada. For the benefit of my colleagues opposite that means putting Canada in a trance or a seizure with loss of sensation or consciousness. They want Canada to stagnate as a backwater.
Their policies would amount to planned paralysis, or worse, to the reckless abandonment of our largest trade relationship. They like to quote Gordon Ritchie from time to lime. He was the deputy chief negotiator for the free trade agreement who said: "Those who want to rip up the free trade agreement say you cannot unscramble an egg".
One cannot go back to four years ago and put the companies that made the adjustment and that are taking advantage of the successes that are there into a position where they have the tariff and non-tariff barriers that were there before and upset the changes in investment that they have made since that time.
What would the opposition be saying if we had not joined the NAFTA negotiations? We would be under
attack. We would be criticized by many of them for letting the United States march into the Mexican market while we sat passively and paralyzed on the side and sitting on our hands. You can hear them now, Madam Speaker.
Many in the opposition would have undoubtedly accused us of putting our industries at risk and of freezing them out of a prime commercial opportunity. They would have charged us with undermining Canada's drawing powers of location for investment. They would have condemned us for refusing to defend Canada's interests, but they cannot do that because we in this government did the right thing. We saw the future and wanted our rightful part in that future.
When the bill before us today is approved, it will lead us into the 21st century. One of the fundamental concerns of the next century will be the relationship between the developed and developing worlds.
I want to direct my comments to those in the New Democratic Party because this is of particular relevance to positions they have taken in the past. The NAFTA offers a positive prototype for those relations. Aid to the world's developing nations has too often realized only small and isolated victories in the war on poverty over the last 50 years. The developing nations increasingly admonish the developed world to realize that trade, not aid, is the key to a richer future.

Developing countries want the freedom to sell their goods and services on world markets, and to be able to buy goods and services and attract the investment that the developed world has to offer. This is the acknowledged key to their future development and prosperity. It is also essential for the developed world's continuing prosperity and to international peace and stability.
Greater trade and greater economic interdependence can defuse the resentment and envy that have too often been responsible in the past for international disorders ranging from famine to terrorism. Trade is a powerful antidote to conflict and a powerful support to international order. I say unambiguously that free trade is good foreign policy.
March 25, 1993

It is good for our relations with our Mexican friends and partners and also for our relations with countries in Latin America and beyond that may join NAFTA and other market-opening trade agreements in the future.

Yes, there have been some costs as companies or individuals adjust to this larger market. Some have lost their jobs. Some companies have shut down. That is regrettable, but unfortunately it is inevitable in a dynamic global economy.
Is the benefit not worth it? We are now a stronger economy, better able to compete and the export successes I described earlier prove that. Is there anyone in this House who would deny the benefits I have just described for developing nations? The transition to a full NAFTA will occur over a 10-year period, not too long to delay the benefits unduly and not too short for a reasonable transition for all three countries.
What are the other benefits? The conservation and protection of our natural resources, our air, land and water will be another preoccupation of the 21st century. Likewise the quality of life in the work place will be a concern of workers and managers everywhere.
The NAFTA breaks new ground in addressing environmental issues in ways never done in any trade agreement before. For example, the NAFTA specifically allows for the inclusion of scientific experts in the settling of trade disputes. It states that NAFTA partners should not lower environmental standards to attract investment.
Above all, the NAFTA recognizes the responsibility of all partners to maintain and improve their environmental standards. The NAFTA in its preamble lays out the broad objectives of the agreement and confirms a commitment of all three countries to improve working conditions and living standards and enhance and enforce workers' rights.
Canada is committed to pursuing additional environmental and labour accords in trilateral discussions with Mexico and the United States. That was our objective in February 1992 when we first put forward Canadian proposals in this regard. We welcome the initiative the Clinton administration has taken in bringing these proposals back to the table because they will lead to strengthened environmental co-operation among our
Government Orders
three countries and an open dialogue about the work place in the new North American market.
The NAFTA has proved to be a powerful catalyst to pursue the environmental and labour agendas. While Canada had a number of bilateral agreements with Mexico on these subjects before the NAFTA negotiations, the trade talks have led to a more concentrated program of trilateral discussions.
Without the NAFTA, it is unlikely we would be preparing for the establishment of a North American commission on the environment today. The functions of this commission may well include harmonizing environmental standards at higher levels, developing limits for specific pollutants, promoting environmental science and technology and increasing public awareness of environmental issues.
In the labour discussions we will be pressing for the establishment of a trinational body to focus on the improvement of working conditions and living standards in all three countries. I am quoting here: "This type of commission would help give effect to the NAFTA's commitment to protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights".
Throughout the negotiations of the NAFTA and now as we negotiate these parallel agreements, we have been able to call on the knowledge and expertise of the provinces, labour organizations and environmental groups. They have played an extremely important role in helping the government develop and refine its agenda. They will continue to do so as the labour and environmental talks proceed in the weeks ahead. The NAFTA is part of this government's commitment to the quality of working life and sustainable development.
The NAFTA will contribute to economic growth. That is clear, but it will contribute in a way that takes into account the health and well-being of the population and the protection and preservation of the environment on which we depend.
The world of nations has been rapidly transformed into an increasingly interdependent global economy in just a matter of decades. The dawn of the 21st century rises over an interconnected marketplace that includes at the same time mass production for true world markets and very specialized production for highly individualized niche markets.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
The way business is conducted today would have been inconceivable to our counterparts less than a generation ago. Fibre optics, laptop computers, fax transmissions, interactive video, the quick transformation of research into technology to create new products and services has ceased to amaze and is now routine. This government has worked hard to prepare our economy for the global marketplace. With the framework we have put into place Canadians will exploit it to their advantage.
Canadians do not fear the future. They are leaders. They make the future work for them and profit from it. The creation of a North American free trade area is one of the future's opportunities. It will contribute positively to our greater competitiveness and prosperity.
It provides us with a larger market, allowing us to take advantage of both economies of scale and market specialization. In doing so, it better equips Canadian industry and workers to tackle other world markets with increasing success. This applies not only to the larger Latin American market to which Mexico offers an obvious opening, but also to the economies of Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Middle East. Developing the skills and adapting to the demands of the North American free trade area will clearly assist us in other markets.
Eight and a half years ago, the government set itself the task of looking to the future and outward to the world. The opposition would like Canadians to hunker down in the claustrophobic shadow of the way things once were. This is not the fate this government wishes for this great nation. It wants to fulfil Canada's vocation as a world leader, committed to a stable international economy, environmentally sustainable growth, developing new markets and finding new economic partners.
When we pursue this progressive agenda, we inevitably create high quality jobs for Canadians and strengthen the foundations of our prosperity. The North American free trade agreement is proof and a solid demonstration of that commitment.
In closing, I travel to a lot of countries and a lot of trade missions. I meet many exporters from other countries and ask them: What country in the world would you like to have assured access to? What is your most
important market? With what country would you like to have a fair and binding means of settling trade disputes? In all cases, the answer is the United States.
We have that with the free trade agreement. We have something others would give their eye teeth for. Now we are broadening the relationship to include Mexico. We are very fortunate people in Canada to have this. Let us not squander that success. Let us approve the free trade agreement with Canada, the United States and Mexico.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, one does not need to be a partisan of any particular political ideology to recognize that trade has emerged as one of the most important issues facing Canadians over the last several years.
In 1988 the country was embroiled in an unprecedented debate over the century-old question of whether Canada should enter into a free trade arrangement with the United States. Now, only four years later, Canadians are being asked to contemplate the inclusion of Mexico in a more extensive North American free trade agreement, an agreement which will, in all likelihood, be extended to other countries by the end of this decade.
This is taking place against a backdrop of the yet uncertain Uruguay round of the GATT which, if implemented, will be more pervasive and far-reaching than the agreement we are contemplating today.
Why trade is of increasing salience to Canadians is not a difficult question to answer. Globalization, the combined processes of increasing international trade, growing financial integration and rising direct foreign investment is rapidly opening national economies to the world, whether they want to be opened or not.
At root, this process is not being driven by ideologies or even policies, contrary to what its detractors may think, but mainly by technology and such superficially prosaic developments as microprocessors, fibre optic networks, communications satellites and transnational corporations.
Ironically, given its current ideological label, late 20th century globalization has come to epitomize what Karl Marx once postulated was the power of technological determinism. The minister quotes Macaulay and I am quoting Karl Marx.
March 25, 1993

For this same reason, globalization is immutable even for large, relatively self-sufficient economies such as the United States. Witness the profound re-evaluation which has taken hold of this once unshakeable and impenetrable economic fortress. There is the sudden realization that America is no longer an island entirely unto itself.
For a small open economy such as Canada's, globalization entails even more profound changes. Already Canada's exports account for 40 per cent of the total output of our private sector. One in five Canadian jobs are directly dependent on exports. Indeed, with the solitary exception of the now united Germany, Canada is the most trade-dependent nation in the world. It is a trend which, for the reasons I have noted, will only become more apparent in the years ahead.
It is becoming no exaggeration to say that everything we do in this country depends upon our success as a trading nation. By the same token, our success as a trading nation depends on the success of our economy and ultimately of our society and our people. In that very real sense, our domestic policy is becoming our trade policy and vice versa.
Yet in the midst of these profound changes I would suggest that Canada faces a curious paradox: Trade is of central and increasing importance not only to Canada's economic future but also to the way we shape our social and political structures. Yet at the same time globalization has rapidly overturned the traditional signposts of Canadian trade policy without necessarily revealing an obvious replacement.
I believed in 1988 as I believe today that Canada faces a fundamental decision as to where and how it wishes to place itself in an emerging global marketplace and the emerging economic alignments of the world community. Do we still believe that our negotiating interests are best served in the multilateral world of the GATT, an institution which has served Canada well since the Second World War, or should we also pursue our interests more in bilateral relations principally with the United States? Should Canada's economic future be cast in a global mould or are we now to limit our focus to a continental or hemispheric bloc? Is the socio-political dominance of
Government Orders
the United States still a concern for Canadians or is this traditional concern now mitigated by the demands of a post cold war world, a multipolar world?
My basic point is that Canada is in need of a trade and competitiveness policy to guide us in an era of globalization and increasing interdependence. So far, despite the proud boasts about Canada's trade performance which we heard from the minister just a moment ago, this government has never attempted to articulate such a basic policy. It seems content to be swept along in the wake of globalization rather than attempt to plot a course and to navigate such changes to Canada's advantage. Traditionally Canada's trade policy as fashioned by successive Liberal governments has rested upon two pillars: liberalization of trade and multilateralism.
The first has been a response to the very nature of the Canadian economy. Although rich in natural resources and indeed human resources, our economy for geographic and demographic reasons has lacked sufficient diversity to approach anything like self-sufficiency. Canada has been and must continue to be a trading nation. More generally protectionism risks making the economy more inward looking, insulates it from uncompetitive forces in the international marketplace, and can distort the allocation of Canada's own resources. For these reasons our arrangements or institutions which promote more liberalized trade are in principle in Canada's national interests. Protectionism, in the classic Ricardian sense, is economically counterproductive at the best of times. In Canada's case, it is a luxury which we simply cannot afford.
The second pillar of Canada's traditional trade policy, multilateralism, has been a response to the concerns about our sovereignty. By trading on a multitude of fronts and by eschewing bilateral ties with larger economies, principally in the United States, Canada sought both to reduce its economic dependence on one partner and to preserve as much as is possible for a small, economically open country its independence.
More recently Canada has taken a leading role in post-Second World War multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank, the G-7, as well as the GATT, to embody that commitment to multilateralism which has long offered to Canadians the best protection of their sovereignty and of their national interests.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
However, there are signs of late that Canada is being deflected from its traditional trade interests. Of immediate concern is the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement which irrespective of whether it has produced the benefits that were promised, which the minister put before the House today, has had the undeniable effect of pulling the two national economies closer together, or harmonizing the Canadian with the U.S. This policy marked a significant deviation from Canada's traditional path, not because it promoted liberalized trade but rather, because it threatened to bind Canada even closer to the United States, to the exclusion of other countries.
Now we are being asked to extend what is in effect the free trade agreement to Mexico and potentially to other countries under a North American free trade agreement.
To the degree that such an agreement would liberalize Canada's trading relations within the hemisphere and encourage the region's development, this trend is to be applauded. Mexico boasts a population of over 85 million people, a degree of industrialization however segmented and imperfect, and geographic proximity to Canada, to production and to markets. Its economy is northward oriented.
We should not be led to believe, as the government has repeatedly attempted to assert, that at least in the medium term trade with Mexico will have a profound impact on our economy, positive or negative, or that it will serve to counterbalance our relationship with the United States. After all, only a small fraction of Canada's trade today is with Mexico.
It will be decades before the results make a significant impact on Canada's over-all economic performance. Even if our exports to Mexico double this year, they would still represent less than 1 per cent of our exports to the United States. This volume will, no doubt, increase in the future, a development we would welcome. However, given the global trends and the potential for rapid development in much of Mexico, not even the most optimistic supporters of NAFTA will pretend
that Mexico can rank as one of Canada's major trading partners for the next decade or two.
Nor can the government pretend that a free trade agreement with Mexico was high on our list of national priorities. Such an agreement is in Mexico's interests as a means of counterbalancing the trade diversion arising out of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, of cementing its recent economic reforms, and of attracting scarce foreign investment. An agreement is also in the interests of the United States, if only to enhance the economic and hence political security of its southern neighbour and to stem the flow of the illegal immigration.
Canada, however, has been drawn into these negotiations only by virtue of our existing arrangement with the United States. To this extent we find ourselves in the anomalous and ultimately vulnerable position of allowing our trade and foreign policy agenda to be driven by the priorities of the Mexican and the United States governments, not by our own national interests.
Much of this underscores the contradiction to Canada's traditional interests implied in the whole trend toward regional trading blocs: the European Community, the North American free trade area and a more nebulous Asian bloc which is threatening to diminish Canada's economic and trade links outside North America.
The implicit danger is that these developments will undermine the incentive to preserve and enhance the existing multilateral system, a fear underscored by the apparent willingness of the United States and Europe to walk away from the recent Uruguay round of the GATT without reaching an agreement on agricultural subsidies.
Indeed it can be argued that regional trading blocs are a subtle aspect of economic imperialism, with three economic superpowers, the United States, Germany and perhaps less willingly Japan, each carving out a continental hinterland in an effort to preserve their industrial pre-eminence. It is worth recalling that Canada sought out a preferential trade agreement with the United States in the first place, not because the latter was intent on becoming more liberalized but, on the contrary because the United States was threatening to become more protectionist.
March 25, 1993

Equally doubtful is the notion that Canada can aim to be part of hemispheric political arrangements along the lines of the European Community. The crucial difference of course between Europe and North America is that the former is multipolar. At present the European Community is comprised of 12 members, none of which can dominate the community as a whole. A united Germany, although clearly pre-eminent, represents less than one-quarter of the population and less than one-third of the community's total Gross Domestic Product.
In contrast, the United States' dominance of the North American continent is unparalleled. Its population and Gross Domestic Product are more than 10 times that of Canada. Even the addition of Mexico with one-twentieth of the United States Gross Domestic Product would do little to correct this imbalance. In contemplating supranational structures for North America or the western hemisphere however limited, Canada would implicitly be surrendering aspects of its sovereignty to the United States.
Even assuming for the moment that greater political and institutional integration is politically saleable in Canada, a likely assumption given the continuing nationalist concerns of the majority of Canadians, the United States is in no mood at present to contemplate any significant international restrictions on its authority, let alone the kind of supranationalism embraced by Europe both for ideological and national reasons.
The government has done little to address these and other fundamental concerns of Canadians as we approach the North American free trade agreement. Despite perfunctory support from the world community for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Canada quite rightly has been perceived as quietly turning away from multilateral trade. A much vaunted Pacific Rim initiative has yet to progress beyond the rhetorical stage. There has been virtually no attempt, public or private, to exploit the major opportunities opening in the European Community. Nor has the government taken the initiative to pursue opportunities in eastern Europe as a possible new trade option for Canada and, perhaps more important, as a back door into the European Community. As far as Latin America is concerned the government has failed to formulate, let alone implement, a trade strategy except in reaction to U.S. and Mexican initiatives. Both
Government Orders
actively and passively, the government's whole approach to trade points to a fundamental drift, if not shift, toward continentalism.
It is still less than clear whether this government views NAFTA as but one step toward a global trade policy or as the last piece in an inward-looking continental bloc. Rising protectionist sentiments in the United States, together with higher North American content requirements in the North American free trade agreement only fuel concerns that Canada is drifting into a U.S. dominated continentalist form of protection.
This latter eventuality is hardly in Canada's national interest. As barriers to trade and investment fall, Canada must be prepared to compete with the world's best in Europe, in the Pacific Rim, as well as in North America, or risk watching our technology and productivity slip and our living standards steadily erode. Indeed the deteriorating competitive position of the United States together with the growing ascendancy of Europe and the Pacific Rim raise serious doubts as to whether North America is still the benchmark against which Canadian industry should measure itself. Moreover, Canada's growing trade deficits, the imbalances we must correct, are with our partners overseas, especially with Asia, and not with the United States with which we continue to enjoy a trade surplus. Lastly we cannot lose sight of the fact that trade in an interdependent world is largely about investment and that the United States, let alone Mexico and the rest of Latin America, is hardly flush with capital.
The movement toward regional economic integration can be seen as part of the broader movement toward global integration. Developments in telecommunications and transport are effectively diminishing geographic boundaries and constraints, thereby reducing the salien-cy of regions.
This is especially true with regard to trade and advanced technology industries and services. It would be naive to expect that there will ever be a time when Canada is not highly dependent on the North American economy. However, it would be equally naive to ignore that the world has changed dramatically since the 1960s and that Canada has greater means at its disposal today than at any point since World War I to break out of its continental constraints and to develop relations across the Pacific and across the Atlantic.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
In short, if Canada is to take advantage of globalization rather than merely be swept along in its wake, we must pursue a far more independent and aggressive trade and competitiveness policy. We have the opportunity to build the first global trade and outward-oriented economy in North America, not just by reaching out to Mexico, but by actively seeking freer trade agreements with our major trading partners, notably in Asia and in the European Community. The alternative is the current policy of drift toward a decidedly more uncertain future.
Even with regard to the North American free trade arrangements, the government's work is at best half finished. Only the most sanguine would argue that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has lived up to the extravagant promises made by the government in 1988. Its central justification was to secure access to the American market in the face of rising U.S. protectionism yet a whole series of recent trade disputes from Honda automobiles to softwood lumber have demonstrated just how tenuous that access really is.
One of the principal reasons why the Liberal Party supported Canada's participation in the NAFTA negotiations was to correct shortcomings in the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We called for tougher environmental standards. We called for tougher labour standards. We called for an accession clause to make it easier for other countries to join and thus to expand Canada's free trade options beyond the United States and Mexico. Most important, we called for the inclusion of a subsidies and an anti-dumping code that 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 and which would introduce a desperately needed degree of predictability into our entry into the yet untested waters of Mexico.
In some important respects NAFTA did indeed represent an improvement on the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Its greatest-if largely ignored- achievement is the inclusion of an access clause. If treated as a serious provision in the future this single clause has the potential to transform NAFTA from a
continental bloc into a new and deeper level of world trading order, a GATT-plus if you will.
The NAFTA also promises to clarify the vexing question of rules of origin. Although this will emerge as a Pyrrhic victory, if in our efforts to appease the Americans over domestic content we merely succeed in driving additional overseas investment away from Canada.
There remains, however, a great flaw, the black hole if you will, at the centre of the NAFTA which threatens to undermine the success of the entire regime. That is of course the continuing absence of a common set of trading rules. Not only is there no definition of subsidies in the agreement nor a commitment to replace countervail action with competition law, even the free trade agreement's modest provision-it was a notably modest provision-to pursue these objectives within a specified time has been quietly dropped in the NAFTA to be replaced by a woolly commitment to pursue this goal in some undefined future consultations.
This is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it ensures that the kind of trade harassment which we have seen in recent years over pork, softwood lumber and now steel will continue unabated. The argument that such actions only represent about 5 per cent of bilateral trade is surely spurious, given that such actions are typically launched against those Canadian exports which are enjoying some success, indeed growth, in the U.S. market.
Most important, the absence of common trading rules is unacceptable because in the long run it will undermine the legitimacy of the entire arrangement. NAFTA is essentially a political document. Its authority ultimately rests not on what Bagehot once called the "dignified letters" of the text but on the support it enjoys among the electorate of the three countries.
Nothing has done more to undermine enthusiasm in Canada for the NAFTA or for the free trade agreement even among its erstwhile supporters than the highly public spectacle of ongoing, punitive and seemingly groundless U.S. trade actions launched against Canada during the four years since the beginning of the supposed era of free trade.
March 25, 1993

It is this central issue of the rules of trade that is the real acid test of the success or failure of the free trade agreement and now NAFTA. As the Leader of the Official Opposition argued recently, without a common set of trade rules to govern the North American market, Canadian exports will continue to face trade harassment.
What is to be done? Ironically it is the United States that has provided an opening for change even at this late stage by making a condition of U.S. implementation of NAFTA the parallel accords on the environment and on labour standards and possibly on import surges. The new Clinton administration has provided Canada with an unexpected opportunity to put forward its own conditions for ratification: a coherent definition of subsidies under which all three countries are prepared to base their trade laws and a firm commitment to replace anti-dumping action with a common competition and anti-trust policy.
Moreover, the ambit of the negotiations has shifted somewhat in Canada's favour. In 1988 it was Canada that was the demandeur, increasingly dependent upon an agreement with the United States, not the least because of the vast political capital which the Conservative government had invested in the initiative.
Now Canada is arguably the country least dependent upon the outcome of NAFTA and in the best position to threaten to put on the brakes. Why not use our leverage, as the Americans are doing so successfully with their parallel accords, to fashion an agreement which more accurately reflects Canada's long-term national interests?
Against the argument that no agreement on subsidies can be reached, especially in the time available, I suggest that one already exists under the umbrella of the still pending Uruguay round of the GATT. The Dunkel text contains a perfectly acceptable subsidies code that is modelled in part on Canada's own submissions which has already been endorsed in principle by the main contracting parties, including Canada and the United States.
Why not simply transplant this existing subsidies code from the Uruguay round into a parallel accord? It would accompany the NAFTA in something of the same way that the United States is proposing with regard to the environmental and labour standards.
Government Orders
The government has repeatedly argued that Canada should be wary of embracing the idea of a subsidies and anti-dumping code. This is a spurious argument. For one thing no one is advocating the abandonment of domestic trade remedy law. We are talking about defining a common set of procedures and rules that will establish parameters within which legitimate trade law can be exercised.
More to the point surely is the fact that the Canadian economy is far more dependent upon exports to the United States than the Americans are on exports to Canada. This alone makes a compelling case for seeking an agreement that curtails the arbitrary use of trade remedy law on both sides of the border irrespective of those isolated Canadian sectors that currently benefit from protectionist trade practices.
NAFTA should be viewed as the beginning of a new approach to trade policy for Canada, and not as an end in itself. Armed with a new trading model based upon a core set of rules and procedures, Canada can move to extend free trade agreements to Japan, Europe, Australia and New Zealand all with the goal of making Canada the first truly open global economy in North America.
Beyond the discussion that we are having today of the NAFTA and behind that the free trade agreement with the United States, is how Canada equips itself to compete in an increasingly global market.
In a sense the free trade agreement and NAFTA may have accelerated what Canada will confront sooner or later and will certainly follow the successful conclusion of the pending Uruguay round of the GATT. In Canada the answer to what some see as challenges of the new global trading environment can also be seen as opportunities if we are adept enough at improving our competitive abilities.
By refusing to confront the need for root and branch reform of the way government services are delivered, the government has also refused to recognize the direct linkage between economic liberalization and the need for major domestic adjustment and reform.
As the Leader of the Opposition recently noted: "Trade agreements are not an end in themselves. The ultimate objective is to secure a better life for people. That means jobs with a future in industries with a future".

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
The success of freer trade grounds of the GATT that extend over the past three decades, although perhaps invisible to many, did undeniably contribute massively to Canada's affluence.
The reason is that they were matched by effective and comprehensive adjustment assistance programs, following the precedents of the various GATT rounds. The Macdonald royal commission, in recommending the negotiation of a free trade agreement with the United States, urged repeatedly that any such agreement should be matched with comprehensive adjustment assistance in the form of training, retraining, investment incentives, the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers and so forth.
The government moved on the recommendation with regard to free trade with the United States, but it did not complete the other half of the agenda. It did not offer Canadians that comprehensive opportunity to benefit from adjustment assistance programs so as to make them the real beneficiaries of freer trade instead of victims.
Among those who now find themselves in that wholly unacceptable statistic of the 10 per cent or more unemployed there are many who understand as clearly as the economists what globalization means. They not only want to work, they want to work smarter and be more productive, but they cannot do it alone. Business has a role, as does organized labour, but it is the national government that must assist business and labour with that collaboration to make Canadians more efficient.
What is needed now more than ever is for the national government in collaboration with the provinces, businesses and labour to create the framework and the institutions within which Canadians can adapt to international change, when such change can generate employment and prosperity instead of unemployment and a national loss of confidence. This is what to a real degree any debate about free trade should be about.
In a post-industrial, post cold war environment we need to develop a global trade and competitiveness strategy. We have the opportunity to build the first truly global outward-oriented economy in North America, not by just reaching out to Mexico but by actively seeking freer trade agreements with our other major trading partners overseas such as Japan and the European
Community, but first we need to get the fundamentals right.
In this final act of the NAFTA drama, which we have before us today, we have the opportunity to write a very different conclusion from the one with which we were left in 1988. It will be evident to all Canadians that the opportunity to pursue a better agreement is available to this government, an opportunity has been opened in part by the initiative of the new United States administration in seeking parallel accords which will inevitably modify and change the nature of the treaty itself.
Why is it that this government is moving today to bring forward legislation to implement the North American free trade agreement without waiting, without discussing with Mexico and the United States the nature of those proposed parallel accords in areas which this side of the House has emphasized are important to Canada's future? I speak of the environment and labour standards.
This government has failed to take the opportunity presented by the change of administration in the United States to pursue Canada's own interests in seeking an agreement on a subsidies code, or more broadly, trading rules that would ensure Canadians are not subjected to the sort of trade harassment we have seen in recent years and would go a long way toward ensuring the freer trade environment from which all Canadians must ultimately benefit.
It is for that reason I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the
word "That" and by substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-l 15, an act to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement, be not now read a second time, but 1hat it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.
With the unanimous consent of the House, I move that the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca be allowed 40 minutes to speak on the bill. While I am on my feet, I move that pursuant to Standing Order 26(1) the House continue to sit through the midday interruption today for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American free trade agreement.
March 25, 1993


An hon. member:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Just a moment. There are two different motions. Let us deal with the first one. I am sure the House will agree that the representative of the New Democratic Party will get 40 minutes to speak as will the people from the other parties.


An hon. member:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: That one is agreed.
The other motion which the hon. parliamentary secretary put to the House is not admissible at this time. It can only be done by unanimous consent. It cannot be done on a motion.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: When people talk a little louder I hear very well. The motion is not accepted.


David Barrett: suppose I should say I appreciate the courtesy of all the members of the House for extending my time. As a matter of record, I also consulted the members of the Bloc. They also indicated to me they would have agreed to this motion. I did not have the opportunity to speak to the independent members.
I want to start out by saying how much I have appreciated the opportunity to work with my colleague in the Liberal Party in the brief committee hearings we have had plus other debates on this matter.
While I disagree fundamentally with my colleague from the Liberal Party on position on this issue, the exchange we have shared has been useful in my opinion and I want that to go on the record. I also want it to go on the record that we have a fundamental difference of opinion on this.
The personal relationships I had with the brief subcommittee were important to me too. I have no personal rancour against any of the members I worked with, but I am deeply bitter and disappointed at the Conservative Party and the Conservative government for its handling of this issue, including what is happening today.
The government attempted to avoid massive public discussion on what may be the most important bill in this House in the last 50 years. The subcommittee was told it
Government Orders
would be allowed to hold a few hearings, but there would be no money for advertising of those hearings. After our efforts to get the subcommittee going, we were told by the chairperson of that committee the government would not allocate five cents to advertise to the Canadian people that there would be some brief hearings across this country.
At the same time, the government spent millions of dollars on a referendum on the Constitution that would have changed the political landscape of this country, but it would not spend five cents to advertise committee hearings on a fundamental change of the economic constitution of this country.
To show how ridiculous that position was, I was forced to stand up in this Chamber and deal with a subcommittee's problems in Question Period. The Prime Minister, embarrassed as he was, announced we would be allowed to spend $30,000 to advertise in Canadian newspapers that we were holding these little hearings.
My colleague from the Liberal Party, the members of the subcommittee and I then rushed to a discussion of how we would spend this $30,000. We very quickly discovered we had five days to initiate advertising before the first hearings in Vancouver. We had five days' notice to get the ads in only two major newspapers in British Columbia. This is open democracy? This is sharing the good news with the people of Canada?
It is nothing more than crass cynicism by a government that has been drunk with power and has simply no understanding of its basic obligations to the people of this country, absolutely none.
These are the same people who, while they were in opposition, ran up this corridor and attacked the Speaker with the rule books in their hands. These are the same people who sanctimoniously attacked previous governments in this country saying they wanted openness in government. These are the same people I had to beg money from so there would be ads in the paper telling the people we were going to have these quiet little hearings somewhere. Let that go in the record.
Let it also go in the record that at the moment the debate is being called, another political circus is being staged so the media's attention will be drawn away from this Chamber as the government attempts to sneak this bill through.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
Where are the members of the Chamber? On television. While we are in this Chamber, we see them all standing around at the Chateau Laurier watching the announcement of a leadership candidate for the Tory Party.
Their duty is here. The House's duty is here. The members of this country should know. Anybody who happens to be afflicted with a habit of watching this television channel should know it is the most contemptible behaviour I have ever seen in my 30 years in public office in this country. The contempt this government has for this issue and the closure it intends to bring into this House indicate it is frightened the Canadian people will find out exactly what is going on with this bill.
I heard the Minister for International Trade get up, recite statistics and interpretations, and attack colleagues in the Liberal Party and us. I understand that is a political game. But why does he not go on national television and have a debate with the Liberal member and me? If this issue is so important as the government says, why does it show it is afraid by closing the debate and giving only two days' notice? Our party will have only five speakers out of 45 duly elected members of Parliament whose constituents pay their wages and demand they come here. What about the right to speak? Only five will be able to speak.
The Liberals may have eight speakers. It is absolutely disgusting behaviour by a government that claimed it was interested in parliamentary reform. It is craft use of power and that has to go on the record too.
If things are so good in this country why are they so bad? We have had the pompous statements of a government that is afraid to deal with this debate openly and among the Canadian people. We have heard how it interprets the trade figures to show expanse in trade and great opportunities. Tell it to the two million people a week who line up for food in this country. The greatest growth economically has been in the number of poor in this country.
Transfer payments to the provinces are beginning to evaporate. The core and heartbeat of the secondary and tertiary industries, part of this country that pays the taxes so we can provide the services, has been ripped out of the guts of Ontario and downtown Montreal.
My good friends in the Liberal Party get up and say: "Oh, it is the NDP's fault in Ontario". We get up and say: "Oh, it is the Liberals' fault in Quebec". We point fingers at each other: "It is your party that did it". In reality it is not the Liberal Party in Quebec or the NDP in Ontario that did it. That Tory government over there did it. It is the one responsible for it.
What is regrettable, as we play these little political games at the provincial level, is the absence of a position of the Official Opposition in abrogating the free trade agreement and opposing NAFTA.
My good friend in the Liberal Party left the message today that this bill will implement NAFTA. He did not do this by guile but he made a fundamental error. This bill will be passed by the government majority but it will not implement NAFTA. The implementation date is January 1, 1994. The Canadian people have the right to ask the Conservatives if they are elected to government whether they will implement on January 1, 1994. They have a right to ask to the Liberal Party and the NDP that question as well.
Any attempt to allow the Canadian people to believe that this battle is over is wrong and false. The one hopeful aspect of this government's behaviour is it does not have enough time to avoid that January 1 deadline to implement the bill.
The Canadian people will have an election. During that election campaign, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the New Democrats, the Bloc Quebecois and Independents will be asked this one fundamental question: "If I vote for you and your party forms a majority, will you implement NAFTA on January 1, 1994?" We know where the Conservatives stand. Their answer is yes. Our answer is no. Here is the question now in front of the Canadian people: Is it yes or no from the Liberal Party? They can say all they want-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They say maybe yes, maybe no.


David Barrett: Oh, no, maybe is not good enough. The Canadian people have a right to know. Leaving the impression that it is being implemented is not correct. It was an undesigned error by my friend from Etobicoke. The reality is that the implementation date is January 1 and the electorate will have a decision to make about that.
March 25, 1993

We have heard a great deal about this government's new-found pious interest in human rights in Third World countries. This government has now announced that it is concerned about racial tensions in Third World countries. This country has said that we have to lift these people up and why is it that the New Democrats would be opposed to this deal? That is one of the greatest lines being used by the government against us in our opposition. In actual fact Mexico is a major violator of human rights. It is the Prime Minister of this country who has stood up piously and said that we should not trade or give aid to those countries who violate human rights.
What are we doing with Mexico? We have even had to allow refugee status for an elected senator of Mexico to come into this country so that his life can be protected because he is a member of the opposition of that country.
Would it matter if it was the NDP? Is that the answer? It is the fundamental stupidity of people on the back benches of this government who do not understand that human rights apply to everybody. If one intends to define human rights on the basis of politics, then that is sheer stupidity.


Mr. Arseneault:: A good NDPer.


David Barrett: Even when I defended the human rights of others I never used a political definition. I know that that member only speaks from his own background of ignorance and not for the government I am sure.


An hon. member:: He should withdraw it.


David Barrett: No, let it be. I do not deny his opinion. It could be stupid or racist or anything else, but he does not speak for the government I hope. I hope he does not speak for the government in that remark. That is what I am saying.


Mr. Clark (Brandon -Souris):: He is not a member of the government, Dave, for goodness' sake.


David Barrett: Are you saying that is the government's position?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: No, I am saying he is not a member of the government.


An hon. member:: He is a Liberal.
Government Orders


David Barrett: He is a Liberal? That is even worse. I apologize to the Conservative Party. I hope that the leader of the Liberal Party takes that member into the back room and spanks him intellectually for what he just said. Brush his teeth. Whatever you do with him, clean him up a bit because that was a stupid statement.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Wash his mouth out with soap.


David Barrett: Here is a situation where we now have a Mexican senator seeking political refuge in this country. That is the country we are going to sign with?
Let us talk about the environment. I want to recall to the House the nice statements made by the minister. Oh, we are going to incorporate environmental law., Oh, yes, this is the first agreement that will have environmental protection in it. As a member of that committee, I wanted us to go to Matamoros, Mexico to see the results of the devastation from pollution. That can be ranked with a North American Chernobyl at Matamoros, Mexico. It is not radiation environmental damage, but certainly pollution from every form of chemical and toxic, poison waste being poured into open ditches in that city.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Free enterprise thrives there.


David Barrett: Free enterprise. There are no rules or regulations. Leave Canada and leave the United States and go down to Mexico and allow this to happen.
The rate of birth defects in infants is 1 in 16 in that Brownsville, Texas and Matamoros area. Guess what? The residents of Brownsville, Texas have discovered that pollution knows no borders. The poisons, pesticides and chemical toxins that are being dumped into the soil and water in Matamoros, Mexico are coming right into Brownsville, Texas. What does the agreement have to say about that?


An hon. member:: Nothing.


David Barrett: Nothing. If the government is suggesting that there are parallel accords to deal with this problem, that was an initiative of the United States government and not the Canadian government. For goodness' sake, if it is really sincere about that then it should not allow the bill to go through this House without every member of this House seeing those parallel accords.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
Has anybody in the press gallery of this great nation seen the parallel accords? Has anybody on the government backbenches seen the parallel accords? Has anybody here in this Chamber seen them? Yet we are asked by the minister to accept the flat argument that pollution is in the agreement. It is not even written yet. How in the world can it be in the agreement if it is not written yet?
It is to weep to see what is being done to this country. It is to weep to understand the cynical manipulation of what is going on here today. It is to weep to know that we will have one-half day more next week to debate this and then it is finished. We will get some little tiddly-widdly committee and we might visit some other cities maybe.
Speaking of that, the committee never even travelled to Montreal. It never travelled to Toronto. I suggested in the committee hearings that the reason we did not travel to Montreal and Toronto is because they are too big and there are too many people. They might come to the committee meeting. What an absurdity.
I also want to deal with some substantive factors that are inside the agreement and put them on the record. It is impossible to go through chapter and verse of what is in the agreement, but I have picked a couple of selective items so that members of this House can hear for themselves exactly what we are doing to our Canadian sovereignty and how this bill is a massive capitulation to mindless corporate greed and selfishness with no protection for ordinary people.
One may say that is an outrageous statement of cliches. It is an outrageous statement and it is full of cliches but it is tragically based on fact.
I want to bring to the attention of this House a document that has been distributed by the government called: "North American Free Trade Agreement: An Overview and Description". I want to refer specifically to what this government has signed. On page 16, under the paragraph of intellectual property rights, the following has been agreed to by the Conservative government, the Americans and the Mexican government: "Intellectual property rights, trade secrets generally," are acceptable "as well as protecting"-I want you to listen to this, Madam Speaker-"from disclosure by the government
test data submitted by firms regarding the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical and agrichemical products".
What did the government sign here? It has signed away the right and the responsibility of an elected government in Canada, and at the provincial level, that once given documentation on the efficacy of a pesticide or a pharmaceutical product that it cannot release the data to the public. What is the point of having a public health department? What is the point of allowing the Canadian people to believe those doctors and public health nurses who look after the children and the elderly of this country who are the whistleblowers against filth, vermin, germs and ill-health? Those whistleblowers are paid by Canadian taxpayers to protect us against pharmaceuticals and agriproducts that are toxins. What is the point of having a health department if we pass this to say that when the government gets the data on efficacy of drugs or of toxins on pharmaceutical products that it cannot release the document?


John R. Rodriguez: A conspiracy of silence.


David Barrett: A conspiracy of silence my friend. Do you think the doctors of this country know this? I bet they do not. Do you think the public health nurses know this? I bet they do not.


John R. Rodriguez: Do you know it?


An hon. member:: No.


David Barrett: No.


John R. Rodriguez: There is a doctor and he does not know it.


David Barrett: Did you know, Madam Speaker, that not one letter was sent out to the health people and caregivers of this country to ask: "Do you think we should sign this right away?"
Do you remember the thalidomide tragedy, Madam Speaker, and the brave doctor in the United States? What was her name? Was it Kelsey, or something to that effect? That one brave woman in the bowels of the huge health bureaucracy in the United States put out a stamp and said: "No, thalidomide will not be sold in the United States". It did not happen here in Canada until after. Canada accepted it. There were no efficacy tests. There was no responsibility. Europe did the same.
March 25, 1993

After we learned from the thalidomide tragedy, that single woman doctor in the United States was given the highest civilian award possible in that country. What did Canada do then? It announced that we would have the same standards as the United States. That was a Liberal government. It was late and tragic. We still as taxpayers must share the burden, and rightly so, morally and ethically, to care for those victims of thalidomide in Canada. However, after that tragic incident we said: "Never again in Canada".
Let me warn all pregnant mothers. Let me warn all the elderly. Let me warn all children in this country and all parents who are concerned that the protection they thought would be there in perpetuity-never again the thalidomide scare-has all been signed away by that government over there.
I repeat. These are the words: "intellectual property rights, trade secrets generally, as well as protecting from disclosure by the government test data submitted by firms regarding the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical and agrichemical products".
Have we heard anyone on the government side, the health department, the justice department, any of the candidates for the leadership or even the chief spokesperson for the government give an explanation as to why it signed these sovereign rights away? Has it consulted the Canadian people? This is one specific example of literally dozens of examples throughout this whole massive documentation of the agreement this government has signed with Mexico and the United States.
There is no protection for the environment. There are no health and safety standards. For those unemployed Canadians who are being chastised for using unemployment insurance as a bridge before they go back to work, let me tell them that the kind of work they will face within 18 months after this agreement is implemented is competing against Mexicans who are paid 80 cents an hour on average for the same jobs that pay $7 to $12 here in Canada.
Has there been one populist voice from the business community against this kind of thing? Not in this country. The big-business community has totally capitulated to this agreement because it is hand in glove with this government. If anybody thinks that there is going to be relief through the Conservatives then they should forget it. Big business is going to put its money on the Tories. It is going to sell the brand new leader and unless
Government Orders
the Liberals have specific policies to announce they are going to be brushed aside in the debate.
That is the dilemma for the Official Opposition. The Liberals have not laid out exactly what it would change or do to protect Canadian workers or Canadian health. Since John Turner left the leadership of the Liberal Party it too has thrown in its hand with the same corporations that sponsor this government here.


Mr. Peterson:: Balderdash.


David Barrett: You can call it balderdash or any other uncomplimentary word you want. I have even better words for your position than balderdash. If you want to confess and repent your position on this, do it now. Do it quick because we do not have much time to debate this. The government is the one that is going to close this debate down.
In the United States there is a billionaire. In our culture it is important to define how much money you have got, not how much you have got up in your head or how much backbone you have got because we have abdicated defining human beings on those bases. Poets cannot make it in our society because they do not produce anything, just words.
Scientists are relegated to begging for research money because they are working out of an intellectual commitment.
But if you are greedy and you want to be measured in success, grab as much profit as you can under a wide open rapacious system that even the international Catholic church has now attacked as being the most serious evil facing mankind and that is rampant capitalism. Yes, it is the Catholic church that has defined the greatest sin now. They have even defined in the Catholic church that it is now a sin to exploit people by paying low wages. Under that definition every Catholic who is true to his or her faith who supports the free trade agreement is violating the tenets of the Catholic church and is being sinful.
I am not suggesting the church will excommunicate but I just want to warn Catholics as one who was educated in Catholic universities that they are open to sin if they support this agreement. The only organized group internationally that has defined what is a sin around this kind of agreement is the Catholic church and I applaud it with a great deal of enthusiasm.
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

March 25, 1993


David Barrett: Who is this billionaire in the United States that has all the attention of the talk shows and has all the attention of MTV? I never knew what MTV was until the election happened. Who is this fellow out of nowhere who picked up 20 per cent of the vote in the United States and appeared before a committee in that country? One Ross Perot. He would not vote for me and I am not sure about Ross getting my vote. But as a billionaire, he is that symbol of everything this government adores and believes in, the accumulation of massive wealth by a handful of individuals, the definition that the Tories would love to have as a candidate. That billionaire said if we signed this agreement with Mexico, Canada and the United States all we would hear was one big sucking sound as jobs left the United States and went into Mexico.


Mr. McCreath:: Point of order. Madam Speaker. I am enjoying the remarks of my hon. friend. In order that he might finish his remarks and others might have an opportunity to participate I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent of the House to sit through the lunch hour.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion cannot be moved on a point of order, but unanimous consent was sought and was denied.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I could ask that the rules be suspended and the government pass a motion that no closure will be used on this bill. It will have my support. Of course that is something I may address in a few minutes.
Madam Speaker, do you believe that the Canadian people had an opportunity to examine this closely? Do you believe that the people in Montreal, the people in Toronto who represent the visible minority community, ethnics and other communities which are suppressed economically in this country because of the kind of capitalist system we live under are participants in this kind of debate? They are deliberately at the bottom of the economic ladder because of policies of this government and preceding governments. Yet these people will be wooed by that government and by the Official Opposition without ever hearing a word of this debate and understanding the implications for them as new Canadians.
New Canadians will be among the first victims. Those who are generational in this country, the women, the marginalized workers, those across this country who have never had a chance to break through to the good life that the Prime Minister likes to boast about, will also be victims of this agreement.
Are there going to be town hall meetings by the official candidates for the Conservative Party on this issue?


An hon. member:: No.


David Barrett: Will there be an opportunity for reporters to ask: "How do you feel about this loss of sovereignty on the efficacy of drugs or of toxic things?"


Some hon. members:: No.


David Barrett: Do you think that the government will travel to each community where jobs will be lost and stand up and say: "I know it is painful, I know it is going to hurt you, but it is for the greater good?"


Some hon. members:: No.


David Barrett: Do you think that this government will lie again?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


David Barrett: Do you think that this government will say we will have massive retraining, as it promised in the de Grandpre report, and then lie again?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


David Barrett: Do you think that it will further harmonize in this country unemployment insurance legislation, health care, and every other part of the social fabric so that we can be forced down to the level of the United States, and not force it up to our level?


Some hon. members:: Yes.


David Barrett: Let me give you a specific example about that, Madam Speaker.
As the wife of the President of the United States travels through that country seeking to find a solution to the terrible problem of the lack of health care for a significant number of Americans, the Americans are looking to Canada as a possible solution. They are looking at Tommy Douglas' solution.
March 25, 1993


An hon. member:: Right.


David Barrett: Just a little aside, I remember when people used to talk about socialized medicine and they said that we were all a bunch of dangerous Reds, that socialism would take away the opportunity for the patient and the doctor to have a relationship. I was never interested in the relationship between the doctor and the patient. All I was interested in was paying the bills.


An hon. member:: The same with the doctor.


David Barrett: The same with the doctor.
What do we hear 25 years later? We hear the government benches and the Liberal benches saying: "Vote for us and we will improve medicare". How can they improve medicare if the taxation base is evaporating because of these trade deals? Where are the people who are going to pay the taxes?
I want to tell Mrs. Clinton that the devastation of the loss of nearly 500,000 jobs in this country because of the free trade agreement has cut a terrible swath through the services of health care, and they will never be allowed to initiate theirs if that job base goes to Mexico.
I also want to say this without rancour or personal vindictiveness, but I have yet to hear a Conservative member denounce socialized medicine, denounce the fact that Conservatives also use public health care. They also carry in their pockets that pinko card that allows them to go to the doctor anywhere in the world.
If they were serious about supporting health care, they should say so. On the other hand, if they attack socialism then I demand that they stand up and rip up their medicare cards before someone calls them hypocrites. Only a hypocrite would espouse the public health care system. Only a hypocrite would espouse a socialist health care system while attacking socialism.
I do not believe there is a single hypocrite over there, but I want them to prove it by ripping up their socialist health care cards and telling the world they are against pinko policies. In a pig's eye. Can a pig fly? They are opening themselves to the charge of hypocrisy by supporting health care that they do not believe in, as it is socialist, but at the same time ripping the guts out of the possibility of sustaining the taxation base necessary to support it.
Government Orders


An hon. member:: What will NAFTA do to it?


David Barrett: NAFTA will take away approximately another 8 per cent of that potential tax base within 18 months. As that tax base shrinks our unemployment will rise, in some regions beyond the 20 per cent figure.
In Newfoundland, in the maritimes and in large urban areas those people who first need entry level jobs to get work experience will not be given the opportunity because we signed this deal and those jobs will be gone.
Offshore investment and Canadian investment will go to Mexico. Canadian dollars in Canadian banks, which are saved by Canadian deposit holders who are paid a measly 1.5 per cent by the banks while the banks rip off 16 and 17 per cent on credit cards, will go to Mexico.


An hon. member:: It is called greed.


David Barrett: Some of the money held in self-directed RRSPs will also go to Mexico. Nothing will be spent here in Canada. Nothing to provide jobs here. They are all motivated by greed to make a quick profit in Mexico at the expense of Mexican workers.
We demand that Canadian wages and working conditions not go down to the Mexican level. If this government is serious about Third World development we demand that they come up to our level.
Madam Speaker, if you are blind to the clock, I have approximately four minutes to go. Let us not be hasty.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree that we do not see the clock for the next four minutes?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


David Barrett: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If this Canadian government believes that this agreement can provide the jobs to fuel the engine of growth then let it provide some details. How much money will come into this country once we sign this deal, and from where? How much indigenous generic capital will be mobilized in this country to provide jobs now?
There is no strategy, there is no plan. In that regard I agree with the Liberal critic who said the biggest flaw of all was the lack of planning, but the four letter word is also anathema to the Liberal Party. It is spelled p-l-a-n and it has never been used by the Liberal Party.

March 25, 1993
On the eve of a national election this destructive agreement that destroys sovereign control of Canadian interests in health care, environment and labour standards, that diminishes the capabilities and opportunities of Canadian people, and that says that we as a nation will now capitulate and give up forever our destiny as Canadians in a tough world by tying into the United States is ready to be signed.
I did not spend 25 years in public life to be present at the funeral of this country. We human beings have our weaknesses and our strengths. We have our passions and our ideologies. I want to urge all Canadians, regardless of passion and regardless of ideology, to understand that nothing less is at stake in this deal than Canada as we know it.
This bill could be aptly renamed as the Canada termination act. If we sign this agreement we put an end, a finish, to any idea that we will ever be masters in our own house again. That great cry of the province of Quebec, maitres chez nous, ironically is shared by every single Canadian in every corner of this country about our beloved Canada.
We have never faced a government as bad as this in the history of our country. This government's policies and the efficacies of its policies have seen us destroy the hope, the dreams and the passions of those Canadians.
I welcome the next federal election. I hope to God that Canadian people study the issues, think clearly and force the parties to define their positions. The reckoning date is not this bill. Even if this bill passes in the House the reckoning date is January 1, 1994.
The government people vote for can save Canada or destroy it.
The New Democrats are opposed to this bill. The Tories are in favour of it. The Liberals are still on the fence, and they have to be part of the debate too.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1:04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the eviction from the House of Commons of the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca yesterday is the first such incident in years and came as a surprise to no one, especially the leader of the NDP.
I would suggest that the NDP members take heed of their leader's comments and once and for all allow this House to proceed in a constructive and orderly manner so that the business of the nation can take priority over the antics.
The leader of the NDP spoke just a few months ago about the chaos sometimes seen during Question Period. She said: "The abuse that is shouted back and forth, the heckling, and the histrionics strike me and my women colleagues as silly, childish, sometimes wounding and always counter productive".


An hon. member:: Who said that?


David Walker: 'That was the leader of the NDP. Never were more appropriate words spoken. Unfortunately for her, her party, the House of Commons and all of Canada these words fell on deaf ears in her own caucus.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, both business and labour communities in Prince Edward Island and the maritime regions are responding to the decision in the courts regarding the fixed link project.
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters in Charlottetown says: "With 80 per cent of our members on UIC it is no longer reasonable for the majority to be held hostage forever by those who use environmental legislation and regulations to serve their own selfish concerns".
March 25. 1993

The Construction Association of P.E.I. says: "We are extremely concerned about the apparent delay in the construction of the bridge between P.E.I. and New Brunswick".
The Islanders for a Better Tomorrow say: "It is important that the clear majority of islanders have their wishes respected".
Proponents from the maritimes are calling on the government to fulfil the requirements of a section 12, as outlined in the recent court decision, so that the work on this project may begin.
I add my strong support to those who are calling for this decision to be made as soon as possible and in compliance with the judge's recent ruling.


NORTH THOMPSON RIVER
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, Multinational Water and Power is proceeding with plans to divert a portion of the flow of the North Thompson River in British Columbia for export by pipeline into the California market. This U.S. based company is now lobbying B.C. construction industries to bring them onside with the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs.
Contrary to this government's explanations water is defined as a commodity of trade under both the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and the proposed North American trade agreement, making the Multinational proposal a serious concern.
If this government is serious about preserving our Canadian water supplies it should put its money where its mouth is. U.S. President Clinton has said the NAFTA deal will not be signed until environmental concerns are met. This government should seize this opportunity to negotiate specific exclusions for the export of water.
The people of British Columbia do not want to see our fresh water supplies exploited for export. They know that once we turn the tap on, we are never going to turn it off.


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia -Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about change.
Parents and students are talking about spending more time in school during the school year. Workers are becoming ever more positive and enthusiastic about cross-training. Smart cars will eliminate traffic jams, spot tie-ups and tell drivers of alternative routes.
No-name Dave Nicol says that the baby boomers' gastronomic desires are Splendido pizza bread, hot, hot salsa and zipper back shrimp. In place of the simple copper wire and analog signals of the past there is now fibre-optic cable and digital transmission.
IBM and other majors have new changed ways of operating, such as independent units, noting plans to become more mobile, more entrepreneurial, and more service oriented.
Bob Rae is reported as saying, as reported in The Globe and Mail: "My own view about welfare is that simply paying people to sit at home is not smart".
Clear and transparent is the change desired. There is even Crystal Pepsi, Tab Clear, and clear Ivory Liquid and Palmolive.
Today I read that staid IBM dress is being replaced by an informal dress that will note more free thinking. Certainly it is a wave of change and the wave of change is very evident. Except -


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


EDUCATION
Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, in a fast changing but slowly expanding economy, education has become the surest way of acquiring and maintaining employment.
Education, not experience, increasingly determines one's ability to compete in today's labour market.

More and more young Canadians are feeling the impact of the high cost of education and high unemployment. The government's cuts in the student employment program have forced thousands of students to reassess their ability to afford a post-secondary education.
Students in increasing numbers are turning to the Canada Student Loans Program for assistance.

March 25. 1993

This government must begin to view post-secondary education as a long-term investment. I urge the government to undertake a comprehensive review of the Canada Student Loans Program with the aim of increasing the flexibility and accessibility of the program while permitting students to secure employment prior to establishing repayment plans.


ELIJAH HARPER
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, a socialist is a Liberal is a New Democrat is a socialist. Elijah Harper is now a candidate for the Liberal Party in Manitoba in the next election.
He is a former member of the New Democratic Party, a former NDP member of the legislature, and a former cabinet minister in the NDP Government of Manitoba. When he announced his candidacy for the Liberal Party he said that he would not have to compromise his principles from being a New Democrat to now being a Liberal.
That comes as no surprise to me. I have watched the opposition in this House for four years. There is no difference between a Liberal and a New Democrat. Socialism is alive and well in both parties.


CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I announce that Canadian Auto Workers local 1990 has voted to affiliate with the New Democratic Party.
The local, representing 2,600 workers at Canadian Airlines and its partners, voted on the resolution at its annual convention in Port Elgin, Ontario. CAW President Buzz Hargrove said: "Workers of Canadian Airlines know which party has fought against privatization and deregulation. They know that the NDP is the only political party that stands up for working people and the Canadian airline industry. This is a grass roots decision. It was made after spirited debate by delegates from
across the country and is the first time these people have decided to throw their full support behind the NDP''.


THE REFORM PARTY
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party is cutting up again.
In the March 22 issue of The Globe and Mail it was reported that: "After asking its members to fill in questionnaires to help guide its policy, the Reform Party looked at only a small fraction of the forms and secretly shredded tens of thousands without reading them".
The Reform Party is not a grass roots party. It is a crab-grass roots party. How mean it is to ask people for their ideas and then to turn those ideas into mice nests. The report also indicated that other questionnaires are being read by laser reading machines. In my political party we have a program called Talk to a Tory; the Reform Party could have one called Liaison with a Laser.
The Reform Party is a bumper sticker party that tries to resolve major issues with slogans like the "The west wants in". Its next slogan should be "Read my laser".
Preston Manning, like the character in the Ninja Turtles, may now be called Shredder.


PAKISTAN
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, while the minister of minority rights of Pakistan is in Canada Canadians want to urge him to ensure that the human rights of Christian minorities in his country are respected.
Pakistan is an essentially Islamic state. Christian minorities number fewer than 1 per cent. There have been reports of growing anti-Christian violence and steps by the government to undermine their rights.
For example, Pakistan's blasphemy law states that anyone who does not accept Muhammad is a traitor to Pakistan. We are pleased however that the government has resisted taking other proposed repressive measures on several occasions.
Pakistan's Christians have been proud citizens since the founding of the country in 1947, and most resided in the area before the country was born.
March 25, 1993

The Government of Pakistan should take steps to assure maximum protection and full human rights for Christian minorities. Canada enjoys a good relationship with Pakistan and we want this to be continued. The best way is to ensure there are no religious and human rights violations of its minorities.


GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY
Hon. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay special tribute to the Greek community in Canada as it prepares today to celebrate Greek Independence Day.
The roughly 350,000 Canadians of Greek descent are proud to celebrate that day in 1821 when their ancestors rose against the Ottoman empire, which had held a stranglehold on their homeland since 1453.
The Greek national consciousness went through a period of reawakening, led by the poets, scholars, writers, and revolutionary leaders of the day.
The 1821 revolt in Moldavia and the Peloponnesus inaugurated a decade of revolution and civil war in Greece. Most of the population picked up arms, while the commercial fleets of Greek merchants and islanders built a navy.
With independence achieved, surely no nationality is more in tune with the passion for freedom than the Greeks. It is indeed an honour and a privilege that so many of them have chosen Canada as their home.
We are the better for them and we wish them all a happy Greek Independence Day.


NDP GOVERNMENT IN ONTARIO
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Once more, the NDP government in Ontario breaks one of its promises. This time, it is education.
After raising tuition fees, cutting bursaries and reducing funding for school-boards and universities, the NDP is now attacking second language teaching in Ontario.
The provincial education minister announced yesterday in Ottawa Centre, in my riding, and I quote: "We will have to soft-pedal French-language services in favour of other, more pressing needs".
My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier, Jean-Robert Gauthier, made the following point, and I quote: "There should be only one class of students in Canada. By denying Ontario's francophone minority access to education from grade one to university, the NDP is creating two classes of students and putting the seal of approval on linguistic discrimination".
The NDP government is also planning cuts in the budget for the Ontario Office of Francophone Affairs.
This is one more attack by the government on Ontario's francophone population. The NDP has demonstrated that protecting the French language is not a priority.
I want to join my Liberal colleagues in condemning this attack by the NDP on French language education in Ontario. '


NATIONAL KIDNEY MONTH
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to remind the House that March is National Kidney Month in Canada. Fourteen thousand Canadians and their families live with kidney disease.
The Kidney Foundation of Canada is a national volunteer organization dedicated to improving their health and quality of life. It funds research and clinical education, provides patient services to those living with kidney disorders, advocates for access to high quality health care and promotes awareness and commitment to organ donation.
Incidentally, the first kidney transplant in Canada was performed in 1958. Such innovative life-saving techniques were made possible in large measure as a result of research funded by the Kidney Foundation of Canada.
This March drive is the foundation's major source of funding. This year 90,000 volunteers will try to raise $5 million.

March 25, 1993
I would like to urge all members of this House and all Canadians to give generously. I ask them to please remember to sign their donor cards.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I met in Winnipeg with representatives of the Air Canada employees' political action committee.
These employees of Air Canada in Winnipeg are rightly concerned about the future of the Canadian airline industry and the long-term effect of permitting American ownership in the Canadian industry.
They do not want to see the export of jobs to the U.S. or the demise of good airline and airline-related jobs in Canada. They believe that control of Canada's airline industry should remain in Canada and that a single Canadian-owned international airline would best be able to compete with other global carriers.
Too often the CAI/Air Canada debate is seen as a Montreal versus Calgary debate. The hundreds of Air Canada employees in Winnipeg are in the west too and they should be listened to. They have the interests of all of Canada at heart.


CHILDREN AND HOSPITALS WEEK
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the week of March 21-27 is the 14th annual Children and Hospitals Week, an event sponsored by the Association for the Care of Children's Health. This year's theme is "Commitment to Caring".
During the week programs will be sponsored to increase public, parental and professional knowledge of the special needs of children in the health care system. The week is celebrated by many events that will appeal to and inform both children and adults.
The Association for the Care of Children's Health is a multidisciplinary organization of more than 200 hospitals and organizations, as well as 4,000 health care professionals and parents. For more than 25 years it has worked to promote comprehensive health services for children.
Please join with me in wishing everyone involved a very successful Children and Hospitals Week.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, you will know that the government has imposed a 3 per cent tax on student loans. You will also know that it has added an additional six months' interest to student loans. You will know as well that it is proposing to privatize student loans and it may limit access to students to post-secondary education.
But did you know, Mr. Speaker, that right now as we meet today, there are tax collectors out there who are tiying to get blood out of a stone? They are trying to get money paid back from students, young men and women sometimes with families, who have limited or no means to pay those loans back.

I want to ask the government to stop this harassment.


PEACEKEEPING
Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, 214 Canadian military personnel and approximately 50 civilians are serving, the latter mostly as volunteers, in Cambodia as part of the United Nations Transitional Authority for Cambodia.
These Canadians are serving with distinction in a theatre where danger is a constant companion due to the growing number of land mines, the problems of deadly diseases such as falciparum malaria, the hazards of travel especially by helicopter and the constant possibility of confrontation with hostile military forces.
Thanks to the efforts of the United Nations force including the above-noted Canadians, the general election planned for May 23-25 will in all likelihood occur as scheduled. Regretfully, however, the refusal of the Khmer Rouge to co-operate in the electoral process means those Cambodians who reside in Khmer Rouge controlled territory will not be able to vote.
March 25, 1993

The harsh reality, moreover, is that a United Nations presence in Cambodia may well be required for a considerable period of time after the May election. The premature withdrawal of UN forces from Cambodia could well lead to the renewal of the armed conflict which for decades has tragically characterized the history of this troubled country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
I am told that earlier today in Vancouver the Minister of National Defence was asked whether she would choose between a national day care program and the military helicopter program. She said it was an unfair choice, a Hobson's choice, one that she would not make. She in fact made her choice, saying yes to the helicopters and no to day care.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with her choice, or will he scale back or cancel the helicopter program in his upcoming budget?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments are an absolute distortion of what the Minister of National Defence had to say. I think it is very unfair for him to put that kind of an interpretation on the matter.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the transcript of the minister's remarks is there and I do not see why in the light of her significance in his party he could not answer the question.
I am going to ask him a supplementary, based on a report today by Canadian Press which says that supporters of the proposed new anti-submarine helicopters admit the aircraft would be virtually useless at guarding Canadian waters of the Arctic where nuclear submarines spend a lot of their time. The Canadian Press goes on to say that even the navy acknowledges there is no way to get sub-detecting sensors through the ice.
If the Minister of Finance is truly interested in sound management of public funds, should this information not
Oral Questions
make him re-think the acceptability and viability of this $5.8 billion helicopter program?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, each year the House allocates to the Department of National Defence sums of money under which it operates. It spends about 25 per cent of those sums on capital equipment each year renewing equipment.
A defence committee of this House unanimously agreed, with every party represented, that in fact there needed to be a replacement for the aging Sea King helicopters and that the replacement should be the EH-101. It could look after its role with the frigates in terms of sovereignty patrol, fisheries patrol, drug interdiction and anti-submarine if necessary, as well as search and rescue.
The reality is if the EH-101 contract were to be cancelled it would put the defence department in a situation where the frigates were unusable and we would not be able to rescue Canadians who were in distress in bad weather.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, again for the Minister of Finance.
According to the Canadian Press, Fred Crickard, a retired rear admiral and a member of the Naval Officers' Association said: "The passive sonar equipment on the EH-101 would be very unsatisfactory even if you could get the sonabuoy (sensors) down, which you cannot".

Mr. Speaker, in the light of this statement, I want to ask the minister why the Minister of Finance insists on including the $5.8 billion helicopter program in the government's Main Estimates. Why can the minister not himself answer this straightforward question, since he is responsible for managing the government's finances?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be implying that Canada should acquire the capability of pursuing submarines under the ice pack as part of our sovereignty.

March 25, 1993
Oral Questions
I am sure if he checked with his colleague, the former vice-chief of naval wing of the Canadian Armed Forces, he will realize the only way that could be done is by Canada acquiring nuclear submarines. Is that the position of the Liberal Party?


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Despite the government's bravado, Canadian consumer confidence remains at an all-time low. The government continues to ignore a plan that can create thousands of jobs for unemployed Canadians, tackle environmental problems such as water quality and improve the global competitiveness of Canada's infrastructure.
This cost-shared infrastructure program would not add to the government's deficit but would create growth, jobs and confidence that the country desperately needs.
Why is the Minister of Finance ignoring a proposal that is proactive for this economy rather than continue his government's destructive policies of unemployment and devastation?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware of the reference I made to strategic capital investment in infrastructure in the December statement. In this statement we announced a $500 million fund to provide for highway improvements in all the provinces of Canada, particularly in the Atlantic region.
We announced and continue to pursue the fixed link which is worth $800 million. We also announced a program of improving federally owned bridges and roads within the parks. We made reference to the fact that we would be improving some of our railroad infrastructure, particularly grade separations, et cetera, establishing microwave landing systems, an electronic highway.
Over the next five years these initiatives will result in $2 billion worth of investment, creating some 4,000 to
5,000	jobs. This is clearly geared toward improving the
competitiveness and the productivity of Canadian industry.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, the government and this minister knows that is a pittance compared to what this country needs. The municipalities and the provincial governments are prepared to work with you, sir, in order to make this country work again.
I have a supplementary question for the minister. The minister has orchestrated a federal tax revolt because it is unilaterally refusing to pay its fair share to municipalities for services that other Canadians have to pay through their municipal taxes.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he will lift this government's unilateral freeze on grants in lieu of taxes until after the negotiations are completed with the municipalities and new legislation is introduced?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member's philosophy is spend, spend, spend.
What we have tried to do-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, tax, tax, tax. That is the philosophy over there. No government can continue to sustain a policy of spending $1.33 for every $1 worth of revenue that was taken in. That could not be sustained. What we are doing here is containing-


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Cancel the helicopters.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, sure, he says cancel the helicopters.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am really surprised at the hon. member. He thinks that it is appropriate for servicemen and women to fly around in 35-year old helicopters.


Lloyd Axworthy: Fix them up.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Fix them up, he says. That would be like the hon. member driving a 35-year old car. Why does he not fix his up?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon.
March 25, 1993

['Translation)


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
It is clear this government will do everything it can to rush NAFTA through Parliament. It will impose time allocation. It has refused to hold serious consultations, although the agreement is far from being finalized. A former negotiator for the government has said that for Canada to adopt NAFTA at a time when the U.S. Congress wants to negotiate major changes is poor strategy. It is not good for business and it is not good for democracy. So why the rush?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the NDP forgets to tell the House that we have, to an unprecedented degree, consulted with Parliament.


An hon. member:: Oh, come on.


Thomas Hockin: The subcommittee that looked at this agreement has already heard 160 witnesses. We now have the bill before the House. We want to get the bill into committee so that it can be further looked at, even after all this pre-study, even after listening to 160 witnesses through the pre-study process. However, the hon. member's party will not let us put the bill into committee. They are simply blockading that process.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member is clear that debate at second reading of a bill is debate on the principle of the bill. It is essential to have a full debate at second reading and on the principle of this bill and I want to-


Mr. Speaker:: I am having some difficulty because I think these questions are in anticipation of debate. I wonder if the hon. member could put her question more appropriately.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can. The government is clearly confused on its own position. On December 18, 1990 I was told by the government that the inclusion of labour, social, environmental matters in
Oral Questions
NAFTA was a silly idea. I quote: "a silly idea". On June 13, 1991 I was told by the Minister for International Trade that such issues were not part of the actual trade negotiations yet now he calls these negotiations unnecessary bonuses.
My question to the government is simply this: The government is confused, the public needs more information. What is the hurry to ram through NAFTA?


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. I think the hon. member is having some difficulty with the rules. The minister may want to reply, but it seems to me the question is out of order.
The hon. member on a supplemental.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the United States, one of the major signatories to the NAFTA deal, is going to go through this process with extensive negotiations, extensive debate.
I want to ask the government simply this. Why is the government going ahead with legislation which is not complete? Canadians do not have the completed negotiations. I just want to simply ask the government-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting how the NDP takes its cue from the United States when it is convenient for it to do so.
I think perhaps I can help the hon. member out. In an interview with Business World Mr. Steve Van Houten, the president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was asked this question: "Has the free trade agreement helped or hindered your members?" Mr. Van Houten replied: "Oh, it has helped considerably. In fact, exports of manufactured goods from Canada to the United States have gone up by 60 per cent since the free trade agreement came into force".
Those who blame the free trade agreement for all of our ills and job losses frankly do not know what they are talking about. Without this business we would be in real trouble. The interviewer asked: "And are you looking toward NAFTA?" Mr. Van Houten: "Very much so, indeed, our members are behind it. They tell us so in a 10:1 kind of a ratio".

March 25, 1993
Oral Questions


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
According to a study by the Canadian Thx Foundation, our tax burden has increased 25 per cent since 1980. Forty cents out of every dollar earned by Canadians today goes toward paying taxes.
Is the minister prepared to get the economy back on its feet, an economy that, according to 81 per cent of Canadians, is still in a recession, without adding to a tax burden that is even harder on the 85,000 people in Montreal who depend on food banks and on 216,000 unemployed workers in that city? Will he tell the House in no uncertain terms that in his next budget he will not raise taxes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if I can enlist the co-operation of the hon. member and other hon. members to reduce government spending then we can reduce taxes. It is as simple as that. Every single, solitary attempt that we make to bring down government spending, they oppose it. They block, they filibuster and they do everything in their power to stop it.
Under the provisions of tax reform, I remind the hon. member that the personal income tax changes removed
850.000	low-income Canadians from the tax rolls and
250.000	were senior citizens. Nine out of ten Canadians age 65 and over saw their federal tax reduced. We will continue to do that, as I did in the budget and as I reconfirmed in the December statement.


EMPLOYMENT
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. minister, I would like to make him an offer. Back down on the helicopters and we will support you 100 per cent.
As of last June, 17 per cent of Ontarians under the age of 60 were receiving some form of provincial or municipal welfare. This is three times the level it was during the early 1980s. Shameful figures.
Will the Minister of Finance take action in his upcoming budget to address the serious problem of joblessness in Ontario and in the rest of Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have taken a number of steps. In the budget last February and in the December statement we have taken steps to improve the tax regime, the investment climate for the small business sector, and particularly for the manufacturing and processing sector.
I am sure the hon. member just heard my quote from Mr. Stephen Van Houten of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which indicated very clearly that since the free trade agreement has been signed, manufactured shipments have increased by some 60 per cent. He also indicates that the North American free trade agreement will provide further opportunities. This will indeed create jobs.
As I said to the House yesterday, 12,328,000 Canadians are working. That is 1,328,000 more Canadians working today than there were when we came into office in September 1984.


PEACEKEEPERS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday, two Canadian peacekeepers were seriously injured by shell fire. I think we all admire their bravery and wish them speedy recovery.
I say to the minister that it just shows what a dangerous and untenable position we put our peacekeepers in. There is no authority or authorization to retaliate so they are defenceless. They cannot even protect the people they are there to help.
Will the minister go to the United Nations to seek a clear mandate to ensure that our troops are not left in a defenceless position so they can carry out their clear role that they want to carry out which is to protect the victims in Bosnia?
March 25, 1993


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, we are first of all very proud of our peacekeepers and we do everything we can as a government to ensure their safety and that the rules of engagement are clear. Those rules of engagement are established by the United Nations. We work very closely with them and through our military in assessing the capacity of our people to carry out their mission.
This does not mean that it should not be re-examined virtually on a constant basis and that is something that we do. It is something we are in constant touch with the United Nations about.
The situation that we find ourselves in as do others in Yugoslavia is different from the kind of situation we have found ourselves in before. We have worked closely with our own military and have had long discussions with them as to the capacity of our military to carry on their job.
Yes, we know that they can do that under extraordinary difficulties, but we are peacekeepers who have faced difficult missions before. This is not the first even though it is different from some others.
We are there because of the people of Yugoslavia who require our help and that of the international community. We will continue to do all we can for them as well as for our own people through the United Nations and through our own examination of our capacities.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to put my question to the minister.
The peace process in the former Yugoslavia is stalled in New York. There is continued violence and rape against civilians in Bosnia. Our troops are operating under a mandate that does not allow them to do the role they are sent to do. The Canadian member of the UN commission on war crimes said there are no resources to carry out that mission.
Is the minister not concerned about these problems? Is the minister not concerned that the entire UN mission in Bosnia is losing its credibility? Is it not the responsibility of Canada to make some new proposals, to take some new initiatives to try to restore the legitimacy and
Oral Questions
effectiveness of that action in that poor war-stricken country?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been in the forefront of taking initiatives around the tragedy in the former Yugoslavia.
We helped the Secretary-General when he was redesigning and re-examining the whole concept of peacekeeping through his agenda for peace. The concept of bringing war criminals to trial as individual criminals internationally was a Canadian initiative at the London Conference on Yugoslavia.
We have provided resources. I have said publicly that I will support that initiative among other countries and advocate that other countries do the same.
Yes, the peace process at the moment is facing difficulties, but if ultimately there is going to be peace in Yugoslavia, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement. The Security Council is, right now even as we are here, attempting to bring some conclusion to this. We are supporting it every step of the way and helping it in every way that we can and we will continue to do that.


STUDENT LOANS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.


Mr. Nowlan:: He was in his seat, Mr. Speaker. You were in your seat, Howard. Otherwise it is a farce. Mr. Speaker, this is important. You have to get out of your seat before you are recognized. Otherwise you should be off the list.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I do not know if I need a bodyguard or not to pursue this question.
Yesterday in response to a question the Secretary of State indicated that there had been wide consultation before the government introduced its new single bank monopoly Canada Student Loans Program.
We called the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and none of them had been consulted.

March 25, 1993
Oral Questions
My question is for whoever is speaking for the Secretary of State. Why before introducing such an important program did the government fail to consult the university community or its students and why was it that they had to find out about this program by reading The Globe and Maill


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: In the absence of the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question. I believe there has been some discussion going on but maybe not with the same people that the hon. member was talking to. I will bring it to her attention.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member can transmit this question to the Secretary of State or perhaps the Minister of Finance can answer the question. I want to ask how many banks have responded positively to the government proposal and what does this government intend to do if no banks respond to the government proposal, concede that the banks will dictate the conditions, or will it come up with a new program that is more responsive to the needs of needy students in the universities and colleges of this country?
Hon. Don Ma/.ankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I was advised yesterday that indeed there had been consultations about this matter through an advisory organization that did include the students group. That was confirmed to me by the Department of the Secretary of State yesterday.
The hon. member can shake his head in the negative but that is a fact. It was conducted by the previous Secretary of State.
In so far as the other part of his question is concerned there have been submissions received. They are currently being evaluated. I think the cut-off date was March 12. There will be further discussions with interested parties as the new approach is being developed.
I think the hon. member would recognize that the system that was in place was deficient and faulty. What we are trying to do is improve it so it will ensure there is access to student loans for students and to ensure it is done in a fair and equitable way and at a reasonable cost.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a fundamental principle that no member of cabinet
should ever be in a position to benefit in a direct and financial way from any cabinet decision.
Yet cabinet has appointed the former wife of the Minister of Supply and Services to a high-paying job, an appointment that directly and personally benefits the minister by putting him in a position to apply to the courts to reduce his alimony payments to his former wife.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister explain how cabinet could make a decision from which a member of cabinet, the Minister of Supply and Services, is in a position to benefit financially. Why is cabinet clearly using public money to get the minister off the hook on alimony payments?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, that has to rank as one of the lowest forms of questions we have ever heard in this place.
To suggest that Judge Judith Parish cannot be a human being in her own right and be selected for the post of citizenship judge, which is a government decision, and to suggest there is something wrong with that shows there is something very wrong with the thinking of that hon. member and those who applaud it. She will make an outstanding judge.
If she is going to criticize the spouses of members of Parliament, senators, or anybody else in terms of positions they might have in this government she had better look around at some of her own colleagues before she starts digging in that sewer.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, for once the hon. House leader is at least partly right. Any woman who has raised two children, managed a household and at the same time survived a political marriage is capable of carrying out almost any responsibility.
The question does not address the competence of the appointment. However, in light of the views expressed by both the House leader and the Prime Minister concerning the high esteem for women and their capabilities, esteem which I share by the way, can the Deputy Prime Minister please explain why Michael McSweeney, the Prime Minister's former baby-sitter and bag carrier, was appointed to a job at over $100,000 while the former wife of a cabinet minister gets an appointment at half the salary just to help the minister out with his support payments?
March 25, 1993


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member should talk to the hon. member for Saint-Denis about his sister who is a citizenship court judge. Or perhaps she should talk to Senator Keith Davey whose wife is on the Immigration Appeal Board. Or perhaps she should talk to Senator Leo Kolber whose wife is part of the CBC board.
Perhaps she should look around a little bit before she starts casting stones. People who live in glass houses should not cast stones and it is beneath contempt to slander these people in this House the way she has done.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether this government has a right to appoint people to positions. The question is on the ethics of this government.
I want to ask the following question of the Acting Prime Minister. We know that on September 21 Michael McSweeney got a $95,000 a year job from this government. Rinaldo, the hairdresser of the Prime Minister's wife, sits on the Federal Business Development Bank. Former speech writer Keith Morgan got a 10-year appointment to the Parole Board, and the husband of the member for Louis-Hebert who interestingly enough is named Maurice Duplessis got a patronage job.
Has the Canadian public not been subjected to enough? Why does this government for once not say that it is going to respect the edicts that it imposed on itself in 1984?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is a horrible thing that a small business proprietor should be appointed to the board of the Federal Business Development Bank. That is a horrible thing.
It is a horrible thing that a former alderman of the city of Ottawa, elected by his fellow citizens to represent them in city council, should be considered too tainted as to be capable of taking on federal responsibilities.
It is a horrible thing that people got involved in political life or happen to be married to members of
Oral Questions
Parliament. If he is outraged about Maurice Duplessis, let us hear his outrage about the sister of the member for Saint-Denis. Let him be consistent rather than just slinging mud.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in 1984, the same Prime Minister said that political appointments would be beyond reproach.

The Prime Minister said in 1984 to another Prime Minister: "The least you could do is apologize for having made these horrible appointments".
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister on behalf of the cabinet that made these appointments: Will he stand on behalf of his cabinet and apologize for these horrible appointments?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if there are apologies due it is from the hon. member for injuring the common sense and decency that ought to prevail here. He is the prolific mud-raker who digs around and has no problem slandering people who are here.
Each and every one of the appointments this government has made has been made on the basis of our conviction that they will do a good job in fulfilling the obligations we have asked them to take on. If the hon. member does not like that, that is too bad.


TAXATION
Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
This morning the Federation of Canadian Municipalities met with the Minister of Public Works over the freeze on grants in lieu of taxes announced by the Minister of Finance last year. By a single stroke on December 2 this government destroyed over 40 years of consultation with Canadian municipalities in this unilateral tax grab.

March 25, 1993
Oral Questions
Will the minister assure municipal governments that there will be no freeze on grants this year or in the future without extensive meaningful consultation to find reasonable solutions that will not simply off-load federal tax burdens on municipal taxpayers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that this cost has increased very dramatically, by 77 per cent in the last six years, from $238 million in 1986-87 to $424 million in 1992. During this period there has been little increase in the inventory of federal properties.
The hon. member knows very well that we are going through difficult times. We have to constrain expenditures across the board. What has been done here is a freeze. We are attempting to work out a way in which we can put in place a better regime so that the grants in lieu of taxes will be distributed in a fair and equitable way. Those discussions are ongoing at the present time.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister.
Earlier this year the federal government cut 10 per cent of the funding to a number of organizations including the Indian and Metis friendship centres. Last week the provincial government in Manitoba cut provincial funding completely to many of these same organizations.
At the end of this month friendship centres, crisis centres and poverty organizations are closing their doors, laying off staff or eliminating programs.
Will the Minister of Finance recognize that at this time of high unemployment and the resulting family problems these organizations must be kept going? What good news does he have for these organizations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had a chance to read the budget that was brought down by the province of Saskatchewan last week he would find out that provincial governments are facing the same difficulties as federal governments.
As a matter of fact if he looks at what the Government of Saskatchewan had to do, it has reduced its transfers to hospitals, to school-boards and to rural and urban municipalities anywhere from 3 per cent to 8 per cent, an actual reduction.
While we will try to provide some latitude and flexibility on this particular issue, we still have a very major challenge in reducing our fiscal deficit. We not only have a challenge to reduce it. We have a challenge to bring it down to zero. I hope I can call upon the hon. member for co-operation in that regard.


FEED FREIGHT ASSISTANCE
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and refers to one of the spending cuts.
Atlantic Canadian farmers accepted the 10 per cent cut in the Feed Freight Assistance Program. However they still want a fairer form of applying the reduction in a way that maintains the principle of the Feed Freight Assistance Act.
Has the minister accepted the plan by the Atlantic Canada Farmers Council, or does he have another proposal that will maintain the principle of the act?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest in this matter. I have to say that when I was given this job some three months ago he was one of the first members to contact me on this issue.
We have had ongoing discussions with the provinces affected as well as with the interest groups affected. We are trying to reach a solution that takes into account the principles he outlines from the Atlantic Farmers Council as well as all other individuals involved. I want to let the member know we are going to have to reach a solution pretty quickly. When we do we will do our very best to take the considerations he raises on behalf of his constituents into the over-all decision we make.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.\
March 25, 1993



My question is for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.
On March 16 the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories unanimously passed a motion condemning this government for cutting programs and services important to the Northwest Territories and for disregarding the effects of these cuts on the people of the NWT, a majority of whom are aboriginal people.
Why has this government chosen to celebrate 1993, the United Nations International Year of Indigenous People, by inflicting additional hardships on the aboriginal people of the Northwest Territories?


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague is referring to the 1988 health transfer program with regard to the federal government's transfer to the Government of the Northwest Territories to fulfil our obligations with regard to their autonomy of looking after their health care and welfare issues.
That particular case is before the courts. It would be quite inappropriate for me to make any further comment until the case is resolved.


Mr.   Jack@: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Secretary of State who I might add moved the United Nations motion to recognize 1993 as the year of the indigenous people.
Among the cuts condemned by the NWT legislative assembly in its motion is the cut to the Canada-NWT language co-operation agreement. Under this agreement the federal government is obliged to fully fund the provision of services in French and to preserve, develop and enhance aboriginal languages.
Why has the minister disregarded his obligation under the terms of this agreement? Will he agree today to revoke these cuts?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House on many occasions, the increase in transfers to the provinces and the territories has been growing at the rate of 5.2 per cent per year or 60 per cent since the time we came into office. In the area of the Canada Assistance Program, for example, that rate of growth has been 8 per cent per year.
I should say as well in terms of our expenditures for the aboriginal community that the expenditures have
Oral Questions
doubled since we have come into office from about $1.4 billion or $1.5 billion to $3 billion.
That hardly strikes me as a signal that the government is not concerned about the welfare of the aboriginal people. I think that kind of growth, which is something in the area of 8 per cent per year, is quite substantial. At a time when we are under very severe fiscal restraint and fiscal pressures we still continue to increase that budget substantially.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance.
Despite the claims of his government that the recession is over, Canadians know a very different story and those same Canadians have no faith in this government's management of the national economy.
In fact in a recent survey over 81 per cent of Canadians felt that they were still in an economic recession and that there was not any hope for an immediate withdrawal from that.
I ask the minister who is in the process of preparing a budget for next month: Has the government heard the voices of Canadians? Is it finally prepared to commit itself to a job creation budget that would not only produce some much needed job opportunities but instil some much needed confidence in both the marketplace and consumers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate what the hon. member is saying. We have said all along that the recovery was going to be a slow and painful process because there is substantial restructuring and adjustment that still have to take place. I think he would agree with me that the fourth quarter of 1992 experienced growth of 3.5 per cent. That seems to be continuing into the first quarter.
I can tell my hon. friend that in the course of consultations I have been engaged in, in preparation of a budget, the indicator I have been getting from Canadians far and wide right across the board-and we have consulted with all sectors of Canadian society-is that we have to address the difficulties of the deficit and the debt; that we have to to do it in a co-ordinated fashion, both at the federal and the provincial levels; and that we have to do it through cost cutting measures and not through increases in taxation.

March 25, 1993
Oral Questions
That approach is serving us well because we have got inflation down. We have got interest rates down. Unemployment is starting to come down. Employment has increased, I believe, in eight or nine of the last consecutive months. The composite indicators are looking good. We have the small business sector with a new Small Businesses Loans Act. The Bank of Nova Scotia just announced a 6 per cent prime rate of interest for small business loans. We think that is a very positive effect.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
As a result of this government's 37 tax increases including the dreaded GST both small and medium sized business, as well as working and middle class families, have never ever been squeezed as much as they have. This has obviously put the lid on economic activity.
Given that this is a reality why did the minister refuse yesterday to rule out further individual tax increases? Rather than try to further shrink the pocketbooks of individual Canadians with additional taxes, why does he not try to make the economy grow and provide opportunities, confidence and hope?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, under tax reform we took 850,000 low income Canadians off the tax rolls. Two hundred and fifty thousand of them were senior citizens, and nine out of ten Canadians aged 65 and over are paying reduced taxation.
We now have growth in the economy. The unemployment rate is down. The help wanted index is up. Department store sales are up. Retail sales are up. The prime rate is at 6 per cent, the lowest in 20 years. We have mortgage rates, the lowest in 35 years. We have housing prices down. Retail-


Mr. Speaker:: We should press on. The hon. member for Simcoe Centre.


YOUNG OFFENDERS
Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It is time to stop
protecting young offenders who commit violent crimes. When the charter protects individual rights at the expense of public good then the charter has gone beyond the limit of the initial intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
To be just, we must balance the rights of the victim, the rights of society and the rights of the offender. I cannot accept that our laws cannot reflect more closely the values of our society. If there is political will it can be done.
Could the Solicitor General tell the House what is being done to address this issue of great concern to my constituents of Simcoe Centre?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the recent amendments to the Young Offenders Act which balanced the protection of the public with the interests of the young person have made it easier to transfer young people to adult court.
The House will know that the Court of Appeal recently upheld them as being within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I know the Minister of Justice is looking at further amendments to the Young Offenders Act and anticipates bringing them in as soon as possible.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency, Dr. Egon Klepsch, President of the European Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Necmettin Cevheri, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development for Turkey.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Also in the gallery today is Senator Zofia Kuratowska from Poland.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

March 25. 1993


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, there was a very vigorous exchange during Question Period about government appointments.
I learned from my father that one must never act in the heat of anger, but as the Standing Orders require, in such cases, the point must be raised at the first opportunity, I would not want people to think that I am passing it up. Since I was not present for the full exchange that took place between the person whom the Standing Orders require me to call the hon. minister and some of my colleagues, I would like to serve notice that I will read over what was said when I have a quiet moment, so that I can have an exact idea of what happened.
Right now, I would like to reserve my privilege to pursue this question. I hope that my colleagues will note once again that some things can be done in this House and others cannot, but above all, that anger is certainly the worst master when we have a discussion or wish to pursue a debate.
So I will try to heed that advice, but I assure you that I carefully noted only part of that exchange. I will examine it at leisure, but I will certainly act. I can assure you that I will act in my own way, which may not be the way others would act.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in this context it might be useful for me to make a point at this time. The hon. member for Saint-Denis was mentioned in the exchange and in particular his sister, Rita, who is a Citizenship Court judge.
Let me make the point very clearly that the Prime Minister, after 30 years of friendship with both the hon. member and his sister, directly intervened and was delighted to reappoint her a Citizenship Court judge. If there was any connotation of something wrong with that, I would certainly want to remove it from the hon. member's mind. There was certainly nothing wrong with
Point of Order
it. Judge Prud'homme was reappointed with pleasure and confidence that she would continue to do a good job.
I was simply making the point in regard to questions from the other side about a former spouse of a member that the relationship between family and talking about something being inappropriate is demeaning to the individual involved who is appointed. I do not think that is proper conduct in the House.
Michael McSweeney was mentioned. He is a graduate of the University of Ottawa. He has a masters degree in public administration from Harvard University. He is a former councillor and deputy mayor, precisely the kind of person who should be-


Mr. Speaker:: We are getting into debate and I think we will leave it at that. The hon. member for Saint-Denis has raised the matter and he wishes to consider Hansard.
I would hear him if he feels it is necessary to raise it further.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to get into this debate and I do not intend to. I rose on another reason. However, when the government House leader started to use names including that of Michael McSweeney, who is a very interesting individual whom I first employed in my office and I am not casting aspersions, in response to a situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. We are again getting into debate. I think the hon. member for Annapolis Valley- Hants has a point of order though and I would hear it.



POINT OF ORDER


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I would not have mentioned Michael McSweeney but I do not equate him with Judy Dick.
Be that as it may, I do have a point of order. I see the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is here more often now that she made a decision on her personal and political life-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could make the point if there is one.

March 25, 1993

Business of the House


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, there is difficulty sometimes in getting recognized in this mute comer over here that caused so much problem earlier in the day. I understand that and I understand the problems with independents. I will not accept any more, as long as I am in the House, that somehow with telepathic knowledge the Speaker will recognize people for either statements or questions who do not even levitate from their seat.
As long as that continues I will sit here on the backbench and make as much noise as I can because I do try to do my parliamentary aerobics to see if I can get recognition. That is my point of order.
Mr. Speaker, you and I know that I have had a point of privilege for a long time. I do not want to cause a disturbance. You have had enough today, but I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that you keep some control. I say to all members that they had better get up off their seat if they are going to catch the blind eye of an interested Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I anticipated this point of order. I want to say to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants that it is because I realize how modest and diffident our colleagues are that I have encouraged them occasionally to get up.
I do not want to delve into all of the potential discussions that could take place with respect to a list which I seem to be handed each day, for guidance only of course. I do not have to make any particular ruling. I am sure that the hon. member's comments have been heard by our colleagues and perhaps members will be rising with greater speed and precision in the future.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. Could he indicate to the House the business for the remainder of this day, as well as Friday and next week?
Perhaps while he is on his feet he could say whether or not he could share with the House the subject matter of the conflict of interest we had discussed earlier in the House leaders meeting. I think it is incumbent upon us to get back to the hon. minister.
I want to indicate to him that we are prepared to proceed with that subject matter, but I am wondering if
he could give me a timeframe. Also, in terms of the continuation of the debate as it relates to Bill C-115, the NAFTA bill, I wonder when he might be calling that for further discussions.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will begin second reading of Bill C-118, the amendments to the Export Development Act.
Tomorrow we will begin second reading of Bill C-117, the Borrowing Authority Act. On Monday we will do report stage of Bill C-92, the income tax technical act, after which we hope to complete report stage and third reading of Bill S-8, the Motor Vehicle Safety Act. On Tuesday we hope to continue with Bill C-92.1 will enter into discussions with the House leaders opposite in terms of the rest of that week.
In respect to the conflict of interest legislation, given that this legislation had come out of and was based on unanimous recommendation of a committee of this House, I was hopeful that we could have a limited debate on second reading, get it to committee and have it examined by the House for passage prior to the summer break.
I have been soliciting support from the opposition to see if we could do it this evening because to set aside the legislation which I would like to get passed before the end of this month would result in significant economic cost to the taxpayer. In other words, if we do not get them passed there will be money spent and wasted as a result of the failure to get the bills passed in a timely fashion. Hence the request for an evening sitting.
The same thing is true of the Canada Elections Act amendments, as they are the result of all-committee deliberations and received committee study. I would like to get report stage and third reading so the Chief Electoral Officer can put the legislation in place before the next election. That will not be possible if it is delayed more than a week or two.
I have not been able to get the agreement of the New Democratic Party to extra hours of sitting either at noon or in the evenings to accomplish that. After some frustration at the Department of Finance, I suggested setting aside a day for passage of the conflict of interest legislation at second reading and of the report stage and third reading of the Canada Elections Act. The New Democratic Party turned me down on that as well.

March 25. 1993


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to negotiate on the floor of the House, but I do want to indicate to the government House leader, as it is my responsibility to report back to him, that with regard to amendments to the Canada Elections Act there are some difficulties with that particular piece of legislation. I understand that negotiations among the political parties are still continuing.
With regard to the conflict of interest legislation, since it is a subject matter that affects all members and all members have had an opportunity to participate in drafting that particular piece of legislation we would be prepared to move on it, perhaps not this week but if negotiations could be completed we would be prepared to proceed next week.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I might begin by saying that the government House leader indicated that he had made a proposal with respect to passing Bill C-114 and Bill C-116. We do not make any apologies for not agreeing to pass bills concerning electoral reform and conflict of interest, two very broad topics that Canadians would like to hear more about, all in the course of a Friday afternoon, which is what the government House leader proposed.
The one thing the government House leader did not mention as he gave us the government business up until Tuesday of next week, which does not exactly carry us through until next Thursday when we get to ask this question again, is whether he intends to proceed with Bill C-115, the legislation concerning the North American free trade agreement, next Wednesday.
When he is answering that question I wonder whether he would indicate the government's intention with respect to time allocation. He will know of the concern we and others have expressed that this particular piece of legislation should in all parliamentary fairness and tradition receive more than a day and a half of debate, which is so far what the government has proposed.
Could the government House leader put these fears to rest? We are not interested in debating it forever, but we think that a day and a half is certainly not adequate. Would he put these fears to rest and would he have some
Business of the House
confidence that once a decent debate has been held we will be willing to send it into committee? Would he withdraw the threat of time allocation and indicate to us just what he intends for the rest of next week after Tuesday?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the hon. member talking about traditions and fairness in the way of operating. The way we have always operated is by reaching agreement on issues for which there is no great partisan dispute, conflict of interest, election reform act, so that we can treat them in an expeditious manner. It is not a matter of not having them exposed or trying to pull anything sneaky.
It is a matter of getting them into committee so that they can be looked at. The conflict of interest act came out of a committee study. As for the Canada Elections Act, for goodness' sake, there have been months and months of study after a $20 million royal commission. How much longer is it necessary to carry this on before the hon. members will be satisfied?
I did indicate in my answer to the House leader of the Liberal Party that in terms of beyond next Tuesday I would have the usual discussions with the opposition.
I have asked the NDP repeatedly how much time it wants. There has been a flat refusal from the New Democratic Party to agree to any reasonable time limitations on any piece of legislation at any time. How do I negotiate in the face of that kind of flat refusal, which is all I have received from the New Democratic Party up until the promise made just a while ago for the first time?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, this is right on the House business and what the government House leader said. I was very interested in that last comment. I am not going to get into the other elements that interest me.
I would like to ask something in terms of the Canada Elections Act and the $20 million spent by the Lortie commission and the recognition that there was a discrimination on tax receipts for people who were not involved in registered parties.

March 25, 1993
Business of the House
I would like to ask before the government House leader and/or other House leaders, who sometimes get together in these little agreements, go too far on the agreements, whether the government is prepared to recognize the discrimination that was set out in the Lortie commission. It said that there was discrimination on tax receipts, because if candidates were not members of a registered party they could not give a tax receipt. That little amendment would put independents in the same position before an election. I understand the problem of independents springing up like mushrooms across the country and looking for the-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister will answer the member's question. The hon. member has asked a question. I will ask the government House leader to answer the question.


Harvie Andre: The committee that was studying the Lortie commission reached the quite sensible decision to bring forward by way of early legislation those things that would require the Chief Electoral Officer to spend an extended period of time to have them in place for the next election.
This first bill that is now before the House and has had second reading and committee study, and for which I am seeking report stage and third reading, deals primarily with those aspects. The second phase, which the committee is now actively working on, deals with the question of financing, receipts, limits, and so on. They have not completed their deliberations to my knowledge.
In any event it is not the government that is pushing one or the other. It really is a House of Commons initiative, and all parties are there representing their interests and discussions are going on. There is no government position that we established and asked our members on the committee to try to push in place.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is a hard man to shout down. I am better at it when I do not have the microphone than when I do. I would just like to follow up with the government House leader who indicated two things.
First, he is not able to say what the business of the House will be past next Tuesday because he is looking forward to the discussions with House leaders on Tuesday. I would ask him this with respect to that. Is he prepared to give a commitment that pending those
discussions on Tuesday that he will not give notice of time allocation on the legislation having to do with the North American free trade agreement?
Second, with respect to the conflict of interest legislation, in particular, the government House leader should have acknowledged that we have made it clear to him that we would be willing to deal with this legislation speedily. We would only like two speakers but we would like to do it in the ordinary course of events.
If this is important legislation as the government says it is, we could deal with it this afternoon but that is not what the government called. There are many occasions on which we could have dealt with the conflict of interest legislation but the government has not called that particular bill.
It is not just a matter of House legislation. The legislation does not completely reflect the consensus in the committee. Therefore it is a matter of contention. Therefore it should be dealt with in the way that things are normally dealt with.
That is all we are asking. It could have been dealt with a long time ago if the government had not insisted on having a special evening sitting.
The same with electoral reform. We all know it is important. The government knows it is important and it refuses to put it on its own agenda and have the House deal with it. It could be dealt with at any time instead of trying to put through a bill that does not have to be dealt with till the fall, if ever it has to be dealt with, given what is happening in the United States with respect to NAFTA. There are things that need to be dealt with now. We could deal with them but the government insists on dealing with NAFTA.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier comment, the reality is because of the timetable and the fact that a lot of time was not spent in the most productive fashion earlier this year, we have a number of bills the failure of which to pass will result in the loss of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers.
Is the hon. member suggesting that the penalty of having to actually sit and discuss a bill in the evening, something we used to do regularly, is so significant that in fact we should impose on the taxpayers these tens of millions of dollars of expenditures so as to not divert from this principle of actually sitting in the evening from eight o'clock to ten o'clock.
March 25, 1993

I sat quietly and listened to the hon. member when he was questioning. Perhaps he could do me the courtesy of doing the same.
The hon. member talks about the legislation dealing with the North American free trade agreement. We have been seeking for three weeks to have that legislation referred to committee so it could be looked at and compared with the agreement which has been in committee for several months.
I have been told by the New Democratic Party repeatedly, it has been asked twice in the House, under no circumstances ever will it agree. That is it. No way.
In order to get it to committee I have no other choice but to get second reading done. Debating second reading ad nauseam is a matter of principle. Is that going to change the principle of the New Democratic Party? Is there anybody in the country who knows what its position is or does not know what its position is?
The hon. member continues to talk from his seat. The hon. member cannot do me the courtesy I did him by listening to my response.
We have had dozens and dozens of witnesses. The bill is there. I see the hon. member for South West Nova, like the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona, cannot keep her mouth shut while others are talking.
I do not know for sure what an appropriate level of debate is at second reading but I do know that the British Parliament had six hours of debate on the resolution to sign the Maastricht treaty, something that is profound and important. It was able to do it in six hours.
Incidentally under British rules it is not allowed to be brought up in Question Period the way it is repeatedly brought up here, day after day after day.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: It is time you got out of here.


Harvie Andre: I think it is time we completed that debate, sent the thing to committee and people could examine it in its detail. Then perhaps even the hon. member from Nova Scotia will have an opportunity to go there and she will be able to talk to the record where people will keep track of what she is saying if she thinks it is so important.
Business of the House


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has brought up a good point. He cited the example of Westminster with respect to the passage of Maastricht.
I wonder then whether the government House leader would be willing to consider, seeing as he is such a fan of what happened at Westminster with respect to Maastricht, putting the North American free trade agreement in the House of Commons, on this floor, in Committee of the Whole for over 21 days, which is how long they have considered Maastricht now on the floor of the House of Commons. If he wants to cite Maastricht and Westminster in the House of Commons, he should keep in mind that that is what they have done there. They have considered it in Committee of the Whole-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to say to the hon. member that he is getting into the substance of the bill which I think is more appropriate to debate when the bill is called. I will recognize him again if he has another request.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I agree. I listened to the exchange of the government House leader, who is no longer here I guess. I understand and I perhaps trespassed too far, but frankly in view of what has happened here in the last two or three days I do not really think I have trespassed enough.
All I was going to ask the government House leader, knowing full well my point over two years of correspondence, knowing it is not in the bill, knowing it is not in the committee report and knowing full well in the answer to me that there is an oxymoron that obviously parties do not have any interest in independence, is there going to be a section in the bill to take care of the discrimination that the Lortie commission found about independence?
That will help facilitate my co-operation, what little it is worth, but it can be quite a bit depending on how I get energized as to the passage of the bill which I would hope in the first phase would be passed, but you cannot pass the things for Mr. Kingsley, the electoral officer, unless you help some members who happen to be independent who cannot write a tax receipt the same way that you can. That is discrimination of the worst order.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the government Elouse leader has left the Elouse.
I would like to put this on the record. It is a question that I asked last week following the statement by the Prime Minister who is a very strong supporter of redress for Japanese Canadians. That redress settlement is not completed.
I wanted to ask the government House leader but perhaps whoever is standing in for him would forward this to him. When will the government proclaim Bill C-63 which you will recall was the act to establish a Canadian race relations foundation, part of the redress resettlement, in view of the fact that this bill received Royal Assent way back in February 1991? This House went through the whole process of debate for many months prior to that.
We need to have this bill proclaimed before this session ends.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the question has been received and will be taken into consideration.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Michael Holcombe Wilson: that Bill C-118, an act to amend the Export Development Act be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is truly export day. We had NAFTA before lunch and now we have Bill C-118, the bill to amend the Export Development Act. That is the legislation which governs the Export Development Corporation.
If there is one thing that I hope all members of this House will agree upon, it is the importance of bolstering the capacity of the Canadian economy, to strengthen it in any way so that Canadians now and into the future have every opportunity to prosper and grow.
If there is one thing that I am particularly proud of after serving nine years as minister it is the leadership that this government has shown in preparing Canada's economy to meet the fierce competition of the new global marketplace.
Canada is a trading nation. I think we are all very well aware of that.
On a per capita basis, we trade twice as much as the Japanese and two and one-half times as much as the Americans. Canadian companies that compete abroad learn what it takes to compete anywhere. They and their work forces become less and less vulnerable to foreign based marketers, sweeping in and beating them on price or quality on their own Canadian shelves.
They are ready for that kind of competition because they have faced it internationally. With the better market share here and new market share abroad, these companies grow. They create good jobs. If we are going to remain a high-wage society, Canadian-based companies must be able to compete everywhere.

Ever since this government came to office, it has emphasized the importance of Canadian entrepreneurs being competitive players beyond our borders. No other government in Canada's history has done more to open up new international markets, including North America, which is the most important marketplace in the world. And no other government has done more to encourage Canadian companies to expand internationally.

These efforts have already had an impact. The strength of our exports which I referred to extensively this morning which have to keep growing if Canada is going to maintain its status as a leading international economy were of critical importance in sustaining this through a debilitating world recession.
It is our exports once again that are leading us out of this recession. The bill before us would modernize the Export Development Act, enabling the Export Development Corporation to become a more dynamic institution for Canadian based enterprise operating abroad. If we are encouraging more Canadian firms to operate abroad, we must do what we can to minimize the risks and difficulties that these companies encounter. This is where EDC comes in.
March 25. 1993

It has been a partner with Canadian exporters since World War II, helping them compete more effectively in foreign markets by reducing the financial risks and other difficulties involved in penetrating these markets. For those members who are not familiar with the work of EDC, let me take a few minutes to explain the nature of the corporation.
It is EDC's job performed on behalf of all Canadians to act as a catalyst in stimulating Canadian exports which in turn stimulate the Canadian economy. It encourages exports by reducing the risks involved in operating outside our borders. EDC facilitates export trade and investment through the provision of risk management services, including insurance and financing to Canadian companies as well as their customers abroad.
The corporation has supported approximately $60 billion worth of Canadian exports over the past decade. That amounts to over two million person-years of employment. It has been an essential factor in facilitating export trade. Demand for its services has tripled in the last eight years.
In 1992 alone, it provided services to nearly 2,000 clients, 80 per cent of which were small and mediumsized companies. That involved them in export transactions worth more than $8 billion. EDC has operated on commercial principles since it was established in 1969. Its customers pay for the services that it provides. The Canadian taxpayer does not.
Whatever borrowing the corporation does, it is balanced by increasing its assets. It has a long-standing record of self-sufficiency.

This is the type of self-sustaining discipline that makes EDC so valuable. Canadians want governments to do everything possible to stimulate employment, but they also realize the urgency for these same governments to reduce their deficits. Strengthening EDC represents one way this Parliament can stimulate job creation without increasing the burden on Canadians.

As we approach the end of the 20th century, EDC's services have developed gaps. There are three good
Government Orders
explanations for it and they all begin with the letter c. EDC's customers are demanding more. The corporation's competitors in other nations have been offering more support to their exporters. The degree of international competitiveness has escalated considerably.
As effective a catalyst as EDC has been for Canadian exports, it has been the need for the kind of boost that we have given to many of Canada's other economic levers as part of our competitive repositioning. The time has now come to free EDC from the legislative strait-jacket that in these new market conditions has begun to restrict its capability to respond to our exporters' needs.

We need to give EDC a new flexibility. In making EDC more flexible, we will make it more responsive to the needs of Canadian exporters, the people we are counting on to meet the tough challenges of international competition.
Canadian exporters have been making more sophisticated demands of EDC in recent years, as they themselves face more sophisticated demands.
Bill C-118 is designed to meet the demands of EDC's customers, to offer them services that are at least as helpful as those their competitors from other countries have access to, and to recognize that international competitiveness is one of the keys to Canada's and individual Canadians' prosperity.

Simply put, we need a more complete Export Development Corporation. These amendments are designed to give us one. The proposed new EDC can be best summed up in two words: creative packaging.
In the new international marketplace where buyers have to a large extent been able to ship the onus of financing to producers and whose projects are more often commercial ventures rather than government backed projects, financial packaging in some situations has begun to rank with price and quality in determining the product's marketability. Canadian exporters are asking for a more comprehensive mix of financial services from EDC.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
Many other trading nations are offering their business sectors a wide range of financial services. These countries-the United States, Japan, Germany and France- make extensive support available to their business people through a variety of mechanisms. These often include sophisticated methods of entering into partnership relationships with them, including the provision of equity participation overseas and loans and guarantees to support foreign investments.
As the international marketplace is developed, an increasing number of Canadian businesses have complained that gaps have developed in the financial support available to them-take leasing, for example-either through EDC or commercial financial institutions. EDC has the talent, the creativity and the expertise to fill in those gaps, but under the current legislation it has had to scramble to the end of its legislative boundaries to be of assistance.
The proposed amendments to the Export Development Act would streamline the EDC and extend its capabilities in a way that would provide it with much greater flexibility in meeting the demands of the globalized marketplace.
I am hopeful that this will prove particularly enticing for small and medium sized companies on the threshold of internationalizing their business activities in defined circumstances that reflect the relatively static needs of the 1969 marketplace. That marketplace no longer represents the world in which Canadian business operates. Instead of simply defining a rigid new set of tasks for EDC, we want to give the corporation flexibility to respond more creatively to the type of dramatic changes that have already been affecting its customers.
We know international deals are often complex and time consuming, but we want EDC to be capable of overcoming stumbling blocks in the most efficient ways possible and to have the tools at hand to minimize delays. We want an EDC that offers the most streamlined services possible and an EDC that acts in partnership with both customers and private financial institutions. We want an EDC that can shift with the marketplace the way Canadian entrepreneurs must also shift with the marketplace. We know that change is the norm in today's marketplace and that Canada has to be ready for it. So, for those reasons I strongly encourage members to support this legislation.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the legislation which the government has brought forward today. I welcome it for a number of reasons but I want to touch on two or three in particular.
The fact is that Canada, heavily dependent on international trade, has embarked on new trading arrangements whatever the merits or demerits of those may be. They certainly do involve a challenge to Canadian exporters with which they need the assistance of their national government.
The need for adjustment assistance in the global marketplace and the freer trading environment of the world today must be obvious to all. I am not at all clear that it is as obvious to this government as it should have been. The government has not been as active as it could have been in helping to equip Canadians through collaboration with business and organized labour to benefit from the effects of trade liberalization.
Bill C-118 about which the minister just spoke does represent a step in the direction which we on this side of the House have certainly supported and sought for some time. I would only recall once more to the minister that the Macdonald royal commission in putting forward its recommendations to seek a freer trade environment matched that recommendation with an equally strong recommendation that the government work for the benefit of Canadians in reducing interprovincial trade barriers, in improving the standards of education and training in our country and in offering financial incentives to small businesses.
There were a dozen and one recommendations that much to our regret this government ignored when it brought forward its free trade legislation. Even today with the North American free trade legislation we see the continuing absence of effective adjustment assistance to match the commitment this government has made to continental or hemispheric freer trade.
I am pleased to say that the bill the minister introduced reflects a greater awareness of the need within Canada to cope with the impact of globalization of world markets and of investment. It equally does something to recognize the fact that Canada must be an attractive base for investment by companies in the export business seeking markets abroad.
March 25, 1993

In my view the bill has the merit of emphasizing the need for Canada to seek diversification of its markets. The emphasis in this government's policy since 1988 has unfortunately been squarely on the North American continent first and more recently on the western hemisphere. However, the merit of this bill in my opinion is that it does offer Canadian business the type of assistance it needs to diversify into export markets overseas, beyond the continent and beyond the hemisphere.
The second merit that is reflected in the bill is that it offers new dimensions for a 50-year old institution, the Export Development Corporation, to engage actively with smaller business. My colleague from Broadview- Greenwood who is expert in these matters of assistance to small business and how a greater stimulus might be provided to small business investment will no doubt wish to address in greater detail that dimension of the bill. I want to say that it is something that we on this side of the House have been calling for for a considerable period of time. We had in mind the fact that small business has not had the access to export promotion and export development support and the bill before us today does go some distance to enabling the Export Development Corporation to provide such support.
The minister in commenting on the bill has spoken of the need to equip the Export Development Corporation to match or indeed to compete with the comparable institutions in other major trading countries. I would only want to say in passing that there is always in these instances a potential danger of competition arising among export development institutions in the industrialized world.
We have seen in the past the competition-I can think of no better word-in the case of concessional financing. One country offers more attractive concessional terms in its export lending and another country attempts to match that and the escalation sets in. I trust that we are pursuing within the OECD and other international organizations opportunities to discuss with our trading partners the need to avoid such escalation in export promotion that in certain circumstances can become subsidies and that of course is to the benefit of no one.
The only other comment I wish to offer before touching for a moment on the more specific aspects of
Government Orders
the bill is that there has been some concern expressed about the possibility that the expansion-or perhaps more accurately the diversification-of the role and potential of the Export Development Corporation could lead to some unwarranted competition with the private sector. This I do not think should be a matter of prime concern if the Export Development Corporation is committed, as for my part I understand it is, to co-operating and working with the private sector.
I cannot think that there is not an ample challenge within Canada for a co-operative effort between the private sector and the Export Development Corporation. I would assume that when the Export Development Corporation officials or the minister appear before committee in support of this bill we will receive that assurance that the corporation will work actively and imaginatively with the private sector to provide the services that Canadian exporters need.
The bill is innovative in terms of the traditional practices of the Export Development Corporation-as I said it is a 50-year old corporation-in that for the first time we see the possibility for the corporation to take an equity position in certain circumstances to act as a catalyst to mobilize other investors. This opportunity will be something I am sure the corporation will use with discretion and work to ensure that its presence brings credibility to the project as a whole.
The second major innovation offered in the bill is the matter of insuring receivables. The Export Development Corporation has of course in the past been involved in the insurance of export receivables. Now for the first time the corporation will be able to provide some coverage for domestic receivables as well. There is obviously a balance to be struck in that activity, but it is one that we for our part will welcome from the corporation.
On leasing matters the inability of the corporation to offer its clients support for exports through leasing arrangements has been a hindrance in the past. The minister spoke of the corporation pressing the bounds of its legislative authority to seek ways in which it could offer such support to Canadian exporters. It is good that we are now moving to make leasing arrangements part of the mandate of the corporation.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
For these and other reasons we welcome the legislation before us. The Export Development Corporation has a long and admirable record. I note that in this past year it made a profit and that is not something that most Crown corporations can claim. I look forward to the Export Development Corporation continuing to maintain its viability and its contribution to the Canadian export community partly through the new mandate we are giving it today. It is a mandate that in our view is overdue and certainly to be supported.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on this bill extending further authority to the Export Development Corporation, which I think is a useful thing to do. Crown corporations cannot function when they are restricted and these amendments all add to the ability of the corporation to do its job which is to assist in the insurance of export credits to exporters who wish to go into the world market.
The proposals that are included in the bill provide additional abilities by the corporation to meet new competition and are new practices that have developed since the corporation began its operations in 1944. A lot of practices have changed and a lot of our foreign competitors do in fact have rights and privileges available to them that are no longer available to Canadian exporters simply because we have not brought our practices, laws and rules up to the levels that exist among foreign traders.
By my reading of the act, among other things, it would permit the Export Development Corporation to take an equity share in some projects that would permit it to act as a catalyst in mobilizing investors, other banks and banking institutions and make it possible for the funding of larger projects to proceed.
Sometimes the ability to take a minor equity position in a project may bring credibility to the whole project that would in fact attract other legitimate investors in the project.
As large projects and long-term projects develop, it becomes more and more necessary for the Export Development Corporation to be involved over a long term for many years and some of these changes that are proposed in the act appear to facilitate that need.
Another thing many of the users or would-be users of the Export Development Corporation have complained about involves the current requirement for setting up a multitude of export development contracts with different countries and different contracts for domestic sales as opposed to export sales so that a company like a textile manufacturer that exports some of its product has to keep two sets of accounts: one for its exports business and the other for its domestic business. A lumber company that might be doing business both internally and externally will find the ability to offer one contract for both internal and export business to be quite attractive.
It also has the effect of spreading the risk of the Export Development Corporation in making it less subject to bad collections in the event of a sudden collapse of a foreign country or a foreign currency market.
Many of our competitors are now in the business of making available to their exports long-term pre-shipment financing so that the pre-shipment development costs of getting the business are being financed in other countries and in other jurisdictions. The proposed amendments to this legislation would allow the Export Development Corporation to provide that kind of service as well, again a laudable acceptance on the part of the government and the corporation. In order to do longterm business they are in fact going to have to participate even at the planning and pre-export stages of the project aimed at increasing exports to other regions.
The fourth area that appears to provide some change would be the one permitting or enhancing the ability to support export sales through leasing arrangements. It would permit the EDC to act as a lessor or permit it to take direct equity participation in a lease financing arrangement so that a variety of partnerships could be established.
These proposals provide the kind of flexibility that seems to be there for our competitors and should assist somewhat in providing the infrastructure our exporters require in arranging the financing and insurance that go with completing an export sale.
March 25, 1993

Government Orders
The role of exporting in this country has always been an extremely important one from the earliest days of economic activity when we exported fish to Europe, to the days when we increased our exports to include timber, later wheat, and now a wide range of commodities and manufactured goods and services. The role that Export Development Corporation has to play can be a very important one. We need it to continue the trading relationship with our neighbours to the south that has existed for a couple of centuries. We need it for expanding our trading operations in the rest of the world.
As a representative of a region that exports virtually all its production and can rely very little on the domestic market to consume the grains, oilseeds and meats we produce, I want to say a few things about the fixation the government has had for most of its mandate, both the previous one and the current one, with trade with the United States as a means of increasing economic activity. When we look at it from the experience of having been four years into that relationship we see that perhaps it was not the great thing the government likes to tell us it was.
I am using as my source Statistics Canada and I am looking at the trade balances that existed for four years prior to the implementation of the Canada-U.S. trade deal. I am comparing that with the average of the four years that have occurred after the signing of the Canada-U.S. trade arrangement. I see that 1988 was the last year we had a positive trade balance between our two countries. If we take the four-year average before the deal we had a positive net balance in goods of plus $17.3 billion. We had a negative trade balance in services of minus $12.4 billion, leaving us a total on average of $4.8 billion before the free trade agreement.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper."]
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Peter de C. Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th day of March, 1993, at 4:00 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Deputy to his Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-118, an act to amend the Export Development Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, before we had the call from the Governor General and the trip to the Senate, I was pointing out that the increase in trade to the United States, which has been the basis of government policy over the last two terms, has not proved to be as propitious for Canada as originally thought or at least as you would glean from the government's presentation of the statistics.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
When you look at Statistics Canada and use four years before the trade deal and the four years after the trade deal and take average trade balances, you find that 1988 was in fact the last positive trade balance that this country had with the United States and since January 1989 when the trade deal came into effect, we have had nothing but negative balances.
On average, the four years before the trade deal we had a positive trade balance of $4.8 billion, with goods providing a positive net balance of $17.3 billion, services a negative balance of $12.4 billion, leaving a positive position of $4.8 billion. On post-trade deal, goods on average for the four years provided a positive trade balance of only $15 billion, down $2.1 billion from the average before the deal started. On services our negative balance went up from $12.4 billion to $18.2 billion, leaving a negative trade balance with the Americans in all goods and services of $3.15 billion.
The trade position with the Americans has deteriorated considerably since the implementation of that agreement. Part of the reason that that has happened is fairly obvious. There were 222,000 fewer employed Canadians between January 1989 and August 1992 according to the labour force survey of last August. An additional 600,000 Canadians have joined the official unemployment rolls since January 1989, pushing the unemployment rate from 7.6 per cent in January 1989 to 11.6 per cent or 1.6 million people unemployed.
It appears that there are an additional 344,000 discouraged unemployed individuals who have simply dropped out of the work force since January 1989 as well.
The proportion of the work force working part time since 1989 has jumped from 15 per cent of the population to 17 per cent and 386,000 more Canadians in August 1992 compared to August 1989 are now working part time because they cannot find full-time work. It has been noted many times by many economic observers that since the trade deal was signed part-time work seems to be the only new jobs that are available to Canadians.
This has had a tremendous effect on our efficiency and our productivity levels. According to the OECD statistics the Canadian economy is currently operating 9.2 per cent below its productive potential. To arrive at productive potential they measure such factors as existing capital stock, labour efficiency and a Conservative measure called the natural rate of unemployment.
By comparison the U.S. is operating at 3.6 per cent below productivity potential and Japan is only .4 of 1 per cent below its potential. We are further below our productive potential than the economy of any other major industrialized country since 1960.
The policies of the government which put us into a trade deal with the Americans have in fact been to blame. When we look at the various sectors and the negative effect on those sectors we see that in the furniture sector 22,700 jobs have been lost, 33 per cent of all the furniture jobs that existed in 1989 have now disappeared; 12,395 textile jobs have disappeared or 22 per cent of that entire sector; 41,600 clothing jobs have vanished, 35 per cent of all the jobs that existed in the sector before the deal started. This is a dramatic shift in the amount of jobs that are available in Canada.
In auto parts, 19,950 jobs have gone, 22 per cent of the sector has disappeared since January 1989. In printing and publishing, 23,373 jobs disappeared, 15 per cent of that work force no longer exists.
In spite of the facts that are there, produced by Statistics Canada and available to all of us if we look, the government persists in telling us that is a good deal, that it is good for Canada and good for Canadians. You cannot convince anybody who is looking for a job that it is a good deal. You cannot convince anybody whose plant has closed down and set up again in the United States that it is a good deal. You cannot convince anyone who finds that the products that they used to be able to produce are no longer being produced in their local town in their corner of the country. Yet the government tells us it is good for us.
The purpose of this bill is to make some of the services that are available to exporters more flexible and to provide them with the kinds of services that will allow exporters who exist all across this country to go into other parts of the world other than the United States. For that reason I think it shows a softening of a number of the government's positions, which I applaud.
March 25, 1993

It seems to me that strengthening this Crown corporation, which is a policy that runs counter to the government's initial instincts which were to throw out all Crown corporations, at the end of the government's mandate is still a good move because this particular corporation functions mostly in markets beyond the United States. I think it is a belated recognition that Canada has to look to the rest of the world, that our saviour is not in a better trade deal with the United States or Mexico but that there is a whole world out there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Immigration; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni-Indian affairs; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Cyprus; the hon. member for St. Boniface-Employment.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, for some time now we have listened to the Minister for International Trade comment on the impressive increase in the export trade figures that Canada demonstrated in 1991-92. We have listened to his argument that it is a direct result of the imposition of the free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S.
When you look at the total in goods and services, it indicates a substantial difference from the rhetoric that we hear from the Minister for International Trade as to the facts and figures that are before us, facts and figures that have been compiled by Statistics Canada.
When we look at the total trade balance in both goods and services between Canada and the United States prior to the free trade agreement coming in, the four year average from 1985 to 1988, we had a total trade surplus of some $4.8 billion. When you look at the four year average subsequent to the FTA we see that we have turned that trade surplus of $4.8 billion into a net trade deficit of $3.1 billion.
I say to my hon. colleague that is a turn around, a loss if you like, of 165 per cent on our trade balance between Canada and the United States.
Government Orders
I would like to ask my friend how he can explain the comments that have been made by the government, and particularly by our minister of trade who says that we have been doing so well under the FTA, when in fact we have a dismal and accelerating trade deficit when you look at the figures both in goods and services.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I guess the explanation is that in magic, in public relations or in politics you always concentrate on the bean or the shell that is most important to the argument.
If you look only at the positive trade balance in goods, 1988 versus 1992, you could make an argument, as the government does, that trade increased by just over $3 billion.
That does not tell the story on services where trade has produced a negative balance of an additional $5 billion or $6 billion. This means that over all-it is over all that counts to the total economy of Canada-we have moved from a positive trade balance in 1988 to a fairly heavy negative balance. There was a loss in fact of $2.6 billion.
We have imported $2.6 billion more services and goods combined than we have exported. We are actually shelling out more money after the deal than we were before the deal. Before the deal Canada benefited from the trade with the United States. After the deal they are making more money out of that trade because they are selling us far more services. We have not been able to keep up the same rate of growth in our goods-producing sectors.
The reasons we have lost on the goods-producing sectors are quite clear as I spelled out in my speech. We lost furniture jobs, auto parts jobs and textile manufacturing jobs. When we have lost these jobs we no longer have the ability to produce for export.
Part of the reason why we lost these jobs is because of the terms of trade changing and it was no longer most economical to produce and sell furniture from a Canadian base. We were importing more of it and this has resulted in job loss and a worsening of the trade balance between us and the United States.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would like to split my time with the hon. member for Laval West. I will confine my remarks to 10 minutes and watch the clock very closely. It is only for that reason that I will resist the temptation to respond to the remarks of the previous speaker. I find them absolutely fantastical, if that is a word. I do not know where those trade figures came from but they did not come from a very reliable source. They are an extraordinary set of statistics I must say.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The not veiy reliable source that the member is speaking of is Statistics Canada catalogue 67-001, table 3. He can look it up. It is a very reliable source.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I will look forward to the NAFTA debate. Since my hon. friend did not actually speak to the bill that is before the House I will be pleased to engage in a discussion further when we speak on NAFTA. That is of course if his colleagues will allow the House to actually debate the NAFTA and not just play games with parliamentary procedure.
On the other hand I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak briefly on Bill C-118. This is legislation to amend the Export Development Act and to make the Export Development Corporation the kind of catalyst Canadian exporters need to compete in the global marketplace.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the member has impugned the motives of me and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in terms of the impending debate on NAFTA.
I just wanted to point out that should he and his colleagues on the government side decide to provide ample opportunity for debate on NAFTA then we will do everything in our power to ensure that debate is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate right now.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and people of Canada had an opportunity to draw their own conclusions and I am sure they will.
Speaking again of this very excellent piece of legislation, Bill C-118,1 want to point out that this legislation will not only enhance the prospects for Canadian importers but it will indeed be highly beneficial to all Canadians.
When he spoke to introduce the bill the Minister for International Trade made reference to what he referred to as the three Cs: customers, competitors and competitiveness.
The Export Development Corporation's customers are demanding a more complete set of risk-management services. Many of our exporters' competitors are already receiving risk-management services that EDC has difficulty offering under the wording of the current act.
Finally, the degree and nature of international competitiveness has in fact changed. There is I suppose a fourth C. We will remember that the minister emphasized on several occasions how important exports are to both the number and quality of jobs we will be creating in Canada during the next decade.
The fourth C quite simply stands for Canadians. This government more than any government in Canada's history has seen how important success in the international marketplace is to maintaining the standard of living that Canadians have known, the quality of jobs that Canadians have had access to and the lifestyle that Canadians have worked so hard to build up over a century and a quarter as a country.
Canadians cannot continue to prosper the way we have prospered as a nation if we do not rise to new international challenges. This bill is part of a concerted initiative spearheaded by this government to assure that Canadians can meet those new challenges.
The government could have taken the politically easy route of pretending that Canadians would not be hurt if we tried to ignore what is going on in the world today and tried to create a kind of fantasy environment with great, huge walls around us. Frankly, we would not do that. It would not be right to try to fool Canadians into thinking that everything would be just fine if we tried to hide our little heads in little holes in the ground and pretended that nothing was happening in the world.
This government has not chosen to meet the challenge of the international marketplace because we enjoy the adventure of selling beyond our borders. We have done it quite simply because we knew that the Canadian economy would wither if we tried to hide and tried to produce only for our own marketplace. A quarter of the jobs in this country today in the productive sector are indeed directly related to export.
March 25, 1993

We chose to meet the challenge not just for our entrepreneurs' pocketbooks that depended on international success but for the well-being of our whole society, our whole culture and indeed the people of Canada. It was access to good jobs but it represented even more than good jobs. It involved the futures of our symphony orchestras, health plans, school systems and our capacity to serve our disabled people and our disadvantaged. It was all of those social and cultural components that make Canada a very special place to live.
Those particularly Canadian advantages have already come under pressure because of our struggle to deal with the deficit this government inherited from its predecessors who had a quaint definition of economic boldness called "mortgage the future".
We as a government understood that these components of our rich and generous society would come under permanent pressure if we turned away from the challenge of the global marketplace. Our economy will simply not give us the social and cultural nourishment we have drawn from it in the past if we do not make adjustments to meet the imperatives of competing internationally in the future. We as a government have understood that.
From the beginning of our mandate we have pinpointed the new challenges abroad. We recognized the growing Pacific Rim capacity to export high quality goods at low costs. We knew there would be increased resource competition from the Third World even as some of Canada's resources were becoming more difficult to access.
We also saw the European countries and the Asians reducing trade barriers. Common markets were on their way at least as short or medium term bridges to open trade everywhere. It was a time to either get involved or get shunted aside.
We are involved and this legislation to strengthen the Export Development Corporation is an important step in the government's economic agenda to encourage more trade beyond the North American marketplace.
Our exports are climbing. All members will have rejoiced at last month's trade surplus but there is still plenty of room to grow. Canadian firms are looking beyond the U.S. marketplace to Mexico. This is another lucrative marketplace that will open up under the NAFTA.
Government Orders
We have to look beyond Mexico as well. The global marketplace has undergone a huge transformation since the Export Development Act was first brought in. Minor amendments to that legislation in the 1970s and 1980s updated the act but nobody could have foreseen the scope of change that would take place in the coming years.
The revamping of the Export Development Corporation, Canada's official export credit agency, is an important part of the national initiative to make Canada a more powerful player in the international marketplace. At the core of that initiative of course is the private sector but this Parliament must play a supportive role if this mission is to be sustained. That is why I encourage all members to support Bill C-118.
In concluding I move:
That the question be now put.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would care to give us the proportion of business that the Export Development Corporation has been doing in Europe, Asia, the United States and so on, so that we can see where its efforts have been directed.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend raising the question. I do not have exact figures in my head but I would be more than pleased to get them and share them with my hon. friend.
I think what is important to observe and to take cognizance of is the outward looking approach that this government has taken of which I spoke in my general remarks. We hear a great deal these days about the free trade agreement and about NAFTA but in actual fact this country has a number of trade initiatives looking in a variety of directions: the Asia-Pacific initiative that has been taken; the strengthening of relationships and the continuing negotiations with Europeans; and the Caribbean area and NAFTA present tremendous opportunities for growth. As I am sure my hon. friend is aware, there is so much enthusiasm throughout the world for the concept of NAFTA that we have a great number of countries interested in joining it. I know all members are aware that we have had approaches from various Latin American countries, like Chile for instance, that are interested in joining the NAFTA.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
In fact I can tell my hon. friend that in January I had the occasion to attend and speak at a business conference in India. The president of the Confederation of Indian Industry, the organization in India that is like the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, indicated that India would be very interested in looking into the possibility of joining NAFTA. Who knows what is going to go on?
I now have had said to me-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. member's time has expired.
Mr. McCreath seconded by Mr. Brightwell moves that this question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.
['Translation)


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the services which the Export Development Corporation would be able to offer under this legislation. Senior officials of the EDC feel these are some of the areas where they could substantially improve customer service.
The EDC could improve its pre-shipment financing capability. The complex and costly procedures imposed by the current legislation at the structural and contract level should be eliminated. I think there is no doubt about that.
With a streamlined program, Canadian businesses and their banks would have direct access to loans and guarantees to pay the initial, non-recurrent costs involved either directly or indirectly in a long-term export project.
Canadian exporters must be able to obtain credit insurance for both domestic and export sales if they are to build the solid base they need to compete internationally.
In Canada, the potential market for domestic credit insurance is worth about $100 billion, but only 5 per cent of that market has been developed so far.
There is room for involvement by the EDC, which would complement the activities of domestic insurance underwriters in this area. An increase in the proportion of insured export credits is a bonus for insurance underwriters and their banks, because it makes these companies a better risk when loans are involved.
The corporation should and could provide capital for certain projects or finance equity capital. The corporation is now restricted to debt financing in the case of Canadian exports provided directly under a project. The private sector's exposure to major international projects is far greater. There is more pressure on exporters to provide their own export financing and invest in projects where they also provide for maintenance of their equipment.
The EDC's ability to acquire an interest in certain projects or to help finance equity interests of Canadian businesses may help attract financing from other investment lenders for whom the corporation's involvement would be reassuring. This might also encourage some parties to seek out Canadian suppliers.
The EDC would be able to invest in international leasing companies. In fact, at the international level, leasing is growing at a faster rate than sales. The ability to offer competitive leasing agreements is particularly important in the case of high-tech businesses that manufacture specialized products such as aircraft and aerospace equipment.
Another example is the streamlining of the Canada account assessment process. I may add in this connection that the moneys deposited in the Canada account do not belong to the EDC but are administered by the corporation.
If Bill C-118 is adopted, this would eliminate part of the administrative red tape involved in using this account, without compromising the vitality of the decisionmaking process. The bill would eliminate the pre-condition for the EDC board of directors to formally reject the use of its own funds and also eliminate the need to obtain the approval of the governor in council.
March 25, 1993

The Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Finance would be jointly responsible for authorizing the use of these funds. This would speed up the process, an important consideration when we realize that speed is often essential when concluding contracts with countries overseas.
As the Minister for International Trade pointed out, streamlining the EDC is one of the most important elements of the government's comprehensive policy aimed at making Canada more competitive on the international markets.
The Export Development Corporation cannot spearhead Canadian involvement in global markets. That is up to the private sector. However, once these amendments have been adopted, the EDC will be able to play a far more effective role as a catalyst in helping Canadian businesses enter the modern global market.
As I said earlier, I am proud to be associated with Bill C-118, and I am confident that all members of this House will recognize the importance of international trade for the economic, social and cultural future of our country and will join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, before I finish, I would like to present a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.

Pursuant to Standing Order 26(1) I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill
C-118, an act to amend the Export Development Act.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2) the motion is adopted.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise on behalf of my party today. As our critic for international trade said earlier, we on this side of the House are in support of the bill.
The Export Development Corporation is one of the few Crown corporations the Conservative government has managed to leave intact. It is one of the few organizations that has survived the cut, cut, cut. In fact the bill today modernizes and expands the capacity of the Export Development Corporation. We on this side of the House support this.
Government Orders
As the Minister for International Trade and my colleague for Etobicoke North said, the country depends on its export activity. This is the greatest hope for job creation in the country. Anything we can do to expand the capacity of the Export Development Corporation is something we support and applaud.
It is another example of how we in opposition will get behind the government to support a bill going through the House expeditiously if we feel it is meeting the objective of job creation. Today the number one priority is putting people back to work, and the bill certainly passes the test of meeting and assisting that objective.
A previous example of our co-operating so well was the Small Businesses Loans Act. Just before I came into the House today I was speaking to Blair McRobie, vice-president of government relations for the Royal Bank of Canada. He was telling me that as of today all the branch managers of the Royal Bank and all its loan officers are fully apprised of the Small Businesses Loans Act. I am absolutely convinced, now we have the loan officers aware of the Small Businesses Loans Act and once we have let all small businesses know, we are going to be putting more people back to work because small business represents the greatest hope for new job creation.
That brings me to a concern I want to put on the floor of the House about the particular Export Development Corporation. The minister said in his remarks today that the Export Development Corporation had approximately 2,000 clients of which approximately 50 per cent are small businesses. That represents about 1,000 businesses doing work with the Export Development Corporation.
If there is one flaw or one concern I have about the Export Development Corporation, it is that most small businesses are not even aware it exists. They are not even aware that the Export Development Corporation exists, let alone all the services, all the products, and all the various export enhancements it provides. I would like to suggest to the government-and we will be raising it in committee-that we must make sure we let the small business community know about the Export Development Corporation. We must make small businesses aware that this particular Crown corporation exists. If we take the same approach with the Export Development Corporation as we did with the Small Businesses Loans Act, I am confident that once again we will have another factor in the economic recovery equation to inspire or to give new hope, new opportunity, for the entrepreneurial spirit that exists out there.

March 25, 1993
Government Orders
This is one of the great tragedies of the work done in the House, in committee, and by many of our great public servants. A lot of people in the country do not know these operations exist. They are just not aware. Obviously this is not the kind of story the press will cover because it is good news and is not controversial enough.
When there is an organization like the Export Development Corporation providing assistance, not just to larger corporations but to small and medium sized operators, we have to get the message out. We must.
I support the bill in every respect. In fact I remember the very first time I had some involvement with the government back in 1985 at the Business Opportunities in Canada conference in Toronto. The president of Investment Canada at that time was a Mr. Paul Labbe. I believe he is the current president of the Export Development Corporation. I remember when we did that work in 1985 and 1986 that this man had real feeling and real passion for small Canadian exporters.
All too often in this House we are quick to pick out someone in the Public Service or a particular branch of government that is not really living up to the Public Service objective it is supposed to. However this is a good example of an organization and its leader, Paul Labbe, and all its counsellors. I have had people in my community and in other parts of Toronto who have had experience with the Export Development Corporation, and they have only good things to say about the officers who represent its various aspects.
On behalf of my party I am happy to stand in support of the particular piece of legislation. I have one concern or one qualifier to put on the table. I hope the government will treat the marketing, the awareness program or the promotional program of the Export Development Corporation the same way it is now treating the Small Businesses Loans Act.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on this particular bill.
Perhaps I want to make my comments a little more general in terms of the whole question of export trade as
it pertains to Canada. Obviously as we all know nations engage in trade to try to benefit their economies. It would seem logical that agreements between two nations or agreements between a number of nations to expand trading opportunities between those partners would be beneficial to the economies of the nations involved.
That is only the case if the trading relationship between participating countries is fair and equitable. We have seen that is not the case in the current free trade agreement between Canada and its partner to the south, the United States.
The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has not really been about freer trade and increasing exports as the argument has been placed. After all, that is what this bill is talking about. It is talking about expanding export opportunities.
This trade agreement, to which Canada is struggling to adjust, has really been about greater access to Canadian resources for the U.S. market. It has really been about removing the kinds of barriers that have existed to the free movement of capital, goods and services to establish a free trade playing field for the multinational corporations, which are largely based in the United States.
This agreement, which has been in place since January 1, 1989, is really about reducing the ability of our provincial and federal governments to establish the kinds of economic priorities that are very much a part of the political priority of any democratic government. It is about the reduced ability of this country to control its own destiny, to control its own economy.
As we are talking about trade in this bill, I want to say that if Canada had really wanted a free trade agreement, if Canada had really wanted to embrace the concept of freer trade, then it would have needed a very short piece of legislation, a very succinct agreement between Canada and the U.S. It would basically be only one line: The parties involved, the nations involved, in this case Canada and its partner, the United States, would agree to eliminate all remaining tariffs that are currently in place on both goods and services. Said and done. It is very simple. That would have been free trade.

March 25. 1993

This agreement has gone far beyond the concept of simply reducing tariff barriers and has moved into whole areas of our economy, particularly in the area of financial services as well as in the area of increased access to Canadian resources. I want to get back to that later if I have time.
Rather than signing an agreement, a very simple, almost one-line agreement, to reduce or eliminate tariff barriers between the countries in question we have entered into this massive and convoluted agreement between Canada and the United States that has jeopardized the very future of this nation.
I want to look at facts and figures. These are figures that have been released by Statistics Canada since the free trade agreement was imposed back in January 1989. The last positive trade balance that Canada experienced was in 1988, the year before free trade came into effect in Canada. The average trade surplus for Canadian goods and services for Canada for 1985-88, a four-year period, was about $4.8 billion. That was a trade surplus. We had a very vibrant export market, both in manufactured goods and in services into the U.S. economy, so much so that we had an average surplus over that period of some $4.8 billion.
In 1989 the free trade agreement came into place. What have we seen subsequent to the FTA coming into place? That trade surplus that Canada had enjoyed for years before the free trade agreement was implemented immediately took a nosedive and went below the boards to a trade deficit.
If we look at the four years subsequent to the FTA coming into place we find that the government's great plan for economic and trade stimulation for Canada has turned into an unmitigated disaster. We had a trade deficit between 1989, the year that FTA came into place, and 1992, when the latest figures were available. That trade deficit averaged some $3.2 billion.
We took a trade surplus of $4.8 billion and turned the damn thing into a deficit of $3.2 billion. That is not very successful. That is a 165 per cent turn around, an 165 per
Government Orders
cent decrease in Canada's trade balance with the United States subsequent to the FTA coming into place.
This great trade agreement, which is supposed to be the hallmark of this present administration, has in fact accelerated Canada's dependence on one market, the United States, for our exports. It has accelerated the economic decline of this country. It has accelerated job losses in this country and it has accelerated the downward spiral in working conditions, wages and the entire social fabric of our economy. That is what the free trade agreement has done for Canada in the four short years since it was imposed in January 1989.
In 1988, 73 per cent of Canada's exports went to the U.S. That is quite a substantial portion. We really have too many economic eggs in one basket. Subsequent to the free trade agreement being implemented we have increased that concentration to 78 per cent.
Through the free trade agreement Canada has been dumping all of its economic eggs into one basket, and it is the wrong economic basket to be dumping them into.
Let me cite some other figures that are quite pertinent. This again is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Just one minute. Is it agreed for me not to see the clock so the hon. member can finish his speech? The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you, at this particular point in time, could tell me how many more minutes this hon. member has. Private Members' Business is coming up, and as usual people have their speeches organized and have planned for it. I do not want any inconvenience to affect Private Members' Business.
How much longer does our colleague have, Sir?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that after the hon. member for Okanagan-Shu swap finishes his debate there will be no more speakers in the House. As far as his time is concerned I do not-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Will we be guaranteed that then?

March 25, 1993
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Just hold on for
a second. The hon. member for Rosemont on a point of order.


Benoît Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to give my consent, but I want to be sure to be able to speak on Bill C-348 later. Can I get consent from the House in this?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is on Private Members' Business, and I see no problem with that. Now it is up to the hon. member. If I designate another five minutes will that be sufficient?


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I had planned on only taking my normal time allocation of 10 minutes. I am not quite sure how long I have spoken, but perhaps four or five minutes more would be quite sufficient.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Rosemont wants to speak on the private member's bill.


Benoît Tremblay: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All right. We will not see the clock and will let the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap carry on.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate the indulgence of the House. I will attempt to be as pertinent as I can.
Just before the debate was interrupted I was about to cite some Statistics Canada data demonstrating the impact of the current Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and what it has done to jobs in Canada. These Statistics Canada figures show that the total number of manufacturing jobs in Canada fell by over 400,000 from the end of 1988 to 1992. That is in the manufacturing industry alone. One in five manufacturing jobs in Canada have been lost subsequent to the FTA coming in.
Many of those jobs are gone for good. They are not coming back. The reason they are not coming back is because plants have been closed, they have shut down, they have been moth-balled or in some cases, as was the case in Annacis Island in British Columbia, the plant was literally picked up, packed away and moved south of the border. That situation is a grievous situation and is one
that Canada will continue to struggle with as that structural change takes effect.
We warned before the free trade agreement came in that if it was brought in we would see these kinds of plant closures taking place throughout Canada. That is exactly what has taken place.
For example, plant closures have accounted for nearly half of all the manufacturing jobs lost in Ontario between 1989 and 1990. Those closures have been particularly severe in the areas of textiles, clothing, food and furniture manufacturing. I would like to turn to a quote that talks about the impact of this job loss and it is from a critique entitled "The Global Trade Challenge" by Mr. Bruce Campbell. He says: "Look what has happened to the jobs in these sectors in the last three years". He is talking about the period subsequent to the FTA.
He continues: "Furniture has lost 22,700 jobs, 33 per cent of all furniture jobs; 12,395 textile jobs have disappeared, 22 per cent of the entire sector; 42,000 clothing jobs have vanished, 35 per cent of all clothing jobs; plastics has lost 22,000, again a collapse of 35 per cent of all jobs in the sector. In auto parts 20,000 jobs have gone, 22 per cent of the sector. The machinery sector has lost 30,200 jobs, 31 per cent of the sector. Printing and publishing saw a loss of 23,400 jobs, 15 per cent of the sector. Over all, manufacturing has lost more than 20 per cent or 416,700 jobs".
That is a pretty sad state of affairs, and it puts the lie to the government's claim that free trade would be a true economic panacea for this country. We can see what it has done to our country, we can see what it has done to our economy. It has devastated the Canadian economy.
I want to say that the proposal of going into the next phase, which is the North American free trade agreement, only makes that bad situation even worse. If we go into this trilateral agreement the United States will have received all the pieces of the puzzle together: access to cheap Canadian resources and access to cheap Canadian labour.
Canada and Mexico will become the warehouse and the sweat-house for the U.S. based multinationals while they persevere with this idea of a level international playing field so they can move capital and assets around wherever they wish.
March 25, 1993

I know my time is limited. There is much more I could say on this issue. I hope I will have time later on to discuss a very specific concern that I have, which is the vulnerability of Canadian resources. In particular, I am concerned about the vulnerability of Canadian water supplies under both the free trade agreement now in place and the North American free trade agreement which this government proposes to ram through this House in the next few days with virtually no debate.
It is a sad state of affairs when this government wants to essentially rewrite the economic constitution of this country in the drafting of the North American free trade agreement and not involve Canadian people, not even involve the Parliament of Canada, in thoroughly debating this issue.
We saw exhaustive debate when the government attempted to rewrite our social constitution through the referendum campaign in the fall of 1992. People were absolutely exhausted with the amount of information this government tried to ram down their throats. However, when it tries to rewrite our economic constitution with the North American free trade agreement there is absolute silence. The committee does not even want to travel to some provinces, does not want to travel to our large centres, to Montreal or Toronto, because it is afraid of what the people will say.
I hope to have more opportunity to discuss this, and I hope that I will be one of the few speakers who has the opportunity to debate this proposal to ram through the North American agreement.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first question is on the motion of Mr. Ricard that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Private Members' Business


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North) moved: that Bill C-348, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
She said: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the purpose of this bill is to establish a system that would enable the authorities to know the number and kinds of unrestricted firearms being acquired by Canadians after the coming into force of this bill, and to trace those firearms when they are subsequently disposed of, lost or stolen.
Presently only restricted weapons, hand guns and military-type weapons must be registered. Registration of unrestricted firearms is not required. No one knows how many guns there are in Canada or who has them. A person who has been issued a firearms acquisition certificate may buy as many guns as he or she wants. The FAC provides no record of purchase or any control over the number of weapons a particular individual owns. There is no ownership renewal process or follow-up conducted by police.
This particular bill is designed to be a fairly inexpensive way of beginning a system of gun registration. As you will note, it talks about after the coming into force. This would allow a point of sale type of registration system which is one that was recommended by the Canadians for Gun Control. One of the principals of that organization, Wendy Cukier, is an expert in the area of data and information systems and has recommended this particular kind of system.

March 25, 1993
Private Members' Business
The information is currently available from people who sell firearms and that data could be reported to a central source, also with the requirement that all sales, losses or theft be reported to that same source.
By collecting this data from gun sellers on a regular basis, such a system would minimize the administrative burden and the inconvenience to firearms owners. It could be submitted to local, provincial or federal authorities and the cost would be associated with organizing and storing the data.
Data base technology would allow records to be accessed by owner name even if they were entered by seller, and with scanning equipment can be done very efficiently and inexpensively. This would allow the registration of all guns when they were purchased from a dealer or if they were sold by an individual to another person. It would be a relatively efficient way to begin firearms registration.
The registration of firearms is supported by quite a number of groups which include the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. It would allow police to track the source-
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the minister could be asked to leave the House as he is talking extremely loudly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. minister, please, the hon. member cannot speak over the sound of your voice.


Barbara Greene: Thank you. The registration of firearms would allow police to track the source of lost or stolen firearms, as well as those used in the commission of a crime. This would mean that illegal traffic would be more difficult and it would encourage legitimate owners to respect safe storage guidelines.
It would allow the more effective enforcement of prohibition orders. It would allow police to be forewarned of the possible presence of a gun while investigating potentially violent situations such as domestic disputes. It would allow the confiscation of firearms during potentially dangerous domestic disputes.
A single national registry for all firearms would give us very useful data concerning the actual numbers and uses of firearms in this country and about the people who possess them. At the present time estimates are derived through various surveys but we really do not know how many guns are out there.
Recent studies demonstrate a decline in the use of firearms in violent crime in general, including homicides, but those same studies show that almost half the firearm assaults and homicide victims faced assailants armed with rifles or shotguns. The high proportion of long guns, ordinarily unregistered, used in those crimes suggests the need to further restrict their use and availability. If the decline in the use of firearms in violent crimes is even partially attributable to the 1977 legislation, it seems logical to expect that additional restrictions could further their illegitimate use.
If one expects that registration of hand-guns as restricted weapons has kept their numbers low, similar requirements for all weapons should restrict their numbers as well. The rationale that lowering levels of gun ownership reduces their availability and therefore use in violent crimes has found favour in hand-gun control. I believe the same argument would apply to other kinds of firearms.
An Angus Reid survey revealed that firearms in 50 per cent of households surveyed had not been used in the previous year. If gun ownership were made more inconvenient through registration requirements, a great many people might not bother to keep them at home.
Considering the large numbers of weapons in private households in Canada, the fact that firearm homicides occur should come as no surprise. Since less than one-quarter of 1988 homicides suspects were strangers to their victims, and about one-third of the victims and suspects were domestically related, fewer firearms in Canadian households could reduce their availability for use in those types of crimes.
Simply requiring registration of all firearms could reduce the numbers available. Requiring some indication or proof of intended use, like hunting, could reduce these numbers even further.
March 25, 1993

A requirement for registration of all firearms would send a message to owners about the seriousness of the responsibility they undertake and could have positive psychological effects on their manner of use.
The public is with this kind of bill. In 1975 and in the recent Gallup poll as well, the numbers reported indicated that 80 per cent of Canadians are in favour of the registration of all firearms. I am sure that that issue is one that clearly is the same today.
Registration of firearms would allow far more effective measures to be taken by the police. If we look at some of the particular situations we have had, for example in the de Villiers murder in Ontario, there was no way of verifying whether or not someone was in legal possession of a rifle or a shotgun. They were not able to track that one down although the courts were aware that this particular individual was violent.
Right now there is no way of enforcing prohibition orders short of ransacking someone's home because police have no way of knowing whether there is a gun there. There is absolutely no control on stockpiling. We have heard of stories of that happening in Alberta. There is no way of tracking lost and stolen guns. There are 3,500 reported lost or stolen guns in a year. That is probably an underestimate because there is no legal requirement for reporting lost or stolen guns.
We should consider the difficulty of registering guns. We register dogs in cities and there are probably far more dogs for example in metropolitan Toronto than there are guns. I know the estimate I saw for guns for Toronto was about 55,000 which was higher per capita than Alberta. Yet I know we have 20,000 dogs in Toronto and at least that number in North York. In the whole of the Toronto region we are probably talking about 80,000 dogs that are being registered at no cost to the taxpayer.
Finally, as I said before, this is supported by many people. It is supported by the public and by law enforcement agencies. It is also supported by the Senate. The Senate sent a letter to the minister after it reviewed Bill C-17 and one comment was: "We wish to reinforce the message that effective gun control can always be improved". They talked quite clearly about better information through firearms registration, better control over safe storage, better training for firearms users. I agree with Bill C-17. However, I think this bill would substantially improve the control over firearms in our society. It is something which I recognize could probably not be completed in this term of Parliament, but it is certainly
Private Members' Business
something that I will continue to be advocating, as will many concerned Canadians.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill presented by the member. It is a very good bill and worthy of a good deal of consideration. I hope it will pass at second reading so it can go to a legislative committee for further examination.
The ideas she puts forward provide a good long-term solution. Eventually we are going to have to do this. It is a question of when we start. I know that there are a lot of people in Canada who feel that registering their firearms is an infringement of their privacy and that it is totally unnecessary. I understand that. It has never been done before, but that feeling exists. I can understand why it exists. However, it is becoming a problem not to have that information. That is the first aspect.
The second aspect is that we have never really had the technology before where this could be done as efficiently and as well as it can be done now. We are in a technological age and we must utilize the technology we have for the benefit of society as a whole.
The member mentioned the cost of the recording and registering of the firearms on a data system. She said that the cost would be very high. We had an estimate from the Firearms Advisory Committee through the Minister of Justice that this would be a very expensive procedure. I have also had information from certain sources that the cost has been blown out of proportion and that the actual cost will not be nearly as high as some people would have us believe.
I can understand one concern. If we say there has to be a central registry system, then we are going to have a jamming of whoever is in charge of doing this registration and it is going to be very cumbersome and counterproductive. I do not think that need to be the case. If we go into a registry system on a step by step process, we could eliminate these bottlenecks.
The member said that registering the purchase of new firearms, also sale of existing firearms from one person to another would be a good way to start. Even if we made this beginning, we would be a lot further along. Once we get the procedure in place, then certainly we could add to it and gauge how effectively the system is being utilized and whether, in fact, we are moving too quickly or too slowly. Certainly the need is there to start the system.

March 25, 1993
Private Members' Business
The member also made mention of a concern I have. We must wherever possible give police the advantage in dealing with domestic crises. These are problems in our society that we have to address. We have to address them quickly. We have to address them more efficiently. We want police to respond. We want them to respond quickly. We want them to respond with understanding. We want them to take meaningful action as a result of their investigations. We want a quick and effective follow-up.
If we are going to ask police to take more of a meaningful role in this and to take it more seriously than certainly some policemen have taken it in the past, then we are going to have to co-operate with them. If we can tell police through the central registry system that there may be firearms in that home, then I think we are giving some advantage to the police.
Certainly not all firearms are going to be registered. If we are dealing with someone who abuses his wife or his children, quite often that person is not going to register a firearm. They may neglect to do it and as such be in violation of the law when we have that registry system.
The fact is we should be able to have a registry system available to a police officer who is going to the scene of family violence. I think we have got to start. The job of the police has to be considered.
Also, we will know as we develop a central registry system how many firearms are there. I feel, as does the hon. member, that the number of hand-guns today has been kept to perhaps a lower level than ordinarily might have been if there was not a central registry system. I think that is good. That is responsible activity in our country. While a lot of people may not like to register their firearms and many will not and will absolutely refuse to register their firearms, most Canadians are law abiding and will register the firearms, so we will get participation and we will get co-operation.
We may never know even with a central registry system how many firearms are out there. As was the case with the ammunitions clip on a firearm, there is no identification quite often. These can be brought in. They can be sent in overnight from the United States. They do not have to be bought in Canada. There is no way of tracing it.
People say: "Why have it in the act that it is unlawful to have a clip that is over 10 for a hand-gun and five for a rifle?" The fact of the matter is if we have a law on that, it is going to do a lot more good than if we do not have a law. As well we cannot say that because we feel some people may not obey the law that is a reason for not having a law.
That is completely counterproductive. If we took that feeling in this House of Commons, we might as well all go home. There will always be some people who will not obey the law.
I commend the hon. member for bringing this legislation forward. I wish her well in this. I think it is a well thought out piece of legislation. I have not studied it in detail, but I have looked at it very quickly. I would like to see this legislation go to a legislative committee so we could study it more thoroughly.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I can say on behalf of my colleague, the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, that we also certainly would support this bill.
While I am not an expert in this field, coming from urban Vancouver I can certainly support the need for much stronger gun control and that includes registration.
I recently went on a ride-around with the police in my riding late in the night. I can tell you that the incidence of violence, including the misuse of guns, was pretty scary, to say the least.
At the same time we all appreciate that for aboriginal people and for hunters, people living in the north, there is a different situation and certainly we need to be sensitive to the ways that they would see this applied.
I want to come back in a minute to some of the quotes from my colleague so that his position is on the record. I understand during the hearings into the gun control legislation, Bill C-17, that while nearly every advocate that came before the committee called for a national registration system, the minister herself was not convinced of this or was not persuaded of this. This is the minister, of course, who now is aspiring to become the leader of the Conservative Party and indeed the Prime Minister of Canada. It is a little scary to see that she would compromise on so important a matter.
March 25, 1993

She said, for example, that she avoided implementation of a gun registry, citing a lack of funding as an excuse, and said that in a time of fiscal restraint this government prefers to concentrate the available gun control resources in those areas of the system that will provide real benefits to firearm users and to the public.
That seems a little strange. I would be concerned that a future Prime Minister would not be interested in a mandatory registration of guns in a country like Canada.
I would like to mention the position that our critic took in the committee and in a minority report which he wrote. He said: "Let us target hand-guns and then get back to paramilitary weapons". He was particularly concerned about paramilitary weapons. "These are not for hunters, these are paramilitary weapons that are flowing into Canada. When people buy guns, surely with modern cash registers and computers, we can take a record and send it to the RCMP."
He goes on to say: "We do not need these high powered guns. We do not need them flooding this country. We need some controls. Surely we must have a registration system for future guns so we know where they are and how armed our population is. If they are lost, stolen or get into criminal hands, we can then deal with them". Certainly, we are in support of this bill which spells this out further.
He also said in a later minority report, again particularly being concerned about semi-automatic weapons: "As restriction of semi-automatic weapons under the present law would effectively prohibit hunting activities, I recommend that all unrestricted semi-automatic weapons be registered as a separate class of weapons. Gun owners would also benefit as their valuable firearms would be better protected against theft. Numerous witnesses before the special committee recommended a full national registry system for every firearm in Canada".
He goes on to say that he supports the following proposal which was suggested by some members of the committee and by most witnesses.
All semi-automatic weapons would be registered. All future firearms obtained using the FAC would also be
Private Members' Business
registered at the time of purchase. Finally, every applicant for an FAC would be required to list all their firearms on the applications. This would not place any additional bureaucratic burden on firearm owners with non semi-automatic rifles who do not need an FAC at present. This would move us toward a long-term goal of a full national registry system.
I want to say again that we will support this bill. I will not take the time today to quote this, but I notice in reading over some of the reference materials that certainly the coalition for gun control had a very strong position on this question. The Canadian Police Association said the association has over the past several months conducted an informal survey of the business community. Over 90 per cent of the respondents believe that guns of all kinds should be registered and that there should be a minimum age and compulsory training requirement in order to own a gun of any kind.
The chief of police of metro Toronto had a more detailed brief. I would like to conclude my remarks by including his comments about a national firearms registry. He believes this concept to be sound, reasonable, and workable, yet there is no mention of it in Bill C-17. Neither was it addressed in the special committee's report. It is hard looking back from this perspective to understand why it was not dealt with at that time and not dealt with by the minister. The police chief feels that if it is possible to control and register motor vehicles and domestic animal pets of which there are far more, surely it is possible to register all firearms in Canada. It is noteworthy to learn that the Government of Canada has recently added its name and support to a group of other nations in establishing a world-wide registry control of weapons of war.
The stated intent of this philosophy is to monitor the proliferation and extent of such weapons. Surely this concept could be applied here in Canada where the proliferation of and the accessibility to all firearms has become alarming. Let us get our own house in order first.

March 25, 1993
Private Members' Business
I think that is a good place to stop but I assure the member that we will support this and hope that this bill goes into committee so we can deal with it in further detail.
[Translation\


Benoît Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley North for her bill. It is excellent. This is an important bill intended to correct at least one of the major flaws in Bill C-17 on gun control by simply requiring that firearms acquired after the coming into force of this Act be registered in the owner's name.
Unfortunately, as we all know, the rules of this House allow only one hour for debate on this type of bill and whether or not it will actually be referred to a legislative committee for further consideration is up to the government to decide. I most sincerely wish for this bill to be allowed to go to committee.
Just having this debate is already a clear indication that the existing law is obviously failing to provide effective gun control. Perhaps I should remind the hon. members that it was the present Minister of National Defence and candidate in the Conservative Party leadership race who proudly moved Bill C-17 through Parliament when she was Minister of Justice.
Let us not forget either that the coalition for gun control, which is made up of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Police Association of Canada and many other justice and public health organizations, had estimated that this bill satisfied about 10 per cent of its demands.
We have seen what kind of regulations government has made since. The least we can say is that we were very disappointed and that the initial 10 per cent satisfaction rate would likely be much lower today. Let me give you an example. Did you know that the Ruger Mini-14 that was used in the massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique has not even been included in the restricted firearms category? As things stand at the moment, we have no way of knowing how many people own a Ruger Mini-14 and who these people are. And there is no change in sight. Even a weapon like the AK-47 can still be sold today, although it has been classified as restricted, but you at least know who the owner is. Of course, Rambo's gun should have been completely banned.
In the case of the Ruger Mini-14, it can now be sold without having any idea of who owns such a firearm; in fact, we have no idea at all of who owns such firearms in Canada. This bill would at least correct this situation and in the short term, as some members mentioned, at least the semi-automatic weapons which were allowed in the regulations should absolutely be registered in the owners' names, so that they can be more easily traced if they are stolen or lost, and so that the police can identify the owners.
It is incredible; I was at the Polytechnique and I can tell you that you would not be able to distinguish between the weapon used there and an automatic one. To someone who heard the shots fired, it sounded like an automatic firearm. It is absolutely unbelievable that weapons such as that can still be sold today without knowing their owners, without a follow-up. As soon as you obtain a firearms acquisition certificate, you can buy as many of those firearms as you want, without ever having to undergo any control. Obviously, firearms kill many people. Some have said that it is not the firearms which kill, of course, but those who use them. However, we are well aware that where firearms are more restricted, where owners are more accountable, statistics show a significant reduction in the number of deaths caused by their use. People may be injured and there may not be any less violence, but violence with a knife or with fists hurts, while violence with a firearm kills.
Proportionally-hunters are 9 per cent of the population-when we look at the statistics, there are many more deaths due to firearms than to cars, for example.
Therefore, I am very pleased that this issue is being debated again today, now that we know the regulations which were adopted. As you know, Bill C-17 allowed the government to make regulations, to make a list of prohibited weapons, a list of restricted firearms, and a list of firearms which can be bought without any restriction. Obviously, when this bill was passed, nobody imagined that the AK-47 would still be allowed in Canada. This is incredible, because everybody thought that it would be prohibited. Everybody thought that a semi-automatic firearm such as the Ruger Mini-14 would be classified as a restricted weapon. Well, not so. Therefore, the whole issue of registration and control again becomes much more urgent.
March 25. 1993

I believe that today's computer technology would make it easy and relatively inexpensive to keep a registry of firearms. I think it is a privilege to own a firearm and it would be normal for such a privilege to be controlled.
It has been said many times that hunters would be really unhappy if they had to register their firearms. I personally know many hunters and none of them would oppose such a measure. Hunters are subject to many rules for hunting, except rules regarding firearms. This is incredible. Thousands of moose hunters must take part in a draw every year and if their name is not chosen, they are not allowed to hunt. They accept these rules because the wildlife must be protected. Yet there is hardly any restriction on firearms.
What about protecting people? Something is out of balance and I am convinced that, if you exclude the lobby of those who sell firearms, the common sense of the ordinary citizens who hunt is such that there would be no problem in implementing the compulsory registration of firearms sold, through the most effective and least expensive system available. I sincerely hope that the review of this excellent bill tabled by the hon. member for Don Valley North can continue in the legislative committee.
| English ]


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to participate in private members' hour tonight. I would like to say that my colleague in her legislation has proposed some really sweeping changes to the way that most common firearms in Canada are dealt with.
All of us remember a great deal of what the witnesses at the committee said with regard to Bill C-17. If I can back up a bit, prior to Bill C-17 there was another bill. I think it was Bill C-84 which died on the Order Paper. When it came out is when I first got involved and talked to many of my constituents, the gun dealers and the gun clubs in my riding, as well as in all the ridings in Calgary and indeed into southern Alberta.
While Bill C-84 contained many clauses that were totally unacceptable to me, we have been pretty good
Private Members' Business
with regard to Bill C-17. There are some things in it that I am not particularly fond of, but there is compromise within the system.
What my colleague is asking for is the complete registration of all firearms. I cannot accept that and I will not accept that. I would certainly have to vote against it. There are many reasons.
I would like to say first of all that I own shotguns and I own rifles. I have taken training. I think the majority of Canadians that own shotguns and rifles are very careful, understand the safety and use every precaution in how they store, carry and use their weapons. No amount of legislation anywhere is going to prevent someone who is unbalanced or perhaps mentally incompetent from shooting a person if he or she gets hold of a firearm.
What we are doing in the legislation we pass is trying to put forward a law or rule that makes society safer. We have to look at the total society. We have a lot of rural areas in our country. I am from Alberta and there are a lot of rural people, farmers, ranchers, hunters and fishermen who utilize shotguns and rifles daily. They are well trained and use them safely.
What was contained in Bill C-17 which was passed last year has gone a long way to improving the safety of our society. There are areas in that bill which I want to deal with. We placed restrictions on high fire power and military-type firearms. My colleague from the New Democratic Party was speaking about military-type firearms. They are restricted. We increased penalties for misusing a firearm. We have reinforced the screening system through which all Canadians have to pass before they are allowed to own a firearm. It is called the FAC, the firearms acquisition certificate.
Anyone in Canada purchasing a firearm must obtain a firearms acquisition certificate, generally speaking at their local police station. You fill out a form answering specific questions. There is a 28-day waiting period.
The most important thing we have asked for is that certain people sponsor firearm acquisition certificates so not anyone can go out and purchase a rifle or a firearm instantaneously. There is a 28 day waiting period. You have to have people within your community that know you, that can sign their names to vouch that you are indeed a very careful person.

March 25, 1993
Private Members' Business
Coming in July 1993, the FAC applicants are going to have to present evidence that they have successfully completed a course or a test involving the safe handling and use of firearms and knowledge of the laws relating to all firearms.
This might present a little bit of a hardship but most of the gun clubs and organizations are willing to work with us. I think if people are trained at a young age-one must be 18 or over to have a firearms acquisition certificate-that they will understand that firearms are a specific piece of machinery. It is not so much the firearm that kills as the person behind it.
It is the responsibility of everyone who owns this type of rifle, hand-gun or shotgun to become very familiar with the law.
I have to say that there is a compromise. The people who perhaps do not enjoy hunting or using rifles and firearms or perhaps are afraid of them might consider that we should ban firearms completely. That is totally out of the question.
My colleague tonight has a bill in front of us that suggests that all firearms be registered. One will have to go through a central registration system. The cost is high. There is no doubt about it. I heard my colleague from Cape Breton saying that the costs were perhaps a little bit out of proportion from what we heard before the committee hearings. That is not true. There are millions and millions of various shotguns and hunting rifles and to ask the police force to openly register and trace these, whether you'are purchasing a new firearm or selling it second-hand, is asking a great deal.
First, we have to devote their energies to what their duties are as police service people. Second, all restricted firearms have to be registered with the RCMP. Restricted firearms are listed. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, we have particular brochures that outline those restricted firearms. The commissioner keeps a central list of those particular weapons if they are stolen or if the ownership is transferred. This is all covered in the bill that we passed last year.
I also want to say something to my colleague from Quebec with regard to the tragedy that happened at Ecole Polytechnique when 14 young women lost their lives and also at Concordia University where members of
the engineering faculty lost their lives because of someone who perhaps was imbalanced-in one case he was- opened fire with a firearm and took the lives of these particular people. That was uncalled for and no one in this House or from the other place wants to see anything like that happen again. However, registering firearms is not going to resolve that problem at all.
What we have to do is take the specific types of firearms that are indeed the most dangerous and have those registered. We will also enlarge the list of those to be prohibited. Certainly automatics are prohibited. Semi-automatics that have been converted to automatics are prohibited especially if they can be converted within a short period of time.
There are many ranchers, firearms people and hunting clubs within the southern Alberta region to whom I have spoken. They put forth their best thoughts and best ideas when we were putting forth the firearms legislation, Bill C-17.
We upgraded the 1978 firearms legislation. Most of the firearms that are causing us problems come across the border. We have to have customs officers-or contract out to the RCMP or police services people-who understand and know exactly what they are looking for. There is a tremendous amount of money made in the black market with regard to firearms and we have to control that.
I appreciate this opportunity to speak with regard to my colleague's bill. I certainly do not agree with it and in no way could I support it.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the debate today and I wish to congratulate the hon. member for introducing the bill.
I listened to the comments on both sides of the issues and I noted that the person who spoke before me, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, said she could not accept the complete registration of all firearms. However, she did not say that she was opposed to this bill going to committee. I gather she is in favour of a debate and in favour of it going to committee. Perhaps she might clarify that, or I suppose we will see as the debate proceeds.
March 25. 1993

I hope it will go to committee because it is clear from debate in the Elouse today that many questions were unanswered as a result of Bill C-17, that there is a need for debate, and that there is a need for further education on the part of members of Parliament and the public at large.
The purpose of the bill would be to establish a reporting system for unrestricted firearms which are acquired after the coming into force of the act. Restricted weapons, typically hand-guns, are registered but unrestricted weapons, typically rifles and shotguns, are not. There is no record of how many unrestricted firearms are in circulation. Persons who are issued firearms acquisition certificates may buy as many unrestricted weapons as they want. The purpose of the bill would be to get a handle on unregistered firearms, to require that unrestricted firearms, typically shotguns and rifles, be registered.
We are talking about after the coming into force of this act. It would an incremental step. It would be a beginning. It would enable us to determine whether the technology available today would allow the implementation of such a system in an efficient manner and a manner that would not impose undue cost or hardship on owners of these weapons.
I support the bill. I hope it goes into committee. I hope we have an opportunity to debate the matter further and to hear from witnesses. I note that many respected organizations support the bill including the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities, the Canadian Police Association, my city of Montreal, and a number of organizations in the city of Montreal including the Montreal General Hospital Surgical Intensive Care Trauma Unit which has had to deal with the victims of the tragedies at Ecole Polytechnique and Concordia University.
The bill is also supported by Concordia University and by Ecole Polytechnique, the staff, teachers and students of those schools. I support this measure and indeed hope to participate in the committee meetings on this bill.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on Bill C-348, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to gun control.
Private Members' Business
I have been looking at the bill. I understand its purpose is to establish a system that would essentially form a system of registration of unrestricted firearms, for example long-guns, hunting rifles and shotguns which people including myself use for recreational purposes. I have some real difficulties with the bill. I guess it is one of those times when I have to disagree with my New Democratic colleague who said the New Democratic Party is supporting this bill. I do not think that is unanimous.
I know that I also speak on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke, who feels very much the same as I do.
We of course understand and sympathize with the intent of the legislation which is to reduce the amount of criminal misuse of firearms. Certainly any specific initiatives that can impact on the misuse and the deadly use of firearms in acts of criminal violence should be implemented, but this is going about it in the wrong sense and that is why we have difficulties with the bill.
The bill attempts to restrict ownership of firearms and to layer on more bureaucratic red tape in terms of the purchase, the ownership, the sale and lending of these firearms.
What it is essentially doing is confounding the legitimate and recreational use of firearms that people have throughout Canada. It is essentially attacking the problem from the wrong side. Where we should be attacking the problem is in terms of increased criminal sanctions when firearms are used in criminal acts or in acts of violence. I think that is a more appropriate mechanism in which to impose penalties.
This particular bill, for example, forces the further reporting and filling out of forms for the trading and lending of firearms. Really as was pointed out earlier people that are purchasing firearms or trading firearms now essentially have to register through the firearms acquisition certificate. I think that is an appropriate mechanism in which really anyone that is applying for an FAC is essentially registering that they are going to become a new owner of a firearm.

March 25, 1993
Private Members' Business
Rather than increasing the criminal penalties for the use of firearms and acts of violence, which is the focus that we should be taking, this legislation simply frustrates the legitimate recreational use of firearms by Canadians.
Although I fully support the intent, I fully understand the reasons that this bill was brought forward. What I am saying is that it is really the wrong medicine, it is the wrong cure for the causes of criminal violence involving firearms. As a result of that I find it very difficult to support this legislation.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West - Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few moments to make my own comments in support generally of the position that my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap just made. I will perhaps be a little more general.
There are a number of us and I think a growing number of us in rural and hinterland Canada that are increasingly getting more than a little fed up with the attempt of city people to impose their political and social values on those of us who have a different way of life and we do have a different way of life.
My colleague from Kootenay East and I broke with our party and voted on third reading against the last regime of firearms control legislation that came before the House. We did that not because we disagreed with the principle behind that legislation but because we felt that it did not recognize sufficiently the differences between rural and urban Canada.
I have a lot of sympathy with people who live in downtown Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver where they are suffering the problems that automatically arise, whether it is caused by firearms or not as the instrument, from a crowding of people into a small space.
That has happened in New York and in Los Angeles and it increasingly I am afraid is going to happen here, particularly as the violent culture that we are bombarded with through the media gets heavier and heavier. We have not found a way to deal with it and the new technology makes it even less likely that we are going to be able to deal with it but this is not the way. One of the Liberal members-I do not know if he was the critic in this area for the Liberal Party-said a few moments ago that just because some people may not obey a law is no reason not to pass it.
I agree. Anyone would agree with that statement. But if there is widespread opposition and widespread contempt for a given regime of regulation and law in large areas of a country, it is unwise for Parliament to act in defiance of that kind of feeling without a great deal more discussion and without allowing a great deal more time for people to be accustomed to different laws and different regimes. Otherwise we simply dare those forces in society, which I think are legitimate ones, to begin to feel a widespread contempt not only for that law but for law generally. That is unhealthy for democracy.
We have, over the last few years, passed two major pieces of legislation on firearms and regulation in Canada after a great deal of debate. Compromises were reached. Not everybody agreed with the final bill. However, to attempt so soon after we have just completed one of those to bring another piece of bureaucracy into an increasingly collectively deregulated, society and increase regulation on individual people, I think is wrong and unwise.
I do not like disagreeing with colleagues in my own party. I do not like disagreeing with people across the way or down in the other end of the Chamber. However before I represent a party I represent the people who sent me here. I am not running again. I have no political axe to grind on this.
I want to conclude by quoting a famous British labour statesman, Aneuran Bevan, when he said: "A motion is good petrol but a shockingly bad driver".
I understand the kind of emotions that are the driving force behind this proposed legislation, whether it is proposed by a Conservative, as in this case, or by a Liberal or by some of my colleagues in the NDR But I reject totally that it is wise. All the bill will do if it should succeed is increase bureaucracy, increase the regulation of people, deny personal freedom, with no real positive result. Further it will bring the whole democratic process into disrepute and contempt by a wider number of Canadians, many of whom live in the kind of area that I represent.
I am glad to associate myself in this regard with my colleague who spoke a few moments ago, the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap. It is the wrong time, even if it were intelligent. It is too much at once for people who feel that they have had enough already. The bureaucracy dealing with firearms registration is not yet equipped to deal expeditiously with the regulations we already have. For God's sake, let us not go any further at this time.



March 25, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Brightwell):: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped
Private Members' Business from the Order Paper.
It being 6.07 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(3) this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.07 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 26,1993