1993-05-27

Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that the following vacancies have occurred in the representation: Mr. Prud'homme, member for the electoral district of Saint-Denis, and Mr. Gustafson, member for the electoral district of Souris-Moose Mountain, by resignation on Wednesday, May 26, 1993.
Pursuant to paragraph 25(1)(Z>) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed my warrant today to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ of election for the said electoral districts.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
50TH ANNIVERSARY OF UNITED NATIONS
['Agreed.\nGovernment Orders']
Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of External Relations and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege this morning to remind the House that last Tuesday marked the launching of Canadian activities to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. The international community has taken this opportunity to start a world dialogue on how the UN will meet the commitments formulated in the charter during the 21st century.

At lunch last Tbesday I had the opportunity to welcome Ambassador Richard Butler of Australia who is the permanent representative of Australia to the United Nations and chairman of the United Nations preparatory
committee for its 50th anniversary. The members of the Canadian national committee for the United Nations 50th anniversary were also present.
It is a true measure of the importance that we in Canada attach to this organization that such a distinguished group of Canadians, led by its chair, Douglas Roche, has agreed to serve on the committee.

This committee is a Canadian initiative in response to an appeal by the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros-Boutros Ghali. Creating this committee is a first step in a series of events, culminating in the 50th anniversary of the signing of the United Nations charter on October 24, 1995.
Canada has always maintained a clear commitment to the principles of the charter and international co-operation, and our contribution in this respect has won international recognition. Since 1945, this commitment has been the driving force of our foreign policy. With genuine enthusiasm, Canadians are looking forward to celebrating this anniversary.
Many activities will take place in this country, including an international symposium in Quebec City in October 1995 to mark the 50th anniversary of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
In Montreal a special committee has been set up to mark the 50th anniversary of the International Civil Aviation Organization. December 7, 1994, has been designated International Civil Aviation Day and Canada Post will issue a special stamp on that occasion.
These are only a few of the many ways Canadians will celebrate the UN's anniversary in 1995. As a member of the United Nations, Canada has many reasons to celebrate.
Since 1945 our country has contributed in many different ways towards building the UN. It was involved in drafting the charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Canada has often held a seat on the Security Council where its efforts have produced excellent results. Furthermore, thousands of Canadians have

May 27, 1993
Routine Proceedings
worked, and are still working, for the UN and its specialized agencies.

One of Canada's most challenging and visible UN roles is that of the international peacekeeper. We have been actively involved in almost every peacekeeping operation since Lester B. Pearson, Canadian Nobel laureate and former Prime Minister, did so much to develop the concept.

We make a major contribution to UN peacekeeping operations, through the participation of our troops and the efforts of Canadian citizens deployed throughout the world. Canada has taken its moral and financial responsibilities in this respect very seriously.
Finally, I would like to remind the House of the splendid work being done by the United Nations Association in Canada. This organization informs the Canadian public about the UN and is now playing an important role in setting up the national committee for the 50th anniversary.
The charter starts with the words "We the peoples of the United Nations" the theme recommended by the UN for 1995. It is incumbent on us, the people of Canada, to ensure that the 50th anniversary of the United Nations is celebrated in a true spirit of participation, as reflected not only in official ceremonies but above all in a renewed commitment by our country to the principles set forth in the UN charter.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity on behalf of the Official Opposition to comment upon this very important occasion on which we will be honouring the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. We certainly look forward to the various celebrations the minister was talking about.
However the most important way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations is not to engage in a series of public relations exercises or anniversary parties at which we have coloured lights, balloons, cakes and
candles but to engage in a fundamental reform of the charter of the United Nations.
There was nothing in the statement by the minister that indicated in any way, shape or form that this government has any plan of action to deal substantially with the reform of the charter of the United Nations to bring it up to date and make it relevant to the kinds of conditions we face in the world today.
Surely, as we look at the tragedy in Bosnia and the complete breakdown, the shameful and embarrassing lack of action by western powers to deal with the murder and genocide in that poor country, we realize just how deeply we need to look at the way in which the world community organizes itself to stop the new kinds of conflicts and the new kinds of transgressions of human rights.
There is an enormous level of poverty emerging in the world. The United Nations has said that if we do not take a new look at the question of jobs, employment and poverty we will be engulfed by a whole new generation of conflicts. We need agencies in the United Nations with the effective and efficient ability to deliver these reforms. Surely, we must look at a fundamental review of the charter.

There is nothing in the minister's statement suggesting a task force on UN reform. Celebrating is fine, but we need a firm statement from the Government of Canada on UN reform.

This week our leader announced the foreign policy platform of our own party and put forward as a central point the need to have a charter review. After 50 years of the United Nations it is time for Canada to take the lead in undertaking a major revision of crucial matters dealing with peace, security, economic organization and the financing of the UN. Yet there is nothing in this statement to indicate that this government has the slightest interest in that fundamental requirement.
To prove the point, we know that by the end of June the United Nations Secretary-General has requested all member states to submit proposals for reform of the Security Council and the composition of the Security Council. This government has not even submitted a proposal. It has not had a debate in the House. It has not
May 27, 1993

had any discussion with the NGOs across Canada on this fundamental question of how to reform the Security Council. It is asleep at the switch at a crucial time in the history of the world.
When the minister speaks about the past accomplishments of Canada in leading the development, evolution and creation of the UN, she speaks in the past tense. We are concerned about the future tense and whether Canada will continue to have a leadership role in providing for fundamental reform and change to make the United Nations a full, complete and effective representation of the world community.
In this document, this statement there is no indication of any of that kind of commitment, preparation, readiness and willingness to take on the reform of the UN as a central thrust of Canadian foreign policy.
There is a wonderful book written by Dean Acheson, the former U.S. Secretary of State, called Present at the Creation. He talks about how he and a generation of statesmen, including many Canadians such as Lester Pearson, Paul Martin and others, plus a very distinguished group of civil servants, took part in developing the fundamental structures of the UN in 1945-46.
We think it is time to be present at the recreation of the United Nations and to mobilize the best brains, talent, integrity and energy of Canadians to once again bring Canadian leadership into the world to make sure the UN is able to fulfil its rightful and only place as a full and effective democratic representative for the new kind of world that we live in and to deal with the emerging problems of human rights, economic development and peace and security.
We think the best way for Canadians to celebrate the 50th anniversary is to make sure that the 100th anniversary of the United Nations will also be celebrated in a world where there is peace, security, justice and equality. The best way to celebrate the UN is to put our best resources to work to rebuild the United Nations.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to respond as the spokesperson on external affairs for the New Demo-
Routine Proceedings
cratic Party as well as a member of the Canadian committee for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.
I want to respond briefly to this statement by the Minister for External Relations. I want to begin my brief response by indicating my concern and disappointment that on this opportunity for the minister to indicate a serious and significant commitment by the Government of Canada to fundamental reform of the United Nations, to a recognition that the United Nations of October 1945 does not reflect the realities and priorities of the world today, we heard a simple affirmation of the fact that the 50th anniversary is coming up and that Canada will be playing a role in it.
We heard nothing whatsoever about the direction this government believes the United Nations should be going in the next decade or more. Neither did we hear about specific proposals with respect to some of the changes in focus and structure of the United Nations..
The members of the external affairs committee met on Tuesday with Ambassador Richard Butler, the permanent representative of Australia to the United Nations who is chairing the United Nations preparatory committee on the 50th anniversary. He indicated that a number of countries are showing leadership. They are playing a major role in looking at issues such as the reform of the Security Council, a revamping of the financial footing of the United Nations and so on.
Where is Canada's voice? Where is Canada's leadership on this or any of the other important issues facing the United Nations as we approach the 50th anniversary?
We know the challenges that face the United Nations today, particularly a fundamental review of the United Nations charter, must be put in the context of a redefinition of security itself. We need a recognition of the principles of common security, that the greatest threats to that security are poverty and global imbalances in wealth and power between north and south and between rich and poor.	.
We have a planet on which 40,000 children die each day of preventable hunger and disease. We have a planet on which international financial institutions, whether the IMF or the World Bank, contribute to the problem

May 27, 1993
Routine Proceedings
instead of contributing to a redistribution of wealth and power to the poor and those in peril.
We know that the threats to the global environment such as global wanning, deforestation, poisoning of the air, water and soil and the threat of nuclear weapons are challenges that a new, invigorated and strengthened United Nations must face. Indeed, we welcome the recent proposal of a number of international NGOs to challenge the legality of nuclear weapons as being illegal before the International Court of Justice.
We know the United Nations must be fundamentally reformed to deal with the tragic reality that war is still all too real on this planet. There are some 40 wars which are still being fought, the most visible and the most tragic of course in the former Yugoslavia with ethnic cleansing still under way.
We had hoped in October 1945, as we emerged from the horrors of the Holocaust and World War II, that we would never again see war. We know however that wish has certainly not been fulfilled.
We should be using the opportunity of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations to examine with care a number of proposals for strengthening the UN.

The United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros-Ghali, presented a document entitled Agenda for Peace. It contains several excellent ideas which the Government of Canada should consider. Mr. Speaker, what is the Canadian government's position on Agenda for Peace? We still do not know. What is the Canadian government's position on the Stockholm Initiative which puts forward several concrete proposals to improve the status of the United Nations?

Finally, as we look at democratizing the United Nations, at expanding the membership of the Security Council, at putting the UN on a sounder financial footing, strengthening the International Court of Justice, establishing a world criminal court and a United Nations parliamentary assembly, let us recognize that the fundamental commitment too of the United Nations to human rights is at the core of this redefinition. Hopefully the upcoming world conference on human
rights will recognize the importance of establishing a special high commissioner for human rights and putting more resources into that important part of the mandate.
I want to close by underlining the importance of the NGO role, both Canadian NGOs, including the United Nations Association of Canada, and international NGOs, as we approach this 50th anniversary of the United Nations.



[Stage Direction]
15TH AND 16TH REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 10, 1993, your committee has considered Bill C-125, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, anachronisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in those statutes and to repeal certain provisions of those statutes that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect. Your committee has agreed to report it without amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Friday, May 7, 1993, your committee has considered Bill C-123, an act respecting the management of certain property seized or restrained in connection with certain offences, the disposition of certain property on the forfeiture thereof and the sharing of the proceeds of disposition therefrom in certain circumstances. Your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


AIRPORT TRANSFER (MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS) ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
Hon. Marcel Danis (for the Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-131, an act to amend the Airport Transfer (Miscellaneous Matters) Act.
May 27, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Danis (for Mr. Corbeil) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE ACT
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-438, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act (improvement to public safety).


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


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce this bill today amending the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
The bill will close a significant loophole in sentencing laws. It will lower the age of application of the Young Offenders Act, outlaw the crack houses, provide for stiffer bail procedures, deny statutory release to repeat serious offenders and allow judicially ordered blood tests of those accused of rape.
I want to acknowledge the support and constructive input of my colleague in the House, the hon. member for Red Deer, the constructive input of colleagues in my caucus, colleagues on the justice committee and representatives of victims groups, all who have contributed to the drafting of this bill.


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


MEASURE TO AMEND
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-439, an act to amend the National Anthem Act.


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


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in March of this year Miss Judith Olson, a music teacher with the East York Board of Education, wrote to me and other members of Parliament pointing out the sexist and exclusionary language in our national anthem.
She stated: "Although the schools are working toward eliminating sexism in the curriculum, each morning approximately half the students are left out during the singing of O Canada. These students are, of course, thy daughters". She is referring of course to the second line in the national anthem which reads: "True patriot love in all-"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the hon. member like to sing it? Would it be easier for the hon. member to sing it?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to.


Some hon. members:: Oh, no.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps I can finish my submissions and then we can all sing the proposed changed words.
She is suggesting that the second line be changed to: "true patriot love in all our hearts command" as opposed to "true patriot love in all our sons command".
A further change was recommended by one of my staff members in line three. So as not to repeat the word "hearts" the third line would read "with glowing pride we see thee rise".
The first three lines to the proposed changes to O Canada would read as follows:
O Canada, our home and native land True patriot love in all our hearts command With glowing pride we see thee rise The true north strong and free From far and wide, O Canada We stand on guard for thee

May 27, 1993
Routine Proceedings
God keep our land glorious and free O Canada, we stand on guard for thee O Canada, we stand on guard for thee
I would like to commend Miss Olson for the initiative she has taken in writing to all members of Parliament. I am pleased to sponsor the bill on behalf of Miss Olson.
In conclusion she says: "These changes would be a positive way to instil confidence and a feeling of equality in all the students of Canada".


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


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:: Thai four members of the Standing Committee on Transport and
eight staff persons be authorized to travel to Saint John, New
Brunswick, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, on June 1 and June 2, 1993 in
order to hold public hearings on the National Transportation Act
Review Commission report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House a petition that was collected by Lynne Stoner of Dorchester Road in Niagara Falls. She has collected petitions of individuals numbering 6,400. These people are from all across the Niagara peninsula. These 6,400 individuals, most of whom are women, because of the senseless, needless and violent deaths of women all across this country are asking that this Parliament pass an anti-stalking law. I
am pleased to say that there is now before Parliament an anti-stalking law.
I appreciate all the time and effort that went into putting together this petition. I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all colleagues of the House that I will do everything that I can and I urge other hon. members to join me in making sure an anti-stalking law is in place before we go home for the summer.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a group of constituents of mine who humbly call upon Parliament to enact legislation which will allow a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have here hundreds of petitions from Ontario against the North American free trade agreement. Some of these petitions come from the Goderich-Kincardine area, including such places as Blyth, up that peninsula, but the vast bulk of these petitions come from my constituents in Essex-Windsor.
They were collected throughout the constituency. They reflect the very strong view of my constituents in Essex-Windsor that this North American free trade agreement will cause Canadians to lose more jobs, that if implemented the free trade deal with result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future from assisting Canadian industry, conserving Canadian natural resources for Canadian benefit and advancing needed social programs.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon the House to reject the legislation in front of the House today implementing the North American free trade arrangement.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a number of petitions today.
The first petition is signed by residents of Burnaby, Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia. It notes that two young Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison have suffered grave miscarriages of justice in Brazilian prisons and in the courts, that the cumulative effect of these irregularities provides ample
May 27, 1993

ground for the Government of Canada to seek a remedy and the only effective remedy from this punishment is for Canada to request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have another set of petitions which are signed again by residents of my own constituency of Burnaby- Kingsway as well as New Westminster and other parts of the lower mainland of British Columbia collected in particular by Mr. Raghbir Jawandha, Phin Malthe and Jose Gomez.
These petitions note that the federal government through Immigration Canada is in the process of eliminating services now available to the public. The New Westminster Canada Immigration Centre provides good local service which will be withdrawn to a less efficient, less accessible and already overworked Vancouver Canada Immigration Centre.
As a result of the hardship imposed, the petitioners call upon Parliament to demand that the government not eliminate in-person services and not close local Immigration Canada offices across the country.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, next I have petitions which are signed by several thousand Canadians from coast to coast to coast on the subject of using animals in tests.
They note that tests and experiments are presently being made on animals in schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, as well as in industrial and commercial laboratories of all kinds.
The petitioners urge Parliament to totally and complete abolish all tests and experiments using live animals
Routine Proceedings
in the pretext of relating observations to humans, as such practices are not only cruel, unnecessary, unjustifiable, unreliable and morally wrong, but they invariably generate misleading concepts and dangerous results which are most damaging to the health of Canadians as well as to that of citizens from every country in the world.


Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions from over 700 Okanagan Centre residents to go with several thousand names which have been presented to the Clerk.
They are petitioning the House of Commons to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading material such as the serial killer board game can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Edward Allan Horning: Mr. Speaker, I also have a second petition with several thousand names from residents of my riding of Okanagan Centre who are concerned that the post office is closing and privatizing post offices. Canada Post has stated that the Kelowna post offices will be closed during 1993.
Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to stop these closures and the privatization of postal services, and to ensure that the citizens and taxpayers of Kelowna, British Columbia have full service post offices which are directly run by the Canada Post Corporation.
I may add that the Kelowna post office has closed and it is anticipated the other two to be closed are in Rutland and Westbank. The petitioners are hoping that these two post offices will be saved.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting another petition signed by constituents of mine who are concerned about the North American free trade agreement.
On this day when Parliament is debating for the last time the North American free trade agreement legisla-

May 27, 1993
Routine Proceedings
tion before the cold guillotine of closure comes down on it, I would like to present this petition to Parliament.
The petitioners state that the current Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement sharply reduces the power of all Canadian governments to develop the Canadian economy. They note that more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since the free trade agreement became law in 1989. They also state that if implemented, the North American free trade agreement will cause even more jobs to be lost.
Therefore the petitioners call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and recommend to government that it use the FTA's termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
The names on this petition bring the total to some several hundred that have been collected in my constituency in only the last few weeks.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present this petition.
It is signed by many residents from Creston, Wynndel and Erickson in my riding of Kootenay East. They state that the proposed North American free trade agreement has resulted in ever greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada; that the Canadian Constitution requires a general federal election before Januaiy 1, 1994, the date on which the North American free trade agreement is scheduled to come into force.
Therefore we call upon the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by my constituents in the Yukon who wish to draw to the attention of Parliament their concern that the goods and services tax should not apply to certain products because they are necessities.
My constituents particularly refer to women's sanitary products. They respectfully suggest that the government
should withdraw the GST from those articles which constitute a necessity for women.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from British Columbia with regard to the North American free trade agreement.
The petitioners note that Canada's Constitution requires a general federal election before January 1, 1994, the date on which the free trade agreement is scheduled to come into force.
They call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present two petitions.
The first, signed by a number of Edmontonians, concerns redress for Ukrainian Canadians. Your petitioners point out that the Canadian government committed, as the Prime Minister indicated in his Winnipeg keynote address to the Ukrainian Canadian Congress in October of 1992, an intention to settle the claim to the mutual satisfaction of both the government and the Ukrainian Canadian community.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government to act on the unanimous motion of the House of Commons of September 27, 1991 to settle the acknowledgement and redress issues to the mutual satisfaction of the Ukrainian Canadian community and the government.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition signed by a number of Albertans, most of whom are residents in Edmonton, who point out among other things that more than 400,000 Canadian manufacturing jobs have been lost since the FTA became law in 1989 and that if implemented the North American free trade agreement will cause even more Canadian jobs to be lost.
Therefore, these petitioners, on this second black day in the life of this Parliament, call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend to the government that it use
May 27, 1993

the FTA's termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 461 and 523 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that Questions Nos. 461 and 523 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni): For each year since November 1988, have any departments or agencies spent money or provided grants in the constituency of Comox-Alberni and if so, (a) by which department or agency (b) in what amounts (c) under which categories and programs was the money spent?
Return tabled.

Question No. 523-Mr. Rodriguez:
For the fiscal years 1988-89 to 1992-93, has the Department of Supply and Services awarded any procurement contracts to individuals or firms in the constituency of Nickel Belt and, if so, in each case (a) what amounts were paid out (b) to which individuals or firms?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade) moved: that Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American free trade agreement be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the minister I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(a), because of the ministerial statement, government orders will be extended by 15 minutes, beginning at one o'clock p.m.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the opportunity to speak in this debate.
It is very important legislation. It is legislation about the future of our country. The NAFTA is a comprehensive agreement that builds on the progress we have already made to date in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. The NAFTA improves on our access to the United States market. It also opens up access in a very important way to the fast-growing Mexican market.
The agreement is about growth and prosperity. Opponents of trade often suggest that the benefits for one country come at the expense of another.


Mr. Crawford:: Right on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend says "right on". That just shows how little he understands what we are talking about here, but I am delighted that he is in the House to listen to my remarks. I hope that he will listen very carefully.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I guess, Mr. Speaker, I said something that has twitched a nerve end.
Expanded trade and investment benefits all those who engage in it. By specializing in what we do best we

Government Orders
improve our productivity and increase our wealth. I have said on many occasions that it is important for us to get as many companies as possible involved in international markets. That is what the free trade agreements we have entered into will do.
The reason I say that is if companies are involved day in and day out in meeting the world competition they are going to be better companies for it. They are going to be able to generate more business in Canada, more business internationally, and be there in a much stronger way as we go through the normal ups and downs that are bound to happen in any economy.
With free trade liberalization we both preserve and create jobs and improve the prospects for Canadian companies to compete successfully world-wide. As we improve our productivity, our competitiveness, in dealing first with the United States and now in the NAFTA with Mexico, it will put us in a stronger position to take on the competition in the Far East, in Europe, or in central and eastern Europe. This is an essential objective of a free trade agreement. This is the proven strategy for growth and for improvements in our standard of living here in Canada.
The results of the free trade agreement to date are powerful. The figures speak for themselves. Canadian merchandise trade surplus with the United States rose 13.6 per cent last year over the previous year. Our merchandise trade surplus with the United States last year was $17.7 billion. That compares with $13.8 billion in 1988, the year before the free trade agreement came into force.
Looking behind those numbers you can see that the exports to the United States were up 13.5 per cent last year in a year when the U.S. economy grew at about 5 per cent. So far this year we can see that the trend is continuing, as exports to the United States in the first quarter compared to the same period last year were up 23 per cent. It is clear that it is the export business that has been assisted in such a major way by the free trade agreement which is driving the recovery in this country out of the recession we came out of a couple of years ago.
Exports are the engines of growth in Canada today. A C.D. Howe Institute analysis shows that in the first three years of the free trade agreement, those products which are benefiting the most from this increase in exports are
those that have received the greatest amount of trade liberalization and the greatest reduction in their tariffs going into the United States market.
I have heard members opposite on a number of occasions say that what we should be doing is generating more value-added manufacturing. That is precisely what the free trade agreement is doing. As we drop the tariffs on value-added products going into the United States market, it creates a manufacturing base for us in Canada. That is why we have seen a substantial increase in value-added products going into the United States market.
It is interesting to see that in the very high-tech areas, like telecommunications or aerospace, such as our exports in the first four years were up something like 60 per cent, but coming the other way interestingly, the U.S. exports into Canada in these products were up about 12 per cent.
Clearly we have gained market share and the free trade agreement has been a veiy important element of gaining that market share.
We have all said on many occasions in this House that Canada is a trading nation and there is no doubt about that. But our goal as a government has been to protect today's markets and to open up the markets of tomorrow. It is with this aim that we are pushing forward with an ambitious result in the Uruguay round at the multilateral trade negotiations. We achieved this through the negotiation of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and now we have consolidated and improved upon this by negotiating the North American free trade agreement.
Let us look again at what this agreement does for Canada. It improves the already good access that we have into the United States market. It gives us preferential access to a growing and dynamic Mexican market, a young market, a market that is growing faster than that of the United States or Canada. It is a market we should be in. I should say we are already because the publicity and the interest that the NAFTA has generated is already generating some activity in Mexico.
Our exports last year were up 35 per cent. We have seen an increase in business visitors from 1,000 in 1990, to 2,000 in 1991, to 4,500 in 1992 and that trend is continuing.
May 27, 1993

It also ensures that Canada remains a preferred location for investment, investment by both foreign investors as well as Canadian investors. As they see that we have this better access to the United States and considerably improved access to Mexico, they are being drawn into using Canada as a base for their operations for the total North American market.
Our wealth and growth prospects depend on access to world markets. We are a small market in terms of population. Our access to outside markets underpins our economy and standard of living, and that is why we negotiated the free trade agreement with the United States. That is why we have also negotiated the North American free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico.
The U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement laid a foundation for Canadian prosperity. At a time of rising protectionist pressures throughout the world, not least of which was in the United States, Canada is in the enviable position of having through the FTA preferential access to the United States market.
The NAFTA preserves the benefits of the FTA. It ensures that Canada remains a prime investment location and it provides continued protection for key domestic areas, including our cultural industries, public education, health and social services, including child care.

The NAFTA substantially expands the benefits of the FTA. After four years of experience with the FTA we had the opportunity to make improvements and broaden the coverage in such areas as intellectual property protection and land transportation. We now have clearer rules for regulating Canada-United States trade, and new market access in the U.S. in areas not covered by the Canada-United States FTA. These improvements give Canadian businesses new opportunities in the U.S. and Mexico and place Canadian business on an even sounder footing for expanding our exports in important offshore markets.

Let me review some of the major new areas covered by the North American free trade agreement. One is duty drawback. This provision allows Canadian exporters to be refunded for the tariff that is paid on business inputs, products that they use in the production of their own
Government Orders
manufactured products that are later exported. This was to be eliminated under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement next January, but under the NAFTA we have extended this deadline for two years. More important, new rules give certain permanent duty drawback rights for exporters who do not meet the NAFTA rules of origin.
The NAFTA rules of origin improve on those of the FTA. They are clearer and more predictable. That is a real benefit to Canadian exporters and potential investors in Canada. For many products the necessity of calculating content has simply been eliminated and replaced by the more precise tariff shift rules.
For most products still subject to a content requirement, there are two possible calculations from which an exporter can choose, at least one of which is considerably simpler than the one that is available now under the FTA.
Regulations will be established to ensure that Canadian, U.S. and Mexican customs officials apply the rules uniformly.
Finally, advance rulings on the origin of goods to be traded within the NAFTA area will further minimize the uncertainties for traders and investors.

The NAFTA maintains and improves upon the FTA's dispute settlement provisions.
The right Canada achieved in the FTA to take final appeals of countervail and dumping cases to a binational, impartial panel is clearly recognized in the NAFTA. Business people who have been subjected to the U.S. trade remedies system tell me that this dispute settlement procedure is a key asset of the FTA and one envied by those who do not have it.
The NAFTA gives Canadian service sector businesses new access to the North American market. It expands to services the basic obligations of national treatment which has long been applied to goods through the GATT and other trade agreements.
A signatory country cannot require that a service firm from a NAFTA country establish or maintain a local presence as a precondition for access to its market; this means that Canadian firms can provide services to the U.S. and Mexican market from Canada.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders

Under its temporaiy entry provisions the NAFTA opens up cross-border entry for over 60 professions. As Mexico continues to develop it will need professional consulting assistance in the areas of telecommunications, utilities, land transportation services and consulting engineering. These are all areas in which Canadians excel.
Additional benefits are achieved in financial services. Under the NAFTA Mexico's financial markets will be opened up to Canadian banking, insurance and securities firms. This will allow Canadian financial institutions to participate in the rapidly expanding Mexican economy, a promising market that was closed to us until the negotiation of the NAFTA.
In another improvement on the FTA the NAFTA financial services obligations are covered by the agreement's general disputes settlement procedures. The FTA did not include provisions on land transportation. This has been rectified. Under the NAFTA a Canadian trucker can now unload in the United States, reload there, go to Mexico and haul back a cargo to the United States and Canada. At the same time we have maintained our cabotage rights.
The investment provisions of the NAFTA are another example where the FTA provisions were expanded offering to Canadian investors a more secure footing in the North American marketplace and securing for the future, their preferential access to Mexico. For additional security, disputes between an investor from a NAFTA country and another NAFTA country may be settled at the investor's options by international arbitration. Canada meanwhile maintains its rights to review foreign takeovers.
Canadian businesses gain new intellectual property protection in the NAFTA consistent with international rules that have developed in the Uruguay round negotiations. As the Canadian economy moves into higher value-added, knowledge-based growth areas, this protection for copyrights, patents, trade marks and trade secrets will protect our ability to expand into the NAFTA area. This in turn will make us a more competitive and attractive place to do business and create higher paying jobs.
It will clearly attract more investment into Canada as we have seen in the pharmaceutical area where over $700 million of investment has been attracted into Canada because of those changes that have been brought about by this government, consistent with the Uruguay round and the NAFTA.
The government procurement provisions of the NAFTA significantly expand the coverage contained in the FTA. The NAFTA adds about $50 billion in covered procurement to what was already opened in competitive bidding under the GATT and the FTA. Canadian businesses will have the opportunity to bid on contracts from such major buyers as the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the Mexican Pemex Corporation which together buy over $15 billion in goods and services each year.
I know my friends opposite do not like to hear about these positive changes to the NAFTA compared to what we have now. These changes to the NAFTA are going to generate job and investment opportunities in Canada.
They are going to result in a change for the better in this country that will reduce the unemployment rate and improve the competitive position of Canadian business. I know that is a major disappointment to my friends opposite. They can see that as the economy improves their opportunities to come to this side of the House are long gone.
I am sorry to have to say that. That is why I see the number of long faces on that side of the House. These NAFTA achievements represent new opportunities open to Canadians in the United States as well as in Mexico.


Mr. Kilgour:: Tell that to your constituents.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are going to have a little ceremony here. They are listening carefully to all the good things I have to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sure the hon. members want to hear the minister's statement on this important issue.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is probably stretching things but I appreciate your support in getting a little order into this place.
These achievements are improvements on the significant accomplishments already in place in the U.S.-Cana-da Free Trade Agreement. They provide an even more
May 27, 1993

Government Orders
solid foundation for our exports to markets beyond in Europe and the Asia-Pacific as I explained just a few minutes ago.
I have spoken about the improved rules in the NAFTA. We must not lose sight of its importance to Canadian companies that are looking beyond the United States toward Mexico and elsewhere.
The NAFTA opens up a new and dynamic market. Many Canadian businesses are already gearing up for the new opportunities in Mexico as a result of the NAFTA. Let me give you some examples.
The telecommunication firms see tremendous opportunities in Mexico. There are only 10 million telephones lines hooked up in Mexico today. Mexico has a population of 85 million people. We have about an 89 per cent penetration in Canada so that gives members opposite an understanding of the huge opportunity that is here.
Northern Telecom is already doing business in Mexico and SR Telecom has some great opportunities to penetrate into the rural areas of Mexico. I believe SR Telecom has a $13 million contract in one part of the country and a $23 million contract in another part of the country.
There is another company called Glenayre Electronics. It is another telecommunications company that is from Vancouver. Its comment last summer during the final stages of the negotiations was: "This NAFTA cannot come soon enough for us because we have such tremendous opportunities to penetrate into that market".
I tell that to my constituents all the time. They say to me: "Let us get on with this NAFTA legislation. Let us get rid of all this nonsense we hear from the opposition parties. Let us bring the legislation forward to eliminate the uncertainty and get down there and do some business".

Mexico plans to spend tens of billions of dollars- [English]


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to hear the hon. member's speech. He maybe out of order and I would like to know. Please.
The hon. minister has the floor.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, people ask why the opposition parties do not agree with the things we are doing as a government. One of the clear reasons is they never listen. They do not listen to the facts about the NAFTA and the free trade agreement which are in the speech I have been providing for them today.

With our expertise in infrastructure projects in construction, in engineering, Canada is well poised to be a key player in this market.
Services are an area of comparative advantage for Canada and one in which Mexican demand will rapidly increase in the coming years. Canadian financial service sector companies are world class competitors and see significant opportunities in Mexico. Mexico is strongly committed to improving its environment and this will create a major market for the Canada's dynamic pollution abatement and environmental technology sector.

I am disappointed that I may not mention her name but one of the hon. members is not in the House. There is a company called Zenon in Hamilton which is one of the fine Canadian high technology companies involved in anti-pollution devices. I was at the opening and announcement of a major expansion it had. It is extremely interested in the Mexican market. I am sorry that the member I am referring to is not here.


Mr. Keyes:: There are many members here.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I appreciate that there are many members opposite here, including the members for Hamilton West and Hamilton Mountain.
Mexico's demand for manufactured goods includes office equipment, housing market products and other manufactured products and it will increase as Mexico builds its economy.
The automotive market in Mexico is projected to grow much more rapidly than the mature markets of Canada and the United States, providing new export and investment opportunities for Canadian automotive companies. If my hon. friends had read the report of what the president of Chrysler said at its annual meeting here in Canada about a week ago, they would have heard this man say there are major opportunities for Chrysler

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
Canada to sell into the Mexican market. This is a very important fact for Canadian auto workers in Canada. The opportunities this man spoke about were virtually closed to Canadian automotive producers before Mexico agreed in the NAFTA to eliminate its automotive decree.
This is only a very partial list. Canadians can compete around the world and we can compete in Mexico. The NAFTA gives us an advantage over all non-NAFTA countries that allows us to take advantage of these opportunities in Mexico. It is an advantage we must seize.
Trade is not an end in itself, but it is a means to an end. [DOT]The ultimate end is prosperity offered by an efficient economy that generates the wealth necessary for Canadians to pay for the social programs they demand and expect to pay for such as public education, to create higher paying jobs and underwrite continued future improvements in our standard of living and our quality of life.
We are currently negotiating side deals on the environment and labour. Canada pressed for strong improvements in these areas during the original negotiations and I brought this forward in February 1992. We are fully committed to working with our NAFTA partners to promote the highest possible level of co-operation in these important areas. We do however have to get these agreements right. They have to work.
For that reason the Canadian position will continue to oppose the use of trade sanctions to enforce compliance. We will insist instead on mechanisms that promote co-operation and certainty instead of confrontation and uncertainty.
Some hon. members opposite contend that the government is losing its negotiating leverage by proceeding with Bill C-115 before the side agreements are concluded. The fact is that Bill C-115 is not relevant to the achievement of Canada's objectives in the side agreements. The NAFTA is a good deal for Canada with or without the side agreements, but we are working hard for good agreements on environment and labour co-operation. However, the value of NAFTA to Canada is not conditional upon the conclusion of these additional
agreements. All that delaying or implementing legislation would accomplish-perversely-would be to deprive Canadian businesses and their workers of the certainty needed to finalize plans for taking advantage of the many opportunities opened up by the NAFTA.
We are also not prepared to see Canadians misled by misrepresentations of about the NAFTA. We have been exposing these myths. We will continue to expose these myths. The NAFTA does not give the United States or Mexico any rights to exploit our water. Claims to the contrary are absurd puffery. Our 1987 federal water policy explicitly prohibits large scale exports of water by inter-basin transfer or diversion and nothing in the NAFTA or any other trade agreement forces Canada to exploit our water resources or to export our water. Until water enters commerce as a good, it is not covered by the NAFTA or any other trade agreement. The bottom line is that Canadian governments, both now and under the NAFTA, have the freedom of action required to regulate the exploitation of our water resources.
The NAFTA does not threaten Canadian jobs. I will tell what does threaten Canadian jobs: low productivity, recession battered markets, protectionist trade barriers, inflation driven prices, volatile exchange rates, inwardlooking business plans as well as inward-looking politicians. All of these are what threatens Canadian jobs. The NAFTA does not create unfair competition. Canada is already competing against low wage countries as well as high wage countries throughout the world. Their markets are our hope for the future.
Let me read something to my hon. friends opposite that they might want to listen to. It is a quote by C. D. Howe in 1948: "The times in which we are living-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My friends do not like to listen to a great leader from their party, C. D. Howe.


An hon. member:: They do not even want to hear one of their own.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: "The times in which we are living call for initiative and resourcefulness. We must constantly be alive to the changes taking place in the world and quick to seize every opportunity that will build up our economy. It cannot be done overnight, but I am confident that with the co-operation of industry, of
May 27, 1993

government and of other organizations we can build toward a better Canada and a better world".
Those words are as appropriate today as they were appropriate in 1948. Canada can and must compete. Canadians can and must win in world markets. Canada must pursue a vigorous outward-looking trade strategy to maintain and enhance the prosperity and social benefits that our citizens enjoy.
If the great nation builders of Canadian history, like C. D. Howe, taught us any lesson it was to make far-sighted choices, confident of our strong position in the global economy, for the benefit of future generations. Our future generations deserve no less. This is precisely why we are here today in the final stages of debate on the North American free trade agreement.
.(1115)


David Kilgour: What about the GATT?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My loudmouth friend says "What about the GATT?" Let me tell my hon. friend about the GATT
One and a half weeks ago I hosted a meeting of the quad trade ministers in Toronto where Canada took the initiative to try to move this process along. We had a good meeting. We saw a narrowing of differences among the major countries and we can see that this is going to be a positive force leading up to the G-7 summit in Tokyo where we hope to present the leaders at that time with the prospect of a substantial market access package in industrial products and in services and to allow them to give us encouragement to multilateralize the process and complete the negotiations by the end of this year.
I mention that partly for my friend from Edmonton but also partly to make the point again that the North American free trade agreement, the free trade agreement of the United States and the Uruguay Round- these multilateral negotiations-are all compatible. As Arthur Dunkel has said: "There are two sides to the same coin".
It is important that we in Canada not lose sight of that. My friends opposite in both opposition parties have said that they support the GATT and the Uruguay Round. We do as well. That is why I hosted that meeting a week ago Friday. That is why we have been an active supporter
Government Orders
and an active participant in the Uruguay Round right from the start of the negotiations.
However, we must also recognize that positive and strong regional negotiations and agreements, like the NAFTA and the FTA, can be a key part of the success of the Uruguay Round. What is being accomplished in the Uruguay Round in services has taken a lot of guidance from the successes that we have in the service negotiations in the free trade agreement with the United States.
It is the same in the dispute settlement process. A number of the things that were brought in the FTA have been mirrored in the GATT. This can give my hon. friends opposite an indication of what we are doing in these regional negotiations are a major benefit to the conclusion of the GATT round.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I appreciate very much the support and the encouragement of my friends opposite. I will be glad to go on for another 20 minutes if one would permit me.


An hon. member:: Do not tell them everything you know. Then they will be as smart as you are.
Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Thank you colleagues. We must recognize and we do recognize that there are differences on the question of free trade between members opposite and on this side of the House. Probably there will always be those differences. Let me remind my friends of what Macaulay said in 1824: "Free trade is the greatest gift that any government can give to its people. Unfortunately, it is also the source of great controversy". It is very clear that what Macaulay did say-that free trade can be and is the greatest gift that a government can give to its people-has been borne out by history time and time again.
I would hope in the course of this debate and the final stages of it that my friends opposite would reflect on that and possibly soften their position just a little bit as they reflect on the importance of that statement.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to take part in the debate. I must say first of all that I am pleased and glad to have heard what was probably the last speech in this House by

Government Orders
the Minister for International Trade. I am proud that at one point my colleagues saw fit to applaud him because few of his colleagues came to support him this morning in such an important debate as this. He worked so hard. He must be very disappointed now.
I listened to the hon. minister's report on the apparent progress in trade. I would just like to tell him that with all the figures he has shown, there is one basic, figure to remember. In 1983-1984 the trade surplus in this country was more than $20 billion. When the Conservatives came to office-I am talking about the first four years of that administration when there was no free trade-there was a decline, but over four years the total surplus was $47.9 billion. After the four years following the FTA there was a continuous decline to a $9.5 billion surplus last year in 1992 and a total surplus of $35 billion. Even in the U.S. in 1985 there was a $20.4 billion surplus. Last year in the U.S. it was a $9.5 billion surplus.
We can argue about figures. The minister got up and mentioned C. D. Howe. I would like to tell the minister that C. D. Howe was not a pussycat when he was trading with the Americans. When he wanted to build the Seaway at one time the Americans did not want to co-operate. C. D. Howe did not go fishing with the president. He told the Americans that if they did not want to participate then Canada could do it alone. That is the way a Liberal government handles a tough situation.
Look at what is happening today. We are going to vote on a bill today to approve the NAFTA. When the deal was made it was approved in the dying hours of President Bush's term and now we are approving it in the dying hours of the Prime Minister. We are now dealing with a lame duck in Canada as he was dealing with a dead duck in the United States. What is the need for the rush?
When President Clinton came he said he wanted to renegotiate the conditions on labour and the environment, which is something that this party has been asking for for a long time. When negotiations were opened for
the side agreements the Mexicans tabled some preconditions. The Americans had something on the table. The Canadian government chickened out and never proposed anything. It never took the opportunity to have some leverage in the negotiations.
It just wants to finish there and pass the law when we do not know the result of the negotiations. What kind of bargaining power will the minister have tomorrow? The bill will have been passed in the Parliament of Canada. We will have made our bed. We cannot gain anything more.
Of course we are free traders. We know that we have to trade. We know that Canada has always been the biggest trading nation in the world per capita. Yes, we have been that.
When it passed the FTA it said that we would have guaranteed access to the American market. Less than a month ago I was in Hamilton and met with the representative of Stelco. They no longer have access. The same people who in 1988 sent letters to their employees to vote for the Tbries were telling me that they no longer have access. They do not have a hearing there. When they wanted to present their case they gave them ten minutes.
The American board told them: "We presume that you spend 10 per cent for that". They cannot even prove that they do not spend as much as 10 per cent. They decide in the United States under what conditions we should operate in Canada and they presume that it should cost us that much and we cannot prove the contrary.
What we want is real access. What we want is a definition of what a subsidy is. What we want is a definition of what dumping is. When we have these rules in place we will compete, but we must have the rules and we must have a commitment that the rules will be respected. That is the problem with this deal.
I am not like the New Democrats. We are not like them. We do not want to build a wall around Canada that is not what we want. We know that Canadians can compete, but we must have rules. We have to know exactly what can be done and after that we will adjust.


Mr. McCreath:: We have rules and that is why we won the majority of the cases.
May 27, 1993


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will deal with that. When we win the
case it is too late.
The member does not know anything about it. I am happy that he made that intervention because when I was at Stelco I was told: "Because of the move of the government, we are losing our clients because they do not know whether we will be able to supply next month at a competitive price. By the time that there is a ruling we will have lost our clients because we have to guarantee delivery today, tomorrow, next month and next year". As a result of the fact that there is action in front of the board in the United States it loses their clients and by the time the ruling comes it is too late.
I see a member from Nova Scotia. I am a member from New Brunswick, from Beausejour. One day when I was visiting my electors there-my door is always open-some workers came from Amherst, Nova Scotia, a good example of the flaws in this deal. They were working in a factory protected with 10 per cent tariffs in Canada. They were making 10 different pieces that are used to make the street lamps in Canada. They were virtually alone in Canada. It was a company owned by Americans. After the free trade deal was signed the Americans came to them and they said: Let's make a deal. It would have the mandate in Canada for one of the 10 parts and the Americans would take the mandate for the remaining nine parts. It would have the same number of employees. It was highly productive and very competitive. It said yes.
After six months of the deal under which it was making one part and the Americans were making the nine others in the United States the company came to the factory and said that it had to close it down because the company could not sell the factory's part that is made in Canada because it has to deal with municipalities which are obliged to buy American. The factory closed down.
The employees said to the American parent company: "Sell us the equipment and we will compete with you". However it would not do it because it knew the best productivity in all its plants was in the one in Canada. It took the equipment south to the United States and the employees who were willing to buy it to compete with the Americans could not.


Some hon. members:: So much for free trade.
Government Orders


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: So much for free trade. During the period of time I was a lawyer, I quit this House for a time. In 1988 I had a client, who I will not name, who came to me and gave me hell because I was against the free trade agreement. I said there is no guarantee. There are no safeguards. This person said: "Look, I am a businessman. We need it. It is very important".
Three months after the agreement he called me to tell me that he had lost his job because the parent company had closed its branch operation in Canada and had moved everything to the United States. He wanted me to give him a letter of recommendation. That is a fact of life.
What we want is to know that we have access and protection. We can compete but we have to tell the United States that we need rules and the Americans cannot control the rules as they do now. That is the problem. We are for free trade but we are also for fair trade.
I was a cabinet minister when we signed the agreement on the auto pact. What did we do there? We went to the United States and said: "Okay, we will abolish the tariffs but you have to guarantee to Canadian workers that they will have their share of production in Canada". During the whole time we had this agreement with safeguards we maintained our proportion of jobs in Canada. That is what we call fair trade and what we call managed trade.

We cannot succeed when we think that the government entered those negotiations with the sole desire of getting an agreement, any agreement. What confidence can we have in this government? Again they say: "Give us a blank cheque. Trust us." Those are the same Conservatives or at least the same Prime Minister who was elected leader of his party by attacking the present minister of fisheries who advocated free trade; he said that the minister of fisheries was completely crazy to propose that. The first thing we knew, the Prime Minister adopted the fisheries minister's plan.
Something similar happened with the Constitution. He was against the man who is now Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. Today, because he is for the community of communities, the first thing he did was to

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
support the proposal which he fought to become leader of the party.
Today we are asked to trust them. But we have no rules. That is the problem. We should first wait to find out exactly what the Americans will get in their negotiations on environmental and labour issues. But the results are not in. Today it is very obvious, because of last week's debate right here in Ottawa, that the side agreements will directly affect the main agreement. What was the problem? The Americans said, "If you Mexicans and Canadians pollute the environment, we will impose duties on trade". This implies a radical change in the substance of the accord.
Today we are asked to vote on it although the Americans have told us clearly that the labour and environmental conditions which they want to negotiate will directly affect the trade negotiations. I tell you again that they warned us, "If you pollute or if your labour conditions are inadequate, we will impose duties on trade in a free trade agreement." So it is obvious that we do not know the substance. I can understand why the minister just left and I even see that no minister is in the House now. It is absolutely incredible that this government does not pay more attention to what is meant to be their parting gloiy; not one of them is in this House now to listen to the arguments or to defend the government's proposal.

This is an awful proposition. Let us give the nation some time. This government is in the fifth year of its mandate. It has no legitimacy any more. It is a government that has been below 20 per cent in the polls during most of its term in office, for almost four and a half years. At the last minute, in the middle of the negotiation with the United States, it says: "Let us pass the bill". When it has to go to the negotiating table it does not want to have one little tool with which to negotiate. It surrenders before the beginning of the fight. That is why we are opposing the process. We are opposing the process because it makes no sense. We should postpone that and review it after the election.
We believe we will be the government and we have some concrete proposals. Depending on who they are talking to, the NDP say just scrap the agreement. When
the leader of the New Democratic Party spoke with The Financial Post, she said she wants to renegotiate the deal. That makes sense. But after she met with her radical friends she changed her mind.
The Liberal Party has a clear position. We cannot go back to square one. It is very naive to think we can go back to square one.


Ms. Copps:: That is right. Wake up, Dave Barrett.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As I said earlier, per capita Canada is the biggest trading nation in the world. We need the world. We say we want to live with the reality that we have to compete internationally. We have been very good at it. We are not afraid of competition but we have five conditions that have to be modified in the agreement so that Canadian interests will be adequately protected.
Two of the conditions have been picked up by President Clinton. We were the first to talk about renegotiating the environmental conditions and the labour conditions. We have been talking about them for two years and President Clinton picked them up.


An hon. member:: He listened to us.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, he did not listen to us. He has common sense, that is all. He understood.


An hon. member:: Bravo.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are not happy with the conditions concerning energy. We want the same deal as the Mexicans.


An hon. member:: There is nothing wrong with that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What is wrong with that? If it is good enough for the Mexicans, it should be good enough for the Canadians. I do not think it would be a difficult negotiation.
What will be the answer that the Americans give us? Why treat Canada differently from the Mexicans if we are supposed to be three partners in a deal? I do not think there will be a very difficult argument.
I mentioned to the minister earlier that the next two conditions we want to renegotiate are what a subsidy is and what dumping is? We have to know that. We have had more problems with our trade relations with the United States since this government claimed it obtained access for Canadian goods in the United States.
May 27, 1993

Wheat, softwood lumber, pork, cars-there are many more-magnesium, lobsters. Every time it is a new problem. Because we can access their market, can compete in their market, the Americans use their own rules. They claim it is a subsidy. They claim it is dumping. In the end they sock it to us and that becomes harassment. What we need is a clear definition of what is a subsidy and what is dumping.
There is a clause in the FTA which says that in the seven years after the implementation of the FTA, we have to conclude negotiations on what is a subsidy and what is dumping. There is a commitment by the Americans to the Canadian government that in the seven years after the implementation of the FTA they will renegotiate the conditions of dumping and subsidy.
Will the Americans say we are not reasonable when we ask them to respect the promise they put in the agreement at that time?
When we have a good definition of what a subsidy is and what dumping is, we will have a deal and I will tell the Canadian people that we will have to compete and we can compete. We have always been good at competing but we have to have some rules.
For instance there is no use playing hockey if in the middle of a period the other coach decides his team will play eight against five. We know it is five players plus a goalie. No more. That is the rule. We play according to the rules, but the Americans change the rules according to their own desires. This is not free trade. This is not access to trade in United States.
Therefore we have to have new negotiations and we will have new negotiations. A lot of people ask me what guarantees I have that the Americans will want to renegotiate. I say that if it was a bad deal for the Americans, they would want to renegotiate. They would want to have a better deal for themselves.
Why do members opposite sometimes ask: Do they want to renegotiate? It is very easy. It is because it is a very good deal for them. If it is a very good deal for them they will want to keep as much of a good deal as possible. They will sit down with us and we will negotiate what they want to negotiate such as conditions on labour and environment if that is not finished.


Peter L. McCreath: What are you going to give up?
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: You.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We do not have to give up anything. I do not know why they have the notion that we have to give anything up. We want rules that the Americans can accept and we can accept. They are going to be the same rules for both of us. We are not asking for any privileges. We are just fighting for equality.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that we will not continue the debate much longer, but the government and the Conservative Party, with-


Mr. Shields:: We wanted equality with a national energy program. That's what you did.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sit down.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has the floor.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: At the end of a mandate people get nervous. I was saying that the government is making a big mistake because it is not serving the best interests of Canada at this time when Mexico, the United States and Canada are negotiating environmental and labour side agreements.
Last week's discussions will have a major impact on the content of NAFTA because the Americans clearly stated that they reserved the right to change the rules of access to the American market if any of the participating countries did not meet the conditions with respect to labour and the environment. What this means is a direct negation of the will expressed by the three countries to ensure each partner had free access to the others' markets all the time. This does constitute a radical change to NAFTA.
The government wants to rush this deal through at the eleventh hour, just a few months or weeks before an election, when they know full well that, in all likelihood, they will no longer be the government by the end of the year. That is abuse of power, and they will pay dearly for it. In fact, the Canadian people will let them know that at election time.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
I think that when you are at the end of a mandate as they are you should try not to cause political trouble just to score political points like the Tories are doing right now. Obviously, what the Conservative Party is trying to do right now is cause trouble for the new government that we will have in October. They have no regard whatsoever for the needs of the Canadian people and that is the saddest part of it all right now. The negotiations are not over. This government is ramming through this bill while Mexico has not even introduced its own legislation and President Clinton has clearly stated that he will not introduce legislation in Congress until such time as a side agreement on environmental and labour issues has been signed.
It is obvious to whoever reads careffully American newspapers these days that this bill will not go to the U.S. Congress before early or late fall. We should do the same thing here in Canada. After the election, we will still have two and a half months to act on this and at that time the Canadian Parliament will have the authority and duty to decide whether Canadian interests were afforded sufficient protection during negotiations and whether or not to proceed with proclamation, but not before making sure that Canadian interests are well protected. We have clearly stated what is required to protect Canadian interests. As I said before, the conditions are a new round of negotiations on subsidies, dumping, the same conditions with respect to energy as set by Mexico and the two things President Clinton himself is trying to change and that we have been wanting to change for two years now, that is the provisions relating to environmental and labour issues.
Given that the debate is not over and that it is now clear that the government is only trying to make itself look good or to cause embarrassment while totally disregarding the national interest-

I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement be not now read a third time, but that it be read a third time this day six months hence".


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear from the beginning of this debate on the North American free trade agreement that this is not just another commercial agreement. This is the sellout of Canada.
I do not make that statement lightly and I intend in my comments today to show why this is so. NAFTA is a sellout of Canadian jobs, a betrayal of Canadian families and only one of the many trade options from which Canadians can choose.
This is very important for all Canadians. All Canadians must believe that this has an effect on their lives and it will affect every man, woman and child in Canada.

There has not been in this country a true debate on NAFTA. I am upset about this debate not only because Canadians were not given a chance to be heard, but also because the government did not listen to what Canadians had to say about this trade agreement.
NAFTA is the final gasp of a government that knows it cannot pass legislation by going to the people so it imposes legislation by circumventing the people. That is shameful.
Let me assure this departing government that this injustice will not be forgotten by Canadians. Canadians understand what is at stake with NAFTA. It is no less than the economic constitution of this country. By that I mean NAFTA has profound implications for the future of Canada. It will determine how we develop our economy. It will determine how we govern ourselves. It will determine how we care for each other. It will determine what kind of society we leave our children, and with NAFTA none of those implications is positive.
It is important to remember that NAFTA is not about more freedom for citizens but more freedom for capital to move where it wants, when it wants, without restriction and without responsibility to those who create the wealth of the country, the working people.
The rates of unemployment we have seen are disastrous for the country. There is only one thing that can be said about them. Canada works when Canadians are
May 27, 1993

Government Orders
working. That must be our goal. That is why trade arrangements must be about bettering the lives of working people. A trade policy should exist to serve the people. People do not exist to serve trade.
The Conservative government argues that NAFTA will improve the lives of Canadians. Nothing in this deal or nothing in our experience with the Canada-U.S. trade agreement would lead anyone to believe that NAFTA could benefit Canadian families. I say to the government to get out of its offices in Ottawa and sit down at kitchen tables with families across the country. Just go as far as Scarborough and sit down with those 3,000 men and women who lost their jobs at a company moving south. They will tell the government what they think about bad trade deals and the destruction they have wrought for Canadian families.
As I said earlier the U.S.-Canada deal has spelled great unemployment as one factory after another shuts down and heads south. Almost 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1988: for example, 22,000 in the furniture sector, 12,000 in textiles, 42,000 in clothing, 23,000 in plastics, 20,000 in auto parts, 30,000 in machinery, and 23,000 in printing and business.
Statistics alone do not tell of the hardships. They do not tell the real story. It is people like Gary St. Laurent who used to be president of the union at Kelsey-Hayes, a wheel making plant in Windsor who tell the real story. Until it closed down three years ago he was working productively and his family was working productively. However his company was another fatality of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. At the Ontario government's public hearings on NAFTA this spring Mr. St. Laurent described his unemployed neighbours this way:
They've lost their homes. They've lost their cars. They've lost their
families.
He went on to say:
We've had at least three suicides at Kelsey-Hayes since we went
down in 1990.
We cannot ignore the human cost of what this government's corporate agenda has done to Canada. No government, no political party, has a right to inflict such suffering on the very people it was elected to serve.

Among other things, NAFTA will add to the number of jobs already lost through the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. I want to say a word about one of the most important provisions of NAFTA which will result in an event greater number of Canadian jobs being exported abroad.
This provision deals with the changes made to the rules of origin. These changes will undermine the very foundation of the Auto Pact for the automobile industry. Indeed, the Auto Pact guaranteed a Canadian content in the production of automobiles. It provided some protection for our automobile industry by specifying that a certain number of vehicles had to be assembled in Canada. The Auto Pact also provided that, for each vehicle, a certain number of parts had to be made here in Canada.
With NAFTA, there is no longer this kind of protection for our automobile industry. There is a provision saying that 62 per cent of vehicles will have to have a North American content. But all the work related to this North American content could very well be done in Mexico or in the United States. There is no provision to the effect that part of this content must come from Canada. Moreover, NAFTA will forever keep us from being able to sign an auto pact with the auto makers of Japan or any other country.

Changes to the rules of origin could also ruin our clothing industry. We have seen many lay-offs in the textile industry. They will have and have had an especially brutal effect on women, mostly older and immigrant women, many of whom are the vast majority of workers in this industry. As it is the combined pressures of the U.S.-Canada trade deal and the Maquiladoras have devastated our clothing industry. However they have done more than that. They have done more than kill thousands of jobs.
In Canada these pressures have led to an insidious new cottage industry in Canada called home work. Here women are fired from the clothing factory and contracted to sew at home for less than minimum wages, without benefits, without Canada Pension Plan, without

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
unemployment insurance and without workers' compensation. Let me emphasize that this is happening in our own country. It is a concrete example of how people can be forced to serve trade if trade is not used to serve people.
NAFTA jeopardizes other industries and services such as telecommunications and data processing, again areas where women are the majority of workers. This suggests the government has never considered, examined or cared about how this deal would affect women. Nothing in this agreement or in government policy improves women's job prospects or working conditions. There is no retraining, no bridging programs, no child care.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to move from the issue of safety for Canadian families to that of the repercussions of NAFTA on the security of our country, its resources, its programs and its sovereignty. Once again, NAFTA affects all Canadians. This trade agreement is even more deplorable than the free trade agreement with the United States, because we will have even less control over tariffs and the exports of our energy resources.
NAFTA opens the door to massive exports of Canadian water, even in times of shortage in our own country. Because of this trade agreement, we will no longer be able to insist that our trains, our trucks and our buses transport Canadian goods on Canadian soil.
NAFTA would codify the Conservative drug patent legislation and thereby reinforce the control of multinational companies over our health plan.

NAFTA further restricts our economic options such as regulating foreign investment, promoting regional development and developing an industrial strategy for Canada. It undermines our ability to challenge arbitrary U.S. trade laws.
It interferes with our right to appeal to GATT and eliminates any possibility of negotiating a subsidies code.
In a very serious area, NAFTA weakens our ability to establish Crown corporations, corporations in the public interest with social goals such as conserving energy and providing airline service to remote communities. This does not just affect the federal government, this affects provincial governments.
NAFTA is so far reaching that it binds the provinces as well from establishing these kinds of corporations that could indeed be and have in the past been in the public interest.
Finally, NAFTA does nothing to slow down, never mind reverse, free trade's race to the bottom on wages, work place safety and environmental standards. Let me illustrate with an example. The average wage of a Canadian worker is $13.10 an hour. For Americans it is about $12.50 a hour but if you went to many states with no minimum wage, it would be much less. It could be as low as $4 or $5 an hour.
For Mexicans it is barely $1 an hour. Given that pattern, it is not hard to figure out where Canadian wages and Canadian jobs are heading under NAFTA. Think of this. Someone said to me the other day: "You know, we have all this pressure to take less wages, less benefits, reduce safety standards in the work place, reduce environmental standards, and if our wages keep going down, who is going to buy these products?" Who is going to buy these products when workers have less and less wages to do so?
It just makes common sense that the interests of the multinational companies are not the interests of the ordinary working people in any of the three countries party to this agreement.
When the government cannot defend NAFTA on the basis of what it will do for Canadian workers and Canadian families, it resorts to accusing opponents of not wanting to improve the lives of Mexican workers and their families. Nothing can be further from the truth as far as this party is concerned. Believe me if this trade agreement was based on the ability and the objectives of increasing the living standards and working standards, the health and safety standards and the environmental standards of Mexican workers, the New Democrats would be first in line to support it.
The reality is that it is not the interest of the people of any of the three countries who are dealt with in this agreement. It is the interests of transferring accountability from elected governments to unelected, unaccountable multinational corporations which will make the decisions.
People think that this is somehow fanciful and could not happen. I would like to remind people of history and of Central America where throughout history the United Fruit Growers basically ran many countries in Central
May 27, 1993

America. When things did not go the way they wanted, they asked the American army to come in to take care of it. That is what the corporate agenda is all about. Who gets to make the decisions?
This government has given decisions about health care and particularly drug care over to the large multinationals, not to Canadians. This government has transferred decision-making in many areas through its program of deregulation.
NAFTA is simply an extension of what this government has already put in place. It is blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy on the part of the government to say that NAFTA is simply to aid Mexican workers and to say that those who are opposed to NAFTA do not want to.
The Wall Street Journal, which I think is one of the Conservative Party's favourite sources of information, has described Mexico's free trade zones as "helping to turn much of the border region into a sink hole of abysmal living conditions and environmental degradation".
The same journal also says that child labour, even in hazardous jobs, is rampant in Mexico. NAFTA will do nothing to outlaw the exploitation of society's most vulnerable members, its children.
This government can stand in its place and say: "We want to help the Mexican people". Well, the first step is to stop NAFTA now.
Many Canadians have read of the environmental conditions in the Maquiladoras and how that has affected parts of Texas. They have read the stories about Brownsville, Texas and indeed about families in the Maquiladoras who were suffering from the results of environmental degradation. Children were bom disfigured and disabled. We cannot be ignorant of the fact that environmental conditions have a profound effect on our whole society. A poor environment leads to the degradation of the economy. It leads to health problems. It increases health care costs. Look to eastern Europe where we saw that the ruthless exploitation of the people and the industries leading to massive environmental problems simply destroyed the economy.
Government Orders
This government has it all wrong. It should be thinking of the people instead of the corporations. Then it would be building a true economy.
Another argument often used is that NAFTA will bring higher wages to Mexican workers. I would like to point out one fact. Despite rising investment in Mexico throughout the Maquiladoras in the 1980s manufacturing wages fell by 25 per cent. They did not go up, they fell by 25 per cent. Equally as serious, Mexican workers who demanded better pay risked their lives.
According to Southam News correspondent Dave Todd: "When pay and benefits at Ford's main Mexican plant were cut in half in 1990 armed thugs were brought in to stifle a union revolt. The Mexican government refused to prosecute anyone for the assaults that resulted in the death of one worker and the wounding of eight others".
The New Democratic Party knows that NAFTA will not improve the lives of ordinary Mexicans. We know that NAFTA will not improve the lives of working people in Canada. Why continue? Why continue with an agreement, as we have seen from the examples of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, that will cost Canadians jobs and devastate communities?
There are options. This government has options and Canadians have options. I know the government will not take any options so I prefer to speak directly to the Canadian people because there are things that will improve their lives. Our party believes that a policy that puts fair trade with many nations before free trade with a few is the policy that will lead us successfully into the 21st century.
The government is fond of saying that anyone who opposes its trade arrangements wants to put a wall up around Canada. I heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition today say that the New Democratic Party wants to put a wall up around Canada. They are wrong. It is quite the opposite. What they want to do is put a wall up around North America. We want to be open to the world. We want to assist those countries that need trade with Canada and we want to be truly a part of the international community.
We do propose an alternative. It is not the alternative of the Liberals, which is that they are really going to talk against NAFTA but they will probably implement it if they are government. We have never heard them say that they would not implement it. They said that they would renegotiate. I happen to remember when the hon.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
Leader of the Opposition went to the United States. He spoke to President Bush about renegotiation. President Bush laughed, sent him home and said forget it, there was no renegotiation clause in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
There are alternatives. I did not hear of any alternatives at all from the Liberal Party today. I would like to outline briefly our alternatives.
Our trade strategy has three pillars: First, a broad, steady and planned reduction of tariffs through the GATT. We do not think the GATT is perfect. In fact I think there are many things that we would work for as a party to change in the GATT. It is a multilateral accord with 108 member countries. We would work for a planned reduction of tariffs through the GATT.
Second, we would work toward more sectoral agreements, such as the auto pact. We would look for sectoral agreements in steel. I think it is worth mentioning that sectoral agreements are certainly in the interests of Canadians, but they are of interest to our trading partners as well. It is a balanced approach where countries working together can in fact develop agreements that are in the interests of both parties or all parties.
The third pillar is the exploration of untapped markets in Europe, the Pacific rim and Latin America, markets that Canada has not attempted with any vigour to enter.
At the same time, our strategy would give Canadian workers a fair chance at participating in the global economy. That means more than taking the time to adjust, retrain and retool, although that is important, but it also means negotiating a charter of workers' rights such as the European Community has done. It means as well being ready to respond when any firm violates basic standards on pollution, labour and human rights.
The New Democratic trade strategy is both orderly and outward looking. Unlike the one-sided Tory trade deals, our vision satisfies both sides of the equation. It would guarantee Canadian businesses the market access they simply are not assured under the FTA or under NAFTA. We would see to this by helping companies to develop opportunities in new and expanding markets.
This strategy is a solid alternative to NAFTA and it is spelled out in the New Democratic Party's plan for jobs.
A couple of months ago we brought out a jobs plan where we talked about the strategies for developing a Canadian economy, and by doing so getting Canadians back working and reducing our deficit. If I might say so for those watching, it is possible to get our jobs plan by calling 1-800-565-2122. Our plan for Canada is free, but ignoring it I believe has an incalculable cost.
Despite the government's effort to stifle debate on this bill, it has become clear where political parties stand. We are really talking here about how we will go forward into the 21st century. I suspect there are many of us at this time of year who are speaking to graduating classes in high schools. These are the young people who really will be the 21st century adults.
We in this century have no right to tie their hands to ensure that they will not get jobs. We have a responsibility to provide alternatives in developing the Canadian economy that include investments in education, research, jobs and in ensuring that Canada does not go in to the 21st century as the 51st state. Our party does not see that as the future of Canada.
Where do the political parties stand? The Conservatives, of course, do not really have any proof but they wistfully continue to believe that NAFTA should go ahead despite the facts, and they intend to impose this on Canadians in their last days in government.
The Liberals have several positions. They criticize NAFTA but refuse to say whether or not they would actually implement it. The Leader of the Opposition has said he expects to form the government next time but Canadians have a right to know whether he also expects not to ratify NAFTA. That should be his responsibility.
The Liberals talk very favourably about parallel accords knowing full well that NAFTA has many provisions that are so flawed that parallel accords could not correct them. Parallel accords do not touch the sell-out of our energy resources, our water or our inability to deal with foreign investment. They do not touch any of those things.
May 27, 1993

The Liberals talk about renegotiating but even President Clinton, as did President Bush before him, said he will not open the accord itself. There was an opportunity in this House to defeat NAFTA. It is not going to be defeated today. Let us be honest. We are going to be voting on the NAFTA. The Conservative Party will have its people here. It has a majority government and intends to ram it through.
At second reading of this bill it could have been defeated. The New Democratic Party was here in full strength. Only half the Liberals showed up. They voted against it but not enough members came to make sure they could really defeat it.
I have to ask Canadians where these people really stand. Their stand is: "We get to say no. We get to stand up for Canadians but boy, when it comes to the vote we make sure we are not there. We do not want to win. We want the Conservative government to do the work for us."
It is clear there is only one party in this House that really opposes the sell-out of Canada and that is the New Democratic Party. We intend to make it an election issue. There is only one party in this Chamber that will not sit back, will not run away, will not stay home and will not cut deals as Canada faces its biggest betrayal yet.
Only one party in this country will stand up and be counted on to defeat NAFTA and that is the New Democratic Party of Canada. We know that the government is determined to ram NAFTA through this afternoon, defying common sense and business sense. It is rushing to pass NAFTA before the negotiations are even finished. We have to say: Why this haste?
There are only two reasons I suppose. We have an outgoing Prime Minister who wants a monument to himself. We have an outgoing trade minister who wants a monument to himself. I suggest that we build them statues. It would be cheaper for Canadians than signing this deal and seeing it pass.
I have to wonder if it is not more serious than that. We remember during the talks on the U.S.-Canada trade deal that the dollar was at 75 cents and our exports were fairly healthy. But after the trade deal was signed and implemented the dollar shot up and really tied the hands of exporters in this country.
Government Orders
We have to ask why. We did not have to ask very far because a former Tory industry minister said he thought there was a gentlemen's agreement.


Mr. Riis:: A deal.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A deal. If there was a gentlemen's agreement to prop up the dollar at the insistence of the U.S. after the U.S.-Canada trade deal, what agreements have been made since then that Canadians do not know about? What commitments have been made that Canadians have not been privy to?
There is a nation out there beyond the bubble of Ottawa and Bay Street. We have lived through one bad trade deal already. Before it is extended to Mexico Canadians deserve to know the truth. Contrary to what some people may suggest I do not find that Canadians are apathetic. They are not S.O.B.s and they are not the enemies of Canada.
Canadians have had it with nine years of Conservative callousness and of not being listened to. They have had it with nine years of hearing that there are no choices.
I want to assure those Canadians that there is a choice in the upcoming election. The choice is between a government that lays down for the Americans and one that stands up for Canadians.
The choice is not about whether we work in harmony with our neighbour but whether we become our neighbour. The choice is not about whether we participate in the international community, but on whose terms we participate.
I am proud that this country is renowned for its tradition of peacekeeping rather than warmongering. I am proud to be a Canadian where health care is a right of citizenship and not a privilege for the well-to-do. I am proud of a Canada whose system of old age pensions has greatly reduced poverty among our elders. I am proud of a Canada where my culture can be reflected through its artists, writers and broadcasters. Above all, I am proud to be part of a Canada that is beginning in a very historic sense to recognize and value self-government for first nation's people.
These are unique features of Canada that we could very well be losing to yet another bad trade deal. How can we on the one hand support sovereignty for the founding peoples through self-government agreements

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
and on the other hand give away the sovereignty of all Canadian people through the NAFTA trade deal and a new economic constitution?

Governments have options, but so do Canadians. When you travel in our country you realize that people get together in their communities-whether it is religious groups with unions or farm organizations with women's groups-to regain control of their lives, their community and their country.

This year a fundamental choice will be made. Will Canadians elect a federal government that believes as New Democrats believe in all we have built together, or will Canada become by Conservative decree or Liberal neglect the 51st state? There is a choice and that is why the New Democratic Party looks forward to the next election. We never want to have to tell our grandchildren that when we had the opportunity to choose we did not take it. So we say no to NAFTA and yes to Canada.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in order to give as many members as possible the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-115 at third reading, I ask consent to allow the House to continue sitting today between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt to respond to the comments made by my colleague of the opposition, instead I want to take a positive approach during this debate at third reading, which I think should be the case when speaking at this stage on an important bill which will give Canada access to a market of 85 million people and which will make
sure that Canada is not side-lined by an agreement between the United States and Mexico.
When talking about 85 million consumers in Mexico, we talk about Mexican consumers whose buying-power is constantly increasing. NAFTA is fundamentally in the best interest of Canada. If Canadians do not sell goods and services produced here in Canada to foreign buyers, it will very simply result in the disappearance of one out of every four jobs in Canada.
It is with this in mind that Canada got involved in NAFTA negotiations, to protect the interests of Canadians and to automatically strengthen our position as exporters. We know that Mexico has one of the fastest growing and most promising markets in the world. As that country is becoming more industrialized, its demand for refined consumer products increases.
In the past, Canadians did not have ready access to this market. Most Mexican products, or close to 80 percent, already enter into Canada duty-free. Canadian exports to Mexico were and still are subjected to many duties and other trade barriers. Something had to be done. If Canada had done nothing, it would not have the access it needs in order to guarantee prosperity for all Canadians.
You will recall the debate on free trade when months of fear mongering by the opposition made Canadians apprehensive of free trade. International trade statistics show all the benefits Canada reaped because of the free trade agreement. Let me make clear to the opposition that fear tactics will not work any more because Canadians realize, with the success of free trade, that the country's future depends on self-confidence rather than on building walls.
Naturally, building a country and being successful cannot be achieved without work. Maintaining our competitiveness is a constant struggle that will require concerted efforts from all branches of industry. That is how it works, and that is how a country and an industry can forge ahead.
One of the main factors to ensure competition and thus to secure a country's competitive position internationally is in fact the protection of intellectual property. By intellectual property, I mean patents, copyrights, trademarks, engineering drawings, integrated circuit to-
May 27, 1993

pographies, trade secrets and crop variety rights, which apply to seeds for sowing.
I think we must concentrate on this particular subject when debating NAFTA. I am happy to see that the hon. member from Frontenac is in the House, because he is an expert on copyrights and he did much to help Canadian authors when he was Minister of Communications.
Intellectual property includes innovation, in other words, ideas which, day after day, become more and more important for a country's economic development.
A country's economic development depends on information and knowledge as much as on the production of consumer goods, which means that the production of goods and services will improve.
Intellectual property, which happens to be the source of information and knowledge, has to be protected in agreements governing international trade. Canada cannot progress as a country without the protection of intellectual property. This sector is critical to the prosperity of our country. Canadian industries are calling for a more effective system for the protection of intellectual property, especially in the high technology field.
The legislation before us is particularly important because of the greater protection it gives authors and other copyright holders through amendments to the Copyright Act. Let me give a few examples of the increased protection against pirating and illicit reproduction that will result from these amendments: compliance with standards set out in the Berne Convention as revised in Paris in 1971; rental rights for copyright holders with regards to computer programs, and God knows that computer programs are an important part of that high technology field which is progressing from day to day; rental rights for copyright holders with regard to sound recordings; important measures at the borders aimed at preventing the importation of works of all kinds that are protected by copyright and have been pirated outside the country.
Compliance with the 1971 standards set out in the Berne Convention depends on various amendments made to the Copyright Act, increasing protection to
Government Orders
authors and other copyright holders. As an example, let me remind you again of the cancellation of compulsory licensing provided for in section 8 of the Copyright Act, the minor extension of the protection for non-dramatic films and videos and the explicit protection for photographs derived from negatives or otherwise.
While negotiating this North American deal, Canada and the United States managed to make Mexico aware of their concerns regarding intellectual property. They did well, as can be seen in Bill C-115 and other initiatives. We, as a nation, want to embark on negotiations with other countries, including Mexico. Mexico is undergoing a total reform of its regulations in that area. The Mexican government has abolished restrictions on royalties, increased the protection for trade secrets and simplified the registration and approval of licensing agreements.
The Mexican Congress recently passed a new act on trademarks and another one on patents extending patent protection from 14 to 20 years, hence allowing for the same protection granted in Canada.
Mexico has established severe regulations concerning compulsory licensing as well as clear legislation regarding trade secret protection. Finally, trademarks are renewed after a 10 year period.
The North American free trade agreement resolves a serious deficiency found in the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, by establishing clear rules and guidelines in the area of intellectual property. It contains precise standards applying to copyrights, trademarks, patents, integrated circuit topographies, trade secrets, geographical designations and industrial designs.
Moreover, NAFTA provides fair regulations governing the application of intellectual property rights both in the countries and at the borders. Under NAFTA, countries will have to take measures at the borders to prevent the importation of counterfeit goods and pirated copies of works protected by copyright.
This will also allow us to establish standards and procedural guarantees regarding measures taken at the borders, as well as-

May 27, 1993
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time of 10 minutes has expired. Questions or comments.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who just spoke. Our present free trade agreement with the United States was accepted by many Canadians when it was passed because a commission was given seven years to decide what constituted subsidies. This bill on NAFTA neither responds to the subsidy issue nor defines subsidies.
Does the minister believe that Canada will be granted the same protection with respect to subsidies as under the present agreement, or rather that the United States and Mexico will think that they will benefit from these free trade subsidies between the two countries? In other words, I would like the minister to tell me what is going to happen to programs which are not considered as subsidized in Canada while, in the past, the United States has claimed that some were. The whole issue of subsidies had been referred to a commission at the time, which had been asked to make certain decisions regarding the existing Canada-U.S. free trade agreement. But there is nothing about subsidies in this bill on NAFTA, the new North American free trade agreement, and it goes beyond free trade. There will be no commission to decide the issue.
The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that to make up for that, a definition of what constitutes a subsidy should be included before NAFTA is ratified because this agreement is so important for Canada as the minister just said.
I think it is important to have free trade but what constitutes a subsidy ought to be specified; otherwise our partners could think that our health care and unemployment insurance systems are subsidized and not allowed under free trade.
Could the minister tell us how the subsidy issue will be dealt with in concrete terms?
regretfully she implies that the Canadian health system will be affected because of the subsidies.
Trying to scare Canadians in such a way is not much to the opposition member's credit. This is trying to scare without any regard for Canadians who enjoy the medicare system and the unemployment insurance system, who are familiar with them and used to them. I feel it is a shame that the member tries in this House to relate those two items to NAFTA.
I would also like to point out to her that because of the Canada-U.S. free trade deal, there is a panel with Canadians and Americans in equal numbers, for the first time in the history of both countries, which can and must settle problems as they arise between our two countries. No other country in the world can have such an agreement with the United States. So far, my own area has benefited as a result of this panel's decisions and I hope we will continue to benefit from it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Comments are now terminated. Debate.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, this is not a 10-minute questions and comments period?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is 10 minutes. They have split their times into 10 minutes, 10 minutes and 5 minutes of questions and comments.


Coline M. Campbell: I have had five minutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You had your five minutes. You had four minutes and you added one minute.


Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak on this third reading debate on NAFTA.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I was almost pleased with As we look at the whole issue of NAFTA, I really bring my colleague's question when she said in her remarks it down to three objectives. First, it is reaffirming our that she was in favour of free trade. However, I must existing trade relationships with the United States, admit I am very displeased with the rest of it where Second, it provides an increasing access to Mexico, which
May 27, 1993

is one of the fastest growing and most promising economies in the world. Third, it will also ensure that Canada remains an attractive place to invest in terms of attracting investments from all over the world.
In my own province of British Columbia, if I could just speak about that for one moment, certainly the opportunities are almost endless when we look at the forest industry, new machinery, opportunities for western Canada's oil and gas production and opportunities for the agricultural section.
Indeed, in my role as Minister of Western Economic Diversification in recent times I have been involved in a number of trade missions to Mexico. I had the opportunity of going there at Easter and I was just amazed at the interest the Mexican buyers had in so many of our western Canadian agricultural and consumer products. There is a tremendous sense of warmth and interest in Canada and how they want to build these business alliances. They are so excited about the kinds of opportunities we have between the two countries.
Indeed, one of the things we are doing in the department is holding seminars and workshops for business people throughout the west so that they will have an opportunity to become fully aware of the kinds of opportunities there are in the Mexican market.
That brings me to another point which I think is important. One of those opportunities is in fact in the environment in environment technology and environment industries. When I was in Mexico I attended an ECOED conference again where we shared information about environmental education. They were so pleased to see the kind of leadership role that we played here in Canada on environment issues and how we could assist them in some of the challenges that they face.
Really it is in that context. It is in my role as Minister of State of Environment that I wanted to make a few remarks today because I see the NAFTA really being a milestone. In fact, it is being looked to around the world as the first trade agreement to really focus on the environment and to show the real linkages between trade and environment and sustainable development. After all, that is the objective that we all share.
It is a concept that is still somewhat new. I find as I travel that some people have some difficulty with what it is. While there may be many definitions of sustainable
Government Orders
development, the essence of the concept is that high levels of environmental quality and economic growth are complementary. They are reinforcing. A clean environment and a productive resource base are both necessary for a healthy economy and a strong economy is needed to ensure and support high social and environmental standards. It is a continuum. It is the challenge to make sure the balance is there and that continuum proceeds.
The relationship between trade and the environment is therefore essentially about sustainable development. Trade leads to economic growth which provides resources for environmental protection, while a healthy environment provides the ecological and natural resources necessary to underpin long-run economic growth stimulated by trade.
Just as a prosperous economy and a healthy environment are fully compatible, it follows that trade and the environment can also be mutually reinforcing.
The NAFTA represents the first time that environmental considerations have really been integrated into a trade agreement. We are now hearing of that in terms of the GATT, the greening of the GATT. This is also something that has to be taken into consideration as we become involved in other kinds of trade agreements as well.
For Canada it is a concrete example of trade negotiations undertaken from a sustainable development perspective. As we became involved in these discussions about NAFTA, we had a four-pronged strategy to ensure the integration of environmental considerations in the NAFTA. First of all the three countries committed in the NAFTA to implement the agreement in a manner consistent with environmental protection and to promote sustainable development. There are specific provisions throughout the agreement that build on these commitments.
First and foremost the agreement affirms the right of each country to choose the level of environmental protection that it considers appropriate. Canadians fully understand that it is important we say what we think are the appropriate standards that are necessary for Canada, how we are going to manage our scarce and valuable resources. We want to maintain that right, that sovereignty, to make those decisions.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
As well, the trade obligations under the NAFTA specify that international environmental agreements will take precedence over the NAFTA provisions. We are involved in a wide range of agreements, whether it is the climate change convention, the biodiversity convention. We recognize there are many of these international agreements and that they are in effect supreme over the NAFTA provisions. This will also ensure as well that NAFTA will not diminish a country's right to take action under these environmental agreements.
The agreement further provides that none of the members of NAFTA-at the moment of course three potentials with others to accede to the agreement-should lower its environmental standards for the purpose of attracting investment. That is very critical and is a concern that I have heard talked about. It is the first time that a trade agreement has contained such a far-reaching commitment, a commitment made on the part of all the members.
The second prong of our strategy, which was consistent with our commitment to environmental assessment, is that the NAFTA underwent an environmental review. It was the first trade agreement to include such a review. That review ensured the ongoing and thorough consideration of environmental concerns throughout the NAFTA negotiations. It was a multi-disciplinary, interdepartmental review. The committee that was established worked with the negotiators and with environmental representatives on an ongoing basis. In keeping with the government's commitment to transparency and accountability, the full environmental review was released to the public last fall and has provided the basis for an open and informed debate on this issue.
The third prong was that there was an extensive stakeholder consultation process established for NAFTA which provided input both for the NAFTA negotiations and the environmental review. Again for the first time in the policy-making history of Canada, these groundbreaking steps have been taken. The environmental community itself has had direct input into the negotiation of a trade agreement alongside business, industry, labour and other interests.
Fourth, we recognized that we needed to do other things as well. We enhanced our existing co-operation with Mexico on environmental issues. We signed an agreement on environmental co-operation. When I was there just a few months ago we reaffirmed that agreement for a second year. Under that agreement we have initiated a wide range of projects addressing compliance, monitoring and assisting Mexico in order to deal with environmental challenges.
I know my time is limited, but I wanted to get into a discussion of some other issues. Certainly the establishment of the NACE as proposed in the discussions on a side agreement on the environment are very important, not only from the point of view of the relationship to trade but as a fundamental, important consideration recognizing that our three countries share a continent and we share the same environment. The NACE can really be a very important mechanism toward achieving sustainable development on a continental basis.
We see the NACE in a variety of roles, of being able to provide information and in ensuring sustained and longterm, effective environmental co-operation on a variety of areas. While the negotiations are not concluded, and there are some differences of opinion, we certainly are optimistic that we will be able to conclude these in a way that will meet the needs of all three countries.
A NACE focusing on technical assistance and co-operation, with provision for consultation and mediation, which we believe is a very important process in the event of a dispute resolution, would offer a tremendous forum for the achievement of sustainable development in a North American context. I see that as a real model, not only for North America but for the world to follow in implementing the vision of sustainable development put forward at Rio.
So the NAFTA has not only advantages in terms of trade, in terms of business opportunities and in terms of investment, it also, as I see it, is a tremendous opportunity to make a leap forward in our commitments and of the implementation of our goals for sustainable development as well.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I could take exception at several things the minister said, particularly when she says that the environment is
May 27, 1993

integrated into the North American free trade agreement.
As Minister of the Environment she should be well aware that the Official Opposition position is that the environment is not protected vis-a-vis jobs. Even President Clinton has asked for a side agreement. I do not know how she dares to stand up and say that it is well integrated.
However, in her other role as minister responsible for women, what does she think is going to happen now that there is no tribunal looking at or defining what we can keep in Canada and about our concerns in terms of not having it interpreted as a subsidy?
I would just say that in terms of business, whether it is a DREE agreement to help women start up a business or whether it is a day care program sponsored by the province, the United States could come back and say that is a subsidy when it is something that is integrated into it. We will not have that protection. We do not have that seven-year tribunal to define what we will not include as a subsidy within our trade agreement with the U.S. It was there but it is no longer there under the NAFTA. We do not have the protection of a seven-year definition for what is not considered a subsidy to trade.
As a minister responsible for women, I think she is putting women at a disadvantage, not only in regional areas like myself, but women right across Canada. Has she any comments?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the whole issue of NAFTA and women. I see it as providing some real opportunities. Many of the areas for potential trade with Mexico can involve small business service industries, as well as manufacturing opportunities, the kinds of areas we are trying to encourage women to go into to open up their markets.
On the mission recently when I was in Mexico a number of the companies that were a part of the Canadian delegation in those trade shows were women-led companies. What women need are opportunities to expand and develop business opportunities in trade. We live by trade. I see again that women have the opportunity-
While I was there I met with representatives of women's groups. I met with senior women from a variety of areas who were very anxious to develop contacts and relationships in the business community and in a variety
Government Orders
of other areas that can enhance not only economic areas but also other areas of equality for women where we can continue to share our expertise and advance equality issues for women throughout the continent.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister pointed out several times in her remarks that what the government was trying to achieve through NAFTA was balanced growth.
As I analyse the agreement, it appears to me that the balance is not terribly evident. What we see is reduced powers for the government to intervene in the activities of business and trade. We see much more limited powers for those people who have jobs now but will not be able to follow their factory across a border. In fact we are giving increased rights to the corporate sector which is international in scope at this moment.
How can she square that and still call this a balanced approach? Does she feel that the corporate sector has been downgraded over the years? How does this fit with her arguments about having sustainable growth in an environmental sense?
Now that the pool of unemployed workers has been expanded considerably on the North American continent, giving multinational corporations the whole continent to look for the cheapest source of labour, how does this square with her view that this agreement will assist the environment? Are people not part of the environment? Do they not have to have incomes and shelter and health care?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised a number of issues.
Obviously people are key. That is the whole underpinning of what we are talking about here. How do we create economic activity to enable people to become self-sufficient, to be able to earn a living, at the same time recognizing our concerns about the environment. That is what sustainable development is all about.
How do we broaden the economic opportunities? We know that we are too small a country, with 27 million people, to continue to live off trading with each other. The whole history of the development of this country, the whole reality is that we have to trade, we have to become more competitive, we have to have better goods, better services, new technologies and find new markets for those.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
As we develop trade agreements that do away with those kinds of artificial barriers which are not fair, we will expand those opportunities for our people that will lead to the creation of new jobs and new growth.
My hon. colleague talks about big corporations. That is only a very small part of what this is all about. I see this being about the small business sector. That is the origin of growth and jobs in this country. They say 80 per cent of jobs are in the small business sector.
This is reality. This is not theoretical. I was in Mexico with representatives from 120 small Canadian companies. They were down there selling a particular product. There were people there from the prairies selling processed beef. They were seeing those new opportunities. These were not international conglomerates. These were business people with their own dollars on the line, looking for new opportunities, recognizing that in Mexico there are those opportunities as Mexico is growing to have one of the largest middle classes anywhere.
It seems to me that as we help the creation of economic growth-not only in our own country but in countries such as Mexico-this is part of the continuum of improving things for everyone. That is one of the reasons why it is so important, to be able to expand our trade activities with countries such as this. I see it as a win-win situation.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, this is the final occasion on which the House of Commons can debate the North American free trade agreement. The government has forced through the necessary measures to terminate such debate later this afternoon.
It is intent upon doing so despite the fact that only the most limited review of this important legislation and its many implications has been made.
The government's intention to curtail discussion became evident several months ago when it rejected the official opposition's repeated proposals for additional public hearings and consultations to take place across Canada that would have ensured that hearings were held in every province and territory. Proposals to hold hearings in Montreal and Toronto were rejected. Proposals to hold hearings in cities such as Hamilton and Edmonton
were rejected. Opportunities to hear more witnesses in Ottawa were rejected.
The result is that through the government's action in imposing time allocation on the debate of the North American free trade agreement, the government is denying the people of Canada and their Parliament the opportunity to fully consider the impact and ramifications of a far-reaching international agreement.
All that would be a sad spectacle in itself but it is rendered worse by the government's decision to push through this legislation without awaiting either the negotiation of the proposed side agreements or the conclusion of the NAFTA debate itself if it ever does reach a conclusion in the United States and Mexico.
By predicating his acceptance of the NAFTA on tough environmental and labour side deals President Clinton has unleashed high and perhaps insatiable expectations in the United States among those for whom North American free trade was and still is largely anathema.
Just as there is probably no negotiable side deal on labour standards which can satisfy important factions among the labour unions in the United States so too it is unlikely that all U.S. environmentalists will support an eventual trilateral environmental accord. Yet the views of the environmentalists at least will determine many votes if and when the NAFTA implementing legislation is finally brought before the United States Congress.
The need to negotiate the two side deals has delayed the introduction of the NAFTA legislation to the U.S. Congress to the point where the U.S. administration will be hard pressed to present and obtain approval for an implementing bill in time for the agreement to enter into force on January 1, 1994.
As recently as yesterday the United States trade representative raised serious doubts about the administration's ability to implement the NAFTA by January 1994 given the current differences among the three countries over the enforcement of environmental and labour side deals.
The result is that the Conservative government now finds itself caught on the horns of a policy dilemma which is entirely of its own making.. In order to justify its repeated claims that it negotiated the best possible agreement with Mexico and the United States last autumn and that the NAFTA will remain unaffected by what it might describe as footling side deals on the environment and labour, the government has committed
May 27, 1993

itself to pushing through the implementing legislation in Canada as rapidly as possible irrespective of the growing confusion and uncertainty in the United States.
In committing Canada to the NAFTA so prematurely, the government has also surrendered any influence Canada might have exercised over the negotiation of the side deals. They grow more and more significant day by day, thus paradoxically increasing the possibility that the total NAFTA package will indeed be changed in the weeks ahead but in ways that might well run contrary to Canada's national interests.
It is of more than passing significance that while the Minister of International Trade has been vehement in his opposition to anything resembling enforceable and hence potentially protectionist side accords, he has also been careful to avoid any suggestion that Canada will walk away from the NAFTA over this issue, which would be of course a logical extension of his position.
We can only assume from this studied ambiguity that behind all the puffed up rhetoric is a basic understanding that Canada will be forced in the end to accept almost any demands that the U.S. might put forward in the time ahead, including but not necessarily limited to punitive environmental trade sanctions.
In short the situation may well arise where the United States administration will tell Canada it has completed the difficult negotiation with the U.S. Congress of the side accords. It is not about to re-open those difficult negotiations so Canada and Mexico can take it or leave it and Canada, having already passed its NAFTA legislation will have nothing at all to say about the side accords. It should be added that all of this flies in the face of what has always been Canada's traditionally pragmatic and precautionary negotiating strategy.
By delaying presentation of the Canadian implementing legislation until after the equivalent bill had been presented in the U.S. Congress, Canada in the past has been able to adjust to any surprises contained in the U.S. bill with reciprocal provisions in Canadian law.
Government Orders
These surprises could come in the form of interpretations of U.S. treaty obligations revealed in the actual legislation or in add-ons. I would remind members of the notorious Baucus-Danforth amendment to the 1988 free trade agreement designed to buy congressional votes but which harm Canadian trade interests.
It is for that reason among others that Canadian governments have habitually delayed presenting firm legislated proposals to Parliament until they have had an opportunity to review the equivalent United States legislation. In that way surprises in the U.S. bill could be mirrored or reciprocated in the Canadian legislation.
This is what happened with the FTA in 1988 and indeed it certainly happened with the previous GATT agreements but it is not happening today. The government, for reasons which like the peace of God passeth all understanding, is determined in the case of NAFTA not to await confirmation of the final terms of the side accords or how the United States will implement the agreement.
In the end what makes the government's quixotic strategy most curious and indeed most dangerous is that it exemplifies how fundamentally misguided Canada's trade priorities have become. Let us not fool ourselves. Canada first entered into the free trade negotiations with Mexico and the United States in 1990 not primarily to gain enhanced access to the Mexican market nor even to improve the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement but to protect existing Canadian interests in the U.S. market which it was thought might be threatened by what then seemed to be an inevitable free trade agreement between Mexico and the United States.
Now that such an agreement is no longer inevitable why has Canada, the country least affected by NAFTA and arguably the most advantaged by its demise, emerged as its most committed proponent? What is driving the government forward when it does not know what the eventual results will be of the U.S. initiated negotiation of two and possibly more side accords?

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
Perhaps the answer to this question lies in a fundamental decision which the government made about Canada's trade and foreign policy after 1988. By explicitly turning toward continentalism and away from multilateralism or globalism the government implicitly assumed that Canada no longer had any significant role to play in setting its trade and economic priorities. In placing all its eggs in the free trade basket, the government quietly delegated to Washington major influence over Canada's trade policy agenda.
It is hardly surprising that 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 the multilateral trade route. This was a much vaunted Pacific Rim initiative that has yet to go beyond the rhetorical stage.
There has been virtually no attempt, public or private, to exploit the major opportunities presented in the European community. The government has not seized on the opening up of eastern Europe as a possible trade option for Canada and more importantly as a back door into the European community.
As far as Latin American is concerned the government has failed to formulate let alone implement a trade strategy except in reaction to recent U.S. and Mexican initiatives. Both actively and passively the government's whole approach to trade points to a fundamental drift if not shift toward continentalism and away from multilateralism.
It is still less than clear whether this government views NAFTA as one step toward a global trade policy or simply as the last piece in an inward-looking continental bloc. Rising protectionist sentiments in the United States together with much higher North American content requirement in NAFTA only fuel concerns that Canada is drifting into a U.S. dominated continentalist form of protection. This is an eventuality which is hardly in Canada's interest.
As barriers to trade and investment fall, Canada must be prepared to compete with the world's best in Europe and the Pacific Rim as well as in North America or risk watching its technology and productivity slip and its living standards steadily erode.
The deteriorating competitive position of the United States together with the growing ascendancy of Europe and the Pacific raise serious doubts as to whether North America is still the bench-mark against which Canadian industry should measure itself.
Canada's growing trade deficits, the imbalances that we must correct are with our partners overseas, especially with Asia and not with the United States with whom we continue to enjoy a merchandise trade surplus.
Lastly we cannot lose sight of the fact that trade in an interdependent world is largely about investment and the United States, let alone Mexico and the rest of Latin America, is hardly flush with capital. It would scarcely be useful for Canada to be locked into a trading bloc of debtors.
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 saliency of regions.
This is especially true with regard to trade and advanced technologies, industries and services. It is naive to expect that there will soon be a time when Canada is not highly dependent on the North American continent but it would be highly naive to ignore that the world has changed dramatically since the 1960s. Canada has far greater means at its disposal today than at any point since the First World War to break out of its continental constraints and develop relations across the Pacific and to Europe.
It is ironic that it is the United States and not Canada that has emphasized the desirability of multilateralizing NAFTA, not merely by opening the way for western hemisphere countries such as Chile but by beginning discussions with the ASEAN countries for closer economic ties between them and NAFTA.
The minister of trade last August responded to a question that Canada would welcome the accession to NAFTA of Australia and New Zealand. Unfortunately the Canadian government has not pursued that possibility, thereby lessening any early prospects for the multilateralization of NAFTA in a sort of GATT-plus arrangement.
May 27, 1993

Not only has there been a failure on the part of this government to address the ways in which NAFTA might be rendered more multilateral and comprehensive in its trade benefits but there is also a failure on the part of this government to address seriously the question of how Canada equips itself to compete in an increasingly global market.
.(1315)
In a sense the FTA and NAFTA may have accelerated what would confront Canada sooner or later and certainly following the successful conclusion of the pending Uruguay Round of the GATT. The Uruguay Round will have far-reaching implications well beyond those of the continental or even hemispheric agreements such as the FTA and NAFTA.
In Canada the answer to what some see as challenges can also be seen as opportunities if we are adept enough at improving our own competitive abilities.
By refusing to confront the need for root and branch reform to the way government services are delivered, the government has also refused to recognize the direct linkage between economic liberalization, which it has pursued on a continental basis, and the need for major domestic adjustment and reform.
As the Leader of the Opposition noted recently, trade agreements are not ends in themselves. The ultimate objective is to secure a better life for the people. That means jobs and industries with a future.
During the prolonged debates about the merits or demerits of free trade, whether about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the NAFTA or the pending but far more pervasive Uruguay Round of the GATT, there has been singularly little discussion of adjustment assistance. Yet it is adjustment assistance here at home in Canada and adjustment assistance in all its many forms that can make the inevitable dislocations engendered by freer trade more understandable and more palatable even to those who are immediately adversely affected as some always will be.
Instead, today, unlike in years past, a great many Canadians are left bewildered by freer trade. For more than four decades Canadians have been assured by their governments that as a people heavily dependent upon exports for their prosperity, the improved access to
Government Orders
foreign markets and the parallel opening of our own markets was unquestionably good for them. Indeed the successive free trade rounds of the GATT, although perhaps invisible to many, did undeniably contribute massively to Canada's post-war influence.
However, part of the reason that the Kennedy and Tokyo Rounds did so was that they were matched by a commensurate degree of adjustment assistance as government initiatives which helped business and labour adapt to new opportunities and to the new competition.
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 be , matched with comprehensive adjustment assistance in the form of training and retraining, investment incentives, the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers, the assistance to small business and so forth. However, the government did not do this despite promises that it would.
It sought free trade with the United States, but it did not devise, based on its own studies of the likely impact of free trade, those sectoral, regional or other assistance programs that would have helped to lessen the inevitable dislocation and to assist Canadians to compete more effectively.
In conclusion, in a post-industrial, post-cold war world environment we need to develop here in Canada a global trade and competitiveness strategy. We have the opportunity to build the first truly global 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 overseas, such as Japan and the European Community. First, though, we need to get the fundamentals right at home.
In this final act of the NAFTA drama we had an opportunity to write a very different conclusion from the one which we were left with in 1988. One can only regret that the government missed such an opportunity.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to my hon. friend and I must say that he is mischievous here today when he suggests that this

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
government is heading in the direction of continental isolationists.
My goodness gracious, he knows the initiative this government has taken with respect to developing trade with Europe. He knows the initiatives this government has taken with respect to opening up our pan-Pacific trading opportunities. Within the last three or four weeks he accompanied the trade minister on a very major trade delegation to develop trade with South America in Chile and Argentina. I know that he is doing a little mischief making when he makes those comments just as he is when he talks about why this government is moving ahead with this agreement when he knows perfectly well that it is right now before the Congress of Mexico and when he knows perfectly well that this government sets its legislative agenda to meet Canadian needs and does not allow it to be dictated by Washington.
I am tiying to understand exactly what the position and the intentions of the Liberal Party of Canada are with respect to NAFTA. I listened this morning to some lovely rhetoric from his leader, but I could not get any substance in terms of what the actual intentions of the Liberal Party would be should it some day be a government here. He knows the protectionist climate that prevails in the United States today, yet his leader says that if he were elected Prime Minister he would open up the NAFTA which is now a document signed by the three countries.
My question that I put to his leader who did not answer it is this: If one wants to put that document back on the table and seek certain benefits for Canada then what is one willing to negotiate? Does he seriously think it is the position and the belief of the Liberal Party that in fact the United States would say: "Sure, we will open it. Tell us what you want and we will give it to you". Trade by definition means that one gives another something to get something. I want to know what the Liberal Party of Canada is prepared to give in return for opening the NAFTA. What if the Americans say: "Look, Mr. Liberal Party of Canada, the deal is take it or leave it". What then is the position of the Liberal Party? Is it take it or is it leave it?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, that is a silly question because it of course does not take into account the realities of trade negotiations.
Before I turn to that point, my colleague opposite says that this government has been active in seeking new trade opportunities for Canada across the Pacific and in the European Community. I challenge him to bring forward any evidence of the success of its so-called Pacific Rim initiative. What evidence has he to offer that this government has made any progress at all in enhancing Canadian trade across the Pacific? What evidence can he offer that the Canadian government has taken the initiative advocated by the Standing Committee on International Trade that Canada should seek freer trade relations with the European community? Has this government been in Brussels? Has this government been in the capitals of the single market of Europe to explore the possibilities of enhanced trading relations with the European community? He knows it has not. He knows that the government has failed given its preoccupation with continentalism and with its hemispheric preoccupations. It has in effect neglected the burgeoning opportunities in Asia and in Europe.
He will know too, as I noted in the speech that I just completed, that it is the United States that has taken the initiative in seeking freer trade arrangements between NAFTA and the ASEAN countries. It was not Canada. Canada was not in Kuala Lumpur or in Singapore seeking those improved trade relations between NAFTA and ASEAN countries and to reassure the ASEAN countries that Canada was not a participant in a potentially protectionist continental trade arrangement. The government failed in each of those instances.
The member asked what it is that the Liberal government will do when it comes to office. It is not whether it comes to office. That, of course, is a foregone conclusion. The member errs when he uses the conditional. He meant to say "when".
When the Liberal Party comes to office he knows that there are now on the table for discussion side agreements on environment and on labour standards. Those agreements show no sign of an early conclusion. If they are still on the table when the Liberal government enters office then we will assess them and see what progress is made and we will continue to pursue, as we have over the past two years, stronger provisions in the area of environmental and labour standards.
May 27, 1993

If the member is aware of the state of discussion in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement then he will know that the commitment was made by the United States to participate in the bilateral negotiation of a subsidies code and of greater understanding on countervail duties. That commitment, for reasons beyond my comprehension, this government gave up in the NAFTA. It did succeed, a limited success though it was, in the free trade agreement in getting the United States to agree to sit down and talk about a subsidies code, which is the key element in a successful freer trade arrangement.
In NAFTA, however, the government surrendered even that limited success and the reader will search in vain in the 4,000 pages of NAFTA to find a reference to the continuing negotiation of a subsidies code.
The United States made that commitment and we will pursue it when we come to office. We will seek with the United States and with Mexico to devise a subsidies code which takes into account the progress that has been made in the Uruguay Round of the GATT but which ensures Canadians that there are common standards among the three countries. That commitment was implicit in the free trade agreement and we will make it explicit in the North American free trade agreement.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech and for outlining the Liberal position on that because it has been a position that has been distorted by the government. The government has really put forward throughout this whole debate, as my hon. colleague who is our trade critic knows, that in the free trade deal Canadians and Canadian businesses gained access to the American market and with this NAFTA deal somehow we gained more access and it has allowed our companies to get in there.
The hon. member knows that when we have reduced tariffs, yes, it has been easier in that sense. Canadians I think get an impression that if we reduce tariffs that somehow companies can go across the border. I am sure the hon. member knows that is not the case.
I am wondering if he could explain to Canadians, because it is confusing, what some of the other problems are that Canadian companies are having in gaining access into the American market. Quite frankly, the
Government Orders
government position that somehow because tariffs are down we have access to the American market simply is not true. I am wondering if my colleague, who has a long and distinguished career in the trade area, could tell Canadians why that is not the case.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished colleague for his questions. They go to the heart of the evaluation of the free trade agreement.
The failure of this government is twofold. One is that in negotiating the free trade agreement it did not apparently anticipate that there would be the closure of branch plants in Canada and that there would be dislocation as the parent company in the United States consolidated its manufacturing at a larger and presumably more productive plant in the United States and supplied the Canadian market for that product from the United States.
What in such instances have governments done in the past? What have Canadian governments done in the past? You can say that we have not been in a free trade agreement before. Strictly speaking that is true. But we have been in many GATT rounds. Since 1948 Canada has negotiated trade agreements on a multilateral basis. It has always matched those trade agreements with domestic change and improvement at home. We have worked hard to enable Canadian industry to compete more effectively.
The government negotiated the free trade agreement and then turned its back on Canadian labour and Canadian industry instead of providing the assistance which could have made a greater reality of the free trade arrangement.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the position adopted by the New Democratic Party and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Liberals, is becoming increasingly clear. It is becoming increasingly clear that the only party that has made clear statements on what it would do, although I do not agree, is the New Democratic Party.
I agree with the New Democratic Party that the Liberals are using this debate to present a mish-mash of argument and mischief, as my colleague earlier alluded to, knowing full well that the people on that side, if ever

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
they came to office again, would keep the free trade agreement as negotiated by our government.
I do not think most Canadians recognize how important free trade is to Canada. The free trade agreement guaranteed us, as we all know, secure tariff free access to the world's largest economy, the world's largest market. Canada is the only country in the world that will have, after the 10-year period is up, free and unfettered access to the largest market in the world.
We hear that we should not be focusing on a free trade agreement with the United States. Virtually every other country in the world is working for agreements, whether it be the European Common Market or the Australia-New Zealand agreement, whether it be countries in South America and so on. We are all working toward gaining better access to traditional markets that they might have in the trading area. All it does is complement possibilities.
My hon. friend said we should be focusing more on the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Of course we should, and we are continuing to do so. We must have a multinational and multilateral approach. We are doing that and we are going to continue to do that. Our efforts in the emerging eastern bloc countries are unsurpassed, particularly from western Canada where we have companies leaving on trade missions daily. We have businesses and government representatives leaving western Canada for the Pacific Rim nearly daily. Just recently we had a delegation from Edmonton touring Hong Kong, Faiwan, China, Singapore, and of course Japan.
So I cannot understand this kind of allusion that for some reason we have given up on a multinational or multilateral approach, because we certainly have not.
We are a country of 27 million people. We are one of the largest trading nations of the world. We have a very high standard of living, all dependent on trade. I find it hard to understand why anyone in Canada would be against freer trade. We have people in the NDP basically saying that we should do everything through the GATT. Yet when we are doing things that complement GATT, entering into a trade agreement with United States and now a North American free trade agreement, NAFTA, we are criticized.
The benefits of the free trade agreement are clear and the benefit of trade to Canada is clear. Let me go over some of the benefits of trade to Canada. Canadians earn 25 per cent of their income from trade. This is more than 2.5 times the comparable figure for the U.S. and twice that of Japan. We always think of Japan as being one of the largest trading nations on a per capita basis, on a gross domestic product basis, than any country in the world. We exceed Japan.
Among the Group of Seven countries, only Germany racks up a larger portion of GDP through the buying and selling of goods. We buy. We sell. We are a trading nation.
With 27 million people Canada ranks 31st in the world in population. But our economy is the eighth largest and our per capita income is the second highest of all the industrialized countries.
One of the reasons for this has been our outstanding trade performance. Without trade we wither. Without trade we cannot survive. People should recognize that. There is the size of the population. We have the resources. We have the knowledge. We have the education. We have all of those things that go into making us a very competitive trading nation.
Canada cannot, I stress, afford to not be part of the North American free trade agreement. It would be absolutely disastrous. If we stood aside and allowed the United States and Mexico to enter into a free trade agreement it would be detrimental to Canada and to Canada's interest. No self-respecting person and no one with Canada's interest at heart could allow this to happen.
If we stood aside and allowed a free trade agreement to be negotiated without our participation with the United States and Mexico, the United States would be the only country to have free access to all three markets.
What would that do? If I were an investor coming in from Japan, Korea, Singapore, Germany, France, the European Common Market or anywhere to do business and investing, I would go to the United States if Canada was not part of NAFTA. That would give me access to all three markets.
May 27, 1993

I would be deterred from investing in Mexico because that would give me only one market and I would be deterred for the same reason from investing in Canada. It would give me access to only one market. We would have more favourable access. The United States would have absolute control because it could play Mexico and Canada off against each other by allowing freer access of goods and services and these kinds of things that we are protecting with the North American free trade agreement.
Any freer access from Mexico into the United States on comparable products without Canada being a part would have a detrimental effect on Canada. We know that.
All of the studies, all of the experts have basically told us to go for it. We have to protect our position in this trading world, in the trading situations that come before us.
Let us look at the regional trade initiatives that are going on as a complement to the GATT. But all we have to look at is Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. They are entering into an agreement. Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Paraguay are entering into trading agreements. Australia and New Zealand are entering into free trade agreements. We have got a free trade agreement. The Asian countries are doing the same thing.
It is a fact of life that we are a trading nation. We have got to protect our position. That is why we are participating in the North American free trade agreement. I would urge my colleagues to really think before they vote today and vote in favour of this agreement.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments because of the tremendous and far-reaching impact that such a trade agreement could have on the future of our country.
Bill C-115 is a very important piece of legislation and it is extremely discouraging that the government is limiting debate and ramming this bill through the House. Members of this House and Canadians in general should have been given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with this piece of legislation.
Government Orders
This is especially true considering the record of the present Conservative government. The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, this government's legacy to Canadians, has not created the wealth that the Conservatives promised in the last federal election. As a matter of fact, the economy has worsened since the FTA was signed.
In the past three years Canada's manufacturing sector has lost over 300,000 jobs. Our merchandise trade surplus has fallen from $19.8 billion in 1984 to $10.9 billion in 1991 and our share of the world trade has diminished, going from 5 per cent in 1979 to 4 per cent in 1992. That is the reality that the Conservatives have created for Canadians. Now, instead of confronting the many overwhelming challenges that face our country in areas like unemployment, education, training and research and development and the development of our small business, the government is doggedly pursuing another trade agreement.
We in the Liberal Party are opposed to the agreement for a number of reasons. The Conservative government failed to utilize the NAFTA negotiations to improve the terms of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. There is still no subsidy and anti-dumping codes in NAFTA.
Under NAFTA, environmental protection will be left to best endeavours. Not all dispute panels will be binding, and most important, the Conservative government has yet to introduce any adjustment programs to help Canadian workers and firms adapt to greater trade liberalization.
These are the same adjustment programs which Brian Mulroney promised to Canadians in 1988 when some expressed fears that the Canada-U.S. trade-


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My friend over there should recognize this. I know he is a relatively new member in the House, but he should never refer to a member by name. He should refer to either their title or the place they represent and I would suggest he do that.


Mr. Fisher:: That is a very interesting observation the member opposite just made, but I would refer anyone who is concerned about the matter to yesterday's Hansard where the Prime Minister did precisely what the member for Athabasca criticized this member for doing.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I take the comment very warmly because, as we all know, he is one of the most eloquent, outstanding and well-mannered members of Parliament, and he is leaving of course.
I want to get back to the real issue of the day which is NAFTA. The Prime Minister promised Canadians in 1988 that we would not have job losses and instead we have.
This bill which is being passed in haste in this ludicrous manner does not address the many legitimate concerns that we in the Liberal Party have raised. The agreement has yet to be ratified by either Mexico or the United States and is in very serious trouble due to important questions raised by the new American administration.
We cannot run the risk of implementing an agreement which may be changed substantially before the other countries ratify it. Canadians cannot afford to sign a blank cheque.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and to Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak on third reading of Bill C-115, the proposed free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States.
First of all, I would like to explain briefly what is happening in the world today. Because of today's highspeed communications and current developments, it is clear that the economies of countries throughout the world are closely linked. We can no longer live in isolation behind a wall of protectionism, because on one side, we have a united Europe, and on the other, the Pacific rim countries including Japan, China and Thailand, which also form a trading block.
According to the opposition, we should operate entirely on our own. I think this philosophy is obsolete, considering the positive results of the free trade agreement. I know what I am talking about, because towards the end of 1985, I sat with other government members on the joint committee on external affairs, chaired by the hon. member for London West, who is now a member of
cabinet. We travelled across the country, from province to province, and the same problem came up time and time again. When a company or an industry exported goods to the United States, it would often be hit with a tax, at the request of manufacturers of the same products in the U.S., who had lobbied their representatives in Congress or senators, and as a result, the industry was hit with a tax that was often applied retroactively.
People in the Maritimes, including fishermen, complained about the trouble they had selling their fish on the U.S. market. In Quebec, people complained about softwood lumber exports. All products manufactured in Canada-in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta or British Columbia-were often subject to taxes imposed by the U.S. government. When we proceeded with the free trade agreement, I believe we solved this problem, mainly by setting up a panel for dispute settlement.
I think this was quite an achievement. As a result, Canada's trade surplus with the United States increased 13.6 per cent last year, compared with the previous year, reaching a record $17.7 billion in 1992. This represents more than 200,000 new jobs and an increase of $15.1 billion in new direct foreign investment.
Mr. Speaker, this is really good news. People realize that this was necessary and that this is what Canada needs. Canada has a lot of primary products, and it also has a manufacturing sector, but it needs access to a much larger market.
Today, as we proceed with the NAFTA legislation, I would like to mention in this House that Quebec stands to gain under this agreement, like all the other provinces. In 1992, Quebec's trade with Mexico was worth $82.7 million, twice as much as in 1988. Manufactured products represent over 75 per cent of Quebec's annual exports to Mexico.
These exports include communications equipment, transportation equipment and newsprint. Three markets that are expanding at a tremendous rate.
The province has already established ties with Mexico through a series of bilateral agreements on a variety of items, from technical co-operation to cultural exchange.
May 27, 1993

Quebec has a solid reputation for its expertise in a number of sectors, including communications, telecommunications, engineering, pollution control and power transmission technology. The Quebec International Affairs Minister, the hon. John Ciaccia, had the following to say about the conclusions of the Quebec parliamentary commission on NAFTA and I quote:
Remarkably, none of the groups or individuals that submitted
briefs to the commission objected to free trade.
On the whole, NAFTA is good for Quebec because it maintains the advantages of the FTA and in many respects improved them. It extends to Mexico the main provisions of the FTA and opens up new markets in sectors that were hardly mentioned in the FTA.
I would like to say a few words about transportation equipment and services, mining operations and the services sector. With respect to transportation equipment and services, the need for Mexico to improve its infrastructure, in order to attract foreign investment and update its automobile fleet, will create a demand for goods and services in a sector where Quebec has the requisite know-how and resources. I would like to name two companies which are well known to all of you: Bombardier and-


Mr. Rocheleau:: Cascade.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Cascade, of course, but I don't think Cascade is in transportation.


Gilles Rocheleau: They make paper.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: The political will exists to fight pollution, especially in Mexico, which may boost demand for new cars and public transit equipment. Highway transportation is open to foreign competitors, and Quebec companies will be able to carry goods to and from Mexico. Specialized aviation services will gradually open up, which means that Quebec companies will be able to offer such services as mapping, crop dusting and advertising.
I would also like to say a few words about the advantages for Quebec in mining equipment and operations. Mexican ore production may increase up to 13.2 per cent as a result of increased domestic demand. PEMEX is opening up certain markets for various types of equipment.
I would also like to mention the service sector, because Quebec excels in that area as well. Since NAFTA does not oblige the parties to recognize professional accreditation issued by other authorities, financial institutions
Government Orders
will be able to set up branches in Mexico, where Desjardins has already established a network. The market for computer services is expected to expand and provide good business opportunities. Engineering consulting services, an area in which Quebec already enjoys international recognition, will be opened to foreign competitors. Mexico will also open its market to management consulting services.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention several contracts which Quebec companies have been able, or may be able, to obtain with Mexico. Companies already doing business in Mexico include Roche, which obtained contracts for consulting on environment-related activities such as reforestation and pollution studies. Spar Aerospace has taken advantage of the need to update Mexico's rapidly expanding communications network. SDI Desjardins has signed a contract to provide Empresas de Solidaridad with the technical assistance they will need to transform their network of farm co-operatives into credit unions. In June 1992, SR Telecom obtained from TelMex-


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for her remarks. However, I am somewhat surprised when she mentions for instance that tariffs have been removed from Canadian businesses crossing the border and that somehow all the tariffs have been removed and therefore Canadian businesses are able to cross the border and sell their products.
I want to bring to her attention my area of Haldimand-Norfolk. For instance I have a score from the Jarvis District Christian School. They understand this. We have peanuts in our area. We have peanut producers who are unable to sell in the United States because there are tariffs. In fact not only are there tariffs but this free trade deal also has other barriers to trade that the NAFTA deal just reinforces.
Is the hon. member not aware that in fact there are still many tariffs in this country and tariffs that the Americans have on Canadian products?
Also the hon. member went on to say that somehow the working groups were solving all the problems of non-tariff barriers. I want to say that the working groups were doing a good job, but the hon. member fails to realize that under the NAFTA deal they are getting rid of the working groups. The working groups will not be

May 27, 1993
there. How can she say that the working groups will solve the non-tariff barrier problems?


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my colleague that, as a matter of fact, I am not aware of tariff barrier problems or impaired access to the American market. However, I still think NAFTA is necessary and that we cannot, as I said at the outset, surround Canada with walls and not engage in trade. I am convinced we will find solutions to these problems in the various provinces where they still exist.
As I could not complete my remarks earlier, I should like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of my colleague a front page newsreport in today's newspaper Le Devoir by Brigitte Morissette entitled "A success story likely to cheer up Canadians".
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is in Mexico these days. He is accompanied by people from all across Canada who sell services or products. He arranged a meeting with the governor of a specific region in Mexico where they have water main problems.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I must interrupt the honourable member but she will have the opportunity to continue after Question Period.
It being 2 p.m. we will now hear Statements pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. 0.31
Edward Allan Horning: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a grave issue of national significance.
Children are being robbed of their childhood, snatched in public places and emotionally and physically abused in order to feed the corrupt and corrupting business of child pornography.
The impact of this illicit business on our children, our families and our communities is profound. We must curb the business of pornography. We must end the demand.
I urge my constituents, colleagues and all citizens of the country to end the burden of pornography. We must support the people and institutions that are working to end this sin. It is a tiring task. I applaud the efforts of those struggling to eliminate child pornography and I encourage their commitment, people like Monica Rainey, the head of Citizens Against Child Exploitation, who appeared before the special legislative committee for Bill C-126 yesterday.
It is a battle that must be won. We must protect our children.


THE LATE MARJORIE NICHOLS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, before this Parliament closes down I would like to put some thoughts on the record about the late Marjorie Nichols of our press gallery.
This is not the anniversary of her birth or of her sad and premature death. However her memory still lives with those of us who shared Parliament Hill with her and with her large national following.
I was not a close enough friend to share any of her problems but I was a close enough colleague to go to her for political advice and reaction once in a while. It turns out that I was not the only member of Parliament or minister who did so.
She was a special woman and I regret that the new generation of MPs and senators who find themselves on Parliament Hill will not have Marjorie around for good company and inspiration.
Few journalists go beyond mere reporting of events to write with a perspective that helps to figure out what needs to be done next. Marjorie did. She was a brave loner who cut her own insightful path through Canadian life.
When one tries to define our national identity in this country a lot of it comes down to the few special personalities in public life-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry I must interrupt the hon. member but the hon. member's time has expired.
May 27, 1993


SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, last week I inaugurated the housing co-operatives Fortes ouvertes II in Val d'Or and Harricana in Amos.
The 1991 funding of the federal co-op housing program provided the funding of these projects, the loan being 100 per cent insured by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The annual subsidy will run for a period of 35 years.
In addition, costs linked to rent supplements are shared, the federal government absorbing 75 per cent of those and the Quebec government the other 25 per cent. The federal government, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is proud to have participated in these co-op projects. Several people have told me how sad and bitter they are to see this kind of help to housing co-operatives disappear.
Madam Speaker, the Canadian government will have to review its position in order to grant subsidies to public housing in Abitibi.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, the recently announced tripartite plan proposed by the U.S., Russia and Tbrkey attempts to coerce Nagorno Karabakh into a one-sided agreement with Azerbaijan.
The safety of the civilian population of Nagorno Karabakh is jeopardized by this plan. The Armenian community in Canada strongly denounces the inclusion of the Republic of Turkey as an equal and neutral mediator in the Karabakh-Azerbaijan conflict.
Turkey has clearly sided with Azerbaijan in this conflict by supplying diplomatic, economic and military assistance.

The involvement of Tbrkey in this peace initiative seems to be the destabilizing factor of that proposal. Tbrkey must immediately stop getting involved if it is to stay at the negotiating table. Madam Speaker, Canada
must play an active role to ensure a fair solution to the conflict between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, today this House votes on Canada joining the United States and Mexico in the North American free trade deal, NAFTA. We are going to be asked to lower our own Canadian standards as companies flee to Mexico for cheap labour and for lax environmental rules.
Even more serious is the human rights situation in Mexico. Here is a report from Amnesty International: "Torture with impugnity". Here is a report from the UN: "Cruel degrading punishment and anti trade union activity". Here is a report from the Inter-church Committee: "Electoral fraud and political violence".
If journalists are critical of the government in Canada they may find themselves in its doghouse but in Mexico they may find themselves in the cemetery. Even a cardinal is not safe from drug cartels.
Is it any wonder then why we in the NDP ask why this government is rushing headlong into a deal with Mexico long before long promised human rights reforms have become a reality? Why not wait and get those human rights reforms?


DON CHERRY
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the member for Laval-Est launched a scurrilous and unwarranted attack on a veritable icon of Canadian sport, indeed of Canadian culture, Mr. Don Cherry.
Millions of Canadians from coast to coast, both English and French, respect and admire Don Cherry for his deeply held passionate love for our home game and our great nation.
His tongue in cheek style along with his unique insights and witticisms are eagerly anticipated in living-rooms across the land. If some individuals choose to ascribe the blackest of connotations to Mr. Cherry's

May 27, 1993
comments on Coach's Comer then it is a sad commentary on them not on Don Cherry.
I am sure members on both sides of the House and Canadians everywhere join me in recognizing Don Cherry for who he is, a great Canadian. Let us join Don tonight to show our support as he tells it like it is from the great western forum in Los Angeles.


NOMINATION PROCESS
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, it may surprise some members, let alone leadership candidates, that the power given to a national leader to sign the nomination papers of a candidate was put into the Elections Act in 1974 solely for the purpose of financial accountability since candidates were given the power to issue tax receipts.
National Revenue needed to know who the legal candidate of a party was since there was a past practice of deliberately nominating candidates with the same surname to confuse the voter.
Unfortunately in the election campaign of 1974 Robert Stanfield first perverted the purpose of the power when he refused to sign the nomination papers of the mayor of Moncton because of his views on bilingualism and yet signed the nomination papers of 17 members, including Mr. Diefenbaker, who voted against the Official Languages Act.
This same ironic contradiction seems to apply to a former Minister of Justice, the current defence minister, who while professing belief in criminal reform and rehabilitation of criminals, let alone extending the right to vote to inmates in prisons, appears ready to deny her nomination signature, if she wins the leadership convention, to a candidate who may have sinned in the past but has paid his dues.
Let the people decide on a candidate and not have the divine-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


SENATOR LEONARD GUSTAFSON
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise to applaud the appointment of Saskatchewan's Len Gustafson to the Senate.
Mr. Gustafson, with a lifetime in agriculture and 14 years of parliamentary experience, will bring to the Senate a much needed experienced voice in support of prairie agriculture.
Furthermore he will pursue his vision of international food distribution which he calls "Food a Priority". "Food a Priority" calls on the G-7 to lead a global war against starvation. The have nations would purchase food from their own farmers instead of dumping it on world markets at subsidized prices. The surplus stocks would then be given to starving people through a world-wide distribution system.
I am sure Saskatchewan people will join with me in congratulating Mr. Gustafson and wishing him well in pursuit of his dream of a world food bank.


NUNAVUT TERRITORY
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in lnuktitut.]

Madam Speaker, with the formal signing of the TFN final land claim agreement on Tbesday the territory of Nunavut is one step closer to political reality and Canada is one step closer to achieving a new partner in Confederation.
We are now waiting for the government to take the next step. We are waiting for the government to introduce the bill that sets out the process to create the territory of Nunavut.
Although the bill will provide legal recognition for the new territory, members of this House and all Canadians should know that Nunavut exists now and has always existed in the minds and hearts of Inuit. We know Nunavut is our land.
We welcome Canada's recognition of our right and desire to control our destiny in our homeland and to contribute to the building and strengthening of this nation.
May 27, 1993


LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Madam Speaker, the hypocrisy and the duplicity of the Liberal Party seems to know no bounds. We have listened for the last day and a half to Liberal speaker after Liberal speaker talk about how they would like to reclaim for Canada the same provisions in the NAFTA as Mexico has with respect to energy.
Yet just on Thesday the Liberal Party en masse stood up and voted with the Conservative government to eliminate the Canadian ownership requirement for energy development on Canada lands. Imagine that. They stand up and help the government implement NAFTA by eliminating the Canadian ownership requirement on Canada lands and then the next day they make a speech about reclaiming energy sovereignty for Canada.
Where does the duplicity end? Where?


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Madam Speaker, some time ago I received a letter from Philip Carpenter, at the time a grade four student from Truro, Nova Scotia. He was requesting that the Canadian government require that all oil tankers operating in Canadian waters be equipped with double hulls in order to prevent environmental damage as a result of oil spills.
I am pleased to tell Philip that Canada has recently adopted tough new standards which will require that all new tankers ordered after July 6, 1993 be built with double hulls. These regulations apply to all new tankers and are some of the most strict in the world.
Also, as of July 6, 1995 most existing single hull crude tankers will be required to be phased out when they reach the age of about 25 or 30 years.
I am not sure if Philip's letter alone resulted in these changes or not, but I do congratulate Philip and all those young people who take a keen interest in environmental issues and take the time to write us.
I also want to congratulate the Coast Guard and the Minister of the Environment and his officials for their action in this effort.


BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on a matter that is very important to me as a member of Parliament and to many Canadians who fought for freedom during World War II.
Let us take note of the fact that a Canadian delegation is today in Liverpool, England, joining the British in their commemoration of the Battle of the Atlantic. While our official commemoration took place a couple of weeks ago we should again pause to salute those brave soldiers, seamen and RCAF veterans who provided such valiant service during World War II. It was their commitment, their dedication and their lives which helped turn the tide during World War II.
The longest battle during the war seems so long ago, however it is like yesterday to those who participated.
My commitment as Official Opposition critic for veterans affairs is to ensure all veterans, those who have sacrificed so much for us to live freely today, are not forgotten by Canadians.
I urge this House to make a commitment to the veterans of Canada to ensure that they are taken care of as they grow old gracefully.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST LEGISLATION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, during the spring and winter of 1992 a special joint committee of this House and the Senate held a number of meetings to determine the way conflict of interest legislation involving members of Parliament ought to be handled.
The committee totally rejected Bill C-43 on the Order Paper and recommended a bill involving the appointment of a jurisconsult and full disclosure of assets of members of Parliament as the best method of disciplining issues involving conflict.
The government has rejected the unanimous committee report in Bill C-116 by again insisting on the

May 27, 1993
Oral Questions
concepts of Bill C-43 that are contained in that bill. It is unfortunate the government cannot accept the unanimous report filed with this Elouse which was made by 21 members of Parliament.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, Canadians will recall that when the whole debate over the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement was raging five years ago the one certainty which most boosters of the deal shared was that Alberta was surely going to be a big winner.
The reports are in, the facts have been tallied and the results are clear. Alberta, too, has lost under free trade. From December 1988 to December 1992 Albertans have lost a net total of almost 13,000 jobs. When one factors out oil and gas sales to the U.S., sales which were already deregulated and have nothing to do with the free trade agreement, we find that the dollar value of Alberta exports to the U.S. failed to even keep up with inflation. Therefore, like the rest of Canada, Alberta and Albertans have lost under free trade and no amount of happy talk can change that.
It is time to scrap the original free trade deal and ditch the North American free trade agreement.


HONEY BEE IMPORTS
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, over the last couple of days Parliament has been debating the NAFTA. We have warned the Tories hot to proceed with legislation at least until parallel accords are negotiated, but the government will not listen. This is not an isolated example.
Over recent months Canada's bee-keeping industry has been warning the Minister of Agriculture not to lift the ban on honey bee imports from the United States.
The industry is deeply concerned about the spread of a serious parasite, the varroa mite, into the country. The industry, says that if the parasite comes to Canada it will threaten public health and the economic lives of 13,000 Canadian bee keepers.
Is this Conservative government listening? No, not on your life. The minister has moved to lift the ban by September. He is doing it over the protest of bee keepers. Their views and their economic well-being do not count.
This issue could be resolved if only the Conservatives would try listening. But alas, they just do not get it.


DON CHERRY
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval-East):: Madam Speaker, as mentioned by my colleague from Toronto, Don Cherry's comments always set people talking. As I said yesterday, Cherry should be called to order.
It is completely beyond my understanding how the CBC, one of the most respectable Canadian institutions, can tolerate a sports commentator showing such a degree of stupidity, if not fanaticism, and I do not understand why Molstar, a wholly owned subsidiary of Molson Canada, would pay such a clown. But we can take heart at the strong reactions Don Cherry's attitude stirred up all over Canada.
Canadian society made big progress on its way to promoting equality and respect for all its citizens, but such unfortunate incidents remind us we still have a long way to go.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say that this House has the responsibility to urge the CRTC, Molson and the CBC to put an end once and for all to racist and defamatory comments aimed at members of our cultural communities, particularly at francophones.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, last year on December 11 I rose in the House to ask the Prime Minister not to make dozens of patronage appointments in the dying days of his mandate. Since that day, there have been 526 Order in Council appointments.
May 27, 1993

Everybody remembers in 1984 when the Prime Minister said in attacking the then Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra: "It will never, never happen under a Conservative government".
Today I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would have the courtesy to apologize to the people of Canada, and in particular, to the former leader of my party, the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I think that the former leader of the Liberal Party would think that if anyone owes him an apology, it is the present leader of the Liberal Party.
May I first indicate that the number used by my hon. friend is typically misleading. He holds up a document saying to table the document right away, then the media can see that this document relates to Order in Council appointments which cover public servants, government agencies and commissions which deal with non-political people. The number is used to mislead and to try to mislead the press into thinking that any government in Canadian history could ever replicate the orgy of appointments made by the Liberal government of which he was a member in 1984.
My hon. friend asked about appointments to the Senate. In Meech Lake we sought to share the power of appointment to the Senate with the provinces and this was rejected. In Charlottetown we sought to have the members of the Senate elected by the people and this was rejected. The parliamentary system continues to function until there are further changes.
Therefore, we have made some appointments, for example, Jean-Claude Rivest, Mr. Bourassa's chief of staff and former adviser and the former member for Saint-Denis, the Liberal dean of the House. Madam Speaker, I am having difficulty trying to respond.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We may be able to continue on a supplementary question.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am quoting the words of the Prime Minister in 1984. At that time the Senate was operating like it is today. To use the excuse that he offered to make some changes to the Senate does not excuse what he is trying to do today. Not only did he name senators but he
Oral Questions
also forced other senators to retire before the end of their mandate so that he could make new appointments. We know of other instances where people have resigned their mandates of three years so they will be able to gain a seven-year appointment. That is a fraud.
I want to know whether the Prime Minister remembers when he said in 1984: "I think that what has taken place is completely unacceptable in an open and democratic society".
Will the Prime Minister tell me why it was unacceptable in 1984 but is so justifiable in 1993?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, first of all, the statement that I had forced senators to retire is of course false. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that.
Second, my friend asks why what took place and was unacceptable in 1984 is acceptable today. Well, it was unacceptable in 1984 because an outgoing Prime Minister refused to make the appointments himself and he passed the appointments over to an unelected Prime Minister who was not a member of this House and had never sought nor obtained the confidence of the people of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, here is a new theory now: the Prime Minister is no longer the Prime Minister.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am trying to understand the Hon. Leader of the Opposition while waiting for this House to quiet down. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister at the time was right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who had the privilege which the Prime Minister has today, but the Prime Minister used it to win the election. I would like to ask the Prime Minister the following question: Yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that the Prime Minister should no longer make such appointments, and it was reported in the newspaper this morning by Michel Vastel.


An hon. member:: Were you there?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, no, I was not there. But will the Prime Minister heed the advice of his environment minister, who says that it is enough and that he should

May 27, 1993
Oral Questions
not continue to make such appointments now, when he himself said in 1984 that it was immoral to do so?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Three questions, three preambles, three completely erroneous statements which the Leader of the Opposition ought to retract.


An hon. member:: He says anything at all.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, he says anything at all to convince the media. I was asked what the difference was. The difference is that we have a duly elected government, whether the member likes it or not. The Prime Minister is exercising his responsibilities, whereas in 1984 the outgoing Prime Minister refused to make appointments, but insisted that his successor make about 40 appointments although this successor had not been elected either to Parliament or as Prime Minister.
I point out to my friend what the Montreal Gazette said on December 18, 1992:

"Prime Minister Mulroney was simply recognizing a basic fact this week when he gave notice that he will return to the old system of appointing members of the upper house of Parliament. Mr. Mulroney cannot act as though the referendum had no force. He has to respect the decision of the people," and under the Constitution that requires the appointment pursuant to those criteria.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You had an option.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says I had an option. Yes, indeed. And he has an option. For example, if we are going to get the NAFTA legislation through the Senate, if he will give me the assurance that he will support it here and instruct his senators in the other place to support it, I will give him the undertaking that we will not make any more Senate appointments.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, it may come as a novel idea for the Prime Minister but we in this party do not trade patronage for principle.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We are not prepared to sell out the country to avoid a few more Tories in the Senate by Brian Mulroney.
Since December this Prime Minister has made 526 Order in Council appointments, over 100 appointments a month. As this Prime Minister feels the reins of power slipping from his fingers and as they cling on for a last few days, Canadians want to know whether or not he will come to his senses and end his orgy of patronage, his manna from heaven for Tories, his privileged position to the chosen few who are not enemies of Canada and put an end to the Tory patronage now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Brian, if you keep this up, you are going to give hypocrisy a bad name.
My hon. friend says that we made 526 appointments since December, 100 a month. How does he explain former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau making 225 appointments in one week?
Madam Speaker, we have the answer. My hon. friend from Halifax just said that the Liberals were more efficient. I will concede that the Liberals could not organize and run a two-car funeral but in terms of patronage, they were more efficient than any other government in the history of Canada.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, when it comes to Brians and hypocrisy that Brian takes the cake.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Let us all be careful that what is said in jest does not become insults on both sides of the House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I apologize. It is not a laughing matter; it is quite serious. We would not want to mislead the Speaker or anybody else in the House.
In today's Le Droit Michel Vastel quotes the Minister of the Environment as noting that the current Senate as constituted after yesterday's appointments sees 47 sitting Conservative members and 41 sitting Liberal members. He has noted that with those numbers the Prime Minister's concern about legislation being passed is not a concern, that the Conservatives control the current Senate. Then the Minister of the Environment went on to say that these appointments were enough for the moment.
May 27, 1993

Is the Prime Minister prepared to consider, if not the words of New Democrats, Liberals or civic minded citizens, the advice of the Minister of the Environment who said enough is enough?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, just for the record, the Minister of the Environment said no such thing. My hon. friend just said the Minister of the Environment said enough is enough. That is a false statement. The Minister of the Environment said no such thing. The abuse of the truth by the Leader of the Opposition and the member from Newfoundland today is not a surprise.
I will reflect upon what my hon. friend said.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Do you want to read what he said?


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is okay, Brian. I will reflect upon what you said if you will undertake to reflect upon this: "When you take one member of Parliament from the House of Commons to the Senate do you realize you save money? If I appoint you to the Senate I pay you full pay. If I appoint an MP I pay his full pay but he doesn't draw a pension. I am in favour of these appointments". Jean Chretien, August 1, 1984.


EMPLOYMENT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, what is needed here as we listen to the squabble between these two parties is a simple plan, and I would like to propose one: let's abolish the Senate.


Some hon. members:: Abolish it, abolish it.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, while the debate about those who are employed is very interesting, the debate about the two million Canadians who are unemployed should be the real concern of this House.
My question is for the Prime Minister. As he knows over half of Canada's manufacturing industry is owned by foreign investors, mostly Americans. Seventy-seven per cent of our trade already goes to the United States and more than 15 per cent of our natural resources are foreign owned. Apparently the Prime Minister is not satisfied with this amount of foreign ownership. He wants to ram NAFTA through the House to make sure that we give over the rest.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the Prime Minister a serious question. Is he really satisfied to retire as the first Prime Minister of Canada to give away Canada's sovereignty rather than to build it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, just by way of a prefatory remark I would draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that I proposed the abolition of the Senate on the floor of the House of Commons in 1985. We sought to move it along and indeed, as she knows, in both Meech and in Charlottetown we proposed the abolition of the Senate as it presently is and its reconstitution as an elected body. I think my hon. friend is fully au courant of that.
The sovereignty of a nation is achieved and defended in large measure by its economic strength. In Canada's case our economic strength comes from trade. We are a trading nation. Almost 30 per cent of our GDP comes from international trade as opposed to a country such as the United States or Japan where that number is in the neighbourhood of 10 per cent or 15 per cent. We trade to live and trade means opening new trading opportunities such as we have with the United States in the free trade agreement and now with Mexico in NAFTA.
If my hon. friend would care to look at the numbers, our trade with the United States since the free trade agreement is up by almost 20 per cent. That is about $19 billion and for every billion dollars there is some very significant job creation; 15,000 new jobs have been created. This country will achieve new prosperity and greater sovereignty by enhancing its wealth and we do that by greater trade.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, this country will only achieve success when Canadians are working. With an unemployment at 11.7 per cent it is clear these trade arrangements have been disastrous for Canada, for Canadian workers and for Canadians jobs.
I say to the Prime Minister that we were very pleased yesterday to co-sponsor an amendment to the NAFTA bill with a former member of his cabinet, a current Tory member, to point out the absurdity of trying to implement NAFTA at a time of high unemployment.

May 27, 1993
Oral Questions
If the Prime Minister is not willing to listen to Canadians, if he is not willing to listen to real alternatives, would he listen to some of his own caucus members and stop NAFTA now? Let's not have the implementation of NAFTA.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, of course I would be happy to listen to any reasonable alternatives. I have no quarrel at all with that. In fact the object of the exercise in the House of Commons is precisely to listen to and learn new and better ideas.
My hon. friend says that the trade deal has been a disaster. She may be right, but perhaps she could consider the following facts. Canada exported $19.6 billion more to the United States in 1992 than it did in 1988. In March 1993 our exports to the United States were 21 per cent ahead of their level in March 1992. Canada's trade surplus with the United States reached $17.7 billion in 1992, the highest level since 1985.
This is the most powerful and dynamic trading relationship that exists anywhere in the world between two sovereign nations. Clearly the free trade agreement has enhanced that. I would think my hon. friend would find it in her interest and that of her colleagues to support a free trade agreement which extends benefits to Mexico and then to other countries in Latin America.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, there is one important statistic the Prime Minister refuses to address, and that is the unemployment statistic where we have one in four people either looking for a job or underemployed.

I have another question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister refuses to understand. Unemployment in our country is over 11 per cent. This is a tragedy for Canadians. It makes no sense to conclude trade agreements that will cause even more unemployment. Why is the Prime Minister in such a hurry to pass his bill? There is no reason now. The bill has not been tabled in the United States Congress.
My question for the Prime Minister is therefore this: Why is the government in such a hurry? What did his government promise the United States, international financiers and multinationals? What are the agreements or understandings with the United States? Who required that this bill pass now? Why not wait for the election?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, this is essentially the same question I was asked yesterday, about waiting for an election. There will be an election in the summer, fall or winter. I don't know. The member and her party will then have plenty of opportunities to put forward their positions on international trade.
For example, in a recent interview, the Hon. John Ciaccia, Quebec's Minister of International Affairs, said that to make our businesses more competitive, we have to open up new markets and protect some of our industries.
The free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico gives us this opportunity. So it is a way to create jobs, make life easier for people and increase our international trade and that is why we are for it.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it concerns respect for our parliamentary and democratic institutions.
Now that the Prime Minister has had time to reflect, can he tell the people of Canada why he appointed Mr. Ami Thomsteinson to the prestigious government position of Director of the Bank of Canada at the same time when Ami was in default of mortgages, or his companies were, for up to $6 million with another government agency, namely the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation? Why?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend knows that just by his question he has defined the fundamentals of smear and character assassination.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He has indeed. Without adducing any evidence, without tabling any evidence, he is proceeding by way of rumour, insinuation and innuendo. Mr. Thomsteinson, is an outstanding member of the Manitoba and Winnipeg business communities. This member from Ontario is smearing him on the floor of the House of Commons, and I say: "Withdraw your smear or produce
May 27, 1993

your evidence that would disqualify Mr. Thomsteinson from sitting".


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the only person who now is making accusations of smear is the Prime Minister himself in his lack of response.
The Prime Minister is clearly practising what he referred to as "dancing with the one that brung ya" when he appointed Ami.

The Prime Minister appointed his barber, his barber's wife, the Ritz barman, the babysitter, his speechwriter-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If there is a real question I would like hear it.


Don Boudria: When will the Prime Minister keep his word that he gave the Canadian people in 1984? Is it expecting a miracle to ask him to keep his word once in the eleventh hour of his mandate? Is it asking for a miracle?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I will not respond to the member's slander, falsehoods and lies.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, I meant it. I told you, I demanded that you produce your document-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to ask the hon. Prime Minister to withdraw some words which are really unacceptable in the House of Commons.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, any time the Speaker asks me to withdraw any statement in the House I of course do so immediately. I find it somewhat strange that my hon. friend-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will accept the withdrawal and we will go on.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: I will then not comment on the irony of Mr. Thomsteinson's reputation being smeared on the floor of the House of Commons and this member saying that some language was unparliamentary.
My hon. friend referred to members having been appointed to positions. I make no apologies. I have no hesitation in explaining to the House exactly both the manner and quality of these people. For example-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, we must continue. I am sure the right hon. gentleman would like to continue, but I will now recognize the hon. member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about calumny. It is a legitimate concern of Canadians to ask the Prime Minister why he would consider confiding the finances of the nation via the Bank of Canada to a person who has loan guarantees and credits outstanding to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to the tune of $6 million.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, it may very well be that my hon. friend has raised an element of disqualification. I do not know. If he or she has, then why not lay this on the table of the House of Commons in order that this matter can be considered?
Certainly Mr. Thomsteinson or anyone else should be freed from the insinuation and the innuendo of the rat pack resurrected here on the floor of the House of Commons.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, I will redirect my question to the minister responsible for housing. Knowing and confirming, that the gentleman who is now a director of the Bank of Canada has over $6 million in debts, specifically debts with the CMHC, is the minister prepared to look into this and to withdraw the order in council, based on the evidence?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, even though the information does come from a very dubious source, of course I will

May 27, 1993
Oral Questions
investigate. I can tell the House unequivocally that I have not had anything brought to my attention that would indicate that Mr. Thomsteinson has any difficulty.
I would point out to the House that in today's real estate market, it is not uncommon that a lot of people may be a little slow in making their payments. I have no such evidence that that is the case with Mr. Thomsteinson.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, even an ingenue like me gets shocked at the depths that the Liberal Party can go to in attacking patronage considering their history in this country.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Considering the number of times I have had to rise today to try to get some sense of what is going on in the House and to be able to hear, I hope that nobody will complain that there were not too many questions asked.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, as an ingenue I will continue. My question today is for the Minister for International Trade and it concerns a specific problem and the problems of British Columbia.
I would ask the Minister for International Trade a specific question about the sanctity of provincial rights over the export of logs out of the province of British Columbia. Can he stand up in this Chamber and assure the people of British Columbia that their government of the day, whichever party, will have the absolute right to continue to control the question of the export of logs and that no outside jurisdiction under the treaties proposed and signed by this government will ever be forced with losing control of the export of logs?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I responded in part to that question just two or three days ago to the hon. member's colleague from Prince George.
As my hon. friend knows this was the subject of the panel hearing. We supported the position that he has just expressed on behalf of the Government of British Columbia. We will continue to do so.
The panel itself did not rule that Canadian log export controls are a countervailable benefit. We will continue to work with the industry and the province to follow this through.
I should say that the finding only applies to log export measures that were examined in the countervailing duty investigation. It has no precedence in other investigations.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I deeply appreciate the fact that the current Minister for International Trade has publicly said he will continue to fight for the right of British Columbia to export logs.
That is not my question. No politician of any merit would not fight for that right. What is happening under the Canadian Constitution is that an offshore panel has made a decision that may make invalid our own constitutional right for the federal government to delegate to the provinces the right to the control of the export of their resources.
I ask this again. It is not a question of commitment but a fight for the right. The right is there. Will that right be uncompromised absolutely if this government continues to go through with NAFTA and the continuation of the free trade agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend's views and my views on this matter are the same.
We do not believe that there is any basis for which the control of exports of logs should be in any way based on any panel decision that might come by one of these binational panels. That is a matter that has been contested by our trading partners and we will continue to fight it.


EMPLOYMENT
Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, in a recent report published for the United Nations human development report, the 1993 unemployment figures reveal that women in Canada are worse off than women in other countries.
According to the United Nations in 1990-91 Canada had an unemployment rate for women of 9.6 per cent. That is almost five times higher than the rate in Japan. It is higher than the unemployment rate in the United
May 27, 1993

Oral Questions
States, Germany, Finland, Malta or Portugal just to name a few.
I ask the minister of employment why his government will not attack unemployment as ferociously as the government attacked inflation. When will he move away from balance sheet economics to people economics and put people back to work?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, what the hon. member is asking with those fancy words is to have make-work projects under the illusion of security in a false job paid for with taxpayers' money.
We would rather have the fundamentals in place like they are now. In 1991-92 over 216,000 women in this country received training through the programs of employment and immigration. Approximately 45.7 per cent of placements in employment centres across Canada were women.
The situation is not perfect. Perfection is not a commodity that is available in this country or any other. However we are making important progress. We have in place programs that really help people to obtain and upgrade their skills so that they can occupy those jobs that are available.
I am sorry but we will not erect smoke-screens like the Liberals have always done and still advocate.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Madam Speaker, Canadians are simply sick and tired of a government that is not willing to do anything at all about the unemployment crisis in Canada.
According to the United Nations report, another group of disadvantaged Canadians are young people. This year reports show that in 1990-91 Canada had a youth unemployment rate of 16.2 per cent. That is much higher than the rate in Japan, Norway, the United States and in many other countries. Last month we saw that the youth unemployment rate rose to 17.8 per cent.
I ask the minister: In these desperate times will the minister find within himself the inner strength to give young people opportunity and put them back to work?


Bernard Valcourt: Hold your tears, everyone. That is what the Liberals are saying.

The hon. member seems to ignore totally the fact that employers and employed workers in Canada have a $21 billion adjustment program. In Canada we are spending 2.5 times per capita more than our neighbours south of the border on adjustment measures for unemployed people in this country.
As a matter of fact the new secretary of labour in the United States is looking at the programs in Canada and has found them to be so good that I think they will replicate them in the United States.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, yesterday the United States trade representative confirmed that NAFTA is now in some doubt over the issue of whether environmental and labour side accords will be backed by trade sanctions.
The United States is threatening to pull the plug on NAFTA unless it gets its trade sanctions. On the other hand, the minister says that "Canada will not have trade sanctions complicating the relationship".
I ask the minister: Is the government willing to abandon NAFTA rather than submit to U.S. demands for trade sanctions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, no and no.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, the minister must know that the United States has made it clear that it will not implement NAFTA unless its side agreements include trade sanctions. By way of contrast, the Canadian government yesterday refused to state its position.
Will the minister today share with the Canadian people what the government's bottom line is in these negotiations? The United States continues to reject any NAFTA without trade sanctions and the Canadian

May 27, 1993
Oral Questions
government states that trade sanctions are unacceptable. Does the government now agree that NAFTA is effectively dead if it does not accept the U.S. position?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Madam Speaker. My hon. friend should understand that we are in negotiation. We were in a negotiation last summer and I recall my friends opposite, both Liberal and NDP, threw out all sorts of possibilities that the sky was falling here, the sky was falling there, we were going to have this or that destroyed. Then when the agreement came out, lo and behold a number of the things that they said were going to happen because we were going to cave in to those Americans did not happen. Why? Because we have good negotiators who are interested in the well-being of Canadians and are protecting the interests of Canada. They will continue to protect the interests of Canada.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister.
During the debate over free trade five years ago, Albertans were told over and over again that they were going to be sure winners under free trade and regardless of what happened in the rest of the country, Alberta could not lose. Well we lost. From December 1988 to December 1992 almost 13,000 jobs disappeared from Alberta.
My question for the minister is this. Will he now admit that Albertans, like all other Canadians, lost under the free trade agreement? Will he agree that it is now time to scrap both the deals?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: I am surprised that after a statement like that the hon. member can go back to Alberta every weekend and peddle that nonsense. The fact of the matter is that exports to the United States of America from Alberta have increased by 48 per cent since the free trade agreement was put in place. Some failure.


Ross Harvey: Madam Speaker, in fact when one factors out oil and gas, which were going under the 1985 agreements before free trade,
Alberta exports to the United States are not even keeping pace with inflation.
I am not the one who is peddling nonsense back there; it is Statistics Canada. It is their own government. They are the ones with the figures.
Will the minister not agree that in fact free trade has done nothing for Alberta? Will he not agree it is time to scrap the deals?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What a bunch of nonsense. Instead of a ten, I would give him a flat zero for that.
The fact is that whether it is manufacturing, agriculture, beef, processed beef, or whether it is oil and gas, all exports to the United States have gone up and Albertans are grateful because that means jobs.


NATIVE AFFAIRS
Guy St-Julien: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development).
Testifying before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs this week, Grand Chief Matthew Coon-Come of the Cree Council expressed his displeasure with the federal government for the way the James Bay Agreement is being implemented, especially the absence of any federal representative, the lack of housing and the problems with water and sewage treatment.
What does the minister intend to do to prove his good will and show the Crees that he is prepared to meet their needs?


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, allow me first of all to commend my colleague from Abitibi who always takes such good care of his constituents.
I would like to point out to him that since signing this agreement with the Cree, the federal government has invested over $800 million under the James Bay Agreement. I met with Chief Matthew Coon-Come about a month ago and we have agreed that health, sanitation and safety were the primary issues to be dealt with. The Crees get $7.5 million annually that they can use on health, sanitation and safety.

As for the designation of a federal representative, we are looking into it very carefully.


ITALIAN CANADIANS
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On May 23, 1990, almost three years ago to this day, I asked the Prime Minister about his government's plan for an apology and redress for Italian Canadians wrongfully interned during the Second World War. He said then: "It will be something we will deal with urgently and efficiently so as to acknowledge what has been an unfair stain placed upon the Italian community which this House must expunge".
Given that there has been a complete breakdown in the process between the community and his minister of multiculturalism and that the minister has offered a unilateral eleventh hour patronizing proposal, will the Prime Minister personally intervene in this important issue so that we can bring this sensitive issue to a successful and honourable close, to bring justice to a community and do honour to this Parliament?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Madam Speaker, we have no lessons to take from that member or from that government which did nothing for 45 years on this issue.
Indeed I did meet with members of the affected communities in Toronto on May 18. I advanced ideas which I thought could be very helpful to finally resolve a long-standing issue, one that the Prime Minister is committed to resolving. I am now waiting to hear back from those communities.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader with regard to House business. Perhaps he could indicate to the House what the business will be for Friday, and Monday and Tbesday of next week. While the Minister of Finance is in the Chamber could he also indicate to us when we will complete the debate with regard to the budget?
Business of the House
We know the Minister of Finance is somewhat embarrassed about that document he tabled some weeks ago but I think it is important that Canadians have an opportunity to exercise through their member of Parliament their right to intervene with regard to the budget.
Perhaps either the government House leader or the Minister of Finance would indicate when the remaining two days of the budget will be debated in this House.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-115, the NAFTA legislation. The hon. House leader of the Liberal party is anxious to talk about the budget so I am going to give him two opportunities on Friday and Monday which will both be opposition days.
There will be ample opportunity to talk about budgetary matters, or whatever matters he raises. He does raise the legitimate question of two more budget days under the Standing Orders and I am trying to fit that in with the legislative priorities and certain events which are occurring. I will engage in discussions with the opposition in that regard.
The business will be opposition day tomorrow and opposition day Monday. On Tbesday I hope to complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-101, the Canada Labour Code amendments, as well as report stage on Bill C-62, the Telecommunications Act which I understand will be reported back to the House tomorrow.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, in the last few days we have heard a lot of debate in the House of Commons on the North American free trade agreement. My question to my hon. friend, the government House leader, is in light of what he and his colleagues have heard during this debate has there been any indication that the government might be inclined to rethink its position on having a final vote on the NAFTA?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively to the debate searching for a modicum of information that would be useful in terms of consideration of this important issue. Patient as I am, I was unable to find anything that would suggest another course of action. The most responsible action is that this House be brought to a vote on this bill which implements a treaty signed by the Government of Canada last December. As well as the Governments of the United States and Mexico, Canada

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
has always in the past honoured its commitments in an expeditious fashion. We are doing so again in this case.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, to the government House leader, I am wondering if the government has any intention to move on the last package of legislation that the special committee on electoral reform presented to this House a number of weeks ago. I understood that the legislation was almost ready. Does he have any information he can share with the House and if he does would he do so? Also does he have any time set aside on the legislative agenda to enable us to look at that legislation?


Harvie Andre: The Department of Justice is working on putting the committee report into legislative format so that we can bring it forward. I am doing what I can to encourage it to be done as quickly as possible so we will have an opportunity to put it in place before we adjourn for the summer.
Unfortunately I cannot give an iron-clad commitment in that regard except to say I am doing everything I can to try to bring that about.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-115, an Act to implement the North American free trade agreement, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment of Mr. Chretien (p. 19900).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When the debate was suspended, a period of up to one minute for questions and comments remained.
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and to Minister of State
(Seniors)): Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an
answer to my colleague who just asked me about the dispute settlement tribunal. Most of the cases referred to the dispute settlement tribunal under the free trade agreement with the United States were settled in Canada's favour. I would like to assure him that NAFTA still has a dispute settlement tribunal, which is permanent. It has been strengthened. Procedures for the environment and financial institutions have been provided. This tribunal is also empowered to engage environmental experts. Furthermore, it provides for special review and very quick settlement of disputes. Mr. Speaker, I think that is really reassuring.
I had started to quote an article in this morning's Le Devoir which talked about success and the famous contract signed by a subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin called Photosur Geomat with INEGI, the Mexican national geomatics institute. This institute compiles data and every year prepares and publishes thousands of maps and statistical works that are essential to governing Mexico. SNC-Lavalin asked other companies in the province of Quebec and other Canadian corporations to join this group-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the period for questions and comments has expired.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating loud and clear that Liberals are not against free trade. We are free traders. We recognize that Canada is a trading nation and that the United States is our largest trading partner. However the difference between us and the Conservatives is that we want fair trade. We want access to the American market. We believe that true free trade has to secure us the U.S. market which neither the FTA nor the North American free trade deal does.
In 1988 we opposed the Canada-U.S. free trade deal because it was flawed and not because we were against free trade. In 1993 we are again criticizing a flawed agreement. On the other hand, our colleagues in the NDP would have us build up walls around this country. They remain intellectually dishonest to Canadians about
May 27, 1993

Canada's changing economy and the fact that Canada is a trading nation.
I remind the NDP that one in five Canadian jobs in this country is directly dependent upon trade with other countries around the world. This is a reality and the NDP has to come to terms with that.
When the North American free trade negotiations began the Liberals felt it provided an opportunity for the Canadian government to correct the flaws of the FTA. We had hoped that some of the important issues we brought forward with these flaws would be addressed in these negotiations such as a subsidies code. Free trade cannot be free trade without defining what a subsidy is between the two countries in a trading arrangement. Canadians know that and they are having a difficult time getting their products into the United States because the Americans claim we are subsidizing.
Look at the situation with tripartite stabilization. The Americans call that a subsidy. As farmers in our communities know, it is an insurance policy for our farmers that allows them an opportunity to farm, to be able to have some sort of projected income and to be able to respond to market conditions. The free trade deal did not do anything to help these farmers and it did nothing to help get their products into the United States.
We asked for a more effective dispute resolution mechanism but this deal threw out the negotiating bodies, the boards that were set up to facilitate trade between our two countries.
We asked for agreed upon labour standards and environmental standards and foremost, as my hon. friend knows, we wanted the same energy protection as Mexico and we did not get it.
We had hoped at the very least the Government of Canada would be seeking changes this time around that would help facilitate trade between our two countries. The government has not come close to addressing any of these problems. This House cannot support in particular this trade arrangement among Canada, the United States and Mexico because it goes against the interests of Canada.
I would like to talk about the implementation of this agreement and about the fact that this government one
Government Orders
hour into the debate decided to cut it off. As soon as the debate started it cut it off. It said it had negotiations and talks across the country. The Prime Minister himself said this is one of the most critical economic issues facing this country yet this government cut off debate one hour into it.
Because a lot of Canadians do not understand this debate, they need firsthand information. They need to listen to this debate because it is important to them. It is important to their jobs for the future. It is important to their children's livelihood. Canadians want this bill debated.
The government says that our future prosperity, jobs and growth will depend on some sort of North American free trading arrangement. Yet once again it has given us a deal that is not free trade. Since the last deal came in, 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been eliminated by an agreement that supposedly gave us an open market to the United States.
We all know what happened in the dying days of the negotiations and how a political arrangement was made among the Minister for International Trade, the Prime Minister and the Americans to get a deal for an election at any cost to Canadians.
When I spoke on this same issue last September I talked about the viability of our steel industry and how it was being undermined by the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. We have seen a situation in recent weeks in my hon. colleague's area in Hamilton. Dofasco has decided to go to the United States to build a mini-mill. It will create jobs in the United States. Why? We found out why.
It wanted to get away from Americans who were harassing it while shipping its products to the United States. It just took the jobs and shipped them over there. It built a plant over there. We in Canada, especially in the Niagara peninsula, in Haldimand-Norfolk and Hamilton lost these jobs to Americans because Dofasco did not have the access to the American market that the government claims it has.
As I said before, this deal now gets rid of the working groups. Under chapter 19 of the FTA, rules for dumping and countervailing duties were to be negotiated by the end of 1995. That is right in the deal. We said: "That's fine. At least we'll have an opportunity to find out what a

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
subsidy is. At least we'll have an opportunity to make sure our anti-dumping laws are the same".
What happened? The government threw all that out. It got rid of it. What did it get in return? My hon. colleague across the way asked what it got in return. What did it get in return for throwing out these working groups? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The fact is that this government's trade deals have not secured access to the American market. We are powerless to deflect U.S. protectionism. What did we give up? We gave up sovereignty. In a lot of cases in this area we gave up the right not only of our federal government but of our provincial governments to have a say in their own affairs.
Look at energy and the national provisions. We now have to give national treatment to the Americans, even in an energy crisis.
What does that mean for Canadians? As an example let us look at Montreal in Quebec where there is Hydro Quebec. Around the Montreal area many companies have started up because Quebec has been able to give special treatment to corporations with cheap power.
Now under national treatment rules Quebec will not be able to do that. American companies could set up shop in upstate New York, Vermont, northern New Hampshire or the northern states and they will have to be sold the power at the same price as a company in Canada. What benefit is that to Canadians? What did Canada get in return for giving that up?
I want to conclude by saying that while I believe that trade deals are important to a trading nation like Canada, we must not lose sight of what is in the best interests of Canadians. The lack of a subsidies code hurts Canadian workers.
I want to stress that Canadians can compete. We can compete with anyone in the world. Our Canadian farmers, the farmers in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, can compete with anybody. They can compete with the Americans as long as they have a level playing field on which to compete.
What this does to supply management is just terrible. The government is going across this country telling farmers that supply management is protected under this
deal. That is completely false because to have supply management two specific main factors have to be there.
We have to be able to stop the product at the border and we must have quantitative restrictions, but we also must have a food processing industry that can compete and take that food, process it and sell it.
This sends it south of the border. Over the last four years we have lost over 100 food processing industries in this country and this NAFTA deal just extends that. It opens the borders to these industries going across the border.
With the stalemate at the GATT we cannot count on the GATT agreement to resolve this problem of subsidies and anti-dumping. That is why I find it so frustrating that this government has given up this opportunity in this debate to resolve some of these critical issues affecting trade in this country.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am really flabbergasted when I hear my hon. friend from Haldimand-Norfolk talk about steel.
I want to make a brief comment about steel, and it is something that is true with everything. One can have access to sell in another market but unless one can sell competitively in that market one is going to have a tough time.
I would suggest that my hon. friend and his friend from Hamilton East do an examination of the reality of the steel industry in Canada to discover what the real problem is. The real problem has nothing to do with NAFTA or free trade but with the competitiveness in our mills, and my hon. friend from Hamilton East knows that.
I want to ask my friend about agriculture. It is a major part of Canadian exports and exports are critically important to Canadian agriculture. There has been $13 billion worth of exports over the last 10 years, representing 7 per cent to 11 per cent of our total export earnings, and my hon. friend knows that.
I was amazed when he made the comments he made about supply management because NAFTA, like the FTA, protects our supply management system and he knows it.
I would invite him to consider the following case, and I would be interested in his comments on McCain Foods as a case of a food producer. One of the biggest opponents of the FTA, and somebody who really worked against us in Atlantic Canada, was Harrison McCain and
May 27, 1993

the McCain food company. Guess the outcome. Now that FTA is implemented, who is one of the biggest supporters of NAFTA? That very same Harrison McCain.
If my hon. friend will sit down and look at the export opportunities that are represented with the NAFTA opening up a predictable and secure market with an expanding population in Mexico he will realize that the agricultural sector is a very big beneficiary of this deal.
I would ask my hon. friend to reflect on the profound remarks I have just made. I would ask him to talk about competitiveness in the steel industry and I would ask him to reflect on the fact that agriculture is going to be one of the big winners from NAFTA.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, obviously my hon. friend knows more about Christmas trees than he knows about steel.
The fact of the matter is in my area, in the city of Nanticoke there is a steel plant that is one of the most efficient in the world. We have some of the best steelworkers in the world and our steelworkers and our steel plants can compete with anybody as long as they can have fair access to the American market.
That is our point. They have no access. The steel company thought that when this deal first began that it would have access, but now go ask it. It says that it is hurting because it does not have access so it has to build plants down in the United States.
The hon. member should check his facts because he knows darn well that under this deal supply management will not exist. The hon. member knows that.
The hon. member knows that his government is selling the idea of tariffication. Tariffication will destroy Canadian supply management. The hon. member knows that his government has sold out the Canadian farmers. Unless we get in and cut out this deal there will not be a single Canadian supply management industry.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Shore had a point when he talked about competitive factors, but-
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.

I would like to point out that during questions and comments, it is normal practice for the Chair to recognize members of other parties who may wish to comment on what was said. Personally, I do not appreciate the inference that the Chair is playing favourites. When members of other parties have a question for the previous speaker, it is normal for the Chair to recognize them.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite know what you were talking about but I will repeat what I said earlier. The member for South Shore does have a point when he talks about competitive factors being involved in the establishment of the mini-mill in the United States. However it is also true, as my hon. friend on the Liberal side has indicated, that the competitive factors extend beyond those which are involved in that establishment to such things as the tax rate, social programs, the wage rate, standards and all of that. That is not addressed.
However my question to my hon. colleague, whose arguments I find very logical and who made some significant points with a particular emphasis on subsidies, is whether he has not raised a more significant issue when he talks about energy. Procurement is a related issue and there are also performance requirements and rules against processing. There are a number of things in the deal, which is very asymmetric not only in terms of the relative sizes of our two nations but in terms of the concessions made to the United States.
Given the huge advantages to the Americans in so many elements of the free trade agreement, would he describe for me in detail what it is that we have to trade off? He said that both sides have to give. What are we going to trade off in order to get the Americans to give up their advantages in energy, procurement, performance rules, investment rules, processing rules and all of that?
Mr. Speller Mr. Speaker, I just have a short time, but surely the hon. member is not asking me at this time to put forward our negotiating position, to say what it is we would give away to trade. That is no way to negotiate.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
That is a silly way to ask a question, to say: "Okay we are When the government first says "trust us" we have to going to negotiate. We are going to give something away watch very carefully because the trust can be misplaced now, so you guys know what to expect". That is absolute- Whether it was the fault of the minister of international ly ridiculous. We do not negotiate that way.	affairs, the Minister of Communications or the Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, under whose man-The hon. member is right. The fact of the matter is date the particular amendments that relate to there are a lot of things to be changed in this deal, copyright law, intellectual property, and economic bene-Energy is one of them. Subsidies are another. An fit that I am going to speak to right now, no matter whose anti-dumping code is another. There are all kinds of fault was that all the errors took place, our artists, our things.	writers, our film industry, our television industry, the
people who were the creators in that industry were in a n-,n.	lose-lose position. It was this government's fault.
Surely he is not asking me at this time to say what the negotiating position of the Government of Canada will be after the next election. Obviously he feels that we are going to be the Government of Canada after the next election if he is asking that question.
There is a lot to change in this. We will be putting forward positions when we are the government. We will sit down and negotiate this deal with the Americans.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the final reading of this bill, which is premature and unwise, to bring in NAFTA.
Many of the speakers before me have spoken about the folly of this government in terms of its process, the holes that are in this bill, the absence of certain parts of the accord and the questionable benefits for the Canadian people from the bill.
Everything that we do in this House is supposed to be beneficial to the well-being of the people economically, socially, culturally and ecologically. None of that is in here.
The government continues to charge that with respect to this North American free trade agreement we only bring a degree of emotionalism to this debate and we are no more than fear mongers.
I want to give this government an example of how we are not fear mongers and how with the co-operation of the government, and that of the parliamentary secretary when he calmed down, we were able to change certain things in this bill in the interests of the cultural community, the entertainment community and the people of Canada.
It would have taken away 25 years of earnings, minimum. It would have precluded their rights under a number of different clauses in this bill. That was absolutely unacceptable.
I want to give a piece of advice to everyone who listens to these debates. There are organized groups who represent the interests of the workers because this is an industry. It is like the fishing industry or the agricultural industry. Culture is an industry. There are 435,000 people who work in it. Whether they are manufacturing books or cleaning fish it is an industry with people.
What happened in this bill is that the government forgot that there were people behind what it was doing, that intellectual property is the right of the individual who created it. It was about to cut out 25 years of earnings in the least offensive case and up to life plus 25 or 50 years in many instances.
This deal was incomplete. These groups came in to see us. They were able to force this government into change. They embarrassed the government. The government members sat there. First of all they were angry, second they were frustrated and then third they were moved to move the ministers and then the government to rewrite this bill, and because of that we have a much better section. It was one of the few sections in which we were able to force change because the government called closure. The government did not allow enough debate because it was afraid we might examine-

-through a magnifying glass all the mistakes in this bill, mistakes that are unacceptable and insulting to the people of Canada.
May 27, 1993



The final result is that the area I wanted to talk about, the copyright area, is improved. For that I really want to thank the people who were involved.
This government has talked about the fact that culture is off the table. Culture is not negotiable. Culture has been protected. By culture the government means entertaining, lifestyle, the books we read, the films we see, the television we watch, and the libraries we go to. The government has put under the caption of culture everything we do in our everyday lives. That was supposed to have been allowed to develop and evolve in the interest of individual Canadian way of life being different from American or other styles around the world. It brought in copyright. Did it not understand what copyright was? It is at the heart and soul of the ability of artists to earn a living. It is the bread and butter that protects their lives. This is what the government was cutting out.
.(1535)
It should not tell me that culture was off the table because it was not. It did not fool the 434,000 artists who are out there. The standing committee wrote a policy statement called "The Ties that Bind". The government has done nothing but untie those ties. There are no bonds left. If the government had its way we would have all been turned into Americans yesterday, never mind tomorrow.
There are many examples in Bill C-115 that went beyond NAFTA. In this particular instance it is so far beyond NAFTA that at least the government came back and made corrections in the bill. That is fine, but I have a sneaky suspicion this government, repeatedly stating that culture is exempt, found ways around not looking to protect the artistic merit in what is called culture here and what is called entertainment in the United States.
Outside the cultural industries per se and outside the trade agreement, Canada has been removing all kinds of supports that are irritants to the Americans. It has done it through the back door the same way it tried to put through this bill and call it NAFTA directed when it was not NAFTA directed.
It has been trying to remove the irritants, taking measures that are supposed to support arts and culture,
Government Orders
cutting money, cutting financing, cutting public lending rights for the books in our libraries, and failing to enact the status of artist legislation which would allow collective bargaining rights for Canadian artists with federally regulated companies and federal institutions. It has not done that. It has only done the fuzzy-wuzzy part. Nothing puts rights and money in the hands of the artist.
It has been weakening the Baie Comeau book publishing policy aimed at greater Canadian ownership and control, managing to obfuscate the way to do it, and failing to close the loopholes in Bill C-58 in the interests of the Canadian magazine industry to stop the Canadian spilt run of Sports Illustrated in our magazine industry. It is like getting the nose of the camel into the tent. Instead of closing the loopholes the government sat there and said: "We will set up a committee to maybe find a way". When it has six, eight or ten issues of Sports Illustrated and has ruined the advertising base then it might discover it has not yet found a way to handle it.
There has been the disappearance of the film distribution bill of 1988 because the Americans do not want any kind of competition. Is that not right? If we have it in Canada it would mean the rest of the world might have a way to fight this hegemony that is American and that is insidious all around the world and our songwriters might have a better chance and better promotion.
The fact is that we only take up 3 per cent of our domestic screen time or any other field. We never have anywhere near 10 per cent of anything that is Canadian in the culture, arts and entertainment expression fields.
Over the last eight years of the government we have become a country of a little more than balance sheets and deficits. I do not think we can afford to ignore as this bill does the social, cultural and environmental interests that make up the life and definition of a people and of a country and express their vision or view of their own society.
That is what is missing in the heart and the soul of the negotiators of this bill. We cannot build the great nation we would have liked to have built because we are constrained, our sovereignty has been constrained, and through economic purchases we have been constrained.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
Although the world, the United Nations and the people coming to our shores say that we are a country to be envied and we are in many ways, it is something we would like to maintain and direct with our own concepts of the future. I strongly believe that as a member of the Canadian parliament I have responsibility to protect and to speak out in the interest of Canadian national institutions and Canadian national identity en frangais, en anglais et dans n'importe quelle culture que vous voulez apporter.
This is a bad bill. The cultural industries and intellectual property were not to be protected. With vigilance by society and vigilance by the members of this House we finally had that changed. How much more could have been improved in the bill had the government not called for closure? It closed down enlightened debate that could have improved the circumstances of people. What the government has done is undemocratic. I believe it will live to regret this day.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that I appreciate and share in the comments made by the hon. member for Mount Royal. She doubtless heard me pose this question to her colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk: How can her party really believe the Americans who have achieved so many advantages and so many benefits in the free trade agreement would sit down to renegotiate that deal? We must remember that the position of the Liberal Party is to renegotiate and, if it cannot renegotiate, to abrogate. It is a good dance.
From the member for Haldimand-Norfolk there was a great dance about giving away their negotiating position and so on. The question is very simple and I will put it to the hon. member for Mount Royal. How can she and her party really believe the Americans are going to sit down and give back willingly any of the advantages they have received? What are the limits to the renegotiations? What will her party give up to achieve the ends its says it wants to achieve including, for example, the energy provisions mentioned by the member for Haldimand-Norfolk?
The question is not about the details but why, how and what kind of contract is renegotiated without being broken.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, over the years the Liberal government has demonstrated it is excessively good at negotiating with the Americans. Because of the part of the country the member comes from he should know better than I do that the auto pact is an outstanding example-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Wait a minute.


Sheila Finestone: Excuse me, I think it is my turn. I have already heard from you, Howard. Now you can listen to me for a minute.
The member is worried about the song and the dance. Let me look at some of the practicalities. If we wish to negotiate we need some principles and some values before us. The Liberals have demonstrated they are people first. They are fair traders and international traders. They have been very competent in the management of the country over many years. In the member's part of the country the auto pact is a perfect example of it.
There are three major areas we have not looked at: the definition of subsidy, the definition of dumping and the whole question of the environment. Even the Americans are in a position to say that until those areas are in side agreements they are not moving forward.
First, those areas must be negotiated. Second, this government must put into place the programs that are required to do the job properly. However, more important than anything else, if we go to the table it is because the Americans also saw some advantages to having a free trade agreement. We should be able to sit down like two adults, look at the issues and find a way to accommodate the interests of both.
If the Americans are being big bullies in the final analysis we have a six-month notice and the right to abrogate. Before we abrogate, before we say we are going to tear it up, before we say it is no good and it cannot be fixed, at least we have the will and we demonstrate the will to try. If we cannot succeed we take the next step.


Mrs. Browes:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to formally designate Friday, May 28, the seventh allotted day for the supply period.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Guelph-Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Question Period discussion we
May 27, 1993

had earlier perhaps I should clarify my own position with respect to the Senate. I am not a candidate for the Senate and I want my hon. friends to know it.
We have had a long and arduous debate on this agreement. It is time for a short summary and perhaps some comments that I hope might be useful. We have heard why we needed to be part of the NAFTA discussions. This morning my colleague from Athabasca gave us a rundown on why we could not be left out of the discussions between Mexico and the United States.
We have heard of the benefits that will accrue to Canada. We have heard of the benefits that would accrue to Canada under the NAFTA and under the FTA. At the same time we have heard some fears, real and imaginary. We have heard repeated over and over again the myths of the FTA and now the myths of the North American free trade agreement.
What is it really all about? Very simply tariffs will be reduced between Mexico and Canada over the 10-year period. It is very similar to that enjoyed by the FTA. Of course Mexican licensing requirements will also be removed over the 10-year period. It is a very important point particularly as far as the auto industry is concerned.
There have been changes in the auto industry. It has moved from 50 per cent content to 62.5 per cent content. I think that is appropriate. That certainly is what the auto parts manufacturers in my area of Guelph-Wellington wanted. They wanted us to move higher. Of course we had debates on whether it should be 50 or 75, and people finally settled I think appropriately at 62.5 per cent.
Services are very important to Canada. We have available tremendous engineering, accounting, legal, business and professional services of all kinds. It has been very difficult for us to sell those services in Mexico. Now we can do it. Under the North American free trade agreement Canadian business people, particularly those in the high-tech end, will be able to go to Mexico to sell the products we have in Canada and the services that Canada can provide. Obviously basic telecommunications are left out of this agreement as they were left out of the free trade agreement.
Government Orders
Turning to financial services, Canadian financial corporations will now be able to go to Mexico, invest in and open their own operations which we could not do before. They can even own financial institutions in Mexico for the first time. That is good because we do have a very sound banking system.
On intellectual property, we have gone along with what was proposed at the GATT. That has been an issue in the House. We have heard people in the opposition say that the patent laws should not be changed. I do not know why. At the same time someone three or four seats over will get up immediately afterward and say that we need more R and D and ask what the government will do about it.
The government says that we need more R and D and if we want more R and D we need a patent regime that will be the same as that of other companies in the world, or they will conduct their R and D somewhere else. We expect them to conduct the R and D here, and that has been proven over the last several months.
On government procurement, of course we want to open up more American government procurement to Canadian corporations, and that is exactly what is happening.
Dispute settlement follows on the FTA. I have heard comments in this House about dispute settlement and how we wish it were more clearly defined. We wish we had anti-dumping laws more clearly defined and we wish subsidies were more clearly defined. I suppose we all do. However, the fact is that every other country in the world would give anything they have to have the same dispute settlement mechanisms with the United States that Canada has and negotiated through the FTA and carried over into the NAFTA. It follows the free trade agreement.
Since the free trade agreement 16 of 22 Canadian manufacturing sectors have gained market share in the United States. That tells us whether the agreement is working or not. We have increased our exports to the United States more than that of Britain, Japan and Germany and they are still going up. We have the highest exports on record to the United States right now.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
We heard that we have lost jobs. Of course we have lost jobs in this world-wide recession and we all regret that. Some people want to blame it all on the free trade agreement. Let us look at it.
Look at industries where the tariffs were close to or actually at zero before. Look at wood products where there is a 13 per cent loss in employment. One cannot blame that on the FTA. A 9 per cent loss in non-metallic minerals cannot be blamed on the FTA. In primary metals there was a 6.5 per cent loss of jobs. One cannot blame that on the FTA. Food and beverages had a 5 per cent loss. One cannot blame that on the FTA. I could go on with those instances in the industries where the tariffs were so close to zero that they made no sense whatsoever in terms of trying to blame job losses on the free trade agreement.
Let us look at some of the myths and there are a lot of them. We find, for example, all of the old things coming up again such as that we are going to lose our water. If anybody honestly believes that they want to trade the Speed River in my riding for the Rio Grande then let them go and try and arrange it. You cannot have anything traded if people do not want to trade. That is axiomatic. However, we have heard the same old myths about water and how terrible it is going to be. We have heard the comment about health care-we are going through the 1988 election all over again-and about how health care is going to be dragged down by this NAFTA. There is nothing in NAFTA, there is nothing in the free trade agreement, there is no obligation on the part of provincial governments to shop out any part of the medicare system. That is entirely within the control of the Canadian governments. It is GATT consistent. That is exactly what we want it to be: GATT consistent.
We heard comments earlier today about energy. They continue to perpetuate the same old myths that somehow if the Americans come along and say that they would like us to pump more gas out of Alberta then we have to do it. That is absolute nonsense. You have to live up to your contracts which you would do in any sensible business arrangement in any case.
We also heard about labour costs. If wages were the truly important factor in terms of manufacturing then why would we not be importing all of our products from
those countries that have wage rates one-tenth of those in Mexico? Why would we not now be importing everything from Mexico because 80 per cent of what comes in here is now tariff free? What about the other 20 per cent? We have better technology, we have better management, we have better training and all of those things which Canadians are good at and that is why it does not matter what the labour rates are because they balance off over and over again with respect to those other management items.
The last point is sovereignty loss. Any time one enters into an agreement, whether one shakes someone's hand or whether one signs a piece of paper, one loses some of one's own sovereignty. That is what agreements are about. They raise this spectre about losing Canadian sovereignty. Any time there is an agreement one has lost sovereignty. Who are they trying to kid? It was 46 ago when I entered into an agreement where I lost my sovereignty. It was the best thing I ever did.


David Barrett: Send your wife down and negotiate.


William C. Winegard: Yes. If my wife were here she would probably straighten out the member from Juan de Fuca as well.
When I was very young and I had to sleep in the dark I was afraid of the bogyman. As I got a little older I realized there really was no bogyman. I say to my colleagues opposite that there is no bogyman, there is only opportunity. Why not stop worrying about the bogyman and join us in capturing the opportunities for increased trade and increased prosperity for Canada?


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was rather funny to hear the former minister-or is he still a minister-go to such lengths to explain that he wasn't afraid of the bogyman and that when he shook someone's hand or signed a piece of paper, he was never afraid of losing his sovereignty because he took it for granted he would lose it.
Perhaps I missed the point. How can a handshake or signing a piece of paper make you lose your sovereignty? Perhaps the former minister would care to explain. Since he is so clever, I would also appreciate hearing his definitions of disputes, subsidies and dumping.
May 27, 1993

Government Orders


William C. Winegard: With respect to dispute settlement, it is very clear that we have binational panels that will sit with respect to any dispute that comes up.


Eugène Bellemare: That is your definition.


William C. Winegard: Yes, of course, I agree. That is my definition of a dispute settlement mechanism that is better than between any other two trading partners anywhere in the world.
With respect to dumping, I asked the member if he were ever involved in a dumping case or even a countervail case before the FTA came into existence. I was and it was extraordinarily difficult to find any place to take the case except to an American court. Now there are binational courts one can go to which is a tremendous improvement in terms of dumping or countervail issues.
I am sorry I have forgotten what the third one was.


An hon. member:: Subsidies.


William C. Winegard: On the subsidy issue, no two countries in the world have yet been able to resolve the subsidy issue. It has never been resolved at the GATT, which of course the opposition appears to love, and it has not been resolved here. It is going to have to be resolved on an international basis because all countries are now concerned with it no matter what trading bloc they belong to.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the social contract as well, but I would like to comment on just the last bit of the statement the last speaker made.
We certainly have to be concerned about dumping and what is a subsidy and what is not a subsidy. We have to be concerned about something that is in there in black and white and which the Americans still ignore. As the member says, we have to use the free trade agreement as a basis on which our trading partners will conduct themselves under the NAFTA. In the free trade agreement it says that one signatory to this free trade agreement shall not use subsidies and so on in order to disadvantage the other member where there are established markets. The United States of America has done that in spades, so there is no reason why we should have any confidence in anything it put in there anyway.
I would like to make a comment on the matter of labour and wages. I have here an ad concerning the province of Yucatan in Mexico which is one of the countries that is going to be a signatory to NAFTA. The headline says: "I can't find good, loyal workers for $1 an hour within a thousand miles of here". Of course, it is addressing itself to employers in the United States, but I imagine Canadian employers would see this as well. The fact of the matter is that Mexico-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sony, but in all fairness I have to give the floor to the hon. member. It was five minutes for questions and comments and the five minutes have expired.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, we know very well that there are instances where the United States has ignored some of the FTA rules, but the fact is that we have a place to take those disputes. We did not have that place before.
I remind the House that every time we go to a dispute panel we win more disputes than we lose. That is what it is all about because we can have a place to challenge them.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to briefly address what I consider to be the most important economic horizon in the pursuit of Canadian prosperity and that is our future potential for world trade.
It is a fact that Canada has always been, and now more than ever continues to be, a trading nation. To an extent more than most Canadians realize, our high standard of living and our enviable social programs are based on the economic foundation which we have established as a world trader. More than 25 per cent of our national income is generated by trade, which is a proportion that is at least twice as large as the comparable trade content in the economies of countries such as the U.S.A. and Japan.
During the 1980s for example Canadian exports grew at an average annual rate of more than 5 per cent in real terms. It was a full 2 percentage points faster than our economy grew as a whole. It is evidence of just how much Canadians do and must continue to rely on trade to maintain and increase our economic prosperity. We have no alternative but to constantly seek out and develop world-wide markets for our goods and services. It is absolutely essential, both to the solution of our immedi-

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
ate economic problems and to the sustenance of lasting future prosperity, that Canada pursues an active trade policy and aggressively advances our competitive participation in trade with all comers of the world.
What truly stands out about Canada in world economic comparisons is the disproportionate success which we enjoy economically among all nations, which is an achievement that has essentially been created by our outstanding trade performance. With only 27 million people Canada ranks thirty-first in population size, yet our economy is the eighth largest in the world. More important, our per capita income is the second highest of all industrialized nations.
In terms of trade Canada has been a David among the Goliaths of the world. That is the unique economic strategy that we must continue to employ in the future. That is to seek trading opportunities in markets of the world that are far beyond our size and yet in which we are prepared to compete and able to compete freely. Nothing exemplifies this strategy more than does the free trade agreement with the United States where we have accepted the risks of competing with a country 10 times our size because we believe that the market opportunity is so disproportionately in our favour.
With the proposed expansion of the FTA to include Mexico under a new North American free trade agreement, we are pursuing that strategy further to create a total trading bloc of 360 million people of which Canada will be less than 8 per cent in population size, but a vastly larger proportion in terms of our share of the economic potential.
Simply put, the strategic trading opportunities offered by the comparative markets of Canada, the United States and Mexico are almost 13 to 1 in Canada's favour.
As we know, I am a member of Parliament from the Atlantic region. Nowhere in Canada is trade more crucial to the economy than in our part of the country. Our people and our economies in all of the Atlantic provinces have benefited significantly from increased exports to the United States under the free trade agreement.
It is important to note that over half of our exports from that region go to the United States alone. Some of the 1992 figures are worthy of note.
My own province of New Brunswick sold $1.9 billion to the United States last year, two-thirds of our total exports. These figures include pulp and paper, mineral fuels, food products, engineering services and a host of related products.
For Nova Scotia total sales to the United States in 1992 were $1.6 billion, again more than two-thirds of total exports from that province. They included fish, rubber products, iron and steel, pulp and paper, and so on. Even for small Prince Edward Island, the United States market purchased $100 million worth of goods and services especially in fish and food products. The Newfoundland total was over $600 million, also heavily based on fish, paper and mineral fuels.
These are impressive figures for an area the size of Atlantic Canada, totalling more than $4.2 billion and representing a very significant portion of our total exports.
There can be no doubt that the free trade agreement has had a major beneficial impact on these current sales. However its greatest potential still lies before us.
This is even more true when Mexico is included because current trade between Atlantic Canada and Mexico is very small, representing less than 2 per cent of the total. Thus the prospects for growth in a new free trading relationship with that country are entirely on the up side. Many significant opportunities have already been identified.
Although both Atlantic Canada and Mexico are reliant on resource industries such as forestry, mining, agriculture and fishing, there are differences in the types of commodities, the growing seasons and the markets which would tend to limit to any significant extent direct competition.
With new and more open access to the Mexican market of 85 million people, one that is experiencing rapid economic reform and expansion, Atlantic Canada businesses should be able to dramatically increase their sales penetration there.
May 27, 1993

Once NAFTA is finalized the removal of trade barriers and the clarification of trading rules will make it easier for Atlantic companies to do business in that market.
For example, with respect to fish products the removal of tariffs and import licence requirements will permit companies like Connors Brothers from New Brunswick to significantly increase participation in a market that has a total potential of $1.4 billion.
The Mexican chemical market is expected to grow by as much as 30 per cent over the next five years. Companies such as Diagnostic Chemicals Limited of Prince Edward Island have already commenced selling their products through a distribution alliance in Mexico.
In forest products Mexico imports almost $1 billion annually. This demand is expected to grow at the rate of 12 per cent annually over the next five years. This means major opportunities for several forest products companies in Atlantic Canada.
Mexico imports almost $2 billion worth of ferrous and non-ferrous metals each year. Its import requirements of steel and metal are expected to increase 14 per cent annually over the next five years. Sydney Steel already makes steel rails for that market.
The demand in Mexico for agricultural food products is expected to grow by more than 30 per cent each year. There will be significant opportunities for companies such as McCain's and Ganong Brothers and Clearwater Fine Foods of Nova Scotia to participate in that market.
The highly publicized environmental problems in Mexico offer distinct opportunities for engineering and manufacturing firms that specialize in pollution treatment and environmental engineering.
Companies such as ADI Limited, Neill and Gunter, Jacques Whitford, Nolan Davis, Crandall Engineering and others are all looking seriously at Mexico as a market of opportunity. Many of them already have established relationships there.
I want to digress for a moment to talk about a recognition that has been accorded to one of those firms symbolic and representative of them all. In 1992 World-business for the second year recognized ADI Limited as one of the world's great innovative engineering companies, particularly with respect to its export reputation. I quote:
Government Orders
"The company maintains its outstanding reputation for engineering work within Canada while continuing to establish impressive credentials from the U.S.A. to eastern Europe. Also to its credit, the company is diversifying into related activities in which it and New Brunswick possess world-class capabilities.
This is an example of a relatively small company with an outstanding reputation for quality work headquartered in one of Canada's smallest provinces making a very significant contribution to Canadian export activities".
That company is now active in Mexico. The Worldbusi-ness magazine award goes on to indicate that New Brunswick was acknowledged as demonstrating the strongest international business orientation of any province in Canada in 1992.
I see my time is running out. I can only say it is clear that the free trade agreement with the United States has been good for Canada and it has been good for Atlantic Canada. By including Mexico in its market, which is more than three times as large as Canada's, the potential for free trade continues to be enhanced as the foundation for our country's economic future.
Beyond North America the NAFTA partners have a clear vision of expanding that trading bloc into Latin America commencing with Chile.
In all of these directions world trade will become Canada's road to prosperity and competitiveness will be the key to our success. Canada must be a country where competitive spirit is the watchword, where growth and progress are achieved because we take pride in doing things better, faster and more economically than our trading partners.
While world trade represents Canada's external potential for growth, our domestic market also must be enhanced. Our challenge is to achieve the best of all trading opportunities, those which now exist here at home, those which exist immediately throughout North America and those which will eventually emerge for us around the globe.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member from New Brunswick with great interest and attention. He gave

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
some figures that were very worth while for his part of the world. However I want to share with him some figures on what has happened in my riding of Scarborough-Agincourt since 1988.
There has been an increase in unemployment of 120 per cent. There are 8,000 people on the unemployment rolls. In my riding, 260 homes were put on the block because people could not pay their mortgages. Husbands and wives were let go from work and these 260 people lost their homes. The banks moved in and seized them. Social assistance in my riding of Scarborough-Agincourt has increased fourfold.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Garabetian, used to be a security officer. He has been out of work for eight months. His wife is the only one that is working trying to support a family of four. Another constituent, Mr. Economou, a licensed electrician, has been out of work since 1991. I can go on and on.
This new free trade deal that we are talking about with Mexico can be compared to a small car that had a small gas tank with just enough gas to get to Buffalo. So all the firms moved down to Buffalo. Now what we have is a car with a bigger gas tank and it holds a great amount of gas. It is not just taking us to Buffalo, it is taking us right down south. And what we have to do is sit here and listen to facts and figures that to my mind are incomprehensible.
Does the member really understand what has been happening out there since 1988? Has the member really heard from his constituents on what has been happening out there since 1988? This country's economy was killed because of the FTA. This country's economy will be buried tonight when this government imposes NAFTA on us.
Can the hon. member tell me what it is I can say to Mr. Garabetian or Mr. Economou when they cannot find work? And what am I supposed to tell my children?


An hon. member:: It has nothing to do with free trade.


Jim Karygiannis: An hon. member is saying it has nothing to do with free trade. Well let me repeat the facts and figures. Since 1988, there are 8,000 people unemployed in one riding, that of Scarborough-Agincourt, and 260 houses were put on the block. Social assistance has gone up fourfold.
When will the hon. member start telling the people the truth? Canada is sick and tired of 1-800 Brian Mulroney for sale.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member conveniently ignores the statistics because it apparently gives him some limp excuse on which to blame circumstances.
The facts are that the C.D. Howe Institute and the Conference Board of Canada have both identified the free trade agreement as one of the redeeming strengths of the Canadian economy over the past few years and have indicated that our recession would have been far worse without free trade.
The facts are that since 1988 our exports have grown by 19.2 per cent to the United States alone. It is $20 billion, the highest ever. Our trade surplus is $17.7 billion, the second highest in history. Our productivity has increased. We are now becoming one of the most competitive nations in the world.
All I can say to the hon. member is that if there is hope for his riding or my riding for employment in the future, for economic prosperity in the future, that hope is represented by the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement.
Frankly, in all the five years I have been here I have never heard recommendations from the other side of any substance that compare at all to the free trade agreement, no direction of any kind that would offer a solution or a substitute. All it has been is hot air and a limp, weak excuse to blame it on other things in the face of election time.
The statistics strongly speak for themselves.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, as we wind down to closure in this Chamber, this government at my count has used closure three times on this bill and we are winding down to the last half hour of the debate relative to it.
Of course, the debate really is a precursor to the next federal election.


An hon. member:: Or the last one.
May 27, 1993


David Barrett: Or the last one. It may be the last federal election if this bill becomes law and we become a fifty-first state, but that is a hypothetical question.
What are we faced with? In actual fact by serendipity, the next federal election may be a referendum. I say it may be a referendum around the future of Canada and this trade agreement can be the focus of that referendum.
What do the parties have to offer? The Conservative Party has made it very clear that it sees the future of this country tied in almost exclusively to the United States of America.
The question has been asked time and time again: Why the rush for this bill? It is a valid question. The question has been focusing on the fact that the parallel accords have not yet been negotiated yet this government is ramming the bill through.
The government is attempting to suggest that the parallel accords have no impact whatsoever on the content of the bill. If that indeed were the case, why has the President of the United States not initiated the fast-track debate in that country on NAFTA? It is because he says the bill is incomplete and one of the partners in defining the incompleteness of the bill refuses to have that bill submitted to its legally constituted legislative body to determine whether or not that country wants to be a signator.
Therefore the argument by this government that the parallel accords can be dealt with later is absolutely false. The parallel accords may substantially alter what exists in the North American free trade agreement and substantially alter everything we said in the debate here. So, why the rush?
I have a theory and I must credit the government for being consistent in the interpretation of my theory. This government has a straight right-wing corporate agenda. Big business through laissez-faire capitalism is seen as the answer to all the questions facing ordinary people in this country.
We are not the only ones who are questioning this approach, by the way. Even the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops has raised some profound questions in its recent economic statement. Nonetheless, it is a matter of political debate in a democracy. Yes, it is a question of political debate and the political debate is wrapping up here today.
Government Orders
This government says yes to NAFTA. We say it is flawed. We are opposed to it and we say no to NAFTA.
Then there is the Official Opposition. This morning we heard a very important speech from the leader of the Liberal Party. He enunciated what the Liberal Party's position was on dealing with NAFTA. He did say a number of specific things for the first time and the leader of the Liberal Party is beginning to define what that party's position is.
He said, and I repeat by paraphrasing, that should the Liberal Party be elected to office as a conclusion of the next federal election and the parallel accords were not yet defined, then he would immediately start negotiating around those parallel accords. This means in essence that he is satisfied with the substance of NAFTA but he would, as he sees it and proves it from the Liberal Party's point of view, substantially have new input into the parallel accords.
Also, a new statement was made today by the leader of the Liberal Party that I thought was profoundly important. It was the statement that the Liberal Party is demanding the same protection for the energy of Canada as Mexico has negotiated in NAFTA. That is a very important point.
The Mexican government has been successful in shielding its national interests in the oil and gas industry. As a matter of fact it is required to do that because written into its very Constitution is that there must be a constitutional change before any foreign ownership can take place in Mexico in the oil and gas industry. This was as a result of their revolution that launched the revolutionary party that has been in power all these many years.
Mr. Salinas made the decision in terms of domestic politics that there was no way that Mexico could give up in NAFTA what Canada had given up in the free trade agreement.
The leader of the Liberal Party today injected the energy question and made the statement, and I want to be careful about this, that should the Liberal Party be elected it would renegotiate NAFTA to ensure that there was protection for the Canadian oil and gas industry on the same basis as there was for the Mexican industry.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders


An hon. member:: That is what I heard.


David Barrett: That is what I heard. I was puzzled by that remark because obviously no one told the leader of the Liberal Party that negotiated in NAFTA is an article, a special reservation in the NAFTA treaty, annex page l(c)23, which allows Canada to retain its Canadian ownership requirements for gas and oil, which reads as follows: "Flowever, once these requirements are abandoned they can never again be restored as long as NAFTA is in effect. Such requirements run afoul of NAFTA's national treatment provision".
What this government negotiated in the treaty, like it or not, was a protection for the Canadian oil and gas industry.
Then this government decided that it wanted to open competition to the private sector in the Canadian gas and oil industry that destroys in a sense the Canadian protection for oil and gas, Bill C-106. I am coming to a point that members will find interesting.
When this came to a vote in this Flouse that destroys the essence of Canadian ownership requirements of oil and gas in this country that was instituted by a Liberal Party, the last vestige of the Trudeau national energy policy which the Tories opposed and I supported and I assume the Liberal Party supported, this government destroyed that last part of the national energy policy through Bill C-106. Who is it that supported it in the House just two days ago, before the leader of the Liberal Party made his speech today? Every one of the Liberals who was in the House voted for the end of the last vestige of the national energy policy that required Canadian ownership of at least 50 per cent in the oil and gas industry.
How does the Liberal Party explain to the Canadian people the speech today by its leader saying that he insists on the same protection in NAFTA that the Mexicans received when legislation has just been passed and instituted in this country that gives unparalleled access to foreign investors in the oil and gas industry? Under NAFTA, once given it can never again be taken away.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party cannot be accused of talking out of both sides of its mouth. It cannot be called hypocrites on this issue. It is something even worse. They have not even read the deal. They have not even read the articles. The proof of
the fact they have not read the articles is that the one thing that NAFTA did write in was the protection of Canadian sovereignty unless legislation was passed to eliminate that. Such legislation was passed by the Tories just this week and the Liberals supported it.
I cannot think of any greater support for the NAFTA given by the Official Opposition than that example. If you are going to be Tories walk across the floor and join them but at least have the sense to stand up and point out to the Liberal leader that you cannot attack this deal without reading it first.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot demand the same protection that Pemex has and then vote for legislation of this House that eliminates forever us having the same protection that Pemex has. The Tories at least have a philosophical opening that they want to argue about. I disagree with that fundamentally but the Liberals do not even know what they are talking about and have not done their homework and examined what is in the bill.
They voted two days ago for the legislation that will give up the very thing that the leader of the Liberal Party says he wants. Two days, 48 hours pass and the Liberal leader stands up and says he wants the same protection as Pemex when he was part of the vote in this House that took that protection away. How would he explain that to the Canadian people? How would he explain it to the voters? How would he explain it to the rank and file Liberal Party members who when they go to meetings say: "Wait a minute, you say you want the same protection as Pemex but you supported the law that took that protection away".
On the parallel accords it is our position that no matter what you do with the parallel accords the whole deal is fundamentally flawed as our leader pointed out point by point today from our point of view. The Liberal Party is hiding again and hiding behind this government without saying clearly and exactly where it stands.
I go back to the referendum. This government stakes its future on FTA and NAFTA, prepared openly and honestly from its perspective to run a federal election campaign on that issue. We have said clearly we are opposed to it. Now we have evidence that the Liberal Party has a strong position on both sides and if that does
May 27, 1993

Government Orders
not serve you well it does not matter. They will put on a code of principles that you want. Just put in an order.
Consistency? Give me a break. Two days ago they voted for the legislation that will end forever a chance of us having Canadian ownership and dominance in the oil and gas industry here in Canada. Here is their voting record.
Furthermore, in conclusion of this debate, I must say about a voting record that we did have an opportunity to defeat the bill again by serendipity the night of March 31, 1993. My friend shakes his head that makes me wonder if there was a deal, and I will come to it.
The vote was as recorded in the House. Maybe there was a deal. Only five were paired. I am an ingenue. I believe in the best of people. But there was the magic moment on March 31 in this Chamber. When the vote was announced on second reading it only carried by 113 votes to 94. A significant number of Conservatives were away on business which is understandable. Every member on occasion has to be away from the Chamber. Thirty-nine Liberals did not show up. Only five were paired.
I have this question: Why did the government not put a three-line Whip on this most important bill. The government members were absent. It did not seem to be worried that it was going to lose the vote.
My good friend, the member for South Shore, was shaking his head. He was not worried. What did the Tories know? Did they know that the Liberals were not going to show up? Did they know ahead of time that they did not need to put a Whip on their members because no matter what they did the Liberals would not show up to defeat the bill?
Come out and say so publicly. It would be far better in the debate in this country for the people to know what the Tories seem to know which is tacitly and physically the Liberals support this bill anyway. My point is this. The Conservatives should publicly stand up and say: "Hey, gang, we told our members not to worry. No matter how many we had away the Liberals would not show up". They must have known it. No government would risk losing a vote on second reading on an important bill like this unless it knew the Liberals were not going to show up.
I do not mind that. Co-operation is the great essence of government, but do not hide your negotiating skills. You did not get co-operation, you got complicity. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, 39 Liberals did not show up in the Chamber that night. Only five were paired.


Mr. Dick:: Ask the Liberals.


David Barrett: I have asked them, but you seemed to know what was happening. I give you credit. You are either clairvoyant or a wink and a nudge did it. Whatever it was, 39 Liberals did not show up. Thirty-four were not paired. If they had voted that bill would have been defeated on second reading in this Chamber and it would have been the end, finis, over for NAFTA.
We were treated with an impassioned speech today by the leader of the Liberal Party who announced again his very confusing position for instance on ownership, on parallel accords, but no explanation of why they did not kill the bill when they had a chance.
If they were against NAFTA and the government did not bring its members out for some mysterious reason, why did they not have a three-line whip on their members? Where were those 39 members? Were they attending the Tory leadership selection panels? Did they want a part now that they were voting with the Tories? Did they also want an influence in the leadership as well? It could be that because of their unyielding interest and jealousy over the fact that they are not getting a chance to use the patronage opportunity that this government is.
That compelled me to make that statement today that as an ingenue they have descended to the depths of hypocrisy as an opposition party in this House. The people of this country will have to make a choice during the election campaign-


Mr. Belair:: Why don't you cry a little bit?


David Barrett: Cry a little bit? Where were your 39 members when you could have killed NAFTA? The Canadian people need to know that answer. Get serious as Official Opposition. You cannot have it both ways. They knew that you would not show up, something that we did not know. We had a three-line whip, we showed up and we voted against it.

May 27, 1993
Government Orders
The choice is clear. If you want to vote for a Conservative Party, do not vote for an ersatz party, do not vote for a transparent Tory party. If you want the Tories, vote for the real thing, not for the substitutes right down there.
I do not want the Tory party. The Canadian public do not want the Tories. They want a change, but they have got to understand if they vote Liberal they are getting the same old song sheet, the same old song. They have just got a new choir that is bought and paid for by the corporate interests in this country.
My dear friends, do not worry about a cappella in that choir. They can sing tenor, they can sing soprano, they can sing any measure of the scale they want. The Liberals are able to twist and turn in a way that the whirling dervish international association expresses envy over.
The Canadian people have made it very clear that they are opposed to NAFTA. The government is going to go into the election campaign and try to sell the virtues of NAFTA after using closure in this House which in my heart it will be eternally condemned for and I know it will carry that guilt with it forever.
The matter of having it killed could have been done by the Liberals and in my heart I condemn them for their action. If the Canadian people want a real change then they have to examine their options. There is a regional party in Quebec, the Bloc. I must tell you that I respect the nationalist interests of the Bloc in terms of protecting, as they define it, "the national interests of the people of Quebec".
But I want to warn the people of Quebec, whether you speak French or English, that the programs in this country can only be sustained if we have good employment levels, good investment levels and opportunity for our children whether they speak French or English. Those are the opportunities.
I want to warn the people of Quebec that both their provincial government, the Liberal Party, and Mr. Pari-zeau of the PQ, support economic policies in these trade deals that will destroy the economic foundation that is absolutely essential to keep francophone culture alive. I warn the people of Quebec about that.
In conclusion I regret that I do not speak French but money does not speak any language. The money will flow
out of Canada, international capital will go to Mexico, and this country will be destroyed. We are not perfect but we are the only absolute option against NAFTA and that is the bottom line.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment and three brief questions I would like to put to my hon. friend.
Over the last few weeks we have come to know each other and I am glad to see him fully restored to health. My comment is this. After having worked with him and observed him throughout this debate, I want to tell him that I am going to nominate him for the Governor General's award for fiction, and because of his interest in the United States I think we should nominate him as well for an Oscar.
My question concerns something I do not understand. What is this obsessive fear that members of the NDP have of the United States? At the same time, why is it that they always propose that the Canadian legislative agenda should be set south of the border by the Americans? What is this preoccupation they have with the United States?
My second question has to do with a bill before this House and the agreement. Why is it that on every occasion-and there have been many of them over the course of the last year-this subject comes before this House, the NDP will not debate the substance of NAFTA.
They want to talk about the process. They want to talk about how many hours and minutes and whether there was closure or whether there was not closure. Why will they not debate the substance? Is it because they have not read the agreement? Have they done as their House leader did and simply ripped it up page by page? Or is it that they do not understand it? Or is it because they recognize that it is solid stuff?
Third and my last question: What is their alternative? I listened this morning while their other leader gave her speech and I heard her proposal, which was planned reduction of the GATT. That was the first of three ideas. That is a great idea. They have been trying that for years and years and years. What is their secret that they are going to pull it off in time to make a difference to the economic development of this country?
May 27, 1993

Second, they say they are going to work for sectoral agreements. That is a great idea but it has been tried and it has not been successful. Even with all their complimentary remarks to the Americans, how are they going to get the Americans into a sectoral agreement on steel?
Third, they talk about developing other markets. Are they not aware of what is going on in this country? Do they not know about going global, about Pacific 2000 and about Europe 1992?
So I say to my hon. friend, if he wants to debate NAFTA here or in the next election we are ready and we will be sustained. Once he has studied the agreement will he not recognize that this is the best thing for Canada that has happened this year?


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the opening comments by the member are ones that frankly I personally appreciate. I did have the opportunity to meet members in a way that we do not normally get to exchange social chit-chat with or philosophy with outside the committee system. As a consequence of that aborted subcommittee I did get to know the member and he and I share a common problem, which is physically obvious.


An hon. member:: You are both shy.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, neither of us is shy. It is something else.
Having said that, I am pleased that the member raised those three points. First of all, he mentioned an obsessive fear with the United States. I must say that I spent seven wonderful years of my life in the United States of America.


Peter L. McCreath: Some of my best friends are Americans.


David Barrett: No, I am not saying that some of my best friends are Americans. I am saying that part of my family is American. The north-south, social and economic contact between these two countries is unparalleled anywhere in the world.
My objection is to U.S. governments, not to the U.S. people. I did not like Ronald Reagan. I sent him a letter and told him so. I did not like George Bush. I sent him a letter and told him so but I made it very clear in my letter I was not condemning the American people but I sure
Government Orders
did not like his government. I reminded him that one of the reasons I did not like it is that they reminded me of the Conservative government here in Canada. So that deals with that aspect of relationship with the United States.
Many Americans are opposed to this deal. Witness the building of hostility to this particular legislation in the United States. My argument is not against the Americans. My argument is for Canadians. We have some tremendous fights in this country and we rarely get a chance to know each other. We have gone through these terrible tensions about what a constitution should be.
I said 25 years ago that we are still in our acne. We need another 100 years to get out of our adolescence then we will settle it. By golly, no matter what the problems are inside this country, the alternatives are a heck of a lot worse if we break this country up in my opinion.
I have deep respect for the leader of the Bloc Quebecois as I did for the first Quebec nationalist who I met and became a close friend of, Rene Levesque. Levesque and I were close friends. We shared common goals, and when Levesque fought for social programs in Quebec, I said good for him. I was fighting for the same thing in British Columbia. It was a common fight for the people of this country. That is where I am coming from.
Second, the NAFTA and the process; no substance. I know that the member had been sadly distracted during my comments about a particular article of substance in the bill to which I referred today. The one that was negotiated as I pointed out, Bill C-123, which protects the Canadian interest in oil and gas in exactly the way that the Liberal leader wanted this morning. The reality is that the Liberals did not even know that protection was in there and voted for a bill that destroyed that protection just two days ago. That is a matter of record.
In terms of specifics of the North American free trade agreement, I want to say that the specifics were dealt with thoroughly in my speech. I know that the member's interest has piqued to the point that I will ensure that an autographed copy arrives on his desk.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but there are other members who want to raise a question or comment with the previous speaker.

Government Orders


David Barrett: Let me answer the last question the member asked, and he asked three questions, on alternatives. I will be very brief. Nobody has a magic wand in resolving a rapidly changing global situation. You believe firmly in your answers. The Liberals believe firmly in their multiple answers and we believe firmly in another direction.
The direction we believe in was stated by our leader today when she said "first of all, any discussion of the economy must be underpinned with a philosophy that the economy serves people, not the other way around". That is the foundation.
I conclude by saying that the whole purpose of social discourse in politics is to present philosophical alternatives so that people have a range of choices in front of them. Politics is not a dirty business. It is not a bad business and it is wrong to universally smear politicians. These are good people in this Chamber, misguided but nonetheless good people. That underpinning is only enhanced when specific alternatives are laid out in writing. That is what this party has done and I challenge the Liberals to do the same and I challenge the Conservatives to do the same.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is sad that we have to listen to the NDP talk in this manner, once again spending most of a speech attacking not the government that is responsible for the policies of the day but the party that is opposed to NAFTA and the FTA.
Let me remind the member that in-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It being 4.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, May 26, 1993, in accordance with the provision of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Before putting the question 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 Fredericton-York- Sudbury-Salmon Fishery; the hon. member for York West-Toronto Economy; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-Poverty; the hon. member for Cardigan-Seniors Program; the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-Aboriginal Fishing Strategy.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment
lost.


Mr. Edwards:: Madam Speaker, I think you might find a disposition to apply the results of that vote in reverse to the main motion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I did hear that there was no unanimous consent.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
++NAYS
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Members
Bill read the third time and passed.
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Barrett
Bellemare
Berger
Althouse
Angus
Assad
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Belair
Benjamin
Bevilacqua


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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.
May 27, 1993



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-285, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act (oath of allegiance), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace for introducing his private members' bill, Bill C-285, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.
In this country, what all members of this House have in common is our citizenship. Citizenship is what links millions of men and women who choose to be Canadians.

For 125 years Canadians have pledged allegiance to the British Crown. However over those years successive governments have taken steps that have helped build a unique Canadian identity. We have taken steps to ensure that while we maintain our strong links with Britain, we evolve into something truly unique.
In 1947 we began with our first Citizenship Act. We were no longer British subjects. In 1967 we saluted the Maple Leaf for the very first time as a unique Canadian symbol. In 1980 O Canada replaced God Save the Queen as our national anthem. In 1982 we patriated our Constitution from Britain.
It is time today that when new citizens of this country take the oath of citizenship they do so with just one thing in mind: Canada. I still believe that our British parliamentary heritage is fundamental to who we are as a nation and this tradition must be preserved.
I believe there is a role for the monarchy in Canadian political life as well as in Canadian legal life. The Queen
Private Members' Business
shall remain head of state, but I do not think that she or her heirs and successors have a role to play in Canada's oath of citizenship.

I feel that by debating this issue and subsequently voting in favour of this bill, we will send a very clear message to Canadians about the value we put on our citizenship. We want the federal government to promote the concept of what it means to be a Canadian citizen, so that we can be truly proud of being what we are and achieve a real understanding of what it means to be a Canadian.

I believe changing the oath of citizenship could help us build this greater sense of belonging that we have been looking for. We would be sending a very clear message to Canadians, both native bom and naturalized alike, that Canada comes first. It is important that citizens believe they can change Canadian society. People must believe they will have an impact on Canadian lives.
As I have very often said, active and equal participation is the key to citizenship. We need to encourage all Canadians to get involved and have a say in the way this country is governed. The oath of citizenship should be an inclusive statement that reflects the values we cherish as a society.
When new citizens come to this country, stand before the citizenship judge and recite the oath they should have a feeling that they will be part of a society they can mould and shape, a society for which they will have a true sense of belonging. The oath of citizenship should encourage faith in and love for Canada.
It in no way takes away from our attachment to the British part of our heritage. It builds on our self-identity and self-awareness and that is so needed at this particular time in our history.
I was reading through a magazine today. I believe it was Maclean's. It talked about Australia where for the very first time the Attorney General last month became the first ever cabinet minister to recite an oath of office that pledges allegiance to the Commonwealth of Austra-

May 27, 1993
Private Members' Business
lia. In his opinion it simply reflects national realities as Australia enters the 21st century. What are we doing about our 21st century?

Madam Speaker, the oath of allegiance for new Canadian citizens should reflect more accurately the Canadian experience. We need a new oath of allegiance, and I intend to support this bill.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, the amendment before the House today proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace refers to only one aspect of the Canadian Citizenship Act which is a broad piece of legislation serving all Canadians. Merely changing the oath of ' citizenship which has far-reaching implications for many Canadians is really a piecemeal approach to legislation that should be dealt with in its entirety.
The issue of the Canadian Citizenship Act is not dormant. The government is examining the act presently and the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, my colleague the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard, has held consultations with citizens and groups all across Canada on how to improve that act. This will lead to a thorough reassessment of the current act and eventually to a new act.
Consultations also have been held between members of the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship and other departments that have a common interest in the Canadian Citizenship Act such as the Solicitor General and Employment and Immigration.
The new Canadian Citizenship Act should apply not only to immigrants to Canada but should be a broader act applicable to every Canadian. It should address the broader concerns associated with Canadian citizenship. As I have said in this House previously, it baffles me to some degree that those of us who are native-born Canadians for the most part have never received a certificate of citizenship and to some degree envy those new Canadians who go through the citizenship process, take the citizenship oath and have a citizenship ceremony. It is something that I think all Canadians should have the privilege and the honour to participate in and enjoy. I recommended to the minister previously that some method should be found to ensure that the children of
this nation at some appropriate time in their education be given the opportunity to participate in a citizenship ceremony and to take the oath of citizenship.
Canadian citizenship including all its responsibilities is more important than just the oath of citizenship. It affirms that all the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship are understood and are accepted.
If the suggested amendment is really a disguised attempt to change our constitutional monarchy form of government then it is not the appropriate approach and I am not sure that that is the intent of the amendment. The government does not wish to see such an amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act being used as a stepping stone toward that end.
Such a change would also ignore an important part of our history and our cultural heritage as Canadians. The oath of citizenship is being singled out for change. None of the other acts requiring oaths are proposed for change. The oath of citizenship is substantially the same as the oath for every member of Parliament, the same as the oath for every member of the Canadian military and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is the same oath as sworn by all federal public servants.
Finally, the government gave a commitment in the House not to delete the reference to the Queen in the oath of allegiance. To accept the amendment before the House would be to renege on the assurance that the government has that it has no intention of withdrawing Her Majesty from the oath of allegiance.
The oath of citizenship is being singled out for change. As I said earlier, none of the other oaths of office have been so addressed or proposed.
The immediate impact of the change would be to make an important symbolic change. Such symbols have to be understood in their historical context and as part of our heritage.
The Crown is one such important symbol. It is part and parcel of our Canadian heritage and remains central to our constitutional monarchy. Every Canadian learns about the role of the monarch in our Constitution through the education process. Every new Canadian learns about it while going through the immigration and citizenship application process. I repeat that I think that introduction to citizenship should pertain to every student formally in their education. Every Canadian should
May 27, 1993

have the opportunity in his or her lifetime to take the oath of allegiance to receive a certificate of citizenship.
I hope that the minister will continue to consider an innovation or an initiative to the Canadian Citizenship Act that will cause that to happen. It is one of the major differences that distinguishes Canadians from Americans. Virtually every Canadian understands this in terms of our citizenship.
It is for these reasons that I am opposed to the proposed amendment to the oath of citizenship and if it comes to a vote I will vote against it.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, the private members' bill before the House today was introduced by our colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace and concerns the oath of allegiance. I listened to the hon. member opposite when he gave his opinion, but I think he missed the point of this bill.
If we look at the history of our country before 1867, when we were still a British colony, at one point England decided to give its colonies responsible government. That is when we had the union of Upper and Lower Canada. This was followed by one of the world's great revolutions, and I am referring to Confederation as established by the British North America Act. That was the first step.
Obviously, the monarchy has played a very important role in our history. It is part of our history. In high school when they study history students realize that England's role was far more important than the role played by France in this country.
After Confederation, Canada took part in World War I, and even the Boer War in 1899. Canada played a major role, especially during World War I, when we lost thousands of Canadians who went over to help the British troops in Europe. In fact, Canada's involvement and sacrifices in World War I were considerable.
Subsequently, there were further developments. In 1931, the Government of Canada experienced the first loosening of its ties with Great Britain, when we had our first Department of External Affairs. It was now up to the Government of Canada to formulate its own foreign
Private Members' Business
policy. We no longer had to ask the British government what our position should be.
After 1931, there was World War II, where Canada again played a very important role with Britain and our other allies. Here again, we demonstrated our ability, sometimes at considerable cost, to overcome the threats surging on all sides. After that war, the process accelerated and citizenship came under Canadian jurisdiction. Vincent Massey became the first Canadian-born Governor General. Previously, our governor generals had come from Britain and were appointed by the monarch.
Over the years, Canada went through a number of phases. It was not because we wanted to break our ties with the monarchy. It was simply the way we evolved as a people. This country had earned its place in the world. It made sacrifices during both world wars, and it had shown its compassion by welcoming people from all over the world within its borders.
And these people helped build Canada. History tells us few countries have been as welcoming as Canada, a country where people of all races came to live. Think about it. It was a real experiment. Will it be a success? Only time will tell, because it is still too early to say that all these people came here to build one country.
As my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grace pointed out in his speech, it was entirely legitimate for a country with a population of over 22 million to want its own flag. I don't think that has diminished the role or the symbol of the monarchy in this country. Not at all. But it was something that had to be done because our identity as a nation is important.
I went to a citizenship ceremony, and I admit I had never stopped to think about the oath of allegiance, because I had never been to this kind of ceremony before. I was surprised because I had assumed people swore allegiance to Canada and possibly to the Constitution. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the monarchy is mentioned in the Constitution. Personally, and I believe this applies to most Canadians I have known over the years, my allegiance is to my country, Canada, whether we are talking about our national anthem, our flag or our independence vis-a-vis other countries. The oath of allegiance is a very important step and, in my

May 27, 1993
Private Members' Business
opinion, it does not reflect our history, in other words, that we used to have a monarchy.
This is just a normal part of the process for a nation worthy of the name, with its own symbols, a nation that has welcomed people coming from every country on this planet. It stands to reason that these people should swear an oath of allegiance to their new country, Canada. Since they are here, they will abide by the laws of the land and, like all Canadians, they will abide by the Constitution of our country, the basis of our rights and freedoms.
It would be ridiculous to see this as a part of a conspiracy to get rid of the monarchy in this country. The monarchy is part of our history, but we as a nation cannot live in the past. Our future as a nation is important, and by that I mean we must always protect our rights and freedoms. Of course we have symbols like our national anthem and our flag, but as a nation, as far as the oath of allegiance is concerned, I think its stands to reason and I think the majority of Canadians will agree, that people should swear allegiance to Canada and the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, enough said. I would be surprised if anyone could make a case against a proposal that is entirely in line with the changes that have been taken place in this country and with changing role in the world.
I think that if all Canadians had a chance to express their views here in this House, if they had that privilege, we would realize that, basically, our allegiance is to our country, Canada, and to the Constitution of our country.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings - Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I must put on record my strong opposition to the amendment to the oath of citizenship within the Citizenship Act proposed in Bill C-285.
This bill seeks to erase a vital part of our heritage by removing reference to Her Majesty, the Queen's name, from Canada's oath of citizenship. The Crown is part and parcel of our Canadian heritage. It remains central to our constitutional monarchy. Every new Canadian learns this while going through the process of acquiring Canadian citizenship. Every person bom in Canada leams it through the education system.
By affirming the oath of citizenship new Canadians participate in a formal ceremony that is rooted in tradition. The oath of allegiance to the monarch has been part of the Canadian naturalization and citizenship process since 1868. Thus we have had oaths swearing allegiance to the Crown in Canada for more than 125 years.
It is absolutely clear that allegiance be sworn to the Queen of Canada. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. It is absurd to remove reference to the Crown from Canada's oath of citizenship when an oath of loyalty to the sovereign in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution Act of 1867 is sworn by members of Parliament before taking a seat in the House of Commons.
Our Constitution spells out very clearly that the Queen embodies a democratic system of Canadian government encompassing the House of Commons, the Senate, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors.
As a proud United Empire Loyalist descendant and a life member of the Monarchist League of Canada I know this country has a long tradition of continuous association with the institution of the monarchy.
The Queen is not a foreign monarch. She is a shared monarch recognized in some 50 countries either as sovereign or as head of the Commonwealth. In Canada she is Queen of Canada, represented in Canada by our Governor General.
Through our shared monarch we are linked with an incredibly diverse world-wide group of countries that produce many of our newest Canadians. For example, some of the Queen's most loyal subjects come from the West Indies and Hong Kong.
The Queen's lineage is only marginally British. She is a direct descendant of Louis IX of France and is related to most of the royal houses of Europe and others as diverse as the family of the Prophet and Genghis Khan.
As the Queen herself said at an official dinner in 1973:
It is as Queen of Canada that I am here, Queen of Canada and all Canadians, not just one or two ancestral strains. I want the Crown to be seen as a symbol of national sovereignty belonging to all.
May 27, 1993

It is not only a link between Commonwealth countries, but between Canadian citizens of every national origin or ancestry.
Over one-quarter of the world's countries are monarchies, including modern nations like Sweden and Japan. Independent monarchies and Commonwealth countries total about half the membership in the United Nations.
The monarchy is part of Canada's heritage, laid down by our Fathers of Confederation and most eloquently expressed by our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, in 1867 to his Queen with these words:
We have desired in this measure to declare in the most solemn and
emphatic manner our resolve to be under the sovereignty of Your
Majesty and your family forever.
As Canadians, we have embraced the Crown as a symbol of a strong Canadian parliamentary system and a strong democracy. The oath of citizenship is certainly part of that system.
This piece of legislation undermines the role and position of the monarchy in our government and Constitution and seeks to move Canada to an American styled government through a back door approach. It is thanks to the monarchy that unlike the United States or many other countries Canada has not had to endure a civil war.
For over 200 years the monarchy has been the most important influence in keeping our country together and creating a truly distinct society in North America.
The Crown has permitted and encouraged the development of representative institutions to serve Canadians whose ancestors have come from all corners of the world and has acted as a court of last appeal for all.
To remove reference to Her Majesty from the oath of citizenship represents an erosion of Canada's proud tradition of constitutional monarchy. Regretfully the New Democratic Party government in Ontario has removed reference from its oath for police officers.
Our Queen unites Canadians of every ethnic background and to remove reference to her in the oath of citizenship is simply not acceptable to myself nor my constituents in Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
Private Members' Business
Again, I oppose Bill C-285 to change the current oath of citizenship. I would like to take this opportunity to urge members of this House from all sides, especially those in the Liberal Party, to oppose this bill.


Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Madam Speaker, thank you for permitting me to participate in the debate on the private members' bill, Bill C-285, to amend the Citizenship Act proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
Under the present oath of allegiance applicants for citizenship swear or affirm their allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors.
The bill before the House would remove reference to the monarchy in the oath of citizenship. This amendment addresses the symbolic aspect of the Citizenship Act rather than the broader issues of the act itself. As such it should be seen as a half measure.
Changes to the oath of citizenship, if any, must be done within the context of changes to the Citizenship Act. In that manner there will be broad and considered discussions among Canadians.
The oath of citizenship reflects the commitment of Canadians to uphold their citizenship and work for a better society. Acceptance of Canadian citizenship signified by the oath of citizenship also acknowledges that Canada has a strong history and heritage.
Part of that commitment to the family we call Canada is an acceptance of our multicultural background including the constitutional monarchy. Changing the oath of citizenship might be construed as a denial of an important aspect of Canadian ancestry. The oath as it stands strengthens the practical and symbolic elements of Canadian citizenship.
The wording of the oath of citizenship reflects our constitutional monarchy and acknowledges our national heritage, lb be a Canadian citizen is to accept and recognize that legacy. This amendment would jettison that legacy.
For new Canadians, taking the oath of citizenship is affirmation that they are accepted as equals and with the full rights and responsibilities that come with citizenship. For those reaffirming their citizenship it is confirmation that they are citizens of a nation that cherishes its

Adjournment Debate
heritage and yet builds for its future through the process of accepting people from around the world as Canadians.
The oath is affirmation or reaffirmation that all the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship are understood and accepted by all citizens. It is apparent from the participation and citizenship ceremonies in 1992 that large numbers of people have no difficulty with the current oath of citizenship.
The number of citizenship applications in 1992-93, about 182,000, represents a 72 per cent increase since 1988. If the current oath of citizenship is causing new Canadians difficulty it is most unlikely that there would be the large increase in applications for Canadian citizenship. Similarly, if the current oath is a hindrance, it is doubtful that more than one million Canadians would have reaffirmed their citizenship as part of Canada 125 celebrations last year.
The emotion that was present when young Canadians by birth reaffirmed their oath of citizenship-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. member. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the item drops to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today on behalf of three million Canadian senior citizens. These are the people who made Canada what it is today.
On February 26 I questioned the Minister of State about the government's commitment to fund seniors
programs. Sadly the answer did not satisfy the senior citizens.
In 1988 the federal government made a commitment to spend $120 million over five years on seniors independence programs. Twenty million dollars was to be spent on research into Alzheimer's disease and osteoporosis under the Seniors Independence Research Program. As well, $100 million was to have been spent to help seniors with their daily living through the Seniors Independence Program. However, after the five years of these two programs, the government has spent little over half of what it has committed. What is the point of making a commitment if it is not going to live up to it?
On April 1 the minister announced $149 million over five years would be spent on three seniors programs: the Seniors Independence Research Program, the Seniors Independence Program and the Ventures in Independence Program. Once again the Canadian senior citizens and I question where the government's commitment is.
In the budget presented on April 26, the finance minister announced that the departmental grants and contributions are to be cut by 15 per cent in the coming years. The government's commitment to seniors independence lasted intact for a total of 25 days. If we divide $149 million over five years we get about $30 million a year. In the supplementary estimates given Thesday, the government plans on spending less than $19 million this year. Even before the budget cuts can take place, the government is already spending less than two-thirds of what it promised.
The government has tried to pass these cuts off as an attempt to reduce the deficit and the cost of government. The minister fails to realize that a little money spent now on independence programs will go a lot further in reducing the cost of government down the road. Instead of cutting $2 million for the Seniors Independence Research Program, the government should invest that money into finding a cure for Alzheimer's disease. Such a move would help hundreds of thousands of Canadians and save millions of dollars down the road.
The government's priorities are wrong. When will the minister realize that the government has not lived up to its commitment to seniors? When is the government going to realize that a little bit of money spent now makes a tremendous difference in the quality of life for millions of Canadian seniors? The seniors want to know why the government in 1988 would announce $120
May 27, 1993

million for these programs and then just spend a little over half of it.
In 1993 another announcement was made by the minister stating she was going to spend $149 million and as I indicated, it only stayed intact for 25 days. The senior citizens want to know why the government will not stand up to its commitments.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for putting this question tonight.
I would like to emphasize that the government really first demonstrated leadership in 1988 on this specific issue when we announced the five-year seniors strategy in strengthening the independence and quality of life of older Canadians.
Over the last five years substantial progress has been made. Community based contribution funding programs such as New Horizons and the Seniors Independence Program promote the independence of seniors and foster their involvement in self-help activities and partnerships that really create a good community resource.
Seniors are interested in having opportunities to contribute to their communities. Federally funded seniors projects mobilize thousands of these men and women who volunteer their time, their skills and their energy to health, education and cultural projects that deal with the quality of life of all Canadians.
To date the seniors strategy has supported more than 8,500 New Horizons programs and we project the involvement of 250,000 seniors each year and at least 500 seniors in the independence programs to date.
The Main Estimates, as my colleagues have mentioned, help both the current and future health and welfare social programs. In the 1993-94 edition, levels of funding for the seniors strategy may appear to be low due to the fact that they only represent original A-base of New Horizons and the National Advisory Council on Aging along with a small reprofiled sum for the Seniors Independence Program. But those figures do not imply that expenditure reductions have been made to the seniors strategy.
Adjournment Debate
As you are aware, Madam Speaker, all the elements of the strategies were due to sunset on March 31, 1993. So on April 1 the Minister of State for Seniors announced that the federal government will provide $170 million over the next five years to continue seniors strategy programs. In particular, a total of $149 million will be available to support community programs for the seniors combined with funds already allocated to the New Horizons and the National Advisory Council on Aging for a total of $234 million. That is available through this strategy to enhance the independence and the quality of life for seniors.
I also have to say that the seniors do form a very important part of our society. We recognize this more and more each day. One thing we have done is we have lowered interest rates, we have lowered inflation and the main thing of that is the dollar today will be worth a dollar tomorrow.
All of us here in this House and all of us across Canada will have to contribute to deficit debt reduction.


ABORIGINAL FISHING STRATEGY
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo - Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, Chuck Davis, in his column in the Vancouver Daily Province of Sunday, February 21 of this year reports that Roderick Haig-Brown, a B.C. judge, writer, fishermen and naturalist, would have been 85 on that day.
Mr. Haig-Brown once wrote: "If weakness and indecision allow the salmon in their abundance to disappear from the rivers and the ocean what hope can there be for the future of life itself".
It is a good time to ask that question of ourselves with respect to the salmon on the west coast of British Columbia. The year 1992 should have been a very good year for the Stuart Lake run. It is a run that was almost wiped out some years ago and the commercial fishermen have not been fishing this particular run in the low cycle year hoping to rebuild it. This was the year when their efforts were going to bear fruit. Two hundred thousand sockeye should have reached Stuart Lake.
The Department of Fisheries knows that the sockeye have passed the mission gates. They were on the way up, but when it came to arriving at Stuart Lake there were something like 47,000, just 23 per cent of the expectation. It was a disaster. The minister of fisheries said it

Adjournment Debate
was a great success story because 47,000 was more than ever before in the low cycle year.
We were hoping and expecting and knew there were 200,000 in the river. DFO early on said that 1.2 million sockeye had gone missing from the river after going through the Mission gates. The Pearse-Larkin report identified a figure in the neighbourhood of 500,000.
Whichever figure is right does not matter. It is still a tremendous number of sockeye to go missing and there is little doubt about what happened. They were fished, no question about that. It was no coincidence. No one would believe it was just a coincidence that this was the first year of the aboriginal fisheries strategy being introduced.
The minister recognized there was a problem and commissioned the Pearse-Larkin report. He got a lot of information and said that in 1993 there would be no aboriginal fisheries strategy unless a watershed agreement was reached with all of the bands along the Fraser River.
He reported recently that he has a watershed agreement with respect to the Skeena. A couple of weeks ago he said he had one with respect to the Fraser for almost all of the bands. More recently it has been made public that the agreement is only with some 50 per cent of the bands along the Fraser River. However, he is proceeding with the aboriginal fisheries strategy in the Fraser River this year as well.
The Sto:Lo Nation said it is not going to pay attention to the new scheme for the aboriginal fisheries strategy. It told DFO some weeks in advance that it intended to fish twice as long as the recent opening for Chinook. That is a fish species which has not been fished because the numbers have been threatened. Therefore, the commercial fishermen have been leaving them.
This year the natives were given one day for food fishery at that particular time. Instead of that they said weeks in advance that they were going to take two days. DFO apparently did nothing. It was informed in writing yet did nothing until the day the boats actually appeared on the scene and were fishing when the minister's officials went in and seized the nets.
However, the officials did not charge anybody, nobody at all. The minister said the reason they did not charge them was that the native fishermen who were fishing did not know they were breaking the regulations.
Somebody knew but nobody was charged. The minister in effect is saying to these people: "Go ahead and break all the regulations you want, any time you want, anywhere you want. Damage the species as much as you want. Threaten the resources as much as you want. We will find some way of not charging anybody so that we are not going to be embarrassed by taking these cases to court".
It was a disastrous year last year. This year is shaping up to be another disastrous year for the salmon on the B.C. west coast.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for bringing forward this most essential issue of the missing sockeye, especially in the area of the Stuart Lake region.
We do need the valuable fishing industry in British Columbia and it can only be accomplished by enhancing the co-operative attitude by all the parties that are involved.
The government developed the aboriginal fisheries strategy to resolve the uncertainty left by the Sparrow decision of 1990 which gave the aboriginal people the right to fish for food in social and ceremonial purposes. The aboriginal fisheries strategy initiated a multi-year approach to satisfying aboriginal communities' aspirations for greater involvement in fisheries management and harvesting within the context of maintaining a healthy resource.
This summer the fishery will run more smoothly than last summer when there were many difficulties. The process of implementing aboriginal agreements under the fisheries strategy is going to be faster and it is going to be quicker.
In achieving the objectives of having watershed agreements the B.C. First Nations and DFO have begun the process of bringing the Fraser watershed groups together. Those First Nations have signed a memorandum of understanding indicating their willingness to work together to arrive at a watershed-wide agreement with DFO regarding a co-ordinated approach.
May 27, 1993

In fact those First Nations of the lower and upper Fraser have already signed the Fraser watershed agreement. The First Nations of the middle Fraser are expected to sign on to that agreement in the near future.
In conclusion I want to tell the member that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans intends to press forward with the aboriginal fisheries strategy in 1993 because we know negotiations are better than litigation
Adjournment Debate
and we still have to work within the Supreme Court decision.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 28, 1993